28 Mar 2011

After the Great Quake, Living with Earth’s Uncertainty

The Japanese earthquake and tsunami remind us that we exist in geologic time and in a world where catastrophic events beyond our predicting may occur. These events — and the growing specter of climate change — show how precariously we exist on the surface of a volatile planet.
By verlyn klinkenborg

In my layman’s cosmology, the anthropic principle says this: our existence implies that the universe must take the shape it does or we wouldn’t be here to perceive it. A universe with even minutely different physical laws wouldn’t include us (which isn’t to say that such universes don’t exist).

An anthropic principle of sorts is also at work in geologic time — the 4.5 billion or so years this planet has existed. For the vast majority of Earth’s history, conditions were unsuitable for the evolution of mammals. (Nor were humans even remotely certain to evolve from those earliest mammals.) We’ve come to exist in the window of time in which we could have come to exist. Or rather, we’ve survived in the window of time in which we can survive. We call a portion of that window “historic time” — not the entire history of our species, but the history that’s part of our cultural record in one form or another, reaching back only several thousand years.

Historic time overlaps with geologic time the way a whale louse overlaps with the blue whale it infests, though the scale of that comparison is too small by several orders of magnitude. And yet it’s all too easy to believe, with the self-importance of a whale louse, that we exist apart from or outside of geologic time. That’s what our experience tells us. The last 10,000 years or so have been relatively uneventful, geologically speaking. Given the overall length of geologic time, it’s likely that any span of 10,000 years or so would be relatively uneventful.

But the Tohoku earthquake and tsunami remind us there’s no guarantee that historic time must be geologically uneventful. They remind us — forcibly, tragically — that, despite vast differences in extent, historic time and geologic time always converge in the present.

We’ve been reminded before. But one of the interesting things about humans, psychologically, is how rapidly history loses its tangibility. The eruption of Krakatoa in August 1883 occurred two months before my maternal grandfather was born, putting it within a degree or two of personal connection. And yet, as an event, it’s no more palpable to me or
An understanding of what’s seismically likely may differ from an understanding of what’s seismically possible.
anyone living than the major Sumatra earthquake that preceded Krakatoa by 50 years — or the eruption of the Yellowstone supervolcano 640,000 years ago.

Seismologists were surprised by the magnitude of the Tohoku earthquake, which exceeded their predictions for earthquakes along that fault line. But then seismologists have only had 130 years of earthquakes — at the outside — in which to calibrate their instruments. Realistically, they’ve had much less time than that. Which is to say that an understanding of what’s seismically likely, based on our experience, may come to differ sharply from an understanding of what’s seismically possible.

Perhaps you’ve seen a computer animation showing the breaking apart of Pangaea, the super-continent that existed some 250 million years ago. In animation, the continents “drift” — that is the word, after all — into their present position as though they were running on greased ball bearings. The animation captures the average motion of the continents, a few centimeters a year. An average is an abstraction.

But the tectonic plates that continents rest on neither glide nor drift, nor is their movement abstract. They lurch, heave, resist, yield, bend, fracture, ripping great seams in the planet’s crust, forcing each other down into the mantle below the crust — a process that sounds much more benign when it’s called subduction. None of this happens averagely. It happens momentarily, event by event over eons, generating volcanism and seismic activity on a scale we know almost nothing about, living, as we do, in conditions that allow our existence.

The trouble is that we look back at the breaking up of Pangaea and the movement of the continents and think, well, that’s how we got here, as if we’d arrived somewhere special and the process had somehow paused for us. Two hundred and fifty million years from now, another animation might lead its viewers (whoever they may be) to look back at where the
We’re living in geologic time, where catastrophic events capable of dwarfing our outposts of civilization do occur.
continents are now and think the same thing, as though in 2011 we were — as we are — merely a moment in the ongoing migration of the tectonic plates.

Geologically speaking, we manage to be nowhere special (that’s also our location in the universe) and, at the same time, in a period special enough to allow our existence (ditto). Historically speaking we’re someplace unique — here and now — a uniqueness we share with every other moment that has been or will be the present. Some of those moments were placid. Some were and will be violent beyond our imagining, off the scale even by the standards of Tohoku.

The uneasiness I think we all feel since the Tohoku earthquake is a compound of many things, including the forcible realization that we’re living in geologic time, where catastrophic events capable of dwarfing our outposts of civilization do occur. The next massive eruption of Yellowstone isn’t likely, but it certainly isn’t impossible. It’s one of those things you worry about knowing you shouldn’t worry about it.

But I recognize the uneasiness from somewhere else. As we watch the specter of climate change unfold — trying to grasp the shifting, accelerating likelihoods — we’re looking at potential change of a kind normally associated with geologic time. It’s as though we’re running our own high-speed animation of atmospheric and climatic models over epochs — so much so that scientists seeking meaningful comparisons in temperature and atmospheric carbon concentrations look tens of millions of years before the Holocene, which includes all of historic time. Except that the atmospheric and climatic changes we’re looking at aren’t models. They’re real.

The Tohoku earthquake and tsunami were genuinely humbling, a reminder that we ride skimming on the surface of a volatile planet. But what’s the word for the emotion caused by knowing we’re contributing to the planet’s volatility? We run the risk of raising global average temperature at a rate faster than any time in the past 50 million years (5 degrees C by 2100). As ice masses melt and sea levels rise, the load on the Earth’s crust will change, with the likelihood of what is gingerly called “geospheric response” — i.e., more earthquakes and volcanoes. This is a subject only beginning to be understood by geologists.

A terrible uncertainty follows a major earthquake, an uncertainty we’ve always lived with. It dies down after a time, like the memory in Japan of the 1923 Great Kanto earthquake or the memory in this country of the San Francisco earthquake of 1906. But there’s a more terrible uncertainty in how we live and where we’re headed — the uneasy feeling that we’re entering geologic time in a way we’ve never known before.


Verlyn Klinkenborg is a member of the editorial board at the New York Times. His books include Timothy; Or, Notes of an Abject Reptile, The Rural Life, and Making Hay. In previous articles for Yale Environment 360, Klinkenborg reflected on the bicentennial of Charles Darwin’s birth and explained why he continues to oppose geneticaly modified crops.

SHARE: Tweet | Digg | | Reddit | Mixx | Facebook | Stumble Upon


A great essay, with one quibble: the antepenultimate paragraph says that geospheric responses to changed loads on the Earth's crust will result in "more" earthquakes and volcanoes. While the study of such surface / depth interactions ("neotectonics") is young and as-yet-inconclusive, it's almost certain that "more" is the wrong word to use. If the changed stresses are sufficient in magnitude to cause a fault to slip or a volcano to erupt in one area (a plausible notion), it's also equally likely that the same "top-down" shifts would cause other faults to become less stressed, or to seal off some subterranean magmatic plumbing conduits, thus preventing some volcanoes from erupting. These "less" effects would likely cancel out the "more" quakes and "more" volcanoes cited in Mr. Klinkenborg's essay. A better word would be "different."

Posted by Callan Bentley on 28 Mar 2011

And yet... we are still here...

Posted by island on 28 Mar 2011

"But what’s the word for the emotion caused by knowing we’re contributing to the planet’s volatility?"

Remorseful (or remorseless) culpability.

Morpheus: No, what happened happened and couldn't happen any other way.
Neo: How do you know?
Morpheus: We are still alive.

That about sums up the general anthropocentric view.

Posted by Mustang on 30 Mar 2011

Beautiful writing, and an important tie-in to our self-made predicament.

As long as we look the other way, everything we create will result in surprises, catastrophic for us, and for others here in this time, as well. How can we call ourselves special or different when we see in the universe the same kind of a sphere with us at the center that we see when we close the windows and lock the doors of our own small, mortal minds?

Posted by Leha on 31 Mar 2011

Yep, Chicken Little has been wrongly crying about the falling sky since the first standing ape felt the Earth shake... and yet, we are still here.

The mistake is to arrogantly presume that we are separate and/or above the natural process that brought us into existence. That we can somehow outsmart the ecosystem that we **serve*** to enhance.

Only religious fanatics think like that. Those who believe in a higher power or those who practice "Copernicnanism"... both equally WRONG.

Posted by island on 31 Mar 2011

I totally agree with your expression of how human view their place in time and space. Although it makes me less believing in Catastrophic Anthropological Climate Change - I do not think we really know enough about the very complex mechanism that is our climate to be able to say if x then y. Until I see true hindcasting of at least 1000's of years in models I will have difficulty believing their outcomes. And keeping people poor while we figure it out just is not an option. O for a great technological breakthrough in power generation.

Posted by Andrew Browne on 31 Mar 2011

An interesting discussion on tectonics in the geological time frame, and a reminder of the power
of nature and the forces at work in the Earth.

Too bad the author felt compelled to inject 'climate change' into the discussion, which seemed almost gratuitous.

Posted by Zen Cushion on 31 Mar 2011

"We run the risk of raising global average temperature at a rate faster than any time in the past 50 million years (5 degrees C by 2100).... This is a subject only beginning to be understood by geologists."

And yet you feel completely competent to call for massive disruptions to human life and society, and placing huge obstacles in the way of progress, for the sake of vague unspecified 'changes' that are only 'beginning to be understood'? Who is displaying hubris now?

Posted by Jon Jermey on 31 Mar 2011

A themed issue of "Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society" (May 2010, vol. 368:1919) covers climate forcings of geological and geomorphological hazards. From one abstract: "Periods of exceptional climate change in Earth history are associated with a dynamic response from the geosphere, involving enhanced levels of potentially hazardous geological and geomorphological activity. The response is expressed through the adjustment, modulation or triggering of a broad range of surface and crustal phenomena, including volcanic and seismic activity, submarine and subaerial landslides, tsunamis and landslide ‘splash’ waves, glacial outburst and rock-dam failure floods, debris flows and gas-hydrate destabilization."

So, I think bringing up global climate change is relevant to geological, even neotectonic, issues.

Posted by leedurhamstone on 31 Mar 2011

Zen says we climate change believers are "placing huge obstacles in the way of progress". Can all changes be called progress?

Can we make changes that improve the well being (happiness?) in our communities. The British
Transition movement thinks undoing changes in food production made in about the last hundred
years would be progress.

Posted by Len on 04 Apr 2011



What Pope Francis Should Say In His Upcoming UN Address
Pope Francis will speak to the United Nations General Assembly on Sept. 25 about poverty, the environment, and sustainable development. In a Yale Environment 360 forum, seven leading thinkers on the environment and religion describe what they would like to hear the pope say.

Where Will Earth Head After Its ‘Climate Departure’?
Will the planet reach a point where its climate is significantly different from what has existed throughout human history, and if so, when? In an interview with Yale Environment 360, biogeographer Camilo Mora talks about recent research on this disquieting issue and what it means for the coming decades.

Will Increased Food Production Devour Tropical Forest Lands?
As global population soars, efforts to boost food production will inevitably be focused on the world’s tropical regions. Can this agricultural transformation be achieved without destroying the remaining tropical forests of Africa, South America, and Asia?

Our Overcrowded Planet: A Failure of Family Planning
New UN projections forecast that world population will hit nearly 11 billion people by 2100, an unsettling prospect that reflects a collective failure to provide women around the world with safe, effective ways to avoid pregnancies they don't intend or want.

Revisiting Population Growth: The Impact of Ecological Limits
Demographers are predicting that world population will climb to 10 billion later this century. But with the planet heating up and growing numbers of people putting increasing pressure on water and food supplies and on life-sustaining ecosystems, will this projected population boom turn into a bust?


Donate to Yale Environment 360