16 October 2010
Round up of landslide stories and events for the last week
Posted by Dave Petley
In weeks in which I have been too busy to post a great deal of material, I often provide a summary of interesting landslide events around the world. This is the summary for the last week:
1. A very strange landslide in Germany
Thanks once again to Peter Diehl, the prize for bizarre landslide event of the week goes to a very strange event at a former lignite mine near Hoyerswerda, Saxony, Germany on Wednesday. The slide appears to be similar to a quick clay slide, but on a very large scale – the surface area affected is 110 hectares. This event did not seem to make the English language news, but a German report can be found here. Fortunately no-one was killed, but 84 sheep were lost. The best images of the event are at this page – also in German. Click on the “Fotogalerian” link in the box on the left side, half way down the page. The two images here are from that source.
The red box shows some trucks caught in the landslide.
2. An interesting rockfall in Wyoming
Thanks to Lisa Denke for this one. There is an terrific gallery of images of a rockfall event in Wyoming on Interstate 80, also on Wednesday, available at the trib.com site. According to this article, the cloud of dust generated by the rockfall (see below), which came from a bluff known as the Palisades, reduced visibility to the extent that several motor collisions occurred, injuring four people.
3. Climate change and landslide story of the week
Regular readers will know that there is no doubt in my mind about the reality of the link between human releases of greenhouse gases and increases in the global temperature. However, I continue to greatly frustrated by some aspects of the way that this issue is handled. The latest example is a story being run by a number of media outlets, such as this one (in New Scientist, which surprises me), under the headline “A warming world could leave cities flattened”. The basis of this is a perfectly respectable paper in Global and Planetary Change that looks at a very large volcanic flank collapse in Chile. From this is spun a surprisingly strident headline on an issue that is not even mentioned in the paper. Indeed the words “city”, “cities” and “urban” do not appear anywhere in the paper, as far as I can see.
hmmmmmm!!!!
Dave Petley is the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Hull in the United Kingdom. His blog provides commentary and analysis of landslide events occurring worldwide, including the landslides themselves, latest research, and conferences and meetings.
Dave, I have been reading your blog regularly, if not thoroughly for several months with great interest. I am not a geologist nor a trained scientist of any kind, yet you have kindled great concern and attention to the important subject of landslides to people around the world.In spite of my appreciation for your work I do not agree with your stated assessment of anthropogenic global warming (AGW), especially as expressed in this sentence of your post: "Regular readers will know that there is no doubt in my mind about the reality of the link between human releases of greenhouse gases and increases in the global temperature."I do not dispute that there may, indeed probably is, SOME link. It is quite another thing believe it is a significant link. I believe one could just as easily say there is no doubt of a link between the flapping of butterflies in Africa and the generation of hurricanes in the Atlantic.My quarrel is not with the possibility of such links. It is with the certainty in your mind. I think scientists must be very careful to distinguish between belief in their conclusions and stating such conclusions as fact. It is good that you make your agenda clear about AGW, however it would be more accurate to state it as belief. As you surely know, the topic of AGW is hotly debated and has become a pillar of some popular ideological views and agendas. Indeed, you have pointed out with frustration one of the hysterical expressions of such a view in the "flattened cities" article. Yet this is but one in a vast sea of such hysterical claims.The link between your statement of certainty about AGW and the ideologically propelled movement to change policies should raise even more red flags in your scientific mind. The AGW ideology is driven precisely by the hysteria you have identified and decried. As a caring person this should disturb you even more than you say. That is, unless you believe the means are justified by the end.
Tinoh, your comment is particularly disturbing to me. Dave is certain about the link not based on some hypothetical theory, but on real-world evidence, just as all of us who study the matter are. For you to quibble on some theoretical point shows your complete and unmitigated ignorance of the matter. Those of us who are scientists and study this topic have no doubt in our minds that it is real. Here's a helpful blog you might want to read for a bit if you think it's just a "belief" – http://climateprogress.org/Wake up and look around you if you think it's not happening. you've been brainwashed if you think it's not real.
Dear Anonymous,Thank you for your kind message. My "complete and unmitigated ignorance" stands in awe of your eloquence. Too bad you didn't read what I wrote. I agreed that there is probably some link. I disagreed in that I believe it is not significant.It is interesting to learn that "scientists who study this topic have no doubt in" their minds, as you say. It is only now that scientists such as you have finally got to the bottom of things, eh? It must be wonderful to be rid of that dreadful doubting with which all those other ignorant scientist suffer. Is it just my imagination that there is some debate about the significance of AGW? It must be that brainwashing, I suppose.It can be frightening to us peons when you scientists fail to acknowledge that certainty is a function of belief, no matter how well the facts support it. The history of science is replete with instances of certainty that is subsequently modified. I don't accuse you of ignorance in your field. I only fault your understanding of human nature and how powerful a part belief plays.Is my "quibble" merely theoretical? Does Dave's certainty not rely on some hypothesis and theory? Dave took issue with hysterical statements that would support AGW. I agreed. Do you? It's heart warming to see that you speak up for Dave but I'm still waiting for the big guns.
Tinoh,The science case for anthropogenic climate change is based upon multiple lines of scientific evidence, including fundamental radiative physics; surface temperature and atmospheric observations; data from the long term geologic record, medium term proxies (not just the famous hockeystick); climate modelling; etc. I have read the scientific literature on AGW in detail, having initially been sceptical. It all points in the same direction, and there is almost noting of scientific validity that suggests otherwise, despite the strident protests of the denialist community. This is reflected by that fact that worldwide, over 30 of the most important national science acadamies have all released statements clearly stating the reality of AGW. It fascinates me that some many people who have done little reading of the hard science that underpins the science of AGW know better than the national science academies, which count as their members only the world's leading scientists.
Dear all,Thank you for all your efforts for all of us to get clear updated knowledge devoid of rationally unfounded beliefs. I am French and happy that some years back, we changed our French constitution to add the "precaution principle" in it. Now I just discovered Dave's captivating blog and couldn't help laugh when reading these latest comments. After MSc in ecology and Ing. in Agronomy followed by a few years of prof. activity, I dropped it all and turned 100% to "spiritual sciences" (Buddhist in my case) because I believe, I am certain, and who could deny, that the ultimate cause of all our problems, environmental or ethical or even our difficutly to communicate with each other, comes basically come from our minds. Because nothing exists out of our mental perception. Misusing our minds or metal interpretations leads to all our present (and past as well) difficulties and here I wanted to express that all of us keep digging and clarifying one's innermost mind. At least I hope that anybody can agree on that, thinking of it honnestly. That's my deepest hope! …along with the hope that we may all apply the precaution principle in the way we lead our own lives, taking responsability for our individual and collective world, whatever the rate of significance of the link in AGW. With love… Wakindra
Dear all,Thank you for all your efforts for all of us to get clear updated knowledge devoid of rationally unfounded beliefs. I am French and happy that some years back, we changed our French constitution to add the "precaution principle" in it. Now I just discovered Dave's captivating blog and couldn't help laugh when reading these latest comments. After MSc in ecology and Ing. in Agronomy followed by a few years of prof. activity, I dropped it all and turned 100% to "spiritual sciences" (Buddhist in my case) because I believe, I am certain, and who could deny, that the ultimate cause of all our problems, environmental or ethical or even our difficutly to communicate with each other, comes basically come from our minds. Because nothing exists out of our mental perception. Misusing our minds or metal interpretations leads to all our present (and past as well) difficulties and here I wanted to express that all of us keep digging and clarifying one's innermost mind. At least I hope that anybody can agree on that, thinking of it honnestly. That's my deepest hope! …along with the hope that we may all apply the precaution principle in the way we lead our own lives, taking responsability for our individual and collective world, whatever the rate of significance of the link in AGW. With love… Wakindra
Dear Dave:I have to write and express my appreciation for this fantastic blog. On my morning web survey, after I look at the regular news (depressing and dumbed-down), I always turn to you and hope you have something new. Foreign languages! Strange landscapes! Weird events! Fascinating pictures! Learned arguments about global warming! I'm learning geology and German this morning. I'm also able to learn the latest on things that might affect regions of the world where I have friends. I wish there were more science-based blogs like yours. I'm not a blog reader but somehow this one is different, perhaps because of your enthusiasm for your field and a really open mind. Thank you so much.
Dr Dave said 'The science case for anthropogenic climate change is based upon … data from the long term geologic record…Just how long have humans been walking around this planet, and possibly influencing anthropogenic climate change??(glad to see it's no longer called global warming just in case the planet's actually getting cooler at the moment)Al
Geologically a very short time, which is why the changes seen in the climate, particularly after the industrial revolution are so striking. Over geological time we see a natural progression of warming and cooling and the accompanied increases and decreases in carbon dioxide etc but in the last two hundred years we see dramatic increases in all greenhouse gases, at a rate not seen ever before in the geologic record. Before the industrial revolution our impact seems to have been negligible, and what’s more the only other reason i can think of offhand for such an increase in greenhouse gases (and even this is a poor explanation due to the extremely short timespan) is an increase in volcanic activity (which is considered to occur when super-continents rift apart) I think you’ll agree that hasn’t happened. So when dave says we have used data from the long term geologic record, it is because we have tried to find similar events in the past and found none.
Dave,Disagreements and vitriolic comments from the peanut gallery notwithstanding, a central motive for my original post was your apparent recognition, indeed disturbance, at hysteria perpetrated in support of the AGW theory.I found this disturbance a very positive indication from one who is so convinced of AGW. It was my hope that you would further ponder this widespread hysteria and perhaps comment on the phenomena. Of course, you may dismiss it as insignificant and there would be no more basis for discussion.
Anonymous cites the political (not scientific) blog "climateprogress" as a source of scientific knowledge about so called 'climate change'. This suggests that you do not understand the extent to which this 'science' has become completely politicicized.Dr. Dave has listed "multiple lines of scientific evidence" which he has chosen to support his opinions. I don't think that theories of 'radiative physics' based on scaled up laboatory test results and the outputs from back-engineered climate models rise to the level of scientific evidence. Nor do statistically contorted data sets of surface temperatures and qualitative 'atmospheric observations'. Scientific evidence involves reproducible empirical observations. As far as 'data from the long term geologic record', what about the proxies indicating that today's range of atmoshperic CO2 concentrations are orders of magnatude lower than those which have persisting over most of recorded earth history. Are these proxies not as valid as the 'medium term proxies'? All proxies are subject to the vagaries of subjective interpretation, not to mention significant problems with sampling bias, sample quality, and the unknown impacts of other influences on the variabilty of the parameter being measured which are conveniently ignored in most cases. I'd say the proxies aren't much of a foundation of 'proof' on which to build a scientific opinion! Much faith is required to make that leap. I need a little more than faith in the word of a close cadre of 'scientists', who are unwilling to admit their own limitations, to overcome the overwhelming amount of evidence suggesting that the earth's climate system is still controlled by the same other-than-anthropoegenic inputs, prcoesses and negative feedbacks which have governed for longer than the last few decades! As a practicing engineering geologist(that's why I like this blog), I understand that many of the geotechnical engineering problems of today are a direct result of landforms and surficial depostis left behind by climatic changes in the recent past which were orders of magnitude greater in scale and duration than the perceived 'warming' of the last few decades. We need to be careful about misinterpreting the significance of 'trends' observed in the short term data sets being unquestioningly touted as proof of a popular culture theory. It should be acknowledged that there may be a problem of perspective associated with the desire to explain observed changes in cyclical earth systems in terms of the length of a human life span, rather than in terms of geologic time.
Anonymous cites the political (not scientific) blog "climateprogress" as a source of scientific knowledge about so called 'climate change'. This suggests that you do not understand the extent to which this 'science' has become completely politicicized.Dr. Dave has listed "multiple lines of scientific evidence" which he has chosen to support his opinions. I don't think that theories of 'radiative physics' based on scaled up laboatory test results and the outputs from back-engineered climate models rise to the level of scientific evidence. Nor do statistically contorted data sets of surface temperatures and qualitative 'atmospheric observations'. Scientific evidence involves reproducible empirical observations. As far as 'data from the long term geologic record', what about the proxies indicating that today's range of atmoshperic CO2 concentrations are orders of magnatude lower than those which have persisting over most of recorded earth history. Are these proxies not as valid as the 'medium term proxies'? All proxies are subject to the vagaries of subjective interpretation, not to mention significant problems with sampling bias, sample quality, and the unknown impacts of other influences on the variabilty of the parameter being measured which are conveniently ignored in most cases. I'd say the proxies aren't much of a foundation of 'proof' on which to build a scientific opinion! Much faith is required to make that leap. I need a little more than faith in the word of a close cadre of 'scientists', who are unwilling to admit their own limitations, to overcome the overwhelming amount of evidence suggesting that the earth's climate system is still controlled by the same other-than-anthropoegenic inputs, prcoesses and negative feedbacks which have governed for longer than the last few decades! As a practicing engineering geologist(that's why I like this blog), I understand that many of the geotechnical engineering problems of today are a direct result of landforms and surficial depostis left behind by climatic changes in the recent past which were orders of magnitude greater in scale and duration than the perceived 'warming' of the last few decades. We need to be careful about misinterpreting the significance of 'trends' observed in the short term data sets being unquestioningly touted as proof of a popular culture theory. It should be acknowledged that there may be a problem of perspective associated with the desire to explain observed changes in cyclical earth systems in terms of the length of a human life span, rather than in terms of geologic time.
I would suggest the site: http://www.realclimate.org/ for a thorough discussion of climate change issues presented by climate scientists.
There's reports of landslides in the Philippines after Typhoon Megi.
Take it to realclimate, guys.