On a positive note, Covid-19 lockdowns are affecting global seismic activity

Shawn Knight

Posts: 12,206   +120
Staff member

Seismologists at the Royal Observatory of Belgium have noticed a drop in seismic noise, or the “hum” of vibrations present in the Earth’s crust, since Coronavirus containment measures were introduced.

In Brussels where the readings were taken, seismometers revealed that human-induced seismic noise created by moving vehicles and industrial machinery has fallen by about one-third.

With less “background noise” muddling up readings, the sensitivity of the observatory’s equipment has been increased and could better help seismologists detect smaller earthquakes and other seismic events.

Thomas Lecocq, a seismologist at the Royal Observatory of Belgium, said a reduction of this variety is usually only observed around Christmas.

(Chart courtesy Stephen Hicks)

The effects of shelter in place orders could be more pronounced in some regions than others. As Emily Wolin, a geologist at the US Geological Survey in Albuquerque, New Mexico, notes, that’s because some monitoring stations are intentionally placed in remote regions to avoid interference from human activity. Such stations will likely seem a smaller decrease, or none at all, she said.

Masthead credit: vchal

Permalink to story.

 

ShagnWagn

Posts: 1,294   +1,075
The massive drop in air pollution is probably the most noticeable and beneficial aspect of lock downs. In China it was spotted quickly, even in Europe with strict anti smog laws the air quality has improved dramatically.
The "climate change" doomsayers must be saying we are headed towards an ice age now... lol
 
  • Like
Reactions: Danny101 and warLoc

Karlos95

Posts: 104   +32
Why would they be saying that? CO2 levels are as high as ever.

CO2 and pollution are 2 different things.

https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/monthly.html
Is it though? CO2 pollution is a term.

It is obvious what humanity is doing to the earth and ecosystems. Only the ignorant ignore it now.

Obviously where there is money to be made some will use the agenda to benefit them, except they forget the agenda they are defending (fossil fuels) only benefits the billionaires. They don't get anything out of it. Just misleading info from the media they trust, I assume.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wiyosaya

Lew Zealand

Posts: 1,310   +1,262
TechSpot Elite
True, you could classify elevated levels of CO2 over the natural background as pollution and of course there are environmental and political reasons to do so.

In the case of the pollution maps that SW was probably referring to, those were NO and SO2, IIRC, and not CO2. Mostly because the natural background of those pollutants is very low and gets very highly concentrated in cities thanks to manufacturing and auto exhaust. CO2 is more pervasive and also at a higher background level.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Karlos95

Robertrogue

Posts: 92   +47
Is it though? CO2 pollution is a term.

It is obvious what humanity is doing to the earth and ecosystems. Only the ignorant ignore it now.

Obviously where there is money to be made some will use the agenda to benefit them, except they forget the agenda they are defending (fossil fuels) only benefits the billionaires. They don't get anything out of it. Just misleading info from the media they trust, I assume.
So you assume that fossil fuels only benefit the billionaires? You would be hard pressed to read TechSpot and be able to type your gibberish into the comments if it wasn't for the "fossil fuels" needed to produce the hardware and power to make such hardware. Plus, it is all about "money", ask the close to a billion people around the world right now that aren't getting a paycheck. They would love to have some to pay the bills and be able to eat. One more thing, all those "save the planet from the people" people, always tout this on there over priced smart phone or computer produced in the worlds most polluting country China! (eyeroll)
 
  • Like
Reactions: warLoc

mbrowne5061

Posts: 1,462   +805
The "climate change" doomsayers must be saying we are headed towards an ice age now... lol
There is a 40-year lag between CO2 release and measured increase in temperatures. You wouldn't see any decrease in temperatures from this, maybe if methane was still the primary driver behind the greenhouse effect (like the age of Genghis Khan, when he killed so many people and animals it caused a drop in temperature due to decreased methane output)
 

ShagnWagn

Posts: 1,294   +1,075
There is a 40-year lag between CO2 release and measured increase in temperatures. You wouldn't see any decrease in temperatures from this, maybe if methane was still the primary driver behind the greenhouse effect (like the age of Genghis Khan, when he killed so many people and animals it caused a drop in temperature due to decreased methane output)
Can you explain this, or link a legit article? Science tells us it does not take 40 years for gas to absorb and emit radiant heat. It is immediate.
 

wiyosaya

Posts: 5,133   +3,224
Can you explain this, or link a legit article? Science tells us it does not take 40 years for gas to absorb and emit radiant heat. It is immediate.
Not necessarily. An atom or molecule may, depending on the atomic structure, release energy immediately; however, that is not the case with C02 at IR wavelengths, and some atoms or molecules will not absorb or emit IR at all.

There's no timeline here, however, the following is an accurate description of the process:
How do greenhouse gases trap IR radiation? The energy from IR photons causes a CO2 molecule to vibrate. Molecules are constantly in motion, colliding with other gas molecules and transferring energy from one molecule to another during collisions. A CO2 molecule would likely bump into several other gas molecules before re-emitting the IR photon. The CO2 molecule might transfer the energy it gained from the absorbed photon to another molecule, adding speed to that molecule's motion. Since the temperature of a gas is a measure of the speed of its molecules, the faster motion of a molecule that eventually results from the absorbed IR photon raises the atmospheric temperature.

This ability to absorb and re-emit IR energy is what makes CO2 an effective heat-trapping greenhouse gas. Not all gas molecules are able to absorb IR radiation. For example, nitrogen (N2) and oxygen (O2), which make up more than 90% of the atmosphere, do not absorb IR photons. CO2 molecules can vibrate in ways that simpler nitrogen and oxygen molecules cannot, which allows CO2 molecules to capture IR photons.
https://www.quora.com/Why-does-CO2-trap-heat
CO2 could store that energy for a very long time without encountering the conditions to re-emit it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mbrowne5061

wiyosaya

Posts: 5,133   +3,224
So you assume that fossil fuels only benefit the billionaires? You would be hard pressed to read TechSpot and be able to type your gibberish into the comments if it wasn't for the "fossil fuels" needed to produce the hardware and power to make such hardware. Plus, it is all about "money", ask the close to a billion people around the world right now that aren't getting a paycheck. They would love to have some to pay the bills and be able to eat. One more thing, all those "save the planet from the people" people, always tout this on there over priced smart phone or computer produced in the worlds most polluting country China! (eyeroll)
I bet most of us who comment on TS are not happy about the way that the current situation is affecting us all. And yes, fossil fuels, pollution and all, have changed the world in many ways.

However, there were forces at play that were changing the industry before the current circumstances, and it appears that the coronavirus may be hastening the death of fossil fuels. http://www.citypages.com/news/should-minnesota-still-be-investing-in-fossil-fuels/569261031

IMO, the death of fossil fuels would not be a bad thing. What comes out of this will be what humanity makes of it. There are those who will see this as a bane; however, there are those who will see this as an opportunity to improve. Personally, I am on the side of seeing it as an opportunity for improvement.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Karlos95

mbrowne5061

Posts: 1,462   +805
Can you explain this, or link a legit article? Science tells us it does not take 40 years for gas to absorb and emit radiant heat. It is immediate.

Think of it this way, just because you put on your coat doesn't instantly make you warmer. Solar energy output is relatively constant, solar energy arriving on the Earth is predictable with the seasons, CO2 acts as insulation. As you add insulation, it will take time for the warming to occur.

The exact lag is debated, but we know that:
- Temperature lags CO2; CO2 does not lag temperature
- The lag that can be attributed to CO2 is measured in years to decades, not months.

You would not see a change in global temperatures due to decreased CO2 from COVID19, not unless this drags on for years. You might see a slight decline from a decrease in methane production - should a decrease in methane be detected at all - and it would likely take a few years for us to be certain that such a drop in temperature could be attributed to a matching drop in methane. This is because methane insulates even better than CO2, but breaks down even faster than CO2.
 

Karlos95

Posts: 104   +32
So you assume that fossil fuels only benefit the billionaires? You would be hard pressed to read TechSpot and be able to type your gibberish into the comments if it wasn't for the "fossil fuels" needed to produce the hardware and power to make such hardware. Plus, it is all about "money", ask the close to a billion people around the world right now that aren't getting a paycheck. They would love to have some to pay the bills and be able to eat. One more thing, all those "save the planet from the people" people, always tout this on there over priced smart phone or computer produced in the worlds most polluting country China! (eyeroll)
Yes, now that we have the products we need, we need to improve how we make those products. Simple really. Anyone that thinks we need fossil fuels now lives in the past.
You know why they would love a paycheck? Because of greedy capitalism. If necessities weren't needed to have money to be able to obtain it then society would be much better off. (Water, food,shelter) It is people living in a society bubble that think we need to pay for everything. You don't.
Ah yes, it is like they have a direct impact if they were to buy it or not. Same old stupid argument, if you want to fix the planet, why are buying fossil fuel products. Ah, it wouldn't matter anyway as people like you still take the bulk of those items.
Not only that, it starts from the top, they are only fossil fuel products because we continue to let the coal factories keep on burning.
Luckily we have smart humans like Musk building sustainable energy networks. Fossil Fuels will be dead soon, if you can't accept then I suggest going living in the wild and build your own coal burner. Oh look, used the same argument the fossil fuel lovers keep on using. Don't like fossil fuels, go live in the bush lol. Another great "solution"

Old people thinking and their old ways. It dies out eventually. Once they realise they are outnumbered and change is coming whether they like it or not. (old people thinking, term for people set in their old ways. Doesn't necessarily have to be an old person) just clarification for the simple folk.
 

Robertrogue

Posts: 92   +47
Yes, now that we have the products we need, we need to improve how we make those products. Simple really. Anyone that thinks we need fossil fuels now lives in the past.
You know why they would love a paycheck? Because of greedy capitalism. If necessities weren't needed to have money to be able to obtain it then society would be much better off. (Water, food,shelter) It is people living in a society bubble that think we need to pay for everything. You don't.
Ah yes, it is like they have a direct impact if they were to buy it or not. Same old stupid argument, if you want to fix the planet, why are buying fossil fuel products. Ah, it wouldn't matter anyway as people like you still take the bulk of those items.
Not only that, it starts from the top, they are only fossil fuel products because we continue to let the coal factories keep on burning.
Luckily we have smart humans like Musk building sustainable energy networks. Fossil Fuels will be dead soon, if you can't accept then I suggest going living in the wild and build your own coal burner. Oh look, used the same argument the fossil fuel lovers keep on using. Don't like fossil fuels, go live in the bush lol. Another great "solution"

Old people thinking and their old ways. It dies out eventually. Once they realise they are outnumbered and change is coming whether they like it or not. (old people thinking, term for people set in their old ways. Doesn't necessarily have to be an old person) just clarification for the simple folk.
This is the same ole crap as usual. You obviously don't know much about much. Eleon Musk is building those things with, I said it, with the mean old fossil fuels. Every plastic and every electrical battery, every electrical wire, 99% of hospital tubing, bags, and such are made from fossil fuels and there will be NO stopping of that anytime soon. Also, one more thing, ALL necessities do not have to be "purchased" us old timers can still dig a well, hunt our food, and grow our food. You "young" couldn't even if we gave you a map and pointed you in the right direction. I am not a Fossil fuel "lover" I am a realist, there is not product built today without some form of fossil fuels in it. A windmill out in the west takes more energy to build (from fossil fuels) than it will produce in it's life, fact! Besides, how are we supposed to have beer pong without SOLO cups, made from fossil fuels.