How I (mostly) slept through the one of the largest earthquakes to hit NW Europe in 200 years

A post by Chris RowanIn the early hours of 13 April 1992, the border region in western Europe where Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands meet was shaken by a magnitude 5.4 earthquake, caused by northeast-southwest extension in the Roer Valley Graben. The shaking was severe enough to damage buildings 30-40 kilometres from the epicentre. 40 kilometres to the south, in the small town of Valkenburg, a group of British schoolchildren on a European excursion were sleeping peacefully in their beds, a 13 year-young version of this geoblogger amongst their number.

Location of the Roermond earthquake on 13th April 1992; location of Chris on 13th April 1992. Source for map: Geluk et al. 1994 (click for pdf).

I distinctly remember waking up to the room shaking and (rather woozily) thinking, “Earthquake!” But I also distinctly remember then thinking, “You don’t get earthquakes in the Netherlands. I must be dreaming,” before turning over and going back to sleep. Imagine my surprise the next morning when I discovered that not only had everyone else in our hotel shared my “dream”, but that the shaking had been strong enough to toss some of them from their beds. And that is how I semi-slept through what remains my only up close and personal encounter with the tectonic forces that shape our planet: forces that I would end up studying for a living, little did I know it at the time.

I normally tell this story for humourous effect, but a part of me always cringes a little inside when I recall these events, because it also illustrates how, despite me already having ambitions to become a scientist at this age, I was still a long way from thinking like a scientist. Firstly, I assumed in the arrogance of precocious youth that I already knew everything worth knowing about earthquakes. I had read that earthquakes were associated with the boundaries of tectonic plates, and I also knew that the Netherlands was nowhere near such a boundary. I had read nothing, or at least remembered nothing, about the earthquakes that occur within plates, but I wasn’t yet mature enough to realise how much I didn’t know.

Perhaps 'Mount Unknowingly Ignorant' would be more accurate. Source: Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal (click for full comic).

Perhaps more seriously, when confronted with a contradiction between what I thought I knew and actual reality, I responded with reflexive denial rather than curiousity. Even if it was 100% established that earthquakes only ever occurred at plate boundaries, a true scientist would not respond to an apparent earthquake in the Netherlands with a cry of “that’s impossible!’ A true scientist would think “hmmm, that’s funny…” and start investigating.

Narrative causality would demand that I close this story by telling you that not only did realising my mistake the next morning set me on the path to developing a proper scientific mindset, but also that it inspired me to take an interest in geology and tectonics. Sadly, neither is true. It took a few much more painful lessons before I became properly humble about my knowledge of the world; and before I learnt to stop bending the world to fit my preconceived notions, and actually observe and think more carefully about what was going on around me. And although I can’t completely rule out some subconcious effect of the Roermond earthquake on my later career choices, it took me at least six more years before I truly discovered the wonders of geology.

Now I know better than to dismiss the earthquake potential of places like central Europe. The Netherlands might be a long way from a true plate boundary, but there is a historical earthquake record going back centuries in this region, and paleoseismic studies following the 1992 earthquake found several fault scarps in the area with signs of Quarternary displacement. The Atlantic coast of the US has recently been described as a ‘passive-aggressive’ margin, hosting faults that can build up significant elastic strain over centuries and millenia before rupturing in earthquakes that could reach magnitude 7. Likewise, its European counterpart is not without its seismic dangers.

Corrective note: This post title originally referred to me sleeping through the ‘largest European earthquake in 200 years’. I think I originally meant to write ‘one of the largest’, but even then that’s a bit of an over-reach if you’re including Italy and Greece’. The title has now been appropriately modified.

This post was written in response to Ron Schott’s Accretionary Wedge call for stories of the most memorable or significant geologic event that we’ve directly experienced. Even if I sort of slept through it, I should at least get partial credit, right?

Categories: academic life, earthquakes

Stuff we linked to on Twitter last week

A post by Chris RowanA post by Anne JeffersonWelcome to the first Highly Allochthonous Sunday link-fest of 2012. We realise that technically this is the second Sunday of the new year, but we trust that you’ll forgive us…

Other posts on All-geo

Earthquakes

Volcanoes

(Paleo)climate

Water

Environmental

General Geology

Women in Science

Interesting Miscellaney

Categories: links

How useful are lectures, really?

A post by Chris RowanThere has been an interesting discussion amongst the geologists on Twitter, that I’ve archived over on Geotweeps Discuss…, over the role of the lecture in undergraduate education. This was in response to an NPR story claiming that in physics at least, lectures are very bad at enabling students to conceptually grasp the material being presented. That sort of understanding requires a more interactive style of teaching, with demonstration, and small-group discussions.

I’ve read a few of these in the last few months, and in some ways I feel they set up a false dichotomy between ‘all lectures’ and ‘no lectures’, when the reality is usually ‘some lectures’. I certainly feel, as did most people who joined the discussion on Twitter, that lecturing should not be the be-all and end-all of the teaching experience, but it still has a place.

My experience of lectures back when I was an undergraduate was that some were good, some were bad. Some were very bad. But they were almost always a good starting point, in the sense that you came out with an idea of what the person teaching your course thought were the important concepts you needed to grasp, and usually a couple of useful example problems or case studies. Attaining true understanding might have only come after practicals, and reading, and talking it through with my classmates and teachers, but the lecture was where I learnt what I needed to understand.

Of course, I’m perhaps a little bit of an outlier: I’ve stayed in the academic system and have spent time at the front of the classroom as well, and I went to a University which had no compuction in telling us that perfect regurgitation of lecture notes would not impress the examiners – whilst also giving us plenty of non-lecture contact time with the faculty.

In a time when Universities are having to accommodate more students with less money, and staff are finding their schedules ever more loaded, perhaps we are heading to a place where the lecture is often the only real point of contact between teacher and the students. Combine this with the fact that students are coming to university ever more accustomed to ‘I’m going to tell you what’s in the exam’ than to ‘Here’s what you need to learn about. Go forth to the library!’, and perhaps we have a problem.

Anyway, I’d be interested to hear other peoples’ thoughts on this. If you went to university, did you love lectures, or hate them? Get all you needed out of them, or nothing at all? Have nothing but lectures, or a bit more balance?

Update: Thanks for all the great comments. There were also a few responses on Twitter that I thought were worth adding for posterity.

[blackbirdpie url=”http://twitter.com/coreburn/status/154731278736953344″]
[blackbirdpie url=”http://twitter.com/smknipe/status/154732953862291456″]
[blackbirdpie url=”http://twitter.com/markhilverda/status/154743515350450176″]
[blackbirdpie url=”http://twitter.com/Janinemarshal/status/154760706896568320″]
[blackbirdpie url=”http://twitter.com/palaeo_isotopes/status/154866419362840576″]

Categories: academic life, science education

Geological mayhem and destruction in 2012: not the end of the world, just business as usual

A post by Chris RowanAs earth scientists and science bloggers, Anne and I can’t help but feel a little trepidation as we enter 2012. The 21st of December this year marks the end of the 13th bak’tun of the Maya Long Count calendar. In the physical world, this date has about as much significance as the turn of the millennium does (or did) in the Gregorian calendar most countries currently use: in other words, none whatsoever. But it is also a date that has long been seized upon by apocalypse-mongers of all stripes as a prime candidate for the day that our world will be swallowed up in fire and chaos. Sadly for us earth scientists, many of the ‘theories’ as to how our doom will unfold involve geology: The poles will flip! The earth will tilt on its axis! The poles will flip and the earth will tip on its axis! Lands sinking into the sea! Earthquakes! (Super)volcanoes! Rains of curry!

Not. Going. To. Happen.

The world will not end in 2012, but it is likely to be a high-water mark for earth science-related hysteria. Even more than usual, any natural disaster, anywhere, risks being pronounced as a dire omen of the greater catastrophe to come. As we gear ourselves up to fight this torrent of nonsense, one thing that is surely needed for the coming twelve months is a proper baseline. Given that natural disasters occur all the time, what sort of geological activity should we expect if it is just a normal year on Planet Earth? The following list of expectations comes with a side-order of snark and a warning: this list of ‘predictions’ is based on a historical record that is often shorter than we ideally need (particularly for earthquakes) and is covering systems that are naturally variable in their behaviour over time. Consider it a starting null hypothesis against which the significance of your theories of imminent doom should be tested.

In 2012:

  • The Earth’s tectonic plates will continue to move across the mantle at a few centimetres a year. Earthquakes and volcanoes will result in the usual fashion.
  • Based on the last century of seismic activity, there will be 10-20 earthquakes with a moment magnitude greater than 7.0, with a good chance that at least one will exceed magnitude 8. Most of the largest are likely to be associated with subduction zones, with the consequent risk of a tsunami if they rupture at shallow depths.
  • There will be more than a hundred earthquakes between magnitude 6 and 7, which have the potential to cause considerable damage if the rupture occurs close to a major city.
  • As Erik Klemetti will tell you, volcanic eruptions happen all the time, and in 2012 they will continue to do so. Some will fairly harmlessly ooze lava; others will behave more explosively, mimicing this year’s Pliny-winning Puyehue-Cordón Caulle in Chile. But unless something really spectacular happens, akin to Mount Pinatubo’s eruption in 1991, all of these eruptions will be eclipsed by breathless speculation about any slight seismic activity that occurs beneath Katla, the Yellowstone caldera, or any volcano in the Pacific Northwest.
  • In a number of places, too much rain will fall in too short a time, and flooding will result. When this occurs in a rich western country, there will be relatively low casualties, a large bill for damages, and lots of media coverage; when it happens in a poorer country, casualties will be higher and many more people will be displaced, but the media will pay far less attention.
  • The Earth’s magnetic poles will migrate a few tens of kilometres from their present position. This may lead to a few airports re-marking their runways, but is not a sign that the field is about to reverse. If you hear talk of the dipole field’s recent weakening and this being a sign of the field gearing up for a reversal – and in my opinion, it’s at least a few centuries to soon to tell – remember that the whole process takes 5,000 to 10,000 years. Come December 22, your compass will still point north.
  • Scientists will continue point to the serious consequences of climate change as a result of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions (which will continue to inexorably rise). The climate itself will continue to push up past the ‘normal’ range in which our civilisation developed and is tuned to flourish in. The resulting extreme weather events – be they heatwaves, floods, or unusually powerful storms – are far more likely to be attributed to mystical cosmic cycles than our disruption of the carbon cycle.

Every year, some parts of the world are suddenly struck by natural disasters, taking lives and destroying property. 2012 will, unfortunately, be no different. But just as in every over year, there will be nothing more cataclysmic going on in the next twelve months than the Earth’s normal geological and meterological processes – although, in the latter case, the planet is getting an increasingly large helping hand from us.

Categories: antiscience, climate science, earthquakes, geohazards, palaeomagic, public science, volcanoes

Scenic Saturday: Year End Reflections

A post by Anne JeffersonThe last day of the year saw me doing field work in my very favorite spot in North Carolina, a short drive from Charlotte which takes me to a place that feels worlds away. I was collecting the final dataset for a paper I’m writing, and the afternoon found me musing on beginnings and endings and the questions that continue to tease me in this landscape. On reflection, I’m proud of what I’ve learned and done here, but I’m excited to see where the streams lead me next.

Deep Creek reflections

Deep Creek, Redlair, North Carolina. photo: Chris Rowan, 31 December 2011

Categories: by Anne, fieldwork, photos