The magnitude 8.8 earthquake that rocked Chile on February 27th didn’t just move the Earth’s axis, thereby shortening the day by 1.26 microseconds, but it also caused entire cities to shift their geographical location.

Studying precise GPS images of the area struck by the quake, a team led by earth scientist Mike Bevis discovered that the Chilean city of Concepción had moved 10 feet to the west. The epicenter of the quake was 71 miles northeast of Concepción, which is Chile’s second largest city.

The effect was widespread: The capital city, Santiago, was wrenched 11 inches west-southwest, while Beunos Aires, located nearly 800 miles from the epicenter, jumped an inch to the west. The earthquake was the fifth largest ever to be recorded by seismographs and even caused far-off areas like Fortaleza, Brazil and the Falkland Islands to change location slightly. The changes were detected by teams from The Ohio State University, the University of Hawaii, the University of Memphis and the California Institute of Technology, as well as agencies across South America [CNN].

The area where the quake hit is of particular interest to geoscientists because it is an active subduction zone, where an oceanic plate is colliding with a continental plate and being pushed into the Earth’s molten mantle below [Wired]. The world’s five largest quakes since 1900, including the largest quake ever recorded (a Chilean quake measuring 9.5), have all occurred in subduction zones. Earth scientist Ben Brooks of the University of Hawaii declared that this “earthquake will arguably become one of the, if not the most important, great earthquakes yet studied….We now have modern, precise instruments to evaluate this event” [CNN].

Related Content:
Discoblog: Chile Quake Shifted Earth’s Axis, Shortened the Length of a Day
80beats: Why Chile’s Massive Earthquake Could Have Been Much Worse
80beats: NASA Jet Studies Haiti’s Fault Lines For Signs of Further Trouble
80beats: Where in the World Will the Next Big Earthquake Strike?
80beats: Satellite Images Show the Extent of Haiti’s Devastation
80beats: Haiti Earthquake May Have Released 250 Years of Seismic Stress
80beats: Science Via Twitter: Post-Earthquake Tweets Can Provide Seismic Data

Image: University of Hawaii

When researchers rack up the carbon emitted across the world, the standard trends emerge: Europeans put less CO2 into the atmosphere than Americans, but China’s rapid ascent is sending its emissions shooting past those of the United States. However, this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Stanford University researchers attempt to rejigger the numbers to reflect not just where the emissions are produced, but who is responsible for them—who’s buying and consuming the products that cause those emissions.

After study global trade databases, Steven Davis and Ken Caldiera say that in 2004, 23 per cent of global CO2 emissions – some 6.2 gigatonnes – went in making products that were traded internationally. Most of these products were exported from China and other relatively poor countries to consumers in richer countries [New Scientist]. The researchers say that developed countries outsource about a third of the carbon dioxide emissions connected to their consumption.

When you look at the numbers this way, the per capita emissions in Europe don’t look quite as good: If those emissions were tallied on the other side of the balance sheet, it would add more than four tons of CO2 per person in several European nations [TIME]. The United States saw a lesser increase of 2.4 tons per person, though that’s not really a cause for celebration. Part of the reason is that the country has more carbon-intensive exports than Europe, the study says, and under the new accounting those emissions are going on somebody else’s books. The United States also takes in the lion’s share of China’s: 22.5% of China’s emissions are generated during production of goods and services consumed overseas, and 7.8% are embodied in exports to the US alone [BBC News].

This isn’t the first time that climate change experts have raised the question of how much responsibility consumers bear for carbon emissions produced on the other side of the globe. Other studies are trying to crack this same problem, tracking “consumption” emissions rather than just the “territorial” emissions produced inside a country’s borders. What they find could shake up how the world goes about trying to reduce emissions. The U.N. system is built around the idea of capping carbon emissions from individual nations. But which country is responsible for the carbon emitted in global trade? The buyer or the seller? [TIME]

Related Content:
80beats: CO2 Emissions Are Rising. Or Falling. Actually, It’s Both
80beats: If We Can’t Stop Emitting CO2, What’s Our Plan B?
80beats: The Snows of Kilimanjaro Could be Gone by 2022
80beats: Climate Bill Passes in the House, Moves on to Senate
80beats: Would You Turn Vegetarian to Slow Global Warming?

Image: iStockphoto

Welcome to this week’s installment of the From Eternity to Here book club. Now for something of a palate-cleanser, in the form of Chapter Nine, “Information and Life.”

Excerpt:

Schrödinger’s idea captures something important about what distinguishes life from non-life. In the back of his mind, he was certainly thinking of Clausius’s version of the Second Law: objects in thermal contact evolve toward a common temperature (thermal equilibrium). If we put an ice cube in a glass of warm water, the ice cube melts fairly quickly. Even if the two objects are made of very different substances—say, if we put a plastic “ice cube” in a glass of water—they will still come to the same temperature. More generally, nonliving physical objects tend to wind down and come to rest. A rock may roll down a hill during an avalanche, but before too long it will reach the bottom, dissipate energy through the creation of noise and heat, and come to a complete halt before very long.

Schrödinger’s point is simply that, for living organisms, this process of coming to rest can take much longer, or even be put off indefinitely. Imagine that, instead of an ice cube, we put a goldfish into our glass of water. Unlike the ice cube (whether water or plastic), the goldfish will not simply equilibrate with the water—at least, not within a few minutes or even hours. It will stay alive, doing something, swimming, exchanging material with its environment. If it’s put into a lake or a fish tank where food is available, it will keep going for much longer.

This chapter starts with something very important: the relationship between entropy and memory. Namely, the reason why we can “remember” the past and not the future is that the past features a low-entropy boundary condition, while the future does not. I don’t go into great detail about this, and we certainly don’t talk very specifically about how real memories are formed in the brain, or even in a computer. But when we get to the next chapter, about recurrences and Boltzmann brains, it will be crucial to understand how the assumption of a low-entropy boundary condition enables us to reconstruct the past. It’s hard for people to wrap their brains around the fact that, without such an assumption, our “memories” or records of the past will generally be unreliable — knowledge of the current macrostate wouldn’t allow us to reconstruct the past any better than it allows us to predict the future. (Which is only logical, since it’s only this hypothesis that breaks time-reversal symmetry.)

The rest of the chapter, meanwhile, is more about having fun and mentioning some ideas that are not directly related to our story, but certainly play a part in understanding the arrow of time. Information theory, life, complexity. I’m not an expert in any of these fields, but it was a lot of fun reading about them to pick out some things that fit into the broader narrative. The Maxwell’s Demon story, in particular, is one that every physicist should know (up through it’s relatively modern resolution), but relatively few do. And I think Jason Torchinsky did a great job with the illustrations of the Demon.

A lot of big ideas here, of course, and much of this stuff is still very much in the working-out stage, not the settled-understanding stage. We’re still arguing about basic things like the definition of “complexity” and “life.” It’s relatively easy to state the Second Law and explain how the arrow of time is related to the growth of entropy, but there’s a tremendous amount of work still to be done before we completely understand the way in which the universe actually evolves from low entropy to high.