Rabu, 25 September 2019

Climate change: UN signals red alert for 'blue planet' - BBC News

Climate change is devastating our seas and frozen regions as never before, a major new United Nations report warns.

According to a UN panel of scientists, waters are rising, the ice is melting, and species are moving habitat due to human activities.

And the loss of permanently frozen lands threatens to unleash even more carbon, hastening the decline.

There is some guarded hope that the worst impacts can be avoided, with deep and immediate cuts to carbon emissions.

This is the third in a series of special reports that have been produced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) over the past 12 months.

The scientists previously looked at how the world would cope if temperatures rose by 1,5C by the end of this century. They also reported on how the lands of the Earth would be affected by climate change.

However, this new study, looking at the impact of rising temperatures on our oceans and frozen regions, is perhaps the most worrying and depressing of the three.

So what have they found and how bad is it?

In a nutshell, the waters are getting warmer, the world's ice is melting rapidly, and these have implications for almost every living thing on the planet.

"The blue planet is in serious danger right now, suffering many insults from many different directions and it's our fault," said Dr Jean-Pierre Gattuso, a co-ordinating lead author of the report.

The scientists are "virtually certain" that the global ocean has now warmed without pause since 1970.

The waters have soaked up more than 90% of the extra heat generated by humans over the past decades, and the rate at which it has taken up this heat has doubled since 1993.

Interactive Qaleraliq glacier, southern Greenland

2018

Satellite image of Qaleraliq glacier, Greenland in 2018

1993

Satellite image of Qaleraliq glacier, Greenland in 1993

Where the seas were once rising mainly due to thermal expansion, the IPCC says this is now happening principally because of the melting of Greenland and Antarctica.

Thanks to warming, the loss of mass from the Antarctic ice sheet in the years between 2007 and 2016 tripled compared to the 10 years previously.

Greenland saw a doubling of mass loss over the same period. The report expects this to continue throughout the 21st Century and beyond.

For glaciers in areas like the tropical Andes, Central Europe and North Asia, the projections are that they will lose 80% of their ice by 2100 under a high carbon emissions scenario. This will have huge consequences for millions of people.

What are the implications of all this melting ice?

All this extra water gushing down to the seas is driving up average ocean water levels around the world. That will continue over the decades to come.

This new report says that global average sea levels could increase by up to 1.1m by 2100, in the worst warming scenario. This is a rise of 10cm on previous IPCC projections because of the larger ice loss now happening in Antarctica.

"What surprised me the most is the fact that the highest projected sea level rise has been revised upwards and it is now 1.1 metres," said Dr Jean-Pierre Gattuso, from the CNRS, France's national science agency.

"This will have widespread consequences for low lying coasts where almost 700 million people live and it is worrying."

The report says clearly that some island states are likely to become uninhabitable beyond 2100.

The scientists also say that relocating people away from threatened communities is worth considering "if safe alternative localities are available".

What will these changes mean for you?

One of the key messages is the way that the warming of the oceans and cryosphere (the icy bits on land) is part of a chain of poor outcomes that will affect millions of people well into the future.

Under higher emissions scenarios, even wealthy megacities such as New York or Shanghai and large tropical agricultural deltas such as the Mekong will face high or very high risks from sea level rise.

The report says that a world with severely increased levels of warm water will in turn give rise to big increases in nasty and dangerous weather events, such as surges from tropical cyclones.

"Extreme sea level events that are historically rare (once per century in the recent past) are projected to occur frequently (at least once per year) at many locations by 2050," the study says, even if future emissions of carbon are cut significantly.

"What we are seeing now is enduring and unprecedented change," said Prof Debra Roberts, a co-chair of an IPCC working group II.

"Even if you live in an inland part of the world, the changes in the climate system, drawn in by the very large changes in the ocean and cryosphere are going to impact the way you live your life and the opportunities for sustainable development."

The ways in which you may be affected are vast - flood damage could increase by two or three orders of magnitude. The acidification of the oceans thanks to increased CO2 is threatening corals, to such an extent that even at 1.5C of warming, some 90% will disappear.

Species of fish will move as ocean temperatures rise. Seafood safety could even be compromised because humans could be exposed to increased levels of mercury and persistent organic pollutants in marine plants and animals. These pollutants are released from the same fossil fuel burning that release the climate warming gas CO2.

Even our ability to generate electricity will be impaired as warming melts the glaciers, altering the availability of water for hydropower.

Permafrost not so permanent

Huge amounts of carbon are stored in the permanently frozen regions of the world such as in Siberia and Northern Canada.

These are likely to change dramatically, with around 70% of the near surface permafrost set to thaw if emissions continue to rise.

The big worry is that this could free up "tens to hundreds of billions of tonnes" of CO2 and methane to the atmosphere by 2100. This would be a significant limitation on our ability to limit global warming in the centuries to come.

So what happens in the long term?

That's a key question and much depends on what we do in the near term to limit emissions.

However, there are some warnings in the report that some changes may not be easily undone. Data from Antarctica suggests the onset of "irreversible ice sheet instability" which could see sea level rise by several metres within centuries.

"We give this sea level rise information to 2300, and the reason for that is that there is a lot of change locked in, to the ice sheets and the contribution that will have to sea level rise," said Dr Nerilie Abram, who's a contributing lead author on the report.

"So even in a scenario where we can reduce greenhouse gases, there are still future sea level rise that people will have to plan for."

There may also be significant and irreversible loses of cultural knowledge through the fact that the fish species that indigenous communities rely on may move to escape warming.

Does the report offer some guarded hope?

Yes. Definitely. The report makes a strong play of the fact that the future of our oceans is still in our hands.

The formula is well worn at this stage - deep, rapid cuts in carbon emissions in line with the IPCC report last year that required 45% reductions by 2030.

"If we reduce emissions sharply, consequences for people and their livelihoods will still be challenging, but potentially more manageable for those who are most vulnerable," said Hoesung Lee, chair of the IPCC.

Indeed, some of the scientists involved in the report believe that public pressure on politicians is a crucial part of increasing ambition.

"After the demonstrations of young people last week, I think they are the best chance for us,," said Dr Jean-Pierre Gattuso.

"They are dynamic, they are active I am hopeful they will continue their actions and they will make society change."

Follow Matt on Twitter.

Let's block ads! (Why?)


https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-49817804

2019-09-25 09:00:09Z
52780392423353

Ingraham: Dems 'incapable of putting the greater good' ahead of Trump hatred - Fox News

Laura Ingraham blasted Democrats Tuesday after they launched a formalization of an impeachment inquiry, saying they are incapable of moving past their hatred of Trump.

"The most sickening thing is that House Democrats, they know impeachment, the whole inquiry, is futile," Ingraham said Tuesday on "The Ingraham Angle."  "The Senate Republican majority is not going to vote to convict the president."

TRUMP VOWS TO RELEASE TRANSCRIPT OF CALL WITH UKRAINE'S PRESIDENT

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi specifically charged Tuesday that the Trump administration had violated the law by not turning over a whistleblower complaint concerning Trump's July call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, in which the president is accused of pressing the foreign leader to ratchet up an inquiry into presidential contender Joe Biden and his son Hunter.

Ingraham accused Democrats of working in opposition to what the American people want.

"And the country overwhelmingly doesn't want impeachment. What I think most people do want is a continuation of what the president has already delivered America," Ingraham said. "Peace and prosperity."

The host argued Pelosi caving in to "the overzealous radicals" in her caucus could help President Trump "seal" his second term.

Ingraham accused Democrats of putting their own interests ahead of the American people.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

"The Democrats proved once again that they are incapable of putting the greater good of the country ahead of their own hatred of Trump and their thirst to regain power," Ingraham said. "Pushing the nuclear button of impeachment. It's an admission that they are not confident. Not in their ideas or in their candidates."

Fox News' Gregg Re contributed to this report.

Let's block ads! (Why?)


https://www.foxnews.com/media/ingraham-dems-incapable-of-putting-the-greater-good-ahead-of-trump-hatred

2019-09-25 05:05:26Z
52780390048216

US's Trump outlines action on Iran, China at United Nations talks - Al Jazeera English

Let's block ads! (Why?)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdkbDc0fatY

2019-09-25 05:37:26Z
52780392110766

Selasa, 24 September 2019

Supreme Court: Suspending Parliament was unlawful, judges rule - BBC News

Media playback is unsupported on your device

Boris Johnson's decision to suspend Parliament was unlawful, the Supreme Court has ruled.

Mr Johnson suspended - or prorogued - Parliament for five weeks earlier this month, but the court said it was wrong to stop MPs carrying out duties in the run-up to Brexit on 31 October.

The PM said he would "respect the verdict", but he "strongly disagrees".

Supreme Court president Lady Hale said "the effect on the fundamentals of democracy was extreme."

A raft of MPs have now called for the prime minister to resign - Downing Street said it was "currently processing the verdict".

Mr Johnson argued he wanted to carry out the prorogation ahead of a Queen's Speech so he could outline his government's new policies.

But critics said he was trying to stop MPs from scrutinising his Brexit plans and the suspension was far longer than necessary for a Queen's Speech.

Delivering its conclusions, the Supreme Court's president, Lady Hale, said: "The decision to advise Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament was unlawful because it had the effect of frustrating or preventing the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions without reasonable justification."

Lady Hale said the unanimous decision of the 11 justices meant Parliament had effectively not been prorogued - the decision was null and of no effect.

Speaker of the Commons John Bercow said MPs needed to return "in light of the explicit judgement", and he had "instructed the House of Commons authorities to prepare... for the resumption of business" from 11:30 BST on Wednesday.

Media playback is unsupported on your device

He said prime minister's questions - which normally takes place on a Wednesday - would not go ahead, though, because Mr Johnson was in New York for a UN summit.

However, Mr Bercow said there would be "full scope" for urgent questions, ministerial statements and applications for emergency debates.

Where does this leave Boris Johnson?

Short of the inscrutable Lady Hale, with the giant diamond spider on her lapel, declaring Boris Johnson to be Pinocchio, this judgement is just about as bad for the government as it gets.

Mr Johnson is, as is abundantly clear, prepared to run a general election campaign that pits Parliament against the people. And so what, according to that view of the world, if that includes the judges as part of the establishment standing in his way?

But there is a difference between being ruthless and reckless.

And the scope and strength of this judgement cannot just be dismissed as some pesky judges sticking their noses in.

Read more from Laura's blog here.

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn said the ruling showed Mr Johnson's "contempt for democracy", adding: "I invite Boris Johnson, in the historic words, to consider his position."

Mr Corbyn was due to close the Labour Party conference in Brighton with a speech on Wednesday, but has brought it forward to Tuesday afternoon so he can return to Parliament.

Media playback is unsupported on your device

Lawyers for the government had argued the decision to prorogue was one for Parliament, not the courts.

But the justices disagreed, unanimously deciding it was "justiciable", and there was "no doubt that the courts have jurisdiction to decide upon the existence and limits of a prerogative power".

The court also criticised the length of the suspension, with Lady Hale saying it was "impossible for us to conclude, on the evidence which has been put before us, that there was any reason - let alone a good reason - to advise Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament for five weeks".

The damage is done

Wow! This is legal, constitutional and political dynamite.

It is worth just taking a breath and considering that a prime minister of the United Kingdom has been found by the highest court in the land to have acted unlawfully in shutting down the sovereign body in our constitution, Parliament, at a time of national crisis.

The court may have fallen short of saying Boris Johnson had an improper motive of stymieing or frustrating parliamentary scrutiny, but the damage is done, he has been found to have acted unlawfully and stopped Parliament from doing its job without any legal justification.

And the court has quashed both his advice to the Queen and the Order in Council which officially suspended parliament.

That means Parliament was never prorogued and so we assume that MPs are free to re-enter the Commons.

This is the most dramatic example yet of independent judges, through the mechanism of judicial review, stopping the government in its tracks because what it has done is unlawful.

Be you ever so mighty, the law is above you - even if you are the prime minister.

Unprecedented, extraordinary, ground breaking - it is difficult to overestimate the constitutional and political significance of today's ruling.

What was the court considering?

The ruling was made after a three-day hearing at the Supreme Court last week which dealt with two appeals - one from campaigner and businesswoman Gina Miller, the second from the government.

Mrs Miller was appealing against the English High Court's decision that the prorogation was "purely political" and not a matter for the courts.

The government was appealing against the ruling by Scotland's Court of Session that the prorogation was "unlawful" and had been used to "stymie" Parliament.

The court ruled in favour of Mrs Miller's appeal and against the government's.

How did those involved in the case react?

Speaking outside the court, Mrs Miller said the ruling "speaks volumes".

"This prime minister must open the doors of Parliament tomorrow. MPs must get back and be brave and bold in holding this unscrupulous government to account," she added.

The SNP's Joanna Cherry, who led the Scottish case, called for Mr Johnson to resign as a result of the ruling.

"The highest court in the United Kingdom has unanimously found that his advice to prorogue this Parliament, his advice given to Her Majesty the Queen, was unlawful," she said.

"His position is untenable and he should have the guts, for once, to do the decent thing and resign."

Former Prime Minister Sir John Major - one of the sponsors of the prorogation appeal - said it gave him "no pleasure to be pitted against a government and prime minister of my own party".

"No prime minister must ever treat the monarch or Parliament in this way again."

What about other MPs?

A number of MPs have taken to Twitter to support the court's decision, including former Tory minister Amber Rudd, who resigned her post - and the party whip - over the government's approach to Brexit.

The leader of the Brexit Party, Nigel Farage, said the suspension was the "worst political decision ever" and called for Mr Johnson's chief advisor to resign.

Former Attorney General Dominic Grieve, who has been an outspoken critic of the suspension, said he was "not surprised" by the judgement because of the "gross misbehaviour by the prime minister".

He told the BBC's Victoria Derbyshire programme he was "delighted" the Supreme Court had "stopped this unconstitutional act in its tracks".

Media playback is unsupported on your device

But Tory MP Andrew Bridgen said the court's decision was "the worst possible outcome for our democracy" and "an absolute disgrace".

He told the same programme: "What we've got is a Parliament that's completely out of step with sentiment of the country. They're holding out democracy to ransom.

"What we're going to see is the Speaker effectively taking control of Parliament and playing to the Remainers' tune until the 31st of October."

What happened before Parliament was suspended?

Prorogation is a power that rests with the Queen, carried out by her on the advice of the prime minister.

And at the end of August - shortly before MPs returned from their summer recess - Mr Johnson called Her Majesty to advise she suspend Parliament between 9 September until 14 October.

MPs had been expecting to be in recess for some of these weeks for their party conferences.

But unlike prorogation, a recess must be agreed by a vote, and a number of MPs said they would have voted against it to ensure they could scrutinise Mr Johnson's Brexit plans.

The decision to prorogue prompted an uproar from the Commons, especially from MPs who had planned to take control of Parliament to force through a law to block a no-deal Brexit after Mr Johnson said the UK would leave the EU with or without a deal on the Halloween deadline.

Despite only sitting for a week, they did manage to pass that law ahead of prorogation and it received royal assent on 9 September.


What questions do you have about the Supreme Court's decision?

Use this form to ask your question:

If you are reading this page on the BBC News app, you will need to visit the mobile version of the BBC website to submit your question on this topic.

Let's block ads! (Why?)


https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-49810261

2019-09-24 12:16:35Z
52780390506010

President Trump gives speech at the United Nations: Live updates - CNN

SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images
SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images

President Trump will deliver his address to the United Nations General Assembly this morning, when he's expected to focus on national sovereignty and individual nations' responsibility for self-defense.

What happened last year: At the start of his 2018 address, Trump generated laughter among the delegates when he bragged about what his administration has accomplished. Later, he put on a brave face, saying the General Assembly was "laughing with me."

But the moment resonated because of what it illustrated about Trump's global standing.

Still, with two UNGAs under his belt, Trump is entering this year's gathering more confident in a posture that largely ignores the agenda set out by other leaders and the United Nations itself.

This year, Trump's counterparts have singled out climate change as a chief area of focus.

Let's block ads! (Why?)


https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/trump-un-speech-09-24-2019/index.html

2019-09-24 12:05:00Z
52780392110766

Supreme Court: Suspending Parliament was unlawful, judges rule - BBC News

Media playback is unsupported on your device

Boris Johnson's decision to suspend Parliament was unlawful, the Supreme Court has ruled.

Mr Johnson suspended - or prorogued - Parliament for five weeks earlier this month, but the court said it was wrong to stop MPs carrying out duties in the run-up to Brexit on 31 October.

Commons Speaker John Bercow confirmed MPs would now return on Wednesday.

Supreme Court president Lady Hale said "the effect on the fundamentals of democracy was extreme."

A raft of MPs have now called for the prime minister to resign - Downing Street said it was "currently processing the verdict".

Mr Johnson argued he wanted to carry out the prorogation ahead of a Queen's Speech so he could outline his government's new policies.

But critics said he was trying to stop MPs from scrutinising his Brexit plans and the suspension was far longer than necessary for a Queen's Speech.

Delivering its conclusions, the Supreme Court's president, Lady Hale, said: "The decision to advise Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament was unlawful because it had the effect of frustrating or preventing the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions without reasonable justification."

Lady Hale said the unanimous decision of the 11 justices meant Parliament had effectively not been prorogued - the decision was null and of no effect.

Mr Bercow said MPs needed to return "in light of the explicit judgement", and he had "instructed the House of Commons authorities to prepare... for the resumption of business" from 11:30 BST on Wednesday.

Media playback is unsupported on your device

He said prime minister's questions - which normally takes place on a Wednesday - would not go ahead, though, because Mr Johnson was in New York for a UN summit.

However, Mr Bercow said there would be "full scope" for urgent questions, ministerial statements and applications for emergency debates.

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn said the ruling showed Mr Johnson's "contempt for democracy", adding: "I invite Boris Johnson, in the historic words, to consider his position."

Mr Corbyn was due to close the Labour Party conference in Brighton with a speech on Wednesday, but has brought it forward to Tuesday afternoon so he can return to Parliament.

Media playback is unsupported on your device

Lawyers for the government had argued the decision to prorogue was one for Parliament, not the courts.

But the justices disagreed, unanimously deciding it was "justiciable", and there was "no doubt that the courts have jurisdiction to decide upon the existence and limits of a prerogative power".

The court also criticised the length of the suspension, with Lady Hale saying it was "impossible for us to conclude, on the evidence which has been put before us, that there was any reason - let alone a good reason - to advise Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament for five weeks".

The damage is done

Wow! This is legal, constitutional and political dynamite.

It is worth just taking a breath and considering that a prime minister of the United Kingdom has been found by the highest court in the land to have acted unlawfully in shutting down the sovereign body in our constitution, Parliament, at a time of national crisis.

The court may have fallen short of saying Boris Johnson had an improper motive of stymieing or frustrating parliamentary scrutiny, but the damage is done, he has been found to have acted unlawfully and stopped Parliament from doing its job without any legal justification.

And the court has quashed both his advice to the Queen and the Order in Council which officially suspended parliament.

That means Parliament was never prorogued and so we assume that MPs are free to re-enter the Commons.

This is the most dramatic example yet of independent judges, through the mechanism of judicial review, stopping the government in its tracks because what it has done is unlawful.

Be you ever so mighty, the law is above you - even if you are the prime minister.

Unprecedented, extraordinary, ground breaking - it is difficult to overestimate the constitutional and political significance of today's ruling.

What was the court considering?

The ruling was made after a three-day hearing at the Supreme Court last week which dealt with two appeals - one from campaigner and businesswoman Gina Miller, the second from the government.

Mrs Miller was appealing against the English High Court's decision that the prorogation was "purely political" and not a matter for the courts.

The government was appealing against the ruling by Scotland's Court of Session that the prorogation was "unlawful" and had been used to "stymie" Parliament.

The court ruled in favour of Mrs Miller's appeal and against the government's.

How did those involved in the case react?

Speaking outside the court, Mrs Miller said the ruling "speaks volumes".

"This prime minister must open the doors of Parliament tomorrow. MPs must get back and be brave and bold in holding this unscrupulous government to account," she added.

The SNP's Joanna Cherry, who led the Scottish case, called for Mr Johnson to resign as a result of the ruling.

"The highest court in the United Kingdom has unanimously found that his advice to prorogue this Parliament, his advice given to Her Majesty the Queen, was unlawful," she said.

"His position is untenable and he should have the guts, for once, to do the decent thing and resign."

Former Prime Minister Sir John Major - one of the sponsors of the prorogation appeal - said it gave him "no pleasure to be pitted against a government and prime minister of my own party".

"No prime minister must ever treat the monarch or Parliament in this way again."

What about other MPs?

A number of MPs have taken to Twitter to support the court's decision, including former Tory minister Amber Rudd, who resigned her post - and the party whip - over the government's approach to Brexit.

The leader of the Brexit Party, Nigel Farage, said the suspension was the "worst political decision ever" and called for Mr Johnson's chief advisor to resign.

Former Attorney General Dominic Grieve, who has been an outspoken critic of the suspension, said he was "not surprised" by the judgement because of the "gross misbehaviour by the prime minister".

He told the BBC's Victoria Derbyshire programme he was "delighted" the Supreme Court had "stopped this unconstitutional act in its tracks".

Media playback is unsupported on your device

But Tory MP Andrew Bridgen said the court's decision was "the worst possible outcome for our democracy" and "an absolute disgrace".

He told the same programme: "What we've got is a Parliament that's completely out of step with sentiment of the country. They're holding out democracy to ransom.

"What we're going to see is the Speaker effectively taking control of Parliament and playing to the Remainers' tune until the 31st of October."

What happened before Parliament was suspended?

Prorogation is a power that rests with the Queen, carried out by her on the advice of the prime minister.

And at the end of August - shortly before MPs returned from their summer recess - Mr Johnson called Her Majesty to advise she suspend Parliament between 9 September until 14 October.

MPs had been expecting to be in recess for some of these weeks for their party conferences.

But unlike prorogation, a recess must be agreed by a vote, and a number of MPs said they would have voted against it to ensure they could scrutinise Mr Johnson's Brexit plans.

The decision to prorogue prompted an uproar from the Commons, especially from MPs who had planned to take control of Parliament to force through a law to block a no-deal Brexit after Mr Johnson said the UK would leave the EU with or without a deal on the Halloween deadline.

Despite only sitting for a week, they did manage to pass that law ahead of prorogation and it received royal assent on 9 September.


What questions do you have about the Supreme Court's decision?

Use this form to ask your question:

If you are reading this page on the BBC News app, you will need to visit the mobile version of the BBC website to submit your question on this topic.

Let's block ads! (Why?)


https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-49810261

2019-09-24 12:00:03Z
52780390506010

Puerto Rico earthquake: Earthquake hits off Puerto Rico as storm Karen nears - CBS News

San Juan, Puerto Rico — A 6.0-magnitude earthquake struck near Puerto Rico late Monday, scaring and rousing many from their sleep in the U.S. territory. The U.S. Geological Survey said the quake hit 49 miles off the island's northwest coast at a shallow depth of 6 miles.

Three aftershocks, with magnitudes of 4.7, 4.6 and another of 4.6, hit within less than an hour in the same region at the same depth.

Kiara Hernández, spokeswoman for the island's Emergency Management Agency, told The Associated Press that there were no immediate reports of damage and that there was no risk of tsunami.

Trending News

She said emergency management officials were already on alert for the approaching Tropical Depression Karen and communicated quickly with mayors and others across the island to check on any damage. Early Tuesday, Karen strengthened into a tropical storm again, the National Hurricane Center said.

Karen strengthened back into a tropical storm early Tuesday, the National Hurricane Center said.

The National Guard also had been activated for the storm, and schools and government offices remained closed as heavy rains were forecast for Puerto Rico on Tuesday, with warnings of possible flooding and landslides.

Hernández said crews would be inspecting buildings to ensure their safety.

"We will know this information little by little," she said.

CBS News correspondent David Begnaud retweeted video of a water main break that apparently followed the temblor:

Yahaida Zabala, a 46-year-old San Juan resident, was asleep when she felt her building sway Monday around 11:23 p.m.

"I rushed into my son's room," she said. "He was sitting like he was paralyzed."

They ran down the stairs of their building and stood outside with a small group of people awaiting aftershocks.

The quake was felt across Puerto Rico and was the strongest to hit the island in recent years. While Puerto Rico experiences very small earthquakes on a daily basis that no one feels, seismologists have said it's rare for bigger ones to strike the island.

The last powerful quake to strike Puerto Rico was in January 2014, when a magnitude-6.4 tremor hit after midnight just north of the island's north coast at a depth of 17 miles. Authorities reported broken windows, a busted water line and cracked floors and walls, along with some power outages. Some 70 aftershocks were reported, with at least three of a magnitude 3.5 or greater.

The most damaging earthquake to hit Puerto Rico in recent history occurred in October 1918, a magnitude-7.3 quake that struck near the island's northwest coast, causing a tsunami and killing 116 people. 

Let's block ads! (Why?)


https://www.cbsnews.com/news/strong-earthquake-hits-off-puerto-rico-as-storm-karen-nears/

2019-09-24 11:12:00Z
52780392222881