When Fear Goes Viral: Natural Disasters, Social Media and the Importance of Critical Thinking

By Mary Lourdes Bonnici MBA

Introduction: Why I Decided to Write This Article

I want to teach, inform and encourage people to think carefully before allowing fear to take control. After carrying out a great deal of research, I decided to write this blog about a topic that is becoming increasingly visible on social media.

Every day, people around the world encounter dramatic videos of earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, floods, storms, tsunamis, unusual skies, auroras, landslides and other natural events. Within minutes, footage from different countries can be placed together in one video accompanied by alarming music and headlines such as:

“Something is happening to the Earth.”

“Everything is happening at the same time.”

“Scientists cannot explain this.”

“The signs are everywhere.”

Some of the events shown in these posts are completely genuine. Natural disasters are real. People lose their lives, families lose their homes and communities can be changed permanently.

The problem begins when real events are presented without geographical, scientific or chronological context, creating the impression that unrelated events form part of one mysterious global sequence.

Understanding this distinction does not mean dismissing danger.

It means learning to separate hazard from hype, evidence from speculation, and scientific uncertainty from sensationalism.

A tragic event does not become more real because a headline makes it frightening.

And remaining calm does not mean ignoring genuine risk.

Fear Changes the Way We Process Information

Fear is one of the most important survival mechanisms of the human brain.

When our ancestors heard an unexplained sound in the darkness, immediately considering danger could mean survival. Human beings therefore developed neurological systems that respond rapidly to potential threats.

That response is extremely valuable when danger is immediate.

But the same system can influence the way we process information online.

When frightening information appears, people may pay greater attention to danger-related details, remember dramatic events more easily and make decisions before fully evaluating the evidence.

The emotional reaction can come before the analytical one.

This helps explain why a headline such as:

“Another massive earthquake strikes!”

may receive far more attention than:

“Seismic activity remains within expected long-term global patterns.”

The first activates emotion immediately.

The second requires thought.

Social-media systems operate in an environment where attention matters. Highly emotional material — including fear, anger, shock and outrage — can therefore spread extremely rapidly.

The World Health Organization has warned that digital environments can amplify both accurate and misleading information and that misinformation during crises can contribute to confusion, fear and poor decision-making.

This makes critical thinking an essential modern skill.

Confirmation Bias: When We Start Looking for Evidence of What We Already Believe

One important psychological process is confirmation bias.

Confirmation bias occurs when people give greater attention to information that supports an existing belief while overlooking information that challenges it.

Imagine somebody becomes convinced that natural disasters are suddenly increasing everywhere.

They then see:

an earthquake in Japan,

a volcanic eruption in Indonesia,

a flood in Europe,

an aurora over North America,

a landslide in the Himalayas,

and another earthquake in the Pacific.

Each new event may appear to confirm the original belief.

But a crucial question has not yet been asked:

Are these events actually occurring more frequently than historical averages, or are we simply seeing more of them?

That distinction matters enormously.

Today, satellites, smartphones, seismic instruments, social networks, livestreaming and 24-hour international news mean that an event occurring thousands of kilometres away can appear on our phone within minutes.

Greater awareness of events is not automatically evidence of a greater number of events.

Availability Bias: Why Recent Disasters Can Feel More Common

Another important psychological phenomenon is the availability heuristic, described in influential research by psychologists Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman.

People often judge how common something is partly according to how easily examples come to mind.

If we watch ten earthquake videos during one evening, earthquakes may suddenly feel extraordinarily frequent.

If social media repeatedly shows plane accidents, people may begin to overestimate the likelihood of aviation disasters.

If our feeds show flood after flood after flood, we may begin to feel that the entire planet is flooding simultaneously.

The events may all be real.

The psychological impression created by seeing them together may nevertheless be misleading.

Our personal social-media feed is not a scientific global monitoring system.

Algorithms determine much of what we see.

Once we watch, search for or interact with a particular subject, platforms may show us more content about that subject.

The result can feel like:

“This is happening everywhere.”

Sometimes what has actually changed is not the world.

It is the content appearing on our screen.

Pattern Recognition: One of the Brain's Greatest Strengths — and Weaknesses

Human beings are exceptionally good at recognising patterns.

Pattern recognition allows us to learn languages, recognise faces, understand relationships, solve problems and anticipate danger.

But humans can also perceive connections between events that are coincidental or unrelated.

Consider a social-media compilation containing:

a volcanic eruption in Indonesia,

an earthquake in Alaska,

a meteor over Spain,

an aurora in Canada,

a flood in Nepal,

and an unusual cloud formation in Italy.

Placed together with dramatic music, dates and captions, they may feel connected.

Scientifically, however, each event requires its own explanation.

A tectonic earthquake has a geological mechanism.

An aurora is associated with charged particles and Earth's magnetosphere.

A meteor involves material entering Earth's atmosphere.

An atmospheric halo results from light interacting with ice crystals.

A flood may involve rainfall, river systems, glacier processes, topography or several interacting factors.

Their appearance during the same week does not demonstrate that one caused another.

Correlation Is Not Causation

This is one of the most important principles in science.

Correlation means that two things occur together.

Causation means that one produces or influences the other through a demonstrable mechanism.

Suppose an aurora appears shortly before an earthquake.

That observation alone does not demonstrate that the aurora caused the earthquake.

To establish causation, researchers must investigate mechanisms, repeated observations, alternative explanations, statistical evidence and whether the relationship continues under rigorous testing.

Coincidence is not proof.

Timing is not proof.

A viral video is not proof.

And thousands of shares do not transform a hypothesis into scientific evidence.

Do Solar Storms Cause Earthquakes?

This question appears frequently on social media, particularly following spectacular auroras or periods of strong solar activity.

Solar storms are genuine physical phenomena.

Solar activity can disturb Earth's magnetosphere and affect satellites, GPS, radio communications and electrical infrastructure. Auroras become more widespread during significant geomagnetic activity.

But this does not mean solar storms have been demonstrated to cause earthquakes.

The US Geological Survey states that a causal relationship between solar flares or magnetic storms and earthquakes has never been demonstrated. Earthquake activity does not follow the Sun's approximately 11-year activity cycle in the manner that would be expected if solar activity were driving global seismicity.

Solar storms should therefore be understood for what they are — fascinating and sometimes technologically disruptive space-weather events — rather than automatically being interpreted as warnings of earthquakes.

Earthquakes: Are They Actually Increasing?

Earthquakes happen continuously.

Most are too small to be felt.

According to the USGS, its National Earthquake Information Center locates approximately 20,000 earthquakes globally each year — roughly 55 every day.

The USGS explains that temporary increases and decreases in seismic activity are normal and that the increasing number of earthquakes appearing in modern catalogues largely reflects more seismic instruments and better detection, rather than evidence that naturally occurring earthquakes are increasing globally.

Improved communications also mean we hear about earthquakes almost immediately.

A century ago, a moderate earthquake in a sparsely populated region might never have reached international audiences.

Today someone can film the shaking, upload it to TikTok, Facebook, Instagram, X or YouTube and reach millions of people before scientists have completed their preliminary analysis.

That difference can dramatically alter public perception.

The Ring of Fire

Many earthquake and volcanic reports originate around the Pacific Ocean.

This is not mysterious.

It reflects plate tectonics.

The Pacific Ring of Fire, or Circum-Pacific region, contains numerous plate boundaries, subduction zones, volcanoes and earthquake-producing faults.

The USGS describes it as the most seismically and volcanically active zone in the world.

The Smithsonian Global Volcanism Program also cautions that the expression “Ring of Fire” is a popular description rather than a literal single geological ring. The volcanoes around the Pacific do not share one enormous interconnected magma system. They occupy many separate tectonic environments.

Therefore, when several earthquakes or eruptions occur around the Pacific within a relatively short period, their proximity on a world map should not automatically be interpreted as evidence of a single escalating global event.

Are Volcanic Eruptions Increasing?

Volcanic eruptions can be spectacular and frightening.

Images of lava fountains, ash clouds and pyroclastic flows understandably attract enormous attention.

But increased media exposure should again not be confused with increased geological activity.

The Smithsonian Institution's Global Volcanism Program specifically states that it sees no evidence that volcanic activity is actually increasing globally.

Historical comparisons are complicated because modern satellites, communications and scientific monitoring allow researchers to detect eruptions — particularly small and remote ones — that might never have been documented centuries ago.

The Smithsonian reports that around 40–50 eruptions may be continuing at any given time, demonstrating that simultaneous volcanic activity in multiple countries is not inherently unusual.

Again, visibility is not necessarily frequency.

Tsunamis: Real Hazards With Understandable Causes

Tsunamis are another natural phenomenon surrounded by considerable fear.

Many destructive tsunamis are generated when large undersea earthquakes suddenly displace the seafloor and therefore a large volume of seawater.

However, earthquakes are not the only mechanism.

Volcanic activity, underwater landslides and large collapses into water can also generate tsunamis under particular circumstances. NOAA's historical tsunami records document significant tsunamis associated with volcanic collapses and landslides.

This is why official tsunami warnings should always be taken seriously.

Critical thinking does not mean ignoring hazard warnings.

It means following recognised monitoring agencies rather than rumours.

When authorities issue evacuation instructions after a major coastal earthquake, the correct response is not scepticism.

It is action.

Evidence-based calm and emergency preparedness belong together.

Climate Change and Extreme Weather: Another Area Requiring Precision

Climate change is real and scientifically well established.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concludes that human influence has unequivocally warmed the atmosphere, ocean and land and that human-caused climate change is already affecting weather and climate extremes across every region of the world.

Heat extremes have become more frequent and intense across most land regions.

Heavy precipitation has increased in frequency and intensity across many regions.

Some types of drought, wildfire weather and compound extremes are also changing.

The World Meteorological Organization reported in March 2026 that 2015–2025 were the eleven hottest years on record, while extreme heat, heavy rainfall and tropical cyclones continued to cause major human and economic impacts.

However, scientific precision remains essential.

Climate change does not mean:

“Every storm is caused entirely by climate change.”

Nor does every flood, landslide or unusual weather event automatically prove a new climatic phenomenon.

Scientists distinguish between background climate trends, individual weather events, vulnerability, exposure and the degree to which climate change altered the probability or intensity of a particular event.

That distinction is important.

Climate change is serious enough that it does not require exaggeration.

Strange Things in the Sky Are Not Automatically Warnings

Social media frequently presents unusual celestial or atmospheric events as mysterious warnings.

Many have well-understood explanations.

Auroras

Auroras occur when energetic charged particles interact with Earth's magnetic environment and atmospheric gases.

Strong geomagnetic storms can allow auroras to become visible much farther from polar regions than usual. NASA describes them as natural manifestations of the interaction between energetic particles, Earth's magnetosphere and the upper atmosphere.

Meteors

A meteor is the visible streak created when material such as asteroid fragments or cometary dust enters Earth's atmosphere and heats rapidly.

NASA notes that meteors occur continually; most simply receive little public attention.

Halos

Halos around the Sun or Moon are generally optical atmospheric phenomena produced when light interacts with ice crystals suspended in high clouds.

Sprites and Other Atmospheric Lights

Some dramatic flashes above thunderstorms are known as transient luminous events, including sprites.

They can look extraordinary on camera but are recognised atmospheric phenomena. NASA describes sprites as large electrical discharges occurring high above thunderstorms.

Something being rare, beautiful or unfamiliar does not make it supernatural or dangerous.

Sometimes the scientifically explained world is extraordinary enough.

Real-Life Case Study: The 26 August 2026 Nepal–Tibet Border Disaster

The catastrophic disaster of 26 August 2026 near the Nepal–China/Tibet border provides an important real-world example of why early reports must be interpreted carefully.

This was a genuine tragedy.

People died.

Communities were devastated.

Hundreds of people remained unaccounted for as rescue teams searched difficult Himalayan terrain.

Nothing about critical thinking should diminish the suffering involved.

But the evolution of the story also demonstrates how rapidly an incomplete explanation can spread.

What Actually Happened?

Current evidence indicates that a massive collapse involving glacial ice and rock high in the Himalayas produced an enormous debris flow, which entered the river system and generated catastrophic flash flooding downstream.

Satellite analysis indicated that a substantial part of a glacier detached at roughly 5,200 metres elevation, falling approximately 1,200 metres and gathering rock and sediment during its descent.

The resulting ice-rock and debris mass entered the Lhende/Lhende Khola river system, approximately 20 kilometres north-east of the Rasuwagadhi Nepal–China border crossing.

Water, mud, rock, ice and debris then surged through the steep Himalayan valleys.

The flood affected settlements, roads, bridges, power infrastructure and border facilities on both sides of the international frontier, including areas associated with Gyirong County in China's Tibet Autonomous Region and downstream communities in Nepal.

The geography is therefore important.

This was a transboundary Himalayan disaster affecting Tibet/China and Nepal.

Calling it merely a “huge avalanche in China” removes much of that context.

Latest Casualty Information — 27 August 2026

Because this disaster occurred only one day before this article was updated, casualty figures remain provisional.

As reported by Reuters on 27 August 2026, at least 165 people had been confirmed dead and nearly 1,500 people were reported missing across Nepal and China's Tibet region, including hundreds of foreign nationals.

Chinese reporting cited by Reuters separately reported 558 people missing in Tibet, including 260 foreign nationals, while rescue and verification operations continued.

Earlier Associated Press reporting had placed the confirmed toll at at least 160, including 157 deaths reported in Nepal and three in Tibet, demonstrating how quickly figures were changing during the first stages of the emergency.

For this reason, responsible reporting should always attach a date and time context to casualty figures during an unfolding disaster.

A number reported at 9:00 a.m. may no longer be accurate by the afternoon.

The figures above reflect reporting available on the morning of 27 August 2026 and should not be considered a final casualty count.

Was It an Earthquake?

This is perhaps the most educational part of the case.

Early reports indicated that a seismic event with an initial magnitude estimate of approximately 4.4 might have occurred and triggered the collapse.

That interpretation spread rapidly.

It was understandable because major landslides and avalanches can sometimes be associated with earthquakes.

But further scientific analysis changed the picture.

The United States Geological Survey later determined that what had initially been interpreted as an earthquake was actually seismic energy generated by the enormous glacial collapse and debris movement itself.

In other words:

The seismic instruments detected shaking — but the shaking was generated by the collapse rather than by a tectonic earthquake.

The USGS therefore concluded that no earthquake had occurred as initially believed. Later analysis characterised the collapse signal as equivalent to a considerably larger seismic event.

This is an extremely important distinction.

Seismometers detect vibrations travelling through Earth.

Those vibrations can be produced by tectonic earthquakes, but they can also be generated by large landslides, explosions, glacier collapses and other energetic processes.

The presence of a seismic signal therefore does not automatically prove that a tectonic earthquake occurred.

Why “Huge Avalanche in China” Is an Incomplete Description

A social-media headline may describe the disaster simply as:

“Huge avalanche in China.”

There is an element of truth within that statement: an enormous mass of ice, rock and debris did move catastrophically within the broader China–Tibet border region.

But the description is incomplete.

The event involved a glacial ice-rock collapse, a massive debris flow, interaction with a Himalayan river system, catastrophic flash flooding and destruction extending across an international border into Nepal.

Furthermore, many of the deaths and much of the destruction occurred downstream rather than at the original collapse site.

“An avalanche happened in China” therefore fails to communicate the complete hazard chain:

Glacial instability → ice-rock collapse → debris movement → river disruption → catastrophic flood → downstream destruction across the Nepal–Tibet border region.

Scientific understanding often requires describing the sequence of processes, not merely the most dramatic visual element.

What This Disaster Teaches Us About Social Media

Imagine seeing the following sequence online:

“Earthquake detected near Tibet.”

Then:

“Massive avalanche in China.”

Then:

“Catastrophic flood hits Nepal.”

Then another video shows an earthquake elsewhere in Asia.

Then somebody adds footage of a volcano erupting somewhere around the Pacific.

Within minutes the mind can construct a pattern:

Earthquake → avalanche → flood → volcano → something enormous is happening globally.

But the scientific investigation of the Nepal–Tibet event demonstrated something very different.

One of the supposed pieces of evidence — the “earthquake” — was actually part of the same collapse event.

The sequence was therefore not:

earthquake + avalanche + flood.

The evidence instead indicates something closer to:

massive ice-rock collapse → seismic signal + debris flow → flash flood.

One physical event had been interpreted online as several alarming events.

This is exactly why initial reports should not automatically be treated as final explanations.

Confirmation Bias in the Nepal–Tibet Case

Suppose someone already believes earthquakes are rapidly increasing.

They see:

“4.4 earthquake near Tibet.”

The headline appears to confirm their belief.

Later scientific analysis determines there was no tectonic earthquake.

But the correction may receive far fewer views than the original alarming post.

If the person never encounters the correction, their belief becomes stronger based on information that is no longer considered accurate.

This is confirmation bias operating within a rapidly changing information environment.

Availability Bias in the Nepal–Tibet Case

Because the images from this disaster are extraordinarily dramatic, people may remember them for a long time.

If they then see another flood, landslide or glacier collapse shortly afterwards, similar disasters may begin to feel extremely common.

That perception should be tested against long-term data rather than relying only on memorable examples.

Pattern Recognition in the Nepal–Tibet Case

Humans naturally try to connect events.

But geographical proximity, temporal proximity or visual similarity does not establish a causal relationship.

The correct question is not:

“Can I find a pattern?”

It is:

“What evidence demonstrates that this pattern has a physical mechanism?”

That is the difference between noticing something and scientifically explaining it.

A Real Tragedy Does Not Need Sensationalism

Perhaps the most important lesson from this case is that truth itself deserves respect.

At least 165 people were reported dead by the morning of 27 August.

Families were searching for relatives.

Rescue teams were working among mud, damaged roads, unstable terrain and disrupted infrastructure.

Communities had been devastated.

Those facts are already powerful.

They do not need:

“The world is ending.”

They do not need:

“Scientists are hiding something.”

They do not need unrelated volcanoes added to the video.

They do not need frightening music.

They do not need fabricated connections.

Responsible communication allows the tragedy to speak for itself.

Respecting Religious and Spiritual Interpretations

Natural disasters have been interpreted through religious and spiritual traditions throughout human history.

For many people, faith provides meaning, comfort, hope and strength during tragedy.

Scientific investigation and personal faith do not necessarily need to be treated as enemies.

Science asks questions such as:

What physical process produced this earthquake?

Why did the glacier collapse?

How did the flood develop?

What geological conditions increased the danger?

Can monitoring systems improve warnings?

Religious or spiritual reflection may ask different questions about meaning, suffering, morality, hope and human responsibility.

People are entitled to their beliefs.

Critical thinking does not require ridicule.

At the same time, when a claim is presented as a physical or scientific explanation, such as claiming that an aurora caused an earthquake, it should be evaluated using scientific evidence.

Respect for faith and respect for evidence can coexist.

How to Verify a Frightening Claim Before Sharing It

When you encounter an alarming disaster post, do not immediately accept or reject it.

Investigate it.

1. Identify the Original Source

Ask:

Who first reported this?

Is it USGS?

NOAA?

NASA?

WMO?

A national geological agency?

A recognised news organisation?

Or an anonymous social-media account?

A screenshot of another post is not a source.

2. Check the Date

Old disaster footage is frequently recirculated as though it happened today.

Search the location and event independently.

Never assume that a video uploaded today was filmed today.

3. Check the Location

“China,” “Japan,” “Indonesia,” “the Pacific” and “Asia” describe enormous geographical areas.

Precise geography changes understanding.

The Nepal–Tibet disaster demonstrates this clearly.

It cannot be adequately understood by simply saying:

“Something happened in China.”

4. Look for Independent Confirmation

One viral post is not verification.

Look for multiple credible organisations reporting the same facts.

Reuters and Associated Press are useful for fast international reporting.

For technical scientific questions, go one step further and consult organisations such as USGS, NOAA, NASA, WMO or national scientific agencies.

5. Separate Observation From Explanation

A video may prove that something happened.

It may not prove why it happened.

A video showing shaking demonstrates shaking.

It does not necessarily establish the source of the vibration.

A video showing a strange light demonstrates a strange light.

It does not establish that the light predicts an earthquake.

Observation and interpretation are different stages.

6. Watch for Words Designed to Trigger Fear

Be cautious with phrases such as:

“They don't want you to know.”

“Scientists are terrified.”

“This has never happened before.”

“Something huge is coming.”

“The signs are everywhere.”

“Share this before it gets deleted.”

These statements are designed to increase urgency.

Urgency can discourage verification.

A reliable source should be able to show evidence without emotionally pressuring you to believe it.

7. Look for Missing Context

Ask what the video is not telling you.

Was the earthquake magnitude significant?

How deep was it?

Was the volcano already known to be active?

Is the footage old?

Did the event occur thousands of kilometres away from another event shown beside it?

Has the scientific explanation changed since the video was posted?

The missing information can sometimes matter more than the headline.

8. Be Comfortable Saying “We Don't Know Yet”

During rapidly developing disasters, scientific explanations change.

That is not evidence that scientists are incompetent.

It is how evidence-based investigation works.

Preliminary information is revised as better measurements, satellite observations, field reports and analytical results become available.

The Nepal–Tibet disaster provides an excellent example.

The early earthquake interpretation was reconsidered when evidence indicated that the seismic signal had actually been generated by the collapse.

Changing an explanation when stronger evidence arrives is a strength of science, not a weakness.

Critical Thinking Does Not Mean Becoming Cynical

There is another danger we should avoid.

Once people learn that misinformation exists, they can become suspicious of everything.

That is not critical thinking either.

Critical thinking does not mean:

“Believe nothing.”

It means:

“Believe according to the quality of the evidence.”

An official tsunami warning deserves attention.

A USGS earthquake report deserves attention.

A WMO extreme-weather warning deserves attention.

An evacuation order deserves action.

A viral anonymous prediction that “a magnitude 10 earthquake will happen tomorrow because the aurora turned red” deserves considerably more scepticism.

Evidence determines the level of confidence.

Preparedness Is Better Than Fear

Natural hazards will always exist.

Earth's tectonic plates will continue moving.

Earthquakes will continue occurring.

Volcanoes will continue erupting.

Storms will continue forming.

Rivers will flood.

Glaciers will change.

Meteors will enter the atmosphere.

Solar activity will continue producing extraordinary auroras.

We cannot remove natural hazards from our planet.

But fear is not our only response.

We can improve:

scientific monitoring,

early-warning systems,

building standards,

emergency planning,

public education,

climate adaptation,

disaster preparedness,

and communication.

Knowledge does not eliminate danger.

It helps us respond intelligently to it.

Before You Believe a Frightening Post, Ask Yourself

What actually happened?

Where did it happen?

When did it happen?

Who is reporting it?

Is the source authoritative?

Is this footage current?

Are unrelated events being shown together?

Am I looking at correlation or demonstrated causation?

Has the scientific explanation changed since the first report?

Is the headline describing the evidence or trying to frighten me?

And perhaps most importantly:

What do the reliable sources say?

Conclusion: Fear Should Not Replace Knowledge

The modern world gives us access to more information than any generation in human history.

That is an extraordinary advantage.

It also brings a new responsibility.

A disaster occurring thousands of kilometres away can appear on our phone within seconds.

We may see the tragedy before scientists fully understand what caused it.

We may see the video before authorities know how many people have been affected.

We may see speculation presented beside confirmed facts.

And we may see unrelated events combined into one frightening narrative.

The Nepal–Tibet border disaster of 26 August 2026 demonstrates exactly why careful thinking matters.

A catastrophic glacial ice-rock collapse occurred.

It generated a destructive debris flow and flash flooding.

People were killed.

Hundreds remained missing.

The tragedy was real.

But one important element of the early story changed: seismic activity initially interpreted as an earthquake was later determined to have been produced by the collapse itself.

That correction matters.

It reminds us that early information is not always final information.

Science develops through evidence.

Responsible journalism develops through verification.

And responsible social-media use should work in exactly the same way.

We should never minimise genuine suffering.

We should never ignore legitimate warnings.

But neither should we allow fear to make every earthquake, eruption, aurora, flood, meteor or unusual cloud appear part of one frightening global pattern without evidence.

Natural disasters are serious enough without sensationalism.

Knowledge helps us prepare.

Evidence helps us understand.

Critical thinking helps us remain calm.

And calm does not mean careless.

It means informed.

A Short Educational Message

Before fear becomes belief, verify the facts. Before a frightening post becomes a share, check the source. Real hazards deserve preparedness — not panic.

References

Associated Press (2026) Floods caused by a glacial collapse kill at least 160 people on Nepal-China border, hundreds missing. 27 August 2026.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2021) Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report. Geneva: IPCC.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2023) Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report. Geneva: IPCC.

Kahneman, D. (2011) Thinking, Fast and Slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

NASA (2024) Auroras. NASA Science.

NASA (2025) The Atmosphere After Dark. NASA Science.

Nickerson, R.S. (1998) ‘Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises’, Review of General Psychology, 2(2), pp. 175–220.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) (2026) Global Historical Tsunami Data. National Centers for Environmental Information.

Reuters (2026a) Glacier collapse may have triggered deadly Nepal flash flood, experts say. 26 August 2026.

Reuters (2026b) What triggered the catastrophic flood on the Nepal-Tibet border? 26–27 August 2026.

Reuters (2026c) Rescuers search for survivors after devastating Nepal flood. 27 August 2026.

Reuters (2026d) Number missing in Tibet after Nepal mudslide tops 550; China flags upstream risk. 27 August 2026.

Smithsonian Institution Global Volcanism Program (2026a) Has volcanic activity been increasing? Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution.

Smithsonian Institution Global Volcanism Program (2026b) Volcanoes of the World, Version 5.4.0. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution.

Smithsonian Institution Global Volcanism Program (2026c) What volcanoes and volcanic regions form the Pacific Ring of Fire? Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution.

Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1974) ‘Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases’, Science, 185(4157), pp. 1124–1131.

United States Geological Survey (USGS) (2025) Do solar flares or magnetic storms cause earthquakes? Reston, VA: USGS.

United States Geological Survey (USGS) (2026a) Why are we having so many (or so few) earthquakes? Has naturally occurring earthquake activity been increasing? Reston, VA: USGS.

United States Geological Survey (USGS) (2026b) What is the Ring of Fire? Reston, VA: USGS.

World Health Organization (WHO) (2026) Infodemic. Geneva: WHO.

World Meteorological Organization (WMO) (2026) State of the Global Climate 2025. Geneva: WMO.

Copyright

© 2026 Mary Lourdes Bonnici MBA. All Rights Reserved.This article is the intellectual property of Mary Lourdes Bonnici MBA. No part of this publication may be reproduced, copied, distributed, republished or used in any form without appropriate permission and acknowledgement of the author.

Here are some reliable links.

USGS – Earthquakes: https://www.usgs.gov/programs/earthquake-hazards

USGS – Ring of Fire: https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/what-ring-fire

Smithsonian Global Volcanism Program: https://volcano.si.edu

NASA – Auroras and Space Weather: https://science.nasa.gov/sun/auroras/

NOAA – Tsunamis: https://www.noaa.gov/tsunamis

IPCC – Climate Change Reports: https://www.ipcc.ch

World Meteorological Organization: https://wmo.int

World Health Organization – Infodemic and misinformation: https://www.who.int/health-topics/infodemic

Reuters: https://www.reuters.com

Associated Press: https://apnews.com 

USGS stands for the United States Geological Survey.

It is a scientific agency of the U.S. government that studies and monitors things such as earthquakes, volcanoes, landslides, geological hazards, water, and the Earth’s natural processes.

For your blog, USGS is especially useful for checking:

• earthquake activity and magnitudes
• whether earthquakes are increasing
• earthquake locations and seismic data
• the Ring of Fire
• landslides and geological hazards
• scientific claims linking solar activity to earthquakes.

So when you cite USGS, you are using a highly authoritative scientific source.