I have a whacky theory to explain all these earthquakes

[Auggie]

Let me preface this by saying I'm not a seismologist nor a geologist. I know a little about plate tectonics and how the area known as California was created, but that's it.

That being said, here it goes:

Is it possible that the melting of glacier ice caused by global warming has increased the water weight of the seas and put additional stress on oceanic plates?

Could that additional stress enable plates to break free from their lock-up with adjoining plates?

Think about it. Maybe it's not so whacky.

To those who are educated on the subject of tectonics: please weigh in. Is it plausible? I'm interested in your thoughts.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

1. Alright, I thought about it.

It's still whacky.

[MissB]

2. Yes! Because plate tectonic movement is just like that!

[dmr]

113. Article: Climate change may trigger earthquakes and volcanoes

This was posted in DU last week. I don't have the thread, but I did bookmark its article:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327273.800-climate-change-may-trigger-earthquakes-and-volcanoes.html

Climate change may trigger earthquakes and volcanoes

23 September 2009 by Richard Fisher

- snip -

Among the various influences on the Earth's crust, from changes in weather to fluctuations in ice cover, the oceans are emerging as a particularly fine controller. Simon Day of the University of Oxford, McGuire and Serge Guillas, also at UCL, have shown how subtle changes in sea level may affect the seismicity of the East Pacific Rise, one of the fastest-spreading plate boundaries.

The researchers focused on the Easter microplate - the tectonic plate that lies beneath the ocean off the coast of Easter Island - because it is relatively isolated from other faults. This makes it easier to distinguish changes in the plate caused by climate systems from those triggered by regional rumbles. Since 1973, the arrival of El Niño every few years has correlated with a greater frequency of underwater quakes between magnitude 4 and 6.

The team is confident that the two are linked. El Niño raises the local sea level by a few tens of centimetres, and they believe the extra water weight may increase the pressure of fluids in the pores of the rock beneath the seabed. This might be enough to counteract the frictional force that holds the slabs of rock in place, making it easier for faults to slip. "The changes in sea level are tiny," says Day. "A small additional perturbation can have a substantial effect."

Small ocean changes can also influence volcanic eruptions, says David Pyle of the University of Oxford. His study of eruptions over the past 300 years with Ben Mason of the University of Cambridge and colleagues reveals that volcanism varies with the seasons. The team found that there are around 20 per cent more eruptions worldwide during the northern hemisphere's winter than the summer (Journal of Geophysical Research, DOI: 10.1029/2002JB002293). The reason may be that global sea level drops slightly during the northern hemisphere's winter. Because there is more land in the northern hemisphere, more water is locked up as ice and snow on land than during the southern hemisphere's winter.

The vast majority of the world's most active volcanoes are within a few tens of kilometres of the coast (see map). This suggests the seasonal removal of some of the ocean's weight at continental margins as sea level drops could be triggering eruptions around the world, says Pyle.

- Much more at above link -

[slutticus]

3. Mass is always conserved. Fail.

how is "stress on ocean plates" any different than stress on non-ocean plates?

[Auggie]

7. See post #6

[slutticus]

44. Done. See reply to said post.

[yurbud]

59. the location of the mass is changing from the ends to the middle

[Therellas]

4. why not?

or removing oil...
thats gotta be doin something as well.
the theory of plate tectonics was formed watching a beer glass slide across the table on a layer of water so why not.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

10. The table was shaking not stirred.... heh! n/t

[TransitJohn]

5. My theory is that you just started paying attention.

Really, they are NOT occurring with any more frequency. What is it with earthquakes that really brings out the woo on DU?

[Auggie]

12. I live in California. Give me a break.

[Bobbieo]

30. I think when Yellowstone blows up, the "woo' will be on you!

[MineralMan]

31. Booga-Booga.

[anonymous171]

38. Brings out the pseudo-animist hippies and their theories about how mother earth hates humanity.

[tekisui]

58. lol at pseudo-animist hippies!

I know a lot of 'em!

[Iggo]

124. Mother Earth no longer needs us....

...now that we've given her plastic.

[Auggie]

6. When in doubt, do research. Science says it's possible.

First Google hit from 2007:

"One particular feature that can change the balance of forces in Earth's crust is ice, in the form of glaciers and ice sheets that cover much of the area around Earth's poles plus mountains at all latitudes. The weight of ice depresses the crust on which it sits.

As the ice melts, the crust below no longer has anything sitting on top of it, and so can rebound fairly rapidly (by geological standards). (This rebounding is actually occurring now as a result of the end of the last Ice Age: The retreat of massive ice sheets from the northern United States and Canada has allowed the crust in these areas to bounce back.)

Areas of rebounding crust could change the stresses acting on earthquake faults and volcanoes in the crust."

LINK: http://www.livescience.com/environment/070830_gw_quakes.html

Not quite the same scenario as I present. But the same effect.

[slutticus]

39. Actually, it says the opposite:

"Burgmann isn't too worried about sea level rise causing more earthquakes or volcanic eruptions though, noting that catastrophic rates of sea level rise in the future are uncertain and that the current rate of rise—about 0.12 inches per year (3 millimeters per year)—isn't enough to destabilize the crust."

Plus, this little gem from the article you posted:
"McGuire conducted a study that was published in the journal Nature in 1997 that looked at the connection between the change in the rate of sea level rise and volcanic activity in the Mediterranean for the past 80,000 years and found that when sea level rose quickly, more volcanic eruptions occurred, increasing by a whopping 300 percent." Are they implying that rising sea levels caused more volcanoes, or that more volcanoes caused a rise in sea level????

[meeshrox]

46. No, not the same...

the website is talking about Greenland, where there are ice sheets miles high...not in Chile.

There is a subduction zone there. We expect to see volcanoes and earthquakes here because one plate is subducting beneath the other. That's all.

[Canuckistanian]

8. No

It's like saying the weight of a thin sheet of ice on your car is causing the metal body to crumple.

No, these plates are MASSIVE, CONTINENT size slabs of rock that are interacting HUNDREDS of miles deep under the earth's surface.

It would have happened with or without global warming.

[LunaSea]

9. Not that wacky

http://tinyurl.com/yeqgnb5

http://www.livescience.com/environment/070830_gw_quakes.html

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2004/0715glacierquakes.html

http://www.climateemergency.org/joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=44&Itemid=110

[Auggie]

21. "When the glaciers melt, the reliquified water causes sea levels to rise and increases the weight...

on the ocean floor, which could also have an effect on the grinding tectonic plates deep below the surface."

This link: http://www.climateemergency.org/joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=44&Itemid=110

Thanks LunaSea. This is what I was looking for.

:hi:

[meeshrox]

47. Again...wacky and wrong...

These areas are the poles...like, where the ice sheets reside...

My.Brain.Hurts!

[Junkdrawer]

140. From the first link: "Small ocean changes can also influence volcanic eruptions,"

...

Small ocean changes can also influence volcanic eruptions, says David Pyle of the University of Oxford. His study of eruptions over the past 300 years with Ben Mason of the University of Cambridge and colleagues reveals that volcanism varies with the seasons. The team found that there are around 20 per cent more eruptions worldwide during the northern hemisphere's winter than the summer (Journal of Geophysical Research, DOI: 10.1029/2002JB002293). The reason may be that global sea level drops slightly during the northern hemisphere's winter. Because there is more land in the northern hemisphere, more water is locked up as ice and snow on land than during the southern hemisphere's winter.

The vast majority of the world's most active volcanoes are within a few tens of kilometres of the coast (see map). This suggests the seasonal removal of some of the ocean's weight at continental margins as sea level drops could be triggering eruptions around the world, says Pyle.

....

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327273.800-climate-change-may-trigger-earthquakes-and-volcanoes.html?full=true

[MineralMan]

11. No. It is not plausible.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

13. They don't need any explanation, though

Leaving aside whether something could explain a phenomenon, I don't know that there is a phenomenon to explain.

The Haiti earthquake wasn't such a big quake. It happened to be shallow and right under a couple of very populous and poorly constructed cities.

A few good-sized meteorites hit earth every year. If a few of that total happened to hit inhabited buildings in major cities (instead of oceans and deserts) it would seem like something was going on but it would just be (bad) luck.

The Chilean quake would be more freakish if Chile didn't happen to be host to extremely violent quakes. (Chile had a bigger quake in my lifetime and I'm only middle-aged.)

Nothing to explain as far as I know.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hestia]

15. Maybe, but Full Moon SuperMoons do have something to do with earthquakes

there was one on the 28th. The next one is August 2010.

Here's the Prediction for February 2010, written in early February:

The February 28 SuperMoon full moon at 9° 59' Virgo points to another newsworthy upsurge in moderate-to-severe seismic activity (including magnitude 5+ earthquakes and volcanic eruptions), plus strong storms with damaging winds and heavy precipitation; along with extreme high tides. In effect from February 25 through March 3, and happening within sixteen hours of the Moon’s southward crossing of the celestial equator, this looks mostly like a storm and flood indicator – probably not on a par the January alignment, but noteworthy in its own right. It’s global in scope by definition, but astro-locality mapping suggests a few special vulnerabilities for the February 28 SuperMoon alignment. These include longitudinal risk zones running from Hong Kong down through Perth in the eastern hemisphere, and from Newfoundland down through west-central South America in the western hemisphere. There’s also a Mars horizon arc of note, along the eastern coast of Australia from Brisbane to Melbourne; as well as a longitudinal Mars zone pretty much centered on Delhi. With the Sun conjunct Jupiter at the time of this SuperMoon, any Jupiter effect (if there is one) is subsumed in the aforementioned zones. (Note to Haiti-Dominican Republic watchers: the Sun-Jupiter line that runs from Newfoundland down through western South America just kisses the coast of Hispaniola.)

This guy does earth based astrology - http://astropro.com

[Codeine]

Astrology is idiocy.

There's a kook room for that nonsense.

[MineralMan]

24. Astrology?

Well, my Moon is in Uranus. That's all I know.

This is just nonsense. Isn't there a group for this kind of stuff on DU?

[Skip Intro]

67. People can be insulting, can't they, full of condescension, snobbery and ridicule?

"Your suggestion, opinion, or anecdote is unworthy of one second of my contemplation and is tiresome, and I'm sure I speak for everyone. Get back to the dungeon and quit bothering bothering the smart people."

Don't see any need for it.

Just thought I'd say that.

:hi:

[meeshrox]

70. Yes, rational thinkers can get snippy when we see

this crap posted day-in and day-out. It's difficult to restrain ourselves when we want to: :banghead:

Thanks for jumping to the conclusion that we are condescending and snobby...actually, I'm starting to like those titles!

[Skip Intro]

136. Oh, I didn't jump to that conclusion, I was pushed.

See the posts above mine. And re-read your response.

Btw, it's hard to see how you've run into such ideas day in and day out for, what, the last four months, while I've been here for 8 years or so, and only see it rarely.

At any rate, there's no need to be rude and insulting. Maybe you ought to think rationally about that?

[meeshrox]

138. Perhaps I spend too much time reading threads in general discussion

that belong in some kind of alternative science room.

Um...how is being confident about my scientific knowledge rude and insulting? I really think that people around here get very defensive when the rationalists/scientists chime in about pseudoscience, although I'll admit, the response can be overwhelming.

[underpants]

16. Ben turned the wheel again

[tabatha]

17. possible

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327273.800-climate-change-may-trigger-earthquakes-and-volcanoes.html?full=true

[EFerrari]

18. There was a thread around here, maybe early last week that got a lot of snark

but that had some interesting ideas, links, too, auggie.

If I remember who posted it (climate change is ruining my memory) I'll dig it up. :)

[Auggie]

27. Appreciated

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

42. You mean the one where they guy thought it was caused by the space station?

Shit was cash.

[WheelWalker]

19. How about the large hadron collider...

releasing microsingularities which are being pulled by the earth's gravity toward its core?

[MineralMan]

20. Shhh....that's not supposed to come out for another week.

Quiet, fool!

[scarletwoman]

23. Oooh! I like that one!

Earthquake, earthquake, earthquake... then *SCHLOOP!!!* the entire planet implodes into a black hole.

Clever little buggers, we humans. :D

[MineralMan]

25. Don't alarm people, please. It'll all be over soon, and

it will happen so fast that nobody will even know it's happening. SCHLOOP! and you're gone.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

32. If only it were that fast

David Brin's "Earth" has a couple of singularities in decaying orbits chewing through the Earth for years, and they were decent sized holes.

(Would only take a dozen of them to fill the Albert Hall.)

[MineralMan]

33. And now we know...

[scarletwoman]

36. As long as it takes out Goldman Sachs & James Dobson with the rest of us, I'm all for it.

The end of all arguments. Ah, the bliss of nothingness! :D

sw

[Fresh_Start]

22. I've read that there is something similar to it

basically the ice-covered plates movement is slowed by the weight of the icemass. As the ice melts, those plates can move more freely.
I read it first in a UK publication but here's essentially the same in a different pub.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0819/p16s01-sten.html

[meeshrox]

52. Direct quote from your link:

"Melting glaciers do not cause earthquakes: Quakes are created when forces within the crust build up strain in rock until something slips. Alaska is seismically active because a North Pacific crustal plate is ramming into southern Alaska, creating pressures that must be relieved at some point."

Thanks for evidence for my point!

[Fresh_Start]

56. You should have read the next couple of sentences

However, these pressures do push up high mountains where glaciers form - and the weight of the glaciers pushing down can stabilize the situation, if not eliminate the risk altogether. Remove that weight, and the likelihood of a quake goes up as the strain accumulates.

[meeshrox]

64. Oh, jeez! Yes, your ONE sentence proves the rest of us wrong! How could I oversee that!

The idea is wrong...glaciers are not heavy enough to affect tectonic plates, especially in Alaska, they are not very big. In other words: the "strain" that "accumulates" is not enough to cause an earthquake. Even if it did cause a quake, it would be a micro-earthquake that no one would be able to feel.

The only place on earth I could conceive this idea to actually be plausible is Greenland or the Antarctic Ice Sheet. Unfortunately, melting at the current rate would not cause a significant isostatic response. These ice sheets are miles thick. Again, this MAY be PLAUSIBLE, put not probable.

[Junkdrawer]

141. NASA says otherwise....

RETREATING GLACIERS SPUR ALASKAN EARTHQUAKES

In a new study, NASA and United States Geological Survey
(USGS) scientists found that retreating glaciers in southern
Alaska may be opening the way for future earthquakes.

The study examined the likelihood of increased earthquake
activity in southern Alaska as a result of rapidly melting
glaciers. As glaciers melt they lighten the load on the
Earth's crust. Tectonic plates, that are mobile pieces of the
Earth's crust, can then move more freely. The study appears
in the July issue of the Journal of Global and Planetary
Change.

Jeanne Sauber of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center,
Greenbelt, Md., and Bruce Molnia, a research geologist at
USGS, Reston, Va.,

"Historically, when big ice masses started to retreat, the
number of earthquakes increased," Sauber said. "More than
10,000 years ago, at the end of the great ice age, big
earthquakes occurred in Scandinavia as the large glaciers
began to melt. In Canada, many more moderate earthquakes
occurred as ice sheets melted there," she added.

...

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2004/0715glacierquakes.html

[leeroysphitz]

26. That sounds better than "mutated nuetrinos". n/t

[MineralMan]

29. I heard it was the "implanted neuticles."

http://www.neuticles.com/

The world has just gone to the dogs. It has.

[xfundy]

28. No, no, no!

Baby Jesus is mad at someone. When he throws a tantrum, look out!

[Dappleganger]

34. Well I'll one up your wacky theory with one presented by my friend today over the phone:

she's convinced that God is trying to 'shake' the continents together so that all the races are forced to live together.

I really didn't know what to say. She's one of my favorite progressive friends but I really didn't know what to say. :wtf:

[NNadir]

35. It has been speculated in several major scientific journals, including Nature, that the stresses

associated with things like high Mountain reservoirs do, in fact, trigger earthquakes.

I have some references on the topic, but don't have time to dig them out right now.

[Alameda]

37. I'm in NO CA too and your idea doesn't sound outlandish at all

maybe not exactly scientifically precise, but on the track....I've also wondered if underground bomb testing, drilling, pumping & digging stuff out could effect things too.

[slutticus]

41. What about HAARP?

why leave that out?

[XemaSab]

40. This is not how it works, no

Isostatic rebound does produce small quakes, but it takes centuries for this to happen.

[meeshrox]

43. Geologist's answer:

no.

[Uncle Joe]

45. I believe it's possible, the shifting of weight from melting mountain glaciers has some

lever effect, as to how much; I don't know.

It seems logical to me, the draining of Earth's oil; buried for tens-hundreds millions of years would also have some geological consequences.

I believe according to Peak Oil estimates we may have a hundred years or so left to drain.

I find it hard to believe, these kinds of pre-historic-historic changes as not having effect, again the question becomes as to the strength of these dynamics?

But even if these dramatically changed dynamics in such a short period of time weren't creating great relative effects in and of themselves could they work as a trigger, a sort of geological Butterfly Effect?

Thanks for the thread, Auggie.

Edit to add links.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_effect

[Codeine]

48. That's a subduction fault zone, dude.

One big-ass tectonic plate is busily shoving itself beneath another with unfathomable force, miles and miles beneath the surface. That's gonna cause some seismic activity -- the minor changes cause by a melting glacier are nothing compared to an ongoing, nonstop geological activity.

[meeshrox]

51. You've won my heart!

I'm becoming a big fan of yours... :yourock:

[Uncle Joe]

53. If there was less weight on the upper tectonic plate, would it go higher

when the lower one shoved under it?

[meeshrox]

57. No...the relative densities of the plates are the key...

The density is determined by the age of the crust. Younger crust is hotter, less dense, and lighter, older crust is cooler and more dense. Oceanic crust will subduct no matter the age if it is pushing against continental crust (much denser).

[Uncle Joe]

60. So all things being equal, weight has 0 influence on how high the upper plate will lift?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

62. What makes you think the upper plate lifted?

At least the part that has/had glaciers on it?

[Uncle Joe]

65. I don't know that in any specific case that it did, my question is a general one.

I would imagine that in some cases it does?

[meeshrox]

68. Generally,

Uplift occurs when a thermal expansion and heating of a continental plate, like the American southwest (the Basin and Range) or the Colorado Plateau...

The type of uplift the "glaciologists" here (:sarcasm:) are referring to: the isostatic rebound or uplift of large areas of continents, like in the northern midwestern states of the US in response to the melting of ice sheets. Glaciers do not cause this widespread uplift and could not possibly invoke earthquakes. This is a subduction zone and that's the mechanism for the earthquake. As a geologist, some of this stuff is frustrating to hear...I'm trying to set the record straight. Thanks!

[Uncle Joe]

73. I've never contended that the melting of glaciers could cause earthquakes.

I know there are many geological forces at work just as there were long before life developed on the planet.

My questions were aimed at potential influences even in the most minor to measure manner. I ask these questions because there are dramatic and to at least one extent unprecedented changes happening from an environmental and geological standpoint all within a relatively short period of time.

You mentioned those links; I posted, so you're familiar with the so called "Butterfly Effect," one extremely minor dynamic alteration which continually escalates in to something vastly more powerful.

I'm not a geologist or any other ologist, just a curious person.

Thanks for your answers.

[meeshrox]

76. And thanks for a civil conversation about this...

These are not unprecedented changes...it's just that humans, as a species, have a very short memory span. We forget things like this quickly as a society.

The only way that I can think of something escalating continually in the way you describe is something of a wave property: sympathetic harmonies. This does not happen in large-scale plate tectonic movement and I'm afraid even that concept is really reaching. I know that uncertainty is unnerving to people (as a group of citizens, for example) and that ideas can circulate quickly to try and explain the unknown. Unfortunately, it's not easy to predict these kinds of things. It's good to know the risks and be as prepared as possible. For example, I live in south Florida, and I stock up every hurricane season just in case. Nothing I can do but prepare and hope for the best (or leave).

I'm happy to share my expertise in geology with anyone who will ask. Thanks!

[Uncle Joe]

78. One final response and I'm out for the night, my unprecedented comment

was referring to the estimation of oil being depleted from the Earth, it having been in the ground for tens-hundreds of millions of years.

I appreciate you allowing me to pick your brain, peace.

[meeshrox]

80. Peace! and thanks!

[meeshrox]

66. Yes, that is correct...

[meeshrox]

50. What you believe and what actially is...

are both on opposite ends of the spectrum in this case...

How the hell do you weave peak oil into this?

"again the question becomes as to the strength of these dynamics?"
:wtf:

And thank for those wiki links, never could have found them on my own! :sarcasm:

[Uncle Joe]

55. How long has oil been in the planet's crust and does any of it seep down to the upper mantle?

Your welcome, I thought some people might appreciate the links.

[meeshrox]

72. Oil has been in the crust for tens of millions of years or more...

Most of the oil we drill formed during the Jurassic and Triassic, if my memory serves...

Oil cannot seep into the upper mantle...it's pretty much locked in the stratigraphic units where they were first deposited. Even if it could leak downward, the pore pressure (the amount of holes in the rocks) is too great to allow seepage that far.

[Uncle Joe]

77. So if the Earth were drained of oil would that effect the temperature and/or density of the crust?

I appreciate your patience.

That's my last question for the night, peace to you.:hi:

[meeshrox]

81. Temperature, no...

density, only the slightest and unmeasurable bit. The size of the earth in comparison to the volume of oil is so huge, there's no real effect on density...

But, if you are talking about extracting the oil, but leaving it on the earth (that is, not sending off into space), the overall density is still the same because it's still here and in the calculation.

Thanks again! :hi:

[opihimoimoi]

49. Perhaps the opposite effect...the water weight from those glaciers have an effect

on the plate section underneath the glacier...less weight....land mass wants to move UP???

[Therellas]

54. yes....

and its whats under that is scary.

[rasputin1952]

61. This is complicated stuff...

it includes geology, seismology, hydrology, climatology, hydraulics, physics and a host of other sciences. I is not beyond the scope of thought to think that increased pressure could meet the criteria where water could be forced under pressure into fissures, thereby lubricating some faults after a period of time. Adding heat to the equation would produce steam which could push the a portion of a plate just enough to subject it to the point where the kinetic energy would be released. Many factor come into play, and to pinpoint "one", is difficult at best.

There is a simpler explanation though. It is not that there are "more earthquakes than in the past, they are just getting more coverage. Instantaneous electronic connections make it seem like there is more to this than there is. Coverage increases and we equate that to an increase in events. Hundreds of earthquakes of varying magnitudes happen every day, each one has the potential to trigger a huge quake, we hear of them because the media is right on top of the story. To be sure, these events are often horrific, but they have been going on since the beginning of the earth, and have actually slowed considerably from a few hundred thousand years ago.

It is an interesting theory though, and people have studied it, apparently to no conclusion that is accepted though. In fact, few things are agreed upon, this is still a relatively infant science in many ways...:hi:

[Auggie]

92. +1

[scheming daemons]

63. This OP illustrates how bad the science teaching in our schools has become

The melting glaciers just redistribute weight, not increase it. Weight that was in one place is now in another.


There's another phenomenon that does the same thing every day:

Evaporation and rain. On a much larger scale than any glacial melting.


The recent snowstorms in the mid-atlantic states "moved" a lot of water weight from the Gulf of Mexico to DC-to-NY corridor. Much more weight than any melting glacier has moved to the oceans.



The OP shouldn't have slept through so many science classes.

[Auggie]

94. This may be the dumbest post on the entire thread

Refer to some of the links that support the theory.

[meeshrox]

Dumbest post...for making an observation?

you misinterpreted the "evidence" and it does not support what you are saying. I agree that this thread (as a whole, when including all posts) demonstrates a sad state of affairs in science education.

[DRoseDARs]

69. You're talking about a known phenomenon, Crustal Rebound.

The ice caps of the last ice age put a lot of weight on the North American, European and Asian continents. Thousands of years later, the crust is still slowly "rebounding" from the loss of weight. The Great lakes used to empty into the Mississippi River system. As the crust rebounded, they started emptying through the St. Lawrence Seaway. There may be an effect on the overall system of plate tectonics, but connecting this exceedingly slow process to the recent spate of earthquakes in populated places is a small stretch though not impossible. Haiti, Chile and Taiwan are all located right on top of plate subduction zones which increases the likelihood of earthquakes being felt, regardless of environmental conditions on the surface. I think the New Madrid system is a more likely candidate for activity due to the loss of the NA ice cap.

[roamer65]

71. It is possible.

It is possible the redistribution of weight is affecting the "pressure points" on the Pacific plate boundaries. The Pacific plate is mostly covered by water and is very thin in many areas.

[meeshrox]

74. It is not possible...

Here's why: the weight of the ocean is the same around the Pacific. There are no "pressure points" on these plates. They are so huge and thick that nothing on the surface can affect their movement. The thickness of the Pacific plate has no bearing because it moves as a whole, rigid plate altogether.

Look at a map of the tectonic plates and see that the Pacific Plate does not touch South America. Also, there is a clear boundary between the Nazca Plate and the South American Plate, where a subduction zone is found.

It's not as complex as people would like it to be...for science to be upended by someone without scientific knowledge? Some kind of crazy breakthrough? It is not physically possible and I think it's wrong to say that "it is possible" if you don't understand the mechanics.

[damyank913]

75. Don't know how true it is but....

I read a while back that most major earthquakes occur during full moons. Something about how the moon's gravity works on the tectonic plates.

[meeshrox]

79. That would only be concievable if...

the moon were the size of Jupiter...the moon does not have enough mass to affect the earth's plates.

Also, the full moon is the same mass as a half or new moon, it's just the part of the moon with or without a shadow.

[MissB]

109. Cheers

Thanks for taking the time to respond to some of these posts with sane, logical responses. I pegged my sarcasm with my first post. I have to say you are far more patient!

[meeshrox]

128. well...I'm sure you noticed I still got snippy!

I saw an opportunity to help explain why the so-called theory is crazy...hopefully I got through to someone! Thanks! :hi:

[damyank913]

137. Snotty people notwithstanding...

Thank you for your answer. As I said at the outset; I wasn't sure of the validity. Your point about the moon is taken (with some embarrassment). Nevertheless, I think it would be a mistake to underestimate the effect of the moon's gravity. How many hundreds of billions of tons of water are shifted around the earth constantly because of the moon's gravity? And perhaps that gravity would not have to act on the entire plate-just the high stress areas that were getting close to breaking point. Not every time, but occasionally.
I guess the thing to do is to find out when the moon is closest to the earth (I'm assuming the orbit is somewhat elliptical) and what areas of the earth are the most likely to be influenced at that time. I don't even know if there are charts that could help with this-fuck it I'm havin a beer. Peace.

[meeshrox]

139. I think someone up or down-thread looked up the lunar phases and earthquakes...

I don't think they found anything...

In any case...cheers! :toast:

[damyank913]

143. I don't think Lunar phases is what I'm looking for...

...and you present a convincing argument against that. Unless, of course, those charts also show the apogee and perigee of the moon's orbit. Okay-just looked it up on Wiki. The perogee (or closest part of it's orbit) happens to be at full and new moon stages. Here's an interesting excerpt from Wiki on "terrestrial tides" (unfortunately there are no citations):

Earth tides or terrestrial tides affect the entire Earth's mass, which acts similarly to a liquid gyroscope with a very thin crust. The Earth's crust shifts (in/out, east/west, north/south) in response to lunar and solar gravitation, ocean tides, and atmospheric loading. While negligible for most human activities, terrestrial tides' semi diurnal amplitude can reach about 55 centimetres (22 in) at the equator—15 centimetres (5.9 in) is due to the Sun—which is important in GPS calibration and VLBI measurements. Precise astronomical angular measurements require knowledge of the Earth's rotation rate and nutation, both of which are influenced by earth tides. The semi-diurnal M2 Earth tides are nearly in phase with the Moon with a lag of about two hours.

Some particle physics experiments must adjust for terrestrial tides.<48> For instance, at CERN and SLAC, the very large particle accelerators account for terrestrial tides. Among the relevant effects are circumference deformation for circular accelerators and particle beam energy.<49><50> Since tidal forces generate currents in conducting fluids in the Earth's interior, they in turn affect the Earth's magnetic field. Earth tides have also been linked to earthquakes.<51>

Here's the link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tide#Earth_tides

[Codeine]

82. The most powerful earthquake ever recorded (in Chile, 1960)

occured during a cresent moon phase, as did the Haiti quake. The notion is silly on the face of it, and fails utterly when compared to actual earthquake data.

[Cleita]

84. And I'm sure you have all the data at your fingertips.

Why is it that we never see all the sources of your assertions?

[Codeine]

Find a lunar phase calculator.

There are dozens online, here's the one i used;

http://home.att.net/~srschmitt/script_moon_phase.html

then Wiki up some dates of major earthquakes. Some will fall on crescent moons, others on full moons. I just did the big San Franscisco earthquake of 1906 -- morning crescent moon. :shrug: This ain't rocket surgery.

[Cleita]

102. No it isn't rocket whatever. It's too bad you don't get it. n/t

[Codeine]

103. Yes, I know you say you're getting information from beyond.

But you're wrong, and so are your otherworldly informants.

You asked for my sources, you got 'em. The theory of full moons and earthquakes didn't hold up to even cursory examination. Fail.

[Cleita]

104. Make fun. I don't give a crap. n/t

[Codeine]

107. You asked. I answered.

Can you provide evidence that supports the notion of lunar phases being connected to earthquakes? Of course you can't. You've resorted to non-answers, which is where I win.

[Cleita]

110. I never brought up lunar phases. So since you did, the proof is in your lap.

You have no right to decide what a non-answer is so you don't win. I could proclaim the same thing and win myself, so you lose. Sorry.

[Codeine]

111. I didn't bring them up.

Some goofball woowoo person did. I just answered the (ridiculous) assertion. At your request I provided evidence.

[Cleita]

112. You brought it up in the post I replied to. Amazing!

Only Republicans lie in the face of their last lie. Do you want to be associated with them?

[Codeine]

114. Ahahaha!

This whole subthread has been about them. Are you actually certifiably insane at this point?

[Cleita]

115. You keep bring in new elements into your strange little

posts. Well carry on.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

134. Well now there's the pot calling the kettle black.

[meeshrox]

87. "Why is it that we never see all the sources of your assertions?"

Why is it I never see factual evidence for your assertions?

And as far as a source...I have a degree. How about you try a geology course at the local community college? Alternatively, I'd be happy to answer any of your geology-related questions...if you would care to ask them instead of being snarky.

[Cleita]

100. I don't know how you got into this conversation.

Codeine and I have a relationship of sorts, like a cobra and a mongoose. However, if you want to talk about geology, I grew up in a mining camp in the Atacama desert of Chile close to the Andes. There were many geologists who there who taught us kids a lot about the rocks and other geological phenomena that surrounded us. I don't think you could teach me a whole lot.

[Codeine]

105. Am I the mongoose?

Mongooses are cool. ;)

[Cleita]

108. Pick a side. I don't care. I will be the other. n/t

[meeshrox]

131. Sure, because I went/am going to the University of South Florida for...

a bachelor's degree in geology and a master's in volcanology and TECTONICS...I butted into your conversation because I felt like it. Didn't know that replies were so exclusive...you said something that I thought was worth commenting on.

[meeshrox]

144. Jeez...

As soon as I whip out my credentials...they go a-runnin'... :eyes:

[cherokeeprogressive]

88. Here are links to historic earthquakes and a moon phase calculator.

2/9/71, the "Sylmar" earthquake in CA happened during a full moon. It's the only one I can find.

Historic World Earthquakes

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/world/historical.php

Moon Phase Generator

http://stardate.org/nightsky/moon/index.php?month=4&year=1968&css=moon.css&Submit=Go

[comrade snarky]

99. Why do you think we bombed it?

Sorry...

I don't see where that would make a difference. Why would there be more gravity during a full moon? When it's a crescent the rest of it is still there being all gravity producing.

Granted it's a shadowy, untrustworthy mass hanging in the sky hiding it's actual size for some reason but it's all still there.

[Cleita]

83. Discover blog has said the same thing.

Of course we know that the melting of the glaciers is because of global warming. I think your theory has merit. Here is a link to their blog connecting it to an axis shift. Chile is close to Antarctica.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2009/02/06/antarctic-ice-melt-would-shift-earths-axis-further-changing-sea-level/

I really don't know. I always thought Discover Magazine was pretty factual for a populist science magazine.

[Codeine]

85. Chile isn't far from Antarctica,

but it's on an entirely different tectonic plate.

[Cleita]

118. Honey. It's an entirely different continent. Look it up.n/t

[Codeine]

120. Indeed.

And thus unconnected.

[meeshrox]

86. Yes, one blog connects the earthquake to the axis shift..

and that automatically means that your other theories are correct...support your claims with evidence...

[Cleita]

101. I'm not doing my thesis on anything. I'm putting up stuff for people to think

about and that includes you.

[meeshrox]

129. Oh, yes...I've wasted time at your links...

Putting stuff up should require thought into what you are posting...links, links, links...here, check this out...it may be total bullshit, but it's something to look into!

In all sincerity, I'm just trying to point out the bullshit to someone who may not know the difference!

[cherokeeprogressive]

89. Wouldn't it be possible for the tides to cause earthquakes as well then? n/t

[KamaAina]

90. I think we just fell behind Slovenia in scientific literacy.

:eyes:

Or were we already behind them? :shrug:

[SemiCharmedQuark]

121. Oh we're way behind them. But just be grateful you don't live in Turkey!

% believing in evolution:

[Auggie]

91. 1671 views as of 8:31 PST. Not one recommendation.

:eyes:

[cherokeeprogressive]

93. There HAD to be at least one. My unrec would have canceled it. n/t

[Auggie]

95. A Dodger fan...

I should have guessed

[cherokeeprogressive]

97. LOL. Yeah, and I've seen you posting about the Gnats in the Sports Forum.

So Lincecum had a bad start today? Don't worry, he's got a month to work out the kinks. Besides, he's probably just pissed off about the lousy arbitration offer the Gnats made, and is trying to put the fear of dog into 'em.

[Codeine]

98. Because it's a dead stupid post.

Science Fail + Unrec whining; truly the best of both worlds.

[name not needed]

127. It's official. All of DU thinks you're an idiot.

Be grateful, this is the first time we've ever agreed on anything.

[MadMaddie]

96. All I know is the Pacific Region is 1 of 5 locations in the world

that is expecting the next one to be the big one.....

That's life....

[Teaser]

106. No theory is necessary.

Other than this one: earthquakes are distributed in time according to a power law distribution. As such, you will get runs of earthquakes in sequence, so that there seems to be a pattern.

But there is none. That is, there is none other than long-tail distribution randomness.

[jdp349]

142. above is the only intelligent post in this thread

[sce56]

116. Timing could be due to full moon also!

[Codeine]

119. We've already disproven that one. nt

[yawnmaster]

117. And you all laughed when I said bombing the moon would crack it...

see. It is possible.

[Monk06]

122. Earthquakes are caused by subduction at the tectonic margins. Got nothing to do with the weight of

oceans. Subduction is caused by convection in
the magma layer or Mohorovicic Discontinuity
which is 8km below the oceans and 32km below
the continents.

No I am not a Geologist but I have done some
writing about the mining industry. If all the
glaciers in the world melted the sea level
would rise by 30 ft max.

The ocean is 11,033 metres (36,200 ft) at it's
deepest. This is in the Mariana Trench which is
also the subduction zone of the Pacific Plate and
the Mariana plate. an increase of 30 feet in water
level would have no appreciable effect on subduction.

[upi402]

125. thank you. eom

[backscatter712]

123. I think it's possible, but we'll need proof.

The theory's simple enough - water is being shifted from polar ice to the oceans, redistributing the mass of large amounts of the planet's water, altering the way its weight settles upon the earth's crust, which could cause seismic activity.

Now could it cause more earthquakes, volcanic eruptions & such? Who knows.

It would take some decent scientific research to find out.

My gut of truthiness says that it might have a measurable effect. Of course, that measurable effect on seismic activity could very well be trivial, as noted by the story of the Chile quake shifting the Earth's axis by three inches and shortening the Earth's day cycle by a microsecond.

[meeshrox]

130. People rely too much on their gut...

like W and the Iraq war...just sayin'!

"Just asking questions..." :sarcasm:

Just because it sounds good, does not mean it makes sense! Plus, we already explained why the "redistribution of mass" does not explain shit.

[backscatter712]

132. Yeah, I find the analogy of "a thin layer of ice on your car crushing the metal in the fenders" good

In other words, the weight of the ice isn't much compared to the 25 miles or so of solid rock in the Earth's crust.

Even if there were effects from moving all that water from the ice caps to the oceans, they'd be too small to be of any consequence.

I'll admit to being a little curious.

[meeshrox]

133. Ok, curiosity is a great thing...

"the weight of the ice isn't much compared to the 25 miles or so of solid rock in the Earth's crust"

That is right...the weight of the ice is negligible...the strain of plates pushing so completely dwarfs the other forces.

[JCMach1]

126. There is about a .3 chance of a quake greater than an 8.0 each year

So, it happens about once every three years somewhere in the world. The last was in Peru in 2007. I would say statistically we are about right.

Given a more or less random distribution along fault lines, there will occasionally be blips when more happen in populated areas.

[TZ]

135. First of all the Ring of Fire gets its name for a very good reason

Our Earth is a living planet so we have quakes and volcanic eruptions ALL THE TIME. Its just that we hear about them more with the internet and global reporting now.
I seriously doubt this theory. I see a link where some scientists are theorizing something similar but from what I know of plate tectonics, its not nearly strong enough to influence that kind of activity.