Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Earthquakes due to global warming

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
guardian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-27-10 11:21 PM
Original message
Earthquakes due to global warming
First early maple syrup in Maine, now earthquakes in Chile. The gods are just, and of our pleasant vices Make instruments to plague us.



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

the conclusion of the researchers who got together at the conference on Climate Forcing of Geological and Geomorphological Hazards. It suggests climate change could tip the planet's delicate balance and unleash a host of geological disasters. What's more, even our attempts to stall global warming could trigger a catastrophic event (see "Bury the carbon").

Evidence of a link between climate and the rumblings of the crust has been around for years, but only now is it becoming clear just how sensitive rock can be to the air, ice and water above. "You don't need huge changes to trigger responses from the crust," says Bill McGuire of University College London (UCL), who organised the meeting. "The changes can be tiny."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
cherokeeprogressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-27-10 11:26 PM
Response to Original message
1. "how sensitive rock can be to the air, ice, and water above."
The fault broke 21.7 miles below the surface.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BrklynLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-27-10 11:29 PM
Response to Original message
2. You mean to say it is NOT the sinful lifestyle of those living nearby????????
duh!!

:crazy: :silly:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lorien Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 12:47 AM
Response to Original message
3. Didn't a DUer theorize the same earlier today? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ohheckyeah Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 12:51 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. Yes, and got jumped on for it. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leeroysphitz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 01:13 AM
Response to Reply #4
7. and rightly so... n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Junkdrawer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 07:28 AM
Response to Reply #7
14. Why? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Igel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 05:53 PM
Response to Reply #14
27. I'll venture a guess.
This article says that climate matters around the margins. You get 10s of cms of ocean water, you can help trigger a quake that's due to build-up of stresses in the rock. You get a rainfall, you can see how it can trigger having a volcanic dome shift now, as opposed to next week. You get winter, you get a slightly higher incidence of volcanic activity, and you can posit some possible causal mechanism.

In some cases the stats look reasonable and the causal mechanism seems reasonable. Then again, those instances are *really* at the margins.

Now, this is different from saying that a 1.2 degree C global change over the last 30 years (or whatever the numbers are--they're more than an order of magnitude smaller than the temperature difference between winter and summer in the temperate zone of the Northern Hemisphere)--was the cause of the 8.8 quake in Chile. Yesterday there were those trying to blame that one--along an established thrust/slip fault known for producing some massive quakes and nearly any other quake--on AGW.

The problems are legion. Some are abstract--trying to deduce from a general rule "Climate can serve as the trigger to some kinds of quakes" that a specific quake is due to such a trigger. Even if the causal mechanism is there, it's still statistical, not deterministic. Moreover, no cause was needed: "AGW --> massive quake," and the "-->" amounts to a wave of Harry Potter's wand with the incantation being the name of this conference.

If you're into this not as a science-reporting article but an article of faith then there's no problem. But the two takes on this article shouldn't be confused. Now, sometimes things taken on faith turn out to be true. For example, it's true that an extreme example such as "the sky is made of marmelade, my sweat pants are grey, therefore most cats have four legs" is a true syllogism (since it yields a true conclusion), often all we have to base our evaluation of an argument's conclusion on is the syllogism itself. For now, the claim that AGW is related to the Chilean quake has to be judged false.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Junkdrawer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 06:45 PM
Response to Reply #27
28. You could never associate AGW with a particular quake...However...
Edited on Sun Feb-28-10 06:46 PM by Junkdrawer
If changes in ocean levels trigger quakes and a 20% effect is seen when the northern hemisphere is in winter and therefore traps more water as snow, THIS winter and its excessive snow totals (attributed by many to AGW) should see more quakes than usual.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maru Kitteh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 01:55 AM
Response to Reply #4
9. Yeah, I wonder why?
Oh that's right - because it's crap.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ohheckyeah Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 10:35 PM
Response to Reply #9
29. And there are nice ways of telling someone they are wrong about
something.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 02:05 AM
Response to Reply #4
11. It's easier to snark than to study. Go figure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maru Kitteh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-01-10 01:12 AM
Response to Reply #11
32. Yeah. I'm going to study some astrology, phrenology and alchemy next.
After that, I'm going to research the effects of maleficent sprites on tectonic plates.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-01-10 12:44 PM
Response to Reply #32
33. See? That was easy, wasn't it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
theophilus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 11:38 PM
Response to Reply #3
30. It could have been me. I was just wondering. Anyway, I started
a thread and had to leave...yesterday. When I got back there were about 162 replies and it was locked. Many of the comments were interesting and useful. Many were so snarkified that I didn't want to credit them with much value. Anyway, many wonder and science will answer the question. Edison said that AC current was useless, for the most part, too. Time changes things. I WAS just wondering. Good day.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kablooie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 12:53 AM
Response to Original message
5. underground temperatures remain constant in just a few feet.
Edited on Sun Feb-28-10 12:54 AM by Kablooie
Bogus science supporting global warming will only hurt the real science.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
XemaSab Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 01:57 AM
Response to Reply #5
10. There's a rule of thumb:
If you dig a foot down, take the soil temperature, and add a degree, you can generally figure out what the mean annual air temperature is.

Soil is THAT GOOD of a buffer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cessna Invesco Palin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 01:09 AM
Response to Original message
6. Uh, the evidence for this is actually pretty poor.
It's based on what I would consider to be a flawed analysis of earthquake activity over an extremely short period (geologically speaking) on one isolated, extremely thin microplate as it relates to el Nino. No other studies have ever supported these conclusions. Even if this stuff *is* true, all it does is move the exact date of the earthquake around a bit. The accumulated stress in the crust is still there, regardless of sea level changes. Man, sometimes New Scientist really pisses me off.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cirque du So-What Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 01:44 AM
Response to Original message
8. Did any of you who are so quick to condemn actually READ the article?
Edited on Sun Feb-28-10 01:44 AM by Cirque du So-What
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."


Who among you have the education and background that permits putting up a coherent argument against these researchers?

<crickets>

That's what I thought!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Junkdrawer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 10:41 AM
Response to Reply #8
25. I noticed that the small group that jumped on yesterday's locked thread...
are avoiding this one. Although their unrec presence is clearly here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sylveste Donating Member (126 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 03:01 AM
Response to Original message
12. huh?
if this isn't meant in jest, then it's the stupidest fucking thing i've read today. hard to tell sometimes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dems_rightnow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 07:11 AM
Response to Original message
13. I've definitely noticed a correlation
Between major earthquakes, and US Olympic bobsled gold.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
malaise Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 07:34 AM
Response to Original message
15. I don't have a clue but we have enough evidence of
climate change affecting weather patterns across the globe. The Caribbean is experiencing severe drought and Europe is experiencing severe flooding and snow storms.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8540762.stm
Deadly storm lashes Spain, Portugal and France
At least nine people have been killed in storms that have lashed parts of Spain, Portugal and France.

Winds of up to 140km/h (87mph) caused chaos as they moved from Portugal up through the Bay of Biscay.

Five people are reported to have been killed in France, three in Spain and a 10-year-old boy in Portugal.

The storm is expected to track north-eastwards during the course of Sunday, reaching Denmark by the evening, French meteorological authorities said.

Falling trees

The storm, which has been called Xynthia, has put five of the 95 French departments on red alert - only the second such warning since the new emergency system was introduced in 2001.

Hundreds of thousands of homes in west and south-west France have lost electricity while a number of French coastal villages were flooded.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Junkdrawer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 07:35 AM
Response to Original message
16. This will be attacked mercilessly. Why? Because there's a well funded....
effort to attack climate change science underway and the last thing they need is another cost associated with climate change.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bill McBlueState Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 08:45 AM
Response to Reply #16
21. on the thread I read about this yesterday,
everyone who was attacking this idea of global-warming-induced earthquakes also supports the scientific consensus on climate change.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Junkdrawer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 08:53 AM
Response to Reply #21
22. I didn't say here necessarily. n/t.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hedgehog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 07:49 AM
Response to Original message
17. Thermal expansion? Seriously, it can be very powerful. To get an idea,
check out the expansion strips next time you cross a bridge.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Junkdrawer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 08:00 AM
Response to Original message
18. Secondary forces and earthquakes...
To get an idea why tiny changes could lead to an earthquake, consider this:

Try to move a big book by blowing on it. Impossible.

Now, put the book on a board and raise one end until the book just starts to move. Now, you just might move the book by blowing on it.

Well, the book on the board is a lot like an overdue stress in an earthquake zone. Forces that would normally be secondary might just be enough to trigger a quake. Now, that quake would have happened sometime anyway, but a small change could well precipitate a rash of overdue quakes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
muriel_volestrangler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 08:29 AM
Response to Reply #18
19. Though if it's a question of 'overdue' quakes, then it may not be a long term difference
The article points to an apparent seasonal effect, and one associated with El Nino, both of which they say increase sea levels by tens of centimetres. But since those are events that come and go, it would seem that it makes it more likely during those periods, and less likely outside them, because, as you say, it's stress building up in the rocks. When the quake happens, the stress is relieved, and so a further quake is less likely in following seasons/years. Global warming may make the quakes happen a bit earlier than they otherwise would, but the total number over a long period may not be affected.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Junkdrawer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 08:35 AM
Response to Reply #19
20. I guess it depends on how many (if any) are triggered how quickly....
Edited on Sun Feb-28-10 08:36 AM by Junkdrawer
Too many at once could overwhelm our ability to render assistance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Edweird Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 08:55 AM
Response to Original message
23. Climate change and geology are connected, but you have it exactly backwards.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
undeterred Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 09:04 AM
Response to Original message
24. So far our attempts to stall global warming have been tiny. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Junkdrawer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 05:33 PM
Response to Original message
26. Kick
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TransitJohn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 11:40 PM
Response to Original message
31. Global climate change will affect geochemical and geomorphological surficial processes
but not any geologic or geophysical processes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jkid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-01-10 01:08 PM
Response to Original message
34. Oh great...first more heat equals more moisture sucked out of the water.
Now this...damn.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 01st 2024, 03:03 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC