Another consequence of global warming: Earthquakes

[Loren Pechtel]

http://www.newsweek.com/nepal-earth...de-disaster-climate-change-brings-326017.html

Warming dries the land, the land rises, you get quakes. (The same rebound effect we see in areas that were covered with glaciers.)

 

[Saint_of_Me]

http://www.newsweek.com/nepal-earth...de-disaster-climate-change-brings-326017.html

Warming dries the land, the land rises, you get quakes. (The same rebound effect we see in areas that were covered with glaciers.)

Interesting.

Makes sense in a way, though. Heat causing expansion, thus rising, thus allowing more pressure build-up underneath.

One would wonder, though, how merely a couple degrees rise in global temp over the past few decades could actually effect tectonic plates weighing trillions of trillions of tons. I will take the link you post with a grain of salt. And am sure there will be contradictory opinions out there from other geo-scientists.

Good thing this whole global warming deal is only cyclical--like most things in nature--and not manmade. Thus will self-correct in a while.

(The last statement is only my opinion, of course.)

Well...I have some allies too! LOL.

Like millions.

Drew

http://www.techtimes.com/articles/1...he-science-behind-it-is-fake-john-coleman.htm

 

[Kharakov]

wow.....

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

http://www.newsweek.com/nepal-earth...de-disaster-climate-change-brings-326017.html

Warming dries the land, the land rises, you get quakes. (The same rebound effect we see in areas that were covered with glaciers.)

Did you read another article? This talks about geostatic rebound from melting glaciers and the affect of rising sea levels near faults.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

http://www.newsweek.com/nepal-earth...de-disaster-climate-change-brings-326017.html

Warming dries the land, the land rises, you get quakes. (The same rebound effect we see in areas that were covered with glaciers.)

Did you read another article? This talks about geostatic rebound from melting glaciers and the affect of rising sea levels near faults.

The point is that drying up land causes the same geostatic rebound as the weight of the water is lessened.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Did you read another article? This talks about geostatic rebound from melting glaciers and the affect of rising sea levels near faults.

The point is that drying up land causes the same geostatic rebound as the weight of the water is lessened.

So you kind of just made something up then?

Drying may be reducing the weight of the soil, but I can't imagine that the weight would be of much consequence. Even if soil derived 15 percent of its weight from water, and dropped to 5 percent, that is a reduction of roughly -10 pcf. But the reduction is going to be limited to the near surface soil, it isn't going to extend that deep. Even assuming it goes 10 feet deep, that leads to a total pressure reduction of -100 pounds for 1x1 ft square. So the general column of soil overlying the tectonic plates is very very minimal. Where as a 50 ft (very small glacier) tall piece of glacier that recedes away leads to a reduction of overburden pressure of -3000 pounds for that same 1x1 ft square.

The Columbia glacier is 1,800 ft thick. That's roughly 100,000 pounds for a 1x1 ft area.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The point is that drying up land causes the same geostatic rebound as the weight of the water is lessened.

So you kind of just made something up then?

Drying may be reducing the weight of the soil, but I can't imagine that the weight would be of much consequence. Even if soil derived 15 percent of its weight from water, and dropped to 5 percent, that is a reduction of roughly -10 pcf. But the reduction is going to be limited to the near surface soil, it isn't going to extend that deep. Even assuming it goes 10 feet deep, that leads to a total pressure reduction of -100 pounds for 1x1 ft square. So the general column of soil overlying the tectonic plates is very very minimal. Where as a 50 ft (very small glacier) tall piece of glacier that recedes away leads to a reduction of overburden pressure of -3000 pounds for that same 1x1 ft square.

The Columbia glacier is 1,800 ft thick. That's roughly 100,000 pounds for a 1x1 ft area.

And the rebound is nowhere near as big.

And I'm not making it up, just reporting what the article said.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

So you kind of just made something up then?

Drying may be reducing the weight of the soil, but I can't imagine that the weight would be of much consequence. Even if soil derived 15 percent of its weight from water, and dropped to 5 percent, that is a reduction of roughly -10 pcf. But the reduction is going to be limited to the near surface soil, it isn't going to extend that deep. Even assuming it goes 10 feet deep, that leads to a total pressure reduction of -100 pounds for 1x1 ft square. So the general column of soil overlying the tectonic plates is very very minimal. Where as a 50 ft (very small glacier) tall piece of glacier that recedes away leads to a reduction of overburden pressure of -3000 pounds for that same 1x1 ft square.

The Columbia glacier is 1,800 ft thick. That's roughly 100,000 pounds for a 1x1 ft area.

And the rebound is nowhere near as big.

And I'm not making it up, just reporting what the article said.

Actually you weren't. The article doesn't mention anything about land drying due to warming and then geostatic rebound, hence my initial post asking if you were talking about some other article.

 

[Kharakov]

What nobody has mentioned is that global warming will slow down the Earth's rotation! OMG, the days will be sooooo much longer because of preservation of angular momentum, as the equatorial bulge of water goes out about a millimeter.

 

[Underseer]

http://www.newsweek.com/nepal-earth...de-disaster-climate-change-brings-326017.html

Warming dries the land, the land rises, you get quakes. (The same rebound effect we see in areas that were covered with glaciers.)

Just for future reference, it's probably best not to rely on those news magazines like Newsweek or Time for information related to climate change. They've gotten some doozies wrong in the past.

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP

Sorry, but I can't recall which specific video in the playlist references the bad reporting I'm talking about, but the whole playlist is worth watching because Potholer54 carefully cites his sources and takes both sides to task.