luckydawg
Posts: 2448
Joined: 9/2/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda
Actually, a connection between climate and vulcanism/tectonic activity has been credibly discussed for many years. I recall reading about it as far back as the mid-80s, and there was some pretty good data backing it up. The idea was that the weight of ice packs and snow cover on continental plates exerts pressure on magma pockets below the crust, causing a slight but measurable increase in eruptive activity during winter months in the northern hemisphere, and especially during ice ages. Or increased sea levels might exert greater pressure on tectonic plates beneath the oceans, causing them to shift and deform.
The research I read only referred tangentially to fault displacement, dealing primarily with the relationship between snow and ice and vulcanism. The point of the research was to determine the possibility of a negative feedback loop, in which increased snowfall would lead to increased particulates in the atmosphere from increased vulcanism, leading in turn to cooler temperatures, leading in turn to increased snowfall, etc. But I have no problem at all believing that there is a correlation to earthquake activity; in fact, I'd be very surprised if it there weren't. The last glacier here in Minnesota melted over 10,000 years ago, but the land in Northern Minnesota is still rebounding at the rate of almost a half inch per year from the weight of that ice mass. (That's probably why Ron seems so dizzy sometimes; people who live up there must feel like they're on a roller coaster.) Anyway, if memory serves, the Lake Superior region has rebounded a couple of hundred meters since the retreat of the glacier, and is expected to rise at least another 150 over the next several thousand years. Unless it snows again, of course. But the point is, if you have that much continental mass shifting that much over a few thousand years in an area that's tectonically active to begin with, it's going to trigger earthquakes as faults shift in relation to one another. It's inevitable.
And I believe a relationship has also been suggested between rainfall and earthquake activity. This I don't know much about, because i didn't actually read any of the work. I just saw it referenced in a couple of other articles. The theory (as near as i can recall) is that prolonged heavy rainfall in certain areas can trigger earthquakes because increased groundwater acts as a lubricant between tectonic plates. I want to make clear that I'm not defending that particular theory, because I haven't read the work. I'm just saying it's gotten some serious study over the last several years, so there may be something there.
The problem, though, is that while such events might very well be responsible for triggering earthquakes or volcanic eruptions, that's not the same as saying they actually caused them. That's an important distinction. What's more likely is that they just act as a catalyst for a geologic event that would have occurred anyway; just (perhaps) not quite so soon. In other words, the quake in Haiti (if it were triggered by, say, rising sea levels), would have happened next year instead of this year. But it would have happened regardless, because the geologic forces that cause plates to shift (while they may be influenced by the weight of ice packs or seawater) are ultimately caused by factors that are completely independent of anything relating to climate.
These theories seem at face value to make sense,and I suspect they are at least one of the factors.
But it should be noted, that they are causing the events to happen sooner, which means with less severity.
Meaning, Haiti just got spared from a 7.4 in 50 years or so, by getting a 7.2 now.
_____________________________
I was posting as Right Wing Hippie, but that account got messed up.
|
RE: Now Haiti!! The Big One/ Still don't believe the we... - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread