Melting Ice-Caps Should Create World-Wide Earthquakes

Melting Ice-Caps Should Create World-Wide Earthquakes

I am not a scientist with the necessary degrees and specialties in orbital mechanics, environmental modeling, and plate tectonics.

This has been mention slightly under google:

Isostatic adjustment-adjustment of earth after glaciers leave
-or-
Isostasy –wikipedia-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isostasy

This bears repeating now - this awful tragedy illustrating what earthquakes can mean.
Not just the rate of melt but the rate of increasing melt is huge. Even if all those melting ice-cubes don't disrupt our weather, it seems apparent that releasing hundreds of thousands of square miles of ice, a mile or more thick from the poles will shift a large part of that weight much more towards our equator.
If that won't cause shifting stresses on our tectonic plates floating on the molten core of our planet, I don't know what will.

Problem > Solution
1. Tax toxic chemicals, zero all other taxes.
2. Restore and expand wetlands, drainage, bottom-land, marshes,
swamps world-wide.

Best wishes to you’all
b2k

-edited for spelling-

other things.

...

wikipedia is a blog...
isostatic rebound is a gold-plated fact
-its connection with quakes I'm trying to explore with help
I also would not link to wikipedia on a point of any controversey

You've claimed two people have attacked you, when no one has, only attacked your suggestion and sources.

So ya... why so touchy?

no rational argument
didn't look beyond wikipedia
didn't even know the ir is a fact, thought I was making that up
then, if you notice the time lapse,
I noticed that karlschneider
jumping all over du tonite
trashing reasonable threads
with highly emotive dismissive words
no arguments of substance
then leaving when confronted
so ks got me touchy
as for you db
you won't see past the set up to my arguments, the ir,
and respond to the heart of my arguments, global weight shifting not local.
trashing me and ignoring the subtlities I am trying to explore
it's very depressing
do you believe emotional arguments are the best way to advance knowledge?

If you want me to get you the names of real live structural geologists I can.... I doubt they'd be any more receptive than the people who've responded to this thread so far.

that lets you view the globe in quite startling detail. Many options too. It kind of gives one a perspective of just how big the world really is. You can control rotation speed, lighting and tilt. Also has zoom in and out and will highlight certain cities if you place your cursor over them. Needs Java Runtime 2 environment to view.

http://ccastel.free.fr/

That'll scare off the Freepers.

Does anyone know where the site is that is basically a "Where's the daylight now" clock/satellite map? I found it a few months ago, but I can't remember were I put the bookmark.:crazy:

by googling sunclock. Don't know if it's the one you had before though.

http://www.worldtimezone.com/datetime.htm

The one I'm talking about was like a 3-d, earth hi-res, satellite photo montage, wrapped around a sphere. The best part is that it is zoomable, and the sunlight moves in real time. Also the city lights show up when the city moves into the earth shadow.

Anyone found one like that? :shrug:

I'm not going to go into all of it here, But....

The Big problem is, Fresh water sinks below salt water, which causes the ocean currents to change, which causes the heat in the ocean to change, which causes the weather to change, which causes the rain and snow patterns to change,:crazy: which basically means, WE'RE FUCKED!

Basically

Cheers :toast:

Freshwater is less dense than saltwater.

Freshwater=1000kg/m^3
Saltwater~1025kg/m^3

But That' how the "How would global warming trigger an Ice age?" theory goes, basically.

It's called something like the "Northern Atlantic Conveyor" or something like that.

Sorry:eyes:

just one, to fly the rockets up.

Since it will mean billions of easy profits for Mr. Lockheed, rocketman, it should pass Congress.

Kyoto too slow, and getting a dozen major nations to lose money doing restraint, is .... doubtful.
Frankly, it will never happen that way.

Google ORBITAL SUNSHADE, for NBC page of experts commenting on the sunshade.

Could be up there a year or two after begun.

PS weight does in fact trigger quakes, from what i read. Farewell, NYC, LA, SF , MIAMI.

1) Isostatic rebound is slow. Hudson Bay is still isostatically rebounding from the last glaciation that went away more than 10,000 years ago.

2) Any earthquakes that would be experienced from isostatic rebound (and I actually doubt there would be any greater than M2), would be in the places where the last is isostatically rebounding. In other words: Antarctica and Greenland and northern Canada.

And just to clear something up. Plates aren't on the molten core, they ride on the plastic mantle. It's very hot, but it's a solid that deforms plastically. The only part of the Earth's interior that's molten is the outer core, deep within the mantle and far away from plate boundaries. The inner core is hotter than the outer core, but is solid because of intense pressures at the very center of the Earth. Plates move because of convection currents that flow through the plastic mantle.

1.not the isostatic rebounds causing quakes themselves,
the rebound shifts might trigger quakes.

2.yes, plates don't ride on the core-over simplified there

3.the major point I was trying to make was the shift of weight from the poles redistributed over the ocean will change the weight distribution of the planet change the stresses on plates.

SLOW. Isostatic rebound is too SLOW to create earthquakes. The crust plastically rebounds due to the absence of ice. The mantle plastically fills the void. This takes 10⁴ to 10⁶ years to happen. How does plastic deformation over the span of 10⁴ to 10⁶ years create earthquakes in the geological blink of an eye near the equator?

Earthquakes happen because of naturally occuring and constant stresses in the crust of the earth, not because of very slight increases in ocean volume....

yes IR is too slow to cause quakes themselves, obviously at fractions of millimeters a years. see post #13 -and not very clearly in original.

The point I am trying to make -see #13 again- is the "naturally occuring and constant stresses on the crust of the earth" are shifted when hundreds of thousands of cubic miles of water are removed from the poles and spread across the globe.

Huge weight moves -tension rack up in places, and release in others, over thousands of years, and probably trigger earthquakes when the tension gets high enough.

Are you a geologist? Since the answer is obviously "no" to both questions, you'll just have to take my word for it, and what you're suggesting is 110% bullshit.

you have not addressed the points I've clarified twice already.
you have a very unscientific way of dismissing me and the arguments without addressing the facts I am trying to discuss in a reasonable manner.
you have not stated you are a geologist
only that I should take your "word for it" and the I'm "suggesting 110% bullshit", which is an obvious impossiblity.
why don't you want to discuss facts?
-for the third time the ir movement is not what I'm talking about, it is only an example of the effects of shifting weight on the underlaying geology.
-and please lay off the rude talk-thanks

This isn't a straw that breaks the camel's back thing.... The camel is already being hit by a train from the left and the right. The lithostatic pressure at the ocean floor due to the weight of the ocean in, let's say, the west coast of Sumatra is 58.8 kPa.

P_lith = pgh

P_lith = 1.0 x 9.8 x 6000

P_lith = 58.8 kPa

Add 1m of water, and the P_lith has increased all the way up to 58.81 kPa. Add 10 m of water, and the P_lith is up to 58.9 kPa. So an increase of 10 m of water, increased the P_lith due to the weight of the ocean by 0.17%.

BUT, let's add in the P_lith from the rock overlying the focus of the earthquake. This was a really rather shallow quake, and was only 6km deep. Plugging into the equation, we see:

P_lith = pgh

P_lith = 2.7 x 9.8 x 6000

P_lith = 158.8 kPa

Wow, that's quite a bit more. And now, add in the increase from 10m of water, and it's just increasing the lithostatic pressure at the focus by 0.046%.

Add in the stresses from subduction, which are in gPa, and you'll soon see that the P_lith from filling up oceans is really really REALLY inconsequential.

I have no problem with what you are saying,
and I truly appreciate your trying to dig into the new obviously murky
way I have presented.

I included the term "orbital mechanics" in the original post, because, once again, I am interested in exploring global effects of the weight shift, not the points specifically under the glaciers or over the equator.

As the weight shifts from the north to the towards the poles, that's enormous weight shifting it's position on the planets surface. Going from a point far north enough to freeze water year-around, to a point on the planet that should now average half the distance from the poles to equators.

Or hundreds of thousand cubic miles of water shifting their position by a couple thousand miles should have somekind of impact, and where we are concerned this impact could sway the balance of fault-lines throughout the planet.

Considering we are living on the relatively thin crust on a plastic planet

DB-thank you for your interest, and the moderation of your tone

-I must admit also that my solutions to the problems, could make me sound a little nutty. But if you work through them...who knows?

best wishes