Global warming causes earthquakes.
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB114981650181275742-qTfTbpzQW08iI6OS2nD8ZKQe4C4_20070609.html?mod=blogs
Is this another point to ponder or what?
2006-08-09 04:32:00 · 7 answers · asked by namsaev 6 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Earth Sciences & Geology
Be careful what you read. Pondering IS truly what you must do. Some things said that come across as scientific...may really only be an alarmist spouting worst case-impossible scenarios.
2006-08-09 04:37:20 · answer #1 · answered by green is clean 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Hmm, I didn't find that article to be all that informative. It relied on a single geologist at UNC-Chapel Hill and his assertion that an isostatic rebound will cause some tectonic activity. That's not some surprise, guys. The North American continent has been rebounding since the last ice age. I'm not convinced that the correlation between glacial retreat and volcanic activity is as strong as the professor would like us to believe. That's just me though.
This smacks of alarmist nonsense from a PhD that is hoping to get some paper published and to get a bit of "face time" with the Wall Street Journal. It's true that an isostatic rebounding effect could cause some tectonic shifts, possibly opening magma channels that had previously been "pinched" closed due to the weight of ice. I think it's alarmist to even suggest that this sort of shift will cause any catastrphic results.
It's just another scientist feeding his career off of the media-driven fear of global warming.
2006-08-09 12:07:55 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Did you know that tides are caused by the gravitational pull of the moon?
Billions (if not more) pounds of water being sloshed and pulled around.
I wonder if the moon causes earthquakes too.
Look, there are fault lines all over the world, but even a huge earthquake in India (on the other side of the 'ring of fire') didn't make Berkeley's fault tear California a new one, so why would it be any more likely that some ice melting (which by the way, a lot of that ice gets replaced by water, which is denser than ice anyway) is going to suddenly screw over the planet in areas thousands of miles away?
2006-08-09 11:54:52 · answer #3 · answered by ymingy@sbcglobal.net 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That does make sense. Anything that causes massive mass displacements on the earth surface is probably going to cause motion of land masses.
2006-08-09 11:36:17 · answer #4 · answered by lenny 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, it is like saying driving causes pregnancy. The two are unrelated.
2006-08-09 12:08:44 · answer #5 · answered by Amphibolite 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I haven't thought about it either. and I'm not going to today
2006-08-09 12:57:44 · answer #6 · answered by mike L 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Try not to think about it
2006-08-09 14:19:44 · answer #7 · answered by Cat Man Do 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋