Four 7+ quakes in less than a fortnight

Discussion in 'Et Cetera, Et Cetera' started by B_mitchymo, Oct 8, 2009.

  1. B_mitchymo

    B_mitchymo New Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2008
    Messages:
    4,706
    Likes Received:
    12
    Location:
    Rugby, England
    Do you think the media is taking an extra special interest in quakes atm because it is a sign of climate change or maybe that the issue of climate change is fuelling a higher focus and that these magnitute quakes happen quite commonly in the South Pacific region?

    I mean, i know that tsunamis are rarely ever reported on the news so must mean they are quite uncommon on a level of threat to life and there have been two in 1 year...or is that 2yrs :confused:
     
  2. HellsKitchenmanNYC

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2005
    Messages:
    5,848
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    8
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    New York
    Depends on who you listen to about climate change. On the radio tnite I heard this was the coldest winter for the top and bottom icelands. Less ice melted this year than in years before. In terms of storms and tsunamis and earthquakes we hear about them all the time on the news. It seems almost every even minor quake is reported here in the news.
     
  3. B_mitchymo

    B_mitchymo New Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2008
    Messages:
    4,706
    Likes Received:
    12
    Location:
    Rugby, England
    Really? We never hear about them unless they register at least a 6 on the scale unless its a UK based quake which when felt is only ever as high as 5.2 due to the security of being on the centre plate and not those scary edges.
     
  4. HellsKitchenmanNYC

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2005
    Messages:
    5,848
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    8
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    New York
    Weird because here at least it seems in different season there's always something on the tv news or at least in an article in the paper.
     
  5. B_mitchymo

    B_mitchymo New Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2008
    Messages:
    4,706
    Likes Received:
    12
    Location:
    Rugby, England
    Ah well in fairness i suppose it's hazard varients.

    UK= Floods, quakes, occasional snowstorms and landslides

    US= Floods, quakes, snowstorms, landslides, tornados, hurricanes, volcanos, icestorms, drought and occasional mega-tsunami (alaska i believe)
     
  6. HellsKitchenmanNYC

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2005
    Messages:
    5,848
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    8
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    New York
    Maybe it's the American press I dunno but whenever there's a disaster or a post ones we get almost non-stop coverage of it. Esp. on cable tv.
     
  7. Zeuhl34

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2008
    Messages:
    2,104
    Albums:
    2
    Likes Received:
    40
    Gender:
    Male
    Earthquakes really do not affect the climate (unless a series of earthquakes causes widespread volcanic eruptions), and, likewise, the climate does not affect earthquakes.
     
  8. B_mitchymo

    B_mitchymo New Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2008
    Messages:
    4,706
    Likes Received:
    12
    Location:
    Rugby, England
    Oh ok, does that mean the earth geothermal temp is not affected by climate temp?
     
  9. rob_just_rob

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2005
    Messages:
    6,037
    Likes Received:
    9
    Location:
    Nowhere near you
    This is my understanding as well (well, the latter part - as noted, volcanic activity can have a global impact on climate).
     
  10. SpeedoGuy

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2004
    Messages:
    4,229
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    10
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Pacific Northwest, USA
    I hope no one confuses earthquakes and tsunamis with climate change. They are completely un-related.
     
  11. jason_els

    jason_els <img border="0" src="/images/badges/gold_member.gi

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2004
    Messages:
    10,576
    Likes Received:
    25
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Warwick, NY, USA
    I think it's more accurate to say that there is no evidence that climate change is related to earthquake activity in these recent instances. Earthquakes have effected climate change in the past via volcanoes and the shifting of currents.

    The converse, however, is being actively researched. It is possible that climate change is effecting the incidents of volcanoes and earthquakes via melting glaciers uncovering volcanoes and thus releasing pressure, and the increased water pressure in some areas possibly causing fault flooding and or slippage.

    I think it is premature to declare that there is no correlation one way or the other at this time. Plate tectonics is still a young science and new faults are discovered all the time. There is an active theory that severe earthquakes at one point on the globe can cause earthquakes at the antipode. This theory is still controversial, yet the evidence present is statistically significant.
     
  12. SpeedoGuy

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2004
    Messages:
    4,229
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    10
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Pacific Northwest, USA
    Well put. I should have known better to make a sweeping declaration.
     
  13. BigDallasDick8x6

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2006
    Messages:
    4,012
    Albums:
    3
    Likes Received:
    163
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Dallas TX (North Oak Cliff)
    I think it's all PR for the movie 2012. LOL

    Remember when Jaws came out there were actually idiots who said shark attacks were up because "they" had put more sharks in the ocean as PR for the movie? Gee, where would they get them from?? People are amazing.
     
  14. Rugbypup

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2007
    Messages:
    3,194
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    19
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    New Zealand
    Earthquake Events 2009 : IRIS

    Yeah, there has been quite a big of strong seismic activity this year, but the Pacific ring of fire is incredibly seismically active.

    There is speculation that it could be to do with the whole 21/23-12-2012 thing. We are apparently passing through the gravity flux emanating from the centre of the galaxy, a slow process culminating with possible strongest disruptions on the above date.

    Is it due to increased gravimetric activity?

    Perhaps, perhaps not. A little to much unproven pseudo science.

    It could just be that the whole regions is having a flare up.

    Either way, tsunami warnings are fucking scary and earthquakes are terrifying. Every time there's a wobble, I'm under the bed whimpering.
     
  15. Krusader

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2007
    Messages:
    5,442
    Albums:
    2
    Likes Received:
    2,767
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Mos Eisley
    lets hope its just coincidence :frown1:
     
  16. jason_els

    jason_els <img border="0" src="/images/badges/gold_member.gi

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2004
    Messages:
    10,576
    Likes Received:
    25
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Warwick, NY, USA
    And a 6.2 has just hit the Aleutians. I hope the entire Pacific isn't becoming unglued. That would suck.
     
  17. D_Kissimmee Coldsore

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2007
    Messages:
    531
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sorry mate but that is all pseudo and no science.
     
  18. Rugbypup

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2007
    Messages:
    3,194
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    19
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    New Zealand
    This is the argument for any field of theoretical science, astrophysics in no different, I can understand that.

    It doesn't however, stop it turning round and biting you in the arse when theory becomes fact, despite the fact no one liked the sound of it or thought it would be credible.

    Much about black holes is unproven theory.

    Much about gravity is unproven theory.

    Much about galaxy formation, mechanics and dynamics is unproven theory.

    ...I can't agree more, it doesn't mean however, that they're wrong.
     
  19. D_Kissimmee Coldsore

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2007
    Messages:
    531
    Likes Received:
    0
    Only Mathematics involves proofs. Science has theories. Theories are conclusions based on observation, not just an idea. Gravity on the universal scale down to the microscopic and beyond agrees with our best theory of gravity yet, that of Einstein. Quantum gravity is still undescribed.

    Whatever it was you said about gravity flux is just pseudo-sciencey word-play. The supermassive black hole at the centre of the galaxy is always there. Hence it is always exerting a gravitational pull on the Sun and even on you and I. Pseudo science plays on the fact that people imagine black holes as big bottomless vacuum cleaners but the fact is unless you actually pass the even horizon or fly through the relativistic jets emanating from the poles of a "feeding" black hole they are just bodies of mass and act upon other external bodies in the manner of Newtonian dynamics (or as near as you could tell).
     
  20. Rugbypup

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2007
    Messages:
    3,194
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    19
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    New Zealand
    'IF' you're right.

    What 'IF' you're not?

    In this statement you are treating a scientific theory as unalterable fact.

    While I do agree there is a lot of scientific word play out there, much of which is hoped to give pseudo science credence, it doesn't mean that there is nothing to the ideas.

    Acknowledging, proving or dismissing such ideas is exactly how science progresses.

    It was explained to me in the following way... rightly or wrongly.

    The super massive black hole at the galaxy's heart is rotating and it's gravitational influence is not emanating out in a perfect 360 degree sphere but rather a flat disc, hence the reason all the stars orbit in a relevantly flat field.

    Our solar system orbits the galactic centre in a sine wave like motion, passing up and down through the super massive black holes gravity disc every few tens of thousands of years.

    Gravity is presumed to have a concentrated effect as you pass though this point. Like the edge of a CD, this is the region where you would be directly in line with the super massive black hole and suggest to the greatest influence. Like looking down on a torch beam, the torch isn't as bright as looking directly into the beam. (A torch is a flash light to Americans I think, yes, I know you're Scottish.)

    If this is correct and I'm not saying it is before I get bitten here, then it's wondered if it would have any influence over the Chandler wobble of the Earth axis.

    The Earth axis are not in a fixed position, they rotate around as the Earth wobbles on it's axis, this is yet to be explained and we know the wobble changes size. The Chandler wobble is a know fact, ask any GPS company.

    So the worry is, as our solar system and more so, Earth, passes directly through this gravity disc it could, might, may, knock the planet onto a new axis of rotation, resulting in a new mass distribution of the planet.

    The planet is not a perfect sphere but a slightly squashed shape, thickest at the equator than the poles. If the pole were to move, knocked into a new position by external force, the planets mass would have to redistribute itself to once again be thicker at the equator and thinner at the poles.

    Is it right? Dunno.

    Is it understandable? Kinda.

    Is it scary as fuck? Hell yes.
     
    #20 Rugbypup, Oct 13, 2009
    Last edited: Oct 13, 2009
Draft saved Draft deleted