Does anyone else find this hysterical?

01/15/2010 01:46:52 PM · #26

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

What % of the plate's total weight is an extra 10 inches of water?

I don't think it's quite that simple. For example, stresses on the North American plate would disproportionately affect the southeast region bordering the Caribbean plate since the Atlantic Ocean is getting heavier as the Rockies, Canada and Greenland lose mass from melting ice.

01/15/2010 01:47:47 PM · #27

OK, switching off my post-its made it a bit easier. I came up with 0.0008%. Anybody else?

Remember to put a square around your answer which ultimately is "Glover is an idiot."

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM

01/15/2010 02:02:01 PM · #28

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

OK, switching off my post-its made it a bit easier. I came up with 0.0008%.

OK, but again, force is not distributed evenly and you're not taking into account the same tidal movements you pointed out earlier. Plate boundaries are already under constant stress, and if two arm wrestlers are at a standstill using all their strength, it doesn't take much additional force to tip the balance.

Message edited by author 2010-01-15 14:06:13.

karmat

Apple iPhone 7

01/15/2010 02:14:07 PM · #29

so, are y'all arguing with eachother, or agreeing? :P

01/15/2010 02:22:32 PM · #30

Let's just say I'm skeptical, but suppose it's possible. Certainly Danny is way off base, which was the original comment.

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

01/15/2010 02:22:54 PM · #31

I think we agree that Glover is a nut. Beyond that, I don't know. The idea that large scale ice melting can cause earthquakes isn't exactly new.

LoudDog

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

01/15/2010 02:48:59 PM · #32

Any math of added weight would have to be looked at as a % of the exisiting weight.

Sure you could say an extra 10" of water weighs a bazillion pounds, which sounds like a lot, but realistically that would be what, .0001% weight increase? Or the equvalent of how much more shoe wear you get when you wear a hat.

And, I'm not a geologist, but wouldn't it be possible that more weight could help hold things in place better and reduce the number and severity of earthquakes?

I'm just saying...

karmat

Apple iPhone 7

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM

01/15/2010 03:14:53 PM · #33

Originally posted by LoudDog:

Any math of added weight would have to be looked at as a % of the exisiting weight.

Sure you could say an extra 10" of water weighs a bazillion pounds, which sounds like a lot, but realistically that would be what, .0001% weight increase? Or the equvalent of how much more shoe wear you get when you wear a hat.

And, I'm not a geologist, but wouldn't it be possible that more weight could help hold things in place better and reduce the number and severity of earthquakes?

I'm just saying...

if holding in place was against something solid underneath it, i would think you would be correct.

but, based on my (admittedly limited) understanding of geography, it would be more akin to trying to stand on one of those personal floats that you use in a swimming pool. it's possible, but there is a lot of moving and shakin' going to happen.

(and for the record -- i'm not claiming to KNOW anything about it -- i was a music major. :) )

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

01/15/2010 03:24:33 PM · #34

Originally posted by karmat:

... but, based on my (admittedly limited) understanding of geography, it would be more akin to trying to stand on one of those personal floats that you use in a swimming pool.

You mean Geology not geography, but otherwise you're pretty correct -- the plates are going to be more influenced by the hundreds of miles (in depth) of circulating magma below them than anything sitting on top.

karmat

Apple iPhone 7

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM

01/15/2010 03:26:29 PM · #35

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by karmat:
... but, based on my (admittedly limited) understanding of geography, it would be more akin to trying to stand on one of those personal floats that you use in a swimming pool.

You mean Geology not geography, but otherwise you're pretty correct -- the plates are going to be more influenced by the hundreds of miles (in depth) of circulating magma below them than anything sitting on top.

yes, geology. case of my mind thinking one thing and my fingers doing something differently. ugh. (it happens when i multi-task)

Message edited by author 2010-01-15 15:26:44.

01/15/2010 03:26:42 PM · #36

Man, I just got Yankoed by LoudDog!

The % of total weight by my envelope calculations is 0.0008%.

01/15/2010 03:44:52 PM · #37

Originally posted by LoudDog:

Any math of added weight would have to be looked at as a % of the exisiting weight.

WHY? Sure, tectonic plates are huge, massive objects, but earthquakes are localized events and we already know that plates move with ice melt and sea levels changes. Those phenomena are called isostasy and eustasy, respectively, and they're not speculation. The question is not whether the changes cause earthquakes, but to what degree.

Message edited by author 2010-01-15 15:55:48.

01/15/2010 03:54:06 PM · #38

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by LoudDog:
Any math of added weight would have to be looked at as a % of the exisiting weight.

WHY? Sure, tectonic plates are huge, massive objects, but earthquakes are localized events and we already know that plates move with ice melt and sea levels changes. Those phenomena are called isostasy and eustasy, respectively, and they're not speculation. The question is not whether the changes cause earthquakes, but to what degree.

I think where you may be stretching it a bit is to say that we know multi-mile thick ice sheets can cause pressure on plates so 10" of water must do the same. Really the science of seismology is in its infancy and we probably don't know much about much.

The pressure of the extra water is literally on the scale of placing 1/100th of a dollar bill on your hand. 500g for your hand, 1 gram for the dollar bill. .01 gram for 1/100th of a dollar bill.

Message edited by author 2010-01-15 15:57:19.

01/15/2010 03:56:43 PM · #39

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I think where you may be stretching it a bit is to say that we know multi-mile thick ice sheets can cause pressure on plates so 10" of water must do the same.

See the second link I posted.

01/15/2010 03:57:55 PM · #40

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I think where you may be stretching it a bit is to say that we know multi-mile thick ice sheets can cause pressure on plates so 10" of water must do the same.

See the second link I posted.

I did, but I don't buy it. See my post above with the hand and the dollar bill.

01/15/2010 04:02:30 PM · #41

Let me ask a meta-question. Are you holding firm to the idea because you are trying to make a point or because you think the scientific evidence is pretty airtight?

01/15/2010 04:05:28 PM · #42

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Are you holding firm to the idea because you are trying to make a point or because you think the scientific evidence is pretty airtight?

It was an idea I had months ago, but I didn't know until today that a link was already known.

01/15/2010 04:06:12 PM · #43

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Are you holding firm to the idea because you are trying to make a point or because you think the scientific evidence is pretty airtight?

It was an idea I had months ago, but I didn't know until today that a link was already known.

And again, "already know" means pretty well a closed case?

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

01/15/2010 04:26:48 PM · #44

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

And again, "already know" means pretty well a closed case?

If you were half the "scientist" you claim to be, you would know that nothing is ever a closed case. All you can say is that the available evidence points to that conclusion with a strong correlation.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

The pressure of the extra water is literally on the scale of placing 1/100th of a dollar bill on your hand. 500g for your hand, 1 gram for the dollar bill. .01 gram for 1/100th of a dollar bill.

That may be true over a whole plate, but earthquakes are localized. "Scientists generally agree that a reservoir, no matter how big, cannot by itself cause an earthquake. But... the impact of so much water could hasten an earthquakeâ��s occurrence if geological conditions for a quake already existed... the best known example was a 1967 earthquake triggered by the Koyna Dam in a remote area of India, with a magnitude of about 6.5 and a death toll of about 180 people."

"Mr. Klose estimated that the weight of the water in the Zipingpu reservoir amounted to 25 times the natural stress that tectonic movements exert in a year. The added pressure, he wrote in an abstract to an unpublished study, â��resulted in the Beichaun fault coming close to failure.â�� That's one heavy dollar bill for just a reservoir! ;-)

Message edited by author 2010-01-15 16:27:47.

Louis

Nikon D800

01/15/2010 04:47:04 PM · #45

Nine minutes and twenty six seconds of an appropriate response to Pat Robertson.

Pentax D-FA* 70-200mm f/2.8 ED DC AW

01/15/2010 05:14:06 PM · #46

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
And again, "already know" means pretty well a closed case?

If you were half the "scientist" you claim to be, you would know that nothing is ever a closed case. All you can say is that the available evidence points to that conclusion with a strong correlation.

I am just trying to get a feel for you because sometimes you are really skeptical about things (scientific things, leaving aside religion) and other times you are willing to take the word of a lay press article that the science behind the claim is sound. It seems schizophrenic to me and that's why I asked the question.

K3Master

Pentax K-3

01/15/2010 05:24:35 PM · #47

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
And again, "already know" means pretty well a closed case?

If you were half the "scientist" you claim to be, you would know that nothing is ever a closed case. All you can say is that the available evidence points to that conclusion with a strong correlation.

I am just trying to get a feel for you because sometimes you are really skeptical about things (scientific things, leaving aside religion) and other times you are willing to take the word of a lay press article that the science behind the claim is sound. It seems schizophrenic to me and that's why I asked the question.

You two need to get your very own (hide-able) forum.