Global Warming Causes Earthquakes

Page 14 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.

jpishgar

Administrator
Staff member
Aug 22, 2019
21
16
15
Re-opening for discussion, as significant additional studies have been conducted on the subject matter in the intervening decade.
 
Jan 13, 2020
54
29
60
1" of water = 929 g / sq ft.

Do you really think that a compressive load of less than 1 kg/ft2 will cause rock to compress, fracture and make mag 7-9 earthquakes? :roll:
That's not a good assessment. Apply .5 kg of pressure to .5 square foot of your body. No pain.

Apply . 5 kg of pressure to every . 5 square feet of your body surface. You will be crushed, given time.
 
Feb 1, 2020
32
14
35
The ocean rise from AGW has been on the order of a 10 cm so far (at most). This is trivial, and will not cause purported increased earthquakes on the ocean floor observed over the decade 2001-2010.

I was saying, if all the icepacks completely melted, say 5000y from today, then the mass of the additional 100m of water might cause earthquakes from rearrangements in crustal elements as they adjust.
Geologists have charted the beaches of the last time that all the Arctic and Antarctic ice melted. It is about twenty meters higher than today. This has happened repeatedly over the last billion years or so.
Sorry, no oceanic rise to above the Pyrenees. So far, even Florida is safe. Last I heard, Miami is still there as well. Florida is after all, just a big sand bar in the Caribbean. Half the state is less than 30 cm above high tide.
The last big ice melt planet-wide that I am familiar with was the Mid Eocean Global Climactic Optimum. This was around 30-40 Million years back. There were figs and palm trees growing in the Arctic Circle, and more and more varied mammalian life forms than any time before or since.
Something like that happened in the early Cretaceous as well.
Oh, and the 10 CM rise is not measured. It is extrapolated for the last hundred years or so. Measured is 1.5 mm with a + or - of about 10 cm. That comes from satellite measurement. Measurements from shore have to contend with tidal effects and continental drift. It seems continents and islands bob up and down, or even tip over, as Greece seems to be slowly doing.
We live in a complicated world, it seems.
 
Dec 11, 2019
383
116
360
I would think that Tesla Technology would be more obvious in causing earth quakes then global warming. But I guess that would just make to much sense. As of right now they blame everything on global warming and climate change. It has just become ridiculous and most people are seeing right through it.
 
Dec 29, 2019
32
17
35
There will be earthquakes from variations in the weight of water and ice over land - mostly "microquakes" but occasionally in combination with other tectonic forces could be triggers as well as contributing factors for larger quakes. Global climate change is changing the distributions of water and ice in addition to "normal" variability so, yes, global warming can and will cause some earthquakes.


It isn't likely that many larger quakes would occur that would not have occurred otherwise - some may occur sooner (at similar intensity) whilst others may be delayed. Some could be triggered in conditions where pressures are static or easing, ie that would not have happened. But others might be prevented. Microquakes have been associated with big flood events as well as extreme droughts and the occurance and frequency and intensity can be impacted by climate change.

The most significant changes to mass distribution are probably going to be ice sheet loss, in association with isostatic rebound. Again, not likely to be big quakes - and those are not usually heavily populated regions.

Earthquakes are not likely to be amongst the more serious and damaging consequences of global warming; plenty of other serious problems, yes.
 
Dec 11, 2019
383
116
360
KEY ISSUES OF INTEREST TO DOD IN WEATHER AND CLIMATE CHANGE-1975

It seems interesting the unclassified document says from "about 1890 to 1940 North Hemisphere and probably world temperatures rose significantly 0.7C, especially at high latitudes, leading to increasingly favorable world agriculture just as world populations zoomed upwards".

Then on Page 2 it says "a cooling has now set in, with adverse agricultural consequences in spite of today's greatly improved agronomic practices".

 
Dec 29, 2019
32
17
35
KEY ISSUES OF INTEREST TO DOD IN WEATHER AND CLIMATE CHANGE-1975

It seems interesting the unclassified document says from "about 1890 to 1940 North Hemisphere and probably world temperatures rose significantly 0.7C, especially at high latitudes, leading to increasingly favorable world agriculture just as world populations zoomed upwards".

Then on Page 2 it says "a cooling has now set in, with adverse agricultural consequences in spite of today's greatly improved agronomic practices".

The point of citing a 1975 CIA report that got it wrong about climate change escapes me, especially with respect to climate change impacting Earthquakes. I am thinking you reject the current mainstream science based understanding of climate change - why bring this up like it is significant otherwise?

In 1975 the top US science agencies, when asked about it, did not consider it possible to make confident predictions about climate change.

From the Foreword of 1975 National Academy of Science/Global Atmopheric Research Program/National Research Council report "Understanding Climatic Change: A Program For Action" -
"We have an urgent need for better information on global climate. Unfortunately, we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course. Without this fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate — neither in its short-term variations nor in its larger long-term changes.

The "Program for Action" was to remedy that lack of information and inability to make confident predictions. Which it did. Thank you Global Cooling hype, for raising the profile of climate science and ultimately revealing the real reasons we need not fear imminent global cooling. It didn't turn out nearly so reassuring as hoped but knowing what to really expect, with confidence, makes that knowledge priceless.
 
Last edited:
Dec 11, 2019
383
116
360
The point of citing a 1975 CIA report that got it wrong about climate change escapes me, especially with respect to climate change impacting Earthquakes. I am thinking you reject the current mainstream science based understanding of climate change - why bring this up like it is significant otherwise?

In 1975 the top US science agencies, when asked about it, did not consider it possible to make confident predictions about climate change.

From the Foreword of 1975 National Academy of Science/Global Atmopheric Research Program/National Research Council report "Understanding Climatic Change: A Program For Action" -
"We have an urgent need for better information on global climate. Unfortunately, we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course. Without this fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate — neither in its short-term variations nor in its larger long-term changes.

The "Program for Action" was to remedy that lack of information and inability to make confident predictions. Which it did. Thank you Global Cooling hype, for raising the profile of climate science and ultimately revealing the real reasons we need not fear imminent global cooling. It didn't turn out nearly so reassuring as hoped but knowing what to really expect, with confidence, makes that knowledge priceless.
So if they were wrong then what makes you think they are not wrong now? They don't seem to have a good track record according to yourself.

Are these scientist somehow better? Or how about they were right in the past and this new science is controlled and propaganda. Spreading fear into the world that we are all going to die.

So give your government more tax dollars and live in one room houses with 2 other families. While the Elite preaching fly around everywhere and live in huge mansions polluting the earth. If this is so true why isn't Al Gore living off the grid? And why aren't the politicians that push this agenda living off the grid and using a horse and buggy? Everybody should become Amish to save the planet. And especially the scientist and politicians pushing this agenda. Tell me why don't they do what they preach?

And to answer your question NO I don't trust anything mainstream. Most of it is pure propaganda and always has an agenda that is always bent towards control and installs fear in the human species.
 
Last edited:
Dec 29, 2019
32
17
35
Truthseeker - Not trusting anything mainstream science says must make seeking the truth very difficult for you.

BTW no-one should have to go all stone age to expect their governments and people in positions of trust and responsibility to take seriously something they already know (or should) is genuine and serious. Not that the self appointed hypocrisy police will take anyone who does go without stuff any more seriously because of it. Hypocrites! And the whole point of calling for a non destructive transition to low emissions is to prevent people having to go without stuff. I am constantly amazed that people really think refusing to accept or just not caring about the issue is somehow a morally superior position.

I've encountered too many climate science denying conspiracy theorists to expect you to give up casually slandering honest climate scientists or disparaging the honest concerns of people who - sensibly and reasonably - take decades of consistent top level expert advice on the matter seriously. I am not going to keep arguing this - this is not the place, even if there were any point.
 
Last edited:
Dec 11, 2019
383
116
360
Truthseeker - Not trusting anything mainstream science says must make seeking the truth very difficult for you.

BTW no-one should have to go all stone age to expect their governments and people in positions of trust and responsibility to take seriously something they already know (or should) is genuine and serious. Not that the self appointed hypocrisy police will take anyone who does go without stuff any more seriously because of it. Hypocrites! And the whole point of calling for a non destructive transition to low emissions is to prevent people having to go without stuff. I am constantly amazed that people really think refusing to accept or just not caring about the issue is somehow a morally superior position.

I've encountered too many climate science denying conspiracy theorists to expect you to give up casually slandering honest climate scientists or disparaging the honest concerns of people who - sensibly and reasonably - take decades of consistent top level expert advice on the matter seriously. I am not going to keep arguing this - this is not the place, even if there were any point.
That is exactly why I don't trust anything mainstream because through seeking my truth I found out what mainstream really is. From my studies anything with the word mainstream in it is most of the time a way to control the masses. That is why it is mainstream because it hits the most amount of people so that is where the propaganda, control, fear and false information comes from. It is all fear based.

As you will hear mainstream saying anything alternative is fake news when it is the mainstream that is the true culprit of confusing the masses and spreading fear. So I don't rely on mainstream science or their thoughts at all and know it is controlled and not real science. It is the occult knowledge which really matters. Occult meaning hidden. What those controllers don't want is the masses to know hidden knowledge because the controllers will lose power if the humans knew their true nature and capabilities.

For one we could be using free energy right now if Nicola Tesla's inventions weren't locked away in vaults. The controllers can't make money off of free energy which is why we don't have it.

Why do you feel the need to put a label on somebody who asks questions? The fact is there is an agenda to control you.

Ok if this whole climate change is going to kill us all which I highly doubt what are your solutions? What are you going to do about it besides preach?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

Latest posts