Can earthquakes be a result of global warming?

Originally posted by Regenmacher

Towards purposing a hypothesis: Gravitational effects from large space collosions, supernova, black hole formation, pulsars, magnetars, solar hard x-ray events, etc. are more likely to cause earthquakes than electromagnetic irradiance from gamma ray bursts.

Great stuff regenmacher. Thanks.

But ...the cycles only start to make sense when you consider all the factors, together. And it seems that the most severe cycles occur when several 'factor cycles' overlap and basically, hit all at the same time. ...And when you factor in other, apparently unrelated events - things become even more clear. Tis the nature of a system. Looking for direct cause and effect is not the way to go.

Originally posted by soficrow

But ...the cycles only start to make sense when you consider all the factors, together. And it seems that the most severe cycles occur when several 'factor cycles' overlap and basically, hit all at the same time. ...And when you factor in other, apparently unrelated events - things become even more clear. Tis the nature of a system. Looking for direct cause and effect is not the way to go.

Yeah, I wasn't proposing just one physical factor is responsible. I am setting priorities in order to find the largest most relevant unifying forces. They have super computers for variable crunching/modeling and my feeble brain isn't one of them.

Superstring theory indicates the three fundamental forces of the universe may be manifested from a single fundamental force. That force is believed to be gravity. Until we get a working model of quantum gravity, it is still a matter of observation. On a personal study level, that means focusing on what is most likely to effect terresterial events such as gravity, emf or nuclear forces.

The Elegant Universe - a must see
www.pbs.org...

Originally posted by RegenmacherTowards purposing a hypothesis: Gravitational effects from large space collosions, supernova, black hole formation, pulsars, magnetars, solar hard x-ray events, etc. are more likely to cause earthquakes than electromagnetic irradiance from gamma ray bursts.

Do you know the exact quanta of each of these energies you stated?

I don't think I ment to say gamma rays as much as I did just pure proton (you have to refresh my memory on what separates the gamma photon from a photon if any difference, maybe this is what I was talking about). I was refering to a proton (a very abundant cosmic ray if not the most) hitting an atom and releasing a photon do to the shift in energy of the electron (also a form of cosmic radiation).

The x-ray is a photon is it not? Do you know the abundance and quanta difference of this and the gamma?

I mentioned one form of cosmic radiation simply because it is the one I know the most about. I can tell you that the pion breaks apart to form a muon, and I think the pion is derived from a proton, no? But I don't believe muons ever reach the earth's surface or past the ionosphere so I can't see this having too much if any of an effect on the earth's surface temperature.

What are these magnetars, supernovas and pulasars emitting that reaches the earth's magnetic field? Our sun is a form of a cosmic ray which hits the earth in the form of a photon. I would like to think that the sun heats the earth just fine (would most of this energy be photons?).

Probably best to just say what you mean rather than asking me a bunch of rhetorical questions about common knowledge in regards to physics 101.

Originally posted by Frosty
What are these magnetars, supernovas and pulasars emitting that reaches the earth's magnetic field?

The question may be what are these sources emitting that punch through the magnetosphere and atmosphere ahead of what is detectable old school quanta, since it has been observed that earthquakes happen before GRB events.

I would like to think that the sun heats the earth just fine (would most of this energy be photons?).

Solar radiation is pretty constant, while earthquakes are not. Same could be said for tidal forces. I haven't been able to make much headway in regards to specific correlations between earthquakes, photon levels, solar activity, proton flux, solar wind bow shocks, geomagnetic changes, emf, rfi, you name it...hence my focus is now including gravity waves as the underlying fundamental force.

Have you some scientific studies in regards to precursor emf and earthquakes? Would like to see them, since we have been doing a study. If you would like to participate in the research forum u2u Ptolomeo.
ATS Severe Geomagnetic Storm Research Project

[edit on 19-10-2005 by Regenmacher]

Originally posted by Regenmacher
... I am setting priorities in order to find the largest most relevant unifying forces. They have super computers for variable crunching/modeling and my feeble brain isn't one of them.

Superstring theory indicates the three fundamental forces of the universe may be manifested from a single fundamental force. That force is believed to be gravity. Until we get a working model of quantum gravity, it is still a matter of observation. On a personal study level, that means focusing on what is most likely to effect terresterial events such as gravity, emf or nuclear forces.

The Elegant Universe - a must see
www.pbs.org...

Kewl regenmacher.

BTW - did you see my thread referring to gravitational waves and climate change? Might be something there you can use:

Ancient Interstellar Collision: May Help Explain Climate Change



.
ed fix link


[edit on 19-10-2005 by soficrow]

No, sure haven't Soficrow. That fits right into what I am looking for too.

Looks like a weeks worth of material to peruse. More coffee!

Originally posted by Regenmacher
Probably best to just say what you mean rather than asking me a bunch of rhetorical questions about common knowledge in regards to physics 101.

Originally posted by Frosty
What are these magnetars, supernovas and pulasars emitting that reaches the earth's magnetic field?

The question may be what are these sources emitting that punch through the magnetosphere and atmosphere ahead of what is detectable old school quanta, since it has been observed that earthquakes happen before GRB events.

I would like to think that the sun heats the earth just fine (would most of this energy be photons?).

Solar radiation is pretty constant, while earthquakes are not. Same could be said for tidal forces. I haven't been able to make much headway in regards to specific correlations between earthquakes, photon levels, solar activity, proton flux, solar wind bow shocks, geomagnetic changes, emf, rfi, you name it...hence my focus is now including gravity waves as the underlying fundamental force.

Have you some scientific studies in regards to precursor emf and earthquakes? Would like to see them, since we have been doing a study. If you would like to participate in the research forum u2u Ptolomeo.
ATS Severe Geomagnetic Storm Research Project

[edit on 19-10-2005 by Regenmacher]

All I am asking is what exactly is the quanta (I think this is right), the amount of energy these particles are composed of and what are these particles emitted from far distant objects (farther than our sun)? I can find this out, but I thought maybe you could provide more information on a quicker basis.

I am also quite sure that these GRB's are happening continuously in the earth's atmosphere somewhere. I don't see why they would stop. IS there any evidence to support that they would suddenly just stop and that a continual feed of thesephotons is needed to cooroborate an earthquake? It may not be the one straw that breaks the cammels back, but you could be one of the many.

Study all the gravity waves you want with the moon, sun and the earth, but it is heat that causes these earthquakes. Can you show how gravity may cause a variation of heat on these tectonic plates?

Originally posted by Frosty

Study all the gravity waves you want with the moon, sun and the earth, but it is heat that causes these earthquakes.

Frosty?! ...many, many things work together to cause quakes - but these days, a lot of what we see begins with oil and gas drilling - which then starts a domino effect. See:

PODCAST: Quakes trigger Quakes

Can you show how gravity may cause a variation of heat on these tectonic plates?

Check out "Surge Tectonics" and "self-Organizing Criticality."

Originally posted by Frosty
[Study all the gravity waves you want with the moon, sun and the earth, but it is heat that causes these earthquakes. Can you show how gravity may cause a variation of heat on these tectonic plates?

Heat causes Earthquakes: If your going to make these assumptions contrary to the scientific norms, it's time to prove direct causation.

Submit your data and modeling for ATS public review. You can post your a complete hypothesis, introduction, objectives, methods, results, conclusions and reputable references here.



[edit on 19-10-2005 by Regenmacher]

Regenbacher - re looking at gravity as a/the critical factor in causing earthquakes. Have you considered gravitational lensing? Gravitational lensing refers to gravity fields bending, focusing and amplifying electromagnetic radiation/light - BUT - what if? What if there is a (force) that also acts as a lens to focus and maybe amplify gravitational waves? ...Are you aware of any work on this question?

...It happens that there are seismic lenses in the earth - both natural and man-made it would seem - that act to focus and amplify seismic waves. So why not a "lens" that does the same for gravitational waves?

Originally posted by Regenmacher

Originally posted by Frosty
[Study all the gravity waves you want with the moon, sun and the earth, but it is heat that causes these earthquakes. Can you show how gravity may cause a variation of heat on these tectonic plates?

Heat causes Earthquakes: If your going to make these assumptions contrary to the scientific norms, it's time to prove direct causation.

Submit your data and modeling for ATS public review. You can post your a complete hypothesis, introduction, objectives, methods, results, conclusions and reputable references here.



[edit on 19-10-2005 by Regenmacher]

So now I am to understand that heat does not cause earthquakes? I can't wait till we start invistigating the seismic activity on Mars to compare the results. From what I understand Mars neither has much of an atmosphere, magnetic field or rotating core. It does have moons and feels a closer gravitational effect of Jupiter and the larger planets and a smaller degree from the sun than does earth.

If you want to say that gravity is the primary cause, post your results and I'll scoop mine up for a heat related arguement.

Wasn't the title of this thread 'Global warming causing earthquakes'?

Originally posted by soficrow
Regenbacher - re looking at gravity as a/the critical factor in causing earthquakes. Have you considered gravitational lensing?

My understanding of the gravitational lensing phenomena is light is bent by the force of gravity. They've been using it on a cosmological scale to explore the far reaches of the universe and to probe for dark matter. Think of it as a cosmic telescope. Not aware of how finding/using lenses would effect terrestrial events though, since those gravity fields are generally static. But I am no master of theoretical cosmology either...that be Hawkins speciality.

Regenmacher is german for rainmaker, Reddenbacher makes popcorn.
Can call me Rain for short and ease of spelling. Meteorology is my best scientific discipline, hence rainmaker.

You might want to poke around here with the supersciencegeeks for more fun stuff to look into: www.metaresearch.org...

Long day, yawn....time for some zion-tube and unconsciousness.

Still haven't read all that data you showed me...

Originally posted by Frosty
So now I am to understand that heat does not cause earthquakes?

You have to prove outstanding claims to me, some may except your hypothesis at face value...but they are not scientists either. Thermal energy is most likely one of many variables that can cause earthquakes. I am looking for a larger unified force that doesn't fit into classical physics, so I can forecast terrestrial events. If you can use classical physics to prove your theory and predict earthquakes, I would say you should win a nobel prize in siesmology. If your theory can't accurately predict quakes, then you will know it's but one of many variables. Then you'll need a supercomputer and go enter in every known variable in regards to crustal forces, like the 1000's of other siesmologists are already doing.

I still am postulating, and haven't derived a valid hypothesis based on non-quanitfiable data. M-theory or string theory just got out on the table for that matter. I'm not on looking for pieces, I want the whole pie.

The Elegant Universe - explains quantum theory on layman's term
www.pbs.org...

Towards purposing a hypothesis: Gravitational effects from large space collosions, supernova, black hole formation, pulsars, magnetars, solar hard x-ray events, etc. are more likely to cause earthquakes than electromagnetic irradiance from gamma ray bursts.

[edit on 20-10-2005 by Regenmacher]

Originally posted by ANOK
I read somewhere that if there is a high tide and full moon at the same time the chances of a quake is quite high.

We have a full moon and a hight tide every month, and we also have a new moon and a high tide every month, and the hight tides of the new moon are bigger than the high tides of the full moon, and we do not have more earthquakes at those times and not at the others.

I realise that my question about the global warming affecting the frequency of earthquakes can be split in two reasons: the temperature and the gravity.

What I was thinking was that the heat would melt the ice and so with the loss of the weight of the ice the earth could move more freely.

I was not expecting so many theories of what could affect or create the earthquakes, but I think that the one that has less probability of that is the cosmic radiation, because the variation is so small when compared with other factors.

And we should not forget that there are several types of earthquakes: the quakes of volcanic origin, the quakes caused by the horizontal friction betweens 2 or more tectonic plates, and the quakes caused by the submersion of one plate beneath another.

All those types of quakes are different and may have different factors that influence their origin.

Originally posted by Regenmacher

Originally posted by soficrow
Regenbacher - re looking at gravity as a/the critical factor in causing earthquakes. Have you considered gravitational lensing?

My understanding of the gravitational lensing phenomena is light is bent by the force of gravity. They've been using it on a cosmological scale to explore the far reaches of the universe and to probe for dark matter. Think of it as a cosmic telescope.

Scientists often steal their best ideas from nature - and derive principles by observing phenomenon that occur naturally.

Seismic lenses do occur and develop underground, and focus and amplify seismic waves.

Seismic Lens, also Seismic Lensing

QUOTE

"A trail of clues have led American researchers to the amazing possibility of a "seismic lens" in the ground capable of magnifying the force of a quake, turning minor tremors into intense, destructive earthquakes."
Source: New Scientist Released: Thu 05-Apr-2001

Southern California Earthquake Center. Re: Santa Monica lens structure


...Gravitational lensing is similar. And FYI - I know perfectly well - as I said - that gravitational lenses bend light. I simply suggested that you might look for evidence of a similar natural "lens phenomenon" influencing gravitational waves (and yeah, I also know know that the existence of gravitational waves is only postulated, not proven)..

Not aware of how finding/using lenses would effect terrestrial events though, since those gravity fields are generally static.

Ah, Horatio. S T R E T C H

Use your imagination.

Regenmacher is german for rainmaker, Reddenbacher makes popcorn.

Can call me Rain for short and ease of spelling. Meteorology is my best scientific discipline, hence rainmaker.

I like that.

You might want to poke around here with the supersciencegeeks for more fun stuff to look into: www.metaresearch.org...

Thanks. ...I will get there.

Still haven't read all that data you showed me...

S'okay. But it's good stuff - and should be quite useful to you.


.

Originally posted by ArMaP

What I was thinking was that the heat would melt the ice and so with the loss of the weight of the ice the earth could move more freely.

Believe it or not, I was actually taught that the melting of ice, from our last ice age, is causing some plate movement.

Back in the mid 90s when I was doing my A-Levels I was taught the effects of glaciation and deglaciation. One of the theories (Don't know whether it was proven or an emerging theory at the time) was that tilting of plates or land masses was occuring because of the presence and then melting away of ice. Can't remember any sources at the mo apart from what my teacher said, I'll try and find something.

However, this does not mean that current more rapid climate change and the melting glaciers and ice caps is causing earthquakes now. Our last ice age was approx 20,000 years ago. The effects mentioned by my teacher from ice melt/build up could be mentioned in only small amounts and are still occuring at present. This doesn't rule this idea out though

Originally posted by ArMaP


And we should not forget that there are several types of earthquakes: the quakes of volcanic origin, the quakes caused by the horizontal friction betweens 2 or more tectonic plates, and the quakes caused by the submersion of one plate beneath another.

All those types of quakes are different and may have different factors that influence their origin.

All of these earthquakes are the result of plate techtonics regardless of the catalyst.

Originally posted by lev1978

All of these earthquakes are the result of plate techtonics regardless of the catalyst.

Anybody got a crit on "surge tectonics" versus "plate tectonics" theories?

Ie., see:


Surge Tectonics

Fall of 2000: Plate Tectonics: A Paradigm Under Threat

"This paper looks at the challenges confronting plate tectonics-the ruling paradigm in the earth sciences. The classical model of thin lithospheric plates moving over a global asthenosphere is shown to be implausible. Evidence is presented that appears to contradict continental drift, seafloor spreading, and subduction, as well as the claim that the oceanic crust is relatively young.

The problems posed by vertical tectonic movements are reviewed, including evidence for large areas of submerged continental crust in today's oceans. It is concluded that the fundamental tenets of plate tectonics might be wrong."

Earth Geodynamic Hypotheses Updated

Surge Tectonics: A New Hypothesis of Global Geodynamics
Meyerhoff, A.A., Taner, I., Morris, A.E.L., Agocs, W.B., Kamen-Kaye, M., Bhat, M.I., Smoot, N.C., Choi, D.R.
Meyerhoff Hull, Donna (Ed.)
1996, 348 p., Hardcover
ISBN: 0-7923-4156-2



The theory of "Self-Organized Criticality" says that large interactive systems will self-organize into a critical state. Once in this state, even small perturbations or seemingly unrelated changes result in chain reactions.

Introduction to Self-Organized Criticality & Earthquakes

Originally posted by Regenmacher

Originally posted by Frosty
[Study all the gravity waves you want with the moon, sun and the earth, but it is heat that causes these earthquakes. Can you show how gravity may cause a variation of heat on these tectonic plates?

Heat causes Earthquakes: If your going to make these assumptions contrary to the scientific norms, it's time to prove direct causation.

Submit your data and modeling for ATS public review. You can post your a complete hypothesis, introduction, objectives, methods, results, conclusions and reputable references here.

Great suggestion! I'm always amazed and amused how many times researching topics here forces me to rethink some things (yes, I was VERY skeptical about the impact of global warming on earthquakes until I came across this paper: geodesy.unr.edu... -- and it seems there is some evidence that suggests this is one of many factors that can affect the likelihood of earthquakes.)

This place is a pretty good arena to toss out something for review. I'm half tempted to come up with a format for that kind of thing.

Soficrow

Thanks for the links to the other theories. Haven't had time to read them yet. The page is taking a long time to load so I'm looking elsewhere.

I wasn't aware of other theories regarding plate tectonics

Lev

PS love the podcasts