I have in the past and i read that somewhere let me find a few links and post them because it all makes sense
I wait with interest. I would be very suspicious of links between reduction in ice loading [/I]currently and seismic concentrations at the equator. Why? 1. I question your original contention that events are concentrated near the equator. 2. The amount of ice melting in mass terms is insignificant. It is not like the removal of kilometres of ice at the end of the last ice age. The isostatic rebound that caused doubtless had tectonic effects, and that may be what you recall reading about.
ok as for as mapping the quakes here is a link on that from the USGS http://neic.usgs.gov/ as far as what I was talking about here is a few links theres hundreds more http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=7246961 www.innovations-report.com/html/reports/earth_sciences/report-32007.html http://www.theotherside.co.uk/tm-heritage/background/channelform.htm http://as.casalemedia.com/s?s=55017&u=http://surfingtheapocalypse.net &f=2&id=1
This may be possible but it is not because of the reduction in ice loading. If you look at a map of the global distribution of the continental plate boundries ... you will see that many of the individual plate boundries are located near the equator. As you move closer towards the poles, there are very few plate boundries which interact with each other through subduction. In other words, the highest concentration of plate subduction is found near the equator due to the large number plate boundries found there ... and hence a higher concentration of seismic activity. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
HARDWOOD LEGEND - "well it only makes sense, if u drain the planet of it's natural reserves(OIL AND PRECIOUS METALS) the earth will adjust(CAVE IN) above this, creating natural disasters(EARTHQUAKES AND TSUNAMIS)!" -I´ve been thinking something like that too. what are the geological effects of oil drilling. Couldnt find any sites by googling, cause maybe there isnt any... Leaving such a huge caves on the ground should cause somekind effects ?
Oil production does not leave any caves. Oil is produced from the small spaces in porous rock. When production is extensive the reduction in pore pressure may allow some subsidence. For example, the sea bed over the first oil field in the North Sea, Ekofisk, sank by twenty feet +/- in as many years. TheSingularity: The other point cardio needs to remeber is that the map he is looking at is a Mercator type projection, not equal area. This gives false prominence to the poleward areas, suggesting a dearth of events.
undefined Greetings from Deal Island Maryland .. Several news organizations are reporting that the quake has effected the earths rotation..Could anyone explain
The possible explaination that I can think of involves the P and S waves generated by the earthquake. These waves, caused by earthquakes, resonate throughout the interior of the planet ... as can be seen in the animation in the provided link below. If the earthquake is strong enough, then the resultant P and S wave would be strong enough the have an effect on the rotating core of the planet, whether it changes its rotational speed or alter it's periodicity. At least that is what I think the explanation involves. http://www.classzone.com/books/eart...009/es1009page01.cfm?chapter_no=visualization
I would like to see how drilling for oil several thousand miles away or mining a mountain in Papua New Guinea causes a catastrophic shift in a tectonic plate boundary underwater. It is true that extracting groundwater causes places to settle, eg London and venice, but as far as I know it doesnt happen with oil etc.
Why should extracting oil be any different from extracting water? I repeat, "For example, the sea bed over the first oil field in the North Sea, Ekofisk, sank by twenty feet +/- in as many years." Here is a link: http://www.dnv.no/technologyservices/ekofisk.asp Which contains this: "A subsiding seabed has been another of the Ekofisk challenges. In 1986, the deck structures of a number of platforms at the Ekofisk complex had to be elevated by 6 metres. The subsidence today is 8.5 metres." Your opening remark was doubtless rhetorical, and not even a question. For those who thought it wasn't, (and was) the correct answer is 'None'.
the point is that earthquakes arnt CAUSED by setling earth. My house setles, that doesnt mean it shakes to peaces, it means it slowly sinks till its stable again a quake is caused by the rubbing of 2 or more techtonic plates, this is also what causes mountains like the himolayers which are actually still rising. the reason there is nothing happerning in atactica itself is the same reason that we dont get quakes centered IN australia, ie its all one plate. Antatica is a conternate with its own conternental shelf. North pole is different and i dont know how many plates run through it. The most sismic events (be them earthquakes OR volcanoes) happen on the ring of fire (ever herd of it?) if not this site shows you a map http://www.crystalinks.com/rof.html (oh and by the way acording to this site the map above is wrong in that the plate australia is on isnt conected to india and im SURE that there is a plate edge that splits NZ in half the other way) now im not POSITIVE where sumatra is in indoneasia but im PRITTY sure that the quake would have been on the ring of fire. I could be wrong about that but please guys lean some sizemology BEFORE sprouting that its drilling
it was aimed at anyone who thought that drilling less that 1% of the earths crust deep could actually cause an earthquake. whats next drilling acidents cause volcanoes????????????????????
Just as an exercise in Devil's advocacy consider drilling into a fault zone and injecting large volumes of water. The dual change in the local stress regime and reduction in friction along the fault plane could induce fault movement. I believe small scale seismic activity has been induced by drilling activity (I'll try to find links), but that is quite a different matter from inducing events above 5.0 on the Richter scale, let alone a 8.9.
I thought they were experimenting in injecting water as a lubricant into faults? (its too late at night, I'll google tomorrow.)
Err.. the earths crust which avarages between 60 and 100 miles thick, floats on the upper mantle. I don't think that any amount of melting ice will have that much of an effect, save for Antartica and Greenland bouncing up a couple of thousand metres over 20,000 years
Erm, no - not that you'd notice. The earth's rotation in 24 hours is only an average anyway. Every now and then an extra second is added to the day. Oil drilling, coal mining, no such activity can ever be remotely responsible for earthquakes of the magnitude of 12/26/04. The thinnest parts of the plates (apparently the oceanic ridges) are as much as 15km thick, a figure comparable only to the very very deepest wells on land and I'm sure seaborne drills don't go nearly as deep. The plates are sitting on top of unstable and very hot magma, and enormous pressure differentials can build up. Eventually such a pressure can cause one tectonic plate to shift up or down, and at the fault lines, the points where two plates rub up against each other, the energy involved in the friction generated is just enormous and causes the ground on both sides to judder violently. Short of detonating a nuclear blast at the fault line, there isn't really any human-generated activity which can either induce or ameliorate the effects of an earthquake.
I wonder about that statement (and the rest like it) ... If you think of the uses for oil one is as a hydraulic agent. You put this agent into cylinders that do NOT collapse when they're used for holding a car above your head. Maybe the oil in a shell of Earth acts the same way (holding-up the roof of some Earthen material).
