Saturday, April 17, 2010

Current Earthquakes and the Iceland Volcano -- Evidence of a Geological Tipping Point?

In Haiti, Chile, Baja, Sumatra -- 4 Big Earthquakes , at, I suggested that global warming might be the cause of the series of earthquakes afflicting various nations this year so far.

Now we have to add to that list last week's 6.9 magnitude Tibetan earthquake, and Iceland's volcano!

Six (6) huge geological events in just a few months!

Suggestion: Is it possible that just as there are "tipping points" in the environment -- where, when some of the ice starts melting, ALL of the ice starts melting, for example -- there might be "tipping points" in the geology of the Earth?

In other words, if the glacier-to-Equator flow of water from global warming reaches a rate of "X tons per minute," the braking upon Earth's rotation generated by the redistribution of tonnage to the Equator might be a tipping point where we see a constant stream of earthquakes and volcanoes, worldwide, due to the innate mechanical limits of crustal integrity and viscosity of the underlying magma.

If this is so, are we accelerating the emergence of the super-volcano in Yellowstone?

I'd be interested in what the Yellowstone tiltmeters have to tell us, these days.


  1. Compare the increase-in-atmospheric CO2 here...

    ...with the increase in volcanoes here...


  3. yep, these volcanos are going to push us right off the chart in terms of atmospheric CO2

  4. Well, my point was that the volcanoes are CAUSED BY global warming, Tom.

  5. I know, thats why I put the link for usgs saying there are no outstanding increase in quantities of earthquakes. The post afterwards saying CO2 from volcanos aids greatly in causing global warming is just my 'snarky' way of saying I'm not buying that globabl warming creates ice melt, redistrobution of water/weight/pressure = bigger activity in volcanoes, earthquakes . . .

    Not yet, anyway

    There's lots more data going on here than my little pea sized brain can calculate, so, I can't outright confirm or deny anything. I'm not qualified.

    Whats my gut say?

    The earth has its balance systems.

    Primary worries about global warming is that when we say global warming, we presume to be talking about MAN's impact on global weather.

    Eath warehouses lots and lots of carbon in the form of dead plant life and sea life being buried under material. Its put under great pressure for long time and turns it into coal and oil. Man discovers substances and uses.
    Suddenly man is re-introducing this long warehoused carbon into atmosphere.

    Earth has more carbon, more food for the trees and plant life to consume. One would think that more plant life would result. If no warm up, then plant life where there already is plantlife would grow bigger (trees and stuff that may live for 100 years and warehouse carbon in form of wood). If a bit of a warmup, longer growing seasons (same effect) or larger growing areas, more area warehousing the carbon in form of plantlife, especially life that lives multiple years .

    I'm MORE worried about deforrestation
    Both industrialized and in urban areas.

    Its insane in my area. people are just looking for reasons to chop down trees. No way are they replacing them.

    Oh, the pain of having to pick up a leaf in the fall.

    These activities hinder earths means of balancing the increased carbon release from man's activities

    This is why I didn't know your prior posts on warehousing used paper rather than recycling. it makes sense

  6. There's an interesting proof that global warming causes rotational slowing -- leap seconds.

    About once every 2 to 5 years, New Years Day is postponed by a second, to reflect the extent to which the earth is turning more slowly.

    These are called "leap seconds."

    Every New Years Eve when the ball takes 1 second longer to reach the bottom of the tower in Times Square, the network announcer explains that the leap second reflects the "natural slowing of the Earth's rotation.

    But, think about it, Tom...

    Each one of today's years is 31,500,000 seconds in length.

    If we assume 1 leap second every two years, that means that 30,000,000 years ago, each day was 12 hours long.

    If we reduce the effect arithmetically with each 30,000,000 year interval, so that the effect is always one-half, then 60,000,000 years ago, each day was 6 hours in length; 90,000,000 years ago, the day was 3 hours in length; 120,000,000 years ago each day was 1.5 hours in lenth; 150,000,000 years ago, each day was 45 minutes in length -- and so on.

    Do you see the problem?

    If what the announcer says is true, then not too long ago, in geological terms, we would have been flying-off the globe from centrifugal force!

    What's true?

    What's true is that leap seconds are a recent phenomenon, caused by greenhouse gas increase, causing ice-melt and the rush of water to the Equator.

    Do you know what the weight tranbsfer in the director of the Equator is, if just the Ross Ice Shelf collapses?

    About 4 quadrillion tons.

    Think of the braking-power of 4 quaddrillion tons sliding northward to the Equator.

  7. I have to correct my last claim.

    The Ross Ice shelf has shrunk considerably since I was a kid. It's now only about 12,000 square miles!

    12,000 square miles = 12,000 x 5280 x 5280 x 5280 x 2 miles thick, on the average x 65 pounds per cubic foot of water in above-sea-level ice -:- 2000 pounds per ton.

    Collapse would transfer only 1.15 quadrillion tons toward the equator.

  8. Any amount of Ice that is bouyant on that ice shelf needs to be factored out.
    Thats already accounted for. the frozen water is not mobile on that ice shelf,
    but its weight is already in the liquid water. That includes parts of the ice shelf
    that is in direct contact with the land underneath of it, but is below sea level,
    as that ice too displaces liquid water. Once the ice shelf breaks and starts drifting
    and becomes mobile and starts drifting towards the equator (or melts and is redistributed
    around the globe, the amount of ice, currently bouyant just won't have this impace.
    As it drifts or is redistributed, then liquid water that was displaced soon takes its
    place in the south pole. its awash, it all evens out.

    Now there is ice that exceeds bouyancy. Its supported by land, or is close to land.
    That won't go floating off to quick, as its held by friction to the land. BUT as the ice
    shelf does break away and the freezing/frozen waters migrate, warmer water makes its way
    in and melts the bouyant, but stuck in place ice AND the additional ice pack that exceeds
    that bouyancy. Here is where your effect kicks in

    Also to worry about, as I have read over the years is BTU transfer impacting marine life,
    current streams in the ocean . . . THAT is worrisome.

    The slowing of the earth is constant.
    That darned moon! Tides . . . Friction . . .
    Yep, any additional currently non-bouyant ice that
    is dragged into the waters and newly displaces water will add to that effect.
    At first, the braking power of
    weight that currently does NOT have much momentum kicks in, as it is near the
    pole suddenly displaces water, and water levels rise globally,
    mainly in the equator region (probably over a day or days as
    it takes time for that displacement of fluids to settle over the globe). This is the ice skater
    spinning fast with arms tucked in lets the arms out, and with the conservation of angular momentum, with
    the additional momentum of the object spinning a greater distance, the speed of the object as a whole slows down.
    So the earth looses a bit of speed.

    And likewise, if over time, weather changes again and there is greater pole ice, heavier snows . . . the
    spin of the earth will speed up as water is taken from the ocean and dropped as precip on the poles.

    But the braking power of the tides will go on forever till we stop like the moon

    Most any ross ice shelf activity is already bouyant water, the stuff that might be below sea level and
    its weight being held up by land rather than bouyancy isn't going anywhere fast. Its not being dragged out.

    I did a quick study and it says that the glaciers are pushing it out to sea at a foot a day or so (varies),
    so, eventually the thick ice WILL be pushed into deep water where the additional snow pack that far exceeds the bouyancy effects of
    the ice below will indeed be eventually bouyant and displace more water than is displaced now. but thats at the growth
    and flow of glaciers, it appears. If the glacier is growing, its substance is coming from somewhere.

    I've gone on enough. I'm not worrying about ross ice shelf loosing ice increacing water in ocean basins, more pressure on
    crust especially equator, more pressure, earthquakes volcanos . . .