volcanos and earthquakes caused by global warming

Originally posted by zeeblebot
maybe the volcanoes in the Mediterranean EXPECT more pressure due to sea ice, and, not finding it, pop off more often. like a placebo effect. it's all in the mind.

I know the cure. Just think about baseball. It works for me. 😛

Originally posted by whodey
I know the cure. Just think about baseball. It works for me. 😛

what's so exciting about this?

http://www.athleticbusiness.com/editors/uploads/george_will_2.jpg

Originally posted by whodey
You are not understanding what I am saying. In the article they make the claim that global warming is causing volcanos becuase of the reduced glacier sheets over the volcanic craters. The theory is that with decreased pressure over the creaters you have an increased chance of the pressure under the glaciers to prodcue volcanic activity. So where are the gl ...[text shortened]... cle should point to increased earthquakes, not increased volcanic activity in the Mediterranian.

1. The study observed a 80,000 year period. Because few glaciers exist today in the Mediterranean doesn't mean there weren't some a long time ago. Also, given that they did melt (if there were any there), it doesn't surprise me that there's few left now.

2. Thermal expansion is another factor that affects sea level rise. It doesn't require glaciers, just warmer weather.

With the changing dynamics in the crust, faults could also be destabilized, which could bring a whole host of other problems.

"It's not just the volcanoes. Obviously if you load and unload active faults, then you're liable to trigger earthquakes," McGuire told LiveScience, noting that there is ample evidence for this association in past climate change events.

http://www.livescience.com/environment/070830_gw_quakes.html

Originally posted by Beyer
1. The study observed a 80,000 year period. Because few glaciers exist today in the Mediterranean doesn't mean there weren't some a long time ago. Also, given that they did melt (if there were any there), it doesn't surprise me that there's few left now.

2. Thermal expansion is another factor that affects sea level rise. It doesn't require glaciers, just wa climate change events.

http://www.livescience.com/environment/070830_gw_quakes.html

But the study you in the article said that volcanos were occuring with greater frequency in the Mediterranean. So the evidence hinges on glaciers melting away in the Mediterranian. Right? Do you really expect me to believe that there were glaciers in the Mediterranean in Midieval times, especially in light of the fact that the global temperatures where warmer then that now?

Originally posted by zeeblebot
what's so exciting about this?

http://www.athleticbusiness.com/editors/uploads/george_will_2.jpg

I say drop pictures of him into the craters. 😛

Originally posted by whodey
But the study you in the article said that volcanos were occuring with greater frequency in the Mediterranean. So the evidence hinges on glaciers melting away in the Mediterranian. Right? Do you really expect me to believe that there were glaciers in the Mediterranean in Midieval times, especially in light of the fact that the global temperatures where warmer then that now?

No, What?!

1. Thermal expansion and/or glaciers can be the cause for sea level rise.
2. Medieval times occured during the past 2 milennia
3. Study monitored the volcanic activity for a length of 80,000 years

The warmer the temp gets, the more ice melts, the more water expands, the sea level rises as a consequence, then the more volcanic activity you get, according to the study (my interpretation anyways). What don't you understand?

Originally posted by Beyer
No, What?!

1. Thermal expansion and/or glaciers can be the cause for sea level rise.
2. Medieval times occured during the past 2 milennia
3. Study monitored the volcanic activity for a length of 80,000 years

The warmer the temp gets, the more ice melts, the more water expands, the sea level rises as a consequence, then the more volcanic activity you get, according to the study (my interpretation anyways). What don't you understand?

I thought the study implied that the pressure of glaciers on top of the crater helped silence erruptions. Also, the increasing water pressure helped create earth quakes. So if the study is about volcanos in the Mediterranian only, then glaciers must have melted away.

Originally posted by whodey
I thought the study implied that the pressure of glaciers on top of the crater helped silence erruptions. Also, the increasing water pressure helped create earth quakes. So if the study is about volcanos in the Mediterranian only, then glaciers must have melted away.

Yeah, but you keep forgetting that water pressure has an adverse affect to. It's like jumping in an inflatable air castle or trampoline. When you jump, you depress down and the kid sitting right next to you catapults up. Now just imagine there's a volcano nearby. Magma is going to be pushed out when the water pressure increases.

Originally posted by whodey
I thought the study implied that the pressure of glaciers on top of the crater helped silence erruptions. Also, the increasing water pressure helped create earth quakes. So if the study is about volcanos in the Mediterranian only, then glaciers must have melted away.

Your science seems a little shaky. There is no single cause of volcanic and seismic activity that applies to all instances all around the world.

I'm amazed that non-scientists think they can argue about scientific things.

No one would argue with a brain surgeon if he said there was something wrong with your brain.

No one would argue with a pilot if he said something was wrong with a plane.

Yet, a scientist says something and people are lining up to tell him he's full of crap.

Unbelievable.

Originally posted by whodey
But its just a theory, not proof. So do you buy into it? You know, not everything that appears in science magazines are actually true, especially with such a policially charged topic. Such policially charged topics should be treated with great trepidation in terms of motive.

What is your alternative to peer-reviewed scientific journals when it comes to establishing scientific theories and models?

Originally posted by uzless
I'm amazed that non-scientists think they can argue about scientific things.

No one would argue with a brain surgeon if he said there was something wrong with your brain.

No one would argue with a pilot if he said something was wrong with a plane.

Yet, a scientist says something and people are lining up to tell him he's full of crap.

Unbelievable.

Ok then, we will let Obama decide if this "science" is worth legislating policy over. Of course, we will do so after he gets done telling those brain surgeons how to practice. LOL.

Apparently it is OK of those in Washington are the experts on everything, but not Whodey.

In fact, no one here is a scientist, yet it is OK for everyone else to comment, so long as the agree with an "expert"? Obama has an expert working in the Fed who is giving all kinds of dire warmings about the US economic outlook. In fact, his predecessor gave the same warnings, but it's OK though that they ignore him as well though. It all seems rather odd to me.

Originally posted by Beyer
Yeah, but you keep forgetting that water pressure has an adverse affect to. It's like jumping in an inflatable air castle or trampoline. When you jump, you depress down and the kid sitting right next to you catapults up. Now just imagine there's a volcano nearby. Magma is going to be pushed out when the water pressure increases.

But that is not what I read in the article.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
What is your alternative to peer-reviewed scientific journals when it comes to establishing scientific theories and models?

Do you deny that politics are involved in science? If you don't believe me, just try mentioning creation or intelligent design and see what doors that opens for ya. Have you ever seen "Expelled"? Even if the evidence is there, they would not print it. I suppose we are stuck reading their e-mails to find the data. LOL.

Originally posted by whodey
Do you deny that politics are involved in science? If you don't believe me, just try mentioning creation or intelligent design and see what doors that opens for ya. Have you ever seen "Expelled"? Even if the evidence is there, they would not print it. I suppose we are stuck reading their e-mails to find the data. LOL.

Sure, politics is involved in science. And sometimes some scientists are wrong. What is your alternative to peer-reviewed scientific journals when it comes to establishing scientific theories and models? Is there some other method which produces more reliable results, with less meddling from politics?