Super Moon and Japan/NZ

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermoon

What is the thinking here that the recent/current Super Moon could have coincidentally provided some incremental tug on the tectonic plates and triggered the recent devastation?

Originally posted by divegeester
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermoon

What is the thinking here that the recent/current Super Moon could have coincidentally provided some incremental tug on the tectonic plates and triggered the recent devastation?

Where's the evidence?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Where's the evidence?

There isn't any as far as I know.

I'm speculating that given the effect that gravity can have on solid bodies, (Jupiter's moons for example, albeit in extreme conditions) it may be worth considering the possibility that increases in the Moons gravitational pull due to proximity could have an impact on Earth, in some degree.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Where's the evidence?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/10/041022103948.htm

Originally posted by divegeester
I'm speculating that given the effect that gravity can have on solid bodies, (Jupiter's moons for example, albeit in extreme conditions) it may be worth considering the possibility that increases in the Moons gravitational pull due to proximity could have an impact on Earth, in some degree.

There may be many things that influence earth quakes, but until there is a discernible pattern it is best not to draw conclusions.
The Japanese quake was unusually large, so I can understand trying to find a special reason for it, but the New Zealand one was only special in that it struck a city and so as earthquakes go was not statistically significant. As I mentioned in the other recent earthquake thread, there seem to be as many as three >6.0 earth quakes per week on average - at least there were in the month of the New Zealand quake.

But at the end of the day, earthquakes happen for a known reason (tectonic plates move) and will happen regardless of other influences, so the only possible effect of influences would be magnitude or the exact time of occurrence and I see no real reason to start looking for a cause when all we really have is one massive earthquake. Now if you had 20 large earthquakes that matched up with another phenomena that could conceivably affect earthquakes, then I might be interested, but a statistic of one really isn't good enough.

Originally posted by ElleEffSeee
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/10/041022103948.htm

Very interesting, thanks.

Originally posted by twhitehead
There may be many things that influence earth quakes, but until there is a discernible pattern it is best not to draw conclusions.
The Japanese quake was unusually large, so I can understand trying to find a special reason for it, but the New Zealand one was only special in that it struck a city and so as earthquakes go was not statistically significant. ...[text shortened]... ffect earthquakes, then I might be interested, but a statistic of one really isn't good enough.

I'm not drawing conclusions and I agree that there are many things that cause earthquakes, however I do contest that what the OP proposes is a reasonable hypothesis and worth investigating. "Specialness "doesn't come into it, interesting and dynamic does.

Originally posted by divegeester
I'm not drawing conclusions and I agree that there are many things that cause earthquakes, however I do contest that what the OP proposes is a reasonable hypothesis and worth investigating. "Specialness "doesn't come into it, interesting and dynamic does.

Of course specialness comes into it. You never asked the question before the Japan quake. You didn't ask it for the many other quakes over 6.0 in the same month as the Christchurch quake.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

It is caused by convection currents in the earths mantle.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Of course specialness comes into it. You never asked the question before the Japan quake. You didn't ask it for the many other quakes over 6.0 in the same month as the Christchurch quake.

What has when a question is asked got to do with "specialness"? (whatever that means).

Do you have any insight to add to the thread? For example what do you think of the article in the link above?

Some claim of evidence and counter claim here:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/05/0523_050523_moonquake.html

Whether moon is "full" or not should not be the emphasis; more whether the changing gravatational effect due the changing proximity of moon to earth, can impact the mantle as it does the tides.