Climate change, earthquakes and volcanoes

[nexus]

From the guardian:

Climate change will shake the Earth

A changing climate isn't just about floods, droughts and heatwaves. It brings erupting volcanoes and catastrophic earthquakes too

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... hake-earth

[Ludwig]

From the guardian:

Climate change will shake the Earth

A changing climate isn't just about floods, droughts and heatwaves. It brings erupting volcanoes and catastrophic earthquakes too

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... hake-earth

I wonder how much evidence there is for this. As much as for the existence of seismic weapons? Hm

[woodburner]

Earth quakes are to do with geology, existence of seismic weapons is to do with politics.

The first is plausable, the second is crapspeak.

[Ludwig]

Earth quakes are to do with geology, existence of seismic weapons is to do with politics.

The first is plausable, the second is crapspeak.

In general it is wise to research a subject before offering an opinion on it. Otherwise you end up, sooner or later, looking stupid.

[biffvernon]

What with having a long-standing interest in geology (and a degree) I've been following the earthquake and global warming connection for quite some time. Bill McGuire's ideas are well within what I'd regard as reasonable speculation. His expertise in this area is second to none.
http://www.billmcguire.co.uk/expertise/index.html

[woodburner]

Earth quakes are to do with geology, existence of seismic weapons is to do with politics.

The first is plausable, the second is crapspeak.

In general it is wise to research a subject before offering an opinion on it. Otherwise you end up, sooner or later, looking stupid.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tectonic_weapon as an example. Looks very much like politics to me. I am entitled to an opinion even if you think it's not valid. (IMHO)

[Ludwig]

Earth quakes are to do with geology, existence of seismic weapons is to do with politics.

The first is plausable, the second is crapspeak.

In general it is wise to research a subject before offering an opinion on it. Otherwise you end up, sooner or later, looking stupid.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tectonic_weapon as an example. Looks very much like politics to me. I am entitled to an opinion even if you think it's not valid. (IMHO)

Of course you are - though personally, I never trust Wikipedia on any controversial subject.

[emordnilap]

Of course you are - though personally, I never trust Wikipedia on any controversial subject.

You could if the safeguards work. The author of a piece can be automatically notified of changes to her/his work; likewise any editor of that piece can be notified of further alterations. Any dispute between the two should be resolved by a third party. There again, can you trust the third party?

The old sawyer's advice: measure twice, cut once.

[RenewableCandy]

"Measure with micrometer, mark with chalk, cut with a chainsaw!"

Erm back on topic, this is reminiscent of the people talking about the huge weight distributions resulting from dam-building being a possible trigger for earthquakes. Popular topic of research in China I believe.

[Ludwig]

Of course you are - though personally, I never trust Wikipedia on any controversial subject.

You could if the safeguards work. The author of a piece can be automatically notified of changes to her/his work; likewise any editor of that piece can be notified of further alterations. Any dispute between the two should be resolved by a third party. There again, can you trust the third party?

In this case, I don't think you can. I realise some regard me as paranoid, but I do not think the power of free speech is a match for the power of vested interests.

Although you will find references to controversies on Wikipedia, they are (at least last time I looked) invariably dismissed as "conspiracy theories", with the term linked to the Wikipedia article on the same.

Of course one should never take any source as gospel, but a source that can be edited anonymously at any time by people who violently disagree with each other is likely to be as good as useless.

As a general note regarding this kind of stuff - people always say, "Don't believe everything you read on the Internet", which is fair enough; but if a claim is made against someone publicly, and that person does not sue for libel, one has to wonder why.

[biffvernon]

That wiki article seems reasonable to me...

A tectonic weapon is a hypothetical device or system...to set oneself the objective of inducing an earthquake is extremely doubtful.

Anthropogenic Global warming on the other hand...

[biffvernon]

Ooops...another big one

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/ ... 5e#summary

[PS_RalphW]

Assuming this the Indonesian one, hopefully not too serious. A horizontal quake out at sea, low potential for a large tsunami.