Comments on: Quake n’ Bake: Global Warming Causes More Energetic Earthquakes?

By: Stephen Garland

Stephen Garland — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 07:10:24 +0000

I find the theory that plate tectonics has a role in the development of ice ages quite interesting. Go to the link provided below and then go to “Causes of warm and cold phases and sea level fluctuations”

http://au.dir.yahoo.com/Society_and_Culture/Environment_and_Nature/Global_Change/Climate_Change/Global_Warming/Opposing_Views/

By: Chance Metz

Chance Metz — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 02:28:51 +0000

New one to me it’s so hot the earth crist is cracking even more and there are more paltes now and they move faster. well that proves oen point they have officaly gone to the nut house.

By: Intuit

Intuit — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 03:58:18 +0000

Since we’re here, you might want to find and post the USGS graph of energy release from moderate intensity (less than magnitude 6) earthquakes, a century long trend that appears as an inverse pattern of the higher magnitude energy release plot (graph #1).

By: Intuit

Intuit — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 03:49:05 +0000

What the heck is up with graph #2? It makes ZERO sense, with that spike in the mid-70s and two periods of increasing fatality rates (1960-90), during a period of low earthquake activity. If earthquake-proof building design has decreased property damage and death rates from earthquakes, it’s not readily apparent in this graph.

Why did you post it?

By: statePoet1775

statePoet1775 — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 19:54:13 +0000

The key to less breeding
is liberty, freedom
(which leads to prosperity).

If you were poor,
with nothing to do,
just what in the dark
do you think you would do?

By: Bruce Cobb

Bruce Cobb — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 18:10:11 +0000

“and please do not breathe.” Indeed; nor breed either.

By: statePoet1775

statePoet1775 — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 17:46:58 +0000

The Earth is quite dangerous,
the Universe too.
For many dangers
there’s nothing to do
(if there’s no God,
we’re simply screwed).

But with CO2,
it’s simple indeed;
no burning of carbon
and please do not breathe.

By: Jeff Alberts

Jeff Alberts — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 15:17:31 +0000

Counters said: At a tiny bit more, you should be extrapolating from a period which doesn’t begin with the warmest average temperature of the past century.

Extrapolating from a period which begins with some of the coldest temperatures of the past century is ok though, right?

By: Bruce Cobb

Bruce Cobb — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 15:03:31 +0000

I’m not going to waste my time enumerating the evidence supporting AGW theory…
Yeah, counters, we know. No time. Heard it before. Typical. Try again. BTW, it isn’t even a theory. Never made it beyond the hypothesis stage. But, you knew that, right?

By: Jeff Alberts

Jeff Alberts — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 14:51:42 +0000

It’s my understanding that both natural and man-made caves far enough removed from outside air are unchanging in their temperature, even during ~40 degree seasonal changes on the surface. If this is so, “global warming” of a few degrees is going to have zero effect on the crust.

By: counters

counters — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 13:18:58 +0000

Smokey:

I’ve stated this in a previous thread. That 10 year period is a ridiculous baseline comparison because of the 1998 anomalous highs which are directly correlated and explained by an extremely strong El Nino. Besides, you’re arguing on a false premise; a single, straight trend line means absolutely nothing when we’re talking about a noisy, complicated system such as temperature of the climate. At the very least, you need an error interval to reflect the extremely high variance intrinsic to the signal. At a tiny bit more, you should be extrapolating from a period which doesn’t begin with the warmest average temperature of the past century.

Your premise is also flawed because no one is predicting “runaway global warming.” Try again… you’re pretty close. What is the hypothesis central to AGW Theory?

Bruce Cobb, I’m not going to waste my time enumerating the evidence supporting AGW theory because I know that you’re not going to be persuaded; you’re either politically or emotionally invested in denying its premise. However, if you put up attempts to falsify the theory, then the rest of us can debunk them. Logically speaking, if the evidence supports the theory, counter-evidence can’t be produced, and a competing theory can’t be introduced, then the theory is sound.

By: J.Hansford.

J.Hansford. — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 13:06:22 +0000

I think the most dangerous thing on Earth…. Is Climate scientists.

…. I’m so embarrassed…. This nut comes from Australia. We used to have really good scientists here…. Before they got pinched by the yanks and we got left with these freaks of nature.

…. Shoulda gone Spartan on ‘em…. Left ‘em on a cold hilltop at birth…. It’s never to late I ‘spose….?

By: John Bristor

John Bristor — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 11:05:17 +0000

Still in Google’s cache:

http://209.85.215.104/search?q=cache:rkAygt79WGYJ:www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/18/tech/main4191556.shtml+cbs+quakes+deadlier&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

By: Fiona Erna

Fiona Erna — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 10:13:43 +0000

THis is an interesting fact, and indeed a wake up call. And I thought global warming is our only serious problem.

By: Jon Jewett

Jon Jewett — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 03:17:22 +0000

Bill marsh,

You bet you get a prize!!

If you make it to the Austin, TX area, I would happily buy you a Shiners Bock!

I enjoy the company of informed people.

Regards,

Steamboat Jack