Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Will we have more earthquakes because of climate change?


Grim Reaper 6

Recommended Posts

Earthquakes are one of the most mysterious and terrifying natural disasters. Although we have some idea of when the big ones might happen, others can occur seemingly out of nowhere, bulldozing cities and creating secondary disasters such as fires, landslides and tsunamis. Climate change is causing increases in other natural disasters, like wildfires and hurricanes. So could it make earthquakes more common, too??

https://www.livescience.com/planet-earth/earthquakes/will-we-have-more-earthquakes-because-of-climate-change

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Do earthquakes occur more often during the day than during the relatively much colder night?

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Ell said:

Do earthquakes occur more often during the day than during the relatively much colder night?

Since earthquakes are the result of fault line slippage I don’t think day or night have much to do with it.

JIMHO

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Grim Reaper 6 said:

Since earthquakes are the result of fault line slippage I don’t think day or night have much to do with it.

JIMHO

He obviously didn't read the article you posted 

It's an interesting concept but I'm not entirely convinced. It seems to want to hedge it's bets by speculating that both an increase and  decrease in pressure on fault lines can increase the likelihood of quakes.

The other thing that occurred to me is that isostatic rebound has been happening in many places since the end of the last period of glaciation. Especially in more northern areas like Scandinavia. You'd think geologists may have been able to study this in real time.

If we have any geologists here I'd be interested in hearing their take on it.

Interesting read. Thanks for posting it.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Arbenol said:

He obviously didn't read the article you posted 

It's an interesting concept but I'm not entirely convinced. It seems to want to hedge it's bets by speculating that both an increase and  decrease in pressure on fault lines can increase the likelihood of quakes.

The other thing that occurred to me is that isostatic rebound has been happening in many places since the end of the last period of glaciation. Especially in more northern areas like Scandinavia. You'd think geologists may have been able to study this in real time.

If we have any geologists here I'd be interested in hearing their take on it.

Interesting read. Thanks for posting it.

Your very welcome, you seem to be a wealth of knowledge on the subject that's very much for the information!👍

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We know that melting ice sheets and glaciers result in earthquakes.  There is evidence building big reservoirs (like the 3 gorges dam in China) can cause earthquakes.   And also that heavy rain or snowfall can cause earthquakes.   So yes, one impact of climate change will likely be more earthquakes.

But in most cases these are going to be very minor ones, rarely felt.   

I don't think a 3 inch rise in sea level is going to generate a mag 8 earthquake of its own accord. 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Arbenol said:

He obviously didn't read the article you posted 

It's an interesting concept but I'm not entirely convinced. It seems to want to hedge it's bets by speculating that both an increase and  decrease in pressure on fault lines can increase the likelihood of quakes.

The other thing that occurred to me is that isostatic rebound has been happening in many places since the end of the last period of glaciation. Especially in more northern areas like Scandinavia. You'd think geologists may have been able to study this in real time.

If we have any geologists here I'd be interested in hearing their take on it.

Interesting read. Thanks for posting it.

@Doc Socks Junior is a really good geologist.

What say you Doc? 

  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The internal temperature of a mouse is about 37 degrees Celsius. So when a mouse during a cold night takes a pee, can we expect a tremendous earthquake?

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

@Piney

Isostatic rebound factoring into earthquakes is pretty well-established now. One of the more interesting things I've taken away from the Ragnarok comet impact discussion was Morner's work on that in Sweden. Makes sense. I think changes are in the order of kilometers. 10 mm/yr or so. Also, GIA is a positive signal, i.e., a rise, in northern places, but a negative signal, i.e., a fall in southern places. The flowing mantle coming into or out of the picture.

As of now, the most rebound is occuring in relatively unpopulated areas, I'd say. Ice sheet melting in Greenland or Antarctica...not much a concern to me re: EQs. Even if they do occur.

I don't really buy much concern about sea levels in underwater faults. Stress is so distributed in that case.

I think precipitation changes could play a larger role. We already see noticeable EQ upticks in the fault system west of Long Valley after big water years.

Basically, think of two things as governing faults: the stress of the long-term movement and the friction as the sides stick together. GIA can affect the first, while precipitation could affect the second.

 

Edited by Doc Socks Junior
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

@Piney

Isostatic rebound factoring into earthquakes is pretty well-established now. One of the more interesting things I've taken away from the Ragnarok comet impact discussion was Morner's work on that in Sweden. Makes sense. I think changes are in the order of kilometers. 10 mm/yr or so. Also, GIA is a positive signal, i.e., a rise, in northern places, but a negative signal, i.e., a fall in southern places. The flowing mantle coming into or out of the picture.

As of now, the most rebound is occuring in relatively unpopulated areas, I'd say. Ice sheet melting in Greenland or Antarctica...not much a concern to me re: EQs. Even if they do occur.

I don't really buy much concern about sea levels in underwater faults. Stress is so distributed in that case.

I think precipitation changes could play a larger role. We already see noticeable EQ upticks in the fault system west of Long Valley after big water years.

Basically, think of two things as governing faults: the stress of the long-term movement and the friction as the sides stick together. GIA can affect the first, while precipitation could affect the second.

 

The Great Lakes area is still in rebound and the New Madrid system might be bigger than we think. They might be connected. 

But I don't buy into sea level rise affecting underwater faults either 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Piney said:

The Great Lakes area is still in rebound and the New Madrid system might be bigger than we think. They might be connected.

Yarp. The drowned harbors in the south and uplifted beaches to the north in Lake Ontario was an example I was informed of from my undergraduate days.

At less magnitude than higher up in latitude though. Since much of the movement has happened, at lower latitudes. 

2 minutes ago, Piney said:

But I don't buy into sea level rise affecting underwater faults either 

Great minds!

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Piney said:

The Great Lakes area is still in rebound and the New Madrid system might be bigger than we think. They might be connected. 

But I don't buy into sea level rise affecting underwater faults either 

I don’t believe that submerged subduction zones will become more active do to sea level rise either. It’s funny most Americans when discussing earthquakes alway look the New Madrid fault subduction zone. I grew up outside of St. Louis and the effects of the 1812 earthquake can still be clearly seen along both the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers. In that area the the 1812 shoreline was moved miles inland, and it also caused the Mississippi River actually flowed backwards do to the upheaval of the earths crust created by the earthquake. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
5 minutes ago, Grim Reaper 6 said:

I don’t believe that submerged subduction zones will become more active do to sea level rise either. It’s funny most Americans when discussing earthquakes alway look the New Madrid fault subduction zone. I grew up outside of St. Louis and the effects of the 1812 earthquake can still be clearly seen along both the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers. In that area the the 1812 shoreline was moved miles inland, and it also caused the Mississippi River actually flowed backwards do to the upheaval of the earths crust created by the earthquake. 

New Madrid isn't a subduction zone. It's a failed rift.

The 1811-12 earthquake is what caused the Lenape cultural revival when we were living on the White River.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
39 minutes ago, Piney said:

New Madrid isn't a subduction zone. It's a failed rift.

The 1811-12 earthquake is what caused the Lenape cultural revival when we were living on the White River.

Thanks for the correction and interesting information I appreciate it, I will not make that mistake again!

Peace✌️

Edited by Grim Reaper 6
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Grim Reaper 6 said:

Thanks for the correct and interesting information I appreciate it, I will not make that mistake again!

Peace✌️

Mistakes are learning experiences. I make them often. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Piney said:

Mistakes are learning experiences. I make them often. 

Yes they certainly are, and so long as one doesn’t repeat them the lesson was well learned!:tu:

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.