[jmnemonic]

I decided that it was time to alert folks to a concern of mine, originally conceived some years ago. Now that it appears to be coming true it felt like a moral duty to say something. That way perhaps some smart scientists will start looking into things, find some holes in my theory. deleted. I'd freaking LOVE to be wrong. Yet, if I'm right then the earlier a warning is sounded, the more chance that at least some people can take some protective measures. If one life is saved, then it's worth it.

Here's my alert to the world:

http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-ne ... are-coming

If you can spot any flaws in the logic, or have a better theory that matches the events on (and in) the ground, please say something.

[jmnemonic]

Yes, coastal areas would be more vulnerable to increasing quakes/volcanoes if I'm right. They already are - thinner crust in the oceans, more touchy to induced changes. I don't know if the data supports that other than the general feeling I get from watching the news. I'm not a scientist. I don't see any scientists even thinking about this though, so me, some schlub from the Mid-West, apparently has to do some of their work for them. And I'm not even gonna get a research grant! Heh.

I feel for ya there. You're not in a safe area. Unless I am wrong, which I hope I am. I'm in St. Louis, which took a good hit when the New Madrid cracked open two hundred years ago. Actually, the bicentennial anniversary of that eruption series is about one year from now. That one blew in 1811.

[scas]

I know i've said it before, but redistribution of large masses of polar and glacial ice are sure to affect the Earth's wobble, and extra pressure on continental edges are sure to cause more earthquakes. Sometimes pressures build and release continuously, while other times the grand silence after the tremors may indicate that something much stronger is coming. Don't worry to much about models - the human brain is much better at observation and pattern recognition given a full data set. The world doesn't obey Guassian curves or exponentials. Keep a close eye on your pets - run outside when they act strange...

It's almost impossible to see how this will play out. I was wondering too how all the deep see drilling and underground carbon sequestration will add to this. Perhaps earthquakes will happen synonymously with eruptions, and help temporarily cool the atmosphere.

I've done a lot of reading and it seems best to let this play out. It's unlikely that individual scientists are being silenced, since we all know doomsayers are rarely listened to. How many people believe Lovelock, King, Hawking, and Fenner? Very few. Most governments are well aware that we're already overpopulated and population reductions will happen through any methods - no one can save us.

I recall a quote...He who thinks hardest, lives longest.
Also - check out New Zealand's quake.

I recall seeing somewhere about polar shifts, eruptions, and magnetic field reduction happening synonymously..I wonder if they're related to anything.

[jmnemonic]

Well, I'm not moving. For one thing, I'm not near any coast. Even the New Madrid fault isn't THAT close. (It hurt Missouri, but not so much my area.) I have, however, trained my woman so that she can act quickly at the first sign of tremors. We know where to go based on where we are in the house. Seconds are critical. And both of us know to act independently, no waiting for the other. I've got a sledgehammer and crowbar in the car, so if one of us gets out, they can try to do some rubble-rescue for the other (and neighbors after that). Dunno really what else I can do. Oh, one thing we did do two or three years ago that seems prudent - we changed our homeowners' insurance policy so that we pay a little more each year, but the deductible for earthquake damage is lower (but it's still 20 grand, yikes). I'd rather pay 20 grand for a repaired home to live in than pay nothing and be homeless. As I recall, it was a $40k deductible before the change. *cough*

[jmnemonic]

Thanks for removing my bit of profanity up there. I'm not much of a curser, and shouldn't have cursed. Plus, it was showing up in search engines. Heh. 'Preciate it, mods.

BTW, MISA may be about to go viral. That could be highly disruptive in numerous ways. Grab yer britches.

[Timo]

I'm not worried. I'll just see y'all on the coast of Colorado when California's gone. I've got a great cabin 1/2 way up on Pike's Beach.

[truecougarblue]

Very interesting, but I must admit that I looked at the thread to see if you were channeling Jar Jar Binks.

Also, "trained my woman," WTH?????

[jmnemonic]

What's wrong with training? Heh, what can I say - former military. Practicing stuff = training. I assure you, if anyone wears the pants in our relationship, it's her.

And I thought the same thing! MISA doesn't like quakes, Ani!

[truecougarblue]

I did go look at the USGS data and I agree, I hope you are wrong and I'm surprised we haven't seen Lucy Jones on the nightly news trying to explain why the near doubling YOY.

[jmnemonic]

I made a posrt on Huffington Post. They have to be approved first. It's not showing up. I imagine Arianna has been called and they are all sitting around now wondering what to do with that story. We'll see if they're a reliable news source. Doesn't really matter though - the story is out. If they don't run it, someone else will. I really wish that Time science editor I wrote a year or two ago had done what I asked and forwarded the info to some geologists or seismologists. I have PTSD. I get uncomfortable around people, stressed. (Doesn't mean I don't like them, just bad wiring in my head, can't help it.) And I'm not looking for any bucks or fame. I just wanna fade into the background, having done my duty. I hope that's possible.

[Keith_McClary]

Random comments:

1) USGS figures for the world (same site) don't show the same trend as US data.

2) I don't know what seismologists say about annual variations in quake frequency. Should not be hard to find, tho.

3) I've read there is no correlation between quakes over large distances (100's of km.)

4) I think most quake fatalities are due to structures collapsing or tsunamis.

5) Quake damage is worst on drained lakes (eg. Mexico City) or river deltas where the ground turns to jello when shaken.

If you are in a frame house on solid ground away from quake-prone areas I think quakes are way down the list of concerns - where I live, cougars are a greater risk statistically.

[jmnemonic]

You don't know if they show the same trend. Since 2009 they haven't counted any quakes below 4.5 globally. They erased the fat part of the bell curve there. That makes the numbers look 'nicer'. Notice how 4.5 is right in the middle of the 4.0-4.9 range? They took away more than half of that range, and all the ranges below it. The bigger quakes aren't the ones *massively* spiking. They are spiking, some, but their numbers were always lower to start with. Do you see? This rabbit hole goes deep. I should have taken the blue pill.

[Keith_McClary]

This has been studied. Don't know much about it myself.This link just has the Abstract, but you can find more by searching for:

seismic "isostatic rebound"

Fennoscandian seismicity and its relation to the isostatic rebound

Abstract
Beside plate tectonics, isostatic rebound may be a main contributor in the seismogenic process in Fennoscandia. Extensional horizontal strain, presumably related to land uplift, calculated from mathematical modeling, geodetic data and curvature of uplift, show higher values than compressional horizontal strain, related to ridge push, estimated from sedimentary deformation in the basins surrounding the shield. The location of the current seismicity of central and northern Fennoscandia and the sites of large boulder caves near the Bothnian coast of central Sweden, show high correlation with the maximum curvature of uplift at present and late-glacial time, respectively; the caves may have been created by large earthquakes at the last phase of deglaciation.
...

[jmnemonic]

Yeah. That's actually what led me to my own theory. They were seeing the trees, not the forest. Mass goes away here, land uplifts some, seismic activity. I believe that. But then I asked the next question: okay 'mass goes away here' and then that mass goes....where? And does it have any effect when it arrives? Glaciologists would just see their own tree, their own glacier or area or whatever. They just didn't ask whether there was ALSO any effect from where the mass GOES. It's interesting, isostatic rebound. But way more people live near coasts than live near glaciers. I just went one step farther. Probably because I'm NOT a glaciologist.

[Ferretlover]

Michigan is Tilting and Affecting the Great Lakes « Our Worldv
Jan 2011
http://www.blogsmonroe.com/world/2009/0 ... eat-lakes/

Present-day tilting of the Great Lakes region based on water level ...
Updated 17 Jan 2011
http://www.geod.nrcan.gc.ca/publication ... _lakes.pdf

[Keith_McClary]

'mass goes away here' and then that mass goes....where? And does it have any effect when it arrives?

The water gets spread over the oceans which have many times the area of the icefields.

Jerry Mitrovica has calculated the gravitational effects of the mass redistribution.

[SeaGypsy]

I know i've said it before, but redistribution of large masses of polar and glacial ice are sure to affect the Earth's wobble...

Greenland's ice mass has to be significant enough to change the axis. I guess how suddenly this melts will affect the wobble. Has anyone done the maths on where the axis is with Greenland's ice sheet melted?
Where was the axis last time Greenland was ice free? How radical a melt would it take to cause catastrophic wobble? I can't recall who wrote it but I remember about 20 years ago someone predicting a radical wobble caused by ice melt triggering mega storms with 500 MPH winds. To my mind the earth rotation axis shift and wobble are the most likely globally devastating consequences of melt.

[Keith_McClary]

I know i've said it before, but redistribution of large masses of polar and glacial ice are sure to affect the Earth's wobble...

Greenland's ice mass has to be significant enough to change the axis. I guess how suddenly this melts will affect the wobble. Has anyone done the maths on where the axis is with Greenland's ice sheet melted?

I'm sure someone has - there are many bright young Ph.D. students looking for an earth shaking topic. Try your favorite search engine.

EDIT:According to:
Sea Level Rise Could Hit North America Hardest
Mitrovica also considered the wobble.

The scientists’ model took into account the West Antarctic ice sheet’s gravitational pull on nearby ocean water
...
Second, researchers found that if the weight of the ice disappears, the tectonic plate that it has kept buried beneath it will rise, forcing water to flow into other areas.
...
Finally, the melting ice sheet also would change the way the earth wobbles as it spins, according to the study. This would redistribute the ocean’s depth, transferring seawater from areas in the southern Atlantic and Pacific oceans to the southern Indian Ocean and areas around North America.

“When you remove the mass of the ice, the earth will change its axis,” says Holland of New York University. “Big chunks of water will move to the equator” from Antarctica, he adds.
...
The results of the study startled even its authors. “I knew that the gravitational effect on meltwater would be important, but I was very surprised the contributions from the other two effects were just as large,” says Mitrovica.

Effects due to the wobble are "just as large" as a small correction to previous estimates of sea level rise in some locations.
This would be a pretty small effect. I wonder if astronomers can measure the changing wobble yet?

The full text of Science Magazine papers over 1 year old are accessible with free registration:

The Sea-Level Fingerprint of West Antarctic Collapse

[SeaGypsy]

I know i've said it before, but redistribution of large masses of polar and glacial ice are sure to affect the Earth's wobble...

Greenland's ice mass has to be significant enough to change the axis. I guess how suddenly this melts will affect the wobble. Has anyone done the maths on where the axis is with Greenland's ice sheet melted?
Where was the axis last time Greenland was ice free? How radical a melt would it take to cause catastrophic wobble? I can't recall who wrote it but I remember about 20 years ago someone predicting a radical wobble caused by ice melt triggering mega storms with 500 MPH winds. To my mind the earth rotation axis shift and wobble are the most likely globally devastating consequences of melt.

I just read a plie on this. Looks like plate LIFT post melt is considered more of a problem than added weight to the oceans.