Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Geological rumbling puzzle.
#11
Well of course climate has changed drastically over the ages. And humans weren't the cause. Initially, bacteria were.

But now humans are. Things change. We're the new movers and shakers of that.

As per the weight distribution stuff; yes...concrete weighs more than water. However, a lake the size of Manhattan, and the depth of the tallest buildings, would be vastly more load than what's been built. Cities are mostly hollow. If our massive structures of concrete and steel were water tight, they would all float on water, easily.

It's hard to fathom the mass of ice that once sat on top on NYC. A mile thick. Or more. And then it went away. And sea level rose.
And people that were living in Florida at the time had to scurry inland and uphill.
There are remains of campfires at the bottom of Florida's deepest springs and sinkholes. The state was at least twice as large as now. Because of all that water that froze during the ice age.

And if all the ice melts, Florida would be reduced to a narrow ribbon of high ground in the north central area.

And now we humans have the ability to bring on these radical changes that used to be caused by other factors.

Should we ever be reduced to a global thermonuclear war, I guess it would be more obvious that the resulting climate change would be caused by us. Who would suggest otherwise?

It's similar to that today. Just less dramatic.
Reply
#12
I remember reading how much the land under the Antarctic ice cap would/might? rise without the weight of ice on it.

May go look for that when I get bored enough.
Reply
#13
Same here.

It's under lots of pressure.

I'd love to see the land under that ice.

I can't believe we haven't nuked the hell out of that ice yet.

There's a new world under that ice. And removing it would change the old world dramatically.
Reply
#14
"I don't think too many don't believe the climate is changing at all, ..."

WTF? Smile

You wanna try that again without the double negative this time?
You can lead 'em to knowledge, but you can't make 'em think.
Reply
#15
Don't worry 'bout it Sparky, here's some cat pitchas to cheer you up.
turn the sound on.

https://imgur.com/gallery/9RYFznq
Reply
#16
(12-01-2018, 03:50 PM)Di Wundrin Wrote:  Doesn't seem all that logical to me, if that's okay?

I'm just guessing here that for e.g. the weight of NYC would trump the weight of a lake that size and dimension.

Maths fail.

Water is a contiguous mass - Manhattan, not so much. 99.9% of Manhattan is straight air.

Even then, if you don't think stacking buildings on land doesn't make the land sink, think again: 30% of sinking is caused by the weight of buildings.

The weight of cities is a bagatelle compared to the trillions of tons of water stacked up as ice on Antarctica.

(12-01-2018, 03:50 PM)Di Wundrin Wrote:  That link you posted TA, it's a bit dodgy isn't it?  A 'consensus' of one geologist?

How many links would you like?

(12-01-2018, 03:50 PM)Di Wundrin Wrote:  I think we all need to take a deep breath and chill a little.  Is CC 'proof finding' a competition or something?

Nope, that's the exact opposite of what's needed, which is urgent, international action.

In other words, you may as well take the breath and chill, because nothing will happen.
Love is... that one person whose freshly-warm toilet seat you don't find disgusting.
Reply
#17
Quote: Maths fail.

Water is a contiguous mass - Manhattan, not so much. 99.9% of Manhattan is straight air.

Even then, if you don't think stacking buildings on land doesn't make the land sink, think again: 30% of sinking is caused by the weight of buildings.

The weight of cities is a bagatelle compared to the trillions of tons of water stacked up as ice on Antarctica.


Ummm... what??  I don't have to think again mate, you do.  I didn't in any way imply that the weight of buildings is less,  but more than water!   Therefore more likely to compress the ground beneath and cause earthquakes than the weight of water.   You've got it arse about.
... and just looking for an argument?

 You conflated it to Antarctica not me!  I'm just talking about a lake with an extra couple of feet of floodwater being used  as an example of how .. this has to be the longest bow ever drawn ...  CC caused it to rain a bit heavier so the lake flooded and the extra weight of water caused a minor earthquake.  Therefore earthquakes are directly caused by climate change ... seriously???

If "30% of sinking caused by the weight of buildings, then why aren't the earthquakes happening under NYC yet they're being blamed on some lake which is a couple of feet higher when it floods.

How about deep ocean earthquakes?  They're only happening because the water got heavier or something?


I'm having a go at the 'geologist' in your link and wondering if his theory has been 'peer' tested that's all.
You just jump to conclusions that I'm being a heretic and having a go at some CC theory ... well, yes I bloody am, when it's as far fetched as that one!

Anyone can have a theory, and they always get someone to ride in and support it if it smells like confirmation. [Image: yellow-laughing-smiley-emoticon.gif]

  
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)