Go Back   IceInSpace > General Astronomy > Astronomy and Amateur Science

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
  #1  
Old 12-03-2011, 10:08 AM
CraigS's Avatar
CraigS
Unpredictable

CraigS is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 3,023
Japan Earthquake Science

So the debate simmers to the boil again … how big is it .. how long does it last … when will the next one happen.. how big will it be ?':

Quake could alter Tokyo risk: experts

Quote:
Experts said it was too soon to know if the tectonic upheaval that shook northeast Japan Friday and unleashed a 10-metre (33-foot) tsunami put Tokyo at greater risk.

It could even reduce the odds of a killer quake hitting the capital.
"That is going to be hotly debated in the scientific community," said Jochen Woessner, a seismologist with the Swiss Seismological Service in Zurich.

The Japanese capital is only 300 kilometres (200 miles) from an underwater "triple junction" where three of the two dozen tectonic plates that comprise Earth's constantly shifting crust meet.

Tokyo sits atop the Eurasian plate. Beneath it, the Philippine Sea plate descends, or subducts, from the south, while the Pacific plate slips down from the east.
So out come all of the prediction models …

The last time I looked into this, the Chaos Modelling conclusion was that:

Quote:
The physics of earthquake behaviour is mostly independent of scale. A large earthquake is just a scaled up version of a small earthquake.
..
It is hard to break the habit of thinking of things in terms of how big they are and how long they last. But the claim of fractal geometry is that, for some elements of nature, looking for characteristic scale becomes a distraction.
The definition of an 8.9 magnitude earthquake, is imposed by people on nature .. not the other way around.

Comments welcome.

Cheers
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 12-03-2011, 11:11 AM
renormalised's Avatar
renormalised (Carl)
No More Infinities

renormalised is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Townsville
Posts: 9,698
Thew whole idea of how big they are and how long they last is not unimportant...it has to do with energy released, which is what the Richter Scale is. Each major division of the scale is 32 times more intense than the previous, so a mag 8 quake releases 32 times the energy of a mag 7 quake. How long a quake lasts is independent of how much energy they release, but as a whole, the bigger the quake the longer it lasts.

All Chaos Modeling is doing, is confusing the issue....it's largely irrelevant. All it's doing is just taking a different perspective to how you view quake physics. It makes no difference to the energy released and the length of time they last.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 12-03-2011, 11:34 AM
CraigS's Avatar
CraigS
Unpredictable

CraigS is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 3,023
Quote:
Originally Posted by renormalised View Post
All Chaos Modeling is doing, is confusing the issue....it's largely irrelevant. All it's doing is just taking a different perspective to how you view quake physics. It makes no difference to the energy released and the length of time they last.
I'm not sure I could ever see how a predictive model could ever make a difference to "the energy released and the length of time they last", (as per my last statement, in my previous post).

However, clearly the emphasis is still on collecting data, and crunching it in forecast models .. theoretical processing techniques will always be demanded from scientists, in order to make sense of the data ...

Quote:
McCloskey said that the massive 8.9 quake Friday was, strictly speaking, an aftershock of a nearby 7.2 magnitude quake two days earlier, despite it far greater power.

"We have calculated that the stress field from the 7.2 quake on Wednesday is consistent with the triggering of this earthquake," he said.

But connecting the dots with the Tokyo region, several hundred kilometres distant, is far more difficult, he added.

Experts also look for patterns in the thousands of quakes that occur across the globe each year.
Cheers
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 12-03-2011, 11:49 AM
renormalised's Avatar
renormalised (Carl)
No More Infinities

renormalised is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Townsville
Posts: 9,698
Trying to predict earthquakes is like taking a craps shoot at a carnival...in reality I don't think they'll ever be able to predict to within reasonable certainty when a quake will happen. You would have to know every single variable for every single possible occurrence/outcome to be able to predict a quake with 90-100% certainty. In any case, the system would ultimately rest on quantum physics and that immediately throws your predictive abilities right out the window.

In any case, as I mentioned, the Richter Scale is not about prediction, it's about quantifying the amount of energy released in an earthquake. The same with the Mercali Scale, except in that case it's the amount of damage done by an earthquake.

The term aftershock can be very problematical. Unless the series of quakes is related, i.e. belonging to the same system of stresses and geological provenance, then defining what an aftershock is can be difficult. What I mean by this, is you could call every earthquake that ever happened an aftershock of the previous one, no matter where/when it is. Why??....because it's conceivable that an earthquake in California could setup up a stress all the way across the Pacific Plate that might trigger an earthquake in Japan 10 years later.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 12-03-2011, 12:03 PM
CraigS's Avatar
CraigS
Unpredictable

CraigS is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 3,023
Quote:
Originally Posted by renormalised View Post
Trying to predict earthquakes is like taking a craps shoot at a carnival...in reality I don't think they'll ever be able to predict to within reasonable certainty when a quake will happen. You would have to know every single variable for every single possible occurrence/outcome to be able to predict a quake with 90-100% certainty. In any case, the system would ultimately rest on quantum physics and that immediately throws your predictive abilities right out the window.
… hmmm … a bit like predicting life on exo-planets, eh ?

(.. don't take me too seriously … 'twas only in jest .. I'm in another 'mood' today … )

Quote:
Originally Posted by renormalised
The term aftershock can be very problematical. Unless the series of quakes is related, i.e. belonging to the same system of stresses and geological provenance, then defining what an aftershock is can be difficult. What I mean by this, is you could call every earthquake that ever happened an aftershock of the previous one, no matter where/when it is. Why??....because it's conceivable that an earthquake in California could setup up a stress all the way across the Pacific Plate that might trigger an earthquake in Japan 10 years later.
You mean like Chaos Theory's 'Butterfly Effect' ?



Cheers
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 12-03-2011, 12:22 PM
renormalised's Avatar
renormalised (Carl)
No More Infinities

renormalised is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Townsville
Posts: 9,698
Like the Butterfly effect....yes and no. Yes, in that one event in a particular spot sets up an event in another, remote spot. No, in that there is an observable connection between the two remote spots and that it is possible to define a cause and effect in that system which can be measured...i.e. earthquake happening in CA, sets up a stress in the same plate on the opposite side of the planet, in Japan, that creates a stress which may take 10 years to release.

In Chaos Theory, there is no observable connection between the two events, even if they are part of the one system (i.e. the atmosphere). The Butterfly Effect is just a random chain of events which leads from the flapping wings to the thunderstorm.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 12-03-2011, 01:05 PM
CraigS's Avatar
CraigS
Unpredictable

CraigS is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 3,023
Quote:
Originally Posted by renormalised View Post
Like the Butterfly effect....yes and no. Yes, in that one event in a particular spot sets up an event in another, remote spot. No, in that there is an observable connection between the two remote spots and that it is possible to define a cause and effect in that system which can be measured...i.e. earthquake happening in CA, sets up a stress in the same plate on the opposite side of the planet, in Japan, that creates a stress which may take 10 years to release.

In Chaos Theory, there is no observable connection between the two events, even if they are part of the one system (i.e. the atmosphere). The Butterfly Effect is just a random chain of events which leads from the flapping wings to the thunderstorm.
Hmm … interesting .. I think the knowledge which establishes a demonstrated cause and effect within the closed system, more or less, eliminates the need for predictions of the outcomes within that same system ?

Chaos theory excludes randomness. Its about non-linear systems, which may have the appearance of randomness … but non-linear relationships can be defined from macro-level observation. This is then used to establish the form of the pattern. The non-linearity implies that the causes are not random .. but are defined by physical laws obscured (to the observer), by complexity.

Cheers
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 12-03-2011, 02:19 PM
renormalised's Avatar
renormalised (Carl)
No More Infinities

renormalised is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Townsville
Posts: 9,698
Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by CraigS View Post
Hmm … interesting .. I think the knowledge which establishes a demonstrated cause and effect within the closed system, more or less, eliminates the need for predictions of the outcomes within that same system ?

Chaos theory excludes randomness. Its about non-linear systems, which may have the appearance of randomness … but non-linear relationships can be defined from macro-level observation. This is then used to establish the form of the pattern. The non-linearity implies that the causes are not random .. but are defined by physical laws obscured (to the observer), by complexity.

Cheers
No, despite there being a connection and a cause-effect mechanism present, the fact is that the effect and its timing is not predictable. I said that you can define a cause and effect mechanism, not predict what will happen and when. Any cause will setup a series of events, but whether in the case it's a reduction or increase of the stress in the opposite sides of the plate is a matter of an indefinite set of variables. The CA quake could have easily released the stress in Japan and mitigated a future quake just as easily as it made one inevitable. Prediction, therefore, is still useful in measuring outcomes in such as system.

If something is non linear, but has a definable pattern it cannot be chaotic, by definition. Non linear systems, despite many appearing random, cannot by chaotic because they follow an underlying order which maybe obscured by complexity, but is still there. Chaos, in the strictest sense of the word, means total randomness with no underlying pattern or order driving the mechanism or system. Therefore Chaos Theory, by definition of what you have written, is not chaotic. Which is a contradiction in terms.

It would be better called Non Linear Systems Theory.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 12-03-2011, 03:03 PM
CraigS's Avatar
CraigS
Unpredictable

CraigS is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 3,023
A few definitions may be in order here, (from various sources)…

A non-linear system is one whose output is not directly proportional to its input.

A deterministic system is a system in which no randomness is involved in the development of future states of the system.

Small differences in initial conditions of a system, (such as those due to rounding errors in numerical computation), yield widely diverging outcomes for chaotic systems, rendering long-term prediction impossible in general.

This happens even though these systems are deterministic, meaning that their future behaviour is fully determined by their initial conditions, with no random elements involved. In other words, the deterministic nature of these systems does not make them predictable. This behaviour is known as deterministic chaos, or simply chaos.

More later .. gotta go.

Cheers
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 12-03-2011, 03:21 PM
renormalised's Avatar
renormalised (Carl)
No More Infinities

renormalised is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Townsville
Posts: 9,698
Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by CraigS View Post
A few definitions may be in order here, (from various sources)…

A non-linear system is one whose output is not directly proportional to its input.

A deterministic system is a system in which no randomness is involved in the development of future states of the system.

Small differences in initial conditions of a system, (such as those due to rounding errors in numerical computation), yield widely diverging outcomes for chaotic systems, rendering long-term prediction impossible in general.

This happens even though these systems are deterministic, meaning that their future behaviour is fully determined by their initial conditions, with no random elements involved. In other words, the deterministic nature of these systems does not make them predictable. This behaviour is known as deterministic chaos, or simply chaos.

More later .. gotta go.

Cheers
I know the definitions, Craig, but that still doesn't change what I said. In their strictest sense, they're not truly chaotic. It's a case of bad use of words to describe what's happening. They may not be predictable systems, in so far as their outcomes are concerned, but there is an underlying order driving these systems to whatever outcomes they are heading towards. Once the initial conditions are set, the outcomes are what they'll be, but you have no way of predicting what they'll be. Basically, to be able to predict outcomes in systems such as these, you would have to know of every possible existing variable of the system along with every possible combination/cause for those variables. An indefinite set of variable and cause/effect outcomes. Impossible to model, unless it obeyed something similar to the quantum principle of superposition of state and Heisenberg's Principle.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 12-03-2011, 06:31 PM
Robh's Avatar
Robh (Rob)
Registered User

Robh is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Blue Mountains, Australia
Posts: 1,333
Hi Craig and Carl,

This is an interesting read.
From an article by Balakrishnan Ramasamy and T S K V Iyer
Chaos Modelling with Computers-
Unpredictable Behaviour of Deterministic Systems ...

Read from ...
Chaos and Dynamical Systems page 29
to ...
This property of sensitive dependence on initial conditions is one of the characteristics of chaos. Page 30.

Full text here ...
http://www.ias.ac.in/resonance/May19...1996p29-39.pdf

Regards, Rob
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 13-03-2011, 07:34 AM
CraigS's Avatar
CraigS
Unpredictable

CraigS is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 3,023
I'm back .. Ok, Carl .. yep .. the definitions I posted were for the record and weren't intended to counter-argue anything you've said. I was going to say this, but I ran out of time. (Apologies for any misunderstandings).

As far as long term earthquake prediction is concerned, I agree that at the moment, it still seems we still don't have the ability to make long enough predictions, and it may always be that way.

My purpose for introducing the concepts which Chaos Theory introduces, is simply a way to help us step outside of the usual things we go looking for, and ponder them for a while, given that traditional ways of looking to create predictive models of earthquakes, may never get us closer to the 'traditional' end goals, which target providing answers for questions like:
- how big will it be .. how long do clusterings last … when will the next one happen.. etc, etc.

Rob: Thanks for the paper … its interesting .. I don't know about others, but it seems that no matter how many times I read about Chaos related areas, I find it difficult to retain the concepts in memory (over the medium to longer term) …. another reason I posted the basic system concepts/definitions.

Perhaps Chaos is another one for the "Counterintuitive" thread, eh ?
(Or is it just me ?).

I'm always interested in reading about the practical outcomes of Chaos Theory and Fractal geometry. Fractal geometry applications are easier to come by, but I'm sure that the concepts of Chaos Theory are well and truly embedded in all sorts of mathematical models thesedays.

Cheers
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 13-03-2011, 09:31 AM
CraigS's Avatar
CraigS
Unpredictable

CraigS is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 3,023
Here's another interesting series of Questions and Answers … A quick summary of the questions (of relevance to this thread .. ie: forecasting/modelling) follow:

Q: What caused it?
Q: Was it a surprise?
Q: You mean there were no hints at all?
Q: There was a lot of seismic activity off Japan's coast last week, including a magnitude 7.2 quake on Wednesday. Should that have been a warning sign?
Q: Should we expect more earthquakes?
Q: Will this change the way scientists look at earthquakes around the world?
Q: Does this change our understanding of earthquakes in Southern California and elsewhere on the West Coast?
Q: This sounds a lot like the 9.3 earthquake that struck Sumatra in 2004, generating a tsunami that killed more than 230,000 people in 14 countries.
Q: The 1995 Kobe quake in Japan killed more than 6,000 people. Was it almost as big as this one?

This demonstrates the 'traditional' type of questions which put pressure on forecasting models ..

The answers are interesting (I have provided a couple below) but don't really lead to any conclusions (as expected given the nature of the phenomenon, I guess).

Quote:
Q: Should we expect more earthquakes?
A: Aftershocks in the region have been ongoing, including 10 in the first hour alone. Jordan and Hough said that these could be quite damaging and might even create another rupture along the complex system of plate boundaries that extend toward Tokyo.
It's not unusual to see far-flung increases in seismic activity after large earthquakes, Jordan said. In part, that's because the Earth oscillates after a big quake much like when a musician hits a gong, and such vibrations can change the stresses on faults "in a small way."
But Hough said there's no reason to think that this earthquake will trigger a series of other catastrophic quakes around the world. Sometimes it seems like big quakes come in clusters, but it's just a coincidence, she said: "It's not like there's some global supercluster getting out of hand."

Q: Will this change the way scientists look at earthquakes around the world?
A: It already has, by expanding the list of places where magnitude 9 "megaquakes" could happen, Hough said. "We had a sense that these couldn't happen along any subduction zone - that it took a certain geometry, a bigger zone," she said. "One lesson is that these are possible in more places than we thought."
.. so the field of possible scenarios broadens, rather than converges …

By the way, I'd just like to express my deep concerns for the human tragedy situation over there as well … (its just awful, and I wish I could help).

I think at the end of the day, people will eventually turn to Science for better predictive tools and maybe Engineering knowledge, for protection.

Rgds.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 13-03-2011, 10:25 AM
snas's Avatar
snas (Stuart)
Registered User

snas is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: wellington point
Posts: 131
Craig
I hope that your hope that people will turn more to science proves correct. However, my experience in medicine is that many people have become unable to grasp modern science based medicine's concepts, have been scared off from use of modern drugs (normally because of the rantings of people who seem to have some strong bent against modern science based medicine). As a result, I am sadly not making more room to house the sudden influx of "modern science converts".
Already I have seen a site saying that the quake was god's retribution against the Japanese for killing whales and for killing Americans in WW2. What the!? You can't deal with crazies!

Stuart
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 13-03-2011, 10:43 AM
CraigS's Avatar
CraigS
Unpredictable

CraigS is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 3,023
Quote:
Originally Posted by snas View Post
Craig
I hope that your hope that people will turn more to science proves correct. However, my experience in medicine is that many people have become unable to grasp modern science based medicine's concepts, have been scared off from use of modern drugs (normally because of the rantings of people who seem to have some strong bent against modern science based medicine). As a result, I am sadly not making more room to house the sudden influx of "modern science converts".
Already I have seen a site saying that the quake was god's retribution against the Japanese for killing whales and for killing Americans in WW2. What the!? You can't deal with crazies!

Stuart
Hi Stuart;
My motivation is not so much in the hope that people will turn to Science (I don't really care what people turn to .. they have a free choice).
But when something like this happens, interrogative style questions invariably get directed at the scientific agencies who receive funding.

What can the agencies do in a situation which has no definitive predictable outcomes (over the long term)?

Its really a conundrum, I think.

But clearly, the focus at the moment is developing ways to warn of impending quakes, which give adequate preparation time for those at risk.
Which all makes good sense. It'll probably never result in sufficient warning to save as many lives as the general public might expect, however.

Defensive building codes, tsunami warning technologies and tsunami protection barriers are really the best we've come up with so far.

I think it would be great if people understood the true nature of the phenomenon, from a more theoretical forecasting perspective, however. This resets expectations, which on the whole, I think, aren't generally particularly realistic.

Cheers
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 13-03-2011, 11:47 AM
renormalised's Avatar
renormalised (Carl)
No More Infinities

renormalised is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Townsville
Posts: 9,698
Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by snas View Post
Craig
I hope that your hope that people will turn more to science proves correct. However, my experience in medicine is that many people have become unable to grasp modern science based medicine's concepts, have been scared off from use of modern drugs (normally because of the rantings of people who seem to have some strong bent against modern science based medicine). As a result, I am sadly not making more room to house the sudden influx of "modern science converts".
Already I have seen a site saying that the quake was god's retribution against the Japanese for killing whales and for killing Americans in WW2. What the!? You can't deal with crazies!

Stuart
I sometimes wonder how the human species even got as far as it did, considering the general level of intelligence that seems to be exhibited by 90% of them. Or, more to the point, common sense. If it wasn't for a few clever people and a lot of graft by people nearly as smart, most of them would still be running around scratching their bare backsides out in the middle of the bush. What the real conundrum is that the more technologically advanced we become, the more imbecilic the general populace becomes. The more fundamentalist many turn out to be and the less advanced their outlook and apparent education becomes.

That's why you get ridiculous sites like the one you mentioned.

Trying to explain the science behind earthquakes and their prediction would be a waste of time with many...it would go straight over their heads. High school was hard enough for them, let alone having to try and understand uni level geology/geophysics.

Even many, so called, "well educated" people aren't as well educated as they might like to think they are. Science for them was something only done by nerds in lab coats. And that's the general attitude of society towards science.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 13-03-2011, 04:25 PM
avandonk's Avatar
avandonk
avandonk

avandonk is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 4,786
A good model for plate movement is a brick on a rubber band pulled up an inclined plane of carborundum paper. No matter how many times you run the experiment every outcome is different. It is called a complex system.

Bert
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 13-03-2011, 05:26 PM
Barrykgerdes
Registered User

Barrykgerdes is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Beaumont Hills NSW
Posts: 2,900
The theories will soon come fast and furious and probably none of them will get near the truth. We have had a relatively calm period in the "ring of fire" for many years but now it appears we may be moving into a more active period. The "big one" in California is yet to come but I don't think they are prepared for it. Yesterday I watched a program on TV that stated that "California has more nuts than any other state".

I loved science at school. We were taught many things in theory and then had the practical work to prove them. I think today's "science" is based on statistics and "political correctness" without any real testing of its theories.

It's surprising, and then maybe not so surprising the number of people who base their life around the stars and the predictions of the astrologers that don't understand anything about the planet movements.

One thing you can be sure of. Things will not change!

Barry

PS Here is the cause of the latest earthquake. China is putting so much carbon into the air on the west side of the Pacific and Julia so much hot air on the Eastern side that the Pacific plate had to tilt to compensate!

BG
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 13-03-2011, 05:30 PM
ballaratdragons's Avatar
ballaratdragons (Ken)
The 'DRAGON MAN'

ballaratdragons is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: In the Dark at Snake Valley, Victoria
Posts: 14,412
Quote:
Originally Posted by renormalised View Post
I sometimes wonder how the human species even got as far as it did, considering the general level of intelligence that seems to be exhibited by 90% of them. Or, more to the point, common sense. If it wasn't for a few clever people and a lot of graft by people nearly as smart, most of them would still be running around scratching their bare backsides out in the middle of the bush. What the real conundrum is that the more technologically advanced we become, the more imbecilic the general populace becomes. The more fundamentalist many turn out to be and the less advanced their outlook and apparent education becomes.

That's why you get ridiculous sites like the one you mentioned.

Trying to explain the science behind earthquakes and their prediction would be a waste of time with many...it would go straight over their heads. High school was hard enough for them, let alone having to try and understand uni level geology/geophysics.

Even many, so called, "well educated" people aren't as well educated as they might like to think they are. Science for them was something only done by nerds in lab coats. And that's the general attitude of society towards science.
That is exactly why I am excited that my 15 y.o. son asked the Principal at his school if he can do Advanced Physics next year instead of the normal Physics class.
Physics excites him!

The Principal said yes
There will be two in his class
Sums up your post perfectly.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 14-03-2011, 08:21 AM
CraigS's Avatar
CraigS
Unpredictable

CraigS is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 3,023
So now, GPS measurements have confirmed a 2.4 metre (8 feet) shift of one of the GPS stations in Japan (not sure which one at this stage) …

Quote:
Kenneth Hudnut, a USGS geophysicist, said experts read data including from global positioning systems to determine the extend of the shift.
"We know that one GPS station moved (eight feet), and we have seen a map from GSI (Geospatial Information Authority) in Japan showing the pattern of shift over a large area is consistent with about that much shift of the land mass," he told CNN.
They've also calculated that the Earth's rotation speed has sped up by 1.6 microseconds .. slightly more than that caused by last year's Chile earthquake (8.8 Richter). Sumatra's 2004 quake (9.1 Richter), caused a 6.8 microsecond shortening of the day.

It'll be interesting to see whether measurements confirm the 1.6 microsecond increase in speed. The relationship between large quakes and the accelerated rotation speed is interesting, given that they also just recently discovered, (from seismic measurements), that the core is actually moving much slower than previously believed – approximately 1 degree every million years.

As a comparison, over the course of a year, the length of a day varies by about 1 millisecond, getting longer in the North American winter and shorter in the summer. This is thought to be mainly due to the average exchanges of energy between the solid Earth and fluid motions of Earth's atmosphere and its oceans.

Longer fluctuations of about 4 millisecs occur also, (over a 65 to 80 year cycle), and are believed to be due to flow of liquid iron in the outer core, and are measured in the magnetic field variation patterns. These fluctuations also correlate strongly with the average global surface temperature patterns.

Seems like it would take a lot of very large earthquakes, to make any appreciable impacts, when compared with the fluid movement variations.

Cheers

Last edited by CraigS; 14-03-2011 at 11:40 AM. Reason: Clarify wording in para 4
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +10. The time is now 05:26 AM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.8.7 | Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Advertisement
Testar
Advertisement
Bintel
Advertisement