I stuck my head in the snake pit regarding this:

[Cleita]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7839223

Regarding this: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=245&topic_id=112277&mesg_id=112277

Please hold my hand.

[PADemD]

1. All I see with the first post

is a lot of replies from Ignored.

:)

[Cleita]

5. Let me guess. Well I can't name DUers by the rules but I think I know who

you mean. :rofl:

[rosesaylavee]

2. You are a brave soul...

I think GD and GDP are uglier than usual.

:hug:

[Cleita]

6. When I first came to DU we had some really intelligent and informative

posters. Many got banned because the troll element badgered them into breaking the rules out of anger that got them a tombstone. Many moved on because of the vitriol. We still have some good DUers who try to keep us informed but mostly they cut and paste from other sources. All the really good writers are gone other than Will Pitt.

[northernlights]

3. the reverse is more likely true

It's partly a question of the magnitude of the forces involved. The ice shelf that broke off was not on land. It was more like an ice cube floating on water. Same weight and mass, whether it's ice or water. It didn't exert any kind of force on the plates at all -- just set the water way up at the surface sloshing around a bit. Not even enough to start a noteworthy wave anywhere.

As someone noted toward the end of the thread in question, there is a new hypothesis out there that possibly magma released deep underwater is partially responsible for el nino, by heating the water from underneath. That makes some sense. I didn't read the linked article so don't know how much data they have at this point to support it -- I would expect deep sea temperature readings at specific points would be necessary to confirm.

As to what causes plates to move, they are not fixed into place but floating on a sea of magma. Various forces are likely acting on them...the rotation of the earth, gravity and possibly electro magnetics have enough energy needed to move them. And then once one plate has a major shift, it likely sets off a chain reaction (domino effect) of plates hitting each other with varying degrees of force. Which is why Wyanstanz has noted that a quake on one side of the ring of fire seems to set off a sequence on the other side of the Pacific. Note too that Taiwan had a 6.4 or so quake yesterday.

[Cleita]

4. I was really more referring to the first article from a year ago that stated the

axis of the earth would shift because a large ice berg breaking off from Antarctica because of global warming could cause the earth to move that would cause a change in the earth's axis. Evidently the earth's axis did move because of the earthquake. That's a fact. It's more tenuous to posit that the iceberg caused the earthquake, but looking at the fact that it happened right after and that Chile and Argentina are the countries that are closest to Antarctica. Doesn't it look like scientists should study what happened?

As far as Taiwan having an earthquake, so did Haiti, but neither changed the earth's axis.The quakes could be related in a distant way but not relevant for the event that happened in Chile and the shift in the axis.

[northernlights]

7. correlation does not equal causation

My dog just walked down the steps. And then I belched. He's standing just a few feet away from me. Did he cause the belch? No.

A lot of events happened right ahead of the earthquake in Chile. That does not mean one caused the other. It doesn't even mean they are related. Despite what some would have, sometimes there really are coincidences.

So no, based on physical reality and the vast amount of data that is known about earthquakes and the vast amount of data that is known about icebergs, it doesn't look like scientists should study that.

It would be more believable that an earthquake caused a calving than the other way around. Again, the forces involved with the calving, which in this case is known to have been caused by a large iceberg striking the "peninsula" of ice, are miniscule as compared to the forces that resulted from the earthquake. Furthermore, what comparitively small amount of energy that was released as a result of the iceberg was distributed by waves of water.

Given what is known about the ice shelves, calving, plate tectonics, quakes, and energy, it does not make sense, and I can't imagine any scientist even considering the possibility that an ice sheet breaking off an ice shelf would cause an earthquake, even if the quake occurred right underneath the berg.

[Cleita]

8. We'll see. They poo poo'd the idea of magma causing the El Ninos of which

we are experiencing one this winter. Now they are looking at it as a possible cause.