Question to you smart people in this group re: Nepal earthquake

[marym625]

Last edited Sat May 2, 2015, 12:15 PM - Edit history (1)

Is it at all possible that this could be linked to global warming? I don't know enough about how earthquakes and global warming are related or if anything that does cause them is happening in Nepal.

Thank you for any response

To everyone that responded, thank you so very much! This is now my favorite post ever! You have all taught me something. Whether or not you agree with each other, you gave reason for your beliefs. Facts.

This has been like a discussion in a classroom where you could somehow link a source. Love it!

Thanks again

[NV Whino]

1. No. Plate tectonics

Same reason California has quakes.

Here's a link to another thread showing the India plates.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026574124

[marym625]

5. so plate tectonics

Is not caused by anything we are doing to the environment?

Thank you!

[OKIsItJustMe]

45. Correct

http://www.livescience.com/37706-what-is-plate-tectonics.html

[marym625]

46. Thank you for the answer

And the link.

Did you read the other replies here? I am not trying to be disrespectful. I am truly asking because I wonder if you think those that are questioning or say that it is possible, are incorrect.

[OKIsItJustMe]

47. Yes, I read them

If you follow the links, you will find that there is not a great deal of fracking going on in India. Mostly, there is a great deal of talking about fracking…

http://www.theindiaexpert.com/fracking-in-india-the-country-will-begin-shale-oil-exploration-auctions-soon

[font face=Serif][font size=5]Fracking in India? The country will begin shale oil exploration auctions soon[/font]

by Gunjan

[font size=3]India will launch its first-ever bid round for exploration of shale oil and gas by December 2013, Oil Minister S Jaipal Reddy.

“We are pursuing the development of shale gas in the country. We have undertaken the mapping of shale gas resources and are working to put in place a regulatory regime for licensing round in shale gas, by December 2013,” he said. Six basins, Cambay, Assam-Arakan, Gondawana, KG onshore, Cauvery onshore and Indo Gangetic basins, have been identified that may have shale gas potential.

…[/font][/font]

(See? This is talk about fracking which may take place, not about fracking which was actually taking place.)


What is Nepal famous for? Huge mountains, like “Mount Everest.”

Where did those huge mountains come from? Essentially, India is sliding under Asia. There’s a lot of “grinding” involved here, as enormous sheets of rock slide past each other. The grinding produces huge mountains and powerful earthquakes.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/everest/earth/birth.html
http://education.nationalgeographic.com/education/media/mount-everest/
http://www.seismonepal.gov.np/index.php?linkId=56

[marym625]

48. Thank you

I appreciate the time you took and the links

[OKIsItJustMe]

49. You’re welcome

I don’t know if you noticed this one. (I added it later.)

http://www.seismonepal.gov.np/index.php?linkId=56

…

The great earthquake, which occurred in Nepal, was Bihar- Nepal earthquake of 1934 A. D. Assam great earthquake of 1897, Kangra earthquake 1905, and Assam earthquake 1950 were felt in Nepal. The earthquake of 1833 also affected the Kathmandu Valley. The record of historical earthquake is not complete which poses a problem in assessing the recurrence period of great earthquakes. From the available data there has been no great earthquakes of magnitude >8.0 in the gap between the earthquakes of 1905 A. D and 1934 A. D. and there is a real threat that a major earthquake may occur in this gap that will affect Western Nepal.

Just as in the Western US, we talk about “The Big One” which we know will hit Western California some day, Nepal knew another big quake was coming to Kathmandu…

[marym625]

58. Sorry, I am really behind on responding to things

I did. I really appreciate all your insight

[daleanime]

2. Now if they had been fracking in the area....

[marym625]

6. I actually was wondering just that

Evidently not. Thank you!

[questionseverything]

28. yes there is fracking

http://www.theindiaexpert.com/fracking-in-india-the-country-will-begin-shale-oil-exploration-auctions-soon

[marym625]

35. Well shit!

That makes a big difference! Thank you!

[TreasonousBastard]

3. No. Earthquakes in that area have been common for...

millions of years.

There are several different kinds of earthquakes, but the Himalayan ones are caused basically by India moving north into China and causing humongous, unbelievable pressure. This is the same sort of thing that causes California quakes.

Do a search for "plate tectonics" to see how it works.

[marym625]

7. I do understand that earthquakes are natural events

But so are hurricanes. Hurricane Sandy was definitely worse because of global warming. So I wondered about this horrible event and the cause.

Thank you very much. I will do that. I do have a little understanding about plate tectonics, but not a great deal

[bananas]

4. Yes, changes in storm intensity and sea level affect plate tectonics.

See posts #3 through #7 in this thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x5049029

[marym625]

8. Thank you

This is what I thought. Will there be any way to determine if this quake was caused by, or made worse due to, global warming?

That's a really good thread. I think you should post something about it again. That is if you feel like it.

[daleanime]

9. And this is why that's no such thing.....

as a silly question.


And now I've got some thing else to look into.

[marym625]

10. I'm glad I am not the only one educated here.

It was the size of this earthquake, and the fact it hit places that have existed without any damage like this for a century or more, that caused me to wonder

[SheilaT]

26. Geological time scales are

vastly long. No earthquake in that area for a century or so? Pffft! That's a snap of a finger in geology.

[marym625]

31. Yes, I get that

But I just have a hard time believing that all the crap going on in the environment, the water especially, isn't causing havoc with the earth

[Travis_0004]

38. Nepal is located on a major tectonic plate

The tectonic plates are what caused the himalayan mountains to form, and grow about 2 inches taller every year. Also, Nepal was hit with an earthquake in 88.

An earthquake in Nepal, (or any area where tectonic plates meet (think California) is probably not from human interfearance. A large Earthquake in Kansas. That would be strange and unexpected.

[marym625]

39. I'm waiting for the earthquake in Chicago

It will happen. We are on a fault line.

I don't think that the Nepal earthquake was due solely to human interference in the environment. But I do still wonder if we didn't make it worse.

I don't believe we will ever know

TThank you for the information

[SheilaT]

42. You make a good point.

There are fault lines in places lots of people don't realize that are there. We already know a pretty good amount about the fault lines in California, and every single time there's a significant earthquake there, the geologists learn about new fault lines.

Most people have no idea that there was a major earthquake in Charleston, SC, in 1886. Did a lot of damage, and if something similar were to occur today, because of the increase in population, would be far worse.

The 1964 Good Friday earthquake in Alaska. The shaking lasted for five full minutes. Think about it. Most of the time the shaking is 45 seconds or less. Five full minutes.

Then there's the New Madrid earthquakes of 1811-12. Four major ones between December 16, 1811 and February 7, 1812. They were felt as far away as Denver, CO. They made church bells ring in Washington DC and Boston, Mass. The book On Shaky Ground by John Nance has an excellent account of them, as well as of the Good Friday Earthquake.

It's possible that global warming is having a small effect on earthquakes, and we know that fracking has an influence. But the big quakes? The earth itself, plate tectonics, does it without any help from us humans.

Factoid: Alfred Wegener proposed a theory of continental drift in 1912, but couldn't figure out the mechanism for it, because we just didn't know about plate tectonics yet. In 1960 there was a major quake in Chile, the largest magnitude ever recorded, and that one lasted 10 minutes. Geologists who studied it, soon realized that Wegener was probably right, and they started figuring out what we now know as plate tectonics. When the Good Friday quake occurred four years later, a group of geologists and seismologists were having dinner in the Space Needle in Seattle. The quake in Alaska made the Space Needle stop revolving, and they all knew immediately that something important had happened. In the end, that Good Friday quake confirmed the theory of plate tectonics.

All that is in the Nance book.

[marym625]

59. Thank you!

I don't doubt at all that huge quakes need no global warming help. But I still think we're helping them out.

The quake that caused the Mississippi River to run backwards was just over 200 years ago. Oddly, it happened right after a great deal of ice melted. Maybe there was a correlation?

[SheilaT]

65. The quake that made the Mississippi run backward

was part of the New Madrid series. I sincerely doubt that even a great deal of ice melting would have a connection or even a correlation. The planet is pretty big. The geologic forces that cause earthquakes are far below the surface. An extremely shallow earthquake is still happening about 20km under the surface.

In 1991 I visited New Madrid and went to the earthquake museum there. Fascinating. One of the things that happened during the earthquakes was that large amounts of sand and water were ejected from the earth. They're called sand blows, and they can still be seen today, generally as circular areas where nothing grows in the middle of cultivated fields.

[marym625]

66. I haven't visited, yet

But I want to. I find it fascinating and have read a lot about it. I mean the river running backwards for over 24 hours! Wow!

Seems that the 4.0 today was due to fracking.

[marym625]

62. There was just a quake epicenter Galesburg Michigan

At 11:23am EDT that I felt in Chicago and another DUer felt in Ohio

[Binkie The Clown]

15. Nepal is so far from the nearest sea that sea level rise contributed ZERO

to the earthquake. (Accurate to within 7 decimal places)

Sure, glacier melt has some effect, but realistically, we are talking about a contribution so miniscule as to be meaningless.

Frankly, it makes just as much sense to say that a falling stock market caused the earthquake. Or maybe it was triggered when you dropped a pencil on the floor a couple days ago. Pencils hitting the floor could effect plate tectonics. Except they didn't.

BTW: Citing your own posts is not the same as citing an authoritative source. And the source you did cite mentions 20% change in 10 million years! That's, let's see, 1/ten millionth of 20% is 0% (to 7 decimal places. The actual figure is 0.00000002.) Given those figures, that dropped pencil is starting to look like a better candidate for the cause.

[marym625]

36. But,

It looks like there was fracking in the area and the rising land due to glacier melt.

I am not convinced there is zero chance. Though I appreciate your input very much

[Travis_0004]

40. Fracking Earthquakes are usually around 3.0. Nepal was a 7.8

Remember also that the Richter scale is logarithmic as well. Lets be generous assume the average fracking earthquake measured at 4.0 (which is 10 times stronger than a 3.0). That means that a 7.8 earthquake is over 6,000 times stronger than the (generous) fracking earthquake.). It would release over 500,000 times more energy than the average fracking earthquake.

I don't think humans could cause an earthquake of that magnitude even if that was our goal, let alone as an accidental byproduct.

[marym625]

41. I don't think it's all humans

And there is more than the fracking. Additionally, how do we know that a small fracking quake didn't set off the larger quake?

I don't mean to argue that it is a human caused earthquake, just that we can't ignore that there is a possibility.

[Maedhros]

51. I spent six years studying subduction zone magma production and mantle melting processes.

I am skeptical of the Australian team's findings.

Plate tectonics are driven by movement of the mantle, on top of which the crust is a very thin veneer. I can't see ocean currents significantly altering the rate of plate movement, certainly not by 20%.

Until independent research confirms their findings, I will remain skeptical.

[mopinko]

11. ya know, i asked a similar question in this forum a few years ago.

i asked if it could cause increases in volcanos.
got a flat out no.
but my physics lessons taught me otherwise, and i have harbored this notion anyway.
since both pertain to plate tectonics....
not the pathway i was thinking about, glaciers and all, but i suspect a more direct link will also prove true. small perhaps, but i still think possibly significant if temps rise enough.

i suspect we will add this to our growing body of knowledge about the planet some day soon.
sorta like learning what makes a human body tick by dissecting the dead.

[marym625]

12. I hope we learn it

We may all be gone before that is possible

[dbackjon]

19. What physics lessons would that be?

[mopinko]

20. that at a certain point a heating planet

would result in heating up of the magma, and would add energy to a volcanic system.
it may be small, but energy is energy. adding energy should make for more volcanoes.

[dbackjon]

21. The atmosphere would have to get awfully hot

To heat magma miles below the surface.



Could there be small scale effects? Yes - those are known - ie rebound as land depressed by ice sheets is freed and goes backup, or a volcano, that was capped by ice finally builds enough pressure to break through weakened ice erupts, but that eruption is not caused by climate change.

[mopinko]

23. the heating of the oceans would

warm the crust. so i think it could impact underwater volcanos, at least. and who knows what enough of that could tip off.
i'm not saying they would be rampant. i'm just saying physics is physics, and we are seeing tipping points that we did not know 10 years ago were there.

[dbackjon]

24. No - the oceans warming a degree or two will do ZERO to the crust

Especially since the warming is mostly confined to the top layers.


There is a lot to be concerned about with climate change. Volcanos and Earthquakes are not ones.

[kristopher]

13. Our understanding of plate tectonics doesn't go back very far..

History of plate tectonics


Plate tectonic theory had its beginnings in 1915 when Alfred Wegener proposed his theory of "continental drift." Wegener proposed that the continents plowed through crust of ocean basins, which would explain why the outlines of many coastlines (like South America and Africa) look like they fit together like a puzzle. Wegener was not the first to notice this puzzle-like fit of the continents (Magellan and other early explorers also noticed this on their maps), but he was one of the first to realize that the Earth's surface has changed through time, and that continents that are separated now may have been joined together at one point in the past.

Paleontologists had also found that there were fossils of similar species found on continents that are now separated by great geographic distance. Paleoclimate studies, which concerns examining the climate in Earth's past, revealed that glaciers covered large areas of the world which also are now separated by great geographic distances. These observations seemed to indicate that the Earth's lithosphere had been moving over geologic time.

Wegener's ideas were very controversial because he didn't have an explanation for why the continents moved, just that there was observational evidence that they had. At the time, many geologists believed that the features of the Earth were the result of the Earth going through cycles of heating and cooling, which causes expansion and contraction of the land masses. People who believed this were called the anti-mobilists. The mobilists were in the opposite camp and supported Wegener's ideas, since many of them had seen evidence for continental motion, especially in the Alps.

Although Wegener's "continental drift" theory was later disproved, it was one of the first times that the idea of crustal movement had been introduced to the scientific community; and it laid the groundwork for the development of modern plate tectonics. As years passed, more and more evidence was uncovered to support the idea that the plates move constantly over geologic time.

Paleomagnetic studies, which examine the Earth's past magnetic field, showed that the magnetic north pole seemingly wandered all over the globe. This meant that either the plates were moving, or else the north pole was. Since the north pole is essentially fixed, except during periods of magnetic reversals, this piece of evidence strongly supports the idea of plate tectonics.

Following World War II, even more evidence was uncovered which supports the theory of plate tectonics. In the 1960's a world-wide array of seismometers were installed to monitor nuclear testing, and these instruments revealed a startling geological phenomenon. It showed that earthquakes, volcanoes, and other active geologic features for the most part aligned along distinct belts around the world, and those belts defined the edges of tectonic plates.

In addition, further paleomagnetic studies revealed a striped pattern of magnetic reversals in the crust of the ocean basins. Basalt contains a fair amount of magnetic minerals called magnetite. When the lava from spreading centers in the oceans forms and cools, these minerals align to the north pole. The Earth has undegone several magnetic reversals in the past, in which the north and south poles are reversed for a period of time. When geologists and geophysicists discovered that the crust in the ocean recorded these reversals, it was even more positive proof that the lithosphere had to be in motion, otherwise there would be no "stripes" of normal and reversed polarity crust.

These were some of the final pieces of the puzzle that led to the development of modern plate tectonic theory. Since its emergence in the 1960's, plate tectonic theory has gained wide-spread acceptance as the model of Earth processes.

http://www.scec.org/education/k12/learn/plate2.htm

[marym625]

14. K&R

I know that doesn't really do anything for a reply but it is worth it.

So, if I understand it correctly, the Nepal earthquake could have happened, or at least been made worse, because of global warming.

It also looks like we can expect more of the same coming. Yes?

[Binkie The Clown]

16. No! Absolutely not.

To claim otherwise is not just bad science, it borders on the same logic that underlies astrology. (After all, the gravitation pull of the planets might have an effect on us.)

Being scientifically trained it really annoys me when people peddle nonsense and call it science. Quantum mechanics does not prove ESP, and Dr. Oz's snake oil will not melt your excess pounds away. Global warming does not cause earthquakes, especially as far inland as Nepal.

Disagree? Show me the math.

[Binkie The Clown]

18. Upon further researhc, I may have overstated my case...

I'm finding more references to the seismic effects of weather. I'm not completely convinced yet, but I'm willing to admit I might be wrong. I'll keep an open mind on the subject.

Case in point:

The untold – and terrifying – story behind the earthquake that devastated Nepal last Saturday morning begins with something that sounds quite benign. It’s the ebb and flow of rainwater in the great river deltas of India and Bangladesh, and the pressure that puts on the grinding plates that make up the surface of the planet.

Recently discovered, that causal factor is seen by a growing body of scientists as further proof that climate change can affect the underlying structure of the Earth.

Because of this understanding, a series of life-threatening “extreme geological events” – earthquakes, volcanoes and tsunamis – is predicted by a group of eminent geologists and geophysicists including University College London’s Bill McGuire, professor emeritus of Geophysical and Climate Hazards.

from: Newsweek

[marym625]

29. I appreciate this

And I am really glad you are looking at everything. I am not a scientist. I don't have a formal education in any of this. But just from what seems to be fairly common knowledge, there is at least a possibility.

Between you and others here, looks like the possibility is fairly good that this was at least made worse by global warming

Thank you again

[Binkie The Clown]

30. I have occasionaly fits of close-mindedness, but I usually recover. n/t

[marym625]

37. Same here!

But I usually have to be hit on the head with a rock.

[mackdaddy]

17. Newsweek: More Fatal Earthquakes to Come, Warn Climate Change Scientists

More Fatal Earthquakes to Come, Warn Climate Change Scientists

“There’s a volcano in Alaska, Pavlov, that only erupts during the autumn and winter. The 10cm or 15cm rise in sea level during the winter months, when low pressure comes over, is enough to bend the crust and squeeze magma out. That’s an example of how tiny a change you need,” he said.

Meanwhile, geologists modelling the effect of retreating ice sheets in the northern hemisphere predict more volcanic activity as pressure is released on fault lines. McGuire points to three eruptions in five years in Iceland – “You can’t say that’s statistical proof but … it makes you think.” ………………………………………..Some of McGuire‘s colleagues believe he overstates the earthquake risk of sea-level rise and changing rainfall. There is just not enough data yet to prove the hypothesis, says Professor Burgmann. But he is convinced Maguire is right when he talks about volcanic eruptions.

“Ice unloading at the end of the ice ages produced a flurry of volcanic eruptions. That makes sense to me – it’s very true that if you take pressure off a magmatic system that can activate eruptions. There’s solid evidence of that in Iceland.”

Link http://www.newsweek.com/nepal-earthquake-could-have-been-manmade-disaster-climate-change-brings-326017.html

(credit: saw this on From a comment by Colorado Bob on RobertScribbler.com website)

[Optical.Catalyst]

22. Dr. Vivek Kumar Srivastava agrees

The issue is Global Warming.

Is there any link between the under earth activities and global warming?

It now appears that there exists a clear relationship between the global warming and earthquakes and other under earth activities.

When the permafrost dissolves as has happened in Arctic and associated areas due to the increased global temperature, it is quite likely that the under located areas of the earth are affected due to alteration in the pressure on the earth crust.

It is likely that the three parts of the earth, atmosphere, water and inside earth core and mantle. When the water level on the seas and oceans increase due to the increased waster quantity caused by the global warming, impact on the inside zones of earth can cause many tremors.

[Boomer]

25. Thank you

Despite the chorus of no's on this thread, I'm inclined to think that we can't rule out the possibility of some linkage. The tremendous weight of ice sheets has kept Greenland under pressure for thousands of years. Now that the ice is melting at an incredible rate, Greenland is actually rising higher in small, but measurable, amounts.

We have melting at both ends of the earth to the point that the WAIS is de-stabilized and the EAIS is equally compromised as we've recently learned. Wouldn't it be more surprising if this didn't have an affect on the land masses below?

[marym625]

33. and how much does it have to rise

To cause major problems? I would think, not much

[bloom]

53. "10cm or 15cm rise in sea level...."

"But already McGuire and colleagues have seen the effects of quite small sea-level rise on one of Alaska’s faults.

“There’s a volcano in Alaska, Pavlov, that only erupts during the autumn and winter. The 10cm or 15cm rise in sea level during the winter months, when low pressure comes over, is enough to bend the crust and squeeze magma out. That’s an example of how tiny a change you need,” he said."

Meanwhile, geologists modelling the effect of retreating ice sheets in the northern hemisphere predict more volcanic activity as pressure is released on fault lines. McGuire points to three eruptions in five years in Iceland – “You can’t say that’s statistical proof but … it makes you think.”

----

From the above linked Newsweek article.

I was reading that earlier and found it interesting.

[marym625]

34. Thank you very much

This is really interesting

[SheilaT]

27. From what I think I know about plate tectonics,

I find it hard to believe that global warming can possibly affect it. Maybe if we get a runaway greenhouse effect such as exists on Venus, and the surface temperature here gets above 800 degrees Fahrenheit. . . .

Meanwhile, the forces that move the plates on this planet are vast and slow.

I'm being reminded of the nonsense going around after the Boxing Day earthquake and tsunami in 2004, where many people, even some posters here, were absolutely convinced that somehow humans had caused the earthquake. Once again, a lack of understanding of how very large this planet really is.

For my money the very best book on earthquakes ever written is On Shaky Ground by John Nance.

[marym625]

32. I can see both sides of it

From some of the links posted here, it seems possible. But I don't know that there will ever be enough evidence to say with certainty that there is any correlation.

I never thought that tsunami was caused by humans.

[SheilaT]

43. We do know that fracking can cause small earthquakes.

But the Richter scale is a logarithmic one, and every decimal point increase, is a ten-fold increase in power. So a 7.1 is ten times as powerful as a 7.0, and an 8.0 is one thousand times as strong as a 7.0.

There are those on this board who have been through earthquakes, and their input could be helpful. The only time I was in an earthquake I actually slept through it, although in my defense it was a five point something aftershock of the Northridge quake in 1994. I do know that others in my hotel were awakened by it.

A graph of the Richter scale

[Nihil]

44. No, not directly but indirectly it becomes a "Possibly".

The fractional increase in temperature that will cause so much harm to so many creatures
(including humans) is totally insignificant so the idea that this extra heat will (a) penetrate
and (b) influence the heat balance of the planet is a complete non-starter. It is not just a
surface effect but a "tiny, tiny sliver of the surface" effect and so neither competes with
nor affects the massive energy flows within the planet proper - certainly not down to the
mantle.

The forces behind earthquakes of this nature (pardon the pun) are phenomenally large,
truly hard to understand in human terms. The energies contained, transmitted and released
by earth engine events (volcanoes, earthquakes, tectonics in general) are almost impossible
to comprehend unless you've spent some time looking into that field.

However, when a bullet is fired from a gun, the energy transmitted in that last fraction of
an inch of trigger movement is totally out of proportion to the energy released to project
the bullet - the indirect effect of tiny changes can indeed have large & widespread impacts.
(One could make the analogy with the last ounce of pressure on the trigger of a handgun in
Sarajevo and the resulting years of World War I - "the bullet that killed 16 million people".)

A small reduction in ice thickness over a large area means that a significant weight has
been removed during a blink of geological time. The rebound of that section of the crust
due to the rapid change in forces upon it affects the adjoining crust and any faults now
have also had a change of the forces previously locking them in place.

Added to this, there are two other effects: the "ripple" of change that spreads out,
weakening all of the time but still potentially (and historically proven) powerful enough
to affect any contacted "trigger point" in order to effectively propagate the event; and
the "ringing" effect where the shock from a major earth event (volcano, earthquake)
reverberates around the planet (i.e., not just to adjoining areas but through deeper
transmission paths).

Whether these changes are sufficient to release (cause) earthquakes in a *particular* case
is beyond our ability to accurately determine but in practice, it can and it does have this
capability in general so yes, the ongoing rush to the cliff of Chaos is even having effects
of a far greater nature than "just a change in temperature".

That doesn't mean that *this* earthquake was "caused" (or even "triggered&quot by human
activity but, as the scale of the impact continues to increase, the frequency & scale of
earthquakes *will* be affected thanks to "Business As Usual" winning out.

[marym625]

60. Thank you

I am learning so much from all of you. I really appreciate it

[truebrit71]

50. I would think that the melting of all of that heavy ice MAY have an impact..

...if only from the weight/pressure standpoint...

[marym625]

55. Me too

But I am FAR from an expert.

[Cleita]

52. I wouldn't discount it, but will leave it to the scientists.

However, since the world seems to be experiencing megawatt earthquakes in the past few years since global climate change has become evident, I think science really needs to look at possible connections.

[marym625]

56. I agree

It is certainly worthy of study IMHO

[Boomer]

54. Found a reference article

http://www.livescience.com/6462-greenland-rising-rapidly-ice-melts.html

Scientists have documented on Greenland and elsewhere that when longstanding ice melts away, the land rebounds. Even the European Alps are rising as glaciers melt.

As noted in this article, the loss of ice is resulting in a 1" rise in Greenland terrain. The sheer weight of ice is something we don't tend to think about, but it's sufficient to significantly depress land masses. It's by no means fanciful to wonder to what extent that could contribute to earthquakes, although it's not necessarily a factor in Nepal.

[marym625]

57. That's quite a move!

Just can't believe that wouldn't cause problems.

Someone here mentioned a rise that could have had an impact on Nepal. Sorry I don't know which post right now

[Boomer]

61. And now article specifically about Nepal's earthquake!

http://europe.newsweek.com/nepal-earthquake-could-have-been-manmade-disaster-climate-change-brings-326017

The untold – and terrifying – story behind the earthquake that devastated Nepal last Saturday morning begins with something that sounds quite benign. It's the ebb and flow of rainwater in the great river deltas of India and Bangladesh, and the pressure that puts on the grinding plates that make up the surface of the planet.

Recently discovered, that causal factor is seen by a growing body of scientists as further proof that climate change can affect the underlying structure of the Earth.

[cilla4progress]

63. This explains a lot..

When I was working in American Indian communities in the Pacific NW where I live, I learned of one of their creation / end times? myths - that when the time draws near, Mother Earth will experience many earthquakes. That this is how time or the Earth or human life will end here.

I couldn't make sense of this 10 years ago. I thought it was interesting and didn't see a scientific basis, especially as, over the years since, we have come to understand that more likely the cause of our demise will be CO2 emissions related to warming.

I've sort of been waiting to see the connection. This seems to provide a scientific underpinning to their beliefs about this.

[marym625]

64. That is interesting in itself

Thanks for the information on their beliefs.

Uhm, "American Indian"? Is that okay? I am not dissing it or you, I just didn't think that Native Americans liked that. Though, I guess native American isn't really much better.

[cilla4progress]

67. My experience was there is no one

solid, universal bloc of "approval" for what Native Americans / indigenous / Indian people / tribal members prefer to be called.

As to be expected.

Some folks I met and worked with preferred American Indian, others, something else. I tend to mix it up.

[marym625]

68. Thank you

I was seriously curious. I understand that "Indian is a ridiculous description. But I don't think "Native American" is much better.