Science, tsunami and other Global Warming Threats : Melbourne Indymedia

I have nothing to bribe you with, and I only scare myself.

In this system of bribes and fear, our democracy seems to travel well, as does religion equally, our leaders can lie deceive and cheat, obeying the most despicable traits of human behaviour and still remain with us as respected leaders, surprisingly, but enough of shared human values none seem to offer us what we were promised or predict for us a better future.

Time to move on.

What brings me to write this article is the tsunami, not politics or religion, but I fear I am too late, some years ago I wrote a long report about how such a thing could happen, but it was ignored. This is a unpublished scientific theory predicting more natural disaster upon land and sea to come shortly. . it’s a short theory which is backed by a great deal of research and cross referencing with at least half a dozen simular related themes but for the first time collated into a short and compelling read made intentionally simple because not everyone can be a vulcanologist, geologist or scientist.

I don’t expect anyone to back my claims, in fact I expect the opposite, reminding myself that Darwin’s claims are still banned reading in some societies while The Global Warming claim is still theory, so my clumsy science should not reach greater acclaim.

The tsunami was created by a seismic shift, powered by the magma layer beneath the earths crust, the magma layer most will know lies beneath our feet under up to 50 miles of earths crust which separates us from what is constantly fluid molten lava flows.

Magma is a constantly moving flux of molten iron but beneath the sea the oceanic crust is in some places 10 miles thick but between the continental plates the oceanic crust is not that thick at all, in these places at depths of 5 miles, water keeps the Magma from boiling over.

Deep beneath the sea the oceanic crust is insulated and contained by the weight and cold temperature of the sea above. In these areas the sea duplicates the containment achieved by the land and does so as a liquid coolant constantly distributing temperatures evenly within its mass, allowing cold water to transport the radiant heat from the magma maintaining physical containment beneath solid sea bed.

Within the earths crust are carbon deposits, oils coals and trace elements of fossilised sequestered remains which give our volcanoes the Carbon dioxide as they belch and explode on occasions. Nevertheless where no outlet is feasible the gas of a thousand atom bombs builds up beneath the crust transported into pockets of immense natural power. Where natural faults occur the seismic shifts are often reported and seem more frequent these days as they reoccur as earth quakes and tsunamis devastating parts of Japan Iran Indonesia China and New Zealand India Thailand and Africa just in this past year.

I would say that earthquakes are as frequent as droughts floods and hurricanes in recent times than over the corse off several centuries but what has changed?
Something quite alarming and unsurprisingly ignored in this field of science.

Global Warming,

The temperature of the sea is increasing so its ability to maintain the Oceanic crust insulation has already been compromised.

West of Indonesia the oceanic crust was split by a well known fault line, where pressure found its weakest point and released the force required to send destruction over a wide area.
However it was not within the ring of fire, where such seismic shifts occur frequently and the populations of half the world breed, an Indian Ocean tsunami of this size in the years to come will be seen as a small and insignificant example of what will be a common enough occurrence.

Our scientist have been distracted over the years by the atmospheric effects of Global Warming, the Gulf Stream has a measurable effect upon climate and we have become aware of the rising temperatures that affect our lives.

Inuit’s are seeing grass hoppers for the first time, polar bears cannot migrate due to melting ice flows and Snow Resorts are opening all year while promoting walking trails while snow disappears, slowly even those who refuted the Global Warming Theory are now Warming to the theory becoming a fact.

Nevertheless only the above sea aspect of this Natural Threat has so far been studied, no one has researched its effects upon insulating the earths crust.
In Nature periodical scientist published papers in Aug 04 to point out that there is enough carbon deposits beneath the crust for an explosion of such force to split the earth in two extinguishing all life, they of corse failed to point out how such a catastrophe could happen or when, but it seems we have been warned.

Currently the sea is heating up as the high concentrations of salt making the Gulf Stream float dissolve into the greater body of water; as a result the Gulf Stream has become wider and has lost speed. Currently the Gulf Stream although slower still exists but for how long?

Once stopped as a recent Hollywood blockbuster suggested the northern hemisphere will freeze, but the story teller neglected the logic that also suggests that the southern hemisphere will boil unable to shed temperature or receive cold water from the north, effectively creating two hemispheres no longer sharing temperatures split by the equator.

This will raise sea temperature as well as air although in seriousness the film will only be more than science fiction if the earth remains intact.

Global Warming is a greater threat than any other we face as a species causing more deaths than war terrorists or car accidents, but less is spent in research than upon researching new ways to find or use fossil fuels.
Why should anyone be surprised? US department of defence has spent 19 Trillion in60 years on products of war enabling them to create a New world order of complete disorder while Americans can also boast the record spent on one single environmental project which was $8 million spent on one filtration plant to save the Florida Keys, so seriously it would take a quantum leap for the world to save its self.
However Global Warming can only be solved by humans doing something which will not come naturally for us.
Who ever heard of investing in the planet?

Thankyou for your time

Applying increasing pressure upon a button that turns on the end of the world...sound theory/fact

"...This is a unpublished scientific theory...."

No it's not. It's an inane hodge-podge of untestable, and essentially incoherent outpourings spilled across the page like vomit.

That you could seriously compare such facile twaddle with the supremely elegant, logically systemic, empirically consistent master-work that is Charles Darwin's theory of Natural Selection defies belief.

In a booby hatch, maybe. But really?

You have not supplied even the slightest evidence to support the bizarre claim that tectonic or seismic events are in any way affected by petrochemical resource depletion or global warming.

You're just mad, most likely.

In fact, given some of your previous rantings, I am fairly certain of it.

For example, take this idiotic claim you made elsewhere;

"....Saudi Arabia refuses Jewish entry for public safety reasons and Iran actually protects the Jewish community...."

http://www.melbourne.indymedia.org/news/2004/12/84967_comment.php

And if I am not mistaken, you are the fool who made this stupid statement;

"....Recently I found out that Jews have the largest community out side Israel in Teheran, but you wouldn’t read about it in the ‘Australian’..."

- a claim that is palpably false and racist to boot?

Outside of Israel, New York is home to the largest Jewish population in the world.

http://www.tfmc.us/html/jcrcpamplet.html

Iran's Jewish community is the largest in the Middle East outside Israel.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/iranjews.html

Really, can anyone tell me why Indymedia Melbourne has become the personal website of Simon Willice, a serial halfwit and race hate criminal without parallel?

Is Leon on holidays or something?

Thanks Simon. Is the whole issue of global warming not addressed in a concerted way because our governments are not aware, do not want to know, will not take warnings seroiusly or all three? Why are the scientists of the world's voices not being heard?

I was happy to see the link between the tsunami and Global warming raised by recent events and not at all surprised that it was dismissed by an idiot who has never had an origanal thought in his life. Global warming Theories have that effect upon us, fuelling fear and permitting calming intelligence to reason away the time we have left.
Global warming doesn’t just heat up the atmosphere and cause climate change, droughts and hurricanes it also heats up the sea, altering the effective flow of Gulf Stream efficiency maintaining our planets Air-conditioning.
Now we should explore another Global Warming notion and apply it with a Water Cooling explanation, we are not that clever especially Simons witless and lonely fool troll Spinifex, so I have to make it simple, we have a perfectly good example but I am forced to use House/car appliances for parallel.
Rather than deducting GW from earthquake science and pretending separate phenomena takes place. Perhaps we should look at the sea like a giant radiator circulating coolant around the engine that fuels the earthquakes, as all things in nature are connected.
The oceanic crust capping the magma layer is only10 miles thick in places, and dips to almost wafer thin elsewhere, this is where the temperature of the sea plays a crucial role in maintaining containment of the molten flux that provides our gravity. This would account for an enormous and recently devastating cause and effect. Trapped in the crust are reserves of carbon deposits (fossil fuels) and other quite reactive minerals sequestered over time and await only heat to activate. If the sea heats up we can expect what the garage mechanic call’s a blown engine, but on a planetary scale. I feel for the recent victims but I fear for us all.
Global warming is…applying pressure on the button that starts the end of the world…so keep on pressing the issue, if nothing else.

I bring this theory out for a hearing once in a while, rarely with any kind of response, I notice spinney is still reeling in a self inflicted stupor of insanity, where’s my Leon...he pleads, well why don't you reinvent someone else to support your weak position eh?, I've been so successful in making him look so stupid recently he's on automatic, look no hands, he's a hands free walking gibbering idiot with nothing to say, he's been cut and pasting the same out of context slander for days, poor bastered glad he’s not human.
So far I’m in good company, with this posting. Darwin and Iberian both died waiting for recognition while deadshits dismissed and denied for all the reasons so far used to dismiss mine, no difference it will take a little while, and I’ve got the time, so serious points only please!
This doesn’t exclude you spinney, if you can write, and have the guts, try to disprove or argue against the theory…I don’t mind

and spanky doesn’t write read or understand a thing.
But he does a great job of regurgitating right wing white supremacist Yiddish parasitical propaganda. Simon, you have mentioned related research, do you want to publish? I realize this is just a teaser, so lets see how it goes.
‘’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’
That you could seriously compare such facile twaddle with the supremely elegant, logically systemic, empirically consistent master-work that is Charles Darwin's theory of Natural Selection defies belief. (what's that spin?)

Easy to compare actually my dear Spandex, Simon’s Theory was met with equal ridicule. So Unless you’ve got something to say that makes equal sense I suggest you stop digging.

Peddles easy lefty pop critiques.

Lets get to the issue at hand. At least Simon is not a cut and paste man and if he were heavyweight the right wing would kill him and you monkeys would not understand anything said.
So let me make things clear
Global Warming has nothing to do with earthquakes. Anyone who thinks tsunami's were caused by global warming induced activity are grasping straws, so for the last time, the waves were caused by an earthquake and that has nothing to do with global warming.
these are entirely separate issues, like burning fossil fuels and deforesting most of the planet has nothing to do with co2 concentrations in the atmosphere otherwise governments around the globe would ban old growth logging and begin planting replacement forests.
Governments are not stupid they realize that global warming is only natural and therefore unimportant because humans cannot effect climate change either intentionally or inadvertently `its a bit like Democracy, and you can see how well that's going, Governments should manage change not instigate it, recipe for disaster.
Global warming has its own power to instigate storms and climate change, floods and other disasters, but to create a tsunami all you need is to jolt the sea bed.

"...This is a unpublished scientific theory...."

it's not. It's as un-testable as any other theory currently debated, but original, and essentially compelling spilled across the page like gossamer

That you didn’t compare such an article with the supremely elegant, logically systemic, empirically consistent master-work that is Charles Darwin's theory of Natural Selection still defies belief that defies belief belief.

In a booby tube, maybe. But really what does that mean?

You have not supplied even the slightest evidence to support the bizarre claim that tectonic or seismic events are in any way affected by petrochemical resource depletion or global warming except where you state the link clearly..

You're just mad, most likely, barking but I’m so jealous.

In fact, given some of your previous ranting’s, I am fairly certain of it… I love you Simon.

For example, take this idiotic claim you made elsewhere;

"....Saudi Arabia refuses Jewish entry for public safety reasons, and Iran actually protects the Jewish community...." http://www.melbourne.indymedia.org/news/2004/12/84967_comment.php

I had no idea, I thought the Saudi’s just hated the Jews, I hadn’t thought that if they allowed the groups to move freely in Saudi there would be bloodshed, I wonder if Saudis can go to Israel? And I must admit Iran’s population of Jews Did Chose to flee Iran, but then they did get a bit of assistance during the revolution.

And if I am not mistaken, you are the Genius who made this educational statement while you were talking about the Middle east;

"....Recently I found out that Jews have the largest community out side Israel in Teheran, but you wouldn’t read about it in the ‘Australian’..."

A claim
- if you were a complete idiot you could refute, by being palpably false and racist to boot but who would?

Outside of Israel, New York is home to the largest Jewish population in the world but outside the Middle East its Tehran or Tel Aviv.

http://www.tfmc.us/html/jcrcpamplet.html

Iran's Jewish community is the largest in the Middle East outside Israel well dur, I hardly need to say. But I thought someone might be confused maybe its me.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/iranjews.html

Really, can anyone tell me why Indy media Melbourne has become the personal website of Simon Willace, while I take up more space as a serial halfwit and race hate criminal without parallel?

Is it holidays or something?

add your comments

check out the fossils!

http://dahrjamailiraq.com/gallery/view_album.php?set_albumName=album28&page=1

No particular evidence to support this, and like everything on this scale it'd be nearly impossible to prove either way. A more coherent & supported text on it reqd to take seriously.

wouldn't accept me comments earlier today, using IE or mozilla, on this or other threads.

http://dahrjamailiraq.com/gallery/view_album.php?set_albumName=album28&page=1

Did you like the fossils, liam?

Thanks for sharing your thoughts; I think you should cross-post them to every major IMC site.

"...No particular evidence to support this...."

Then it should be an article of complete faith here at IMM within about a week, I'd say.

Here's a way of testing it - is there any evidence that the 8.9 richter quake which caused this Tsunami unprecedented before the advent of fossil fuel resource extraction?

Or is seismic activity now on average any greater, either in scale or frequency, than at any time over the last, say, 500 years?

Geologist and historians could help us here.

For example, were the earthquake which devastated Lisbon in the 18th century, or the volcanic upheaval which buried Pompei in the 1st century, or the quake which destroyed San Francisco at the start of the 20th Century, or the Krakatoa eruption which blew up Indonesia late in the 19th Century, "normal" compared with recent event?

Or just pale approximations of this event?

Or are you all just babbling semi-educated dingbats who will swallow anything as long as it is laughably stupid?

Liamj

I was going to post something a bit more academic in style, the reason I wrote it in this way was that I thought it would generate debate, the articles all mixed up, kind of the way you hear people talk about Global Warming its non-threatening and requires little prior knowledge of subject matter, while presented as Idle Chatter, hopefully your left thinking well there's something in it, which is my only intention, but your still not sure how serious its going to be.

Unfortunately my reputation precedes me, so spoilers intercede, it’s a common enough problem here on Mim and I think a necessary part of communication, nothings easy we are an argumentative ‘lot’ swayed by fear and bribery.
However my new year’s resolution is to only communicate with intelligence and if successful that plan should block out the wasters and morons that plague this space saving us all some time. I suggest this would be a good idea for everyone to follow.
I'd like pr, John’s opinion or Changelings on the article and before I put it in more coherent form. But for now this thread from the current post seem more or less the kind of thing I was looking for. Chris was able to transform all my prose into coherent form so there is hope for the rest of you, she was able to extract the brief.

by Chris Friday December 31, 2004 at 02:39 PM

I was happy to see the link between the tsunami and Global warming raised by recent events and not at all surprised that it was dismissed by an idiot who has never had an original thought in his life. Global warming Theories have that effect upon us, fuelling fear and permitting calming intelligence to reason away the time we have left.
Global warming doesn’t just heat up the atmosphere and cause climate change, droughts and hurricanes it also heats up the sea, altering the effective flow of Gulf Stream efficiency maintaining our planets Air-conditioning.
Now we should explore another Global Warming notion and apply it with a Water Cooling explanation, we are not that clever so I have to make it simple, we have a perfectly good example but I am forced to use House/car appliances for parallel.
Rather than deducting GW from earthquake science and pretending separate phenomena takes place, perhaps we should look at the sea like a giant radiator circulating coolant around the engine that fuels the earthquakes, as all things in nature are connected.
The oceanic crust capping the magma layer is only10 miles thick in places, and dips to almost wafer thin elsewhere, this is where the temperature of the sea plays a crucial role in maintaining containment of the molten flux that provides our gravity. This would account for an enormous and recently devastating cause and effect. Trapped in the crust are reserves of carbon deposits (fossil fuels) and other quite reactive minerals sequestered over time and await only heat to activate. If the sea heats up we can expect what the garage mechanic call’s a blown engine, but on a planetary scale. I feel for the recent victims but I fear for us all.
Global warming is…applying pressure on the button that starts the end of the world…so keep on pressing the issue, if nothing else.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This puts the theory into blindingly simple language; kind of like saying it you cut the brake leads on your car you will probably have a crash. Now if you would think no one would argue the point you would be wrong, we need proof, we actually need the car to crash before some are convinced.

Remember, cigarettes cause cancer, but this is only something that can be said now because exhaustive’ tests’ proved the manufacturers were wrong, but for GW we cannot test a planet that we barely understand or have knowledge of.
Asbestos was related to illness in 1790 but it took until 1950 for warnings to be recognized, I don’t think we have two hundred years with GW.
Ingham chicken and other like minded intensive farmers are eroding the value of Anti-biotic’s as we speak, while the facts are known and no FDA is poised to interrupt the potential human catastrophe.
So to my mind at least, in all cases the obvious risks are visible and in plain sight and will be or were all ignored for years while profits were assured…with global warming all business is affected in the industrialized world so the concern has to be a bit more than we have already heard for positive action to be evident.

Christ Liamj the idea of GW is not even being taken seriously, our politicians like America’s are saying Kyoto doesn’t go far enough while they use that as an excuse to allow more CO’2 emissions, and you want coherent? Will someone please start making sense, but I don’t expect it to catch on

In the UK theirs a government sponsored scientific study on plastics in the environment mapping deposit to source, research is being done to discover content and environmental consequences. Scientists are taking samples from river and coastal sea beds to determine how much there is and how much is too much. So far they have reported initial findings of widespread pollution in every site tested from large waste to molecular contamination, unsurprisingly tests confirm plastic is everywhere.

Now for me, I would be happy with the claim before the study did the field research, for me the question I want answered is why would you need to prove such a thing?

On British roads there are, lets say 22 million vehicles, each has minimum four wheels, each wheel has a plastic covering, a tyre and we all know all tyres wear thin.
The other thing to accept is that all material on land can be subject to run off as it is swept into rivers streams and finally the sea by rain with the assistance of gravity, that’s where the remains of 88million tires every year go in milled up molecular size contaminating every piece of land and waterway in the UK and everywhere else in the world , tires that each contained 5 liters of crude oil.

I think there should be a study done on the importance of scientist and the possible acceptance of the bleeding obvious without the exhaustive expensive and ignored refuted research from having to go through this set process

The Global Warming Theory is all ready 100 years old, and what positive steps have been taken to avert my inevitable plausible end story?

Time we fixed the brakes, at worst even if I’m wrong the attention generated will encourage repair.

Thanks for your time.

There is no copy write on this idea please feel free to rewrite translate and propagate

Simon,

I would like to see this study that you wrote, because I'm very interested in your work. I didn't see your email address. I'm an undergraduate student doing science studies and I am trying to learn about the ways in which our conceptions of nature are always embedded with cultural conditions and culturally produced ecological conditions. Your little post has gotten my intrigue in the wake of this Tsunamia disaster. Please email me:
btg03@hampshire.edu

feel free
by simonwillace@hotmail.com Saturday January 01, 2005 at 11:40 PM

you show me yours I'll show you mine.

That is un-real. Claiming that global warming is dismissed by people who lack free-will. It takes a brave man to tell other's when they cannot think, and an even braver man to believe in a doomsday theory.

As I understand it, the earth's temperature cycles. As of 1998 when I last cared about this subject, the earth's temperature was BELOW it's average during it's life-cycle. Global warming has been occouring since the Ice Age. That time in the planet's history where glaciers moved all along it's surface. Doesn't it make sense that if the earth was once covered by glaciers, that it might also have been a ball of flames (by means of it support abudnant life now).

And the overall tone of all of these arguments..."we're going to die! And only people who cannot think don't see it!" Paranoia has existed ever since humanity developed the ability to think, part of the human condition is learning to control it.

And...since paranoia has been around for as long as anything else has, that means your thoughts are not original. You just have the arrogance to claim them so. If you truely were capable of original thought, then why havne't you come up with a solution to the problem? According to what you say, that is what needs to be happening. Anyone can shout doomsday sentiments...infact most people who consider themselves intelligent do. Maybe instead of preaching from an apple box, you should get an education.

I realize your comments were mostly editorial in nature and meant to stir up the awareness of the reality of Global Warming (which I commend you for), but are you suggesting that Global Warming caused the earthquake off the coast of Sumatra a few days ago? If so, you NEED to back it up. Do not post conjecture and speculation like that without presenting data....that is junk science (much like what the Bush administration-funded "think tanks" release to the public). I urge everyone to not sink to that level.

If you are concluding that there's a direct causative link between global warming and that specific earthquake you MUST elaborate with evidence and demonstrate that link with tangible and reproducible information.

Thanks

After reading some of the other replies to the original post in more detail I'd like to clear up some geologic issues.

1) The fault that ruptured off the coast of Sumatra is a convergent plate margin. The oceanic portion of the Indian plate is 'subducting', or underthrusting beneath the complex of plates that make of Indonesia. In this case these are plates composed of oceanic crust. Hydrocarbons (oil, gas, coal) form in thick sequences of sediment. Although there is a relatively thin veneer of sediment on the sea floor, the plates are composed of igneous rock and do not host hydrocarbon deposits.
The existence of the entire Indonesian island group is a result of this tectonic activity. Tens to hundreds of thousands of earthquakes of this magnitude help create that part of the world. This earthquake was neither rare nor anomalous.

2) Secondly, the solid earth (land and sea floor), the oceans, and the atmosphere, are indeed complexly interrelated. Plate tectonics clearly influences climatic patterns (e.g. configuration of plates determine connection and, therefore, communication of long-term global ocean currents). In a feedback type of response, climate in turn can affect the solid earth (e.g. glaciations, erosion rates, etc.). The Earth has been in states of no ice and completely covered in ice ("snowball Earth" theory) and everything in between. The very recent spike in atmospheric CO2, while extremely damaging to our current climatic state, CANNOT by any circumstance alter the rate, direction, or magnitude of plate movements directly.

I hope some of this helps the lively debate.

Really good science needs some very important ingredients, interest drive ambition, but one very important thing. The Idea., that comes first
And also a great deal of bad luck, most scientific discoveries have occurred because something went wrong.

However a theory can be just that, a theory. It doesn’t need endless research, at first, a point that cannot be proved one way or another is just a beginning, it just makes sense, so let’s take it through to the end using all the corroborating evidence at our disposal. Let’s look at the history of global warming, how well researched was that to begin with?

Coming as it did during European war a century ago, while weather patterns had hardly been researched, before satellites, rockets, polar ice stations, oceanography and with all the assistance of modern day meteorological services and data. Was it good science or has it become science in this day and age?

Please don’t suggest a theory is dangerous if suggested, it is only dangerous if proved.

The suggestion that cigarettes give you cancer was ‘made up’ out of concern while people refuted the Idea, it was just a theory before science proved the link. Someone had to have the idea first, then doctors and science came together and studied the threat and here we are in the present day 50 years later knowing exactly why people die every day, the science is there but it didn’t make us any smarter.

So to prove a link, Geo science I guess we have to start underground, in the engine room.

Heat from the magma will incinerate carbon deposits, and if the gas cannot immediately be release from beneath the Crust it travels with the magma until a fissure is found. Gas under pressure will then accelerate and push the magma through the fault in the crust until just through sheer power alone we get volcanic eruptions, pretty spectacular gas powered giants.

This gas under pressure must also provide energy for magma, earth quakes, it may also fill the gaps between plates, after all there is a lot of room between one Volcano and another, therefore we have to assume that pressure points exist underground but in containment beneath the crust unable to vent, therefore the pressure just builds waiting until critical until, tsunami or earth quakes. Sounds reasonable?

happened before and will happen again.

Change tact, related info

The last Ice age occurred in the 1700’s, it’s known as the ‘mini ice age’, it wasn’t spectacular but for ten years Europe got one season, a decade in winter.
Theory has it that a fresh water lake the size of the Aral sea swept into the Atlantic all at once off Labrador. This was due to global warming; world temp has increased by 20% since prehistoric time so the climate change had melted a lot of ice by then. The lakes entrance was blocked by a glacier which had melted in the sun.

Location played a part and quantity of fresh water arriving all at once on the surface of the sea diluted the salt in the Gulf Stream and sent it to the bottom of the sea, taking with it the warmer water and effectively stopping momentum. The Gulf Stream stoped, effectively separating hemispheres resulting in recorded Climate Change for ten years .

Of course this is not a proven fact, however it explains something that occurred before science and industrialisation, and we can prove now that the gulf Stream rides upon the buoyancy of salt found in its water, therefore we can guess what would happen if that salt went away.

Now lets take today, the ocean is heating up from Atmospheric contact therefore the geothermal heat found at depth must add to its overall temperature, all I’m suggesting here is less than a degree.
If water at depth does not cool the oceanic crust as efficiently then the magma layer must radiate more heat into the crust, collecting more gas as it rushes past.
It doesn’t need to happen everywhere, but it happens as we have already discovered so is it now happening more often?

Why would that be?

Global Warming Fact not fiction, since industrialisation 1750 we have cutdown Trees cleared land drained swamps and burnt just about every thing that burns which was once the very things that sequestered CO2.

The CO2 was released into the atmosphere all at once kind of like the fresh water from Lake Labrador with catastrophic effect.

Now we can all go back and carbon date the planet looking for simular events, but we can never strike parallel, at no time prior to 1870 was industrialisation so wide spread, saying that climate change has occurred before, really is missing the point of the modern age, we are not comparing apples with apples, so saying climate chage existed before is just so stupid.

6.7 billion peopke didnt exist before, industralisation did'nt exist before, and the world did a pretty good job of geosequestering its own smog.

By 1950 consumerism came in by 1980 2/3rds of the planets forests had been cleared and fossil fuels were being burn like there was no tomorrow’s and today its down to armchair armatures, because lets face it, if we are going to fix it its got to happen soon.

Simon,

Your theory is interesting enough. However, there is something important missing. Empirical evidence. Earthquakes have not increased in frequency since the industrial revolution.

Climate change is probably the most serious environmental threat to society and ecosystems as we know them and it´s great that you bring that up. You can take part of the evidence and many hazards connected to climate change on this site: http://www.ipcc.ch/

But connecting climate change to earthquakes needs more than your theory. Feel free to speculate, but please don´t call it news. That just gives more reasons for George W Bush & Co to dismiss ALL science connected to climate change as speculation.

Many interesting comments about science, history of science, relationship of science to civilization, etc. however most of what you said has very little to do with the original suggestion: industrial era-triggered global warming caused last week's earthquake off the coast of Sumatra.

So, I would ask, for the sake of clarification that you compose your statement concisely and succinctly...ideally in a couple of sentences. Furthermore, I would call this statement a hypothesis, not a theory. You are absolutely correct...good science starts with ideas. Then we can take this hypothesis and get to work on it.
You state that a theory (hypothesis) doesn't need endless research at first...okay, i'll accept that. But, at some point, it requires research (i.e. gathering of info, collection of data, collaboration and integration with other's results, etc.).

So, we await your hypothesis. Word it carefully, because this is the starting point for the subsequent research that is conducted to address it.

On another note, I just want to say something about the scientific community and global warming. The conclusions that the Earth is heating up is incontrovertible...we've accepted this for a decade now. It is happening. Any "science" that says otherwise is specifically designed to affect the mindset of the general public and the policy makers. These groups typically take a few pieces of data that do, in fact, lead to confusing or paradoxical conclusions and highlight them to spin their argument. This is NOT science...be aware!
Why this disconnect? Well, the scientific community takes a lot of blame for not communicating our work (not just results and conclusions, but the process of science as well) in an effective way. I fault the mainstream media as well. Whether it is an incorrect translation of technical information or, more malevolently, explicit misrepresentation to deceive the general public, the outcome is not good.

That is why I like to seek out forums such as these to try and add my two cents. Besides, I learn from everybody elses perspective as well.

I agree that this is an important point to be made. The evidence for global warming being caused by humans is overwhelming.

There are scientists that claim the opposite - and there are other scientists who claim that tobacco smoking doesn´t cause cancer. This is a relevant parallel.

Some of these people say that we'll run out of oil before things will get serious. They forget that there are other huge carbon sources than oil. Others claim stuff that is even too ridiculous to mention.

What we do know is that the emission of climate gases has increased, as has the mean global temperature. And the long-wave radiation that the earth emits is absorbed by climate gases (CO2, CH4, N2O) - a process which can be measured in laboratories.

This is an idea not a theory; it’s a hypothesis not an Idea its just conjecture.

Sorry mate I’m Anti- semantics, sure as hell makes a lot of sense, though don’t it?

Science is the study of nature, once nature is fully understood science will become obsolete. therefore we value the wrong thing, nature is disapearing.

Put it into a couple of sentences?

OK,

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you boil an egg, all kinds of strange things happen, beneath the shell the liquid turns into a solid and if you boil it for long enough the shell cracks.

Take a tank of water, put it on a source of heat and install a pump that feeds the water in a circulating flow, watch while you take the temperature of the water. Record your findings. Then turn off the pump and watch it boil, add the egg wait three minutes serve with toasted soldiers, do not plan to buy a house near the beach.
‘’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’
Seriously.

Eventually scientist start talking about other things to explain meaning, because scientific explanations very often need explaining and translating from the technical into parallels and everyday language before being absorbed and supported by the masses.

Nuclear Power….cheap and pollution free electricity! Fantastic.
GM Foods….drought disease and pest free food production, oh how marvelous

Oh you don’t agree. Didn’t I point out you need fear and bribery to make an Idea fact?

Your right scientists are not the best people to share their ideas, too technical too pedantic too egotistical and far too elitist, basically you can’t have a theory if you are not qualified or supported by a self serving closed shop that exploits nature to prove self worth.

Well excuse me! Egg Heads should only Rule the world. Bollocks.

I’m not after the young scientist Award here, I just had an idea, and so far it’s not looking too shabby. If you like… feel free to risk your reputation, take the concept and publish a paper, the opportunity doesn’t exist for me, because I am not qualified, the doors are firmly bolted for me, and no one will even return my calls.

So what can I hope to gain from hitting my head against this established brick wall? Oh I could sit through years of lectures study etc, and get the degree do the PhD but there are already people just like me who are doing just that, so why should become a duplicate and neglect other more important things. This way I can do both, it’s a more efficient use of my time.

My best hope is that someone will write that ‘qualified theory’ based upon an idea generated out of this discussion, so everyone can argue the toss at a later date about something called Oceanic water cooling instead of just GW, I believe the connection is plain enough and strong enough and could represent the ‘fear’ we need to tip the balance in public pressure for greater measures than the Kyoto agreement to restrict any action to lip service..

You could apply for a grant, I can’t, I’ve been playing around with this idea for at least twenty years so its time I gave it away.

Back when I first thought of it, explaining it took far too long, remember that I had to explain GW first and you know how long that gem took to be accepted, some people still think it was heralding a new Ice Age, some people even think we are in one, go figure.

Misinformation.

Governments cannot be relied upon as people are so easily misinformed and led too obvious environmental decay which gives an indication of how this system affects us globally.

Australian salinity was a known consequence of intensive farming techniques in 1935 before it became a problem, so much for warnings?

Tell me was it scientist who devised the breathtakingly brilliant plan of Geo sequestering? How does that Idea as a theory compare with mine?
Its not science is it? It’s a magic, a conjuring trick, look we tale fossil fuels here extract the energy and make the pollution disappear, that’s fantastic! What’s the finale?

And to the writer who says the incidents of earth quakes have not increased since industrialization. Well how do you know that?

Great Britain had 30 earth quakes just last month alone, I don’t remember Samuel writing about it, in 1666, do we have a time machine? . What data are you comparing recent records too? Another hypothesis?

Simon...
I tried to contribute to what I thought was a constructive debate. You apparently took it as an opportunity to rant nonsensically about yourself.

Alright...off to another forum. There are many out there that have a very collaborative and constructive atmosphere...with an actual dialogue. Good luck to you all.

"Great Britain had 30 earth quakes just last month alone, I don’t remember Samuel writing about it, in 1666, do we have a time machine? . What data are you comparing recent records too? Another hypothesis?"

Sorry, Simon, but you´re the defendant who has to supply the evidence this time. To limit greenhouse gas emissions may well be motivated by the "precautionary principle". But this principle doesn´t provide a carte blanche for all hypotheses/theories to be valid until proven false.

Here´s a brief example that of course does not give the whole picture.
http://www.earthwaves.org/history.html

The ten largest earthquakes during last century. Four of them happened in the 1950s. None of them happened after 1965. There´s no increasing trend there. In fact, the trend for the ten largest earthquakes last century was slighthly negative, albeit not significant.

I don´t have the time to check for any more detailed results for you right now. It is not my actual field of expertise and I prefer spending my time on other types of effects from climate change where trends and causes are more obvious.

But good luck!

Now annalist, be serious, I don’t have to prove a thing, that’s not the way theories work, please read a book on String theory ‘the tale of 6 dimensions’, you’ll have a fit, that theories into its 7th incarnation 30 years old and has been renamed M theory for variations on a theme.
superstringtheory.com/ - 27k
You’ll have to wonder why people bother. This is theory on a sub nano level, they have to draw pictures of what they think exists as gateways to other dimensions time space. which are to small and too Hard to conceive and completely unimaginable removed from anything even remotely tangible, outside any recognized measure. String theory pushes past all requirements for proof and in the end you have to ask who cares? But they have a website so maybe I missed something..

Everyone says we have always had Climate Change Global Warming Earthquakes etc, right through time, is anyone arguing?... but look for trends to see whether in modern times its threatening.

But still it will not prove a thing, we have to please everyone, carry on, because disasters cost money, someone’s got to pay!. therefore globalize develop the third world so they can afford their own emergency disaster relief.

Its an absurd logic, on Tuvalu they have one road, and everyone seems to need a car, the islands economy gets a boost from TV.com but mostly diesel fishing boats catch the balance of payments and they blame the world for raising sea levels, well we are all to blame.

Einstein said something about ‘thinking the same way will create the same mistakes made’ I think that’s where it gets us, back here in some kind of endless argument.

I maintain that all I’ve done is tacked on to the Global warming Theory, I’ve just added a bit that’s all, I thought it was missing a bit, the bit that no ones talking about, what’s going on under the sea? It is affected so the story doesn’t end with a bit of wind. and of course I had to exploit the tsunami. I thought about it and came up with a theory along time ago. But What is it you want to see?

We both know that enough fuel for explosive force is trapped in the crust, we know that it becomes gas and we know it eventually comes out of volcanoes because prior to the industrial revolution that is what caused the planets Climate Change, Natural Global warming. The Global warming Theory has changed the way we think but it has not changed the way we do things.

its about time we started thinking seriously about doomsday, I know its unfashionable but such talk avoided Y2K, Ozone depletion and some success in animal salvation. These days the call is we have plenty of time to do something, but all the evidence is Man Kind has never done things differently and now there are more of us doing the same thing.

I have another theory that’s just about humans and it would come as no surprise.

Simon,

Maybe you've got the cart before the horse.

In 1997 article entitled"Causes of Warm and Cold Phases and Sea Level Fluctuations as well as the Role of CO2" Kothen and Knufinke, two Swiss or German researchers, discussed the questionable correlation of carbon dioxide levels with temperature and with glacier retreat, and then went on to discus the movement of magma within the earth as a possible cause of rising sea-levels and global warming.

In other words they propose a theory (complete with references and data) that is the total opposite of your claim that global warming has caused the earthquake.

Please present appropriate data to support your refutation of their argument .

cheers

John

CO2 makes the environment hotter surely no one is disputing that? We can just look at Venus for an example.
CO2 could be released as a part of a cooling mechanism but running an aluminium smelter (for example) is not a cooling mechanism. Thus we can say burning fossil fuels causes global warming.
If it is caused by magma flows (which seems FAR from proven) - it would be VERY coincidental if magma flows had decided to move at the same time as CO2 burning increased - in fact a reasonable person might be so intrigued by the relationship as to infer causation.
If we ae goign into a hot period due to natural causes (such as a magma flow system) - that should make us doubly concerned about the effect of global warming (human + natural) which is then even more likely to reach a magnitude great enough to cause major harm.

"Everyone says we have always had Climate Change Global Warming Earthquakes etc,"

Then you´re not listening, except to yourself. Hardly anybody on this thread says we´ve "always had" a climate changing in a pattern similarly to what we have seen during recent years.

As far as I´ve seen here, only one person objects to the evidence for our climate being altered by human activity.

"Andrew Felt" claims that 1998 was a year that was colder than average. Well, of course there may be days, months, years and even places that are colder than average!

The interesting and scary thing is the increasing long-term global temperature TREND, which you can study if you follow the IPCC link that I posted before.

That's basic statistics. Even if one cigarette smoker lives until the age of 110 it doesn´t mean that smoking doesn´t cause cancer. There are always exceptions from all trends, rules, habits, etc.

Nevertheless, the increasing temperature trend is there and cannot be accounted for by any natural variations.

John, a car does not move forward very far or fast on one wheel, it takes all four, perhaps the sea receives heat from both atmospheric and subterranean sources, I’d say unlike human’s it does not require a centralised power source.

However I have seen underwater volcanic activity, there are creatures like shrimp that actually live in boiling sea water and lichen that feeds upon the nutrients gathered from the gas that pours from the vents beneath the ocean, so you must agree that the magma heats up the sea and it has been happening long enough for creatures to evolve.

The question is how much, from how many sources and to what effect? And more importantly is the rising temperature of the sea, accelerated by atmospheric radiant heat conditions having any effect upon reducing the amount of heat radiated by the magma beneath the oceanic sea bed.
If that balance has been compromised then we should accept the concerns I have put forward

I’m glad to see by your evidence I’m not the only voice in this void of reason.

Annalist, I am arrogant but I do listen, try reading yourself, I'm sure we both have our heads buried in books but every now and again look up ....everyone should say and do say earthquakes have happened before, no one could or would deny it, and they should accept that global warming and climate change is not a new phenomena as it is just a new term. What has changed recently in the dynamic is acceleration, a noticeable and recorded convincing increase in temperature right across the globe, backed up by the physical evidence while we can see glacial melting wildlife migration to regions that were once too cold.

This stuff is not new to me and I find myself drawn to these unsophisticated discussions because there are still people that refute the idea that Global Warming is a threat or will accelerate before humans can do anything about it. Plenty of time doesnt matter.

Animals don’t have our knowledge so they must have gradually moved into new regions by trail and error, so that leads me to presume this acceleration has been going on for quite some time before we noticed.

My little theory does need some work though, like my car needs a mechanic, but I would be foolish to attempt either task alone, horses for courses.

The Planet is an interconnected organisation, it needs and relies upon all of its parts, its not bound by linear systems, nothing is clear or straight forward to us because we like and rely upon order, its chaos out there. Proofs can be disproved by exceptions, irregularity that seemingly undermines rules which only really exist for our cognitive benefit and for those who can the say Cancer doesn’t effect smokers. Nature will not be understood by simple minds, while science exploits for financial gain.

So expect contradiction and reversal, and admit we got into this by following the same simple direction that led us this far, our reasoning needs a lot of work, so where do you think we are going from here?.

Sorry, I’m being flippant, we do not have the time to test “Water Cooling Theory” here but that’s not a cop out, it should be still treated with serious consideration, pending investigation..
Imagine what a disaster it would be if we accepted it just now straight from me…And in response the world actually cut co2 emissions to 1820 levels and immediately planted billions of tree’s upon cleared farmland before finding out I was wrong…. what a disaster! What expense!

The industrialised countries would have had to put on hold plans to develop the underdeveloped 3rd world through fossil fuel intensive agriculture and indusralisation whilst the reason for Iraq would be undermined and have been abandoned overnight.

Arabs would become nomads once again unable to purchase the hardware to build up any threatening regimes.
China’s decline would hurt our current account due to world wide recession while consumerism became unpopular as mums and dads sacrificed for a possible future by not buying the status symbols of first world luxury.
All not out of choice really but because of a world wide ban on fossil fuels enforced by an Authority quite unlike the UN.
Environmental concerns would in this sea change bring in a new era of priority and concern, Free trade agreements will be ripped up considered worthless in recognition that the planet itself is at risk through unrestricted industrialisation increasing populations and growing global market shares in environmentally questionable activities.

There would be wide spread famines due to food production being restricted because of fuel costs logistics and available arable lands, medical treatments will be luxury’s, only available today because of surpluses, the populations of the world will suffer while military power persuades all nations to become green or else.

Thankyou from saving me the thought that I could be responsible for such a terrible thing.
`

Reading through the threads it was obvious that this was a very long bow to be drawn by anyone, there is no evidence except what has already been given, however in a short time the article and threads have proved the theory has legs; it can stand up by itself.
Liamj wants more supportive evidence, ignoring the strengths of what has already been proven. Geoscientist attacked the author then dismissed the subject based upon purely upon a personality clash, Annalist needs more to analyse however the Water Cooling effects of the sea are logical and irrefutable.
No where has Simon suggested Climate Change or Earthquakes have one singular cause, so recent events cannot be blamed only on industralisation, leaving its contribution only as additional, as Global warming is accelerated by industralisation, which no one is argueing
Simon began by saying, fear and bribery will decide, time will honour the weight of a good idea, Global warming had to wait for fear, Darwinism is still refuted out of ignorance afforded by bribery. I hear most Christians are not creationists in the 21st century that’s a change in less than a century, and most scientists believe in global warming, a turn about in less than thirty years while smokers consider Cancer a real threat.

We are not talking about different things; these are all confronting rule. Smoking pollutes the body while industry reaps reward, industrialisation does the same for the planet, and its the addicts who fear change, they carry on unconcerned adding a filter and promising to cut down. (But only tree's are gone)

Simon knows that change will cause world wide poverty, not the isolated poverty affecting just brown skins but absolute underdeveloped poverty throughout the world. Deindustrialisation would cause this; Deindustalisation and largescale reforestation is the only way to begin saving the planet, if in deed Tsunami’s earthquakes are the real threat.
Only once this Water Cooling Theory gains respect can fear be invoked to encourage a positive Kyoto in a last ditched modern day attempt to save the planet and humans.

Yes billions will die in any course taken, but only one direction will secure human survival

If Simon is right, But so far no one has said that he is wrong so could this be what the Kyoto supporters are looking for?, The fear card, while the the right wing use bribery.

Ignore it and the world will go away

The temperature of the earth is increasing. Just as the universe is ever-expanding. The analogy of a ciagarette smoker was excellent. A few deviations will occour in a large enough population.

I was simply trying to say that an original thought is not something easily come accross. They are rare. Few people have had them, but most of us manage to get by pretty well.

The issue was the doomsday theory. Eventually (if the expansion theory holds true) a single atom will be larger than the whole of the universe is right now. Entropy will reach a point where the universe is at a comfortable 78 degrees Ferenheit, and there will be a restuarant outside of the end of the universe where people can pull up to watch it explode...over and over again.

Global warming is the issue, not some opportunistic hypothesis that makes legitimate scientists (there are a few people who seem to be scientists on this...John, you [environmental analyst] and geoscientist) but this guy is clearly a quack. That was my point. And John, environmental analyst and geoscientist, best of luck (or worst of luck? =P ) in your endevours. You are way smarter than me.

This article has been picked up by a WA enviromental on line news group and an Indian science jornal, each filing or requesting an edited version.

They don't like my rant's.

But I do, a good Rant is expected here on mim, or someone might take me seriously.

Imagine that! If taken seriously I could be mistaken for the 2nd coming.

Anyway worthwhile things are written for and read on MIM.

Come again Simon! We need a second coming...It is high time we had another prophet at least. I am sure people take you seriously otherwise they would not bother reading.

"Will we, and our leaders, heed the warning of rehistory?"
... "Global warming has thus caused the majority of mass extinctions in our planet's past," ...
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/210441_focus06.html

"Record cold winter may increase ozone hole over North Europe - first signs of ozone loss 28 January 2005"
... "If the Arctic stratosphere remains cold during February and March, large ozone loss is expected to take place as sunlight returns to northern latitudes. This could lead to increased levels of ultraviolet radiation in inhabited areas in the northern part of Europe." ...
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Paleontology_and_Climate_Articles/message/2541

"Ozone-Depleting Gases"
... Three gases that make a significant contribution to stratospheric ozone depletion, CFC-11, CFC-12 and N2O, have been monitored by CMDL since the mid-1970s. Since then, numerous additional CFC's, HCFC's, and other halogenated gases have been incorporated into the measurement program as the number of monitoring sites increased. Most of the gases that are responsible for depleting stratospheric ozone are anthropogenic, but some, such as CH3Br and CH3Cl, have natural contributions as well. ...
http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/ozone.htm
... NOAA Climate Monitoring and Diagnostics Laboratory ...
http://www.magazine.noaa.gov/stories/mag140.htm

Global warming in the troposphere leads to global cooling of the stratosphere. Cooling of the stratosphere damages the stratospheric ozone layer. Was ozone loss a large factor in the extinctions in Earth's history?

Pat N

While reading Simons rant I thought he may have been expressing an idea similar to the one I have been entertaining and toying with only he did not express it as such.

My theory is that the tsunami could well have been related to global warming (human generated V. natural cycles aside).

It seemed to me to be no coincidence that the Banda Aceh quake occured on the opposite (western) side of the Australasian tectonic plate not long after the Macquarie Island doof (eastern edge - Pacific rim) that occured a week or too earlier.

Given that we have just experienced the hottest decade in X years, and that tectonic plates are effectively rock platforms floating over a molten core, is it not possible or feasible that even minute variations in ambient atmospheric temperature could cause expansion/contraction in the plates that would precipitate plate movement resluting in energy releases of a magnitude as witnessed in these and other recent events (eg Hawaii)?

http://www.seismo.unr.edu/ftp/pub/louie/class/100/plate-tectonics.html