Re: Spin is *NEVER* wrong.

*** C. wrote:
r norman <r_s_norman@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:8ajga5plgemhikhbua309gtnldhctlk9h2@xxxxxxx:

On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 00:38:46 +0000 (UTC), "*** C."
<foo.dickcr@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

<snip to retain what there is of scientific validity in the original
article, at

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/sep/06/global-warming-natura
l-disasters-conference



I have a little bit of a problem with both spinnie's idea, and what
the page says. Spinnie's ideas have been picked apart, but the page
has not really been discussed. It says that the melting ice sheets
in the arctic and antarctic will set off volcanoes and earthquakes
due to the change in forces on the earth. I have a little trouble
understanding how that could set off volcanoes and earthquakes,
except possibly in the antarctic.

There are a wide variety of reasonable disastrous consequences
predicted in that article: "Melting glaciers will set off avalanches,
floods and mud flows in the Alps and other mountain ranges; torrential
rainfall in the UK is likely to cause widespread erosion; while
disappearing Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets threaten to let loose
underwater landslides, triggering tsunamis that could even strike the
seas around Britain." That much sounds quite reasonable.

I have no problem with this. I understand that quite well. Living in
the Pacific Northwest, I see flooding and avalanches every year.


The problem statement is: "At the same time the disappearance of ice
caps will change the pressures acting on the Earth's crust and set off
volcanic eruptions across the globe. " That one strikes me (and
others here) as a bit far-fetched. It is known that isostatic rebound
after deglaciation, the uplift produced by the release from the heavy
weight of the ice cover, can cause earthquakes and volcanic activity
in that particular area. There do exist glaciers in numerous alpine
locations (meaning high elevation, not specifically the Alps) but
whether they are subject to such action is a question. The massive
ice fields in Patagonia and Alaska already lie in regions of great
tectonic activity, the "ring of fire" so those are vulnerable. In
fact the plate boundaries now subject to high volcanic and earthquake
activity are spread across the globe -- not randomly but indeed widely
spread. That might be what is meant. Or it might just be typical
news release hype to gain readership. In any event, the danger is
almost certainly restricted to the locations of the ice cover which is
definitely not just the arctic and antarctic.

Thank you. This is the part I was having a bit of a problem with. One
thing I would like to note. Since the glaciers we have today are left
over, I think, from the last Ice Age, most of the melting from that took
place quite a while ago. And we are still experiencing the rebound from
that melt, so the remaining glaciers will only add a little to that
rebound and resulting earthquakes.
While the melting of the antarctic ice *** will cause problems on
that continent, I fail to see how the arctic ice *** will cause a
great problem, earthquake and volcano wise, in that area. I do realize
that there will be a methane release, if it is not going on now.

Jesus said in the End Times there will be earthquakes, so there must
be earthquakes. Or not.

Googling got me
<http://heavenawaits.wordpress.com/2008/03/18/earthquakes-increase-in-
end-times/> with the puzzling annotation "Posted in 2012, ..." I've
heard of a blog-style process recreating historic events - someone may
be "performing" the Great War, Second World War, Cuban missile crisis,
or Russian revolution as we consider it - but a blog of prophecy? I
suppose you may as well... but it turns out to be in fact that one of
the site subject headings is the year 2012... and the U.S. election
apparently, since the current article is about how Sarah Palin wrote a
really great article in the Wall Street Journal, and the White House
is now /unsettled/.

.

Loading