It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
Not much rock down there to rupture and cause earthquakes. The Gulf of Mexico is millennia of accumulated sediments from bayou run off on top of salt domes. There is no bedrock underneath all of that soil. Much further inland, you have places which can have quakes, but nowhere along the coast.
Sinkholes, on the other hand...
Yeah those might happen, but I don't think any coastal communities affected by the storm have earthquakes anywhere near on the worry list.
originally posted by: dogstar23
a reply to: Violater1
First off, star and flag for math, and conversions
My opinion so far is that there could be a correlation, but it won't show up as a simple "mass-rainfall = earthquake risk."
I would think a lot would depend on what type of and location of land and plate, possible counterbalancing effects, etc. Meaning, there could well be a correlation, but there are a lot of competing factors, many of which we probably don't even know sound be considered, let alone have or can get measurements for.
Now, considering this - and I hope some University researchers with the funding to do so properly are, we (they) can start observing and gathering data, and possibly one day have a reasonable understanding about a collection of risk factors, which, when taken together, are meaningful and useful.
Perhaps one day we'll be hearing, "Hurricane BillyBob has the potential to reach category 5, and is expected to make landfall at New Orleans, but thankfully carries a very low ETR (Earthquake Triggering Risk), due to the [new stuff to learn] of the [new stuff to learn] coupled with the [more new stuff to learn.]