SCI/TECH: Ancient Interstellar Collision: May Help Explain Climate Change

page: 1
15
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 6 2005 @ 09:42 AM
link   
NASA satellites recorded two stars colliding, and disappearing into a black hole. Such collisions explain the origins of gamma rays, the most energetic and deadly form of electromagnetic radiation. Researchers hope that studying the NASA records also will help detect associated bursts of gravitational waves. Hopefully, the information might help unravel the mystery of earth's larger cycles of climate change, and explain the impacts of black holes, interstellar radiation, and gravitational waves on this planet.

 



www.nytimes.com
With a screech of high-energy radiation brighter than a million billion suns, a pair of stars in a faraway galaxy collided two billion years ago and disappeared into a black hole. ...That cataclysm, recorded by a battery of telescopes and NASA satellites on July 9, has provided scientists with the answer to the last remaining piece of 35-year-old astronomical mystery: the origin of explosions that sporadically shower outer space with gamma rays, the most energetic and deadly form of electromagnetic radiation.

According to Einstein's general theory of relativity, such collisions should cause the very fabric of space and time to rock and roll with so-called gravitational waves. These events now seem to be more common than theorists thought, and detecting them will open a window on some of the most exotic and violent processes in nature.

In their Nature paper, Dr. Fox and his colleagues write, "The stage is now set for detailed studies of these exotic cosmic explosions, the most exciting of which would be the detection of their associated bursts of gravitational waves."



Please visit the link provided for the complete story.



Climate change was a hot topic in the 1970's, judging by the scientific books and magazines in garage sales. Then it disappeared down the Memory Hole. Now it's back, repackaged, with a brand new spin. So what's the truth?


FACTS

1. "Climate is influenced by a host of factors, not all of which are well understood." Major factors known to influence climate change are "astro-environmental" - includes impacts on the earth by the sun shifts (heat, magnetic, radiation, orbital tilt, etc.); changes in dust and meteor exposure as we orbit through the solar sytem (Milankovich, Muller); and various exposures as the earth and solar system orbit through the Milky Way (soficrow). In addition, responses and changes on the earth itself create domino-like cascades that influence weather, then larger climate - and arguably, speed or slow "natural" variations (general).

2. "Climate, like geological time, has it's own subdivisions to distinguish episodes of different climate. In descending order of duration, these are known as "Eras," "Epochs," "Ice-Ages," and "Periods." Scientists do not know what causes these climate changes to begin, nor what causes them to end. Changes occur fairly abruptly in Earth's history.

3. Computer models of climate and climate change, while complex and sophisticated have several fatal flaws. First, the science of climate change is not well enough understood to model accurately (this is a very important factor to consider). Second, even if the science were sufficiently well understood to model, the computer modeling capabilities would be severely taxed. Third, and perhaps most important, if we understood the science and could model it accurately, we simply do not have the capacity to collect sufficient data to drive the computer model."
Main Source, 1-3: webcommentary.com...

4. Climate change theories recognize the major impacts of earth's astro-environmental relationship to the sun and/or solar system. According to the Milankovitch theory, changes in the incident solar radiation, called insolation, in the Northern Hemisphere provide the driving force for global glacial cycles. Rich Muller has shown that orbital inclination is a better fit to the climate data than is the standard (Milankovitch) theory, which attributes ice age cycles to changes in Northern Hemisphere insolation. No climate change theory as yet purports to be a 'unifying theory,' or accommodates the many factors influencing climate change. Computer modeling tries, but fails.

5. While the two main theories regarding Ice Age "forcings" acknowledge the larger astro-environment, neither address our solar system's orbit through the Milky Way - or acknowledge this orbit's potential impacts. It takes the sun (and our solar system) roughly 200-250 million years to orbit once around the Milky Way - and the astro-environment predictably changes dramatically from one section to the next - which may explain the variations in climate cycles that current theories do not accommodate.
The Milky Way Galaxy
Our Solar System's Location in the Milky Way Galaxy

6. Geophysical change tends to accompany climate change, and involves volcanic activity, earthquakes, shifting tectonic plates, and the like, with secondary effects including tsunamis and so on. Most likely, astro-ecological factors influence the earth structurally, and stress may result from new gravitational pulls as the earth moves with the solar system through the Milky Way. The effects of black holes, interstellar radiation, and gravitational waves may be the missing link - and NASA's recent discovery hopefully will lead to a more unified theory.

7. Two all-new factors influence the natural cycle, and impacts:

a. Human activity, contributing to global warming and accelerating the natural cycle;

b. In the past, this planet's oil, water, gas, and other deposits served as "shock absorbers." These shock absorbers now are gone. The predictable results are not good.


Policy-makers know the earth is up for some radical changes - and have for some time. At least since the 1970's. But public policy is driven by business interests committed to keeping the public uninformed. The issue is manipulated to keep voters out of the real debate - and public policy is designed to facilitate business opportunities, NOT to serve ordinary peoples' best interests.

The current debate served up to the public is a distraction. And the question, "Is human activity causing global warming?" - as framed for public consumption - is a red herring.

A second distraction is prepared for those who don't buy the 'global warming' debate. Contemporary science shows that rapid warming will accelerate the predicted ice age, and that human activity is accelerating global warming; so the counterspin says no, we now are entering longer warming period.

We might expect a big announcement soon about the effects of black holes, interstellar radiation, and gravitational waves on the earth. Like it's a huge surprise to policy-makers.

I happen to think we've been here before. And made the same mistakes. Specifically, an elite group figures it all out, doesn't tell anyone else, and thinks that a select group of specially chosen, genetically superior survivors can be chosen to repopulate the earth. And just incidentally, position to take control after the dust settles.
Didn't work before. Won't work now. Old fools + new fools = same fools.

My advice? Re-read "Brave New World." Pay attention to Huxley's foreword, written for the 1946 edition.

Join the fray, and spin your wheels to distraction, or ask your representatives the important question: "What is being done to ensure this nation's survival, and the survival of the human species?"


References

GENERAL

Ice Ages

QUOTE: "...regular recurring epochs of glaciation have dominated the planet for the past million years. Ten times, glaciers have advanced and then retreated with the duration of retreat (and corresponding warmth) frequently lasting not more than 10,000 years. The Earth has been in a warm period for about 10,000 years now. (Which means we're due for an ice age. ed) ...Said Muller, "The mechanism proposed by Milankovitch could be adjusted to explain the cycles of glaciation that occurred prior to one million years ago. However, for the past million years the glacial record is an excellent match to the cycle of tilt." "
Muller: Astronomical theory offers new explanation for ice ages


4.1 The ice ages and the Earth's climate

Muller: A New Theory of Glacial Cycles
Summary

Muller: brief introduction to the history of climate

Orbital Variations and Glacial Cycles: Student Orientation

See: Milankovich Theory

Milankovitch Cycles in Paleoclimate

The Pacemaker of the Ice Ages: Milankovich Cycles in Climate


Basic: The Ice Ages

Climate Change and the Oceans

Geodynamics: A RE-ANALYSIS OF POLAR WANDER DUE TO ICE-AGE CYCLES

Basic Paleoclimatology: Data, Modeling and Theory

Climate Change Information Sheet 8: The evidence from past climates

Evidence from U-Th dating against Northern Hemisphere forcing of the penultimate deglaciation. PMID: 10716440

Wikipedia - Climate Change

Beyond the Cycle


CASCADE EFFECTS on EARTH

Abrupt Climate Change

Will global warming trigger a new ice age?
Also see: yaleglobal.yale.edu...

Innovative Research Proves Gulf Stream Slowed During Last Ice Age

PDF: Collapse of the California Current During Glacial Maxima
Also see: Abstract


"NON-SCIENTIFIC" PREDICTIONS

"Dr. Gaspar explains how the Mayan Calendar is based on the two most prominent ice age cycles, thus its 2012 end date will herald in an ice age. Nostradamus, Revelations, and Native American and other animal symbologies will line up in a perfectly constructed theory to show that the ancient sages knew about these apocalyptic recurrent cycles. A possible polar axis shift is waiting for us in the next 5-12 years to end global warming."
www.coasttocoastam.com...

Also, the "I Ching" may be unravelled to provide a calendar of geophysical and climate cycles, clearly based on ancient, detailed, and relatively scientific observations and records. (soficrow, unpublished)


INTERESTING COMMENTARY

webcommentary.com...]Outlines Warming and Cooling Periods, Epochs, and Eras. Conclusions flawed; most info good, but incomplete[/url]


BOOKS

"It is not possible to understand the present or future climate unless scientists can account for the enormous and rapid cycles of glaciation that have taken place over the last million years, and which are expected to continue into the future. A great deal has happened in the theory of the ice ages over the last decade, and it is now widley accepted that ice ages are driven by changes in the Earth's orbit. The study of ice ages is very inter-disciplinary, covering geology, physics, glaciology, oceanography, atmospheric science, planetary orbit calculations astrophysics and statistics."
Ice Ages and Astronomical Causes
Data, spectral analysis and mechanisms
Series: Springer Praxis Books
Subseries: Environmental Sciences
Muller, Richard A., MacDonald, Gordon J.
1st ed. 2000. 2nd printing, 2002, Hardcover
ISBN: 3-540-43779-7


RELATED ATS COVERAGE

Supervolcano activity

Creative Solutions: Extreme Urban Organic Farming


Backgrounds of Scientists and Organizations Who are Skeptic of Global Warming
Shocking! Bush Agrees with Human Effect of Global Warming
Newly Discovered Tasmanian Coral Reef May Prove Global Warming
Global Warming Caused By Humans
Study: Global Warming Increasing Duration and Intensity of Hurricanes
Global Warming Dramatically Evident in Siberia
U.S Government To Be Sued Over Global Warming
Global warming melting antarctica? Wicked! cant wait to find whats underneath the ice!
The Snowball Effect of Global Warming
Global warming 'past the point of no return'
Northern Hemisphere Nearing Point of No Return on Global Warming.




posted on Oct, 7 2005 @ 08:23 PM
link   
This one got lost in the blackout.

Think it deserves a second look.



posted on Oct, 10 2005 @ 11:14 AM
link   
So interstellar events affect the earth, and trigger planetary events that cascade to result in earthquakes and volcanic activity - which then trigger a cascade of events that cause climate change.

Some people think we are undergoing a period of rapid change right now. I got this in my email this am - can't vouch for it's credentials, but it IS very interesting, and well worth considering.

FYI - This stuff does not frighten me. I think that death is part of life - and that death always involves rebirth, spiritual if not physical. So IMO - recognizing danger, or reality, is not a recipe for despair.

Life will go on - and always, we have much to celebrate, and reason to hope. But celebration and hope need freedom to flourish. And real freedom is not possible without education, awareness, open access to information, and democracy.



QUOTE

"...Earth Core instabilities are increasing, and are evidenced by the massive Antipode earthquake events in Peru and Asia these past days. ...(see from March) “Earth’s Core ‘Mysteriously’ Shifts Causing near Simultaneous Antipodal Earthquakes in Central America, South America and Indonesia"... “...the Earth’s core has experienced a mysterious ‘shifting’, and for as yet unexplained reasons, but has caused near simultaneous earthquakes in both the countries of Indonesia and its antipodal counterparts of Panama, Venezuela and Nicaragua."

...(re: ) the Great Tsunami Event of 2004... "NASA scientists using data from the Indonesian earthquake calculated it affected Earth's rotation, decreased the length of day, slightly changed the planet's shape, and shifted the North Pole by centimeters. The earthquake that created the huge tsunami also changed the Earth's rotation."

....as these internal core instabilities increase, the weaker geological areas of the earth remain at the greatest danger, one of which is the Northwestern Regions of North America, ...increasing concerns are being raised due to a continuing series of earthquakes, numbering in the thousands per day, ...in the Idaho Region, (see KTVB News Service "Recent earthquake activity raises concerns about Cascade Dam")

...These reports also state that these events by themselves are but ‘parts’ of a much larger, and catastrophic, ‘main event’ that the entire world is heading towards.

...the mysterious ‘South American Anomaly’ is growing in size and appears to be ‘shifting’ towards the north. The Basics from MIT: South American Anomaly

END QUOTE

Source: Massive Antipode Earthquakes in Asia and Americas Intensify Earth Core Instability as US Northwest Area Earthquakes Number in the Thousands and ‘South Atlantic Anomaly’ Shows Signs of Growing




ed to remove accidental smiley gremlin


[edit on 10-10-2005 by soficrow]



posted on Oct, 10 2005 @ 11:23 AM
link   
soficrow, I really can't understand how you used this article to leap to global climate change.

I don't see anything in the article saying that, nor can I imagine a bit of gamma radiation doing this.



posted on Oct, 10 2005 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
soficrow, I really can't understand how you used this article to leap to global climate change.

I don't see anything in the article saying that, nor can I imagine a bit of gamma radiation doing this.



Climate change is recognised as a "natural" phenomenon, as is "abrupt climate change." Solar influences are identified, and linked to certain cycles, but does not fully explain all the eras, epochs, and ages. The "leap" is logical.

...Climate change theories recognize the major impacts of earth's astro-environmental relationship to the sun and/or solar system. According to the Milankovitch theory, changes in the incident solar radiation, called insolation, in the Northern Hemisphere provide the driving force for global glacial cycles. Rich Muller has shown that orbital inclination is a better fit to the climate data than is the standard (Milankovitch) theory. But no climate change theory as yet purports to be a 'unifying theory,' or accommodates the many factors influencing climate change.

...It takes the sun (and our solar system) roughly 200-250 million years to orbit once around the Milky Way - and the astro-environment predictably changes dramatically from one section to the next - which may explain the variations in climate cycles that current theories do not accommodate.

Briefly - Climate change results from "cascades" - relatively 'minor' events that initiate spirals, or "domino effects." Even star collisions billions of light years away create gamma radiation and gravitational waves that trigger the cascade.



.



posted on Oct, 10 2005 @ 11:36 AM
link   
A gamma burst would sterilize one side of the planet. Not much for a temperature change.

Try this one: Our solar system is floating about in a bit of a null area, where Dark Energy/Dark Matter isn't found. What happens if it shows up some morning? Nobody has any clue what dark energy or dark matter would do, or if it's already here or not, or what happens if it's around in greater quantities.

It's only a matter of time... errr.... or is it a time of matter....



posted on Oct, 10 2005 @ 11:39 AM
link   
Well, here's an interesting bit which talks about the disappearance of the
mammoths from the N. American continent. The researchers speculate a massive hurricane which blew across the continent with winds in excess of 200mph. There are a few other interesting side effects of this 'cosmic shock wave'.

Note that it took 7,000 years for that shock wave to hit Earth.



posted on Oct, 10 2005 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by ZPE StarPilot
A gamma burst would sterilize one side of the planet. Not much for a temperature change.



Happens all the time. No sterilized planets around here. Small dose = small effect.

Re: temperature change. Think systemic response, cascades - not direct cause and effect.






It's only a matter of time... errr.... or is it a time of matter....





It's complicated alright. But we do live in a great big universe. And just like a little bitty war on the other side of the globe can affect the price of gas in Podunkah - so too can a stellar explosion 13 billion years ago tweak our planet here and now.

Innerestin' ain't it?


.



posted on Oct, 10 2005 @ 11:49 AM
link   
Yup, I do remember reading that it was a surprise that gamma bursts were knocking the Van Allen belt around a bit. No one thought that something so far away would have such an effect. There's probably conditions or situations in this that haven't been encountered or experienced yet.



posted on Oct, 10 2005 @ 12:05 PM
link   
Was thinking...

Earth's eco-system is so huge, and hard to change... if it's a cascade effect, than the major player is the Sun itself. I've never seen any research about gamma effect on the sun's behaviour.

From what I've read, the ocean levels have been anywhere from 600 meters higher, to 100 meters lower. Water dominates the planet, and would always be a major factor effecting the planet's climate.

Several lesser climate changes have been attributed to the break-up of that current of water that loops around the world's oceans.

Secondary would be the levels of oxygen/carbon dioxide, vital to life itself. In that regard, the worrysome potential death of our oceans, does not portend well. Apparently something so big, is yet delicately balanced upon a group of ecological factors.



posted on Oct, 10 2005 @ 01:13 PM
link   
Ah finally, someone has hit upon the real reasons our climates change. I think you're right soficrow in that those at the top probably know or have a good idea what chief mechanisms are in play but think they know it all.

How would radiation affect climate? Well, its radiation in one form or another that cause us all to grow old, age and die. The entire galaxy is under constant bombardment from radiation.

The main caveat of your very knowledgable post, and I think you'll be seeing it as soon as the GW crowd wakes up and logs on, is that by suggesting that there are other factors much more capable of affecting climate change cycles, you take away from their all important political weapon. See, to them, its not about accuracy or truth or even the ultimate survival of the human race, its about the next 2 to 3 years and how it can all be used to overthrow some insignificant politcal personality and replace him with yet another insignificant personality for no other reason than their party affiliations. Its not about science to them, its about a cause to fill their meaningless lives with some purpose and self importance.

My position is and has been for the last few years that we as a human race have very little if any affect upon the climate and all this effort should be put into how to cope and survive inevitable changes. To talk of preserving or somehow freezing a state of the environment or climate on a planet as dynamic as Earth is , for lack of a more tactful word, stupid.

So, soficrow, great work!



posted on Oct, 10 2005 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by astrocreep
Ah finally, someone has hit upon the real reasons our climates change. I think you're right soficrow in that those at the top probably know or have a good idea what chief mechanisms are in play but think they know it all.



They certainly think they know enough for power plays and profit.

...and thanks.





The main caveat of your very knowledgable post, and I think you'll be seeing it as soon as the GW crowd wakes up and logs on, is that by suggesting that there are other factors much more capable of affecting climate change cycles, you take away from their all important political weapon. See, to them, its not about accuracy or truth or even the ultimate survival of the human race, its about the next 2 to 3 years and how it can all be used to overthrow some insignificant politcal personality and replace him with yet another insignificant personality for no other reason than their party affiliations. Its not about science to them, its about a cause to fill their meaningless lives with some purpose and self importance.



Unfortunately true. But also, to be fair - looks like they tried to fly the science back in the 70's, but the 'campaign' didn't work. So it was modified to be more palatable, for compromise, and not to cause "panic" or interfere with "the economy."







My position is and has been for the last few years that we as a human race have very little if any affect upon the climate



In the larger scheme of things, no. But seems to me we are part of the equation, and maybe a factor in the domino effect - at least regarding survival/extinction potential as affected by pollution.






and all this effort should be put into how to cope and survive inevitable changes.






ABSOLUTELY. In a nutshell.






To talk of preserving or somehow freezing a state of the environment or climate on a planet as dynamic as Earth is , for lack of a more tactful word, stupid.






Stupid. AGREED, completely. ...With the pollution caveat, of course.






So, soficrow, great work!


Thank you.



posted on Feb, 18 2006 @ 11:44 PM
link   
A few new and interesting tidbits...

Gamma-ray afterglow from galactic centre gas clouds reveals prehistoric particle accelerator



Astrophysicists using the H.E.S.S. gamma-ray telescopes, in Namibia, have announced the detection of very-high-energy gamma rays from huge gas clouds known to pervade the centre of our Galaxy.

...Possible reasons why cosmic rays are enhanced and of higher energies at the heart of our Galaxy include the echo of a supernova which exploded some ten thousand years beforehand, or a burst of particle acceleration from the super massive black hole at the very centre of our Galaxy.

...The H.E.S.S. data show that the density of cosmic rays exceeds that in the solar neighbourhood by a significant factor. Interestingly, this difference increases as we go up in energy, which implies that the cosmic rays have been recently accelerated. So, these data hint that the clouds are illuminated by a nearby cosmic-ray accelerator, which was active over the last ten thousand years. Candidates for such accelerators are a gigantic stellar explosion which apparently went off near the heart of our Galaxy in "recent" history; another possible acceleration site is the super-massive black hole at the centre of the Galaxy.



Also see: presszoom.com...
On the Scent of a Pre-Historic Particle Accelerator?

Stuttering stars found

Astronomers find little engine that can

An Ejection Seat For The Milky Way?
Also: www.csmonitor.com...
www.physorg.com...

Strange behavior of super-massive black hole



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 10:27 PM
link   
.

New on ATS:

The Whole Solar System is Undergoing Global Warming.

...The evidence is mounting.



posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 10:21 AM
link   
Our planet is a changeable place - the one constant is change. But our industrial, economic and political systems remain static, not responsive - leaving us little better off than prehistoric man with respect to empowerment.

Granted, numerous factors influence the earth's climate - and it does change, always has.

But knowing there are larger influences does NOT preclude the fact that human activities can and do have an effect.

Nor does that knowledge imply that we are powerless to plan and position to deal effectively with change.



.



posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow
Our planet is a changeable place - the one constant is change. But our industrial, economic and political systems remain static, not responsive - leaving us little better off than prehistoric man with respect to empowerment.

Granted, numerous factors influence the earth's climate - and it does change, always has.

But knowing there are larger influences does NOT preclude the fact that human activities can and do have an effect.

Nor does that knowledge imply that we are powerless to plan and position to deal effectively with change.


Human activities have an effect on the environment, but how much is that effect on the Climate when mankind produces 0.28% of the total greenhouse gases on Earth?

Water vapor is the greenhouse gas which affects the Earth the most by natural occurrence at 95%, the remaining 5% are other gasses, and from that percentage mankind's activity produces 0.28% greenhouse gasses.

Mankind activities would produce 3.207% of greenhouse gases, if we "ignore water vapor as a mayority of environmentalists seem to have done."

Some have asked how is it possible that some distant starts can influence the Earth climate. It has been proven through recent research that cosmic radiation,which includes distant starts going Nova and exploding, produces a chemical reaction in the atmosphere which creates low clouds, shielding the Earth from the Sun. When the sunspot cycle is very active the Sun shields the Earth and other planets in the solar system from cosmic radiation, allowing more radiation from the Sun to reach Earth and other planets with an atmosphere in the Solar system.

Soficrow, you claimed that petroleum and other resources which are being extracted from the Earth are "shock absorbers", i would like to see evidence that earthquakes suddenly appear in areas that have been drilled for petroleum.

You would need to find the process being repeated in several places that have been drilled. That i know of there has never been any evidence to support your claim.

However, i do agree that we must make preparations for the changes that are coming, for they will affect all of us.

[edit on 27-1-2007 by Muaddib]



posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 11:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib

...i would like to see evidence that earthquakes suddenly appear in areas that have been drilled for petroleum.

You would need to find the process being repeated in several places that have been drilled. That i know of there has never been any evidence to support your claim.




THIS thread is about interstellar collisions and climate change, but okay, quick list follows. ...Let's take further discussion on about how oil and gas drilling causes quakes to Quakes Trigger Quakes.



Oil and Gas Production Induced Earthquake References:

1. John G. Armbruster, Donald W. Steeples & Leonard Seeber, The 1989 Earthquake Sequence near Palco, Kansas; A Possible Example of Induced Seismicity, [abstract] 60 Seismol. Res. Letters 141 (1989).

2. P. Y. Bard, J.R. Grasso, D. Fourmaintraux & M. Koller, A Methodology for Induced Seismic Risk Evaluation around Hydrocarbon Recovery Sites: Validation on the Lacq Gas Field, France, [abstract] Abstracts XXI General Assembly Int'l Union Geodesy & Geophys. A364 (1995)

3. M.S. Bruno & C. A. Bovberg, Reservoir Compaction and Surface Subsidence above the Lost Hills Field, California, Rock Mechanics 263 (1992).

4. J. R. Century, Oil and Natural Gas Induced Seismicity, Annual Meeting Abstracts, Amer. Assoc. Pet. Geologists 15 (1995)

5. Q. Chen & A. Nur, Pore Fluid Pressure Effects in Anisotropic Rocks: Mechanisms of Induced Seismicity and Weak Faults, 139 Pure and Applied Geophys. ##? (1992)

6. Scott D. Davis, Paul A. Nyffenegger, and Cliff Frohlich, The April 9, 1993 Earthquake in South-Central Texas: Was it Induced by Oil and Gas Production? 85 Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 1888 (1995)

7. Scott D. Davis, Paul Nyffenegger & Cliff Frohlich, The April 9, 1993 Earthquake and Other Recent Tremors in South Central Texas: Induced by Oil and Gas Production? [Abstract] , EOS, Trans. Am. Geophys. Union Abstracts 472 (1994).

8. Diane I. Doser, M.R. Baker & D. B. Mason, Seismicity in the War-Wink Gas Field, West Texas, and its Relationship to Petroleum Production, 81 Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 971 (1991).

9. Diane I. Doser, M. R. Baker, M. Luo, P. Marroquin, L. Ballesteros, J. Kingwell, H. L. Diaz & G. Kaip, The Not So Simple Relationship Between Seismicity and Oil Production in the Permian Bais, West Texas, 139 Pure & Applied Geophysics 481 (1992)

10. Earthquake Research Supervisory Committee, Summary of the Final Report on the Multidisciplinary study of the Relationship between Gas Production and Earthquakes in the Northern Part of the Netherlands, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute (1991)

11. D. Fabre, J.R. Grasso & Y. Orengo, Mechanical Behavior of Deep Rock Coree Sample from a Seismically active Gas Field, 137 Pure & Applied Geophys. 201 (1992).

12. Bruno Feigner & Jean-Robert Grasso, Seismicity Induced by Gas Production I: Correlation of Focal Mechanisms & Dome Structure, 134 Pure and Applied Geophys. 405 (1990)

13. Jean-Robert Grasso, Mechanics of Seismic Instabilities Induced by the Recovery of Hydrocarbons, 139 Pure & Applied Geophysics 507 (1992)

14. Jean-Robert Grasso, Hydrocarbon Extraction and Seismic Hazard Assessment, [abstract], EOS, Trans. Amer. Geophys. Union Abstracts 1454 (1990?)

15. J.R. Grasso & B. Feigner, Geomechanical Behavior and Structural Evolution Induced by a Depletion--a Case Study of a Gas Field, Rockbursts and Seismicity in Mines, 5 (1990)

16. Jean-Robert Grasso & Bruno Feigner, Seismicity Induced by Gas Production II: Lithology Correlated Events, Induced Stresses & Deformation, 134 Pure & Applied Geophys. 427 (1990)

17. J. R. Grasso, L.M. Plotnikova, B. Nutaev & R. Bossu, The Three M-7 Gazli Earthquakes, Usbekistan, Central Asia: The Largest Seismic Energy Releases by Human Activity, [Abstract] Abstracts XXI Gen Ass. Int. Union Geodesy & Geophys. A363 (1995)

18. J.R. Grasso, P. Volunt, D. Fourmaintraux, Scaling of Seismic Response to Hydrocarbon Production: A Toll to Estimate Both Seismic Hazard and Reservoir Behavior Over Time, Eurock '94 Conf, Delft (1994).

19. J. R. Grasso & G. Wittlinger, 10 Years of Seismic Monitoring over a Gas Field, 80 Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 450 (1990)

20. F. Guyoton, J.R. Grasso, P. Volant, Interrelation between Induced Seismic Instabilities and Complex Geological Structure, 19 Geophysical Res. Lett. 705 (1992).

21. J.M. Hamilton, A.V. Miller & M.D. Prins, Subsidence-induced Shear Failures above Oil and Gas Reservoirs, Rock Mechanics 273 (1992).

22. Robert B. Horner, The Fort St. John, B.C. Earthquakes, (A Preliminary Report for the B.C. Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources) Geological Survey of Canada (1993)

23. Robert B. Horner, J.E. Barclay, J. M. MacRae, R.J. Wetmiller & I. Asudeh, Earthquakes at the Eagle Oil Field near Fort St. John, British Columbia, Abstracts XXI General Assembly Int'l Union Geodesy & Geophys. A363 (1995)

24. Robert B. Horner, J.E. Barclay, J. M. MacRae, Earthquakes and Hydrocarbon Production in the Fort St. John Area of Northeastern British Columbia, Canadian 30 Jour. Explor. Geophysics 39 (1994)

25. Robert B. Horner, J.E. Barclay, J. M. MacRae R. J. Wetmiller & I. Asudeh, Earthquakes and Hydrocarbon Production in the Fort St. John Area of Northeastern British Columbia, [abstract] EOS Trans. Amer. Geophys. Union, Abstracts 472 (1994).

26. G.R. Keller, A.M. Rogers & C.D. Orr, Seismic Activity in the Permian Basin Area of West Texas and Southeastern New Mexico, 1975-79, 58 Seismol. Res. Lett. 63 (1987)

27. R.L. Kovach, Source Mechanisms for Wilmington Oil Field, California, Subsidence Earthquakes, 64 Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 699 (1974).

28. V. M. R. Maury, J. R. Grasso & G. Wittlinger, Monitoring of Subsidence and Induced Seismicity in the Lacq Gas Field (France): The Consequences on Gas Production and Field Operation, 32 Engineering Geology 123 (1992)

29. Arthur McGarr, On A Possible Connection Between Three Major Earthquakes in Californian and Oil Production, 81 Bulle. of Seismol. Soc. of Am. 948 (1991)

30. R.F. Mereu, J. Brunet, K. Morrissey, B. Price, A. Yapp, A study of the Microearthquakes of the Gobbles Oil Field Area of Southwestern Ontario, 76 Bulle. Seismol. Soc. Am 1215 (1986)

31. Hirokazu Moriya, James T. Rutledge & Hiroaki Niitsuma, Evaluation of Subsurface Crack Structures and Stress Direction by Using Doublets in the Three- component Seismic Measurement [abstract], Abstracts XXI General Assembly Int'l Union Geodesy & Geophys. A363 (1995)

32. Wayne D. Pennington, S.D. Davis, S.M. Carlson, J. Dupree & T.E. Ewing, The Evolution of Seismic Barriers and Asperities Caused by the Depressuring of Fault Planes in Oil & Gas Fields of South Texas, 78 Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 188 (1986).

33. L.M. Plotnikova, M.G. Flyonova, V.I. Machmudova, Induced Seismicity in the Gazly Gas Field Region, 99 Gerlands Beitrage zur Geophysik 389 (1990)

34. W.E. Pratt & D.W. Johnson, Local Subsidence of the Goose Creek Oil Field, 34 Geology 577 (1926)

35. J.P.A. Roest & W. Kuilman, Geomechanical Analysis of Small Earthquakes at the Eleveld gas Reservoir, Eurock '94 A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam 573 (1994)

36. J.T. Rutledge, W.S. Phillips, T.D. Fairbanks, D.W. Anderson, Microseismicity Associated with Primary Oil Production in Clinton County, Kentucky [abstract], Abstracts XXI General Assembly Int'l Union Geodesy & Geophys. A363 (1995)

37. J.T. Rutledge, J.N. Albright, T.D. Fairbanks, M.B. Murphy & P.M. Roberts, Microseismic Monitoring of the Chaveroo Oil Field, New Mexico, SEG Expanded Abstracts 237 (1990)

38. B.K. Schuessler, J.T. Rutledge & W.S. Phillips, Source Parameters of Induced Microearthquakes in a Shallow Oil Reservoir, Clinton County, Kentucky, 76 EOS, Trans. Amer. Geophys. Union 354 (1995)

39. Paul Segall, Induced Stresses due to Fluid Extraction from Axisymmetric Reservoirs, 139 Pure & Applied Geophysics 535 (1992)

40. Paul Segall, Stress and Subsidence from Subsurface Fluid Withdrawal in the Epicentral Region of the 1983 Coalinga Earthquake, 90 J.Geophys. Res. 6801 (1985)

41. Paul Segall, Earthquakes Triggered by Fluid Extraction, 17 Geology 942 (1989)

42. Paul Segall, J.R. Grasso, A. Mossop, Poroelastic Stressing and Induced Seismicity near the Lacq Gas Field, Southwestern France, 99 Jour. Geophys. Res. 15,423 (1994)

43. Paul Segall & A. Mossop, Beyond Rangely: Poro- and Thermoelastically Induced Seismicity [abstract], Abstracts XXI General Assembly Int'l Union Geodesy & Geophys. A364 (1995)

44. E.S. Shtengelov, Effect of Well Exploitation of the Upper Jurassic Aquifer on Seismicity of the Crimea, 7 Water Resources 132 (1980).

45. David W. Simpson & William Leith, The 1976 and 1984 Gazli, USSR, Earthquakes--Were They Induced? 75 Bull. Seismological Soc. Am. 1465, 1985).

46. P. Volant, J. R. Grasso, G. Menard, M. Frogneux & V. Maury, Seismic and Aseismic Deformation of a Folded Structure Triggered by Gas Extraction, EOS, Trans. Amer. Geophys. Union Abstracts 1454 (1990?)

47. R. J. Wetmiller, Earthquakes near Rocky Mountain House, Alberta, and their Relationship to Gas Production Facilities, 23 Can. J. Earth Sci. 172 (1986)

48. R. F. Yerkes & R.O. Castle, Seismicity & Faulting Attributable to Fluid Extraction, 10 Eng. Geol 151 (1976)

This page comes to you courtesy of Nyx a public access Internet service.








... i do agree that we must make preparations for the changes that are coming, for they will affect all of us.






Check. Let's focus on the positive - which BTW, means making preparations and taking action, not ignoring bad news and pretending everything is peachy fine.






ed for sp, wd

[edit on 27-1-2007 by soficrow]



posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 04:50 PM
link   
Wait a second there, I really think you are jumping to conclusions. First of all, many of those links you provided talk about quakes triggering quakes. Anyone who follows earthquakes would know that normally large quakes do trigger smaller quakes, which is what normally happens, depending on wether or not the first quake released most of the accumuilated pressure from the fault.

BTW, i mentioned this because it is part of your claim in this thread, not because I want to derail the thread.

For example this is one of the links which you provided in the ATS link you gave.
www.ctv.ca...

Quakes have been proven to be caused by certain activities such as filling dams, or reservoirs.

www.threegorgesprobe.org...

But there is a big difference between the amount of water being displaced at high pressure into a reservoir/dam, and the water being pumped down a borehole when drilling. The amount of water being displaced in both and the pressures being involved are totally different.

When drilling there is some shaking involved, I know because I have slept at rigs, but that shaking does not produce earthquakes. i have been to quite a few rig sites, all over the Northwest, places like Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, and Colorado, and never experienced earthquakes.

There is a possibility, that if for example someone decides to drill very close to a fault which has a lot of accumulated pressure/stress, it might trigger a quake, . But I think that you are really jumping to conclusions, and with or without knowledge you are trying to mislead with that statement you made.

Even in that ATS thread you started and you gave a link to here, which is about "quakes trigger quakes" you give several links that have nothing to do with "quakes trigger quakes. What does "interstellar collisions cause Climate change" have to do with "quakes trigger quakes"?, or Floods/poleshifts?.... One thing has nothing to do with the other Soficrow.



posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 07:44 PM
link   
Mauddib:

You asked a question, I answered it - and asked that you take further discussion about how oil and gas drilling causes quakes to Quakes Trigger Quakes.

THIS thread is about interstellar collisions and climate change, with limited wiggle room for discussion about how complex systems might interract.


Thank you.

sofi



posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow
Mauddib:

You asked a question, I answered it - and asked that you take further discussion about how oil and gas drilling causes quakes to Quakes Trigger Quakes.

THIS thread is about interstellar collisions and climate change, with limited wiggle room for discussion about how complex systems might interract.


Thank you.

sofi


I see, i guess it must have been somebody else who made the following claim.


b. In the past, this planet's oil, water, gas, and other deposits served as "shock absorbers." These shock absorbers now are gone. The predictable results are not good.


You made that claim in this thread sofi, as well as others, if you intended this thread only to be about "interstellar collisions and climate change", then why make that claim among others in this thread?...

You can't expect to make claims like the above and then ask everybody not to talk about those claims in this thread...



[edit on 29-1-2007 by Muaddib]





new topics
top topics
 
15
<<   2 >>

log in

join