3 ms·
A bit far-fetched, but: I read one theory that artic icebergs melting did not produce a rise in sea-level was because the crust may have moved slightly vertical
by hyperpallium 9y ago
A bit far-fetched, but: I read one theory that artic icebergs melting did not produce a rise in sea-level was because the crust may have moved slightly vertically with the change in ice-mass weighing it down.
If the crust is getting slightly redistributed in one place, might there not be some pings and bongs elsewhere?
- madaxe_again 9y agoI think you may have some slightly crossed wires... Land ice, such as that which covers Greenland and Antarctica, does indeed depress the local crust. Exactly how much we're not quite sure, but ice penetrating and non-penetrating radar observations over both places has revealed that as the ice mass decreases, the crust uplifts, very slowly. This actually amplifies sea level rise, as you have both the melt water and the additional displaced volume from the uplifted land to account for. As to pings and bongs, totally. A lateral movement in one place or expansion or uplift could all increase tension elsewhere, which would then be released as an earthquake. The most readily observed example of this is aftershocks, which are often hypocentred near but not at the original hypocentre.
- hyperpallium 9y agoThanks! Yeah, icebergs didn't seem to quite make sense. But if the basic idea is sound, is it a possible explanation for this Mexico quake, despite the artic being so far away? [Though it seems more likely to me that 50 years of data isn't enough to tell whether a geological event is unusual or not...]
- madaxe_again 9y agoI wouldn't say it's an explanation, but there's certainly a causal link between all major geological activity on Earth.