So we should pay no attention to this newfangled 2010 quackery from the journal pompously named "Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society"
Separate issues. Ice rapidly unloading on a continent will create isostatic rebound….locally and potential allow for reactivation of old faults there is a theory that meltwater can create localized pore pressure induced events.
Hampel, A., R. Hetzel, G. Maniatis (2010): Response of faults to climate-driven changes in ice and water volumes on Earth's surface. In: W. McGuire (ed.) Climate forcing of geological and geomorphological hazards, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 2010 368, 2501-2517 doi: 10.1098/rsta.2010.0031.
This is not a universal response to ice sheet unloading however. The process of isostatic rebound is not fast, indeed North America is still rebounding from the past glaciation and any earthquakes experienced are minor and generally not thought to be related.
This isostatic response will, however, have zero affect on plate boundaries millions of miles away with numerous spreading centres and continental masses in between. There are documented faults, and minor earthquakes associated with ice removal within the continental land mass (eg. Iceland, Greenland) but their are no plate boundary quakes, which the Japan one was. Analysis of the seismicity associated with the quake and its aftershocks pinpoints exactly the mechanism, a similar mechanism to what has been creating earthquakes in the trench throughout history.
Did it have an effect on the timing, strength or duration? Undoubtedly.
This is the classic global warming null hypothesis…."AGW affects everything, anything that happens has something to do with it", irrespective of any proof or even a theory that makes any sense whatsoever. When you hear hoofbeats think horses not zebras.
Knowing that there are things that you don't know m
Unlike the science of climate change the science related to earthquakes as they relate to plate boundaries is based in physical proof. The seismic record determines the focal mechanism the depth and solid earth geophysical record determines the rock properties. The magnetic imprint on the seafloor yields movement vectors that allow for determination of stress resolution at plate boundaries. As I said previously this is a science that received immense scrutiny back in the sixties and seventies. The geoscience departments at Berkley, Caltech, Texas A& M were dedicated to nothing else back then. And the fact that Japan is positioned at the confluence of three major plate boundaries and historically has almost daily low frequency tremors means it is one of the best-researched areas by seismologists.
And as to the ridiculous assumption that the moon at perigee would have anything to do with the Japan earthquake….the moon was not a perigee on the 11th in fact it was somewhere between apogee and perigee. The moon is at perigee 12 times a year….where are all the associated major earthquakes? The major earthquake in Indonesia in 2004 occurred when the moon was in apogee…a negative piece of evidence. The reality is that the tidal forces, though important are extremely weak. And I mentioned Texas A&M previously. A group headed by Dr John Logan back in the seventies was tasked with identifying possible early warning systems for earthquakes. The group researched all aspects of animal response to low frequency ground tremors throughout history and in the lab. If the moon and tidal forces had anything whatsoever to do with earthquakes scientists would be basing their predictions on how close the moon is….which they do not.
missing current sea mass of exising sea wich may measure several thousand meters.
You lot want to make a meal of of that, go for it. Its your credibility not mine.
At the end of the last glaciation sea level was about 400 feet lower than it is currently. The addition of 400 feet of sea water had no appreciable impact on plate boundary activity according to the geologic record. Hence it seems a bit of a stretch to think that a foot or so of additional sea level rise would have any impact whatsoever.
Perhaps the correct question to have asked here is did the Japan earthquake have an impact on future climate? The earth's tilt changed a minor amount (10 inches) as a consequence, theoretically that would impact the seasons. The answer of course is yes it would have an impact but it will be so small as not to be of consequence.
Posted: Sun 13 Mar 2011, 12:23:33
Is that where the notion of crickets chirping suggesting passivity or lack of activity began? 
