Alright boys, I'm out. We'll pick this one up in the morning. Getting to old for after midnight internet debates. But it has been interesting and entertaining so I appreciate the forum and the participation in the thread. This is how it should be!
Prove it's not oil and gas activities. Show me how it's impossible for waste disposal to cause earthquakes. Make a person who doesn't get paid a believer. BTW, what do you do? Does turning a wrench on a rig qualify one to speak about the dynamics of geophysical structures underground?
EDIT: No, we aren't the only ones blessed with a little dust shaker from time to time.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech...arthquake-wastewater-well-fracking/52368620/1
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2015/01/08/Research-ties-Ohio-quakes-to-fracking.html
There is more, just too tired to dig it out. www.google.com will give plenty.
The states with similar geology are having a lot more quakes, not just OK. Not as dramatic as OK but still enough to cause other states to shut down injection wells. (OK has shut down injection wells also)If it is proven that waste water injection wells cause earthquakes then Kansas, Arkansas, Texas, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Louisanna, North Dakota and a lot of other states should be having a lot of earthquakes
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/stat...used-by-oil-and-gas-operations-study-says.eceBefore 2008, North Texas had experienced only two recorded earthquakes, both believed to be natural; the Azle and Reno area had experienced none. Since then, North Texas has logged more than 150 quakes of significant magnitude. The uptick is part of a dramatic increase in seismicity in central U.S. states, including Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Colorado and Ohio.
It would be interesting to see the 30 day 2.5 mag incidence map overlain with the locations of the various injection wells, etc.
Sorry about that last link. Meant to post this one:
http://wwwdata.forestry.oregonstate.edu/larse/pubs/running_bioscience.pdf
Still, for someone who this is supposedly "their field", I can't believe I'm having to post links to articles about CO2 fertilization and the greening of the planet that has occurred as a result.
Greening does mean more biomass. Leaves use sunlight to capture CO2 from the atmosphere in a process called photosynthesis. More leaves, more CO2, more biomass. The study you linked showed it happening in an actual forest.Greening does not equal more biomass. Greening refers to the leafing out of vegetation. The relationship between c02 and greening does not imply that co2 results in higher biomass (C uptake by plants). It only means that leafing out is affected. So the premise of your arguments i completely beside the point that i am making, which is, that CO2 fertilization will not cause a linear increase in biomass production because other nutrients, such as water, N, P, K. are limiting this process.
Bottom line is you are using terminology incorrectly when implying that the effect of co2 on greening equals the effect of c02 on productivity.
And to your statement "I can't believe I'm having to post links to articles about CO2 fertilization and the greening of the planet that has occurred as a result" is baseless because it is evident that you don't understand what you are posting.
Well, good morning. Do we have a consensus yet?
Greening does mean more biomass. Leaves use sunlight to capture CO2 from the atmosphere in a process called photosynthesis. More leaves, more CO2, more biomass. The study you linked showed it happening in an actual forest.
This article, which you conveniently ignored, specifically talks about the earth's biomass production in relation to available CO2. Try reading it with an open mind.
http://wwwdata.forestry.oregonstate.edu/larse/pubs/running_bioscience.pdf
Enter your email address to join: