The Global Warming Thread

Further down that seems to suggest that there isn't significant risk from fracking...

...

The process of hydraulic fracturing in order to increase the permeability of reservoir formations and stimulate the recovery of hydrocarbons is generally accompanied by microseismicity, commonly defined as earthquakes with magnitudes of less than 2.0 and too small to be felt. The mechanisms for this are generally well understood.

1. Firstly, the injection of fluids under high pressure generates new cracks and fractures in a previously intact rock mass. As these grow and spread they are accompanied by brittle failure of the rock and corresponding microseismic events. These are sometimes referred to as "fracked" events. The size of these "fracked" events is constrained by the energy of the injection process.
2. Secondly, both presence of high pressure fluid and the stress perturbation caused by the fluid can change the effective stress on pre-existing faults, causing them to fail. These events are sometimes referred to as "triggered" events. Since small stress perturbations can cause relatively large earthquakes the size of these events depends largely on the amount of stored up elastic strain energy already in the rocks.

The process of hydraulic fracturing appears to pose a low risk of inducing destructive earthquakes. A report by the National Research Council in the U.S., which examined the scale, scope and consequences of seismicity induced during fluid injection and withdrawal related to energy technologies, concluded that the process of hydraulic fracturing a well as presently implemented for shale gas recovery does not pose a high risk for inducing felt seismic events. A review of the risks associated with hydraulic fracturing during shale gas exploration and production by the Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering in 2012 concluded that the surface impacts of any seismicity induced by hydraulic fracturing would be negligible. A report commissioned by the Department of Energy and Climate Change in the UK by Green et al (2012) set out a number of recommendations for the mitigation of seismic risk in future hydraulic fracture operations for shale gas. Some of these recommendations were adopted as part of the regulatory framework for future operations.​

 

I suppose it's a matter of balancing the potential risks against the benefits.

The article from the BGS said that anything that disturbs rock structures can cause earthquakes although most can't be felt...

...

Is the Earthquake Activity at Preese Hall Unique

It is relatively well-known that anthropogenic activity can result in man-made or "induced" earthquakes. Although such events are generally small in comparison to natural earthquakes, they are often perceptible at the surface and some have been quite large. Underground mining, deep artificial water reservoirs, oil and gas extraction, geothermal power generation and waste disposal have all resulted in cases of induced seismicity. Davies et al (2013) presented a review of published examples of earthquakes induced by a variety of activities.​

 

Reading past the headline gets confusing.

 

The US has one of the highest birth rates among Western countries and we are a huge pull for immigrants. As long as the US can resist the Magas that want to start removing all immigrants from the country, that should continue..

 

i Love watching you argue with yourself!

Anyhow, yeah. Lots of small earthquakes, but we don’t know if any that are above 4 are directly attributable. But it kinda makes sense that if you’re loosening up the crust, it will weaken and expedite movement along some faults. You could also make the case that a bunch of small quakes makes it less likely a big one happens. Could also go the other way.

We don’t know for sure.

But we do know that this kind of drilling does release gas that is entrapped.

Anyhow, I think geothermal is worth the perceived risks. It doesn’t inject the toxic stuff that fracking does (which also has not been found to infiltrate drinking water, at least not yet). Climate change is a much more urgent threat than localized crust destabilization.

 

In this specific location the risk seems pretty minimal, it’s a remote area and the earthquakes are tiny.

 

Fair point.

I've seen various documentaries on fracking over the years and my understanding, such as it is, is that as long as it's done with certain controls and restrictions it's not a lot more dangerous than most other things that generate energy, including oil, coal, nuclear, etc. etc.

 

It is way less dangerous than coal!!!

 

It's called considering the various arguments before arriving at a conclusion. You're an American so maintaining one thought in your head usually leaves little else for another but, there we are

Which is a different argument to whether it's safe from the point of view of earthquakes, of course.

D'yer remember what you said at the top of this post?

 

Exactly.

Bearing in mind the dangers from climate change it seems an obvious choice.

 

Dude, I specifically pointed at our houses now made out of reinforced concrete, as are the Japanese skyscrapers.
Which points to me suggesting it would be a good change for California, both against the fire hazard and earth quakes.

 

So, at the moment the nortwestern part of South America is experiencing a serious drought. The drought has severely impacted three countries where hydro is the main source of electricity. We're currently going through electricity rationing.
The govmt here in Ecuador has announced a plan to add 4 geothermal plants to ameliorate the reliance on hydro. They have hired a Japanese consortium to build them. We have 22 active and 40 inactive (not extinct ) volcanoes, so it makes sense. We already have our share of tectonic activity so we're used to rumbling and shaking.

 

Not great news but not surprising. Maybe if we devote even more energy and water for cooling to AI production and data centers, it will find the answer for us.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/16/climate/global-water-cycle-off-balance-food-production/index.html

« For the first time in human history, we are pushing the global water cycle out of balance,” said Johan Rockström, co-chair of the Global Commission on the Economics of Water and a report author. “Precipitation, the source of all freshwater, can no longer be relied upon.” »

 

Ok, this is cool.

As some of you may know, the “day” has been getting longer. The friction of the tides slows down the earth’s rotation such that we’ve added 27 leap seconds since 1972. We’ve done that to keep one rotation at precisely 24:00:00

However, as global warming has melted the polar ice caps, the lesser weight at the poles has sort of “stretched” out the planet, made it more spherical. And just as an ice skater’s rotation speeds up as she draws her arms in, so has the “stretching” slowed down the, erm, slowing, so that soon, we will probably have to subtract a leap second.

Global warming is affecting time itself. It is reversing the deceleration of earth’s rotation.

 

So what happened in those millennia when there was no ice cap? Was Earth like a spinning top?

 

Yet it was, although that wasn't the cause. Since it started spinning, the Earth has been slowing down due to tidal forces from the Sun.

 

No, it was spinning like the earth on account of it being... well, the earth

 

I won't worry then.

 

Dunno what they mean with “Precipitation, the source of all freshwater, can no longer be relied upon.” As far as I noticed it there's falling a heck of alot of that wet stuff in Europe.

 

But it's not as predictable as it used to be. Agriculture needs predictability.

 

Predictability has always been a mirage. It's there until it isnot. The fault is when the tables turn to stick on expecting the old rythm.
The Inca for some reason/prediction, expected a catastrophy in nature. So they started to cultivate their crops to make these adapt to the expected catastrophy, by planting each season higher up the slopes to "harden" crops to unfavourable temperatures etc. So they quite fast had crops able to withstand freak temperatures and droughts.

So when nature becomes fickle, take measures to counter the effects of that or adapt by doing something else as a farmer that fits the ficleness.

 

But the point is that nature is becoming fickle for a very specific reason and our species is the one causing it. And yes nature is always changing, but the rate of change is increasing beyond what human society may be able to reasonably handle.

 

Yes and because we know the driving factor and the direction it's heading one shouldnot only gamble on the probably futile (given the "enthusiastically endorsement by the public") of measures at curbing the rise of the temperature, but also or more so on the Inca approach and start adapting/taking measures to counter the global warming effects on the precipitation.
When rain falls abundantly in months you have no use for it and fails in months it's needed, there's that concept of hoarding.

 

Some good news: solar power seems to be hitting its stride, and the exponential growth in installed solar has created a critical mass, creating a cycle of cheaper production leading to more production leading to cheaper production. The Age of Solar seem unavoidable now.

 

Time to install more crypto mining servers!!!