what do you mean by "soil, humidity and other factors outweigh the scale accuracy?" the richter scale is just the quantitative product of readings from seismometers. mercalli scale records qualitative damage from structures

>> ^DerHasisttot:

My news-sources say 8.8, previously 8.9. Although the (I guess) mercalli-scale is not sooo good either. In the end, soil, humidity and other geological factors outweigh the accuracy of such a scale any day. AS seen here vis-vis tsunami. But if you give me a source i'll change it of course.

>> ^DerHasisttot:

My news-sources say 8.8, previously 8.9. Although the (I guess) mercalli-scale is not sooo good either. In the end, soil, humidity and other geological factors outweigh the accuracy of such a scale any day. AS seen here vis-vis tsunami. But if you give me a source i'll change it of course.
>> ^ant:
>> ^DerHasisttot:
promote for awareness. This quake went on and on and on.

They can last minutes. I can't even handle 30 seconds on a sixth floor L.A. area. I got dizzy easily. I am so frakked with the big one hits.
I wonder why they didn't take cover under a doorway (didn't see one though), table, etc. You can get killed outside.
Also, it is 8.9 now. Not 8.8.



http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/recenteqsww/Quakes/usc0001xgp.php

My news-sources say 8.8, previously 8.9. Although the (I guess) mercalli-scale is not sooo good either. In the end, soil, humidity and other geological factors outweigh the accuracy of such a scale any day. AS seen here vis-vis tsunami. But if you give me a source i'll change it of course.

>> ^ant:

>> ^DerHasisttot:
promote for awareness. This quake went on and on and on.

They can last minutes. I can't even handle 30 seconds on a sixth floor L.A. area. I got dizzy easily. I am so frakked with the big one hits.
I wonder why they didn't take cover under a doorway (didn't see one though), table, etc. You can get killed outside.
Also, it is 8.9 now. Not 8.8.

>> ^BoneRemake:

>> ^syncron:
I have just came to the realization that I've learned nothing from my middle school geography class.

Geography or geology ?

Yea the scale is a good thing to know about.


Oh... geology, I guess I didn't learn anything about geography either.

>> ^syncron:

I have just came to the realization that I've learned nothing from my middle school geography class.


Geography or geology ?


Yea the scale is a good thing to know about.

Looks like "Energy in Depth" is another bullshit oil industry front group.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Energy_in_Depth

Energy in Depth (EID) is a pro-oil-and-gas drilling industry front group formed by the American Petroleum Institute, the Petroleum Association of America and dozens of additional industry organizations for the purpose of denouncing legislation proposed by Colorado U.S. Rep. Diana DeGette to regulate underground hydraulic fracturing fluids. Hydraulic fracturing of underground geological formations, commonly called "fracking," was invented by the Halliburton Company. It is done to increase the amounts of oil and gas that can be extracted from existing wells. [1]

Energy in Depth denounces DeGette's proposed fracking legislation as an “unnecessary financial burden on a single small-business industry, American oil and natural gas producers.” In June, 2009, Energy in Depth started a multimillion dollar lobbying and public relations campaign aimed at derailing public health legislation that would require the disclosure of the chemicals used in fracking fluids. In addition to a Web site, EID's campaign includes a Twitter feed, a Facebook group, a YouTube channel and an aggressive advertising campaign. [1]

Energy in Depth trumpets the economic contribution oil and gas drilling makes, and the numbers of people employed by the industry.

>> ^wagthedog1:

>> ^nanrod:
I know this is all bullshit because T. Boone Pickens was on the Daily Show and he assured me that no water well has ever been contaminated by fracking. He wouldn't lie would he?

And neither would Lee Fuller, executive director of Energy in Depth, who has told the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences that a litany of errors in the anti-drilling film should render it ineligible for the Oscar for best documentary feature.
http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2011
/02/01/01greenwire-ioil-and-gas-group-urges-oscar-judges-to-steer-99256.html
Besides, it is good that North Americans are once again getting a small taste of what many petro-states have have to endure over the decades to fuel a lifestyle of excess.

>> ^Trancecoach:

Back in the mid-90s, I remember reading about historical evidence that geological poles shifted tens of thousands of years ago, and would do so again...
<wait for it>

by Dec. 21, 2012.


http://inception.davepedu.com/

Back in the mid-90s, I remember reading about historical evidence that geological poles shifted tens of thousands of years ago, and would do so again...

<wait for it>


by Dec. 21, 2012.

Ah..."Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish" -Euripides. It has been my personal experience that those who do not believe in evolution are not so much resistant to the idea as they are ignorant of it, as you said. You can explain to him that evolution is the product of math, and that's it. As one allele is favored in the environment, it increases in frequency. In fact, you could also explain that evolution may also occur through something as simple (and unarguable) as migration. If more individuals with blond hair enter a population, the population evolves because the frequency of the blond allele increases.

In regards to the age of the earth, you could discuss some geological facts that are in obvious support of an ancient earth:
1) Fossils (Previous types of organisms have existed. Extinction has occurred. We know the rate of extinction and the rate that speciation occurs - these all indicate an earth that is billions of years old)
2) Vestigial structures (Previous useful structures can lose their function through time - lots of it)
3) Modern Gemonics (The more closely related two organisms are the more similar their DNA is, the more genes they have in common and therefore the more morphologically similar they are. We know the rate of mutation, which means we know the rate of the formation of alleles in a population. For humans, the rate of mutation is about 0.0000001 mutations per base pair per generation (very slow - and this is for all mutations, not just for positive ones). The formation of new species usually takes millions of years due to this slow rate coupled with natural selection.
4) Biogeography (A single species separated by the movement of continents evolves at the same discussed rate. We know how fast continents move (theory of plate tectonics: 2 - 10 cm/year). We know many organisms were separated by continental drift (Many separate (but very similar-looking) species are found in currently separate geographical areas that were once together - primates in Africa / South America, for example or the flightless birds - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratite - for marsupials: http://biology.clc.uc.edu/Courses/bio303/contdrift.htm)

I hope this helps!

Marc

In reply to this comment by Psychologic:
Hey, you seem to know your way around science so I have a question for you (asking several people actually):

I have a friend who is fairly intelligent and open-minded, but is also a young-earth creationist. While there is quite a bit of evidence showing the planet to be much older than 7000 years, I'm trying to find something that is fairly obvious and can't be dismissed as easily as, say, radiometric dating.

Needless to say, he doesn't "believe" in evolution, but I think many of his positions are the product of misinformation. I wouldn't believe in what he thinks evolution is either, but for now I just want a clear way of showing a skeptic that the earth is much older than the christian bible seems to indicate.

Any insight?

Tags for this video have been changed from 'natural, disaster' to 'Natural disaster, landslide, sea can, ccan, shift, geology, shear, flow, disaster, brazil' - edited by BoneRemake

Sooo...are they doing some geological surveys or just a photo shoot?

As much as I like Zizek, his notions about ecology are bogus. They show a deep ignorance about biology and the natural world.

For instance, he asks us what kind of "unimaginable catastrophe" could have put petroleum in the deep strata of the earth. But petroleum is laid down precisely when there [i]aren't[/i] any catastrophes--nothing to disturb the layers of organic matter being deposited on the bed of the ocean or deep lake, no lava flows or the sediment collecting on top, no major earthquakes or other geological disturbances to break open the petroleum deposits and allow them to leak out, etc.

Nature [i]isn't[/i] just a series of catastrophes. Sure, they happen. But many species are so intricately interwoven with others through thousands of years of co-evolution that it's impossible to think that catastrophe conditions are the norm. And it is, indeed, human hubris that has caused so many devastating environmental problems today.

How about - Evidence, real, physical, in your face factual evidence. Evidence doesn't care what your beliefs are. It doesn't care how you feel about a subject. Evidence is evidence and evolution is a factual reality. So is geological time and speciation. You can spout on all day long about how you "believe" the sun rotates around the earth, or that there's a mystical teapot flying around Jupiter that grants wishes. You can believe anything you want. Reality doesn't care. Reality dictates Reality. Not yours or anyone's personal attempt to do so on their own.

Something about this man and geology and geography.

It just doesn't click.

Anyone who actually believes these guys (Limbaugh, Beck et al) is simply malfunctioning. How can someone with a brain is working properly believe any of this crap. My brother doesn't believe in global warming and my wife happened to mention this to a friend of hers who's a prof in Geological and Ocean studies, his response, "What he doesn't believe in thermometers?"

That's about it, just simply ignoring the truth under your nose because some loudmouth keeps telling you (without any evidence) something to the contrary.