Isostatic rebound is not uniform.... it is the result of removal of
pressure from Glacial encroachment. It is entirely subject to underlying
geomorphology

No accurate data exists beyond about 50 years ago.... the data is
interpolated from archeological investigation is based on proximity to water
of ancient campsites.

The Laurentian Shield is not undergoing isostatic rebound at the rate you
posted.

If this were so...... we could buy sea frontage and expect our investment
to gain a meter every hundred years. I can assure you nobody has reported
such gains in the last 3 centuries.

The mid Atlantic Ridge is the opposing the subduction of the Pacific plates.

Now cry to your God about how unfair life is and that Creationism is still a
viable explanation of mankind's evolution.

Fanatics!... Phffft!

CM


"Bob Crantz" wrote in message
link.net...
You fool! The isostatic rebound of the Laurentian Shield is quoted as 1-2
cm/yr:

http://travesti.eps.mcgill.ca/~olivi...es/node43.html

Plus there's other rebounds of at least 2 inches per year! If rock had the
coefficient of restitution that you quote there would be no earthquakes
over
magnitude 4! You, sir, are no arm chair geologist! Your chair has no arms,
you are a barstool geologist!

Amen!

BC

"Overproof" wrote in message
news:SBHAd.24735$Y72.23238@edtnps91...
Look you closet geologists...... if the friggin continent of Australia or
any related tectonic plate subduction resulted in a land mass move of
that
severity in such a small time frame.... we'd be facing much greater
cataclysmic disturbances than an oceanic shock wave.

35 meters?...... Not! Hell... even the severest case of isostatic
rebound
doesn't amount to more than a centimeter every century.

"Aniculapeter" wrote in message
...
You didn't answer any of my questions.

There were only a earth quake in the western end of the plate.
The north part of New Zealand is on the same tectonic plate as
Sumatra,
but
not on the same tectonic plate as the southern part, and I think it
would
not have gone unnoticed if half of the Northern Island (Auckland) had
moved
36 meter relative to the other half (Wellington). (yes they are on
different
tectonic plates).
So I can't see that it is simply the matter of the hole plate moving 36
meters.

Anyway my question was about the consequences for navigating the area,
using
GPS.

I also find it interesting to find out how the whole plate moved, but I
can't se that it could be as simple as you suggest.

Does any of our colleagues down under se any change in their GPS
positions
?


Peter S/Y Anicula

o
Capt. Neal® skrev i en
...
Understand this. Not just isolated islands moved. The entire tectonic
plate
in the area of the quake subsumed and everything on this plate moved
along
with the plate. If the tectonic plate moved three meters then
Australia
moved three meters provided the whole of Australia is on that plate.

Pate tectonics are not hard to understand. Since Pangea plates have
moved.
Over the millennia Pangea broke up into the continents we see today
which
are
pretty evenly spaced around the globe.

CN


"Aniculapeter" wrote in message
...
I heard that the island of Sumatra has moved 35 meter.

Is or was there any anomalies in GPS positioning on the "Australian
Plate"?
Is it regulated by the satellites ?
As far as I can guess, a datum change would be necessary ?

Does anybody know any reliable sources for answers to these
questions
?

Peter S/Y Anicula