It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Cosmic Rays, especially X-Rays, The Solar System is Receiving Have been Increasing

page: 5
22
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 7 2016 @ 06:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
That solar flare emitted 0.0005 w/m increasing that 1,000 times would make it about 0.5 w/m.
I used 0.0005 w/m to come up with .000037% of total solar irradiance. (.0005/1366=.00000037x100%)

The 0.0005 already includes the 1000x increase over normal. If you multiply that by 1000 again you're multiplying it by a million times instead of 1000. But even if you multiply it by a million times, 0.5 w/m^2 is still only .5/1366 = 0.037% of total solar irradiance, not even one half of one tenth of one percent, so even though 0.037% is a thousand times higher than the actual value, I'm saying that still doesn't seem like a big number to me, does it to you?

edit on 2016127 by Arbitrageur because: clarification




posted on Dec, 7 2016 @ 09:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
That solar flare emitted 0.0005 w/m increasing that 1,000 times would make it about 0.5 w/m.
I used 0.0005 w/m to come up with .000037% of total solar irradiance. (.0005/1366=.00000037x100%)

The 0.0005 already includes the 1000x increase over normal. If you multiply that by 1000 again you're multiplying it by a million times instead of 1000. But even if you multiply it by a million times, 0.5 w/m^2 is still only .5/1366 = 0.037% of total solar irradiance, not even one half of one tenth of one percent, so even though 0.037% is a thousand times higher than the actual value, I'm saying that still doesn't seem like a big number to me, does it to you?


Again... You are doing it wrong... This was an M5 class solar flare... M class flares emit about > _ 10-5 to < 10-4 w/m This specific flare emitted 0.0005 w/m increasing that 1,000 times would make it about 0.5 w/m. (and that's not correct either as the increase is not linear, it would be less but I am using the numbers you used in your own assumptions)

You are treating an M class flare as if it was an A class flare... Only an A5 class flare could emit 0.0000005 w/m... Then you added the 1,000 times to the energy emitted by an A5 class flare... This was not an A5 class flare.


edit on 7-12-2016 by ElectricUniverse because: add and correct comment.



posted on Dec, 7 2016 @ 09:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
Again... You are doing it wrong... This was an M5 class solar flare... M class flares emit about > _ 10-5 to < 10-4 This specific flare emitted 0.0005 w/m increasing that 1,000 times would make it about 0.5 w/m.
Why are you increasing the M class flare 1000 times though? Where is that coming from?

And even if you have some reason for doing that, are you saying the resulting 0.037% of total solar irradiance seems like a significant percentage to you?

edit on 2016127 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Dec, 7 2016 @ 10:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
Why are you increasing the M class flare 1000 times though? Where is that coming from?

And even if you have some reason for doing that, are you saying the resulting 0.037% of total solar irradiance seems like a significant percentage to you?


What?... Err, it was you who used that flare as an example of what would happen if it's energy increased by 1,000...(well originally you stated if it was increased by 100, but the NASA article states soft x-rays increased by 1,000) Remember?... You tried to make an analogy from that event in response to my comments... Does that ring any bells?


edit on 7-12-2016 by ElectricUniverse because: correct comment.



posted on Dec, 7 2016 @ 10:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
...
And even if you have some reason for doing that, are you saying the resulting 0.037% of total solar irradiance seems like a significant percentage to you?


At a time when Earth's magnetic field is 10 times weaker than it was in the 1990s? Yes it does. Earth's magnetic field has been weakening since around 1840s or so. But it's weakening has been exponential. In 2014 Earth's magnetic field started weakening 10 times more than it had been doing since the 1990s.

It is also extremely coincidental that the increase in earthquake activity on Earth has also followed the same pattern as the weakening of Earth's magnetic field, and as the warming trend we have been seeing on Earth. It all seems too much of a coincidence.


edit on 7-12-2016 by ElectricUniverse because: add and correct comment.



posted on Dec, 7 2016 @ 10:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
...
And even if you have some reason for doing that, are you saying the resulting 0.037% of total solar irradiance seems like a significant percentage to you?


At a time when Earth's magnetic field is 10 times weaker than it was in the 1990s? ..[snip]..
In 2014 Earth's magnetic field started weakening 10 times more than it had been doing since the 1990s.



just to clarify this post, between the 1990's and 2014 there was no weakening/strengthening whatsoever. (even though you stated it has been weakening exponentially since the 1840's)

in 2014 it suddenly began to weaken 10 times that of the 90's as your two statements quoted suggest.

and in 2015 and 2016 there has been no weakening.



posted on Dec, 7 2016 @ 11:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: choos


just to clarify this post, between the 1990's and 2014 there was no weakening/strengthening whatsoever. (even though you stated it has been weakening exponentially since the 1840's)

in 2014 it suddenly began to weaken 10 times that of the 90's as your two statements quoted suggest.

and in 2015 and 2016 there has been no weakening.





Daily news

11 May 2006
Ships’ logs give clues to Earth’s magnetic decline

By Patrick Barry

...
By sifting through ships’ logs recorded by Cook and other mariners dating back to 1590, researchers have greatly extended the period over which the behaviour of the magnetic field can be studied. The data show that the current decline in Earths magnetism was virtually negligible before 1860, but has accelerated since then.

Until now, scientists had only been able to trace the magnetic field’s behaviour back to 1837, when Carl Friedrich Gauss invented the first device for measuring the field directly.

The field’s strength is now declining at a rate that suggests it could virtually disappear in about 2000 years. Researchers have speculated that this ongoing change may be the prelude to a magnetic reversal, during which the north and south magnetic pole swap places.
...

www.newscientist.com...



Earth's Magnetic Field Is Fading
John Roach
for National Geographic News
September 9, 2004

Earth's magnetic field is fading. Today it is about 10 percent weaker than it was when German mathematician Carl Friedrich Gauss started keeping tabs on it in 1845, scientists say.
...


news.nationalgeographic.com...



...
Previously, researchers estimated the field was weakening about 5 percent per century, but the new data revealed the field is actually weakening at 5 percent per decade, or 10 times faster than thought. As such, rather than the full flip occurring in about 2,000 years, as was predicted, the new data suggest it could happen sooner.
...


www.livescience.com...

As to your claim that there has been no weakening since 2015 or in 2016.

www.esa.int...



posted on Dec, 7 2016 @ 11:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
Why are you increasing the M class flare 1000 times though? Where is that coming from?

And even if you have some reason for doing that, are you saying the resulting 0.037% of total solar irradiance seems like a significant percentage to you?


What?... Err, it was you who used that flare as an example of what would happen if it's energy increased by 1,000...(well originally you stated if it was increased by 100,
I showed this graph which shows an increase of 100x, and I also conceded that 1000x was possible (on another flare, but not on this graph which only shows 100x increase), but none of this explains how you are getting to 0.5W/m^2 which is an increase of one million times.

New Solar Irradiance Measurements from the Miniature X-Ray Solar Spectrometer CubeSat


Nor did you answer my question if even this million times increase to 0.5W/m^2 that you pulled out of the air and would result in 0.037% of total solar irradiance seems like a big percentage to you. To me anything less than one tenth of one percent doesn't seem that big.

edit on 2016127 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Dec, 7 2016 @ 11:48 PM
link   
a reply to: choos

And btw, if you actually think such weakening could not lead to a rapid reversal of Earth's magnetic field here you go.


Extremely rapid directional change during Matuyama-Brunhes geomagnetic polarity reversal

Leonardo Sagnotti1, Giancarlo Scardia2,3, Biagio Giaccio2, Joseph C. Liddicoat4, Sebastien Nomade5, Paul R. Renne6,7 and Courtney J. Sprain6,7

-
Author Affiliations

1Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia, I-00143 Roma, Italy. E-mail: leonardo.sagnotti@ingv.it
2Istituto di Geologia Ambientale e Geoingegneria, CNR, Monterotondo, I-00015 Rome, Italy
3Instituto Oceanográfico, Universidade de São Paulo, 05508-120, Brasil
4Barnard College, Columbia University, NY 10027, USA
5Laboratoire des sciences du climat et de l'environnement, UMR 8212, CEA/CNRS/UVSQ, F-91190 Gif-Sur-Yvette, France
6Berkeley Geochronology Center, Berkeley, CA 94709, USA
7Department of Earth and Planetary Science, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA
...
Two relative palaeointensity (RPI) minima are present in the M-B transition. During the terminus of the upper RPI minimum, a directional change of about 180 ° occurred at an extremely fast rate, estimated to be less than 2 ° per year, with no intermediate virtual geomagnetic poles (VGPs) documented during the transit from the southern to northern hemisphere. Thus, the entry into the Brunhes Normal Chron as represented by the palaeomagnetic directions and VGPs developed in a time interval comparable to the duration of an average human life, which is an order of magnitude more rapid than suggested by current models.
...

gji.oxfordjournals.org...

It is more than possible for Earth's magnetic field to flip within a human lifetime.

BTW, yes i know that presently the field is weakening by 5% per decade but if the weakening continues Earth's magnetic field could weaken within a human lifetime.




edit on 8-12-2016 by ElectricUniverse because: correct comment.

edit on 8-12-2016 by ElectricUniverse because: add comment.



posted on Dec, 7 2016 @ 11:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

I showed this graph which shows an increase of 100x, and I also conceded that 1000x was possible (on another flare, but not on this graph which only shows 100x increase), but none of this explains how you are getting to 0.5W/m^2 which is an increase of one million times.
...


It isn't an increase of a million times when you started using the wrong amount of energy... You stated you reached the 0.0005 w/m by increasing it by 1,000 times... But the flare was 0.0005 w/m to begin with... It wasn't 0.0000005 w/m as you first claimed. The flare emitted 0.0005 w/m originally. It was an M5 not an A5 flare.

edit on 7-12-2016 by ElectricUniverse because: correct comment.



posted on Dec, 8 2016 @ 12:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: choos

And btw, if you actually think such weakening could not lead to a rapid reversal of Earth's magnetic field here you go.



Doesn't have a major effect on the ground, though. Static magnetic fields do bupkes to x-rays and gammas. So the irradiance will be exactly the same, magnetic field or no.

You'd get more cosmic ray impact on the upper atmo, but the bulk of it will impact gas atoms and vanish in a particle cascade. You'd still get the energy in the total budget, but there aren't enough cosmic rays to cause significant heating even if they all got through.



posted on Dec, 8 2016 @ 01:41 AM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

The increase in cosmic rays and changes in our Sun and changes in Earth's magnetic field not only affect the upper atmosphere.



Earth's magnetic field is important for climate change at high altitudes
May 26, 2014

New research, published this week, has provided scientists with greater insight into the climatic changes happening in the upper atmosphere. Scientists found that changes in the Earth's magnetic field are more relevant for climatic changes in the upper atmosphere (about 100-500 km above the surface) than previously thought. Understanding the cause of long-term change in this area helps scientists to predict what will happen in the future. This has key implications for life back on earth.
...


Earth's magnetic field is important for climate change at high altitude


Tiny Solar Activity Changes Affect Earth's Climate
By Charles Q. Choi, Space.com Contributor | January 16, 2013 06:56am ET
...
Sun's role in Earth's climate

Many of the ways the scientists proposed these fluctuations in solar activity could influence Earth were complicated in nature. For instance, solar energetic particles and cosmic rays could reduce ozone levels in the stratosphere. This in turn alters the behavior of the atmosphere below it, perhaps even pushing storms on the surface off course. [Sun's Wrath: Worst Solar Storms Ever]

"In the lower stratosphere, the presence of ozone causes a local warming because of the breakup of ozone molecules by ultraviolet light," climate scientist Jerry North at Texas A&M University told SPACE.com.

When the ozone is removed, "the stratosphere there becomes cooler, increasing the temperature contrast between the tropics and the polar region. The contrast in temperatures in the stratosphere and the upper troposphere leads to instabilities in the atmospheric flow west to east. The instabilities make for eddies or irregular motions."

These eddies feed the strength of jet streams, ultimately altering flows in the upper troposphere, the layer of atmosphere closest to Earth's surface. "The geographical positioning of the jets aloft can alter the distribution of storms over the middle latitudes," North said. "So the sun might have a role to play in this kind of process. I would have to say this would be a very difficult mechanism to prove in climate models. That does not mean it may not exist — just hard to prove."
...


Tiny Solar Activity Changes Affect Earth's Climate

Changes in Earth's magnetic field, changes in the amount of cosmic rays, especially high energy x-rays, and changes in our Sun all change the upper atmosphere, which in turn affect the Troposphere.

We have also found that as energy from cosmic rays, and the sun enter the Earth, that in areas like the South Atlantic, the Earth's magnetic field ushers energy down instead of up.


Ancient Huts May Reveal Clues to Earth's Magnetic Pole Reversals
By Sarah Lewin, Staff Writer | July 28, 2015 11:01am ET
...
Something strange in the South Atlantic

The South Atlantic Anomaly is a dent in Earth's shield against cosmic radiation, 124 miles above the ground (200 kilometers). It may be the most dangerous place in the Earth's sphere for satellites and spacecraft to traverse, because anything electronic traveling through it is vulnerable to strong radiation from space and tends to malfunction.

Even the Hubble Space Telescope takes no measurements when passing over the anomaly. It's an area where, instead of pointing outward, part of the Earth's magnetic field actually ushers energetic particles down instead of repelling them, weakening the overall field in the area. And it has been growing.

"Some have postulated that the Earth's magnetic field is leaking out the wrong way at that particular spot," Rory Cottrell, a geologist also at the University of Rochester and co-author of the new paper, told Space.com. "One theory is that changes in the South Atlantic Anomaly could be responsible for the decrease in the overall magnetic field that we're seeing, because these patches are growing or changing over time."
...

www.space.com...


edit on 8-12-2016 by ElectricUniverse because: correct comment.

edit on 8-12-2016 by ElectricUniverse because: add comment.



posted on Dec, 8 2016 @ 01:52 AM
link   
BTW, that's also not mentioning the other breaches that have been occurring in Earth's magnetic field.


Dec. 16, 2008: NASA's five THEMIS spacecraft have discovered a breach in Earth's magnetic field ten times larger than anything previously thought to exist. Solar wind can flow in through the opening to "load up" the magnetosphere for powerful geomagnetic storms. But the breach itself is not the biggest surprise. Researchers are even more amazed at the strange and unexpected way it forms, overturning long-held ideas of space physics.

"At first I didn't believe it," says THEMIS project scientist David Sibeck of the Goddard Space Flight Center. "This finding fundamentally alters our understanding of the solar wind-magnetosphere interaction."

"The opening was huge—four times wider than Earth itself," says Wenhui Li, a space physicist at the University of New Hampshire who has been analyzing the data. Li's colleague Jimmy Raeder, also of New Hampshire, says "1027 particles per second were flowing into the magnetosphere—that's a 1 followed by 27 zeros. This kind of influx is an order of magnitude greater than what we thought was possible."

The event began with little warning when a gentle gust of solar wind delivered a bundle of magnetic fields from the Sun to Earth. Like an octopus wrapping its tentacles around a big clam, solar magnetic fields draped themselves around the magnetosphere and cracked it open. The cracking was accomplished by means of a process called "magnetic reconnection." High above Earth's poles, solar and terrestrial magnetic fields linked up (reconnected) to form conduits for solar wind. Conduits over the Arctic and Antarctic quickly expanded; within minutes they overlapped over Earth's equator to create the biggest magnetic breach ever recorded by Earth-orbiting spacecraft.
...

The years ahead could be especially lively. Raeder explains: "We're entering Solar Cycle 24. For reasons not fully understood, CMEs in even-numbered solar cycles (like 24) tend to hit Earth with a leading edge that is magnetized north. Such a CME should open a breach and load the magnetosphere with plasma just before the storm gets underway. It's the perfect sequence for a really big event."

Sibeck agrees. "This could result in stronger geomagnetic storms than we have seen in many years."


Giant Breach in Earth's Magnetic Field Discovered



edit on 8-12-2016 by ElectricUniverse because: add comment.



posted on Dec, 8 2016 @ 01:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: choos


just to clarify this post, between the 1990's and 2014 there was no weakening/strengthening whatsoever. (even though you stated it has been weakening exponentially since the 1840's)

in 2014 it suddenly began to weaken 10 times that of the 90's as your two statements quoted suggest.

and in 2015 and 2016 there has been no weakening.





Daily news

11 May 2006
Ships’ logs give clues to Earth’s magnetic decline

By Patrick Barry

...
By sifting through ships’ logs recorded by Cook and other mariners dating back to 1590, researchers have greatly extended the period over which the behaviour of the magnetic field can be studied. The data show that the current decline in Earths magnetism was virtually negligible before 1860, but has accelerated since then.

Until now, scientists had only been able to trace the magnetic field’s behaviour back to 1837, when Carl Friedrich Gauss invented the first device for measuring the field directly.

The field’s strength is now declining at a rate that suggests it could virtually disappear in about 2000 years. Researchers have speculated that this ongoing change may be the prelude to a magnetic reversal, during which the north and south magnetic pole swap places.
...

www.newscientist.com...



Earth's Magnetic Field Is Fading
John Roach
for National Geographic News
September 9, 2004

Earth's magnetic field is fading. Today it is about 10 percent weaker than it was when German mathematician Carl Friedrich Gauss started keeping tabs on it in 1845, scientists say.
...


news.nationalgeographic.com...



...
Previously, researchers estimated the field was weakening about 5 percent per century, but the new data revealed the field is actually weakening at 5 percent per decade, or 10 times faster than thought. As such, rather than the full flip occurring in about 2,000 years, as was predicted, the new data suggest it could happen sooner.
...


www.livescience.com...

As to your claim that there has been no weakening since 2015 or in 2016.

www.esa.int...


all your sources say it is about 10% weaker than what it was in the 1800's which has nothing to do with your previous post..

only your last quote was relevant to your previous post and even then it was misrepresented by you..

it was 10 times more than expected (expected being 5% per century when it was found to be 5% per decade) this is markedly different to your claim that it is ten times weaker than 1990's.

if something started at 1000, 10 times weaker puts it at 100.
whereas being 5% weaker puts it at 950.

markedly different from what you wrote.

p.s. and it wasnt meant to be my claim that there was no weakening in 2015/2016, just trying to understand your post.



posted on Dec, 8 2016 @ 02:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: Bedlam

The increase in cosmic rays and changes in our Sun and changes in Earth's magnetic field not only affect the upper atmosphere.


But not by affecting ground level x or gamma ray levels. Or by having much effect on cosmic ray activity.

OTOH, Earth's magnetosphere does affect the ionosphere, at times a lot.

eta: Seriously, x-ray and gamma rays are not affected by Earth's magnetic field, at all. Magnetic fields can change the polarization of EM, but don't deflect or reduce it.
edit on 8-12-2016 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2016 @ 02:23 AM
link   
a reply to: choos

You are only assuming that it was just better measurements which caused the change in Earth's magnetic field weakening.

The increase in global earthquake activity shows changes in Earth's tectonic plates, which in turn also point to Earth's core changing.


The 2010–2014.3 global earthquake rate increase
Tom Parsons 1 and Eric L. Geist 1

1 U. S. Geological Survey, Menlo Park, California, USA
...
1. Introduction

Obvious increases in the global rate of large (M ≥ 7.0) earthquakes happened after 1992, 2010, and especially during the first quarter of 2014 (Table 1 and Figure 1). Given these high rates, along with suggestions that damaging earthquakes may be causatively linked at global distance [e.g., Gomberg and Bodin, 1994; Pollitz et al., 1998; Tzanis and Makropoulos, 2002; Bufe and Perkins, 2005; Gonzalez-Huizar et al., 2012; Pollitz et al., 2012, 2014], we investigate whether there is a significant departure from a random process underlying these rate changes. Recent studies have demonstrated that M ≥ 7.0 earthquakes (and also tsunamis) that occurred since 1900 follow a Poisson process [e.g., Michael, 2011; Geist and Parsons, 2011; Daub et al., 2012; Shearer and Stark, 2012; Parsons and Geist, 2012; Ben-Naim et al., 2013]. Here we focus on the period since 2010, which has M ≥ 7.0 rates increased by 65% and M ≥ 5.0 rates up 32% compared with the 1979 – present average. The first quarter of 2014 experienced more than double the average M ≥ 7.0 rate, enough to intrigue the news media [e.g., www.nbcnews.com...]. We extend our analysis to M ≥ 5.0 levels, as many of these lower magnitude events convey significant hazard, and global catalogs have not generally been tested down to these thresholds.

2. Methods and Data

We work with the Advanced National Seismic System (ANSS) catalog of M≥ 5.0 global earthquakes for the period between 1979 and 2014.3 with a primary focus on the recent interval between 2010 and 2014.3 that shows the highest earthquake rates (Table 1 and Figure 1). A variety of tests suggest that the catalog is complete down to magnitudes between M=4.6 and M=5.2, depending on the method used to assess it (see supporting information). We examine a range of lower magnitude thresholds above M =5.0 to account for this uncertainty.
...

profile.usgs.gov...

P.S. the ESA article I posted at the end of that response to you shows the contrary to your claims.




Presented at this week’s Living Planet Symposium, new results from the constellation of Swarm satellites show where our protective field is weakening and strengthening, and importantly how fast these changes are taking place.

The animation above shows the strength of Earth's magnetic field and how it changed between 1999 and May 2016.

Blue depicts where the field is weak and red shows regions where it is strong. As well as recent data from the Swarm constellation, information from the CHAMP and Ørsted satellites were also used to create the map.

It shows clearly that the field has weakened by about 3.5% at high latitudes over North America, while it has strengthened about 2% over Asia. The region where the field is at its weakest – the South Atlantic Anomaly – has moved steadily westward and weakened further by about 2%.

In addition, the magnetic north pole is wandering east, towards Asia.

The second animation shows the rate of change in Earth’s magnetic field between 2000 and 2015. Regions where changes in the field slowed are shown in blue while red shows where changes speeded up.
...

www.esa.int...

Earth's magnetic field now flips more often than ever


edit on 8-12-2016 by ElectricUniverse because: correct comment.



posted on Dec, 8 2016 @ 02:30 AM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

An increase in cosmic ray activity causes Earth to lose more ozone, which in turn alters the behavior of the atmosphere below it including Earth's Troposphere.


...
When the ozone is removed, "the stratosphere there becomes cooler, increasing the temperature contrast between the tropics and the polar region. The contrast in temperatures in the stratosphere and the upper troposphere leads to instabilities in the atmospheric flow west to east. The instabilities make for eddies or irregular motions."

These eddies feed the strength of jet streams, ultimately altering flows in the upper troposphere, the layer of atmosphere closest to Earth's surface.
...

www.space.com...

Then there is the south Atlantic anomaly, which is a section on Earth's magnetosphere that instead of pushing energy upwards, the Earth's magnetic field ushers energy downwards towards the Earth. When the increase in cosmic rays is emitted over this area that energy is ushered downwards towards the Earth. Then there are the breaches in Earth's magnetic field which do the same thing that happens in the south Atlantic anomaly and are increasing in frequency.



posted on Dec, 8 2016 @ 02:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: choos

You are only assuming that it was just better measurements which caused the change in Earth's magnetic field weakening.



and you are assuming i am making statements of sorts..

all i have been doing is trying to understand your misleading post that the magnetic field is 10 times weaker than the 90's, which you proved it isnt.

you need to understand that my post was trying to understand your confusing post.. you made it sound like the magnetic field was weaker by 10 times than the 1990 while exponentially decreasing since the 1840's and it just only started weakening by 10 times since 2014.. those were your statements.. putting them all together would mean that there was no weakening in 2015/2016.. again NOT MY CLAIM, just attempting to understand your confusing post.



posted on Dec, 8 2016 @ 02:45 AM
link   
a reply to: choos

The Earth's magnetic field started weakening around the 1840s-1860s, the weakening has consistently increased, and this can be proven by the fact that global earthquakes have been increasing. Note the link i gave states the increases in earthquakes occurred in 1992, 2010 and specially 2014.

The research focused on earthquakes since 2010.


The 2010–2014.3 global earthquake rate increase
Tom Parsons 1 and Eric L. Geist 1

1 U. S. Geological Survey, Menlo Park, California, USA
...
1. Introduction

Obvious increases in the global rate of large (M ≥ 7.0) earthquakes happened after 1992, 2010, and especially during the first quarter of 2014
...
Recent studies have demonstrated that M ≥ 7.0 earthquakes (and also tsunamis) that occurred since 1900 follow a Poisson process [e.g., Michael, 2011; Geist and Parsons, 2011; Daub et al., 2012; Shearer and Stark, 2012; Parsons and Geist, 2012; Ben-Naim et al., 2013]. Here we focus on the period since 2010, which has M ≥ 7.0 rates increased by 65% and M ≥ 5.0 rates up 32% compared with the 1979 – present average. The first quarter of 2014 experienced more than double the average M ≥ 7.0 rate, enough to intrigue the news media
...

profile.usgs.gov...

In 2014, the time when Earth's magnetic field was found to be 10 times weaker, global earthquakes more than doubled the average. This shows that changes in Earth's core are increasing, which in turn would account for the weakening in Earth's magnetic field.

There is a connection between all these events. They are not isolated incidents.


edit on 8-12-2016 by ElectricUniverse because: add comment.



posted on Dec, 8 2016 @ 03:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

In 2014, the time when Earth's magnetic field was found to be 10 times weaker



again non of what you posted suggests the magnetic field is 10 times weaker..

all your sources suggest the weakening is 10 times more than expected. from 5% per century to 5% per decade.. that is markedly different than your claim of 10 times weaker.

i dont know if you are deliberately writing that for doom and gloom or just a mistake or just pulling numbers out to make it sound greater than it is.



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join