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: 6
22
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 8 2016 @ 06:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
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.
I'll show you where I got my numbers, right from this graph, which has been edited to show the "pre-flare" baseline of 5x10^-7 W/m^2 which you are saying is wrong. No it's not wrong, it's right there on the graph in the "Pre-flare" region the authors of the paper illustrated with dotted lines, but maybe you don't know how to read graphs?:



The peak which I also circled is only 100X greater at 5x10^-5 W/m^2

You are starting with a number which is already 10 times greater than the peak value, 5x10^-4 W/m^2, and multiplying that by 1000 to get 0.5 W/m^2 which makes no sense at all. You haven't shown any data points at 0.5 W/m^2. My comment about 1000x was that you might find another flare which went from the baseline of 5x10^-7 W/m^2 to 5x10^-4 W/m^2 which would be 1000x, but this one didn't go that high, only 100x instead of 1000x. (100x 5x10^-7 = 5x10^-5).




posted on Dec, 9 2016 @ 04:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: choos

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.


You are right in that part. It was a slip on my part. Should have written the "Earth's magnetic field has been found to be weakening 10 times." I have posted that information many times in the past.

However, your claim that there is no evidence that corroborates that the Earth's magnetic field weakening is getting worse is false.

First of all, bear with me to show the common link between all these events occurring on Earth, and other planets in our Solar system.

First, we have to look at the connection between seismic activity and climate change.

Several research papers have been published which have found a correlation between seismicity and climate change.



The Correlation of Seismic Activity and Recent Global Warming

Arthur Viterito*

College of Southern Maryland, 8730 Mitchell Road, PO Box 910, La Plata, MD 20646, USA

Corresponding Author:
Arthur Viterito
College of Southern
Maryland, La Plata, USA
Tel: 301 934 7851
Fax: 301 934 7682
E-mail: Arthurv@csmd.edu

Received April 02, 2016; Accepted April 21, 2016; Published April 25, 2016

Citation: Viterito A (2016) The Correlation of Seismic Activity and Recent Global Warming. J Earth Sci Clim Change. 7:345. doi:10.4172/2157-7617.1000345

Copyright: © 2016 Viterito A. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Abstract

The latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change states with high confidence that the warming of global temperatures since 1901 has been driven by increased radiative forcing. The gases responsible for this enhanced forcing are greenhouse gases of anthropogenic origin, and include carbon dioxide, methane, and halocarbons. The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change has challenged these findings and concludes that the forcing from greenhouse gases is minimal and diminishing. They add that modelling attempts of past and future climate states are inaccurate and do not incorporate important solar inputs, such as magnetic strength and total irradiance. One geophysical variable that has been overlooked by both groups is geothermal flux. This study will show that increasing seismic activity for the globe’s high geothermal flux areas (HGFA), an indicator of increasing geothermal forcing, is highly correlated with average global temperatures from 1979 to 2015 (r = 0.785). By comparison, the correlation between carbon dioxide loading and global temperatures for the same period is lower (r = 0.739). Multiple regression indicates that HGFA seismicity is a significant predictor of global temperatures (P < 0.05), but carbon dioxide concentrations do not significantly improve the explained variance (P > 0.1). A compelling case for geothermal forcing lies in the fact that 1) geothermal heat can trigger thermobaric convection and strengthen oceanic overturning, important mechanisms for transferring ocean heat to the overlying atmosphere, and 2) seismic activity is the leading indicator, while global temperature is the laggard.
...

www.omicsonline.org...

In the above paper Dr. Viterito shows a correlation between the increase in global seismic activity in the 1990s and the increase in global temperatures.

The following are graphs that Dr Viterito used for his research.

Notice when the increase in global temperature suddenly took a sharp increase in 1997/1998.



Here is another graph he used to show the rather striking increase in earthquakes of magnitude 4-6 around 1994-1995.



Here is what happens when both temperature and earthquake graph are interposed.



There is a small lag between the time when earthquake activity sharply increased and the global temperatures increased, but other research papers have also shown a small similar lag in the El Niño and seismicity link.


About climate-seismicity coupling from correlation analysis
O. Molchanov Institute of the Physics of the Earth, Russian Academy of Sciences, Bolshaya Gruzinskaya 10, 123995 Moscow, Russia
Received: 16 Jul 2009 – Accepted: 10 Sep 2009 – Published: 17 Feb 2010

Abstract. We have analyzed together the slow climate temperature variations in the near-equatorial Pacific Ocean area (SSTOI indices) and crustal seismic activity in the same region during 1973–2008 time period using correlation analysis and found similarity in seismic and ENSO periodicities (the latter with time lag about 1.5 years). Trends of the processes are also similar showing about 2 times increase in average seismic energy release during the whole period of analysis and conventional 0.1 °C/(10 years) increase in SSTOI index anomalies. Our major conclusion is on real credibility of climate-seismicity coupling. It is rather probable that at least partially climate ENSO oscillations and temperature anomaly trends are induced by similar variation in seismicity.
...

www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.net...



Seismic predictors of El Niño revisited
Authors

First published: 22 June 1999Full publication history
DOI: 10.1029/99EO00202View/save citation
Cited by: 6 articles

Abstract

With the termination in 1998 of the most publicized El Niño in history, it may be appropriate to consider whether El Niños have a discrete triggering mechanism or whether they occur merely as the result of episodic conditions in the atmosphere and ocean. This is an important consideration because the discovery and understanding of a discrete mechanism could lead to predictions that are more reliable than those based only on secondary interactions.

Thus far, most Earth scientists agree that a discrete trigger for El Niños has not been found and is unlikely, and that differing atmospheric and oceanic parameters must be considered if there are to be reliable predictions of future El Niños. Contrary to these opinions, the process that triggers episodic seafloor spreading and higher than normal levels of reported seismic activity along portions of the East Pacific Rise (EPR) may also trigger El Niños.
...

onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

Seismicity has also been strongly associated with geothermal flow. As a matter of fact, it is estimated that the average heating in our oceans from geothermal flow is around 0.4-0.5C. However, there are regions where geothermal flow heats our oceans by 1.5C such as in the North Atlantic deep western boundary.

(continued below)




edit on 9-12-2016 by ElectricUniverse because: correct comment.



posted on Dec, 9 2016 @ 05:14 AM
link   

Geothermal heat flux and its influence on the oceanic abyssal circulation and radiocarbon distribution
Article (PDF Available) in Geophysical Research Letters 36(3) · February 2009 with 86 Reads
DOI: 10.1029/2008GL036078

Abstract

Geothermal heating of abyssal waters is rarely regarded as a significant driver of the large-scale oceanic circulation. Numerical experiments with the Ocean General Circulation Model POTSMOM-1.0 suggest, however, that the impact of geothermal heat flux on deep ocean circulation is not negligible. Geothermal heating contributes to an overall warming of bottom waters by about 0.4°C, decreasing the stability of the water column and enhancing the formation rates of North Atlantic Deep Water and Antarctic Bottom Water by 1.5 Sv (10%) and 3 Sv (33%), respectively. Increased influx of Antarctic Bottom Water leads to a radiocarbon enrichment of Pacific Ocean waters, increasing Delta14C values in the deep North Pacific from -2690/00 when geothermal heating is ignored in the model, to -2420/00 when geothermal heating is included. A stronger and deeper Atlantic meridional overturning cell causes warming of the North Atlantic deep western boundary current by up to 1.5°C.

Link


Quaternary Science Reviews 24 (2005) 581–594
Rapid climate change and conditional instability of the glacial deep ocean from the thermobaric effect and geothermal heating
Jess F. Adkins a, , Andrew P. Ingersoll b, Claudia Pasquero a
a MS 100-23, Department of Geological and Planetary Sciences, California Institute of Technology, 1200 E. California Blvd., Pasadena, CA 91125, USA
b MS 150-21, Department of Geological and Planetary Sciences, California Institute of Technology, 1200 E. California Blvd., Pasadena, CA 91125, USA

Accepted 13 November 2004
Abstract

Previous results from deep-sea pore fluid data demonstrate that the glacial deep ocean was filled with salty, cold water from the South. This salinity stratification of the ocean allows for the possible accumulation of geothermal heat in the deep-sea and could result in a water column with cold fresh water on top of warm salty water and with a corresponding increase in potential energy. For an idealized 4000 dbar two-layer water column, we calculate that there are ~10^ 6 J/m^2 (~0.2J/kg) of potential energy available when a 0.4 psu salinity contrast is balanced by a
~2 degree C temperature difference. This salt-based storage of heat at depth is analogous to
Convectively Available Potential Energy (CAPE) in the atmosphere. The ‘‘thermobaric effect’’ in the seawater equation of state can cause this potential energy to be released catastrophically. Because deep ocean stratification was dominated by salinity at the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM), the glacial climate is more sensitive to charging this ‘‘thermobaric capacitor’’ and can plausibly explain many aspects of the record of rapid climate change. Our mechanism could account for the grouping of Dansgaard/Oeschger events into Bond Cycles and for the different patterns of warming observed in ice cores from separate hemispheres.

2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

web.gps.caltech.edu...

This is where I am going with this information. For the past couple of decades mankind's activity has been blamed for the climate changes Earth has been undergoing, and this blame is aimed mainly at athropogenic CO2. But, the thing is, the ground heat flux, as well as heat flux in our oceans cannot be accounted by the increase in atmspheric CO2 levels even, even if we "assume" that the IPCC "projections" of the absorption of heat by CO2 is correct.

" Results from the analysis of Canadas geothermal database indicate that the ground heat flux has increased an average of 24 mW/m^2 over the last 200 years"

"The total contribution of radiative forcing associated with greenhouse gas emissions from anthropogenic activities to the energy balance at the Earth’s surface is estimated to be about 2.0-2.5 W m^-2 since 1765 (2)".


Ground Surface Heat Flux Histories, Beltrami
1
Global Ground Surface and Heat Flux Histories from Geothermal
Measurements: Inferences from Inversion of the Global Data Set
Hugo Beltrami,
1
1
Department of Geology, St. Francis Xavier University,
Antigonish, Nova Scotia, Canada, B2G 2W5
tel: +1 902-867-2326, fax: +1 902-867-2457, e-mail:hugo@stfx.ca
Abstract

Past changes in the Earth’s surface energy balance propagate into the subsurface and appear as perturbations of the subsurface thermal regime. Here I present results from a singular value decomposition (SVD) inversion method used to reconstruct surface heat flux histories (SHFH) and ground surface temperature histories (GSTH) from the heat flux and temperature anomalies detected in the shallow subsurface. Results from the analysis of Canadas geothermal database indicate that the ground heat flux has increased an average of 24 mW/m2 over the last 200 years. Application of this method to the global geothermal data base allowed for a quantification of the global ground energy balance at the Earth’s surface for the past few centuries. Preliminary global ground surface temperature and surface heat flux histories indicate that the Earths continents have warmed by about 0.5 K and received an additional 26 mW/m2 of energy in the last 100 years.

1 Introduction
The Earth’s long-term surface heat flux is important in the study of climate change as energy balance variation at the land atmosphere interface is a fundamental quantity to help determine changes in radiative forcing and for constraining land surface models [1]. The total contribution of radiative forcing associated with greenhouse gas emissions from anthropogenic activities to the energy balance at the Earths surface is estimated to be about 2.0-2.5 W m^-2 since 1765 [2]. About one third of this forcing is direct radiative heating of the surface, and about 10 % of this flows into the ground [3]. This forcing is spatially and temporally variable and regional variations are expected.
This small yet important component in the energy balance of the Earth’s surface is difficult to measure accurately from meteorological data in both space and time, owing to the uncertainties in the measurements of atmospheric variables [4], and also because of the complex and complicated processes taking place at the air-ground interface [5]. Geothermal data, on the other hand, contain useful information about the signatures of long term energy balance variations. The Earth behaves as a low pass filter, retaining the long-term trends of surface energy imbalance recorded as variations of underground temperature and heat fluxes. For example, daily and annual temperature variations are detectable to depths of about 1 m and 20 m respectively; a temperature change of 1 K in the
course of a 100-year period is detectable about 100 m into the subsurface. Several approaches have been developed to reconstruct ground surface temperature histories (GSTH) from borehole temperature profiles [6].
...

esrc.stfx.ca...

So from where is the extra heat Earth is receiving coming from?

edit on 9-12-2016 by ElectricUniverse because: correct comment.



posted on Dec, 9 2016 @ 05:30 AM
link   
We know areas like Antarctica are melting from underwater volcanic activity/geothermal vents, contrary to claims that it has been CO2 causing the melting which is false.


Relations between basal condition, subglacial hydrological networks
and geothermal flux in Antarctica
Muriel Llubes*,Ce ́dric Lanseau, Fre ́de ́rique Re ́my
1
LEGOS, CNES/CNRS/UPS/IRD, 18 av. Edouard Belin, 31 401 Toulouse Cedex 9, France
Received 24 May 2005; received in revised form 19 October 2005; accepted 27 October 2005
Available online 13 December 2005
Editor: E. Bard
Abstract

When modelling the Antarctic ice sheet, the velocity of the ice flow is linked to its temperature. Depending on the thermal rate, the flow rate may vary between deformation and sliding. In this study, we focus on the geothermal flux because it is the least well-known component of the heat equation, and because it constrains the temperature at the bottom of the ice sheet. We used available geological data to build a map of the geothermal flux, which was found to increase from 51 mW/m^2 in East Antarctica to 68 mW/m^2 in West Antarctica. These values were integrated in the computation of a basal temperature map. The available map of hydrological networks clearly shows more melted areas in West Antarctica than in the earlier results. So we suggest that the model should be forced with higher geothermal flux values, over 85 mW/m^2 in this sector. This increase is in good agreement with published results which found a geothermal flux three times higher in West Antarctica. Finally, we computed the bottom melt rate over the ice sheet area which has a mean value of 3.5 mm/yr resulting in a lost of melted ice equal to 1% of the total mass balance.
D
2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords:
Antarctica; Geothermal flux; Subglacial hydrological networks

etienne.berthier.free.fr...

Most people aren't aware of the extent of geothermal vents/volcanic activity in our oceans. There are an estimated 3 million underwater volcanos compared to the 150 land volcanos. We are not even taking measurements of most of our land volcanos, so how can we keep track of 3 million underwater volcanos and their activity? That's without mentioning that underwater volcanos/geothermal vents, are on average much larger than their land cousins.



Global map of solid Earth surface heat flow

(will continue to finish my point tomorrow and how all this ties to the energy we are receiving from cosmic rays, and soft x-rays from our sun at a time when Earth's magnetic field is weakening)


edit on 9-12-2016 by ElectricUniverse because: add comment.



posted on Dec, 9 2016 @ 07:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

However, your claim that there is no evidence that corroborates that the Earth's magnetic field weakening is getting worse is false.



you need to try to understand when i say im not making that claim.. it is a conclusion based upon your misleading statements in the confusing post you made.



posted on Dec, 9 2016 @ 10:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

(will continue to finish my point tomorrow and how all this ties to the energy we are receiving from cosmic rays, and soft x-rays from our sun at a time when Earth's magnetic field is weakening)



The problem is, the total energy is not enough to cause these sorts of problems, and certainly can't cause any subcrustal issues, because neither soft x-rays nor cosmic rays reach there.

The question of 'why are all the planets showing signs of unusual heating' might be valid, but not in the context of soft x-rays or cosmic rays.

There are some really oddball ways that you can increase decay of transuranics that releases heat but doesn't increase radioactivity. I'd suppose you could cause core heating that way. But you'd also see every nuke plant and bomb core heating, and they aren't.



posted on Dec, 10 2016 @ 12:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

It is not enough if we only think of this energy as heat. But, this energy that we are receiving, and all other planets are receiving as well, from cosmic rays also cause changes in planets, and moons with an atmosphere.

I'll give you Pluto and Charon as an example. We know Pluto and Charon are too small to be able to produce the warming we are seeing internally. Pluto was warming more and more the farther away it got from the sun since 1988, and to this day Pluto and Charon are warming. We are seeing similar warming occurring in other planets and moons with an atmosphere. The one factor that ties it all in is this new region of the Local Bubble we are moving into and the cosmic energy we are receiving which keeps increasing in strength as time goes by.

BTW, we detected Pluto is radiating x-rays.




September 14, 2016
X-Ray Detection Sheds New Light on Pluto

...
“We’ve just detected, for the first time, X-rays coming from an object in our Kuiper Belt, and learned that Pluto is interacting with the solar wind in an unexpected and energetic fashion,” said Carey Lisse, an astrophysicist at the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory (APL) in Laurel, Maryland, who led the Chandra observation team with APL colleague and New Horizons Co-Investigator Ralph McNutt. “We can expect other large Kuiper Belt objects to be doing the same.”

The team recently published its findings online in the journal Icarus. The report details what Lisse says was a somewhat surprising detection given that Pluto — being cold, rocky and without a magnetic field — has no natural mechanism for emitting X-rays. But Lisse, having also led the team that made the first X-ray detections from a comet two decades ago, knew the interaction between the gases surrounding such planetary bodies and the solar wind — the constant streams of charged particles from the Sun that speed throughout the solar system ­— can create X-rays.

New Horizons scientists were particularly interested in learning more about the interaction between the gases in Pluto’s atmosphere and the solar wind. The spacecraft itself carries an instrument designed to measure that activity up close — the aptly named Solar Wind Around Pluto (SWAP) — and scientists are using that data to craft a picture of Pluto that contains a very mild, close-in bowshock, where the solar wind first “meets” Pluto (similar to a shock wave that forms ahead of a supersonic aircraft) and a small wake or tail behind the planet.

The immediate mystery is that Chandras readings on the brightness of the X-rays are much higher than expected from the solar wind interacting with Plutos atmosphere.

“Before our observations, scientists thought it was highly unlikely that we’d detect X-rays from Pluto, causing a strong debate as to whether Chandra should observe it at all,” said coauthor Scott Wolk, of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge, Massachusetts. “Prior to Pluto, the most distant solar system body with detected X-ray emission was Saturn’s rings and disk.”
...

www.jhuapl.edu...



Think about it. Earth's defenses are getting weaker. There are areas on Earth's magnetic field, like the South Atlantic Anomaly, where instead of emitting energy outwards and away from the Earth, the magnetic field ushers energy towards Earth. Which means the cosmic rays, soft x-rays and high energetic x-rays that hit this area of Earth's magnetic field are also ushered towards Earth.


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.
...

www.space.com...

Notice the part that states this anomalous area is growing.

This is the same area where Earth's magnetic field is at it's weakest.



...
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%.
...

www.esa.int...

Then there are the massive breaches in Earth's magnetic field which will continue to occur unless the Sun's magnetic field returns to levels seen before 2005.

Earth's defenses are weaker, which in turn will increase the frequency of magnetic breaches, which in turn also allows more cosmic rays to enter Earth's atmosphere, which in turn also can deplete ozone and starts a chain event that affects Earth's troposphere. The same layer where all surface weather, and climate occur.

This energy is not only bringing heat, these energetic particles also change the dynamics that affect Earth's atmosphere, and Earth's core.

During Solar Maximum, the Sun itself can trigger earthquake activity. But it has also been shown on several research papers that during solar minimum an increase in cosmic rays also increase the frequency and strength of earthquakes.



On the relationship between cosmic rays, solar activity and powerful earthquakes.
Kovalyov, M. (corresponding author)1 and Kovalyov, S. 1
email: mkovalyo@ualberta.ca

Abstract.

In this paper we analyze the correlation of cosmic rays intensity to increases in seismic
activity. We also show that high-magnitude earthquakes appear in group. As a prequel, we discuss
in §1 naive visualization of the solar-cosmic ray interplay.
Key words: Powerful earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, solar activity, solar spots, cosmic rays.
...
Conclusion.
The discussion here here seems to point to conclusion that cosmic rays play much more prominent
role that is currently believed; specifically: 1) cosmic ray intensity seems to correlate with seismic
activity on Earth much better than solar activity; 2) not only the solar activity regulates the flow
of cosmic rays, as is currently accepted, but also the cosmic rays influence the solar activity, which
currently is somewhat of a heretic statement.

...

arxiv.org...


Of course, cosmic rays, and the sun aren't the only factors that can trigger earthquakes, but they are nevertheless important factors that seem to affect earthquakes, climate/weather, and geothermal events on planets like Earth.

(continued below.)



posted on Dec, 10 2016 @ 12:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: Bedlam

It is not enough if we only think of this energy as heat.


Well, yeah, it is.

Soft x-rays and cosmic rays don't cause photodissociation or something more energetic. So, it's their energetic contribution, and that's going to be as heat.



posted on Dec, 10 2016 @ 12:59 AM
link   

Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Part A: Solid Earth and Geodesy

Volume 25, Issue 3, 2000, Pages 321-324

Variations of the cosmic ray fluxes as a possible earthquake precursor
Author links open the overlay panel. Numbers correspond to the affiliation list which can be exposed by using the show more link.
A.L Morozova ∗, M.I Pudovkin, T.V Barliaeva
St. Petersburg University, St. Petersburg, Petrodvorets, 198904, Russia

Received 28 May 1999, Accepted 31 August 1999, Available online 26 May 2000



doi:10.1016/S1464-1895(00)00050-8

Get rights and content
Abstract
Variations of the air pressure, cosmic ray fluxes, sunspot numbers, and interplanetary magnetic field in connection with strong earthquake occurrences are studied. The results of this investigation permits one to consider the variations of the cosmic rays as one of the possible cause of air pressure variations and one of the possible earthquake precursors.

open in overlay

Correspondence to: A. L. Morozova.
...

www.sciencedirect.com...



Sensors (Basel). 2008 Dec; 8(12): 7736–7752.
Published online 2008 Dec 3. doi: 10.3390/s8127736
PMCID: PMC3790986
Cosmic Influence on the Sun-Earth Environment
Saumitra Mukherjee
Author information ► Article notes ► Copyright and License information ►
Go to:
Abstract

SOHO satellite data reveals geophysical changes before sudden changes in the Earth's Sun-Earth environment. The influence of extragalactic changes on the Sun as well as the Sun-Earth environment seems to be both periodic and episodic. The periodic changes in terms of solar maxima and minima occur every 11 years, whereas the episodic changes can happen at any time. Episodic changes can be monitored by cosmic ray detectors as a sudden increase or decrease of activity. During these solar and cosmic anomaly periods the environment of the Earth is affected. The Star-Sun-Earth connection has the potential to influence the thermosphere, atmosphere, ionosphere and lithosphere. Initial correlation of the cosmic and Sun-Earth connection has shown the possibility of predicting earthquakes, sudden changes in atmospheric temperatures and erratic rainfall/snowfall patterns.
Keywords: SOHO satellite data, cosmic, extragalactic, earthquake, change in atmosphere
...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...


Explosive volcanic eruptions triggered by cosmic rays: Volcano as a bubble chamber
Article (PDF Available) in Gondwana Research 19(4):1054-1061 · June 2011 with 1,453 Reads
DOI: 10.1016/J.Gr.2010.11.004

1st Toshikazu Ebisuzaki
42.72 · RIKEN
2nd Hiroko Miyahara
28.72 · Musashino Art University
3rd Ryuho Kataoka
36 · National Institute of Polar Research
Last Yasuhiro Ishimine

Abstract
Volcanoes with silica-rich and highly viscous magma tend to produce violent explosive eruptions that result in disasters in local communities and that strongly affect the global environment. We examined the timing of 11 eruptive events that produced silica-rich magma from four volcanoes in Japan (Mt. Fuji, Mt. Usu, Myojinsho, and Satsuma-Iwo-jima) over the past 306 years (from AD 1700 to AD 2005). Nine of the 11 events occurred during inactive phases of solar magnetic activity (solar minimum), which is well indexed by the group sunspot number. This strong association between eruption timing and the solar minimum is statistically significant to a confidence level of 96.7%. This relationship is not observed for eruptions from volcanoes with relatively silica-poor magma, such as Izu-Ohshima. It is well known that the cosmic-ray flux is negatively correlated with solar magnetic activity, as the strong magnetic field in the solar wind repels charged particles such as galactic cosmic rays that originate from outside of the solar system. The strong negative correlation observed between the timing of silica-rich eruptions and solar activity can be explained by variations in cosmic-ray flux arising from solar modulation. Because silica-rich magma has relatively high surface tension (similar to 0.1 Nm(-1)), the homogeneous nucleation rate is so low that such magma exists in a highly supersaturated state without considerable exsolution, even when located relatively close to the surface, within the penetration range of cosmic-ray muons (1-10 GeV). These muons can contribute to nucleation in supersaturated magma, as documented by many authors studying a bubble chamber, via ionization loss. This radiation-induced nucleation can lead to the pre-eruptive exsolution of H2O in the silica-rich magma. We note the possibility that the 1991 Mt. Pinatubo eruption was triggered by the same mechanism: an increase in cosmic-ray flux triggered by Typhoon Yunya, as a decrease in atmospheric pressure results in an increase in cosmic-ray flux. We also speculate that the snowball Earth event was triggered by successive large-scale volcanic eruptions triggered by increased cosmic-ray flux due to nearby supernova explosions. (C) 2010 International Association for Gondwana Research. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

www.researchgate.net...



Possible correlation between exogenous parameters and seismicity

Mohamad Huzaimy Jusoh, Farah Adilah Mohd Kasran, Huixin Liu, Kiyohumi Yumoto

Article has an altmetric score of 1

Abstract

Exogenous parameter is basically referred to the external activities that may have been the important factors in modulating the atmosphere, ionosphere and the earth's surface. Due to its significant impacts, there is possibility to link solar activities and seismicity. Associated investigations have been done by previous researchers in order to explore the solar - terrestrial connection; nevertheless, the physical mechanism is still controversial. To comprehend the investigation of this coupling mechanism, we propose another exogenous source to be analyzed which is cosmic ray. As solar activity, cosmic ray also has minimum and maximum phases or called as cosmic ray cycle, but it is anti-correlation between phases of sunspot and cosmic ray cycles. In this brief report, we examine the trend of shallow earthquake occurrence as the caused effect during recent 4 complete solar cycles (SC 20-23) in order to study its possible link to sun spot number (SSN). The earthquakes were categorized into very shallow earthquakes with epicenter depth less than 35 km and deeper earthquakes with epicenter depth between 35-70 km. For very shallow earthquakes, the analysis shows two interesting features. First, its occurrence rate shows a steady increase during the 40 years period of 1964-2005, with average increase rate about 150/year. Second, a distinct increase of the occurrence rate occurs during each solar minimum of SC 21-23. Neither of these features is found in the earthquakes with deeper epicenters, suggesting that the solar influence on seismicity, if exists, is likely to exist only in the case of very shallow earthquakes whose epicenter is in the crust region.
...

uitm.pure.elsevier.com...

There are many other research papers that have found similar links between solar activity/cosmic ray activity and earthquake/geothermal activity as well as change in the climate.



posted on Dec, 10 2016 @ 01:01 AM
link   
Except you can measure air pressure really, really accurately, and we do. There's not a mysterious, hidden, secret component to air pressure.


edit on 10-12-2016 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2016 @ 01:35 AM
link   

...
Title:
On dependence of seismic activity on 11 year variations in solar activity and/or cosmic rays
Authors:
Zhantayev, Zhumabek; Khachikyan, Galina; Breusov, Nikolay
Affiliation:
AA(National Center of Space Research and Technologies, Almaty, Kazakhstan admion1@mail.ru), AB(Institute of Ionosphere of National Center of Space Research and Technologies, Almaty, Kazakhstan galina.khachikyan@gmail.com), AC(National Center of Space Research and Technologies, Almaty, Kazakhstan breusov_47@mail.ru)
Publication:
EGU General Assembly 2014, held 27 April - 2 May, 2014 in Vienna, Austria, id.5253
Publication Date:
05/2014
Origin:
COPERNICUS
Bibliographic Code:
2014EGUGA..16.5253Z
Abstract

It is found in the last decades that seismic activity of the Earth has a tendency to increase with decreasing solar activity (increasing cosmic rays). A good example of this effect may be the growing number of catastrophic earthquakes in the recent rather long solar minimum. Such results support idea on existence a solar-lithosphere relationship which, no doubts, is a part of total pattern of solar-terrestrial relationships. The physical mechanism of solar-terrestrial relationships is not developed yet. It is believed at present that one of the main contenders for such mechanism may be the global electric circuit (GEC) - vertical current loops, piercing and electrodynamically coupling all geospheres. It is also believed, that the upper boundary of the GEC is located at the magnetopause, where magnetic field of the solar wind reconnects with the geomagnetic field, that results in penetrating solar wind energy into the earth's environment. The effectiveness of the GEC operation depends on intensity of cosmic rays (CR), which ionize the air in the middle atmosphere and provide its conductivity. In connection with the foregoing, it can be expected: i) quantitatively, an increasing seismic activity from solar maximum to solar minimum may be in the same range as increasing CR flux; and ii) in those regions of the globe, where the crust is shipped by the magnetic field lines with number L= ~ 2.0, which are populated by anomalous cosmic rays (ACR), the relationship of seismic activity with variations in solar activity will be manifested most clearly, since there is a pronounced dependence of ACR on solar activity variations. Checking an assumption (i) with data of the global seismological catalog of the NEIC, USGS for 1973-2010, it was found that yearly number of earthquake with magnitude M≥4.5 varies into the 11 year solar cycle in a quantitative range of about 7-8% increasing to solar minimum, that qualitatively and quantitatively as well is in agreement with the variations of CR in the 11 year solar cycle. Checking an assumptions (ii), it is found that during the period from 1973 to 2010, the twenty earthquakes with magnitude M≥7.0 occurred in the seismic areas, where geomagnetic force lines L=2.0 -2.2 are loaned into the earth's crust. Surprisingly, all of these strong earthquakes occurred only at declining phase of the 11 year solar cycle, while were absent at ascending phase. This result proves an expectation (ii) and can be taken into account for forecasting strong earthquake occurrence in the seismic areas where the crust is riddled with geomagnetic field lines L= ~ 2.0. In conclusion: the results support a modern idea that earthquake occurrence is related to operation of global electric circuit, but more research are required to study this problem in more details.
...


adsabs.harvard.edu...

Then we also have to take into account that even though the sun's ultraviolet radiation has decreased during the minimum, for some unexplained reason during the solar minimum the sun's visible light has increased from 2004 at least until 2007.


Declining solar activity linked to recent warming

The Sun may have caused as much warming as carbon dioxide over three years.

Quirin Schiermeier

An analysis of satellite data challenges the intuitive idea that decreasing solar activity cools Earth, and vice versa. In fact, solar forcing of Earth's surface climate seems to work the opposite way around — at least during the current Sun cycle.

Joanna Haigh, an atmospheric physicist at Imperial College London, and her colleagues analysed daily measurements of the spectral composition of sunlight made between 2004 and 2007 by NASA's Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment (SORCE) satellite. They found that the amount of visible light reaching Earth increased as the Sun's activity declined — warming the Earth's surface. Their unexpected findings are published today in Nature1.

The study period covers the declining phase of the current solar cycle. Solar activity, which in the current cycle peaked around 2001, reached a pronounced minimum in late 2009 during which no sunspots were observed for an unusually long period.

Sunspots, dark areas of reduced surface temperature on the Sun caused by intense magnetic activity, are the best-known visible manifestation of the 11-year solar cycle. They have been regularly observed and recorded since the dawn of modern astronomy in the seventeenth century. But measurements of the wavelengths of solar radiation have until now been scant.
Radiation leak

Haigh's team compared SORCE's solar spectrum data with wavelengths predicted by a standard empirical model based mainly on sunspot numbers and area, and noticed unexpected differences. The amount of ultraviolet radiation in the spectrum was four to six times smaller than that predicted by the empirical model, but an increase in radiation in the visible wavelength, which warms the Earth's surface, compensated for the decrease.

Contrary to expectations, the net amount of solar energy reaching Earth's troposphere — the lowest part of the atmosphere — seems to have been larger in 2007 than in 2004, despite the decline in solar activity over that period.


The spectral changes seem to have altered the distribution of ozone molecules above the troposphere. In a model simulation, ozone abundance declined below an altitude of 45 kilometres altitude in the period 2004–07, and increased further up in the atmosphere.

The modelled changes are consistent with space-based measurements of ozone during the same period.

"We're seeing — albeit limited to a very short period — a very interesting change in solar irradiation with remarkably similar changes in ozone," says Haigh. "It might be a coincidence, and it does require verification, but our findings could be too important to not publish them now."
Sun surprise

The full implications of the discovery are unclear. Haigh says that the current solar cycle could be different from previous cycles, for unknown reasons. But it is also possible that the effects of solar variability on atmospheric temperatures and ozone are substantially different from what has previously been assumed.
...

www.nature.com...

Here is a direct link to their research paper.

An influence of solar spectral variations on radiative forcing of climate

The sun itself is changing, and seems to be reacting in surprising ways.


edit on 10-12-2016 by ElectricUniverse because: add link and add comment.



posted on Dec, 11 2016 @ 09:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: BedlamElectrons do emit x-rays when they are accelerated or make transition.

Right



However, the x-ray emitted is not an electron.


I never once said they were.



You can also produce x-rays from nuclear fission or fusion, no electron needed.


That's irrelevant.



posted on Dec, 11 2016 @ 09:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: alphabetaone
I never once said they were.


"Well, x-rays are nothing more than a directed stream of electrons."



That's irrelevant.


Obviously, electrons are not the only way to produce x-rays.



posted on Dec, 11 2016 @ 09:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: alphabetaone
I never once said they were.


"Well, x-rays are nothing more than a directed stream of electrons."



That's irrelevant.


Obviously, electrons are not the only way to produce x-rays.


It seems you're becoming very good at missing key points to peoples statements by cherry-picking what it is you choose to reply to, but for context, let me reiterate the entire message so that your confusion is alleviated.



Well, x-rays are nothing more thana directed stream of electrons, Whenever that stream reaches its target, maybe 1-3% of the resulting energy are x-rays, the rest of the energy is released as heat


Now, let me fix my statement a bit so that you will understand the meaning

Well, x-rays from the sun are nothing more than a directed stream of electrons when, upon reaching their target, maybe 1-3% of the resulting energy potential are x-rays, the rest of the energy is released as heat.


All in an effort to keep the message clear.



posted on Dec, 11 2016 @ 10:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: alphabetaone
Now, let me fix my statement a bit so that you will understand the meaning

Well, x-rays from the sun are nothing more than a directed stream of electrons when, upon reaching their target, maybe 1-3% of the resulting energy potential are x-rays, the rest of the energy is released as heat.


All in an effort to keep the message clear.


Well, it's still incorrect in at least two ways. One, the sun directly emits soft x-rays. So the bulk of solar x-ray emission comes right from the sun. Two, you can't say x-rays from the sun are directed electrons, because x-rays are not electrons in any sense. That word 'are' implies an equivalence, and there just isn't one. You do get some x-ray production from higher velocity solar wind particles striking gas atoms in the upper atmo. But that's not a 'solar x-ray'. That's bremsstrahlung radiation, or plasma radiation. And you get it from solar protons OR electrons.



posted on Dec, 11 2016 @ 10:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: alphabetaone
Now, let me fix my statement a bit so that you will understand the meaning

Well, x-rays from the sun are nothing more than a directed stream of electrons when, upon reaching their target, maybe 1-3% of the resulting energy potential are x-rays, the rest of the energy is released as heat.


All in an effort to keep the message clear.


Well, it's still incorrect in at least two ways. One, the sun directly emits soft x-rays. So the bulk of solar x-ray emission comes right from the sun. Two, you can't say x-rays from the sun are directed electrons, because x-rays are not electrons in any sense. That word 'are' implies an equivalence, and there just isn't one. You do get some x-ray production from higher velocity solar wind particles striking gas atoms in the upper atmo. But that's not a 'solar x-ray'. That's bremsstrahlung radiation, or plasma radiation. And you get it from solar protons OR electrons.


So that I'm clear, I'm wrong.

And, NASA is wrong, again, in an effort to keep the message clear, because clearly they suffer from the same delusions that I do



The energetic charged particles from the Sun that cause aurora also energize electrons in the Earth's magnetosphere. These electrons move along the Earth's magnetic field and eventually strike the Earth's ionosphere, causing the X-ray emission.


Link from NASA for kids imagine that



posted on Dec, 11 2016 @ 11:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: alphabetaone

And, NASA is wrong, again, in an effort to keep the message clear, because clearly they suffer from the same delusions that I do


No, they're agreeing with me.

"You do get some x-ray production from higher velocity solar wind particles striking gas atoms in the upper atmo. But that's not a 'solar x-ray'. That's bremsstrahlung radiation, or plasma radiation. And you get it from solar protons OR electrons. "

is equivalent to

"These electrons move along the Earth's magnetic field and eventually strike the Earth's ionosphere, causing the X-ray emission.", except that this kids' version omits the proton contribution and doesn't mention the fact that solar wind can emit x-rays from plasma radiation. Although that's not a major contributor.

X-ray emission from bremsstrahlung happening in the upper atmo is NOT x-ray emission from the Sun. Just not.
edit on 11-12-2016 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 01:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
...


The peak which I also circled is only 100X greater at 5x10^-5 W/m^2

You are starting with a number which is already 10 times greater than the peak value, 5x10^-4 W/m^2, and multiplying that by 1000 to get 0.5 W/m^2 which makes no sense at all. You haven't shown any data points at 0.5 W/m^2. My comment about 1000x was that you might find another flare which went from the baseline of 5x10^-7 W/m^2 to 5x10^-4 W/m^2 which would be 1000x, but this one didn't go that high, only 100x instead of 1000x. (100x 5x10^-7 = 5x10^-5).


First, I really hate having to repeat myself, but perhaps you should take a better look at that graph because you are reading it wrong.



That solar flare was an M5 with an energy of 0.0005w/m^2

Second, meanwhile that event you were talking about increased by about 100 times, the event i was talking about and which I quoted from NASA was 1,000 times stronger than the readings from 2009. It wasn't 100.

Anyways. We can also see that the sun itself has been acting strangely with it's own visible light increasing meanwhile the rest of it's activity has been decreasing. We are also seen similar strange things happening to other planets, and moons with an atmosphere which are "somehow" warming up and are undergoing climate change at the same time Earth is undergoing climate changes and also is undergoing geological changes.

I don't know about you, but this is not a coincidence. All these events are related. When the solar system enters a new region with more energy, more interstellar dust it is bound to change the atmosphere and the geology of planets like Earth.



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



posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 02:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

First, I really hate having to repeat myself, but perhaps you should take a better look at that graph because you are reading it wrong.





all this second guessing is confusing me.. but i believe you have labelled the graph wrong.. it is going from very small near the bottom and exponentially getting larger as it goes up.

you labelled the 10^-7 correct, but you labelled the dotted lines incorrectly it should be:
20^-7, 30^-7, 40^-7... 90^-7 then 100^-7 or 10^-6

so in other words that brown line should be x0^-7, orange as x0^-6 and blue x0^-5 etc.



posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 06:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: choos
all this second guessing is confusing me.. but i believe you have labelled the graph wrong.. it is going from very small near the bottom and exponentially getting larger as it goes up.

you labelled the 10^-7 correct, but you labelled the dotted lines incorrectly it should be:
20^-7, 30^-7, 40^-7... 90^-7 then 100^-7 or 10^-6

so in other words that brown line should be x0^-7, orange as x0^-6 and blue x0^-5 etc.
Yes, electric Universe accused me of reading the graph wrong but he can't read the graph.

A solar flare with a peak of 5x10^-4 W/m^2 would be an X-class flare, not an M-class, as seen here:

Solar Flare

The peak of 5x10^-5 W/m^2 falls between 10^-5 and 10^-4 W/m^2 which is what makes it an M class, so that's definitely not 5x10^-4 W/m^2 as EU is saying.




top topics



 
22
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join