Solar Activity and Earthquakes

page: 4
63
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Space Weather Message Code: ALTEF3
Serial Number: 1657
Issue Time: 2010 Apr 11 0917 UTC

CONTINUED ALERT: Electron 2MeV Integral Flux exceeded 1000pfu
Continuation of Serial Number: 1656
Begin Time: 2010 Apr 05 0915 UTC
Yesterday Maximum 2MeV Flux: 82248 pfu





Space Weather Message Code: SUMSUD
Serial Number: 107
Issue Time: 2010 Apr 11 1320 UTC

SUMMARY: Geomagnetic Sudden Impulse
Observed: 2010 Apr 11 1304 UTC
Deviation: 5 nT
Station: Boulder




Space Weather Message Code: SUMSUD
Serial Number: 106
Issue Time: 2010 Apr 11 0749 UTC

SUMMARY: Geomagnetic Sudden Impulse
Observed: 2010 Apr 11 0713 UTC
Deviation: 6 nT
Station: Boulder


I'm showing 2 Geomagnetic Sudden Impulses, and a contiuation of the supercharged Electron eruption eminating from the sun since April 5th. Whenever something is recorded about it, that means that a rather substantial spike in quantity has occured.

This spike went above 1000 pfu. Note of interest, the spike recorded on the 10th peaked at 82248 pfu!




Space Weather Message Code: WARK04
Serial Number: 1617
Issue Time: 2010 Apr 11 1713 UTC

WARNING: Geomagnetic K-index of 4 expected
Valid From: 2010 Apr 11 1715 UTC
Valid To: 2010 Apr 12 0000 UTC
Warning Condition: Onset


A warning was also issued about the onset of the Geomagnetic K-index spiking to a 4 - and remained in effect until midnight.

This info came directly from the NOAA Website...




posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by DarkspARCS
 

You posted this, why?

Can you explain the significance of the Electron 2MeV Integral Flux alert?


[edit on 4/12/2010 by Phage]



posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 05:14 PM
link   
Wow, wow, wow, and another post where Phage cherry picks information, leaves information out that doesn't conform with his already made up mind, and then decides to post this as proof of his already preconceived ideas...and the worst part is that it is obvious many members actually believe this is correct when it isn't...

First of all Phage seems to assume, or claims that only earthquakes of magnitute "6.5 and greater" would show any link between the Sun's activity and earthquakes. This is wrong, Solar activity also affects smaller earthquakes and not just earthquakes of magnitute 6.5 and greater..

Second fault in Phages' claims is that he seems to think that there should be a linear link between earthquakes and Solar activity, and a gain this is wrong, as it is a known fact, except for Phage, that FLUCTUATIONS in Solar activity either up and down affect earthquakes, hence there is no linear link between the two. At least not the way the Phage seems there should be...

What this means is that for example if the Solar Activity suddenly decreases, like it has been lately, this would increase seismic activity on Earth, and when the activity of the Sun increases this also affects earthquakes, hence there is no "linear relation"....

Phage seems to think that showing a couple of graphs, without informing people the facts, is going to be enough to "debunk" what many scientists have found to be more than just coincidence, and it seems to have worked looking at the stars and flags he received.

Nice work on twisting the facts Phage...


[edit on 12-4-2010 by ElectricUniverse]



posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 05:56 PM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


Nice work.....Zingggggggggg on Phage( John lithgow), I wonder what John lithgow will have to say next. I think its actually really cool there are celebrities here on ATS. They must be waking up to the real world problems. Also I noticed Hugh jack man checks out ATS thats bad ass.

Solar activity is probably just one of what may be a plethora of factors into earthquakes. Nice try to whitewash.



posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 06:44 PM
link   
Great post Phage. Is it true, that stars like our own Sol at times become as much as ten times brighter, for hours or even days at a time?

In fact arn't scientists baffled as to why the sun does not diplay this
behavior?



posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 09:03 PM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


posted by ElectricUniverse
Second fault in Phages' claims is that he seems to think that there should be a linear link between earthquakes and Solar activity


You seem to have missed the point of this thread. Let me help.

posted by Phage
There seems to be a belief that, along with an increase in geomagnetic activity caused by increased solar activity, we should prepare for an increase in earthquake frequency and magnitude.

I've decided to look for evidence of such a relationship in historical data.

You see, I do not think there should be a "linear link" between earthquakes and Solar activity. But other people do. As I stated in the OP, it is commonly seen on ATS that people believe that since we are approaching solar maximum we will see an increase in number and severity of earthquakes. It is this belief I was addressing.


posted by ElectricUniverse
First of all Phage seems to assume, or claims that only earthquakes of magnitute "6.5 and greater" would show any link between the Sun's activity and earthquakes.

I don't assume that and it's not true that I only used magnitude 6.5 and greater. I used earthquake of 4.0 and greater for comparison to Kp indices. I used 6.5 as a cutoff for the sunspot comparison because 20-37 years ago the ability to locate lesser earthquakes was not as good is for stronger earthquakes. The data for lesser earthquakes is less complete the farther back in time we look. This does not invalidate the data I did use. But, for what it's worth, here is that data for Solar cycle 22. I've used a single cycle because of the ungainly amount of data involved. We are looking at a total of 59,020 earthquakes it this time period. No increase with the onset of the cycle, no decrease with the end of the cycle. But we can see the same general upward trend that shows in the 6.5 data, attributeable mostly the the increase in seismic stations.



No.
I didn't "cherry pick data". I was addressing a specific perception of many ATS members concern both the number and severity of earthquakes. I did choose to not include incomplete data. But as shown, even that incomplete data, the data I "left out", does conform to the conclusions found in the data I first used.

There was no attempt to do anything other than what I openly stated. I stated what data I used and where it came from. There was no attempt to veil any of this.



posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 09:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


What other effects can cause earthquakes? Could it be possible that the Sun's and even other recent space activity could be increasing a factor for an earthquake and not the earthquake it's self?

[edit on 12-4-2010 by kyle43]



posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 07:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Interesting Phage.

Could you please define what you mean exactly by earthquake energy. i.e. what calculation you use to arrive at your figure for same?

Thanks.



posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 07:23 PM
link   
reply to post by PuterMan
 




But what about the magnitude of those earthquakes? Here I have plotted the total annual energy (magnitude) of the earthquakes


Earthquake magnitude is an expression of the energy released by an earthquake. I summed the magnitudes of the earthquakes.


[edit on 4/14/2010 by Phage]



posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 07:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by UberL33t


Let's say that hypothetically the Kp index's effect on seismic activity had a delayed reaction. In your graph, again, specifically the June portion. In this portion of the graph the Kp index spikes, shortly there after, approximately a week give or take, you get a spike in earthquake energy. I am going to postulate and call into play that the volatility of specific faults at the given time of the Kp index spike are a factor in this hypothesis.



Good point but...


Let's take it even further. Why just Earthquakes? Why not volcanic activity and increase in Tsunamis and hurricanes? I know this thread was directed at the recent seemingly Earthquake increases but I wonder how those other activities would look if they were also added and then tide together and factored in?

I'm leaning towards the delayed reaction as well as an unknown possible variable as in storage then later release of effect.



[edit on 14-4-2010 by SLAYER69]



posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 03:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage

It can be seen that there is no apparent connection between the 11 year solar cycle and the frequency of earthquakes.


I don't know Phage...

While the chart does appear to show no connection between increases in solar activity and earthquakes, it appears there may be a connection with decreases in solar activity and earthquakes.

I made some red arrows that show that every time solar activity was at it's minimum, earthquakes increased:


With one of my magnetic theories I think I can explain how this could be possible. It's quite simple really, you just have to understand how basic magnets operate.

The Sun is a huge magnet, and the Earth is also a huge magnet. When magnets are near each other they share their magnetic force with each other. A change of magnetic force in one magnet will effect the magnetic field of the other magnet. If one magnet got stronger or weaker, the other magnet would too also get slightly stronger or weaker because they share their magnetic force with each other, from the inside out, because magnetic force passes through all matter.

The crust of the Earth itself is very magnetic because it contains enormous amounts of various ferromagnetic materials. Every atom counts.... and we all know if we stick a magnet in the dirt you will pull up ferromagnetic elements. The magnetic force coming from the core of Earth magnetizes all of the ferromagnetic materials in Earths crust and slightly attracts or repels to a certain degree. Any small magnetic change in the core of Earth will effect the crust of Earth by attracting or repelling certain land masses which then stresses their fault lines.

This could mean an increase OR decrease in the Sun's magnetic field, or Earth's magnetic field, could effect Earth in some way or another.

This is off topic a bit but...

I also share a theory with another fine fellow named Edward Leedskalnin who believes most mountain ranges were created by the magnetic flux lines coming from the core of Earth. He said an experiment would be to spin a magnet on a motor, and hold a piece of paper over it with iron fragments sprinkled on the paper. The spinning magnetic force creates stationary ridges and mountains with the iron fragments. Edward Leedskalnin believes this is how Earth's ridges and mountains get/got their shape.

Basically, a good portion of the Earths crust is magnetic, and any small changes in Earths magnetic field will effect the crust. Things that can change Earths magnetic field range from Sun changes, to planetary alignments, and variation in Earths rotation, and even changes in Earths core itself.

Also, hot and cold temperatures effect the strength of magnets. The colder the magnet, the stronger the magnet. The hotter the magnet, the weaker the magnet (Curie Point). I think temperature changes could have effects on Earth's magnetic field.

You could probably even go further and say the Earth's magnetic poles are related to the temperature of Earth's North and South poles. The coldness of the North and South poles probably strengthens the magnetic poles of Earth, keeping it in position. This is why I look at pole shifts differently than most.

Anyway......I think Ive said enough for now.


[edit on 19-4-2010 by ALLis0NE]



posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 03:57 AM
link   
To expand a little further on the magnetic theory, I was thinking about what would happen in the event that Earth's magnetic field got stronger or weaker.

Stronger: I think Earths core would attract Earths crust, and that would compress everything in the middle of the core and crust. This would build pressure.... and cause volcanoes. It will also stress the fault lines of land masses.

Weaker: I think Earths core would be less attracted to Earths crust, and that would decompress everything in the middle of the core and crust. This would release tension between land masses and cause earthquakes too.

Does any of this make sense?


[edit on 19-4-2010 by ALLis0NE]



posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 08:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
............
There was no attempt to do anything other than what I openly stated. I stated what data I used and where it came from. There was no attempt to veil any of this.


Oh please.... You are making claims based on false assumptions in your part and then proclaim that there is no link between the Sun's activities and earthquakes when dozens, if not more of REAL scientists have corroborated the fact that THERE IS A LINK.....

Yes there have been MANY attempts by you to claim this when REAL SCIENTISTS say exactly the opposite to what you "want to proclaim with your preconceived ideas"....



posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 10:49 AM
link   
reply to post by ALLis0NE
 

The apparent correlation with solar minimum has been pointed out but it ignores the high points in earthquake activity which occurred in 1978-1980, 1983, 1987, 1993, 2000, and 2003.

There are just as many bumps during the rise and fall of the solar cycle as there are at solar minimum.



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 06:52 AM
link   
I just went to the soho site, at the movie player, I entered the dates 19 and 20 april and I saw 2 big solar storms. I`m sorry if it`s already been posted.

sohodata.nascom.nasa.gov...



[edit on 20/4/10 by sandri_90]



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 03:17 PM
link   
Earthquakes at low sunspot numbers?

www.jupitersdance.com...

A look at sunspots, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions and 2012...



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 10:19 AM
link   
Phage have you seen this yet?

www.faqs.org...

Its an interesting idea that I'm going to try and find more info on.
.
Nut shell:

Earth causes changes to the sun> sun then causes activity for us.

I don't know what some of his references are because I'm a noon but figured it would be a good read for you.



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 10:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 
Phage, at the area of the sunspot. when you look at SOHO pics of the sun,. the Spot appears brighter than the rest of the sun.
Could this mean that the sunspot is a hotter spot on the sun?



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 11:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Lil Drummerboy
 

Sort of.

I assume you're talking about the EIT images. These images are taken in specific ultraviolet wavelengths, each "targets" a temperature range. The longer the wavelength the lower the temperature. The temperature of the Sun's atmosphere gets higher as you move away from the "surface" (the photosphere) so in effect, we are looking at different levels of the atmosphere.

In the EIT images we do not see the surface of the Sun, where the sunspots actually are. We see the region above the sunspots. The magnetic activity above the sunspot increases the temperature of the material above the sunspot. So, unlike the sunspot itself (which is cooler than the rest of the surface), the region in the atmosphere above it is hotter than the surrounding area.



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 11:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Phage you did a beautiful job showing the truth about earthquakes. Earthquakes really don't have any relationship to solar activity (but the end of 2012 might be an exception according to ancient writings).

Most earthquakes are caused by other earthquakes, or by earthquake cells releasing their energy.

The Mid-Atlantic Ridge is probably the origin of all earthquakes. As the Mid-Atlantic Ridge spreads it creates abnormal subsurface forces to the East and West of the ridge.

A chain reaction of earthquakes can be detected and followed in many instances as the earthquake chain of reactions cross the USA from East to West. Then the chain reaction of earthquakes strike a much harder and heavier plate, called the Pacific Plate, and then all of the westbound earth material across the USA has to circle counter clockwise around the Pacific Plate due to the expunging of material from the Mid-Atlantic Ridge.

I have many videos on this type of stuff and will soon put out many more videos on this type of information. Anyone that wants to watch my videos may see them here:

www.youtube.com...



top topics
 
63
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join