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.

 

New Madrid Fault and interesting research in the similar events of 1811 to 2011 preceeding the major

page: 5
118
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 4 2011 @ 09:09 PM
link   
reply to post by awakentired
 


So rain + dirt doesn't = mud?

Seriously?

Yeah, the dry ground gets WET from RAIN and then turns into MUD which slides due to the lower layers of dirt still being dry.

You hardly stepped on anything, because your strawman doesn't disprove the FACT that rain does not cause earthquakes.




posted on Jul, 4 2011 @ 09:21 PM
link   
reply to post by sdebunker
 


Dude, you are awesome! Great attitude and better yet..great research!


Regards and Nameste,

-Chung



posted on Jul, 4 2011 @ 09:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by ChungTsuU
reply to post by sdebunker
 


Dude, you are awesome! Great attitude and better yet..great research!


Regards and Nameste,

-Chung


Thank you!



posted on Jul, 4 2011 @ 09:28 PM
link   
Here, since people don't want to read the links I provided I will cut and paste. I know this isn't "magic", which is why it is not liked. And, I had left the thread already; sensing the "magic only" response. However, I will not be talked down to, nor "stepped on" toes or any other part of me.

Let's start with this one:
Earthquake Myths

This is straight from the horses mouth, the USGS horse that is. Let's start with the first one:

FAQs - Earthquake Myths
•Can you predict earthquakes?

(That is a link)


Q: Can you predict earthquakes?

A: No. Neither the USGS nor Caltech nor any other scientists have ever predicted a major earthquake. They do not know how, and they do not expect to know how any time in the foreseeable future. However based on scientific data, probabilities can be calculated for potential future earthquakes. For example, scientists estimate that over the next 30 years the probability of a major EQ occurring in the San Francisco Bay area is 67% and 60% in Southern California.

The USGS focuses their efforts on the long-term mitigation of earthquake hazards by helping to improve the safety of structures, rather than by trying to accomplish short-term predictions.

(Emphasis added)
Can you predict earthquakes?

So, the folks that are in charge of figuring out how quakes work do not know how to predict them. I guess they never looked up, while it was raining. Or did they?


Q: Is there earthquake weather?

A:

In the 4th Century B.C., Aristotle proposed that earthquakes were caused by winds trapped in subterranean caves. Small tremors were thought to have been caused by air pushing on the cavern roofs, and large ones by the air breaking the surface. This theory lead to a belief in earthquake weather, that because a large amount of air was trapped underground, the weather would be hot and calm before an earthquake. A later theory stated that earthquakes occurred in calm, cloudy conditions, and were usually preceded by strong winds, fireballs, and meteors.


There is no such thing as "earthquake weather". Statistically, there is approximately an equal distribution of earthquakes in cold weather, hot weather, rainy weather, etc. Very large low-pressure changes associated with major storm systems (typhoons, hurricanes, etc) are known to trigger episodes of fault slip (slow earthquakes) in the Earth’s crust and may also play a role in triggering some damaging earthquakes. However, the numbers are small and are not statistically significant.

Is there earthquake weather?

As you can see, those same folks say that the rain plays no part in the quake(s). They mention low-pressure changes (MAJOR storms), but even those amount to little.

Want something a little more detailed? Try this paper:


Enhanced: Earthquakes Cannot Be Predicted
Robert J. Geller, David D. Jackson, Yan Y. Kagan, Francesco Mulargia

R. J. Geller [HN1] is at the Department of Earth and Planetary Physics, Faculty of Science, Tokyo University, Yayoi 2-11-16, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113, Japan. E-mail:******* D. D. Jackson and Y. Y. Kagan [HN2-3] are at the Department of Earth and Space Sciences, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1567, USA. E-mail:******* and *******. F. Mulargia [HN4] is at the Dipartimento di Fisica, Settore di Geofisica, Universita di Bologna, Viale Berti Pichat 8, 40127 Bologna, Italy. E-mail:*******

(E-mails removed)
Enhanced: Earthquakes Cannot Be Predicted

There are the folks that wrote the paper, you can even message them for more information! Unlike the "rain makes quakes" article, the sources are readily available (along with their data.).

I am going to end this post with two things. 1) Some more reading for people genuinely (no magics) interested in earthquake science. 2) An answer to the reason we "Are having way more earthquakes"

1:
Earthquake Science Explained—A Series of Ten Short Articles for Students, Teachers, and Families
(PDF File)

2:

Q: Why are we having so many earthquakes? Has earthquake activity been increasing? Does this mean a big one is going to hit? OR We haven't had any earthquakes in a long time; does this mean that the pressure is building up?

A: Although it may seem that we are having more earthquakes, earthquakes of magnitude 7.0 or greater have remained fairly constant throughout this century and, according to our records, have actually seemed to decrease in recent years...

Why are we having so many earthquakes?

( All Links from www.USGS.gov... )
edit on 7/4/2011 by adigregorio because: Stupid BB code



posted on Jul, 4 2011 @ 09:42 PM
link   
reply to post by adigregorio
 


You do realize the content of the thread is about the comparison similarities of 1811 to 2011 events leading up to and preceeding the New Madrid quake as a research precedent study. The content covers a very wide range of parameters and topics and not singular to how earthquakes happen and rain. And there is ZERO mention of any earthquake prediction throughout the entire thread. However, if I have lead you to believe that I have somehow directed this thread into a total discussion of a theory of how earthquakes happen and predicted one, I am sorry that you have taken it that way. For that is not the meaning of the thread. I notice you like to quote the USGS frequently. I like to see many sides and opinions of things, and I feel there are many other qualified scientists outside of the United States qualified to make geological references and research opinions on that subject. Like say Japan for example.

Thank you for further participation and hope to hear more. Oh, and thanks for the new nickname.



posted on Jul, 4 2011 @ 10:01 PM
link   
reply to post by sdebunker
 


Not sure what you mean by nick name, my last two posts were directed at another member not yourself.

Also, the USGS collaborates with the other countries, in fact they mention them in one of the excerpts I have above. (I assume you saw that?)

Regardless, I am not saying YOU are predicting earthquakes. I am saying the "rain makes quakes" article is. I also pointed out that it was a big chunk of your OPost, which explains why you choose to keep the faulty information in your post.

It doesn't matter, it is commonplace here on ATS to forgo science in favor of the "magical". I was not bothered, until the other poster decided he/she was going to "step on my toes". As I stated, I had left the thread.

Regardless, this is all off topic. And I applaud your research (Third time I think) I only beefed with that one part, was going to let it go then for some reason my toes didn't hurt from not being stepped on.



posted on Jul, 4 2011 @ 10:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by adigregorio
reply to post by sdebunker
 


Not sure what you mean by nick name, my last two posts were directed at another member not yourself.

Also, the USGS collaborates with the other countries, in fact they mention them in one of the excerpts I have above. (I assume you saw that?)

Regardless, I am not saying YOU are predicting earthquakes. I am saying the "rain makes quakes" article is. I also pointed out that it was a big chunk of your OPost, which explains why you choose to keep the faulty information in your post.

It doesn't matter, it is commonplace here on ATS to forgo science in favor of the "magical". I was not bothered, until the other poster decided he/she was going to "step on my toes". As I stated, I had left the thread.

Regardless, this is all off topic. And I applaud your research (Third time I think) I only beefed with that one part, was going to let it go then for some reason my toes didn't hurt from not being stepped on.



I took the strawman comment as directed towards me, but took it with a smile. I took no offense to it. You are more than welcome to stay on the thread, but thats your choice. I feel that when a post is made and you start deleting them, it looks suspect, and creates less credibility. If you dont agree, you made your points, and free to do so. But I am not going to delete posts unless a staff member tells me to. I thank you for the applause. And isnt magic called the Science of Illusion? Is a mirage, science, magical, or an illusion? Or, all one in the same?

Now to get the thread back on course.
edit on 4-7-2011 by sdebunker because: typo

edit on 4-7-2011 by sdebunker because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-7-2011 by sdebunker because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 4 2011 @ 10:46 PM
link   
Here is another research read regarding everything above that is relevant to the possible 200 year similarities. It refers to a 200 year cycle of sunspots that is also a 200 year repeating weather cycle in his research and theory.
According to his research you will see a chart, where 1810 going into 1811 would of been the start of one cycle of cold and 2010 going into 2011 would be another period of a cold cycle.


Timo Niroma:



PART 5. SUNSPOTS: A 200-YEAR CYCLE

5. The 200-year sunspot cycle is also a weather cycle.

The other supercycle, besides the Gleissberg, that most often is referred to in the present-day data, is a 200-year supercycle. The Gleissberg cycle is usually cited with one of two values, accurately as 78 years, inaccurately as 80 years, but the 200-year cycle has no agreed-upon value, mostly the values referred to are from 180 to 220 years.

Explicitly there is no 200-year cycle in the Elatina data, but I have interpreted that the 29.2 "sawtooth pattern" represents a cycle of 173 years, which means that it may be a variant of the 200-year cycle. In addition, the longest of the remaining Elatina supercycles is 105 years. There is also a 52-year cycle, which is not seen in today's data. One interpretation could be that the corresponding cycles today are 105 (weak) and 210 (strong) years. There are indications that the possible 200-year cycle really oscillates today. Would this hint to limits of 170 and 210 years in Elatina data, corresponding to from 180 to 220 years in today's data. That may mean a change in the Sun's cyclicity or in the Earth's rotation rate or rather a mixup of these both factors.

The Gleissberg cycle has no obvious subcycles (other than the seven basic cycles), but the 200-year cycle clearly consists of two parts of 100 years, which oscillate between 80 and 120 years and is intertwined with the Gleissberg cycle. It seems that the cycle 120/60/30 years or maybe more accurately 26.5/53/106/212 years are also weather cycles. At least at the moment (2001) the 200-year cycle seems to have a value of 211.4 years.

The following minima are minima smoothed by one sunspot cycle or 11 years (actually they are low maxima per cycle). The minima between the Sporer minimum in 1496+-1 and the Maunder minimum in 1695 is 198-200 years. The minima between the Maunder minimum and the Dalton minimum in 1815 is 120 years. There are indications of a warm spell beginning around 1755. Thus we have here a 55-60-year weather cycle: around 1870 began a cold spell which had its coldest phase around 1900, 1930's had a warm spell, 1960's had a cold spell, 1990's again a warm spell, which culminated in 1998. I predict that the Sun is now going towards low intensity, and the warm spell ends in the 2010's. The 2020's will again be a cold decade.

But everything is relative. The colder spells are not so cold as the earlier ones and warmer spells are a little warmer than the previous ones. This is caused by a larger oscillation, the 100/200/400-year oscillation. The Medieval warm lasted from about 930 to 1300, with an aftermath about 1350-1370. The Little Ice Age began after that getting a real escalation about 1400 and having two great (Sporer and Maunder) and some smaller really cold periods. After the first warm period about 1760-1800, there was the Dalton minimum from 1800 to 1830, from which we are now going again towards a warmer period, compared to the Medieval maximum.

"The disturbances of the early third century were nothing compared with what would follow the end of the Severan dynasty in 235 AD. The half century from 235 to 284 AD was a period of unparalleled crisis, during which the Roman Enmpire nearly came to an end... This is a period for which comparatively little documentation exists, but that in itself may be symptomatic... Barbarian incursions were frequent and ruinous between 248 and 268... It was Diocletian who, in a reign from 284 to his voluntary abdication in 305, quelled the barbarians, defeated usurpers, and at the same time initiated sweeping political and economic changes that transformed the nature of the Empire, and ensured its survival for a while longer... In the mid fifth century the West was gradually lost. Areas like Spain and Africa were temporarily or permanently lost to the barbarians... In 439 Vandals took Carthage... In the 20 years following the death of Valentinian III (455 AD), the Roman Army proper dwindled to nothing." (Tainter 1988, pp. 137-148).

Was there something like the Sporer minimum in the 200's and Maunder minimum in the 400's or rather vice versa as the following shows? What makes this a relevant question is that according to Schove there was only 7 cycles from 192 AD to 302 AD. This means that there most probably was 7 Jovian years plus a 27 year cessation. A real mother of all Maunders. Was this the reason for the Barbarian invasions at that time? Did they escape the terrible cold? And when the second cold spell came 200 years later, were also the Vandals attacking for the reason of the cold weather? Did the mighty Roman Army dwindle to nothing in just 20 years for this same reason?

There were 220 years between the Barbarian incursions from 230 AD to 270 AD and demise of the Roman Army after the Vandals from 450 AD to 490 AD.

Was it the warming of the climate that gave Diocletian and his followers the chance to revive The Roman Empire? There is one other historical moment whose simultaneous appearance gives this thought some credence. "The earliest inscriptions so far discovered in recognized Mayan lands are dated AD 292 and 320, dates on the threshold of the splendid Classic Period... The earliest date mentioned on inscriptions at Uaxactun is AD 328..." (Whitlock 1976). There is no known Columbus or other connector at that time between The Roman Empire and the Mayans.

Now it seems like this 100/200-year Maunder-like cyclity continued. The period of 200 years seems to oscillate between 180 and 220 years. The 220 is best approximated by 100+120 years and the 180 years by 60+120 years.

120 years of warm period passed. Then in 608 AD Euphrates froze. After the warm 700's, in 829 AD Nile froze (Cambridge CCNet 1998). The century of 800's belong to the dark ages. Again we have here 220 years.

"Another period of expansion [of the Mayas] extended from AD 731-90, when three splendid new centres were founded... Soon afterwards decline set in..." (Whitlock 1976)." "...the Maya of the Southern Lowlands, whose society underwent a rapid, dramatic, and justly famous collapse between about 790 and 890 AD." (Tainter 1988, pp. 152-153). "There is no trace of the large-scale destruction and fires which would have marked an invasion or an earth-quake." (Whitlock 1976, p. 26).

"The Norwegian farmer Folke Vilgerdson made the first attempt to settle in Iceland in about 865 AD... He lost his cattle in a severe winter and disappointed went back to Norway after having seen a fjord filled up by sea ice. Therefore he called the country Iceland. Only a few years later, in 874, Ingolf Arnason succeeded. He was followed by many others, and settlement was completed in 930 AD... In 982, Erik the Red discovered new land West of Iceland. He called it Greenland; according to the Greenlander Saga this was only to persuade people to follow him... But the O(18) curve suggests that the name described a reality... So the drastic climatic change [warming] late in the ninth century may be part of the reason why Iceland and Greenland did not get the opposite names." (Dansgaard: Palaeo-Climatic Studies on Ice Cores, in Oeschger, Messerli and Svilar, 1980).

"The beneficent times came to an end. Sea ice and stormier seas made the passages between Norway, Iceland and Greenland more difficult after AD 1200... In mainland Europe, disastrous harvests were experienced in the latter part of the thirteenth and in the early fourteenth century." (Grove 1988, pp. 1-2). The cold decades of 1680-1700 are very well documented, at least in Europe. (See for example Rothlisberger 1986). The glaciers in Alps increased, there was no good wine, harvests were a catastrophe and famine killed like the black death centuries before. Cold was also the decade of 1810-1820, including "the summer that did not come" or a "year without summer". The Tambora volcanic eruption has been accused for this summerless year 1816. Maybe it helped a little, but the cold spell had already begun from the spotless year 1810, with which Tambora had nothing to do.

If we take the Schove estimates of the maximum magnitudes (R(M)) from the period 1500-1750 and the measurements from 1750, we get (the rounding for exact centuries done only to make the general picture clear):


1410-1500 ? cold (Sporer minimum)
1510-1600 107 warm
1610-1700 61 cold (Maunder minimum)
1710-1800 114 warm
1810-1900 95 cold (Dalton minimum)
1910-2000 151 warm
2010-2100 ? cold?

So the supercyclic rise is a very long process, maybe a 1000- or a 2000-cycle or even longer. The Sun seems to be much more irregular than we ever have imagined. The historical data seem to show that the 200-year oscillation has been there at least since 200 AD. The even centuries seem to be have been cold, odd ones warm, not to the accuracy of year, but in the average anyway. If a spotless sun during the third century caused the process of the Great Roman Empire demise to begin, we have to write the history books anew.

The other thing that seems apparent is that the general warming trend has been going on at least 1,800 years so that the third century AD may be the coldest century for at least 2000 years. Its only rival is the latter part of the 17th century. 1690's may have been almost as cold as the years 250 to 270. The cold periods later during the first millennium AD are more dramatical than the Little Ice Age thousand years later. On the other hand we may now live in the second mildest climate Anno Domini.Warmer periods seem to have occurred only between 1000 to 1200 AD. This may even have greater implications to the whole Holocene climate study and possibly to ice age theories also. Considering the evidence it looks a bit exaggerated and hasty a conclusion that the recent rise of half a degree would have been caused by man. So great are the natural variations.

The evidence of man's role put into forefront in the IPCC Report 4 of 2007 is somewhat daring and based on very scanty evidence. If we compare the small warming and its oscillations during the 20th century with what has happened during the past, say 2000 years, we get a perspective that tells us how smooth and peaceful the, I would suggest, natural warming since the end of the Little Ice Age and especially Maunder Minimum has been. But man has always wanted to be in the center of the world. CO2 is the precondition for the multicellular life as we know it. Evidence is on the side that CO2 and its relation to Earth's temperature is a very complicated system. it's far from one-to-one relationship, there are so many intervening variables.

One solar-based climate change may have a period of about 1050 years. There are many reports of a cold period beginning about 850BC (Geel et al.: Solar Forcing of Abrupt Climate Change around 850 Calendar Years BC), there begins around 200 AD a period of low cycles which transforms into a cold period around 230 AD (see above), consisting of a maximum length Gleissberg cycle and lastly the low periods beginning in 1250 AD (Schove) leading to the rapid deterioration of the climate beginning about 1270-1280 AD, which led to the end for the Medieval Maximum and for example to the demise of the Greenland habitat and forced Europeans to invent the warming system for their houses. The cold period lasted in all cases about 80 years beginning an oscillating period of 660 years. So there are intervening some 400 years of a warm period (for example the Medieval maximum).


5.2. An autocorrelation analysis


To see the supercycles in my data I run an autocorrelation analysis of my 236-year data of the years 1762-1997. Primarily the purpose was to see, if and how (with which possible secondary harmonics) the 200-year cycle appears in this data and does it have some peak clearly over the others. I run the whole data (14,000 correlations), but because of the different character of the Gleissberg cycle and its double harmonics I expected to see only the 200-year variants not the Gleissberg, which almost also what was happened. Something was however expected to be seen near the basic cycle. Which of the many variants (4-5) has the highest autocorrelation, i.e. which is the "real" cycle? 11.1 years was condemned in the introduction to be only a compromise.

There are four cycles, whose correlation exceeds 40 %: Before inspecting them more throughly, I will notice that lowering the the limit to 35%, three more peaks appeared. They peak at 21.7 years (Hale), 120.3 years and 178.6 years. But the highest correlations are as follows:


TABLE 39. Cycles with autocorrelation above 40% in the 236-year data


1. cycle years (r**2 > .40)
2. cycle years (r**2 > .60)
3. cycle years (r**2 > .80)
4. the highest cycle year with one decimal
5. the highest correlation

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

1. 8.9- 11.9y 10.2- 10.7y 10.3y 0.61
2. 199.4-203.1y 200.1-202.6y 201.0-201.7y 201.4y 0.83
3. 209.5-212.7y 209.8-212.2y 210.3-211.7y 211.1y 0.92
4. 219.2-221.7y 219.8-220.9y 220.2y 0.69

Immediately four things are apparent. 1. There is no 230-year cycle, and the 180-year cycle is weak. 2. The 211-year (210-212 y) cycle is very strong with two accompanying components of 201 years (201-202 y) and 220 years (220-221 y) which are so apparent in historical data. The 201-year cycle seems to be near 17 Jovian years, the 211-year cycle near 19 average basic cycles and 220-221-year cycle is near being both 20 average cycles and 18.5 Jovian years. 3. Gleissberg cycle has a higher level correlation. 4. The "real" basic cycle of Sun is 10.3 years.

As expected, the Gleissberg cycle didn't show up. It had its highest correlations, that were only 0.160, in the years 77.1-77.2, which corresponds to 6.50-6.51 Jovian years. Both of the limits of the Gleissberg cycle get negative correlations. On the upper limit the correlation is at its lowest or -0.130...-0.137 from 82.6 to 83.6 giving credibility to the limit being 7 Jovian years.

Because the average change in length from one Gleissberg cycle to the next is 0.07 Jovian years, this means that there are 13 Jovian years (154.2 years) and not 14 (meaning one full Jovian year) before there is a change of direction in the Gleissberg lengths. The whole round is done in 26.1 Jovian years or in 28 cycles or in 310 years. So this is what was seen in Elatina laminations.

If the low limit would have been 6 Jovian years, the prohibition of the exact meeting of the minimum and the Jovian perihelion would have been violated (See introduction). But which is the egg and which is the hen?

And one guess: the weak 179-year supercycle may bind the 9.9-year cycle with 15 1/14 Jovian years. This may have repercussions to the hypothesis that every 15th cycle among some others have the length of one Jupiter year.

And lastly one prediction. Since the ongoing cycle is the 13th cycle since the last long cycle in 1784-1867 this cycle is should reverse the trend, which means a long cycle probably ending somewhere in 2009-2010.


5.3. Some studies showing a 200-year cyclicity


Zhukov and Muzalevskii (Soviet Astronomy 13, 1969) have run several autocorrelation analysis based on the Schove series of data. The longest of these analysis, from 214 BC to AD 1947, has the highest spectral density at 200.4 years. From the smaller, but more reliable data from AD 850 to AD 1947, they got a value of 201.5 years. The former is 16.89 and the latter 16.99 Jovian years. My 201.4 years equal 16.98 Jovian years.

Peter Brockwell and Richard Davis have in their book "Time Series: Theory and Methods", 1987, (page 357) derived an autoregressive minimum AIC model for the Wolf numbers between 1770 and 1869 and got a value for the WN (white noise) as being 202.6 years or 17.08 Jovian years.

Houtermans, Suess, and Munk (Effect of Industrial Fuel Combustion on the Carbon-14 Level, in "Radioactive Dating and Methods", IAEA, 1967) have found a 200-year cycle. Neftel, Oeschger, and Suess (Secular Non-random Variations of Cosmogenic Carbon-14, in "Earth and Planetary Sci. Letters" 56, 1981) have in their 6000-year long study found a 202-year cycle. H. E. Suess has in two articles in 1980 (Schove 1983) considered a 203-year cycle as the most significant supercycle in eight millennia of Bristlecone history. M. Stuiver in Pepin et al.: "The Ancient Sun", 1980, has found a radiocarbon cycle of 202 years since AD 700.

Because 17 Jovian years equal 201.65 Earthly years, it is a good candidate for a supercycle.

Cole has two values, 190 and 196 years, but these I inspect later. Dansgaard et. al (Climatic record revealed, in Turekian: "The Late Cenozoic Glacial Ages", 1971) have found a 175-180 year cycle in the Greenland ice-cap since AD 1200, and a 380-year cycle in earlier times.

I had also a weak correlation near 180 years. May it be that this supercycle oscillates between 180 and 220 years?

After having remarked that according to Eddy there is a 180-y interval between the Maunder and Sporer minima, Paul Damon remarks (Solar Induced Variations of Energetic Particles at one AU, in White: "The Solar Output and Its Variation", 1977): "Damon, Long, and Grey (J. Geophys. Res. 71, 1966) showed that the best sinusoidal fit to the delta data for the Little Ice Age had a period of 200 y... using the Blackman-Tukey Fourier analysis. For the time from 0 to 2000 y [BP], 182-y periodicity is observed."

In the above-mentioned Kiral article ("Autocorrelation and Solar Cycles") there are several peaks between 177 and 222 years, which is in good agreement with my observations. A most interesting result comes from the Yunnan group, China (Yunnan Observatory: A Recompilation of our Country's Records of Sunspots Through the Ages, in "Chinese Astronomy" 1, 1977), which states that there is a peak

periodicity between 165 and 210 years

. This study uses pre-telescopic sunspot sightings, of which the earliest is dated in May 28 BC.

The onset of the three great superminima in this millennium based on the 14C production according to Stuiver and Quay (Changes in atmosphere Carbon 14 attributed to a variable Sun, in Science 207, 1980) occurred in 1282 (medieval or Wolf), 1450 (Sporer), and 1645 (Maunder). From these we get intervals of 168 and 195 years.

In the Alps there has been retreats of the glaciers (Rothlisberger: 10000 Jahre Gletschergeschich te der Erde, 1986, page 76) between 1530 and 1565 and again between 1920 and 1960 with a short retreat between 1720 and 1730. The interval between the onsets is thus 190+200 years. The sudden advance of the glaciers began in 1680 and came to an end 195 years later in 1875. Between the three onsets in 1530 (retreat), in 1680 (advance), and in 1920 (retreat) elapsed 2 and 3 Gleissbergs, respectively.


Link to above source
edit on 4-7-2011 by sdebunker because: add content



posted on Jul, 5 2011 @ 08:16 AM
link   
I have come to the conclusion that seismologists today know about as much as fortune tellers about earthquakes.

That is, they are guessing. I welcome your historical comparisons. We do a great deal of historical comparisons here in Japan as well.

The entire town of Fudai, Japan was saved because a mayor followed history and predicted another tsunami would attack his town. He saved over 3,000 people.



posted on Jul, 5 2011 @ 08:24 AM
link   
Why do I believe this month on the 11th and October 11th are dangerous times?

I've been looking at the daily energy release charts and they look like a consistent heartbeat to me.

Chirstchurch had a big one almost 4 months after their initial one.

I have also been hearing booming and rumbling sounds under me in Tokyo as well as a lot of very weak sliding movements and 1 or 2 second shakes. I feel that there might be liquefaction going on under me and this can lead to sinkholes small and large which might lead to earthquakes.

Why October? If Elenin is big and does have an effect..



posted on Jul, 5 2011 @ 11:21 AM
link   
Thank you for posting that. I was unaware about the mayor doing that. I find that interesting, learn something new everyday.



posted on Jul, 5 2011 @ 12:19 PM
link   
Life, the solar system, the universe, its all cycles within cycles. Perhaps the OP stumbled upon one of these cycles, only time will tell. Thanks for the interesting read!
Star and flag for something my mind says AHA!! this could be correct! Good job. Now the problem arises as to if you are correct, and the Madrid eq does happen this year, what then? Could history repeat itslef in cycles we will be able to pick up and understand more often? Perhaps this is the way we should be looking at major life changing events, patterns within patterns and cycles within cycles, each effecting the other in ways we do not understand?

Well, I will be waiting out the year and seeing if this does happen. Something deep inside me says you might be onto something. And so far your pattern of events does seem to match the 1811 year, so SOMETHING is repeating, at least in my mind I can see what you are saying.



posted on Jul, 6 2011 @ 12:31 AM
link   
Guess its just wait and see time and see how things unfold
edit on 6-7-2011 by sdebunker because: typo



posted on Jul, 6 2011 @ 01:18 AM
link   
Just another little sidenote to our thread of the 200yr 1811-2011 similarities.



We never gave up the ship! Divers claim they have found the 200-year-old wreck of the USS Revenge
By Daily Mail Reporter

Last updated at 11:00 PM on 7th January 2011


Her remains have lain on the ocean floor for nearly 200 years.
But now a team of divers armed with just a metal detector claim they have found the wreck of the USS Revenge, a 70ft schooner wrecked off Rhode Island in 1811.
As the 200th anniversary of the sinking approaches on Sunday, the divers claim they have found cannons, an anchor, and other bits of metal scattered across the ocean floor that they believe are all that remains of the famous ship.


Rest of story at:
Link





edit on 6-7-2011 by sdebunker because: typo



posted on Jul, 6 2011 @ 01:46 AM
link   
Guess we will watch and see how this hurricane season plays out as well




1811 Atlantic hurricane season

I. A minor hurricane that struck Cuba continued onward to Charleston, South Carolina on September 10, causing many deaths, tornadoes, and crop damage as it moved across the state.

II. On October 4 a major hurricane hit near St. Augustine, Florida. Many homes were destroyed, and 35 people drowned in the sinking of a U.S. Gunboat.

III. On October 11 a hurricane strikes Pensacola, Florida and Fort Stoddard, Alabama.

IV. A hurricane moved through the western Caribbean west of Jamaica to Cuba between October 20 and October 25. On October 26 a Spanish ship is lost at Elliot Key from a hurricane.[1]


Source:
Link

For comparison, full story at:

accuweather.com 2011 Hurricane Season Forecast


"It looks like we're going to have more impact on the mainland of the U.S. coming up this year compared to last year," Pastelok said. "We had a lot of storms last year, but not a lot of impact [on the U.S.]."



As with most Atlantic hurricane seasons, the areas where storms are most likely to make landfall shift as the season progresses.

This year, the early season threat area will be the western Gulf of Mexico and the southern portion of the Caribbean. Within this zone, the higher concern for landfalls will be along the Texas and Louisiana coastlines.

As for the mid-to-late season zones, the eastern Gulf and Caribbean will be the focus. The higher concern areas will be the Florida Peninsula to the Carolinas.

"What we see is there is a clustering of storm impacts over the southeastern US, and that's the reason why we earmarked this as a concern area," said Kottlowski.

Another mid-to-late season concern for landfalls will be northern New England and the Canadian Maritimes.

"We feel that this season, there will be a higher potential for impacts across the southern part of the Basin into the Gulf of Mexico during the first part of the season," Pastelok stated. "This higher potential for impacts shift farther north into the southeast U.S. during the latter half of the season."

Hurricane season officially begins June 1 and ends Nov. 30.





posted on Jul, 6 2011 @ 07:15 PM
link   
reply to post by sdebunker
 


Nice post I noticed that you threw in Jim Berkland, he has been very successful in predicting earth quakes tying them into the new moons and tidal wave and perigee of the moon. A real bing indicator of a possible quake is lost pets it has something to do with their homing abilities.



posted on Jul, 7 2011 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by redbarron626
Hey thanks for fixing the links! Great stuff btw. I Think your ideas are actually closer to reality than fiction! I hope i didn't come off sounding like a debunker or even worse a troll, I just wanted to say that in 93 there were some rumors about EQ's and flooding that scared a lot of folks. The sand spouts that happen regularly are sometimes considered a warning sign for EQ activity. They are actually pretty cool if you get to see one, its like a geyser made of sandy wet goo that spews as much at 20 feet in the air.
After reading all your info, it seems that you may be onto something that could become a SOMETHING! Keep up the good work.


Ok this got me thinking last night, so went to the library, some internet checking and made a couple phone calls. Not for sure if anyone has ever heard of the Teays River. If not, it was basically a river made by the glaciers in North America that rivaled the Nile. It was, well is, a very deep underground water aquifier. It used to be a raging river but said today to be only pockets of deep wells. I will supply the map below. But I have a family member that has worked for a county water dept in Indiana for almost 30 years and remember them telling me about trying to tap into an underground river but was just too expensive for the county. I didnt think too much of it at the time, but learned more about the Teays river and called them. He/she told me there is still water flowing in the river and has very deep wells of fresh water with fish and everything in it, especially in times of heavy flooding it fills up. So I did some research. Here is the "known" map":




Now during times of abnormal flooding. Now like in 1811 and 2011, it just wasnt flooding in one area, but over the course of a few months was flooding from several areas that drained into the Mississippi River, and now you have a possible tributary that drains into the fault from underground at the same time as well. (I can supply all these links later, or you can google yourself, but I have appointments this afternoon). If you notice, the Teays River meets underground at the north end of the Mississippi Embayment at or near St Louis or close to the New Madrid Fault. Now, one of the things about this river is it was formed by the glaciers retreating and a large amount of sediment was left behind, one of the most abundant being sand. On another phone call, a friend of mine told me that he recalls reading an account of late 1810 that a town near Cape Giradau (spelling?), carrying out wagons of white sand that came out of the ground like geysers. That over time, for reasons unknown, the all that gets clogged up with sediment and the fault starts releasing the pressure by blowing the sand and steam out in the form of geysers. (This was his opinion and have no link to provide for that, so just speculation)

But I do have conflicting stories as most research will say the river is dried up except for pockets of deeps wells here and there. But, my family member tells me otherswise. And I did a search, and there is cities and counties trying to tap into the rivers' water supply, but it is very deep underground. I guess somehow the sediment gets blocked and pressure will build up to a point from my understanding. But where, I have no idea and I dont think anyone else does either.

Now, if you look at the map I added the link to. There is the odd story of the person that thought they saw a volcanic eruption or something similar at the time of the New Madrid quake in North Carolina. The area of Hot Springs, NC. Obviously, that town gets its name from all the hot springs in the area. Now looking at the map, and look where the Teays River ends, and happens to be in North Carolina, and would that qualify to be in the area of Hot Springs, North Carolina?

So, maybe the sand goo mess is a foreshadowing of something to happen, and maybe something as far away as NC could be? When we think of flooding, I think we view it as what we can see, we dont think of what we cant see. But this was just meant for food for thought. Its not exactly the repeat of history part or is it?

I mean if the Teays River was a dried up old glacier river then why do we have a company buying up farmland all along it?

Website

Just food for thought

edit on 7-7-2011 by sdebunker because: typo



posted on Jul, 7 2011 @ 07:50 PM
link   
We had a noticeable earthquake last night at 3:30 in Tokyo. About 30 seconds of light swaying.



posted on Jul, 7 2011 @ 08:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by ren1999
We had a noticeable earthquake last night at 3:30 in Tokyo. About 30 seconds of light swaying.



Something I have never personally experienced, not sure I want to, a big one anyway. At least most the time, I know a tornado is coming.



posted on Jul, 7 2011 @ 09:26 PM
link   
Here the National Parks Dept tells you its just an old dried up glacial underground river bed


Time, More Time, And Still More Time

We've just learned how the river cut its gorge, but how long did it take? Geologists don't know, and their estimates vary widely from 3 million years to 320 million years.

In any event, it took a long time to cut this gorge, and the name "New River" is far from right. In fact, the New may be very old, perhaps one of the oldest river systems in the world. We do know that this part of New River follows the same course followed by part of the ancient Teays River and is simply a new name for part of the Teays River system.

The ancestral Teays River had an enormous effect on interior America. With its tributaries, it helped carve the landscape of parts of present-day North Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia, Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois. Teays ceased to exist in its western reaches with the coming of the Ice Age. At least four times lobes of the continental glacier covered parts of the Teays River, bringing to this region an arctic climate with mammoths, wooly rhinocerous, caribou, and musk oxen roving in front of the glacial ice sheets.

One of these glacial advances dammed the river with ice and debris at about present-day Cillicothe, Ohio, creating a large lake that backed up to the vicinity of Gauley Bridge. This caused the Teays to seek a new course skirting the edge of the glacier. The new course was and still is the Ohio River.


Link

But....The Peru, Indiana's own public utility company says they still draw their water from the active wells and aquifiers to supply the city and Grissom AFB


Water Treatment and Distribution

Peru Operations - Serves approximately 4,812 customers, generally within the corporation boundaries of the City of Peru. Raw water is obtained from the Teays River Aquifer by 4 wells having a maximum capacity of 9.5 million gallons per day. The treatment plant has a maximum capacity of 4 million gallons per day. The Peru Operations has a total of 3.35 million gallons of treated water storage capacity. The Peru Water Operations employs 11 persons

Grissom Aeroplex Operations - Serves approximately 1,016 customers within the boundaries of the former Grissom Air Force Base. Raw water is obtained from three wells having a maximum capacity of 3 million gallons per day. The water treatment plant has a maximum capacity of 2 million gallons per day. The Grissom Aeroplex Operations has a total of 2.1 million gallons of treated water storage capacity.


Link

So, like in 1811, could the NM fault been flooding from the top and from the underneath and that is happening the same way in 2011 with a repeat of some sort of cycle? Is the Teays the final "overflow" and pushes sediment until it gets blocked up against the NM fault and the pressure has to be released and the forewarning is the sand spouts? Was the account in North Carolina a made up story, eyes playing tricks, too much moonshine, nothing at all, or the Teays backed up and was a massive geyser of water, steam, and sand that looked like a volcano?

History repeating? Similarities coincidence? Stumbled on to something new? Nothing at all? Natural disaster overload? Guess time will tell.
edit on 7-7-2011 by sdebunker because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-7-2011 by sdebunker because: messed up ex text



new topics

top topics



 
118
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join