X2 flare. Earth directed

I am home from work and was hoping Chadwickus checked out my links and thrown his opinion out to me. But he didn't.

ANYWAYS.......

Hope everyone has had a good day (or evening) as I had a really good one. Kids are doing their homework now so I can talk shop.... about my favorite subjects... Sun and EQ's!

What is interesting is the data shows we have had really intense flares without the intense EQ's (6 or higher within a few days) or would it even matter how big an EQ is to determine whether or not there is indeed a correlation. If it does NOT matter then it would be hard to determine because the Earth is always cracka lackin.

As far as USGS....not a real big fan because they are not the front liners in my opinion that determines if there is or is not a shared link. If I am wrong....by all means fill me in with a link or two.

I have seen theories passed around in the community to suggest some speculate an alignment of sorts will cause an EQ as well. In order for me to know whether or not that is the case I would need to go back at least a few years to see if that is the case or not (for myself to be satisfied).

Thoughts??

Peace and love to you all!!!! xoxox

Jenn

Bear with my unintelligence in geology as I only have taken 1 college course on it, but follow me for this intellectual journey.

The solar flares affect the earths magnetic field. What makes the magnetic field?
Well we believe it is the fluid core dynamics at the center of the planet.

What sits atop said fluid core, and dense mantle?
The crust.

What causes earthquakes?
Pieces of the crust moving, sliding, colliding, and subducting

So is is POSSIBLE that the affect of solar flares on the magnetic field of the earth cause a slight change in the dynamics of the core due to it being made of Metals, which could cause stress on the mantle and them movement of the crust?

I would argue yes, it could. Also the impact on the magnetic field causes the field to weaken allowing more cosmic rays to hit the planet, these rays MIGHT have an effect on the plates given the extreme speed at which they travel.

My point here is that there may be many ways in which the sun could affect earthquakes, and just like the cosmic ray theory, we do not yet fully understand the processes involved between the sun and the earth. Also if the USGS is so good, why can't we predict earthquakes. I've always believed that if you can't predict the future outcomes of a subject, you do not fully understand it. And since last time I checked we can't predict earthquakes with any sort of accuracy, I think its safe to say that anything is possible as for what affects earthquakes and it is incredibly shallow minded to think that it is impossible, many things were thought to be impossible that are now accepted fact today, maybe improbable is a better word

Originally posted by TupacShakur
reply to post by KevinB

 

What worries me about this type of flare, while it may not actually be strong enough to affect power grids, and will only have a minor impact on radio signals, it could easily induce more large earthquakes and I think we all can agree that we don't need anymore of those.

No.....no it couldn't. Earthquakes are caused by things happenning underneath the earths surface, solar flares and their effects occur above the earth's surface thanks to our magnetic field. Besides, even if they made it through, how could the particles interact with tectonic plates to the point that it causes an earthquake?

edit on 7-9-2011 by TupacShakur because: To edit my post

Actually there are studies that have been done that suggest that solar flares can and do cause earthquakes. Please see this short paper from Harvard University. adsabs.harvard.edu...

reply to post by MamaJ


Hey Mama,
From what I can tell from what I have read on the subject is that in one study of 682 earthquakes over a few years period all of them were preceeded by a flare BUT not every flare was followed by an earthquake.
I u2u'd you.
Karen

reply to post by karen61057

That's funny. I don't see it saying that at all.

Our investigation preliminarily shows that each earthquake under study was preceded by a solar flare of GOES importance B to X class by 10-100 hrs. However, each flare was not found followed by earthquake of magnitude ¡Ý4.0.

There was a flare as much as 4 days before an earthquake. I can't tell whether it says greater or less than 4.0. So what? There are earthquakes of greater than 4.0 every day.

The shower syndrome in action. They hand picked ("each earthquake under study") their earthquakes.
Wonderful study there.

reply to post by MaxBlack


Expect that comet Elenin, which is real by the way, no one ever said it was not real, is 4 kms across, not a hugh mass as you are suggesting. And comets come and go through our region of the solar system and none of them any ever had the effect you are suggesting. Add to that the fact that the comet is probably melting and falling apart and will not even survive to make its trip out of our solar system.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by karen61057

 

That's funny. I don't see it saying that at all.

Our investigation preliminarily shows that each earthquake under study was preceded by a solar flare of GOES importance B to X class by 10-100 hrs. However, each flare was not found followed by earthquake of magnitude ¡Ý4.0.

There was a flare as much as 4 days before an earthquake. I can't tell whether it says greater or less than 4.0. So what? There are earthquakes of greater than 4.0 every day!

The shower syndrome in action. Wonderful study there. They hand picked ("each earthquake under study") their earthquakes.

edit on 9/7/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)

edit on 9/7/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)

I hate bs reports such as this. Almost everyday their is a b class flare and almost everyday their is a 4.0 earthquake, it's studies like these that make this topic so hard to legitimize. Faulty math and science, disgraceful. Thanks for pointing that out, good work as usual Phage

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by karen61057

 

That's funny. I don't see it saying that at all.

Our investigation preliminarily shows that each earthquake under study was preceded by a solar flare of GOES importance B to X class by 10-100 hrs. However, each flare was not found followed by earthquake of magnitude ¡Ý4.0.

There was a flare as much as 4 days before an earthquake. I can't tell whether it says greater or less than 4.0. So what? There are earthquakes of greater than 4.0 every day!

The shower syndrome in action. Wonderful study there. They hand picked ("each earthquake under study") their earthquakes.

edit on 9/7/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)

edit on 9/7/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Phage are you being sarcastic or what? I mean....come ON already. If the professional community is going back and forth theorizing why can't you. I am sorry but this is science....it is not and never will be "set in stone". I am glad you have made up your mind and are standing tall but some of us will not take your word for it and will do our own research. I have posted a few links if you want to come back at me and talk and debate about it. I am on the fence and am not at all swayed either way. If ANY of us knew what causes an EQ we would be making some big bucks because as it stands now there are only theories that go back and forth on the subject. There is no definite answer as of yet so there are some of us that are enjoying the discussions and are learning from one another as we accumulate evidence either way.

Some in the community do not believe an alignment or moon has anything to do with EQ's just as there are some who do.

I am not sure how you have come to your conclusion but maybe you can let the other big guys know who are only theorizing what actually causes EQ's.

I think my links are back on page 3 or 4. I have posted a few already.

Originally posted by Blaine91555
reply to post by KevinB

 

As far as I can find, there simply is no credible source for the seeming myth that these cause earthquakes. It seems to have been fabricated out of thin air by people not qualified to do so.

Here is a link to the USGS FAQ on this "Myth".

Solar flares and magnetic storms belong to a set of phenomena known collectively as "space weather". Technological systems and the activities of modern civilization can be affected by changing space-weather conditions. However, it has never been demonstrated that there is a causal relationship between space weather and earthquakes. Indeed, over the course of the Sun's 11-year variable cycle, the occurrence of flares and magnetic storms waxes and wanes, but earthquakes occur without any such 11-year variability. Since earthquakes are driven by processes in the Earth's interior, they would occur even if solar flares and magnetic storms were to somehow cease occurring.

(contributed by Dr. Jeffrey Love)

Any sources I find that say otherwise are questionable Blogs or threads on sites all from people not qualified to present this. In other words its like an Urban Myth and simply has zero basis in fact.

edit on 9/7/2011 by Blaine91555 because: (no reason given)

Try this one from Harvard University. adsabs.harvard.edu...

On second thought never mind. You've already thrown the baby out with the bath water.

reply to post by MamaJ

Yes, when I said "Wonderful study" I was being sarcastic.

That study is so obviously flawed it doesn't merit serious consideration. It is a perfect example of what I said earlier. I've done my own research. There are no studies which show any consistency in finding correlations between solar activity and earthquakes.

reply to post by KevinB


Very reasonable post.

Earthquakes happen when the forces acting on the fault increase to the point the rock liquifies or reaches a plastic state greasing the joint so to speak. Anything adding to those forces could be a factor.

Where I'm stuck is seeing how this could increase the forces acting on the fault plate. It would have to somehow increase temperature or pressure and it seems to me if that is happening due to solar flares, the effect would be global, measurable and not localized if it were from energy generated in the core.

Again I'm stuck at why is that earthquakes neither increase nor decrease in relationship to solar flare activity. All I see is coincidence. If a reaction from the Core is involved, we should see a direct relationship as its effect would be global.

Is it possible? Sure it is. Likely? Probably not. Other than a couple of obscure attempts to find a correlation, I don't see much interest in the idea among Seismologists. You know that Seismology is really pretty basic stuff. Actions and reactions. Cause and effect.

You also have the problem of lack of data. Norms in Geology cover huge spans of time. Normal patterns cannot be even estimated without data covering huge amounts of time. I've seen the graphs of earthquakes on the rise, but they cover so few years as to mean nothing and don't factor in that one of the real reasons is simply more sensors and better reporting.

reply to post by karen61057

It is not from Harvard University.
It was written by someone named R. Jain who is somehow affiliated with the "Department of Space, Govt. of India". It apparently is the abstract of a presentation given at the spring 2007 meeting of the AGU.

Again I'm stuck at why is that earthquakes neither increase nor decrease in relationship to solar flare activity. All I see is coincidence. If a reaction from the Core is involved, we should see a direct relationship as its effect would be global.

reply to post by Blaine91555


Could it be the deep underground water being electrified. I mean...I get confused when speaking tectonics because we were all taught that iron (mostly) is at the core of the Earth. Well.....as an adult I am finding this to be a theory and not actually proven. ??

reply to post by Phage


Hey I didnt write the paper. Its from Harvard University, I guess I mistakenly thought that would be a credible source.
So what they said about the earthquakes being preceeded by a flare was incorrect? They did say that not every flare was followed by a quake but that every quake that they studied was preceeded by a flare.

HOLY @#$%!

RIGHT ON SCHEDULE!

Date Range Earthquakes 5.0> Alignment(s)

4/25/2011-5/1/2011 34 None
5/2/2011-5/9/2011 36 None
5/10/2011-5/17/2011 58 Sun, Venus and ELENIN
5/18/2011-5/25/2011 32 None
5/26/2011-6/1/2011 29 None
6/2/2011-6/8/2011 35 None
6/9/2011-6/15/2011 36 None
6/16/2011-6/22/2011 36 None
6/23/2011-6/29/2011 36 None
6/30/2011-7/6/2011 24 (7.8 on 7/6/11) Sun, Mercury, ELENIN

Date Range # of 5.0> EQs ELE Alignment

7/16/2011 - 7/22/2011 34 None
7/23/2011 - 7/29/2011 45 Sun, ELE & Jupiter
7/30/2011 - 8/5/2011 31 None
8/6/2011 - 8/12/2011 34 None

Mars, Sun & ELE 8/22 – 8/27 Colorado & East Coast Earthquakes

ELE at perihelion with the Sun 9/8 - 9/11 Massive Solar Flares

This if from my data I posted months ago in several threads. This is now 5 in a row! There is no way this could be a coincidence! Get ready people, we have about three more weeks before EVERYTHING "hits the fan"!

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by MamaJ

 

Yes, when I said "Wonderful study" I was being sarcastic.

That study is so obviously flawed it doesn't merit serious consideration. It is a perfect example of what I said earlier. I've done my own research. There are no studies which show any consistency in finding correlations between solar activity and earthquakes.

And where is that research paper published? I'd like to see it.

reply to post by karen61057

I know you didn't right the paper and neither did anyone at Harvard.

You need to look at it (and everything else) with a critical eye. Could it be that there were only 682 earthquakes during that time span? Were there no earthquakes at all which did not occur within 4 days of a flare (B-class, really)?

Every earthquake they studied occurred after a flare because they selected earthquakes to study which had occurred after a flare.

reply to post by karen61057


The problem is that earthquakes occur often enough you could draw a false conclusion there is a relationship. You would have explain how. Without the how, its pretty iffy stuff.

reply to post by karen61057

What research paper?
I'm talking about the papers which claim to show a correlation. Like the one you cited. Just because an article is published it doesn't mean it's correct.

reply to post by Phage


Oh my bad, I saw Harvard.edu as the address.