Earthquake swarm Off The East Coast Of The Kamchatka Peninsula

reply to post by Phage


You read through those all of those studies in 10 minutes or did as I did and read abstracts, results, discussions? Ill assume the later. The point of my posting them was not to say there is an association and I made that clear. It was to provide some evidence that it is being studied and if people want to do some of their own research they can.

And did you find anything other than sunspots interesting? Because there are findings within these if one wants to look closely as they are not ATS guesses or "common sense" but studies someone took the time to undertake.

reply to post by Dianec

I preview articles such as these by first looking for the data sources. I also view the Figures before reading the authors interpretations of the data presented in the figures. In the first example I noticed some interesting things. Figure 7, I see no particular correlation with sunspot activity and earthquakes in western Iran. The authors say about the Figure:

almost a connection between the number of sunspots and the occurrence of the earthquakes.

"Almost" a connection? They then go on to say:

The result indicates that the presence of the sunspots effects as EEE, into the time of the earthquakes of the West Iran, USA and Japan which are linked to a solar activity cycle. Increasing number of the earthquakes has been directly related to increasing of the number of the sunspots.

They go from "almost a connection" to "directly related"?

Look at their Figure 11. Do you see a correlation? I don't. How about in figure 12?

What about Figure 10? A correlation? What about 1980? Why such a small sample for Japan earthquakes?

reply to post by Phage


And the studies were pulled up in academic search premier before I posted them and I checked scholarly/peer reviewed.

reply to post by Dianec

The first two were published in peer reviewed journals.
The third was not.
But peer review does not mean correct.

reply to post by Phage


No I don't see a correlation and that would infer cause effect so for sure don't see it but its interesting to see they are studying it. I found the idea that quakes happened more at night in one study interesting. Maybe will see more on this in the future. I see some people are interested in it but I personally just notice more behavioral issues with the sun. Not so much with earthquakes. I believe your initial assessment is feasible. That people just notice them more.

reply to post by Phage


It appears from that research articles that there is a positive correlation between non-tectronic plate quakes and solar max. I hope I didn't get that backwards. Then there is a negative correlation between tectronic plate quakes and sunspot numbers. By taking all the quakes it kind of balances out and the pattern disappears.

I guess that is possible but a lot more research and comparisons would need to be done to make it be able to do predictions in the future. It sounds sort of like it is a catalystic or synergetic relationship.

That shankargargh article was a good article.

reply to post by rickymouse

It sounds sort of like it is a catalystic or synergetic relationship.

Or none at all.
Or a matter of shoehorning and cherry picking data to fit the hypothesis.

reply to post by Phage


It's coming up but maybe I didn't click peer review in my search for the last one. Im logged off of that right now so not gonna check. I agree It doesn't make them correct. It just means the study was done right. It's all too much for me though - there are so many articles on this and its hard to work through them all if not scientifically minded in this way. I appreciate the explanations. I see it as a lit review in progress (and none of these were and I stated one was for some reason). I think it's important for people to explore these things to see how complex these answers can be and realize correlations are not always as they appear.

reply to post by Phage


That's what I was hoping for. A keen eye to details such as that. I can't reinterpret them as its too complex. I am surprised at the discrepancy though. Going to go look at that more now

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by rickymouse

 

It sounds sort of like it is a catalystic or synergetic relationship.

Or none at all.
Or a matter of shoehorning and cherry picking data to fit the hypothesis.

It is going to take people with open minds to find a link. You will never find one if you do not think one exists and discount what does not fit into your perspectives. Did Einstein or Tesla follow protocol when they formed their ideas? Did Edison follow conscensus of the time. Not every variable has been researched or thought of yet. Energy added to an entrophy from an outside force increases total energy. The sun increases total energy output when it is at Solar max. The earth deflects much of it but to do so stresses the fields which are tied somehow to the earth, whether it be gravity or geomagnetic ribbons of connection.

I am not saying that there is a link, just that there is possibly some sort of a link. The sun's corona grows and shrinks also, that is actually the point at which the fields start to organize. Earths magnetic fields get bigger and smaller with an inverse relation to field strength also. The last sentence is why we do not get as much noticable variability from solar cycles.

reply to post by Dianec

The idea of earthquake forecasting is a good one and there actually is a lot of research being done in the field. However the idea that solar activity can be used in any way just doesn't hold up. Yes, a few people are looking at it. And if you take the time to really look at what they come up with it's usually something like this:
1) Solar activity must have some effect on earthquake activity.
2) Hmmm. The data doesn't really indicate that though.
3) Well, let's try this explanation...sometimes it causes more activity and sometimes it causes less.

More honestly, researchers come up with things like this:

Across a range of earthquake magnitude thresholds, we find no consistent and statistically significant distributional differences. We also introduce time lags between the solar-terrestrial variables and the number of earthquakes, but again no statistically significant distributional difference is found. We cannot reject the null hypothesis of no solar-terrestrial triggering of earthquakes.

onlinelibrary.wiley.com...


But to get more to the topic at hand, you will have a very very hard time finding any research which indicates anything like, "Oh! An X5 flare! Watch out for earthquakes!"

reply to post by rickymouse

It is going to take people with open minds to find a link.

It's going to take a careful and unbiased examination of data to find a link.

Did Einstein or Tesla follow protocol when they formed their ideas?

Yes. Einstein was a trained physicist. Tesla was a very good engineer. Both based their work on the work of others. I wouldn't put Tesla in the same class as Einstein though. You know that Tesla had a very strong distaste for Einstein's work, right?

Did Edison follow conscensus of the time.

Yes. He was a very good engineer and inventor. Didn't really come up with much in the way of "new" science though. Didn't really disturb the scientific community much (not like Einstein did).

Not every variable has been researched or thought of yet.

So how many variables does it take before it becomes absurd to look for a direct correlation?

Earths magnetic fields get bigger and smaller with an inverse relation to field strength also.

Not sure what you mean by that. The Earth's magnetic field does vary in strength (it's currently declining) what do you mean "bigger and smaller"?

The last sentence is why we do not get as much noticable variability from solar cycles.

Not sure what you mean by that either. If solar activity influences earthquakes there would be a statistical correlation between them. If there are "too many variables" for such a correlation to appear...what's the point?

reply to post by Phage


When earths magnetic field is hit by extra energy, it gets bigger, moving farther from the earth but it weakens the farther out it gets, the energy of it is less per square foot because there is more square feet of field. It is like adding more air to a balloon, the more you blow it up the thinner the material. We are actually talking about the earth's surface tension....Laymans terms.

Everything has a surface tension field, when we touch something, the molecules of our skin do not actually touch it, the energy field of our body does. If you stick your tongue on a ice cold aluminum pole, the energy field is drawn away and your tongue gets sort of temperarily welded to the pole. The same is true when frying something in a pan, cold sticks to the metal until the cold meat gains enough energy to repel the pan, then you can flip the hamburger without it being stuck. I know this sounds irrevelent but it is somewhat related to the earths fields if you think about it..

reply to post by rickymouse

When earths magnetic field is hit by extra energy, it gets bigger, moving farther from the earth but it weakens the farther out it gets, the energy of it is less per square foot because there is more square feet of field.

What "energy" are you talking about? The magnetosphere is not affected by electromagnetic radiation but it is affected by the charged particles of the solar wind. Those particles carry remnants of the magnetic field of the Sun through interplanetary space. It's called the interplanetary magnetic field.

How the magnetosphere responds to the solar wind depends upon the magnetic configuration of the solar wind (it varies) when it encounters the magnetosphere. If the configuration is the same as that of Earth's field ("north up"), the Earth's field does not readily form a connection with the solar wind. If the configuration is opposite ("south up"), the two fields connect with each other and the lines of force of the Earth's field can be pulled off downstream. But the main effect is that when the solar wind takes a south turn the charged particles can easily enter the magnetic field. It is this influx of particles which causes the aurora (and geomagnetic storms).

The same is true when frying something in a pan, cold sticks to the metal until the cold meat gains enough energy to repel the pan, then you can flip the hamburger without it being stuck.

Actually, what happens is the fat in the burger melts and forms a film between the pan and the burger. There is nothing being repelled by anything.

I know this sounds irrevelent but it is somewhat related to the earths fields if you think about it..

Ok. I thought about it. It isn't related.

reply to post by Phage



I'm going to propse a non educated variable example just to demonstrate where more research may lead one day. Let say someone begins to look at all the research out there and begins to see a pattern thus far not recognized. Each individual study shows a weak yet not to be ruled out sun earthquake correlation but people are now taking findings within those studies (any significant yet unanticipated findings). They dig deeper. Maybe they will find that when major gravitational pull (or whatever scientific name one should use) takes place there is also pressure on slip plate faults but there also has to be a full moon. That's silly but where I'm going with it is this is that these studies are important. For example a study by Gavrilov, Zhuravel, & Monozova (2010) looked at diurnal variations and weak earthquakes. They found a relationship betweem electromagnetic emissions, diurnal emissions, and weak quakes. Low frequency electromagnetic variations were strongly associated with these other variables. One might assume then that high electromagnetic variations would be linked to more powerful quakes. Reading this stuff gives me a headache so I'm not going to look to see if someone took this info and did an experiment on the opposite and then stuck it into a solar database. Rather, it may be that one day we hear that solar cycles can influence earthquake strength if variables x, y, and z are present. Or if it pulls just so on the field, along with a CME that is a direct hit, etc. I believe the sun affects the earth. It's just going to be interesting to see where this goes. I do agree that I don't think it will ever be a one to one cause and effect situation but rather the perfect storm of variables that bring it about. You seem like a smart guy so would be the perfect candidate for doing a good literature review to see what comes out of it:-). I wish I were better at this sort of science because it seems to be on the brink of something and I can't put my finger on it but strongly sense that the answer lies deep within the literature of magnetic field, sun, and vibrations or him from the core (if that makes sense - laymen terms so not scientific).

reply to post by Phage


I read a lot of articles from Physics.org. It probably is not a reliable source.

a reply to: Phage

No indication that increased solar activity results in an increase in earthquake activity. No indication that any particular solar event results in an earthquake.

Increases in frequency and length of solar events do correlate with the formation of skin cancer but you have to die of something.