|
Post by Ulric Lyons on May 26, 2009 22:05:06 GMT
Most large eruptions www.volcano.si.edu/world/largeeruptions.cfm seem to be responding to a temperature differential, namely a cold period followed by a sharp uplift in weekly/monthly temperature. I use CET as an indicator of global temperature changes, from 1979 onwards this can be checked against sat. temp. measurements: vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt If the eruption date is at the end of a month, the temp. rise may not be apparent in the monthly data till the following month, so care is needed in checking the correlation. The most recent eruptions are following this pattern well. I would predict that this August will provide a sufficient rise in temp. to trigger some new activity. I am also looking at a sharp uplift in temperature after a colder spell, from around Christmas into January, and another in May 2010.
|
|
|
Post by Maui on Jun 8, 2009 17:09:15 GMT
Saturday I received volume 15, issue 85, of INFINITE ENERGY (May / June, 2009); "The Magazine of New Energy Science and Technology." Again, there is scarcely any mention of volcanic nuclear fusion on Earth.
There is a summary of three days of cold-fusion presentations at the American Chemical Society meeting in March (by Scott Chubb, pp. 11-15). However, the only paper dealing with geo-fusion was "not presented." ("Cold nuclear fusion mechanism at crack tip spearhead located deep under the ground," Anatoly V. Shestopalov, Research Institute of Comprehensive Exploitation of Mineral Resources RAS, Moscow, Russia.)
A lengthy interview with Dr. Melvin Miles (by Marianne Macy, pp. 18-24) perhaps gives some insight. There is discussion of an "altercation" between Miles and Dr. Steven Jones. Jones, of Brigham Young University, was researching natural nuclear fusion in volcanoes at the same time Fleischmann and Pons, of University of Utah, rushed their cold fusion findings to the media in 1989. Miles worked on cold fusion research for the Naval Weapons Center from 1989 to 1995. There seems to be some kind of rivalry between "laboratory" and "Earth" fusion ...
|
|
|
Post by csspider57 on Jun 10, 2009 1:15:38 GMT
You might find these two articles interesting. One is from 2008 and they just found another blob. Something did heat and expand, but is now contracting. Blobs Inside Earth Like Peanut Butter By Robert Roy Britt, LiveScience Managing Editor
posted: 02 May 2008 ET ...Earth is made up of several layers, once thought to be pretty distinct.
The skin, or crust, goes down about 25 miles (40 km). Below that is the mantle area, which extends about halfway to the center of the planet. The mantle is a thick layer of silicate rock surrounding a dense, iron-nickel core, and it is subdivided into the upper and lower mantle, extending to a depth of about 1,800 miles (2,900 km). The outer core is beneath that and extends to 3,200 miles (5,150 km) and the inner core to about 4,000 miles (6,400 km).
New data reveal the mantle consists of more varying material than was thought. So convection — how heated material bubbles up — is now thought to work differently ...One clue to the new thinking is that seismic waves traveling through the planet have long been measured to travel at inexplicably different speeds. Sharp speed changes suggest differing materials. On each side of the planet there are two big, chemically distinct, dense piles or blobs of material that are hundreds of kilometers thick – one beneath the Pacific and the other below the Atlantic and Africa, the researchers say. "You can picture these piles like peanut butter," McNamara said. "It is solid rock, but rock under very high pressures and temperatures becomes soft like peanut butter, so any stresses will cause it to flow."
How stuff moves within the piles should help scientists better understand how surface plates move around, causing earthquakes and building mountains.
"The piles dictate how the convective cycles happen, how the currents circulate," McNamara said. "If you don't have piles then convection will be completely different." www.livescience.com/environment/080502-earth-inside.html Giant Blob Found Deep Beneath Nevada By Jeanna Bryner, Senior Writer
posted: 26 May 2009 05:22 pm ET
Hidden beneath the U.S. West's Great Basin, scientists have spied a giant blob of rocky material dripping like honey. While studying the area, John West of Arizona State University (ASU) and his colleagues found evidence of a large cylindrical blob of cold material far below the surface of central Nevada. Comparison of the results with CAT scans of the inside of Earth taken by ASU's Jeff Roth suggested they had found a so-called lithospheric drip. (Earth's lithosphere comprises the crust or outer layer of Earth and the uppermost mantle.)
Here's how it works: "The Earth's mantle, which lies below the thin outer crust we live on, consists of rock which deforms plastically on very long time scales due to the heat and pressure at depth," West said. "In any material which can flow (including the mantle), a heavy object will tend to sink through lighter material." www.livescience.com/environment/090526-giant-blob.html
|
|
|
Post by Maui on Jun 10, 2009 16:26:47 GMT
The more "discoveries" about the interior of the Earth, the more we realize how little we know. Most geophysics is based on a random, even distribution of events, although the 80-yer old theory of Levy Flight (with unexpected, non-linear results) was proven over a year ago.
I know this is an "ad ignorantiam" proof of solar induction of fusion in volcanoes, but why ignore a possible phenomenon that is intuitively obvious? Why double the US investment in the ITER international fusion project (to $2.2 billion), when the project is scaled down to a skeleton of its original design and will come on line five years late at best (2025 instead of 2020)?
|
|
|
Post by npsguy on Jun 11, 2009 12:58:54 GMT
All of this is facinating... Sun and Volcanoes linked, interior of Earth similar to "Chunky" peanut butter. It really is interesting stuff but... What does ANY of this have to do with Solar Cycle 24?
Aren't there a number of sections on this forum for people to discuss ideas that do NOT relate to solar cycle 24?
|
|
|
Post by Ulric Lyons on Jun 11, 2009 15:22:20 GMT
What does ANY of this have to do with Solar Cycle 24? There is more chance of stronger temperature changes at Solar Cycle max than min. If SC24 has more severe changes than average, then from what I am looking at, there will be increased chance of larger eruptions.
|
|
rmms
New Member
Posts: 8
|
Post by rmms on Jun 11, 2009 15:26:04 GMT
All of this is facinating... Sun and Volcanoes linked, interior of Earth similar to "Chunky" peanut butter. It really is interesting stuff but... What does ANY of this have to do with Solar Cycle 24? Aren't there a number of sections on this forum for people to discuss ideas that do NOT relate to solar cycle 24? Hi npsguy, First of all according to the Board Sections: This section is Solar Cycle 24 / Spaceweather: (Spaceweather Discussion goes here but not Global Warming) Hence whole discussion seems OK... and second:According to the first post and also subject of this discussion (see also: articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/full/2003ESASP.535..393S), in this thread, we try to investigate possible correlation between solar and volcanic activity (now: Solar Cycle 24 minimum and possibility of increased volcanic activity) Hence discussion is (or tries to be) about Solar Cycle 24 and its influence on Earth. Similarly as in other discussions.
|
|
|
Post by Maui on Jun 11, 2009 18:05:20 GMT
I really appreciate that this thread remains here. This seems to be a novel idea, as everybody I ask (NASA scientists, solar-terrestrial physics professors, geologists) say they don't know anything about this or just dismiss the idea...
I have some new information, but it is either not peer-reviewed or irrelevant to the solar cycle. It is my hope a parallel can be made with interaction between the large gas planets and their moons compared with the Earth-Sun volcanic system (similar to the mathematical concept of "proof by induction"). The mystery of Enceladus may be the key...
But PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE don't force this discussion into the "Planetary Theory Sandbox!!!!"
|
|
|
Post by france on Jun 17, 2009 12:06:42 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Maui on Jul 8, 2009 15:42:07 GMT
Nature recently presented two letters and a news item about Enceladus, as well as a letter and news item about Io (go to nature.com and search...). We're really not much closer to any concrete conclusions about either case of planetary interaction. Yet as the facts unfold and the mystery deepens, my hunch increases that the Earth-Sun have a similar interaction.
On Enceladus, observations from Earth and NASA's Cassini probe are starting to constrain the chemical composition of the volcanic plume. But physical details (eg, exact temperature and size of fissure) are limited by the small scale of the phenomena. It is thus difficult to search for a mechanism.
The Io-Jupiter interaction is characterized as gravitational; anyone with a philosphical knowledge of physics should understand that "gravity" is more of a mystery than "cold fusion." The new findings that the Jovian system is not stable should be no surprise; another recent study suggests that the inner planets might collide also. Now if people would just believe that the Earth is subject to change...
|
|
|
Post by brokenheadphonez on Jul 9, 2009 14:56:56 GMT
|
|
|
Post by rbateman on Jul 9, 2009 16:47:33 GMT
<i>There is more chance of stronger temperature changes at Solar Cycle max than min. </i>
Not the way the record has worked. You are confusing Grand Minimum with Solar Minimum.
The common assumption of radiation from the Sun being the sole source of heat on Earth is wrong. You also have tidal (gravity). For an extreme example, try Io.
|
|
|
Post by Ulric Lyons on Jul 16, 2009 18:20:52 GMT
<i>There is more chance of stronger temperature changes at Solar Cycle max than min. </i> Not the way the record has worked. You are confusing Grand Minimum with Solar Minimum. The common assumption of radiation from the Sun being the sole source of heat on Earth is wrong. You also have tidal (gravity). For an extreme example, try Io. 1) Yes it is the way the record has worked, there are, for example, clearly more colder N.H. winters at solar cycle maximums than at solar cycle minimums. 2) I am comparing minimum to maximum in any cycle, nothing to do with grand min. at all 3) On heat sources, surely hot air from pseudo boffins is more than from gravity.
|
|
|
Post by rbateman on Jul 16, 2009 20:15:21 GMT
Here's a list of chronological volcanic eruptions of the last 10,000 years: www.volcano.si.edu/world/largeeruptions.cfmHow many of these occured closer to solar minimum vs maximum? Seeing that gravity has nothing to do with it (ostensibly?). No volcanoes around the max of SC21. Coincidence or correlation? Does the level of Solar Max have anything to do with frequency of volcanoes around it? Why nothing between 1800 and 1812?
|
|
|
Post by madman2001 on Jul 16, 2009 21:43:08 GMT
>>Why nothing between 1800 and 1812?<< It should be noted, however, that the most devastating eruption in roughly 2000 years, Tambora, occured in 1815, during the tail-end of the Dalton Minimum.
Craig
|
|