|
Post by missouriboy on Apr 19, 2016 16:07:01 GMT
This thread is technically off topic. However, given the recent seismic events to hit the news cycle, it seemed like a good time to revisit the topic of whether there is any relationship between large seismic events and solar geomagnetic activity. Some may remember that John Casey had posted several articles on this topic when he was actively engaged in the Space and Science Research Corporation. The implication was that earthquakes were significantly more common during periods of low solar activity. Given the recent decline in solar activity, can we identify any relationship between the two? I downloaded a list of world-wide earthquakes larger than magnitude 7.0 since 1900 from the U.S. Geological Survey. I then summed these by year and plotted them against an annual average of solar geomagnetic activity. Graph 1 below seems to show that in recent years (since approximately 1940) it does appear that the number of large earthquakes increases during periods of low solar activity and declines during periods of higher solar activity. Prior to about 1940, the number large earthquakes declines dramatically. We know that the world seismic recording network has improved over time. While I could not locate any references documenting when the recording network matured, I have assumed that this may have occurred sometime in the 1930s. A plot of earthquake numbers to the geomagnetic index since 1940 (graph 2) suggests that geomagnetic activity may explain upwards of 30 percent of the changes in earthquake activity. Chart 3 shows that residuals from the regression line, as expected, peak in years when the two observation lines cross, indicating that the correlation between the two sets of data may be greater than a simple linear regression would indicate.
|
|
|
Post by flearider on Apr 19, 2016 21:38:10 GMT
yes m8 there is .. less sunspots ie a weeker sun gives rise to more coronal holes .. these send off huge magnetic particles which in turn hit us and cause more earthquakes .. not as simple as that a hell of a lot more to it .. but yeah
|
|
|
Post by flearider on Apr 19, 2016 21:57:50 GMT
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Apr 20, 2016 1:27:39 GMT
Thank you Flearider. These are quite interesting and I'll bookmark them for future referral
|
|
|
Post by flearider on Apr 20, 2016 21:36:54 GMT
|
|
|
Post by glennkoks on Apr 22, 2016 5:14:23 GMT
It's beyond my skill set but a couple of things to think about while researching the topic:
You may want to narrow your search from "seismic events" to "volcanic eruptions". Prior to the seismograph we did not have a very accurate way of measuring earthquake intensity nor did we document many except the extremely destructive ones. However, the larger volcanic eruptions seem to be recorded better in the annals of history.
In addition the link between the 11 year solar cycle and seismic events may be very small. However during grand solar minimums it may be much more pronounced.
I would love to hear more feedback from the forum regulars on this topic.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Apr 22, 2016 11:15:59 GMT
It could be back to everyone's friend the moving barycenter.
It may feel like we are on 'solid ground' but the earth's crust is only around 30km thick for the continents and less than that on the sea floors. The crust is on top of a plastic 'mantle' which is a little thicker, then there is the liquid core. So we are on a aquashy skinned bubble of molten rock that is literally the size of a planet. The barycenter for the Earth Sun pair is well inside the Sun so that Earth seems to maintain a constant path around the sun (give or take the odd Milankovitc.
Now the Sun, as Theo will tell us, is not following a simple path around the Galaxy as the solar system has a center of mass (barycenter) that can be more than a Sun diameter outside the Sun. The Earth is along for the ride on that one. As everyone knows an orbiting planet is continually accelerating as its velocity vector is being curved into the orbit by a 'centripetal force' not only that but as the Sun wobbles the Earth wobbles with it. The amount of force required to change the velocity of the Earth will be considerable and that has to be applied to this large squashy skinned bubble of molten rock. There are likely to be distortions due to the variance in that force and weak spots in the Earth's crust might grate or move and molten core liquid break through the mantle and crust. This would be expected to be more likely when the Earth is under stress. So a mapping of Earth's orbital and rotaational positions as the Barycenter makes its more wild excursions may correlate with volcanism and earthquakes. If Sun spots correlate with the Barycenter movement then Sun spots and Earth volcanism and earthquakes could appear at similar times but they both would have common causation rather than Sun spots causing volcanism.
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Apr 22, 2016 11:42:04 GMT
I'm holding my breath for the moderatable comments!!
I've seen the theories but usually place them in the HAARP and associated theories pigeon hole...
Barycentres make sense to me, but intelligent people work out the tolerances and they are apparently tiny. It may be the very subtlest of influences are not yet fully understood and the idea of solar influence on our planets physical structure do appear to hold some water. ..but it's difficult to quantify the absolutes as the subjects are big (as are distances) but forces small.
It is a controversial subject that participants in opposing ideas struggle to find common ground on.
It's a bit like astrophysicists and particle physicists trying to unify theory's. ..
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Apr 22, 2016 14:51:28 GMT
I'm holding my breath for the moderatable comments!! I've seen the theories but usually place them in the HAARP and associated theories pigeon hole... Barycentres make sense to me, but intelligent people work out the tolerances and they are apparently tiny. It may be the very subtlest of influences are not yet fully understood and the idea of solar influence on our planets physical structure do appear to hold some water. ..but it's difficult to quantify the absolutes as the subjects are big (as are distances) but forces small. It is a controversial subject that participants in opposing ideas struggle to find common ground on. It's a bit like astrophysicists and particle physicists trying to unify theory's. .. How much force do you think would be required to move the Earth 1mm off its current vector - and you call that small? What is required to change the Earth's orbit by a half diameter of the Sun? Tiny? Really?? Just consider the inertia 1/ 2MV 2 even in free fall inertia exists and must be overcome to alter velocity.
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Apr 22, 2016 15:52:58 GMT
I'm holding my breath for the moderatable comments!! I've seen the theories but usually place them in the HAARP and associated theories pigeon hole... Barycentres make sense to me, but intelligent people work out the tolerances and they are apparently tiny. It may be the very subtlest of influences are not yet fully understood and the idea of solar influence on our planets physical structure do appear to hold some water. ..but it's difficult to quantify the absolutes as the subjects are big (as are distances) but forces small. It is a controversial subject that participants in opposing ideas struggle to find common ground on. It's a bit like astrophysicists and particle physicists trying to unify theory's. .. How much force do you think would be required to move the Earth 1mm off its current vector - and you call that small? What is required to change the Earth's orbit by a half diameter of the Sun? Tiny? Really?? Just consider the inertia 1/ 2MV 2 even in free fall inertia exists and must be overcome to alter velocity. I'm not an expert, I'm not going to continue an on going thread here, just thinking along the lines gravity is a weak force, the tide of the sun is small. Stopping there, it's a mire where no one has put the mechanics in such a way to be clearly understood and/or be 'settled'
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Apr 23, 2016 0:35:21 GMT
That is my problem - ask a basic question and you are shouted down, almost like being in SkS and asking for evidence of CO2 causing warming .
All the planets are being 'accelerated' into orbits around the Sun. And we are told the force of gravity is too weak to do it. But it obviously is strong enough to accelerate gas giants like Jupiter, Saturn and Uranus into orbits. That is patently not a small force.
Then the proponents of small force start waffling about 'gravity wells' which is just another way of expressing the strength of the force of gravity without talking about it.
As far as I can see the Sun's motion around the barycenter drags Mars, the Earth, Venus and Mercury with it This will not be without effect on those planets.
You can waffle about 'free fall' into the gravity well but if someone moves it then your free-fall has a different vector and changing to the new vector requires a force. That vector is in continual motion so there is a continual and varying force.
If someone can identify a hole in that logic I will be interested to hear it.
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Apr 23, 2016 6:09:35 GMT
The way I see it is a planet like earth exerts a pull on me towards its centre, yet I am tiny and can jump away from this force momentarily, therefore it's a weak force.
It's strength comes the the absolute massive size of the objects involved. The planets evolved, I think we assume, from essential 'dust' where a nucleus started to develop, the sun, and the gravity it's formation produced encouraged the collection of matter into satellite planets. Therefore the solar system evolved around a balance of gravity.
It is the perturbation of this balance that is hard to quantify and rationalise. I completely agree an upset to the balance is rational, but lack the means to express it mathematically and the physical implications for the sun or ourselves.
Judging by the continued disagreement across several forums, I suspect mankind in general has this issue too.
Perhaps it is our mathematical understanding of gravity that is at fault, so I blame Einstein and Hawkins, both clearly not up to it!!
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Apr 23, 2016 6:32:46 GMT
[ Snip ] Perhaps it is our mathematical understanding of gravity that is at fault, so I blame Einstein and Hawkins, both clearly not up to it!! Phew! Thank goodness I haven't proposed a theory ......
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Apr 23, 2016 8:27:27 GMT
[ Snip ] Perhaps it is our mathematical understanding of gravity that is at fault, so I blame Einstein and Hawkins, both clearly not up to it!! Phew! Thank goodness I haven't proposed a theory ...... Go on Ratty....give it a go!!!!
|
|
|
Post by flearider on Apr 23, 2016 8:29:55 GMT
The way I see it is a planet like earth exerts a pull on me towards its centre, yet I am tiny and can jump away from this force momentarily, therefore it's a weak force. It's strength comes the the absolute massive size of the objects involved. The planets evolved, I think we assume, from essential 'dust' where a nucleus started to develop, the sun, and the gravity it's formation produced encouraged the collection of matter into satellite planets. Therefore the solar system evolved around a balance of gravity. It is the perturbation of this balance that is hard to quantify and rationalise. I completely agree an upset to the balance is rational, but lack the means to express it mathematically and the physical implications for the sun or ourselves. Judging by the continued disagreement across several forums, I suspect mankind in general has this issue too. Perhaps it is our mathematical understanding of gravity that is at fault, so I blame Einstein and Hawkins, both clearly not up to it!! thats the thing as i understand it there is more than just one force at work yes you have gravity but you also have electromagnetism so as the very old religions say everything is connected maybe they are
|
|