Haig and his Sun caused earthquakes

[Jrrarglblarg]

"Tricky stuff" sounds like the opposite of "replicable results" to me. In what way is it "tricky?" It seems to me you're bandaging a sucking chest wound with a Post-It note.

There are no physical effects from the sun capable of causing the magnitude of physical interaction with tectonic plates required.

None.

Or, list them if I'm wrong, and explain (in layman's terms for me please) how those phenomena actually trigger gross movement of earth.

 

[Haig]

There are no physical effects from the sun capable of causing the magnitude of physical interaction with tectonic plates required.

None.

Or, list them if I'm wrong, and explain (in layman's terms for me please) how those phenomena actually trigger gross movement of earth.

Mmm you don't seem to have read the paper I posted

I'll try again ...

Influences of solar cycles on earthquakes

The Solar wind energy striking the Earth’s magnetosphere affects the entire environment because the pressure on the region increases and the magnetosphere shrinks sometimes four Earth’s radii. This sudden compression causes earthquakes in specific plates.

Solar wind speed which causes more dynamic pressure on Earth’s magnetosphere is the physical mechanism which increases the number of earthquakes. Variations in solar wind during a Coronal Mass Ejection event can exert pressure, deforming and shrinking the magnetosphere by 4Re (Earth radius). The tension on magnetic field lines is analogous to the tension on a violin string.The pressure will affect the Earth surface in different ways depending of the tectonic of each region; some areas are more susceptible to release energy in a form of earthquake or other analogous phenomena (such as volcanoes)

If the solar speed is lower the magnetosphere relax and expands again, the consequences are that earthquakes follow different trajectory this time. Earthquakes will happen more in geological feature such as strike slip fault or trenches (subduction zones).

I hope that helps you understand

 

[jimbob]

Haig, why didn't the solar storm of 1859 cause any notable earthquakes?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_storm_of_1859

On September 1–2, 1859, one of the largest recorded geomagnetic storms (as recorded by ground-based magnetometers) occurred. Aurorae were seen around the world, those in the northern hemisphere even as far south as the Caribbean; those over the Rocky Mountains were so bright that their glow awoke gold miners, who began preparing breakfast because they thought it was morning.[4] People who happened to be awake in the northeastern US could read a newspaper by the aurora's light.[5] The aurora was visible as far from the poles as Sub-Saharan Africa (Senegal, Mauritania, perhaps Monrovia, Liberia), Monterey and Tampico in Mexico, Queensland, Cuba and Hawaii.[6] Aurorae were visible at sea level at the latitudes of Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea and Dakar, Senegal; in theory at least, observers in the equatorial regions, particularly at higher elevations, may have been able to see the aurora borealis and aurora australis simultaneously. A story about this indeed being the case (the location usually given as the top of Mt Kilimanjaro and/or well up into the Andes) which has circulated for years probably refers to either this or the 25-26. January 1938 aurora

Telegraph systems all over Europe and North America failed, in some cases giving telegraph operators electric shocks.[10] Telegraph pylons threw sparks.[11] Some telegraph operators could continue to send and receive messages despite having disconnected their power supplies.

 

[tusenfem]

Mmm you don't seem to have read the paper I posted

I'll try again ...

Influences of solar cycles on earthquakes

wow, from your quotes ... I have never read so much nonsense.

e.g.
Solar wind speed which causes more dynamic pressure on Earth’s magnetosphere is the physical mechanism which increases the number of earthquakes.

That is the whole explanation? That is NOT a mechanism, that is an effect on the magnetosphere, THEN you have to explain how that results in triggering an earthquake. There is NO calculation in the paper, nothing but "we have to look solar wind, magnetosphere, ionosphere and the ground" (freely written down).

And looking at the table of content (http://www.scirp.org/journal/NS/) makes me seriously doubt the seriousness of this "journal".

 

[Haig]

Haig, why didn't the solar storm of 1859 cause any notable earthquakes?

Mmm I don't think the word should be "cause"

The Sun - Earth connection is understood (so I read) to "trigger" earthquakes, volcanoes, major storms.

There was major earthquakes and vulcanisum in 1859 ...

Encyclopedia of Earthquakes and Volcanoes page 25

Five earthquakes one of then accompanied by a TSUNAMI, occurred in June and July 1859. Earthquakes continued in August. One especially strong earthquake on September 25 was associated with a dramatic rise in sea along the southern coast of Neira, although this disturbance of the sea appears to have caused no significant damage. More strong earthquakes occurred on October 18, November 7-8 and December 29. In 1859 and 1860, Banda Api emitted unusually large amounts of smoke.

What do you say now? or maybe you don't regard the above as "notable"

 

[Haig]

wow, from your quotes ... I have never read so much nonsense.

Is that the best you can come up with ?

Reduced to "noises off"

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

Mmm you don't seem to have read the paper I posted

I'll try again ...

Influences of solar cycles on earthquakes







I hope that helps you understand

Oh, I read it but it's unproven the effect is of sufficient magnitude to achieve the effect.

You're sinking the Titanic with a can of hairspray.

 

[Haig]

Oh, I read it but it's unproven the effect is of sufficient magnitude to achieve the effect.

You're sinking the Titanic with a can of hairspray.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating Watch this "space"

Does this convince you ? If not why not ?

EARTHSPOTS: Storms and Earthquakes [Update]

 

[jimbob]

Haig, why didn't the solar storm of 1859 cause any notable earthquakes?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_storm_of_1859

On September 1–2, 1859, one of the largest recorded geomagnetic storms (as recorded by ground-based magnetometers) occurred. Aurorae were seen around the world, those in the northern hemisphere even as far south as the Caribbean; those over the Rocky Mountains were so bright that their glow awoke gold miners, who began preparing breakfast because they thought it was morning.[4] People who happened to be awake in the northeastern US could read a newspaper by the aurora's light.[5] The aurora was visible as far from the poles as Sub-Saharan Africa (Senegal, Mauritania, perhaps Monrovia, Liberia), Monterey and Tampico in Mexico, Queensland, Cuba and Hawaii.[6] Aurorae were visible at sea level at the latitudes of Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea and Dakar, Senegal; in theory at least, observers in the equatorial regions, particularly at higher elevations, may have been able to see the aurora borealis and aurora australis simultaneously. A story about this indeed being the case (the location usually given as the top of Mt Kilimanjaro and/or well up into the Andes) which has circulated for years probably refers to either this or the 25-26. January 1938 aurora

Telegraph systems all over Europe and North America failed, in some cases giving telegraph operators electric shocks.[10] Telegraph pylons threw sparks.[11] Some telegraph operators could continue to send and receive messages despite having disconnected their power supplies.

Haig, why didn't the solar storm of 1859 cause any notable earthquakes?

Mmm I don't think the word should be "cause"

The Sun - Earth connection is understood (so I read) to "trigger" earthquakes, volcanoes, major storms.

There was major earthquakes and vulcanisum in 1859 ...

Encyclopedia of Earthquakes and Volcanoes page 25

Five earthquakes one of then accompanied by a TSUNAMI, occurred in June and July 1859. Earthquakes continued in August. One especially strong earthquake on September 25 was associated with a dramatic rise in sea along the southern coast of Neira, although this disturbance of the sea appears to have caused no significant damage. More strong earthquakes occurred on October 18, November 7-8 and December 29. In 1859 and 1860, Banda Api emitted unusually large amounts of smoke.

What do you say now? or maybe you don't regard the above as "notable"

Earthquakes happen all the time.

Magnitude | Average Annually
8 and higher| 1 ¹
7 - 7.9 | 15 ¹
6 - 6.9 | 134 ²
5 - 5.9 | 1319 ²
4 - 4.9 | 13,000
(estimated)
3 - 3.9 | 130,000
(estimated)
2 - 2.9 | 1,300,000
(estimated)

¹ Based on observations since 1900.
These numbers have been recently updated, based on data from the Centennial catalog (from 1900 to 1999) and the PDE (since 2000).
² Based on observations since 1990.

The Neira earthquake (closest mentioned after the solar storm) seemed to be about a magnitude 6.8, and earthquakes of this strength occur about once every three days. Carrington-strength events seem to occur about once every 500-years.

So no, I don't consider those earthquakes to to be anywhere as notable as the Carrington event. Only two earthquakes in 1859 made it onto wiki, which is a measure of notability; both these occurred before the solar storm.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

The proof of the pudding is in the eating Watch this "space"

Does this convince you ? If not why not ?

EARTHSPOTS: Storms and Earthquakes [Update]

Time To First Unsupported (almost)Assertion - 0:24

So no, not convincing. And you're still moving tectonic plates with wind.

 

[Haig]

Time To First Unsupported (almost)Assertion - 0:24

So no, not convincing. And you're still moving tectonic plates with wind.

If that's your view ...

You do know that solar wind isn't actually wind ? And there is evidence for solar wind modulation of lightning

Tricky stuff this Sun - Earth connection

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

"Tricky" here means "hard to explain" because there is no mechanism to transfer the amount of energy required to move tectonic plates.

Solar wind isn't even wind, you're right, now we're sinking the titanic with an empty can of hairspray.

Magnetic effects from the sun affecting earth's magnetic field lines are not a ground-coupled event. Tectonic plates have little or no bulk magnetic properties of their own.

There are no solar driven terrestrial effects proven to relate to tectonic activity.

 

[Reality Check]

And here's more data to chew on :...

Are you confirming that you lied about following "the scientific method / empirical science" by posting yet another crank video, Haig?

When are you going to do this Haig?

• 4 May 2015 Haig: The scientific evidence is that there is no connection between solar activity and earthquakes.
• 13 May 2015 Haig: The fantasies of Suspicious0bservers are not scientific evidence!
• 14th May 2015 Haig: Given no citation to the research by Dr. Holloman, it is possible that this press release by Ben Davidson is lying about the research being connected to earthquakes !
• 15th May 2015Haig: Ignorance about the effects of a new Maunder Minimum has persisted for almost 3 years !
• 18th May 2015 Haig: Currently Piers Corbyn is lying about "excellent results" in order to sell his scam to people.

 

[Reality Check]

NASA - Sun-Earth Connection (my bold)

Oh dear, Haig - the delusion that any mention of "Sun-Earth Connection" supports Ben Davidson's delusions about solar activity causing earthquakes !
Any one with a high school education should know that the solar wind and Earth's magnetosphere interact (e.g. aurora).

 

[Reality Check]

Not sure -

Not sure - so do not advertise a publishing firm, Haig!
Bad scholarship - that crank paper with the delusion that the Sun is liquid metallic hydrogen has been submitted to the fairly crank Progress in Physics where Robitaille is a prolific contributor (54 mentions in the index). This incudes Robitaille's stupidity about Kirchhoff's Law being invalid and the CMB being emissions from Earth's oceans .

Maybe you need to think again ?

Maybe trying to comprehend English is really tricky stuff for you, Haig ?
Posted on 4th March 2015:

The paper Haig cites is Influences of Solar Cycles on Earthquakes (PDF) in the low impact Natural Sciences journal. The authors simple note correlations and do no serious statistical analysis.
And what does serious statistical analysis by geophysicists show?
Does the sun trigger earthquakes? (also published in Natural Sciences)


And:
Insignificant solar-terrestrial triggering of earthquakes

 

[Reality Check]

I'll try again ...

I will try again too, Haig:
4 May 2015 Haig: The scientific evidence is that there is no connection between solar activity and earthquakes.
I hope that helps you understand !

 

[Reality Check]

Haig debunks the already invalid idea that solar activity causes earthquakes

There was major earthquakes and vulcanisum in 1859 ...

Quite ignorant Haig: The Carrington event did not happen all through 1859 !
Solar storm of 1859

The solar storm of 1859, also known as the Carrington event,[1] was a powerful geomagnetic solar storm in 1859 during solar cycle 10....
From August 28 through September 2, 1859, numerous sunspots were observed on the Sun.

We actually have: 22 May 2015: Haig debunks the already invalid idea that solar activity causes earthquakes by citing no major earthquakes happening during the Carrington event!

ETA: No published papers on '1859 earthquake' in ADS about the Carrington event.

 

[Reality Check]

The proof of the pudding is in the eating ...

Eating the poisonous pie of crank videos is proof of gullibility not pudding, Haig !
I asked before : Are you confirming that you lied about following "the scientific method / empirical science" by posting yet another crank video, Haig?

 

[Reality Check]

And there is evidence for solar wind modulation of lightning

If we were deluded enough to think that lightning causes earthquakes then you would have a point, Haig .
Otherwise we have yet another irrelevant (if interesting) link.

 

[a_unique_person]

wow, from your quotes ... I have never read so much nonsense.

e.g.
Solar wind speed which causes more dynamic pressure on Earth’s magnetosphere is the physical mechanism which increases the number of earthquakes.

That is the whole explanation? That is NOT a mechanism, that is an effect on the magnetosphere, THEN you have to explain how that results in triggering an earthquake. There is NO calculation in the paper, nothing but "we have to look solar wind, magnetosphere, ionosphere and the ground" (freely written down).

And looking at the table of content (http://www.scirp.org/journal/NS/) makes me seriously doubt the seriousness of this "journal".

They make it very easy for anyone to publish with them after their credit card passes peer review.