Big earthquakes generally occur at low sunspot numbers

Posted: January 31, 2015 by tallbloke in Earthquakes
Tags:
Location Date Magnitude2
1. Chile May 22, 1960 9.5
2. Prince William Sound, Alaska March 28, 19643 9.2
3. Andreanof Islands, Aleutian Islands March 9, 1957 9.1
4. Japan March 11, 2011 9.0
5. Kamchatka Nov. 4, 1952 9.0
6. Off western coast of Sumatra, Indonesia Dec. 26, 2004 9.0
7. Off the coast of Ecuador Jan. 31, 1906 8.8
8. Offshore Maule, Chile Feb. 27, 2010 8.8
9. Rat Islands, Aleutian Islands Feb. 4, 1965 8.7
10. Northern Sumatra, Indonesia March 28, 2005 8.7

Here’s a rough plot of these biggest quakes against sunspot number

quakes-ssn

Read more: The Ten Largest Earthquakes Since 1900 http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0763403.html#ixzz3QRFWI0Hh

Comments
  1. Joe Public says:

    Plainly then, we should allow fracking when there’s high sunspot numbers.

  2. tallbloke says:

    Joe, could be a while.

  3. Bob Weber says:

    Solar records other than SSN are sparse for many years on that list. I will find geomagnetic data at some point going back to 1900 to find out what the Sun was doing.

    This is what I found for some of the earthquakes listed by number and preceding solar events, using http://www.spaceweather.com/archive.php?view=1&day=11&month=03&year=2011 to start:

    4) Japan eq and tsunami on March 11, 2011 –

    March 10 CME impact
    X1.5 flare March 9
    12 M-flares March 10-11
    Kp=6 March 11

    6) Sumatra on Dec 26, 2004 –

    Apogee Full Moon
    Earth inside coronal hole stream

    8) Chile on Feb 27, 2010 –

    Filament eruption Feb 25 (they travel slowly compared to eruptive CMEs)

    10) Sumatra on March 28, 2005 –

    Full Moon on March 24 – on March 28 the moon had just exited the magnetotail at the same time
    Earth had just exited a coronal high-speed stream that we had been in since March 25

    If anyone has a desire to learn how the Earth’s electric field is involved here in terms of mechanisms, please spend a few minutes watching someone who has produced a YT video on the subject, Dr. Kongpop U-Yen, called ‘Evidences for Space Weather Induced Natural Disasters’, here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8EE0p9kx5o.

  4. oldbrew says:

    Earthquakes 1 and 3 weren’t at low sunspot numbers, but they were quite low if compared to the peak of the sunspot cycle taking place at the time.

    Nothing in that top ten between 1966 and 2003.

  5. Michele says:

    What is an big earthquake ?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthquake#Rupture_dynamics
    “….The mechanics of this process are poorly understood…”

    The earthquake is a :

    – a variation of the interplanetary magnetic field
    – gravity anomalies
    – planetary alignment
    – changes in atmospheric circulation
    – geomagnetic variations
    – ionospheric perturbations
    – total electron content (TEC) variations
    – VLF emissions
    – ELF emissions
    – thermal variations
    – abnormal behaviour of animals

    etc…

    I have a question for all you :

    What is the primary cause ?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_interaction

    😉

  6. Michele says:

    @ Rog “….Top ten 8.7<M<9.5 …."

    Working in progress

    EGU2015
    http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2015/session/18724

    Relationship between major geophysical events and the planetary
    magnetic Ap index, from 1844 to the present

    Michele Casati (1) and Valentino Straser (2)
    (1) Altopascio (Lucca), Italy, (2) International Earthquake and Volcano Prediction Center,
    Orlando -Florida (USA)

    Abstract
    In this study, for the first time, we compared the annual magnetic Ap index, taken from original sources,from 1844 to the present day [Svalgaard,2014], with:
    i) sixteen large volcanic eruptions of index VEI5 + recorded by, Smithsonian Institute (Global Volcanism Program),
    ii) three sets of the volcanic aerosols data [Ammann et.al, 2003][Gao;Chaochao;Alan Robock;Caspar Ammann,2008][Traufetter et.al,2004] and
    iii) eight major earthquakes of a magnitude between 8.7<M<9.5, which occurred from 1900 to the present.
    We observe that the twenty four major geophysical events which occurred were in proximity to two specific thresholds, or limits, of the annual planetary Ap index. Specifically, in the downward phase of the planetary Ap index, under the annual value of 7 or, in the phase when the annual value exceeded 22. We identified a total of 14 transitions (eight in the solar minimum and six in the solar maxima) each with a period of about two and a half years making a total of almost 35 years of activity during the 169 years under review. During the 14 transitions 18 of the 24 major historical geophysical events occurred from 1844 to the present. Analysis of data shows a clear link between the electromagnetic (EM) dynamics recorded in large historical solar minima (Maunder,
    Dalton or solar minimum 1880-1920), the large solar maxima (solar cycles 19, 21 & 22) and the energy released during large geophysical events [Casati,2014]. The physical process of solar-terrestrial interaction, also reveal a deep and intrinsic relationship between the EM dynamics of the inner solar system and the temporal occurrence of major geophysical events. The references in scientific literature, in support of this work, are numerous: from empirical evidence, that we find in the late nineteenth century – early twentieth century, to more recent references. Some of which are: [Casey,2010][Charvátová, 2010][Choi, 2010][Duma; Vilardo, 1998][Khachikyan et al,2014][Kolvankar,2008][Kovalyov,2014][Mazzarella;Palumbo,1989][Stothers,1989][Stˇreštik,2003][Sytinsky,1987,1989, 1998].

  7. Bob Weber says:

    Thank you Michele. “Analysis of data shows a clear link between the electromagnetic (EM) dynamics recorded in large historical solar minima…”

    Electric, magnetic, electromagnetic events triggered by solar impulses are the cause.

    I discussed this topic with Dr. U-Yen in March last year and he agreed with me that they are all properly termed “Electric Weather Effects” – my shorthand name for all EM effects.

  8. This study has been confirmed by others such as John Casey. He is affiliated with the Space and Science Center. I had sent the information recently. It also includes major volcanic activity.

    The correlation is to high to be coincidence.

  9. stenies2012 says:

    Earthquakes are linked using Fibonacci Munmbers. This has been published last year. See my blog where I post month after month successful predictions not only of dates but also of places…
    http://earthquake-predict.blogspot.gr/

  10. stenies2012 says:

    The sunspot number does modulate the strength of the earthquakes, But this is on top of planetary alignments. Planetary alignments and aspects ARE linked to earthquakes on top of sunspots.

  11. Sparks says:

    I would think orbital stresses occur on earth around the same time as the changes/movement in the solar system occur, if you think about it, if the orbital parameters of planets regulate the suns polar field reversals, then this force should also put stresses on the planets and it should manifest itself as increased geological activity (such as volcanoes and earthquakes) on earth on similar timescales.

    I wouldn’t think earthquakes occur due to an increase of magnetic field activity from sunspots.

  12. Kon Dealer says:

    I have to say that graph is not convincing.

  13. tallbloke says:

    I’m not convinced of anything yet regarding Earthquakes. What is noticable is that all but one of the 10 biggest quakes of the last 110 years cluster near the biggest solar cycle of the century or the lowest longest solar minimum of the century.

  14. linneamogren says:

    I’m keeping an open mind but studies by the USGS seem to debunk this hypothesis

    Abstract
    [1] We examine the claim that solar-terrestrial interaction, as measured by sunspots, solar wind velocity, and geomagnetic activity, might play a role in triggering earthquakes. We count the number of earthquakes having magnitudes that exceed chosen thresholds in calendar years, months, and days, and we order these counts by the corresponding rank of annual, monthly, and daily averages of the solar-terrestrial variables. We measure the statistical significance of the difference between the earthquake-number distributions below and above the median of the solar-terrestrial averages by χ2 and Student’s t tests. 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.

  15. Boyfromtottenham says:

    Hi from Oz. Are earthquakes and volcanic eruptions triggered by EM events, or mechanical forces such as “tidal” effects on the earth’s crust due to the movement of the Earth, sun, moon and the larger planets? I would put my bet on mechanical forces. Comments?

  16. Bob Weber says:

    Thanks for that info. Think events, not trends or averages. The earthquake topic was not my original entry into this field, yet because the timing and severity of many other extreme weather/natural disasters such as major hurricanes that I’ve studied also occur during high severity solar conditions, the coincidence of earthquakes with similar conditions has peaked my interest.

    These very things are what drew me to the Talkshop years ago because you cover various aspects of these topics in an open-minded forum among friendly people.

    Dr. U-Yen talked about alignments as well, and he was very clear to caution that it is very hard to prove something of this nature. He and his group from Thailand and others elsewhere research what we discussed here. So I would say we all have something to learn from eachother.

    Orbital mechanics. Ok, let’s try that. Using http://www.solarsystemscope.com/ and the previous examples I mentioned, now with the nearest alignments preceding/concurrent with each earthquake added in for each EQ:

    4) Japan eq and tsunami on March 11, 2011 –

    March 1 Uranus-Mercury-Sun
    March 4 New Moon
    March 5 Jupiter-Mercury-Sun-Saturn

    March 9 X1.5 flare
    March 10 CME impact
    March 10-11 12 M-flares
    March 11 Kp=6

    6) Sumatra on Dec 26, 2004 –

    Dec 26 Apogee Full Moon-Earth-Sun and Mars-Venus-Sun
    Earth inside coronal hole stream

    8) Chile on Feb 27, 2010 –

    Feb 24 Venus-Sun-Saturn
    Feb 26 Mars-Moon-Earth
    Feb 27 Mercury-Earth-Moon

    Filament eruption Feb 25 (they travel slowly compared to eruptive CMEs)

    10) Sumatra on March 28, 2005 –

    March 24/25 Moon-Earth-Sun
    March 28 Earth-Mercury-Sun-Venus

    Full Moon on March 24 – on March 28 the moon had just exited the magnetotail at the same time
    Earth had just exited a coronal high-speed stream that we had been in since March 25

    It looks like alignments could be a factor. The full moon is important because it’s when the magnetotail redirects plasma back to the earth that cause aurora and minor geomagnetic activity, and is only enhanced more by a fast coronal hole stream and/or high IMF.

    *************************************************************************************************************

    The question is, are the solar events surrounding these alignments in any way related to them? I don’t know for sure how to tell. Do all alignments cause earthquakes?

    For instance, following the March 28, 2005 Sumatra event, there was a Venus-Sun-Earth-Jupiter alignment on April 2. Did it precede a big earthquake? When was the next big earthquake?

    Checking here – http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eqinthenews/2005/ – the next closest earthquake on that list didn’t occur until April 10, a 6.7 in Indonesia, and then another 6.7 near the Loyalty Islands on April 11. I doubt it takes nine days for an alignment to do its work.

    But interestingly, looking at April 11 on the spaceweather.com time machine, we see a coronal hole with the following caption: “A solar wind stream flowing from the indicated coronal hole could reach Earth on April 12th or 13th.”

    It showed up early. On April 10 proton density was over 5nT. On April 11, the archive tells us solar wind speed was up to 450 km/s, and proton density was up to 9.3, IMF Bt was 13.3nT, with Bz going south.

    So it’s more likely that for these two 6.7 earthquakes, that given a choice between alignments or a solar impulse, solar looks bettter.

    We also had two alignments in two days: Earth-Mercury-Sun on Jan 30 and Mars-Venus-Sun on Jan 31.

    This week is interesting. Full moon at 11:11pm GMT on Feb 3, the “Snow Moon”; then on Jan 5, Jupiter-Earth-Sun AND Uranus-Venus-Sun, with Mars-Venus-Sun still ‘close’. Looks like a good week to test the earthquake-alignment theory.

    *************************************************************************************************************

    While the author(s) of the USGS study did not find anything here, I would say the subject is still open and I would not dismiss the connections until and unless I knew every single EQ from every year the USGS has data for has been scrutized against alignments and all aspects of solar activity for a period of a week prior to each earthquake, because as you can see, there is evidence supporting each POV. That would go for cyclogenesis too.

    Sparks it would be interesting if someone could produce a gravity-impulse curve for the Earth for each type of alignment. If the gravity impulse could be compared to the hemispheric power responses we get from solar events, we’d have a way to test their relative strength. Perhaps there are other ways to evaluate that too.

    Tallbloke, during solar max there’s more flares and CMEs, and the IMF is strong, and during the minimums we see more coronal hole activity with bursts of high IMF against low, slow speed, solar wind background conditions.

    Then there’s solar sector boundary crossings…. don’t get me started.

  17. Bob Weber says:

    Today the IMF was reported as high as 14.5nT, Kp has been at 5 (storm) for 6 hours, the solar wind speed was at 580km/s, and hemispheric power was at 55 gigawatts, two to three times background, as the Earth is being affected by solar wind flowing a large southern coronal hole that is expected to brush against Earth’s magnetic field Feb 1-3. Combined with the Full Moon on Feb 3, we will have similar conditions to earthquakes previously discussed. We’ll see what happens.

  18. stenies2012 says:

    I can say with confidence that on the 5th January 2015 there will be a stong earthquake >6R. I wonder if anybody else can say the same.The accuracy of my statement is +-1 day. But usually I am spot on. http://earthquake-predict.blogspot.gr/2015/01/blog-post_31.html for my almanac of every day of the month. No other method is as good, and it is not based on sunspots. Sunspots modulate the earthquake magnitude as in 2014 where we got weaker earthquakes.

  19. tallbloke says:

    Stenies:I can say with confidence that on the 5th January 2015 there will be a stong earthquake >6R.

    The 5th Jan was 27 days ago. Did you mean Feb?

    According to http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eqarchives/year/eqstats.php there are 150 earthquakes of R6 or above per year. This means your prediction with a +/- 1 day latitude isn’t very impressive, since there is a more than even probability you’ll be right by chance.

    I’m not dismissing your method (whatever it is), but simply pointing out the numbers.

  20. stenies2012 says:

    It is true. The distribution is not uniform however. The reason I say around 6 is because things are subdued right now and we dont get as many so I am reducing my magnitude aswe dont get as many 6s. In other words there is a monthly variation. Normally this would have been 7. We will see. However note I am predicting months ahead simultaneously a number of earthquakes. I can also say the places which are probable for an earthquake on 5th Feb are: PNG, Solomon Islands, Iran-Iraq border, Mexico/CA Gulf and if it comes earlier on the 4th Feb then PNG. Time will tell. Will let you know in case you forget it.

  21. stenies2012 says:

    Yes 5th February 2015

  22. tallbloke says:

    And your response to the other points I raised?

  23. stenies2012 says:

    Finally, and I am sorry I took a few posts of your valuable real estate here, as the main reason I posted here is to agree with the fact that planetary positions and of course the SUN affects the earthquakes on earth. This I have published and also I have another paper this March to present in a forthcoming conference where I link Fibonacci and planetary positions with earthquakes. I know this will take time to sink in- as it takes time to sink in what you do here on global warming-. Hehe- politics is everywhere. However in my blog I post as much as I have time of the hits on magnitude and location. and anybody can see the prediction rate. Research it is and goes on!!! Thank you for your time.

  24. stenies2012 says:

    I think I answered your questions.

  25. oldbrew says:

    Another view: ‘The Fraudulent Business of Earthquake and Eruption Prediction’

    http://www.wired.com/2012/04/the-fraudulent-business-of-earthquake-and-eruption-prediction/

  26. tallbloke says:

    Stenies: It is true. The distribution is not uniform however.

    I’m not an expert on stats, but I’m not sure that helps your case in numerical terms.

    The reason I say around 6 is because things are subdued right now and we dont get as many so I am reducing my magnitude aswe dont get as many 6s.

    OK, so you’re saying 6 and above is less likely than the page I linked because solar activity is generally low in SC24. Have you done any stats analysis on that?

    I am sorry I took a few posts of your valuable real estate here

    Not a problem, plenty of room.

    I posted here is to agree with the fact that planetary positions and of course the SUN affects the earthquakes on earth. This I have published

    Where? Is there a link I missed?

    I can also say the places which are probable for an earthquake on 5th Feb are: PNG, Solomon Islands, Iran-Iraq border, Mexico/CA Gulf and if it comes earlier on the 4th Feb then PNG. Time will tell. Will let you know in case you forget it.

    We like predictions. I’ll post this one on our predictions page. Cheers.

  27. stenies2012 says:

    I am not sure oldbrew if this is pointing at me, but I publish my results in Earthquake/Seismic Enginering conferences where they are refereed by geocientists as I am not one of them. You like it or not the sorrow state of Earthquake prediction is not my fault. I have linked Fibonacci numbers with earthquakes and also with planetary positions. If you are a physicist then go find out why. I am happy I predict. If my prediction is not good enough it will not be because I dont understand statistics or because I am trying to get rich. It is because I have no resources, Geoscience has drained Millions $$ and they cannot today get on TV to give us an earthquake forcast for the week. I CAN get on TV and give just that. And it has not costed you the taxpayer a penny. That my friend is anathema to many because it is odd for someone outside getting better results. wink….politics. But I have no problem my career is elsewhere and I am having such fun getting things right and the mainstream getting nowhere even on forecasting never mind prediction. Enjoy!

  28. tallbloke says:


    Stenies: I posted here is to agree with the fact that planetary positions and of course the SUN affects the earthquakes on earth. This I have published… I have linked Fibonacci numbers with earthquakes and also with planetary positions. If you are a physicist then go find out why.

    Where? Is there a link I missed?
    We can’t find anything out if we don’t know what you’ve done.

  29. stenies2012 says:

    By the way I have referred in another paper one your ‘banned’ papers….;-)

  30. tallbloke says:

    Thanks.🙂

    Is the online planetarium accessible for us?
    I had a look at the paper, and I’d like to check out few dates myself.
    Thanks

  31. stenies2012 says:

    No as it is 10 years back was only a student project. There is one available which i have online for a few bucks if interested which is good enough.

  32. stenies2012 says:

    Sorry I mean since 2011 not 10 years back. All the same it is not available. But try Googling SimSolar2.0, I use it.

  33. tallbloke says:

    Have we got a planetary alignment today?

    Jupiter-Earth-Mercury-Sun looks close
    https://www.fourmilab.ch/cgi-bin/Solar/action?sys=-Si

  34. David Blake says:

    Seemingly not directly related (?) but interesting nonetheless.

    Bizarre Earthquake Lights Finally Explained
    Rare lights seen near earthquakes had long been called UFOs.

  35. stenies2012 says:

    Yes I have posted it 2 days ago in my blog as an animation! Have a look

  36. stenies2012 says:

    This is a repost from my post of 2 days ago in http://earthquake-predict.blogspot.gr/
    Tomorrows Planetary Alignmnets!
    Tomorrow 1st February presents us with interesting planetary alignment which supports my previous post reviewing the day. As we see the earth is being stretched by two separate planetary alignments tomorrow which kind of, are pulling the earth in opposite directions (not exactly but nearly, as you can see below) Neptune -Venus-Earth is one component, the other being Sun-Earth-Jupiter. Interesting combination and we will see what this will yield soon.

  37. stenies2012 says:

    Thank you David Blake I did not know they published it.

  38. Michele says:

    @ linneamogren

    The paper : http://earthweb.ess.washington.edu/jnt/Thomas_Love_GRL_2013.pdf

    Jeffrey J. Love say “…We concentrate our analysis of statistical significance on M ≥…”7.5 earthquakes.

    They are not major geophysical events !
    Major geophysical events occurred with magnitude M>8.5 or great volcanic eruption VEI5+

    http://michelecasati.altervista.org/significant-statistically-relationship-between-the-great-volcanic-eruptions-and-the-count-of-sunspots-from-1610-to-the-p.html

    “The significant tests, conducted with the chi-square χ ² = 7,782, detect a p-value equal to 0,005. Applying a correction of Yates, p-value assume the value of 0,009”

    A major geophisical events is a atypical and unknown physical phenomenology.

  39. Michele says:

    @ Kon Dealer

    I am convinced of the influence celestial mechanics on geophysical.
    You observe the inflation (deflation) cycles

    http://michelecasati.altervista.org/preliminary-report-between-seismic-swarms-the-constant-cycles-of-inflation-deflation-.html

  40. tallbloke says:

    Stenies: Thanks. I guess the Argentinian Earthquake would be aligned most closely towards Jupiter. is that area of the world prone to frequent quakes?

  41. Michele says:

    What is a major geophisical event ?

  42. oldbrew says:

    Paper re 1999 Taiwan earthquake:
    ‘Anomalous Schumann resonance signals appeared from about one week to a few days before the main shock’

    http://www.ann-geophys.net/23/1335/2005/angeo-23-1335-2005.pdf

  43. stenies2012 says:

    By the way, nice posts oldbrew and others, you are very welcome to post in my blog as well.! Thanks for having me…

  44. stenies2012 says:

    Tallbloke, CHile on the other side is more prone than Argentina in my opinion. But you cant rule out things as one does not know whats going on below and the stresses accummulated. In my method the use of cycles reveals that when a planet is aligned over a part of the world and the stresses are on threshold then the little moon comes along and pushes it over the hill. The mechanism is not known as I also think it has to be more than gravity. But I dont want to be a mathis miles. I just like to predict with a method and leave it the why to physisists. Unless I get it before you. Haha…

  45. tallbloke says:

    I started checking the top ten earthquakes listed in this post against the fourmilab solar system. I’m unconvinced about alignments at the moment.

  46. stenies2012 says:

    Now for today we saw 2 earthquakes close to each other one virtually 6.0R and another 6.3R, with a time difference of about 2.5 hours between them. The one over PNG was due to Jupiter in my opinion as Jupite is midheaven there and the Argntinian was triggered by the moon but the Uranus-South-Node-Pulto triangle has been stressing this region for many days! The moon did the damge there….All in my opinion.

  47. Bob Weber says:

    I read the Love and Thomas paper closely, and think they missed the boat by using monthly averages instead of events. Unfortunately, for older quakes there is insufficient solar data to work with to identify the solar impulse events that only occur on short-term time scales.

    From section 4, paragraph 9,

    Prior to the 1960 M9.5 Chilean
    earthquake, the monthly sunspot number G=109.60 was
    higher than the long-term average of 58.42; the cumulative exceedance
    probability CE= 0.17 indicates that this was only
    moderately unusual. No solar wind data are available for
    1960. The average level of magnetic activity in the month
    before the earthquake mAA = 39.69 nT was higher than the
    long-term average of 19.83 nT; the cumulative-exceedance
    probability CE= 0.02 indicates that this was rather unusual.
    The standard deviation of daily geomagnetic-activity levels
    about the monthly mean, sAA = 39.75 nT, indicates that the level
    of geomagnetic activity was fluctuating quite a bit. In contrast,
    solar-terrestrial conditions were much more calm during the
    month preceding the 1964 M9.2 Alaska earthquake and the
    2004 M9.1 Sumatra-Andaman earthquake. Note in particular
    that the standard deviation of solar wind velocity and geomagnetic
    activity in the month preceding the Sumatra-Andaman
    earthquake was actually less than the long-term average.

    The fluctuations occur within days of impulses and then dissipate. Using the monthly averages wipes out the impulses.

    The mAA data mentioned here was twice the long-term average in the month prior to the M9.5, meaning for that month, there had to be several significant short-term solar impuses higher than ~40nT for the monthly average to be ~40nT. As they authors state, the geomagnetic activity fluctuated “quite a bit”. There’s your unseen and unaccounted for solar impulses.

    I think they would need to get down to weekly averages in order to parse out the solar impulses. It appears they tried to go back a full month thinking that something that happened close to a month prior to an earthquake could have possibly been a cause. I think any solar impulse a month ago has little to no bearing on today’s earthquake activity, nor last week’s impulses. We get hit, we rumble, then it’s over, and we go on to the next one.

    Observing hemispheric power spikes during solar impulses tells me that the impulses are basically transient, as they are over within a day to a few days, so averaging them for a month will mask the impulses.

    The warmists make the same mistake with solar radiation, and that’s why they’ve never figured out how the Sun causes warming & cooling.

    stenies2012 – Nice interesting paper. I’m glad you made the alignment tool. Is it available? Can it be embedded as a module into any website?

  48. If one looks at all of the biggest earthquake/volcanic events over 80% of them are associated around solar minimum.

    That is the evidence which convinces me it is not coincidence.

  49. Bob Weber says:

    oldbrew – from your link http://www.wired.com/2012/04/the-fraudulent-business-of-earthquake-and-eruption-prediction/

    The author is talking about Piers Corbyn’s TRIAL Risk forecast – Piers’ did not say anything like “this is going to happen for sure…”

    The author paraphrases Piers and embellishs: “Well, between Apr. 8 and 10, there is a “very high” threat of an earthquake or eruption in the Pacific ring, maybe in the northern hemisphere. The earthquake is like to be M6.5 or higher.

    But wait, this “window of prediction” was called a confirmation of Corbyn’s method because the M8+ earthquakes off Banda Aceh in Indonesia occurred on … Apr. 11. That is almost the right date, right? It is almost the right hemisphere! Who cares that there were hundreds of earthquakes in the Pacific and Indian rim every day. Who cares that each year, there are over 150 earthquakes over M6.5 or greater, meaning you pick any day of the year, you might have a 1-in-3 chance of picking the right one. Who cares that in your other “windows” nothing happened. This is what we call “cherry picking” the data to fit your prediction, rather than using the data to assess your validity. Make the window big enough and your “prediction” broad enough, you can claim “success” almost every time.”

    I would say it’s a fair confirmation. Here’s why:

    The Sun was practically blank, but an hourglass-shaped coronal hole straddled the solar equator on April 10.

    From http://www.spaceweather.com/archive.php?day=10&month=04&year=2012&view=view, and the IMF was 2.6nT, very low; and they said,

    “STORM CLOUD MISSES EARTH: A coronal mass ejection (CME) expected to hit Earth’s magnetic field on April 9th seems to have missed. No signatures of an impact are evident in solar wind data. NOAA has downgraded the odds of a geomagnetic storm today to no more than 10%.”

    On April 11, they said “The source of the display was the IMF (interplanetary magnetic field), which tipped south on April 9th, opening a crack in Earth’s magnetosphere. ” – talking about auroras. Now Bt was 6nT, a doubling in a day.

    Piers expected the CME as did NOAA’s spaceweather prediction center, but it missed, and Piers also knew that as the coronal hole rotated in geo-effective position, the resulting coronal hole stream rotated also, and while he forecasted the impact for April 10, that impact did not occur until a day later.

    So I think his method worked in principle. Timing was the issue. The weird thing is, Piers is always lambasted by early or late timing issues, when NOAA and the SWPC always get a free pass when their predictions don’t work out. Double standards.

    Speaking of Piers, anyone with his Feb forecast knows he’s calling for some very interesting _____ on Feb 4-8. (I can’t say because we customers are not supposed to reveal his forecast detail prior to an event). I’ll let you know after it happens.

    By the way, the alignments Apr 9-11, 2012 were interesting.

    Venus-Earth-Neptune
    Venus-Earth-Moon

    On April 15/16, it was
    Mars-Earth-Moon
    Saturn-Earth-Sun

    By the 20th,
    Mars-near Venus-Sun-Uranus
    New Moon
    Earth- Mercury-Uranus
    Neptune-Earth-near Mars

    SSNs zoomed to 162 by April 21 and solar flux went up too, as did the IMF.

    I had just discovered Piers Corbyn then, and had his April forecast, which you can get from his archive, and see what he predicted for April 22-24, he said

    “Solar Factors:
    R4 22-24th DANGEROUS
    WEATHER
    Very major temperatures
    contrasts + tornado/storm
    development in this period
    which will be grossly
    underestimated by shortmedium
    range standard
    meteorology.
    Powerful low pressure
    develops in East/North Great
    Lakes, bringing an
    exceptionally cold blast to
    central parts, while High
    pressure over Florida brings
    very warm air from Mexico to
    central regions.”

    I was amazed to see that low swing into position right on cue. That caught my attention.

    Active tectonics for April 2012: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthquakes_in_2012#April

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    OK that’s it.

  50. Michele says:

    A recent work : http://arxiv.org/abs/1403.5728

    On the relationship between cosmic rays, solar activity and powerful earthquakes

  51. Stenies2012 says:

    Thank you Michele for the reference. I am not convinced we will get an answer for the physics of earthquakes via the sun alone. The sun as the largest sets forth the main modulation but the other planets form the symphony. anybody who has been following earthquakes and I am now simply ,smelling, them will tell you that Saturn and Jupiter are certainly the biggest other players in the symphony. The sun alone is just not going to work out as it ignores the rest of the players….this is a system. earthquakes have flavor taste depth. This is not the sun alone.

  52. Boyfromtottenham says:

    Hi from Oz. further to my previous post re EM vs mechanical causes, thanks for your trouble looking up the planetary positions, Bob. Also, has anyone considered the possible time delay (hours, days, weeks?) between say planetary alignments and the resultant mechanical forces generated in the earth’s crust by these tides? Folk who posted seemed to only looking within a window of a few days, but maybe it takes far longer to have an effect – we are talking about huge masses of rock, etc. A rapid change in the gravitational pull (e.g at the planet’s apogee / perigee?) may take a while to translate into movement in a gigatons of rock.

  53. stenies2012 says:

    Boy-Son: Re Delays. I have no specific delay data. But, unless you have measured the stresses at any moment this cannot make sense. I mean one must know the local stresses. Stresses already there and the additional due to the alignments. So, when an alignment comes over you it will either add stress but the ground does not yield because it can take it and hence it accummulates, OR it has already had enough stresses and when the alignment comes it is enough to trip it over and Bang the tremour comes. Now when it comes to the Physics with gravity alone you have a problem and …..hehehe ….you are better off with Miles Mathis….wink wink

  54. oldbrew says:

    @ Bob Weber: ‘I think any solar impulse a month ago has little to no bearing on today’s earthquake activity, nor last week’s impulses. We get hit, we rumble, then it’s over, and we go on to the next one.’

    Can earthquakes have precursors?

    http://www2.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/ESD-earthquake-prelude.html

  55. Bob Weber says:

    Interesting paper OB. Transient solar impulses and/or transient gravtitational alignment impulses may just be the mechanisms that trigger geological faults that are already primed and in a state of high tension/compression. That leads to consideration of what puts many faults in that state, such as previous transient influences. There are many unanswered questions and unmeasured quantities at this point.

    I do think Miles would have something interesting to say about all these interactions.

  56. oldbrew says:

    Wkipedia: ‘Tectonic plates are able to move because the Earth’s lithosphere has greater strength than the underlying asthenosphere. Lateral density variations in the mantle result in convection. Plate movement is thought to be driven by a combination of the motion of the seafloor away from the spreading ridge (due to variations in topography and density of the crust, which result in differences in gravitational forces) and drag, with downward suction, at the subduction zones. Another explanation lies in the different forces generated by the rotation of the globe and the tidal forces of the Sun and Moon. The relative importance of each of these factors and their relationship to each other is unclear, and still the subject of much debate.’

    Little wonder the theory of earthquakes is hazy.

  57. Sparks says:

    I’ve been looking into earthquakes over the past few nights thanks to this post, on first impressions it seems to me that it will be very difficult extrapolating any planetary or solar influence on earthquakes from the noise caused by other factors, such as lunar/tidal and oceanic movements and the randomness of existing faults in the tectonic plates, but I see no reason why it should be impossible if a relationship exists.

    first; I plotted a graph of sunspot numbers with major earthquakes (globally) of the 20th century (1900-2000), it looks very noisy with no real striking pattern. but I will note the uptick of stronger earthquakes during the 50’s and 60’s, which is interesting.

    Graph A

    The second graph I plotted is an orbital plot of the distance between Jupiter and Venus over the period between 1900-2015 (Mass/gravity is accounted for in the orbital model as suggested above by Bob Weber).
    The idea here is that any major change in the orbit of Jupiter should have some similarity with the general trend in geological activity on earth, with Jupiter in mind as being the greatest force due to its large mass, if any trend in geological stresses on earth were to show up it would be mostly from Jupiter.
    Using Venus’s as a base for measuring changes in the distance of Jupiter’s orbit I took a measurement of the distance every 10 years in AU and plotted it in a spread sheet.

    Graph B

    I’ve used a moving average of 80 in the earthquake data (the black trend line), eyeballing the graph above it seems to have similarities between the distance plot and the Earthquake trend.
    To me, it’s not very conclusive, but it’s enough to keep me interested in the idea.
    I have a few other plots in the pipeline at the moment, I’ve started working on trends in earthquakes by geographical location, the idea is to possibly eliminate any noise from other locations, I can then use a higher resolution measurement of planetary orbits..

    There may not be anything very conclusive about any of this, but not doing the research into it is just lazy and ignorant in my opinion.😉

  58. Sparks says:

    One more thing! the reason why I didn’t use the distance between Earth and Jupiter as the data for graph B is because the earthquake data was recorded on earth, therefor I used Venus’s orbit as a control to eliminate earth from the orbital data.

  59. Stenies2012 says:

    So the resulting graph is the effect of Venus Jupiter distance on earthquakes on earth.

  60. Stenies2012 says:

    What is major earthquake in your graph sparks….6R 7R?

  61. Stenies2012 says:

    Has anybody looked CME vs Earthquakes

  62. Sparks says:

    Stenies2012,

    I haven’t shown any effect, just comparing data at this point, if there is an effect, the most noticeable area would be from the Sun and Jupiter as earth interacts with them. The graph is not of earthquake rates, when I say ‘major’ I mean magnitude of the most notable earthquakes of the 20th century.

    I haven’t had a chance to fully read the paper you linked to yet, but browsing over it I noticed a graph in it that depicts an increase in earthquake rates during solar minimums that increases/decreases with the intensity of each solar cycle, which I found very interesting,

    this appears to be a Jupiter orbital value, I’ve done hundreds of plots of Jupiter’s orbit and it is sometimes offset in relation to the sunspot record and sometimes aligned with it, I would like to see how the relationship holds going back further than 1975 with the normalized earthquake number, and the overall incline/decline of this ‘normalized earthquake number’ is similar to orbital elements from Neptune and Uranus, which in fact also correlate very well with the sunspot record..

    This graph will give you an idea of the orbital changes taken place between Neptune, Uranus and Jupiter.. Note that Saturn’s orbital elements are not included in this graph.

    Another graph in the paper shows a correlation between temperature and normalized earthquake rates.

    And it agrees with the planetary vs Hadcrut4 southern hemisphere graph, notice the blip during the 1930’s and 1940’s? It is very similar to Saturn’s orbital elements. (it is also claimed that hadcrut and other sources smooth this blip out).

    This is the orbital elements of Neptune, Uranus and Jupiter plotted with hadcrut4.

  63. What is important is the connection between MAJOR VOLCANIC/EARTHQUAKE ACTIVITY which clearly shows a solar/major geological connection to the tune of over 85%.

    Therefore once prolonged minimum solar conditions become more established as this decade proceeds expect an uptick in major geological activity.

  64. oldbrew says:

    Sparks says: ‘ I plotted a graph of sunspot numbers with major earthquakes (globally) of the 20th century (1900-2000), it looks very noisy with no real striking pattern. but I will note the uptick of stronger earthquakes during the 50’s and 60’s, which is interesting.’

    Solar cycle 19 from 1954-1964 recorded the highest maximum monthly sunspot figure of any SC on record.

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

  65. Michele says:

    Jakubcová and Pick, 1987 I. Jakubcová and M. Pick, Correlation between solar motion, earthquakes and other geophysical phenomena.

    “….The surprising coincidence of all these periods indicates that the dynamics of the planetary system governs solar-terrestrial phenomena….”

    Ivanka Charvátová – 2010 Long-term relations between the solar inertial motion (SIM) and solar, geomagnetic, volcanic activities and climate

    “….Volcanic activity is attenuated, it has a noisy character there, great volcanic eruptions have not occurred during the trefoil intervals….”

  66. stenies2012 says:

    Tallbloke: Re my prediction…..I did say that normally this would have been 7R but because of subdued effects of last year and this years too on the date of the 5th Feb which was my prediction we got the largest earthquake 5.7R instead of 6R in Panama. I said perhaps Mexico. I wish randomeness has this kind of predictability. Considering my resources, One may justifiably say wao and what on earth the millions spend are doing! wink

  67. stenies2012 says:

    sparkes or others, if you like to email me stenies2012 gmail.com just in case we flood this. [mod]

  68. tallbloke says:

    Stenies: On 06 February, at 11.49 a.m. local time (03.49 GMT), a magnitude 6.9 eartquake struck at 09.97 N 123.14 E, 70 kilometres north of the city of Dumaguete on Negros Island, central Philippines.

    Any alignment?

  69. stenies2012 says:

    What year?

    [Reply] My mistake. 2012

  70. stenies2012 says:

    Sun-Venus-Uranus today….but not 6.9R!!!!

  71. stenies2012 says:

    February 2nd see above I said…”….I can also say the places which are probable for an earthquake on 5th Feb are: PNG, Solomon Islands, Iran-Iraq border, Mexico/CA Gulf ….”
    PNG is so close see below…

    Mexico…
    Magnitude mb 4.6
    Region SOUTH OF PANAMA
    Date time 2015-02-05 07:42:52.5 UTC
    Location 5.28 N ; 82.65 W
    Depth 2 km
    and the strongst on the day (5th) not that far from Mexico
    Magnitude Mw 5.7
    Region SOUTH OF PANAMA
    Date time 2015-02-05 04:40:52.5 UTC
    Location 5.26 N ; 82.69 W
    Depth 2 km
    As far as California, well we just got one late but small…

  72. stenies2012 says:

    If Mexico did not have a volcanic erruption yesterday then I would have been spot on even on the country. Mexico was due for an earthquake but the volcanic erruption prevented it as it is well known that volcanoes are safety releif valves for earthquakes as well.

  73. stenies2012 says:

    And finally I also said Solomon Islands….one day off as per my accuracy ranges
    Magnitude mb 4.8
    Region SOLOMON ISLANDS
    Date time 2015-02-06 22:07:29.6 UTC
    Location 11.48 S ; 161.98 E
    Depth 30 km

  74. Bob Weber says:

    Michele, if you or anyone else were put off by what I said on that blog article, please let me know. Willis did not give you a fair shake, IMHO, although he recovered & moderated somewhat.

    Otherwise, I investigated the top four VEI events since the satellite era and found significant solar events preceded each of these recent VEI5+ events, backed up by hard data, information that I wish to convey under “better” circumstances than offered up at that particular blog article under his pervue.

    Now it’s on to studying many more VEI4 events in a similar fashion. Could be a while on that.

    Sparks, thanx for your efforts. Your approach is a good starting point. The gravitational impulse response for individual alignment scenarios over the days of the alignment interaction is what we are ultimately looking for. If someone can figure out the tidal effects of different alignment scenarios, they can then be sorted out by magnitude and duration, and then correlated to higher EQs & VEI events.

    What I found in the last week of researching the cover list from the video Michele posted is that every one of the earthquakes listed and others I looked up were preceded by or occured during common conditions, primarily proton storms, coronal hole streams + full/new moon, and accompanying IMF density spikes. However, not all events I studied involved the latter.

    The bigger VEI events are special cases that also have the same mechanisms that precede many higher magnitude hurricanes/typhoons. The info is “electrifying” to say the least. More info later, possibly under different circumstances.

    The trigger mechanism involves the global electric circuit: ground, atmosphere, ionosphere, and magnetosphere, powered up by a few types of solar impulses.

  75. One thing to remember , the plates are unstable to begin with as well as the structure of the earth in volcanic/earthquake fault areas in that any added catalyst or force no matter how slight might be enough to push existing unstable conditions over the edge more often then not resulting in greater geological activity.

    I can see how MUONS can accomplish this especially when the geo magnetic field of the earth is weak and or subject to shocks via strong solar activity in an otherwise prolonged solar minimum period. A recent HONG KONG solar research paper recently investigated this and concluded that MUONS could excite the calderas of certain volcanos especially in the higher latitudes at times of prolonged solar weakness. I might add perhaps exasperated by geomagnetic conditions.

    I for one go with the data and always try to make my explanations conform to what the data presents, rather then try to make the data conform to my explanations. The data shows a correlation as to why I gave it my best estimate in the above.

  76. Willis, does nothing more then convolute the data he uses to fit his needs. His data and his way of proving it is nothing more then dribble. It is essentially a waste of time to even look at it.

    In addition Willis, always tries to isolate an item to show how that item does not correlate to the climate rather then evaluate the item in the context of the entire spectrum of items that are in play effecting the climate at that particular point in time much less not taking into account the Initial State Of The Climate at that given point in time.

    Willis, has yet to prove or show anything he says is the slightest bit correct.

  77. Link to study

    A study I hope it will be able to be viewed.

  78. Bob Weber says:

    Good paper Salvatore. As I said at the other place, high VEI scale events occur at both maxima and minima, and so therefore the sunspot number is only so helpful in determining cause and effect, and mechanism(s).

    My website preparation is nearing the end, and my data on this subject will be posted there among other things, available to everyone.

  79. Sounds good.

    I think/hope these next 5 years will show people that our points of view (this web-site as a whole) are correct which is, Solar is the main driver of climate change.

  80. Bob Weber says:

    Absolutely. It won’t take that long.

  81. Michele says:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/02/10/early-sunspots-and-volcanoes/#comment-1858538

    http://www.leif.org/EOS/Maunder-Minimum-Not-So-Grand.pdf

    Willis say :

    “So no, I’m afraid that the Group sunspot number, as terrible as it is, still doesn’t show any relationship between sunspots and big eruptions …”

    B-I-N-G-O !
    😆

    Figure 9 paper
    Light red defines the supposed amplitude of solar cycles

    Eruptions VEI5+ 1610-1720

  82. Michele – I think Willis and Leif ,what could you say , clueless comes to mind.

    Enough about them

    Keep up the great work you are on the correct path and you have presented the data which shows this to be so.

  83. Michele says:

    Thanks Salvatore,
    I agree with your words …
    on the road, with calm and serenity.

  84. Michele, I took a look at the sunspot revisions. It changes nothing.

    If it should be correct all it does is show climate sensitivity to solar variation may be greater then previously thought and secondly that the current solar lull (2008-2010)was more spectacular then previously thought and makes this current prolonged solar minimum we are currently in (which has a long way to go) perhaps be more significant when all is said and done because it does not have to be as extreme to match up against the Maunder Minimum if that data is correct .

  85. gymnosperm says:

    It is always so much nicer to have a plausible mechanism. Not that we deserve one at our paltry level of understanding. When next to nothing is known there is really no answer to statistical naysayers. Statistics is brail, a tool for the blind. Willis can say that that he can find no 60yr cycles, no cooling after volcanoes, no 10Be signal. The reason is that swords are often double edged and cut both ways. Until you find the sword you have no explanation for why it cuts first this way and then that in a time series and why the signal is lost in homogenized data.

  86. craigm350 says:

    To me the Willis approach is to look for a single molehill with 1000km resolution. Sometimes it is wiser to say nothing and observe, a skill that the preponderance of evidence suggests Willis sadly lacks.

    Keep meaning to write something here but not quite conveyed to my satisfaction.

    As Bob Weber says observe. Look at solar output and quake activity daily.

    Unusually high M7.1 (USGS) on Mid Atlantic Ridge yesterday. Interesting planetary geometry. Coronal hole earth facing.

    This video shows it quite well.

  87. Now if one looks at this chart(in the above) the bottom one with the blue temperature curve and compares it to the latest study showing the solar secular cycle one will see a good correlation between global temperature and the solar secular cycle.

    The solar secular cycle trend from 1610-2010, and the absolute values of the solar secular cycle trend correlating with the global temperature trends (1610-2010), and absolute values of the global temperature.

    The solar secular cycle trend also shows a distinct increase in solar activity from the period 1930-2005 period, versus the period from 1650-1930 in that the solar secular cycle through out that period of time never exceeds 125 ,in contrast to being above 125 from the 1930-2005 period of time, with a peak of 160!

    In addition if one examines the data, at times when the solar secular trend breaks 100 on the down slide the global temperature trend is down although the global temperature value starting points may differ most likely due to other climate items superimposed upon the global temperature trend such as the state of the PDO,AMO or ENSO.

    During the times when the solar secular trend broke 100 those being the period 1660 -1720 and 1780-1830 both corresponding to the Maunder Minimum and Dalton Minimum ,the global temperature trend is in a definitive down trend. In addition even from the period 1880-1905 when the solar secular cycle approaches the 100 value, the global temperature trend is slightly down once again.

    Then on the hand, when the solar secular cycle trend exceeds 125 from 1930 -2005 the temperature trend is up and shoots really up when the great climatic shift takes place in 1978 which is when the PDO ,shifted from it’s cold to warm phase.

    The data from the above shows quite clearly that when the solar secular cycle breaks 100 on the down slope look for a global temperature cooling trend to begin from what ever level the global absolute temperature is at, and when the solar secular cycle rises and breaks through 100 on the upside look for a global temperature trend to rise from what ever level the global absolute temperature is at.

    A general rule I see if when the solar secular cycle exceeds 125 global temperatures trend up or are at a higher level and when it breaks 100 on the downside global temperatures trend down or are at a lower level.

    If this latest solar information is correct and that is a big if ,but if it is correct, it shows the climate is more sensitive to primary ,and the secondary effects associated with solar variability.

    In addition my low average value solar parameter criteria for cooling may be able to be adjusted up some , due to this latest information.

    One last note, it looks like around year 2010 the solar secular cycle trend finally broke 100 n the down swing which would be the first time since 1830, when the solar secular cycle broke 100 on the up swing and had since stayed above that level until year 2010.

    THE GRAPH SHOWING THE SOLAR SECULAR CYCLE IS ON PAGE 13 OF THE PDF I HAVE SENT . LOOK BELOW.

    http://www.leif.org/EOS/Maunder-Minimum-Not-So-Grand.pdf

  88. March 30, 2015 at 9:00 am

    I said this BEFORE it has taken place on Dr. Spencer’s web-site.

    Salvatore Del Prete says:

    March 18, 2015 at 1:37 PM

    I saw the 6.2 quake. Total up to two earthquakes 6.0 or greater since the geomagnetic event. Never came across the 6.6 quake.

    It will be interesting to compare the total number of magnitude 5.0 earthquakes or better a few weeks leading up to the geomagnetic storm versus a few weeks since the storm and see if an increase has taken place.

    For my money I think the number of earthquakes magnitude 5.0 or better will be greater from Mar.17 -Mar.31 then they were from Mar.03-Mar.17.

    Also volcanic activity has to be watched.

    My reasoning is the tectonic plates are unstable to begin with so any added force no matter how slight might be just enough to give them that little added instability which pushes them over the edge.

    Ideally I think the sun needs to be in the depths of a prolonged solar minimum (AP index 5.0 or less) with then a geomagnetic storm of K8 magnitude or better(AP index spike over 250) taking place in order to realize the full potential effects.

    The AP index has been well above the 5.0 average when this recent event (k8 geomagnetic storm) took place..

    Here is the data Mar. 03- Mar. 17, prior to the K8 event versus Mar. 17 – Mar . 31, (note one more day left in this period of time to make the difference even more telling) after the K8 event took place..

    Mar. 03- Mar 17 – 46 earthquakes took place with a magnitude of 5.0 or higher.

    Mar. 17 – Mar 31 – Note it is only Mar 30 , as of now 62 earthquakes have taken place thus far with a magnitude of 5.0 or higher. This is over a 30% increase over the period prior to the geomagnetic storm.

    Mar.03 – Mar 17 – 3 earthquakes took place with a magnitude of 6.0 or higher. No earthquakes with a magnitude of 7.0 or higher.

    Mar.17- Mar. 31 – Note it is only Mar.30 — 8 earthquakes have taken place with a magnitude of 6.0 or higher. This is over a 100% increase over the period prior to the geomagnetic storm, with one earthquake having a magnitude of 7.0 or higher.

    I would have to say this data lends support to what I have been suggesting ,especially when consideration is taken into account that the ideal conditions I have called for, that being a very low AP index 5.0 or lower for many months with a sudden spike of 250 or greater were not fully realized.

  89. oldbrew says:

    SdP: the length of the cycle is also important. Longer cycles = lower sunspot values and vice versa seems like a fair working hypothesis. Only as a ‘rule of thumb’ though.

  90. craigm350 says:

    SP – do you take coronal holes into consideration?

    See first 90 seconds

    Been observing this for past ~4 yrs (since Tōhoku earthquake) and coronal holes (Alfven waves?) seem a critical factor. Go to spaceweather.com and check the archive against nearly any M7+ (works also for low level quakes in unusual places i.e. an M4 in UK is of note but not a big quake by any means) . Open mag fields critical IMO.

  91. Here is my thinking. I think at times of prolonged solar minimums Muons a by product of galactic cosmic rays enter the earth’s crust and penetrate it adding a little extra instability to the already unstable plates. This sets the stage for when an intense active burst of activity from the sun causes a geomagnetic storm here on earth to create havoc with the earth’s magnetic field which compounds the instability on the plates the increase in Muons created when solar activity was quiet giving a double whammy of instability to the plates which makes them more likely to be pushed over the edge ,the result more geological activity.

    The source for the geomagnetic storm from the sun does not matter, it could be coronal holes, a solar flair or a filament explosion.

  92. In the big picture which is where I am coming from data shows major geological activity is higher around solar minimum periods.

  93. Look at my post on FEB. 12, 06:56 PM.

  94. oldbrew says:

    Paper: ‘Further, a significantly increased risk is indicated during the next 20 years for volcanic and earthquake events of historic scale’

    No doubt some numpty will try and say it’s all our fault.

  95. But it will be due to the sun, as will the climate change.

  96. http://www.solen.info/solar/history/hist1960.html

    This shows prior to the largest earthquake on record 9.5 magnitude in Chile, May 22, 1960 there were 3 spikes of AP index activity.

    Spike one= 240 end of Mar
    Spike two= 170 end of Apr.
    Spike three= 130 May 09 or so.

    See how this situation is along the same lines as today.

  97. oldbrew says:

    The Ap index is derived from the Kp index which ‘is designed to measure solar particle radiation by its magnetic effects.’ Data comes from ’13 magnetic observatories.’

    ftp://ftp.gfz-potsdam.de/pub/home/obs/kp-ap/readme.txt

  98. Michele says:

    Now…. connection with Ch661

  99. Here is what I think Michele. First look at my post at 8:18 pm Mar.30.

    I can see a tie in with more geological activity near solar maximum due to extreme solar events taking place around that time. Not as great however as around very quiet prolonged solar minimum conditions, with a severe solar event taking place within the prolonged solar minimum period.

    I think five factors come into play to determine if an increase geological activity is going to follow a major solar event. I think the five factors are the relative strength of earth’s magnetic field, the overall level of solar activity in general, the geomagnetic storm strength itself , the state of instability of the plates at that point in time ,and most IMPORTANT the strength in the geomagnetic storm in relation to the level of solar activity in general.

    I think the greater the spread is between the average AP index and the AP index during the geomagnetic storm the greater the chances will be for major geological activity to follow.

    This is not a black and white situation unfortunately. This is my best take ,I do not know for certain if this is correct but it seems to be logical in many respects to my way of thinking.

  100. I would like to know Michele(or anyone ) ,if you think my thinking is way off, maybe somewhat correct ,correct or some other comment. Thanks.