Interesting connection between solar activity, propagation and earthquakes

But God is the ultimate physicist and artist.

 

Well, the history of science is a history of doubt improving the science. For example, the discovery that bacteria are the cause of stomach ulcers displaced a previous "fact" about their cause. Copernicus caused scientists to abandon the fact that the universe was earth-centered. When I was young, I was taught that protons, neutrons, and electrons were basic particles. No longer a fact. As science improves there will always be supposed facts that turn out to be incomplete or even false. We should be grateful for and encourage that process. But there are also things that are well understood, like the value of pi and non-relativistic gravity calculations.

Re God, there are thousands of religions with adherents who will tell you that theirs is the one true religion. But as far as I know, the credos always start with "I believe ..." and not "I can prove ... " So, agreed, religion is entirely separate from science. Where religions overlap into science, for example in creation myths, my money is on science.

 

He does not do what he cannot do.

I disagree with it being called pseudoscience. It is not any type of science. It's more like a faiery tale.
John

 

Just a thought relating to some denigrating remarks earlier in the thread, you do realize that without the energy ( read oil and gas ) you would still be driving in a horse and buggy , there would be no plastic ( read computers ) and I dare say no modern day sophisticated trancievers. Without all those things , and too many more to list, also no QRZ, forums and all. Why do modern day crusader "scientists" feel it is necessary to attack the things which have brought us to the convenient world in which we live. Just saying.
Don't bother to flame me for this , I'll not be responding , it's almost of topic anyway.
73 , KM5QS

 

Recently I heard that natural HF transmissions can occur locally preceeding earthquakes! Maybe there is an electrical component and a space weather correlation?

 

It is a fact that sales of ice cream are highly correlated with deaths by drowning. This has been observed for many years.

 

The only link I can imagine between solar activity and earthquakes might be changes in the total photon momentum incident upon the Earth. As we all know from kindergarten physics, every photon emanating from the Sun has momentum according to its level of energy. Some back-of-the-napkin calculations say that the force exerted on Earth by incident photon momentum varies with Solar irradiance, so more watts from the Sun equals more force on the surface of the Earth. Less watts equals less force.

If you make changes in that force, obviously that has an effect on the deformation of the Earth as a result of that force.

So, at least in basic kindergarten theory, it should be at least possible for changes in solar activity to have an effect on earthquakes on Earth.

 

You really have to put some numbers on that theory before you can know whether non-negligible "deformation" can occur. I think there are also plenty of satellites up there that would be able to measure that effect if it exists.

 

Should we bring up that the lack of Pirates increases Global Warming???

Or that group's other subject their Spaghetti Monster God?

 

Never go swimming right after eating. Momma said so.

 

that is due to the 55 minute rule! Folks go to their family BBQ's, eat a big meal.... then they sit around for 55 minutes waiting for their food to digest, thinking that it is then safe to jump in the water. BUT some of them, upon finding some extra space in the tummies, eat one last bowl of ice cream, not realizing that by doing so they have re-set the 55 minute clock to zero. They jump into the water..... and sink like a stone. It's a tragedy, and one that could have been prevented has we all listened to our mothers all those years ago.

 

________________________________________________________

Well... ahem ... um .... NO, IT IS NOT OBVIOUS. Oh, I suppose it is logically possible - meaning it is not a contradiction or patently impossible for some factual reason - but this does NOT suggest or prove it is statistically possible or even likely. It is, of course, "obvious" that mere "possibility" is far from proof it is likely or even surely caused as claimed. But as you say, ONLY in kindergarten theory ... ;-)

I AM, however, willing to bet you did not really intend to claim it is "obvious." That word is overworked in common parlance and often used to emphasize a point which may or may not be obvious - but that word is surely misplaced in a serious discussion about scientific proof and scientific likelihood. And, this is just such an occasion!

I suppose this is a curious sort of coincidence - but not at all obvious.

Just saying. K8JHR

 

Sometimes we find out that the things we were sure we knew, we never should have been so sure about.

 

Sorry, not accurate. For example, the NASA page was written in 1996, and the line showing the author and the date were “somehow” left out of the video frame.

Here’s the link, see for yourself, compare word for word. https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/rossow_01/computer.html

Always, always, verify claims by going to the original source. With the internet, it only takes a minute to do. That way it’s easy to find out who’s blowing smoke, and there a ton of smoke out there on social media and on You Tube.

 

So that's interesting. You trust the date on a government web site, maintained by government contractors.

Yet you fail to take into account that the author of the video said that the page had been updated... and apparently failed to read what the update said. So here you go:

Unfortunately, that margin of error is too large for making a reliable forecast about global warming. A doubling in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), predicted to take place in the next 50 to 100 years, is expected to change the radiation balance at the surface by only about 2 percent. Yet according to current climate models, even such a small change could raise global temperatures between 2-5°C (4-9°F), with potentially dramatic consequences. If a 2 percent change makes that much difference, a climate model must be accurate to within at least half a percent to be useful. Thus today's models must be improved more than tenfold in accuracy, requiring much more and much better data for developing a better understanding of clouds.

That takes care of your single disagreement with a video which made a single claim and offered five points to support that claim. I'd be happy to hear your refutation of the work done at Princeton, Yale, Harvard, and the U.N.

I am willing to bet that you completely missed the principle assertion the author of the video made at the beginning of the video.

Sometimes our desire to refute what we fail to understand can make us too quick to refute (without evidence) the point the presenter is trying to make. That is the point I was trying to make. Thank you for proving it.