RF-Seismograph: White Island Eruption causes worldwide Radio Blackout

thank you for proving my comment about posting mere rhetoric.

 

Only if there had been some evidence of a correlation.

A correlation doesn't mean, "When I hear news of an event, I look for an anomaly in the data I collected before the event and I find something."

At a minimum, it would mean finding something that is not as likely to be present when no event happened. Furthermore, the type of anomaly that is found and the type of event with which it is correlated should be defined precisely enough so that an impartial observer can determine whether or not these things happened.

If a demonstrable correlation could be found, it would be earth-shaking, so to speak. I would encourage those with access to the data to search for one. The search might begin with noticing something "funny" in the data, but it doesn't end there.

 

excellent point.... but wouldn't multiple instances of time-related events indicate a possible correlation? It would not prove a cause/ effect relationship, but could serve as an indicator that there may be a common root cause somewhere down the line.

A case in point is the observed barking of dogs and flights of birds just prior to earthquakes. For decades the phenomenon was labeled as an "old wives tale".... until the P and S waves were delineated. Then it became evident what was spooking the dogs.

I agree wholeheartedly.

 

The term correlation has a specific meaning in science and math. It's not just a series of anecdotes. Demonstrating correlation means demonstrating that event A is more likely to happen when event B happens, and less likely to happen when event B does not happen.

You can't demonstrate correlation by looking only at days and times around significant earthquakes, no matter how many such days and times you consider. You've got to also consider days and times when no significant earthquakes happened, and show that there is some significant difference between the two.

Furthermore, since there are about a million earthquakes of magnitude 2 or greater per year worldwide, you probably need to define what you mean by a significant earthquake, with some geographical limits and/or magnitude limits. And there needs to be some sort of defined time limit, as well

Without these limits, you'll end up observing that traffic accidents happen on the same days as earthquakes, and think you've found a correlation, when you've really found that both events happen multiple times every single day, even though most individuals don't personally experience them nearly so often.

 

Spooky geology. Earthquake lights.

https://spookygeology.com/earthquake-lights

 

Stop thinking you are so clever!

You are a Johnny-come-lately to this topic, and have decided to stick up for the (rightly) beleagured underdog OP.

-In months past I have posted lists of actions the OP needs to take to begin some sort of credible analysis. YOU need to re-read all the previous topics. It is not incumbent on "me" to do the OP's research for him, nor to repeatedly re-state the case every few weeks when he posts another cherry picked, vague coincidence of some undefined event.

-His entire premise and 'data" (comprised of nothing but pictures) fails at every casual analysis.

-The OP cannot even provide a definition of the two phenomena he claims to be observing. This is the first step in any objective study!!!

 

https://eos.org/research-spotlights/an-ionospheric-index-to-predict-earthquakes-falls-short

 

Actually, I am very clever. and can be a bit arrogant from time to time. It comes with being brilliant

nor is it your place to list actions that the op must do. All you can do is make recommendations.

You and I are not the arbiters of what is right or wrong here, nor are we on a peer review panel on this work. In this case your list of recommended actions is just your opinion. If the op chooses to ignore them he is within his rights.... just like you are free to ignore mine. You may be 100% correct in what you are saying, but that is not the point. We shouldn't just blast someone, call their work voodoo science, or try to bully them off the forum just because they don't agree with our assessments.

To be quite clear here: I am not sticking up for the Op's science or methodology. What I am doing is sticking up for civility. As a group we should be better than this. I agree wholeheartedly that a good debate is beneficial to all parties as it helps clarify what is being presented, it's merits, and it's flaws. BUT we should never debate a topic in a mean-spirited way, no matter how annoyed we may get.

IF the Op's work is crap, it will go eventually go nowhere soon enough. If it turns out to be correct then we will all benefit. Either way, there is no need to get unfriendly about it, or let it ruin friendships, or give you a headache.

Dave
KK4NSF

 

Fascinating reading, good link, thanks

 

So, your contention is that someone who comes up with an idea, makes an assertion, presents no evidence or anything approaching a scientific analysis is then owed respect from others, who, according to you, must have a 'suitable' background to critice or else shut up.

I would contend this is palpable rubbish, and that anyone beyond about 7 years old has enough competence to start taking the way this stuff is presented apart. As well they might. Until the people making these claims present proper, rigorous and peer-reviewed evidence, the only respect they can demand is none at all. Civility, certainly, but not respect for their approach to understanding the world. Saying it's not science is not uncivil. It's a valid and necessary response to the way we are asked to believe in material that has no proper evidence presented.

Everyone agrees there is plenty we don't know. The way we approach that is called the scientific method and peer review. Peer review is not at all perfect, but it's a lot better than people who simply ask us to believe.

Thanks
(published author in mesospheric science; I don't ever use Google. By your own contention, this blows your position apart).

 

So.... for us to properly verify your claim, please submit a CV of Scientific Journals listed on my approved list of reputable journals where you have been published, and proof that you do not use Google. Without both we cannot be sure you are not just some crackpot just making stuff up.

Just kidding... I have no reason to doubt what you are saying. My point is not that we have to accept what anyone says, or believe what they are saying without debating or challenging their ideas.... just that we should be civil about it. Unfortunately, we have had several folks here get downright mean-spirited, and resorting to personal attacks that are uncalled for. And yes, everyone who posts here deserves at least a moderate amount of respect, no matter how insane their ideas might be.

 

Hi Bonnie;
The Ioinosounde network only measures once every 15 min. This is too slow to see earthquakes...

A

 

Quite right. You can use Google and find the relevant papers ;-) Hint: JGR (Atmospheres). I also published in JMBA way back in the 1990s. Physics and marine science!

 

This is not correct. Many (but not all) stations in the UM Lowell ionosonde network operate at 5 minute cadence, e.g. the MHJ45 (Millstone Hill) station. Lowell's DIDBase archive, provided by Bonnie, is available to see these ionograms. Signatures below that cadence of course would not be resolvable.

GPS total electron content measurements are done on a faster 30 second cadence and have worldwide coverage. These are available through NOAA and are also available through NSF's CEDAR program. This data is stored at the Millstone Hill Geospace Facility through the Madrigal distributed database system. Visit "cedar.openmadrigal.org" and choose "Access Data / List Instruments", then "Worldwide GNSS Receiver Network" as the instrument.

 

Dear VE7DXW,

Thanks for your comment:

"too slow to see earthquakes..." ​

But, you said there was a blackout for more than 4 hours:

"After the eruption the ionosphere stayed disturbed and created a radio blackout for more than 4 h!"​

The Ionosonde network can certainly see evidence of blackouts when they occur.

Please post which ionosonde locations experienced blackouts, so we can look in the archives at the ionograms for those locations and time stamps.

Science.