RF-Seismograph: White Island Eruption causes worldwide Radio Blackout

Well, unless they are ALTERNATE FACTS.....

And, 'they' may be referring to a group of 'Florida Men.' Seems like there is a NEWS article about 'Florida Man' doing something strange (or stupid) every day.

Dan WQ4G

 

Make sure to let us know when you institute location and alert systems to your lavatory, er ... laboratory.

 

Actually, If the rock hits a tough dog he bites the dog on the effected side and that dog yelped. Just saying.

 

Hullo From ZL ..... Yes so sad that there were Deaths and server injuries from this Eruption on White island .... There was a 4.6 earth Quake recorded at 176 km depth within 48 hr time a short distance from the island towards Tauranga . Whether that was an initial indication of some thing about to happen who knows .... But there were changes to the small lake colour .. the morning of the Eruption ...

So seems to be a lot more research to be done to draw conclusions either way ... Its never a good thing when this happens for sure especially those who have lost loved ones . Also those who are nursing injuries , wishing them a speedy recovery ...

 

That effect has been widely reported in hilly/mountainous areas of the UK and elsewhere. Not fully explained, but certainly happening.

 

The electrical effects from earthquakes, and associated effects on the ionosphere have been documented before, although not extensively. A report in the Journal of Geophysical Research, 70:1250-1251, 1965; documented the ionospheric disturbance from the Alaska quake of 1964. All quotes are from that article. Ionograms from three sites; Adak Alaska; Palo Alto, Cal.; and Maui, Hawaii all showed a "propagating disturbance as a perturbation of the F-layer". Adak, Alaska recorded approximately 45 minutes of recordings that were "quite disturbed", beginning at 0355 UTC. The more distant recording sites showed the F layer critical frequency rising abnormally starting at 0355 UTC. "The disturbances in the critical frequency appear to be similar to the ionospheric disturbances that have been associated with nuclear explosions."
It may not happen very often, but just because a natural event is infrequent, and ephemeral, does not mean it can be ignored. Sprites, those upward blasts of energy from the tops of thunderheads were not verified until recently. This may be a similarly infrequent and elusive phenomenon.

 

Except of course for high altitude nuclear explosions, but we haven't had one of those lately. Or have we?

 

Obviously, this subject is controversial.... as have been many, many theories and discoveries throughout history. Just because all of the mechanisms are still unknown, and the research being done may not meet the collective QRZ Peanut Gallery's "standards for proof" does not mean that the theory is "Voodoo Science".

Personally, I don't know if this theory is right or wrong, but I have to admire the folks who are working on it. At least they are actually doing something instead of merely criticizing other folks work.... or making blanket statements that more border on rhetoric than a discussion of the facts.

The one thing that stikes me the most is that the vocal detractors never seem to post any of their own papers or data. All I see are folks Googling the topic, and quoting other folks' papers that might bolster their own negative viewpoint. Could it be that they themselves have never actually done anything in a related field?

 

The subject of the original post was "White Island Eruption Causes Worldwide Radio Blackout" ... That is an unproven assertion. Maybe based on a theory. Maybe based on measurements. But still only an assertion. There is no proof demonstrated. Therefore all it is is an assertion. Anyone can make an assertion. Maybe even believe that their assertion is factual. It may even be factual, but with no proof demonstrated, it remains merely an unproven assertion.

So. We don't know if a world-wide blackout occurred. And we don't know that if it occurred, it was caused by the White Island eruption.

Cause and effect relationships within the realm of "natural" phenomenon are easy to assume, but potentially very difficult to prove. A more honest-accurate title would have been "We believe ..." instead of making an unproven assertion of fact. I would like to think that in a legitimate scientific study the proponents would have sense enough to see the difference between believing something and proving something.

And by the way, all legitimate research has survived a rigorous peer review process.

And yes, I have a great deal of experience, both in doing scientific research ( atmospheric radiation ) and in managing scientific research ( atmospheric radiation and atmospheric science ) and in evaluating scientific research ( I have served on several White House standing committees ( 1990-2005 ) and on various National Academy of Science ad hoc committees to evaluate research ).

That said, I have no idea if there is any merit to the OP's assertions, I only know that they have not ( yet ) been demonstrated or proven.

 

Eventually yes, but on many occasions legitimate research has been met with controversy and ridicule.....especially that research not done by by "prestigious" institutions. I've seen a several carreers ruined by scientific controversies, only to learn later that the theory was actually correct. And we all know about "peer reviewed" papers that later turned out to be wrong or fabricated. The whole process is flawed. It appears to be skewed toward supporting pet theories, and politically expediant results. Carl Sagan discusses this at length in his book "Demon Haunted World".

You of all people should realize that even the most amateur of scientists can conduct meaningful science. Even if they are unable to prove their theories, they can lay the groundwork for other work later on.

Rather than support the peanut gallery, perhaps we should watch the RF Siesmograph people's work and see where it leads. If it goes nowhere, then we know they are wrong. BUT if it turns out to be correct, then the body of scientific knowledge will be a little bit stronger.

 

Would there have been less controversy in these QRZ threads if the OP had simply stated that they've found a correlation between eruptions and blackouts or between earthquakes and eruptions?

 

Unfortunately to many Americans have become science ignorant. It's a sad fact.

The earth is flat. My proof is looking out of the window in my radio shack.

 

Well, I cannot disagree with any of that except that I don't believe the peer-review process is entirely flawed. It is not perfect, I believe everyone is biased to some extent, and I have witnessed some poorly managed peer-review processes. But if managed properly, they work, and work well. For much of my career I did just that, selecting reviewers, evaluating reviews, and making sure ( to the best of my ability ) that the reviews were fair and not compromised. I often had reviewers reviewing reviews, to be sure. In a good peer review process, the reviewers are also evaluated and graded. Without such checks and balances you can get flawed results. And yes, there were times that I funded work that was controversial, that had poor reviews, simply because I felt it had potential and the reviews were simply biased by what "most" people believed.

My post was simply to make a distinction between assertion and fact. Yes, they may be doing legitimate research. In which case they can say what they believe, but in my opinion it is wrong to make undemonstrated or unproven assertions. To do so suggests a lack of objectivity and undermines their credibility. If it had been me, I would have said this is what we believe based on our observations.

 

It is not necessary to duplicate centuries of science every week to disprove crackpots of all colors.

To reiterate:
The OP"s claims are extravagant, based on completely flawed logic and wholey lacking in scientific method and statistical basis. We have provided him with lists of actions he needs to even begin a methodical gathering and study of his data. He has done none of these actions.

 

understood, and I don't disagree. What you are really saying is that they are not presenting their findings in an unbiased manner.... and that does appear to be the case. However, my point is that just because their presentation skills are not up to par does not invalidate the possibility that they may have a legitimate theory.