Journey to the Center of The Yellowstone Caldera

All three links basically say the same thing. They pose the question, do increased solar flare activity have anything to do with increased volcanic activity.

And that's all they do, pose the question. They provide nothing in the way of any argument, mechanism or evidence.

Coincident is not causality.
 
AlexG said:
All three links basically say the same thing. They pose the question, do increased solar flare activity have anything to do with increased volcanic activity.

And that's all they do, pose the question. They provide nothing in the way of any argument, mechanism or evidence.

Coincident is not causality.
Click to expand...

The one has a list of event dates. Can you refute any of those dates as being a false report?

I'm taken aback that someone knows the difference between coincidence and causality... not that it matters...

Now a series of coincidences may establish a pattern.
 
origin said:
When I saw that you posted I was hoping for some supporting evidence of your conjecture that there is a relationship between sunspots and earthquakes - alas none proffered.:bawl:

The support from Dale is high praise indeed.[/sarcasm]
Click to expand...

I suppose we were 2 ships passing in the night.

As for Dale, all I can say is there have recently been reports that magnetic "tornadoes" have been detected at the sun's surface. I don't know him, but he certainly is more civil than some others here.
 
The one has a list of event dates. Can you refute any of those dates as being a false report?
Click to expand...

Why would I? They are what establish the coincidence. But nothing has suggested causality. Correlation doesn't imply causation.

Your links say, 'look at all the volcanoes and earthquakes we had during high solar activity'. What I'd like to see is a comparison with the rates of volcanoes and earthquakes during low solar activity.
 
http://www.jupitersdance.com/

This is what you'd like to see. The only problem is the charts are fudged. 2002 - 2003 and 2003 - 2004 are years where sunspot activity was higher. The question about both the claims in the article and the chart is "Are we looking at fewer flares, yet more intense?"
 
HectorDecimal said:
Don't ask or demand anything of me. All you are doing is looking like a bully aka a megalomaniac. .
Click to expand...
I am quite prepared to bully you until you conduct yourself in a manner befitting the scientific researcher you implicitly claim to be. Your failure to provide confirmatory data is antithetical to good science, a breach of forum rules and a pretty fair indicator that you have nothing to support your ludicrous contentions.

You have a simple option. Make me look foolish by producing the evidence. I shan't hold my breath.
 
Ophiolite said:
I am quite prepared to bully you until you conduct yourself in a manner befitting the scientific researcher you implicitly claim to be. Your failure to provide confirmatory data is antithetical to good science, a breach of forum rules and a pretty fair indicator that you have nothing to support your ludicrous contentions.

You have a simple option. Make me look foolish by producing the evidence. I shan't hold my breath.
Click to expand...

Instead I'll point out your admission to bullying. That makes you appear foolish enough as it is.

No. I wouldn't hold my breath. As my recent posts show, I do answer queries, the ones made courteously first, but as I have time.

Sorry... no milk money.
 
HectorDecimal said:
http://www.jupitersdance.com/

This is what you'd like to see. The only problem is the charts are fudged. 2002 - 2003 and 2003 - 2004 are years where sunspot activity was higher. The question about both the claims in the article and the chart is "Are we looking at fewer flares, yet more intense?"
Click to expand...

So you've linked me to a site which presents data which contradicts your entire argument, and then claim that the data you've linked me to is false.

You're very confused :m:
 
AlexG said:
So you've linked me to a site which presents data which contradicts your entire argument, and then claim that the data you've linked me to is false.

You're very confused :m:
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle_24

You are very destructive. :m:


If you pervert what I actually say to mean what you want it to, then how can you expect me to respect your opinion? All I showed you was a comparison of quantity. I think you passed out or something when it came time to read the part about questioning the magnitudes. If we experience one sunspot in a particular year, but it is accompanied by a powerful GM storm that sets off a butterfly effect or even quite immediately is responded to by quakes or volcanic activity, the quantity is irrelevant.

That wiki article is pretty up to date. It also agrees with my list of predictions and that certain ones in that lest weren't considered significant enough to make the chart.

What do you think causes the planet's magnetic field?
 
And now you've linked to a general wiki article.

You just can't provide any kind of data to back up any of your positions.

All you do is make claims, point to contradictory data and dither, waving your hands a lot.
 
Just stopped by, opened the door, heard some crazy funny BS, and shut it again, ROFL. What a hoot. Someone needs to invent a science curriculum that teaches like a three ring circus. I think it would go viral.
 
Pincho Paxton said:
Tough! You need to learn more than most other people on the site...

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/338937/title/Water_not_so_squishy_under_pressure
Click to expand...



“At this point, it’s worth putting together an accurate equation of state over the entire pressure range for planetary modelers to use,” says Bill Nellis, a physicist at Harvard University. Nellis notes that while the new study has generated reliable data for the conditions in question, more work is needed to determine how the new numbers will tweak existing theories.



That particular part of your article stood out to me at least. AlexG has some validity in the source of this planet's magnetic field, but he's only giving us part of the picture. In fact, if we take into account Mars having no detectable magnetic field and also the lack of magmatic flow, that is seen to hold water (no pun intended.) Mars also has little water compared to the Earth, so your article has some merit as well. The point it makes, though, is that every atom has a magnetic field of some strength and all of them contribute to the field. It is the atoms in motion that generate increased strength in the field, yet more vulnerability to outside influence from other particles in motion.

AlexG does not seem aware that the central core of this planet is a solid iron sphere about 900 Km in diameter. Not unlike the core of the sun, it rotates a bit faster than the surface. The molten magma, on the other hand could be imagined like a river. It has eddy currents only the eddys are also in motion around the iron core, thus the field fluctuates.

It can all be compared to music. When all the notes are complimentary, the instrument resonates in its own local harmony. When a sour note is emitted from say the tea kettle, it affects the resonance of the instrument as well. This is the difference between constructive and destructive resonance... beat frequencies in synch or out of synch.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top