Population Growth "Alarmism" as a Deep Political Control Device

[Gary Severson]

I'm glad the art. writer can distinguish between El Nino and MMGW.

[Ed Jewett]

.. to say nothing of the insertion of chaos on the ground with the help of gun-trafficking, elite military operators and trainers, Gladio-style "pop-ups", the training and propagandization of terror as described in Terry Melanson's "The Perfectibilists", or the patents behind HAARP as noted in the books and articles by Nick Begich, Jr. or their effects as tracked by dutchinse

[Ed Jewett]

[COLOR="#8b0000"]The Alarming Cost Of Climate Change Hysteria
[/COLOR]

The U.S. Government Accounting Office (GAO) can't figure out what benefits taxpayers are getting from the many billions of dollars spent each year on policies that are purportedly aimed at addressing climate change.

A May 20 report noted that while annual federal funding for such activities has been increasing substantially, there is a lack of shared understanding of strategic priorities among the various responsible agency officials. This assessment agrees with the conclusions of a 2008 Congressional Research Service analysis which found no "overarching policy goal for climate change that guides the programs funded or the priorities among programs."

According to the GAO, annual federal climate spending has increased from $4.6 billion in 2003 to $8.8 billion in 2010, amounting to $106.7 billion over that period. The money was spent in four general categories: technology to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, science to understand climate changes, international assistance for developing countries, and wildlife adaptation to respond to actual or expected changes. Technology spending, the largest category, grew from $2.56 billion to $5.5 billion over this period, increasingly advancing over others in total share. Data compiled by Joanne Nova at the Science and Policy Institute indicates that the U.S. Government spent more than $32.5 billion on climate studies between 1989 and 2009. This doesn't count about $79 billion more spent for climate change technology research, foreign aid and tax breaks for "green energy."

OMB pointed out that their previously noted agency budget compilations didn't include revenues lost for the special deductions and tax credits intended to encourage greenhouse gas emission reductions. They attributed to those subsidies a cost of $7.2 billion in federal revenue losses during 2010 alone, ($16.1 billion since 1993), bringing the total since 2003 to $122.8 billion. Then there's still another $26.1 billion earmarked for climate change programs and related activities within the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (or "Stimulus Bill").

Climate change spending won't slow any time soon…not so long as current Obama policies prevail. A proposed $1,328 million FY 2012 budget for its Global Climate Change Initiative (GCCI) aimed at helping developing countries address man-made global warming problems that we've allegedly caused represents a 557% increase since FY 2008 (then $202 million). Implemented through programs sponsored by the Department of State, Treasury, and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), it is funded by the administration's executive budget. As stated, "The President's FY2012 budget request follows on the December 2010 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) negotiations in Cancun, Mexico, which formulated a package of nationally appropriate' measures toward the goal of avoiding dangerous climate change." This is part of "…a commitment to near-term and long-term climate financing for the least developed countries amounting to near $30 billion for the period 2010-2012, and $100 billion annually by 2020."

Then there's the matter of those escalating climate-premised EPA regulation costs that are killing businesses and jobs under cover of the Clean Air Act. These rampant overreaches are being justified by the agency's Endangerment Finding proclaiming CO2 to be a pollutant. The finding ignored a contrary conclusion in EPA's own "Internal Study on Climate" that: "Given the downward trend in temperatures since 1998 (which some think will continue until at least 2030), there is no particular reason to rush into decisions based upon a scientific hypothesis that does not appear to explain most of the available data."

The Small Business Administration estimates that compliance with such regulations costs the U.S. economy more than $1.75 trillion per year about 12%-14% of GDP, and half of the $3.456 trillion Washington is currently spending. The Competitive Enterprise Institute believes the annual cost is closer to $1.8 trillion when an estimated $55.4 billion regulatory administration and policing budget is included. CEI further observes that those regulation costs exceed 2008 corporate pretax profits of $1.436 trillion; tower over estimated individual income taxes of $936 billion by 87%; and reveal a federal government whose share of the entire economy reaches 35.5% when combined with federal 2010 spending outlays.

A U.S. Energy Information Administration economic forecasting model indicates that a proposed 70% cut in CO2 emissions will cause gasoline prices to rise 77% over baseline projections, kill more than 3 million jobs, and reduce average household income by more than $4,000 each year.

The EPA is now embarking upon still another among many anti-fossil fuel rampages through new pending utility rule legislation to reduce coal-fired mercury emissions.

Paradoxically, this is occurring when Americans are being virtually forced to abandon incandescent light bulbs in favor of compact fluorescent fixtures containing mercury, much of which is destined to end up in landfills. EPA rushed the utility rule through in March, allowing only 60 days for public comment rather than the basic practice of 120-180 days, and overstating U.S. mercury emissions by a factor of 1,000 in the process. Even the agency admits that the rule will cost $10.9 billion annually. The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, a usual White House ally, says it will directly destroy 50,000 jobs, and 200,000 more down the supply line.


The EPA has also recently announced new environmental guidelines that will essentially end surface "mountaintop" mining in a six-state region centered on Appalachia that produced more than 10% of U.S. coal in 2008, and employed nearly 20,000 people. And just how much consideration does the EPA give to the severe economic and employment impacts of its initiatives? The unambiguous answer is none.

When Rep. Vicky Hartzler (R-Mo) raised the cost consequence question, the letter she received back from Assistant EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy was very clear: "Under the Clean Air Act, decisions regarding the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) must be based solely on evaluation of the scientific evidence as it pertains to health and environmental effects. Thus, the agency is prohibited from considering costs in setting the NAAQS." Responding to a question by Rep. Cory Gardner (R-Col.) before the House Environment and Energy Committee regarding regulations that would govern industries that recycle coal ash and other fossil fuel byproducts for concrete, wallboard and roofing materials, EPA Administrator Mathy Stanislaus stated: "We have not directly taken a look at jobs in this proposal."

Isn't it maybe high time that those responsible for regulatory oversight take a serious look at those costs and impacts? After all, didn't President Obama issue an Executive Order 13563 in January specifically requiring that all new rules issued by federal agencies take job creation into account?

Consider that current policies are costing hundreds of billions we can't afford along with millions of lost employment opportunities; all based extensively on a bogus, politically manufactured climate crisis devoid of any supportable scientific evidence. This is occurring at a time when our gross national deficit following a ceiling rise exceeds the size of our GDP, and the U.S. credit rating has been devalued for the first time in history.

Forget about trying to stop natural climate change. It is the political climate responsible for these circumstances we really need to change. That's the threat that presents really serious reasons for alarm!


http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/20...-hysteria/

[Gary Severson]

So sad Larry Bell is so disingenuous. To actually think mountain top removal is OK. He says he is grateful Forbes Mag. puts up with him. I guess that's right.

[Ed Jewett]

A HAARP With a Malevolent Tune
by Nicholas Vakkur / August 24th, 2011

The US government, despite the pledge of Barack Obama and the protracted economic woes decimating our national fabric, continues to sink hundreds of billions into the development of highly secretive weapons programsas if the world lacked sufficient means to kill. One recently disclosed program is laser weaponry. Another, all the more guarded and insidious, is HAARP, an array of microwave antennas located in Alaska that produces an impressive one billion watts, for the purpose of fomenting unusually violent and destructive weather patterns. (It bears noting that Russia also owns several such machines).

HAARP functions by warming the ionosphere, which permits it to control the jet streams that cause weather. Contrary to naturally induced weather patterns, HAARP initiates quick and violent weather changes: tornadoes, hurricanes, and winds that change direction rapidly, creating destructive mayhem. HAARP also focuses violent weather upon particular or unexpected regions over elongated periods of time that is not characteristic of naturally formed weather patterns, which remain in one particular area for only a brief period of time.

A record number of Americans died this year from tornadoes, which struck unusual areas, including Massachusetts. Storm patterns; e.g., record snowfalls and cold throughout America, especially in the North, impacted certain regions with a frequency defying natural probabilities, as noted by meteorologists. Heavy rains also pounded the Mississippi River region for an unusually extended period of time, producing record floods.

By focusing a series of low 5 Hz, harmonic frequencies on a specific area, HAARP can also produce earthquakes at will. However, this process leaves behind telltale signs: 1) it emits various colors resembling an Aurora Borealis in the sky, a byproduct of when the microwaves ionize the air, and 2) wavy lines in the clouds, as produced by the same frequency patterns. HAARP was responsible for the recent earthquakes in Haiti, Chile, China, as well as the massive 9.0 in Japan. This may be confirmed in part by the widespread accounts and pictures of the telltale aurora borealis immediately prior to each quake.

HAARP also destroys nature: the microwaves and electromagnetic radiation have killed birds, fish, and bees in large numbers. In addition, various animals and insects have become disoriented, an effect that is jointly attributable to HAARP as well as to global cell phone usage, which also involves microwaves.

Linking HAARP to these irregular weather patterns and destructive effects is difficult to prove scientifically though not impossible. The key is to carefully evaluate historical weather trends as well as to analyze the behavior of current weather patterns. Some meteorologists, for instance, have blamed the unusually cold weather upon various oscillator highs over Greenland. However, it is relatively easy to manipulate even these weather currents by using HAARP to move jet streams in waves.

It is essential that the general public demand that the existence of this ultra-sophisticated weather machine be publicly acknowledged and that its true purpose be publicly revealed: information which would undoubtedly result in HAARP's abrupt termination. The lack of any organized grassroots movement to pull the plug on HAARP is a direct result of the fact that its very existence been carefully shrouded in (ultra-top) secrecy. Internet articles focusing on HAARP are commonly removed, while no mention of it is permitted in the mainstream press. Alarmed Americans must work quickly and feverishly to prevent this destructive technology from being used any further upon our own nation. Americans must join together to publicly demand that HAARP be dismantled and destroyed. Otherwise, America, and the world at large, will continue to be battered by costly and freakish weather patterns which defy any logical explanation that decimate our economy just as they destabilize our republic.

Nicholas Vakkur is a researcher that lives in Venice, CA with his wife and two children. He can be reached at: Nv1234567@hotmail.com. Read other articles by Nicholas, or visit Nicholas's website.

This article was posted on Wednesday, August 24th, 2011 at 8:00am and is filed under Disasters, Environment, Kalaallit Nunaat/Greenland, Obama, Science/Technology.

http://dissidentvoice.org/2011/08/a-haar...more-36282

[Gary Severson]

If HAARP is used on the ionesphere how can it effect the jet stream which is in the troposphere?

[Ed Jewett]

THURSDAY, AUGUST 25, 2011

The Next Scientific Frontier: Sun-Earth Interactions

Quantum computing, nanotechnology and genetic engineering are exciting fields. But understanding the interaction between the Sun and Earth is at least as important as a scientific frontier.

The Sun Affects Clouds and Ozone, Which In Turn Affect Climate

For example, one of the world's most prestigious science labs has just demonstrated that cosmic rays affect cloud formation - which in turn affects climate - on Earth. Because the sun's output directly determines the amount of cosmic rays which reach the Earth, the sun is an important driver of the Earth's climate.

And as I noted last year:

Intense solar activity can destroy ozone in the Earth's atmosphere, thus affecting climactic temperatures. See this, this, this and this. Indeed, the effects of solar energy on ozone may be one of the main ways in which the sun influences Earth's climate.

The Sun's Output Changes the Rate of Radioactive Decay On Earth

Believe it or not, Stanford University News reported Tuesday that solar flares change the rate of radioactive decay of elements on Earth:

When researchers found an unusual linkage between solar flares and the inner life of radioactive elements on Earth, it touched off a scientific detective investigation that could end up protecting the lives of space-walking astronauts and maybe rewriting some of the assumptions of physics.

***


The radioactive decay of some elements sitting quietly in laboratories on Earth seemed to be influenced by activities inside the sun, 93 million miles away.
Is this possible?

Researchers from Stanford and Purdue University believe it is. But their explanation of how it happens opens the door to yet another mystery.

There is even an outside chance that this unexpected effect is brought about by a previously unknown particle emitted by the sun. "That would be truly remarkable," said Peter Sturrock, Stanford professor emeritus of applied physics and an expert on the inner workings of the sun.

The story begins, in a sense, in classrooms around the world, where students are taught that the rate of decay of a specific radioactive material is a constant. This concept is relied upon, for example, when anthropologists use carbon-14 to date ancient artifacts and when doctors determine the proper dose of radioactivity to treat a cancer patient.

***

As the researchers pored through published data on specific isotopes, they found disagreement in the measured decay rates odd for supposed physical constants.

Checking data collected at Brookhaven National Laboratory on Long Island and the Federal Physical and Technical Institute in Germany, they came across something even more surprising: long-term observation of the decay rate of silicon-32 and radium-226 seemed to show a small seasonal variation. The decay rate was ever so slightly faster in winter than in summer.

***

On Dec 13, 2006, the sun itself provided a crucial clue, when a solar flare sent a stream of particles and radiation toward Earth. Purdue nuclear engineer Jere Jenkins, while measuring the decay rate of manganese-54, a short-lived isotope used in medical diagnostics, noticed that the rate dropped slightly during the flare, a decrease that started about a day and a half before the flare.

If this apparent relationship between flares and decay rates proves true, it could lead to a method of predicting solar flares prior to their occurrence, which could help prevent damage to satellites and electric grids, as well as save the lives of astronauts in space.

The decay-rate aberrations that Jenkins noticed occurred during the middle of the night in Indiana meaning that something produced by the sun had traveled all the way through the Earth to reach Jenkins' detectors. What could the flare send forth that could have such an effect?

Jenkins and Fischbach guessed that the culprits in this bit of decay-rate mischief were probably solar neutrinos, the almost weightless particles famous for flying at almost the speed of light through the physical world humans, rocks, oceans or planets with virtually no interaction with anything.

***

Going back to take another look at the decay data from the Brookhaven lab, the researchers found a recurring pattern of 33 days. It was a bit of a surprise, given that most solar observations show a pattern of about 28 days the rotation rate of the surface of the sun.

The explanation? The core of the sun where nuclear reactions produce neutrinos apparently spins more slowly than the surface we see. "It may seem counter-intuitive, but it looks as if the core rotates more slowly than the rest of the sun," Sturrock said.

All of the evidence points toward a conclusion that the sun is "communicating" with radioactive isotopes on Earth, said Fischbach.

***

"It doesn't make sense according to conventional ideas," Fischbach said. Jenkins whimsically added, "What we're suggesting is that something that doesn't really interact with anything is changing something that can't be changed."

"It's an effect that no one yet understands," agreed Sturrock. "Theorists are starting to say, 'What's going on?' But that's what the evidence points to. It's a challenge for the physicists and a challenge for the solar people too."

If the mystery particle is not a neutrino, "It would have to be something we don't know about, an unknown particle that is also emitted by the sun and has this effect, and that would be even more remarkable," Sturrock said.

The Sun Interacts With the Earth In Numerous Other Ways

I pointed out last year that the sun affects the Earth in many more ways than scientists knew:

The sun itself also affects the Earth more than previously understood. For example, according to the European Space Agency:

Scientists ... have proven that sounds generated deep inside the Sun cause the Earth to shake and vibrate in sympathy. They have found that Earth's magnetic field, atmosphere and terrestrial systems, all take part in this cosmic sing-along.

And NASA has just discovered that "space weather" causes "spacequakes" on Earth:

Researchers using NASA's fleet of five THEMIS spacecraft have discovered a form of space weather that packs the punch of an earthquake and plays a key role in sparking bright Northern Lights. They call it "the spacequake."

A spacequake is a temblor in Earth's magnetic field. It is felt most strongly in Earth orbit, but is not exclusive to space. The effects can reach all the way down to the surface of Earth itself.

"Magnetic reverberations have been detected at ground stations all around the globe, much like seismic detectors measure a large earthquake," says THEMIS principal investigator Vassilis Angelopoulos of UCLA.

It's an apt analogy because "the total energy in a spacequake can rival that of a magnitude 5 or 6 earthquake," according to Evgeny Panov of the Space Research Institute in Austria.

***

"Now we know," says THEMIS project scientist David Sibeck of the Goddard Space Flight Center. "Plasma jets trigger spacequakes."

According to THEMIS, the jets crash into the geomagnetic field some 30,000 km above Earth's equator. The impact sets off a rebounding process, in which the incoming plasma actually bounces up and down on the reverberating magnetic field. Researchers call it "repetitive flow rebuffing." It's akin to a tennis ball bouncing up and down on a carpeted floor. The first bounce is a big one, followed by bounces of decreasing amplitude as energy is dissipated in the carpet.

***

"When plasma jets hit the inner magnetosphere, vortices with opposite sense of rotation appear and reappear on either side of the plasma jet," explains Rumi Nakamura of the Space Research Institute in Austria, a co-author of the study. "We believe the vortices can generate substantial electrical currents in the near-Earth environment."

Acting together, vortices and spacequakes could have a noticeable effect on Earth. The tails of vortices may funnel particles into Earth's atmosphere, sparking auroras and making waves of ionization that disturb radio communications and GPS. By tugging on surface magnetic fields, spacequakes generate currents in the very ground we walk on. Ground current surges can have profound consequences, in extreme cases bringing down power grids over a wide area.

What does this mean?

Some allege that spacequakes cause actual, physical earthquakes on Earth. I have no idea whether or not that is true.

The above-quoted NASA article concludes with a poem which implies such a connection:


Vortices swirl
plasma a'twirl
Richter predicts
a magnitude six

The poem may use artistic license rather than scientific rigor. However, some scientists do believe that the sun's activity can even cause earthquakes, volcanic eruptions and extreme weather.

What is certain is that the science of the affect of space events on Earth is in its infancy, and that there are many fascinating discoveries in our future.

When scientists understand all of the ways that the Sun and Earth interact, we will know alot more about the Earth and our place in the universe than we do today.

****

Scientific Experiment By Top Laboratory Shows that Cosmic Rays Affect Cloud Formation, Which In Turn Affects Climate

Image Courtesy of CERN (Click for clearer image)

One of the world's most prestigious science labs - CERN - has found that cosmic rays affect cloud formation.

By way of background, the news magazine for the prestigious science journal Nature noted yesterday:

The number of cosmic rays that reach Earth depends on the Sun. When the Sun is emitting lots of radiation, its magnetic field shields the planet from cosmic rays. During periods of low solar activity, more cosmic rays reach Earth.

Scientists agree on these basic facts, but there is far less agreement on whether cosmic rays can have a large role in cloud formation and climate change. Since the late 1990s, some have suggested that when high solar activity lowers levels of cosmic rays, that in turn reduces cloud cover and warms the planet. Others say that there is no statistical evidence for such an effect.

The Director of CERN's cosmic ray experiment (Jasper Kirby) now says that experiments show that cosmic rays significantly enhance the production of the particles which initiate the cloud-formation process. Specifically, cosmic rays allow the minute amounts of sulfuric acid and ammonia in the atmosphere to stabilize, and then - when the clusters grow to 20 molecules or more - become the structure around which moisture can condense so that clouds begin to form.

A press release from CERN states:

The CLOUD results show that trace vapours assumed until now to account for aerosol formation in the lower atmosphere can explain only a tiny fraction of the observed atmospheric aerosol production. The results also show that ionisation from cosmic rays significantly enhances aerosol formation.

A new scientific paper published today by the CERN team in Nature summarizes the results. And here is a chart graphically conveying the results of the experiment:



While the CERN findings are very important, they are not the first experimental results to confirm the affect of cosmic rays on cloud formation.

A team of Danish scientists from Aarhus University and the National Space Institute published results in May showing the same basic mechanism:

[Danish scientists] have directly demonstrated in a new experiment that cosmic radiation can create small floating particles so-called aerosols in the atmosphere. By doing so, they substantiate the connection between the Sun's magnetic activity and the Earth's climate.

With the new results just published in the recognised journal Geophysical Research Letters, scientists have succeeded for the first time in directly observing that the electrically charged particles coming from space and hitting the atmosphere at high speed contribute to creating the aerosols that are the prerequisites for cloud formation.

The more cloud cover occurring around the world, the lower the global temperature and vice versa when there are fewer clouds. The number of particles from space vary from year to year partly controlled by solar activity. An understanding of the impact of cosmic particles consisting of electrons, protons and other charged particles on cloud formation and thereby the number of clouds, is therefore very important as regards climate models.

With the researchers' new knowledge, it is now clear that here is a correlation between the Sun's varying activity and the formation of aerosols in the Earth's atmosphere.

***

In a climate chamber at Aarhus University, scientists have created conditions similar to the atmosphere at the height where low clouds are formed. By irradiating this artificial atmosphere with fast electrons from ASTRID Denmark's largest particle accelerator they have also created conditions that resemble natural ones on this point.

Simply by comparing situations in the climate chamber with and without electron radiation, the researchers can directly see that increased radiation leads to more aerosols.

In the atmosphere, these aerosols grow into actual cloud nuclei in the course of hours or days, and water vapour concentrates on these, thus forming the small droplets the clouds consist of.

See this for more amazing ways in which the sun may affect the Earth.
0 COMMENTS


Can Solar Activity Cause Earthquakes, Volcanoes and Extreme Weather?


Some Scientists Believe Solar Activity Can Cause Earthquakes, Volcanoes or Extreme Weather

A 1967 study published in the Earth and Planetary Science Letters found:
Solar activity, as indicated by sunspots, radio noise and geomagnetic indices, plays a significant but by no means exclusive role in the triggering of earthquakes. Maximum quake frequency occurs at times of moderately high and fluctuating solar activity. Terrestrial solar flare effects which are the actual coupling mechanisms which trigger quakes appear to be either abrupt accelerations in the earth's angular velocity or surges of telluric currents in the earth's crust. The graphs presented in this paper permit probabilistic forecasting of earthquakes, and when used in conjunction with local indicators may provide a significant tool for specific earthquake prediction.

A 1998 report by a scientist from the Beijing Astronomical Observatory, Chinese Academy of Sciences, also found a correlation between low solar activity and earthquakes:

It has been found that:

(1) Earthquakes occur frequently around the minimum years of solar activity. Generally, the earthquake activities are relatively less during the peak value years of solar activity, some say, around the period when magnetic polarity in the solar polar regions is reversed.

(2) The earthquake frequency in the minimum period of solar activity is closely related to the maximum annual means of sunspot numbers, the maximum annual means of solar 10.7 cm radio flux and solar proton events of a whole solar cycle, and the relation between earthquake and solar proton events is closer than others.
Mitch Battros theorized in 1998 that large solar flares affect Earth's magnetic field, which in turn shifts the oceanic and atmospheric currents, which can cause earthquakes and extreme weather. As Battros summarizes his formula:
Sunspots => Solar Flares (charged particles) => Magnetic Field Shift => Shifting Ocean and Jet Stream Currents => Extreme Weather [including earthquakes, volcanoes, hurricanes or other extreme natural events]

Battros' theories have been endorsed to one degree or another by:
Dr. Ernest Hildner, Director NOAA Space Weather Center
Dr. Tom Van Flandern, former US Naval Observatory Chief of Celestial Mechanics
Dr. Stefaan Poedts: Lead Scientist University of Leuven Center for Plasma Astrophysics
Dr. Ronald van der Linden, Director of Solar Physics Department of the Royal Observatory
Dr. PÃ¥l Brekke, Deputy Director of SOHO project- European Space Agency
The BBC pointed out in 2008:
Nasa scientists have said they could be on the verge of a breakthrough in their efforts to forecast earthquakes.

Researchers say they have found a close link between electrical disturbances on the edge of our atmosphere and impending quakes on the ground below.

Just such a signal was spotted in the days leading up to the recent devastating event in China.

They have teamed up with experts in the UK to investigate a possible space-based early warning system.

Many in the scientific community remain deeply sceptical about whether such signals are indeed indicators of an approaching earthquake.

But Minoru Freund, a physicist and director for advanced aerospace materials and devices at Nasa's Ames Research Center in California, told BBC News: "I do believe that we will be able to establish a clear correlation between certain earthquakes and certain pre-earthquake signals, in an unbiased way."

***
The ionosphere is distinguished from other layers of Earth's atmosphere because it is electrically charged through exposure to solar radiation.

On a significant number of occasions, satellites have picked up disturbances in this part of the atmosphere 100-600km above areas that have later been hit by earthquakes.

One of the most important of these is a fluctuation in the density of electrons and other electrically-charged particles in the ionosphere.

One study looked at over 100 earthquakes with magnitudes of 5.0 or larger in Taiwan over several decades. The researchers found that almost all of the earthquakes down to a depth of about 35km were preceded by distinct electrical disturbances in the ionosphere.

The analysis was carried out by Jann-Yeng Liu, from the Center for Space and Remote Sensing Research in Chung-Li, Taiwan.

Though full details have yet to be released, the BBC understands that scientists also observed a "huge" signal in the ionosphere before the Magnitude 7.8 earthquake in China on 12 May.

***
Minoru and his father Friedemann Freund, also from Nasa Ames Research Center, developed the scientific theory behind these earthquake precursors. It boils down to the idea that when rocks are compressed - as when tectonic plates shift - they act like batteries, producing electric currents.

"We now pretty much understand the solid-state physics of these rocks," Minoru added.

According to their theory, the charge carrier is a "positive hole", known as a phole, which can travel large distances in laboratory experiments.

When they travel to the surface of the Earth, the surface becomes positively charged. And this charge can be strong enough to affect the ionosphere, causing the disturbances documented by satellites.

When these pholes "recombine" at the surface of the Earth, they enter an excited state. They subsequently "de-excite" and emit mid-infrared light particles, or photons. This may explain the IR observations.

NASA assumes that compressed rocks release electrical charges which travel upwards into the ionosphere. But no one has tested whether or not the reverse is happening: solar fluctuations are charging the ionosphere, causing earthquakes.

NASA also discovered last year that "space weather" causes "spacequakes" on Earth:
Researchers using NASA's fleet of five THEMIS spacecraft have discovered a form of space weather that packs the punch of an earthquake and plays a key role in sparking bright Northern Lights. They call it "the spacequake."

A spacequake is a temblor in Earth's magnetic field. It is felt most strongly in Earth orbit, but is not exclusive to space. The effects can reach all the way down to the surface of Earth itself.

"Magnetic reverberations have been detected at ground stations all around the globe, much like seismic detectors measure a large earthquake," says THEMIS principal investigator Vassilis Angelopoulos of UCLA.

It's an apt analogy because "the total energy in a spacequake can rival that of a magnitude 5 or 6 earthquake," according to Evgeny Panov of the Space Research Institute in Austria.

***

"Now we know," says THEMIS project scientist David Sibeck of the Goddard Space Flight Center. "Plasma jets trigger spacequakes."

According to THEMIS, the jets crash into the geomagnetic field some 30,000 km above Earth's equator. The impact sets off a rebounding process, in which the incoming plasma actually bounces up and down on the reverberating magnetic field. Researchers call it "repetitive flow rebuffing." It's akin to a tennis ball bouncing up and down on a carpeted floor. The first bounce is a big one, followed by bounces of decreasing amplitude as energy is dissipated in the carpet.

***
"When plasma jets hit the inner magnetosphere, vortices with opposite sense of rotation appear and reappear on either side of the plasma jet," explains Rumi Nakamura of the Space Research Institute in Austria, a co-author of the study. "We believe the vortices can generate substantial electrical currents in the near-Earth environment."

Acting together, vortices and spacequakes could have a noticeable effect on Earth. The tails of vortices may funnel particles into Earth's atmosphere, sparking auroras and making waves of ionization that disturb radio communications and GPS. By tugging on surface magnetic fields, spacequakes generate currents in the very ground we walk on. Ground current surges can have profound consequences, in extreme cases bringing down power grids over a wide area.

What does this mean?

Some allege that spacequakes cause actual, physical earthquakes on Earth. The above-quoted NASA article concludes with a poem which implies such a connection:


Vortices swirl
plasma a'twirl
Richter predicts
a magnitude six
However, the poem may use artistic license rather than scientific rigor.

BBC weather presenter and climate correspondent Paul Hudson noted in March:
Last year a preliminary study was published from the Space and Science research centre in Florida. [Here is the study]

A review of historical records was performed for 350 years of global volcanic activity (1650-2009) and seismic (earthquake) activity for the past 300 years (1700 to 2009) within the continental United States and then compared to the Sun's record of sunspots as a measure of solar activity.

According to this study, there exists a strong correlation between solar activity and the Earth's largest seismic and volcanic events.

They found an impressive degree of correlation for global volcanic activity (>80.6%) and for the largest USA earthquakes (100% of the top 7 most powerful) versus solar activity lows.

***

Piers Corbyn, at Weather action, added last month following the New Zealand earthquake that within such long quieter solar periods like we have been through, the biggest earthquake & volcano events are triggered by extra solar activity, particularly during the the rising phase of even solar cycles.

This is precisely where we are now as Solar cycle 24 gains in strength....

According to Mr Corbyn, 'The (New Zealand) event follows the world wide increase in volcanism and earthquakes in the last year or two and confirms the general statistical fact that more - and more serious - earthquakes, and volcanic activity, tend to occur around solar cycle minima'.

He reckons there will be more strong earthquakes like the ones we have recently witnessed in the next 2 years.

This is another one of those frustrating areas of science. There does seem to be empirical evidence to show a link between periods of low solar activity, and increased occurrences of earthquakes, but quite why this is so is not fully understood.

RT claimed in July:
The change in the Earth's seismic activity coincides with the rise of activity on the sun. Scientists have been witnessing gigantic bursts of plasma on its surface and say they are affecting our planet, even though it is over 90 million miles away.

Each burst sends billions of particles into space which impacts the Earth's magnetic field. This may trigger some of the processes going on deep bellow its surface, leading to earthquakes and volcanic eruptions.

Scientists predict solar activity will increase and say in the next few years, large-scale disruptions of electronic equipment, radio transmissions, computer failures and massive black-outs could become parts of everyday life.
Postscript: United States Secretary of Defense William Cohen said to a conference on terrorism on April 28, 1997 that people can:
Alter the climate, set off earthquakes, volcanoes remotely through the use of electromagnetic waves.
If Secretary Cohen is correct that electromagnetic waves can alter climate, set off earthquakes and cause volcanoes, then that could bolster the argument that the sun could do so as well, since it is a very large source of electromagnetic waves.

****

WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 24, 2011

It's Official: Human Activity Can Cause Earthquakes


Human Activity Is Officially Acknowledged to Cause Earthquakes

The United States Geological Survey is America's official expert on earthquakes. It's the Federal agency charged with monitoring, reporting on, researching and stressing preparedness for earthquakes.

So I was surprised to read the following statement by the USGS:

Earthquakes induced by human activity have been documented in a few locations in the United States, Japan, and Canada. The cause was injection of fluids into deep wells for waste disposal and secondary recovery of oil, and the use of reservoirs for water supplies. Most of these earthquakes were minor. The largest and most widely known resulted from fluid injection at the Rocky Mountain Arsenal near Denver, Colorado. In 1967, an earthquake of magnitude 5.5 followed a series of smaller earthquakes. Injection had been discontinued at the site in the previous year once the link between the fluid injection and the earlier series of earthquakes was established. (Nicholson, Craig and Wesson, R.L., 1990, Earthquake Hazard Associated with Deep Well Injection--A Report to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1951, 74 p.)

Injection Wells Can Induce Earthquakes

The New York Times noted in February:

Researchers with the Arkansas Geological Survey say that while there is no discernible link between earthquakes and gas production, there is "strong temporal and spatial" evidence for a relationship between these quakes and the injection wells.

For decades, scientists have been researching induced seismicity, or how human activity can cause earthquakes. Such a link gained attention in the early 1960s, when hundreds of quakes were recorded in Colorado a few years after the Army began injecting fluid into a disposal well near the Rocky Mountain Arsenal.

Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory points out:

Induced seismicity [i.e. earthquakes] in oil and gas production has been observed ever since the 1930s, i.e., ever since large scale extraction of fluids occurred. The most famous early instance was in Wilmington, California, where the oil production triggered a series of damaging earthquakes. In this instance the cause of the seismicity was traced to subsidence due to rapid extraction of oil without replacement of fluids.

***

In the last decade a number of examples on earthquake activity related to oil and gas production as well as injection of liquids under high pressure have been observed, although not with as serious consequences as for Wilmington. Almost all induced seismicity associated with petroleum extraction can be traced to either fluid injection or extraction. In some recent cases injection of produced water (excess water extracted during oil and gas extraction) has produce significant seismic activity. Examples are in Colorado and Texas where gas and oil production yield large volumes of water that must be put back underground. In some cases the water cannot be put back exactly where it was produced and over pressurization of the water causes induced seismicity.

Lawrence Berkeley Lab provides details:
Fluid pressures play a key role in causing seismicity. Explained in simple terms, fluids can play a major role in controlling the pressures that are acting on the faults. The fluid pressure in the pores and fractures of the rocks is called the pore pressure.

***

Injecting fluids into the subsurface is one way of increasing the pore pressure and thus allowing the faults and fractures to "fail" more easily, thus inducing an earthquake.

***
That is why in many cases induced seismicity is caused by injecting fluid into the subsurface or by extracting fluids at a rate that causes subsidence and/or slippage along planes of weakness in the earth. Figure 2 is an example of induced seismicity being caused by water injection. Figure 2 is a cross section of the earth showing the location of the earthquakes (green dots), the locations of injection wells (thick blue lines) and production wells (thin lines, these wells extract fluid). Note the large number of events associated with the injection wells.



Figure 2. Example of injection related seismicity; note the close correlation between water injection wells and the location of the seismicity.

For additional scientific documentation, see this, this, this, this, this, this and this.

"Fracking" Can Cause Earthquakes
Lawrence Berkeley Lab also points out that hydrofracturing (or "fracking" for short) can cause earthquakes:


Another type of induced seismicity is that which is associated with "hydrofracturing". Hydrofracturing is done by injecting fluid into the subsurface to create distinct fractures in order to link existing fractures together in order to create permeability in the subsurface. This is done to extract in situ fluids (such as oil and gas). Hydrofracturing is distinct from many types of shear induced seismicity because hydrofracturing is by definition only created when the forces applied create a type of fracture called a tensile fracture, creating a "driven" fracture. Shear failure has been observed associated with hydrofracturing operations, as the fluid leaks off into existing fractures, but due to the very high frequency nature of tensile failure ( seismic source at the crack tip only) only the associated shear failure is observed by microseismic monitoring . However, hydofracturing is such a small perturbation it is rarely, if ever, a hazard when it is used to enhance permeability in oil and gas or other types of fluid extraction activities. To our knowledge hydrofracturing to intentionally create permeability rarely creates unwanted induced seismicity large enough to be detected on the surface even with very sensitive sensors, let alone be a hazard or an annoyance. In fact the very small seismic shear events created from the shear failure associated with the hydrofracture process are used to map the location of the induced permeability and as management toll to optimize fluid production. If not for the very small shear events it would be much more difficult to understand the effect of hydrofracturing because the seismic energy created from the "main fract" is to low to be detected, even from he most sensitive instruments at the surface of the earth Figure 3 is an example of how seismicity is used to map these hydrofractures. Last but not least another reason that the seismic risk is so low associated with hydrofracture operations in that they are of relatively low volume and short durations ( hours or days at the very most) compared to month and years for other type of fluid injections described above.



Figure 3. Cross section through a stimulation well showing six different stages of hydrofracture stimulation and the associated seismicity (magnitude -1.0 to -2.5) during the entire hydrofracture (less than 24 hours) Warpinski et al 2005.

AP reported in February:

Scott Ausbrooks, geohazards supervisor for the Arkansas Geological Survey, said the quakes are part of what is now called the Guy earthquake swarm a series of mild earthquakes that have been occurring [in Arkansas] periodically since 2009. A similar swarm occurred in the early 1980s when a series of quakes hit Enola, Ark.

Ausbrooks said geologists are still trying to discover the exact cause of the recent seismic activity but have identified two possibilities.

"It could just be a naturally occurring swarm like the Enola swarm, or it could be related to ongoing natural gas exploration in the area," he said.

A major source of natural gas in Arkansas is the Fayetteville Shale, an organically-rich rock formation in north-central Arkansas. Drillers free up the gas by using hydraulic fracturing or "fracking" injecting pressurized water to create fractures deep in the ground.

Ausbrooks said geologists don't believe the production wells are the problem, but rather the injection wells that are used to dispose of "frack" water when it can no longer be re-used. The wastewater is pressurized and injected into the ground.

***

Ausbrooks said the earthquakes are occurring in the vicinity of several injection wells.

***

[Police Chief Dave Martini] the earthquakes started increasing in frequency over the past week and that the disposal well has seen an increase in use recently.

Websites Ask Whether Fracking Caused the Virgina Quake
Front-page articles at Daily Kos, OpEdNews, and RT ask whether the August 23rd Virginia earthquake was induced by fracking.

I have no idea whether or not this is true, and have been too busy to look at the supposed evidence of drilling near the epicenter of the earthquake.

But given that some human activity is officially acknowledged to be able to induce earthquakes, it's worth asking these types of questions.



****

East Coast Earthquakes Feel Stronger Than Same-Size Earthquakes Occurring Elsewhere


East Coast Earthquakes Are Felt More Widely Than West Coast Earthquakes of the Same Size
Yesterday's 5.8 earthquake in Virginia was felt over a huge area: as far away as Canada, North Carolina, Georgia and Michigan.

In fact, earthquakes on the East Coast are felt more widely than similar-size earthquakes on the West Coast.

NPR reports:

East Coast earthquakes are typically felt in a wider area than those in California. That's because the Earth's crust is more solid in the East, and it carries seismic waves better than in the more fractured West Coast crust.
CNN quotes Rowena Lohman - assistant professor of geophysics and tectonics at Cornell University - to explain:

The West Coast is a much more active region, with earthquakes, volcanoes and high rates of deformation overall and with a relatively warm, "squishy" young crust compared with the old, "cold" rock material underneath the East Coast. This means that the seismic waves that radiate outward from an earthquake in California are absorbed much more and are not felt as strongly as they would be for a similar earthquake here on the East Coast.

Scientists often say that the East Coast "rings like a bell" after an earthquake, with the seismic waves remaining strong over long distances, whereas in California the seismic waves are absorbed relatively quickly, so their effect is more like the thud you'd hear if you rang a wooden bell.

And LiveScience notes:

The shaking was felt over such a large area ... largely because the eastern part of the North American continent is different than the West Coast, where quakes are more common.

***

"The crust is different in the east than in the west," United States Geological Survey (USGS) earthquake geologist David Schwartz told LiveScience. "It's older and colder and denser, and as a result, seismic waves travel much farther in the east than in the west."

Additionally, said Andy Frassetto of the Incorporated Research Institutions for Seismology, the sediments along the east coast can make quakes feel stronger.

"The sediments of the coastal plain along the eastern seaboard can trap waves as they propagate and produce a minor amplification of the shaking," Frassetto told LiveScience.


http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/

[Gary Severson]

Ed, so do sunspots & flares cause more intercourse since this thread is about eugenics & overpopulation? Maybe HAARP could help AARP in that dept. This is interesting stuff and is probably leading to great discoveries but that doesn't mean CO2 caused by overpopulation isn't speeding up the heating of the Earth. My question was "how could HAARP effect the troposphere when it is being used on the ionosphere"? I can see how the incoming solar activity can effect the ionosphere and then go on to effect the troposphere but that has always been going on with or without HAARP. The increase in CO2 is a recent process causing heating above & beyond the processes in your post.

[Greg Burnham]

By comparison to other countries, the United States is responsible for the vast majority of atmospheric C02 emissions contributed by humans. However, world census statistics strongly suggest that the United States is not an over-populated nation especially when compared to many third tier countries in Africa and Latin America, as well as in comparison to China and India.

Over-population does NOT seem to be the main contributing factor in the minuscule increase of C02 in the atmosphere. Over-consumption, on the other hand, does.

Blaming over populated third world countries for increased global temperatures is like blaming rising oil prices on Luxembourg.

[Gary Severson]

By comparison to other countries, the United States is responsible for the vast majority of atmospheric C02 emissions contributed by humans. However, world census statistics strongly suggest that the United States is not an over-populated nation especially when compared to many third tier countries in Africa and Latin America, as well as in comparison to China and India.

Over-population does NOT seem to be the main contributing factor in the minuscule increase of C02 in the atmosphere. Over-consumption, on the other hand, does.

Blaming over populated third world countries for increased global temperatures is like blaming rising oil prices on Luxembourg.

I agree, but of course as those countries rapidly ramp up their consumption we have a problem. Western imperialism is intent on taking over those 3rd world economies to cash in on their potential increased consumption with very little concern for the environment it seems.