Earth just rang like a bell

On a serious note, I read that they think it was most likely some molten lava, waaay down deep that slopped around (maybe finding some sort of cavity) thus bypassing the first two seismic categories of a classic quake. So, sort of an earthquake but a bit different.

Found it interesting that the island shifted about 5 cm to the southeast.
 
marko said:
On a serious note,

Found it interesting that the island shifted about 5 cm to the southeast.
Click to expand...

I,too, find measurements like this to be interesting. Relative to what? How was the measurement taken? By a physical survey? GPS? What is the margin of error?


It's similar to temperature claims that it is 1.9 degree warmer than 100 years ago. The digital thermometer wasn't invented until 1977, and when was it put into widespread use? Analog thermometers were marked off in increments of 2 degrees, and 99.9% of temp readings prior to 1980 were all even numbers.
 
Winemaker said:
I,too, find measurements like this to be interesting. Relative to what? How was the measurement taken? By a physical survey? GPS? What is the margin of error?





It's similar to temperature claims that it is 1.9 degree warmer than 100 years ago. The digital thermometer wasn't invented until 1977, and when was it put into widespread use? Analog thermometers were marked off in increments of 2 degrees, and 99.9% of temp readings prior to 1980 were all even numbers.
Click to expand...


I’d bet those researchers never thought of that...
 
Winemaker said:
It's similar to temperature claims that it is 1.9 degree warmer than 100 years ago. The digital thermometer wasn't invented until 1977, and when was it put into widespread use? Analog thermometers were marked off in increments of 2 degrees, and 99.9% of temp readings prior to 1980 were all even numbers.
Click to expand...

A lot of very smart people happen to be scientists. They're a lot smarter than me, so I tend to listen to them.

And it turns out there's not any one data source. Experts (and those who chose not to ignore them) know a lot about climate history from many lifetimes and careers spent studying all kinds of different data. Tree rings, ice cores from the Arctic and the Antarctic, pollen locked in ancient ice, and in layers of earth or rock, chemical analysis of wood, rock, bones and fossils, and hundreds of other things I have never even heard of. Oh, and of course, carefully-maintained records from previous generations who were just as smart, and knew their instruments well.

One thing I haven't read anything about is the claim that 99.9% of temperature readings prior to 1980 were in even numbers. Having been around well before then, I don't recall it that way at all. I'd be very curious to see the research behind that statement.
 
CaptTom said:
One thing I haven't read anything about is the claim that 99.9% of temperature readings prior to 1980 were in even numbers.
Click to expand...

Maybe, but it could just as easily be odd numbers, but I suspect they simply mean whole numbers. When looking at climate change we're talking about average temperatures over the entire globe. So averaging an enormous quantity of whole numbers over a wide area, you wind up with a decimal fraction tacked on to a whole number.
 
:D
Yesterday I was having balance problems, and had to lean on the bar for most of the night.
 
CaptTom said:
A lot of very smart people happen to be scientists. They're a lot smarter than me, so I tend to listen to them.

And it turns out there's not any one data source. Experts (and those who chose not to ignore them) know a lot about climate history from many lifetimes and careers spent studying all kinds of different data. Tree rings, ice cores from the Arctic and the Antarctic, pollen locked in ancient ice, and in layers of earth or rock, chemical analysis of wood, rock, bones and fossils, and hundreds of other things I have never even heard of. Oh, and of course, carefully-maintained records from previous generations who were just as smart, and knew their instruments well.

One thing I haven't read anything about is the claim that 99.9% of temperature readings prior to 1980 were in even numbers. Having been around well before then, I don't recall it that way at all. I'd be very curious to see the research behind that statement.
Click to expand...

I am not trying to debate the subject of climate change, I'm trying to question measuring methods. There is enough evidence to prove/disprove climate change.

I had also read that the African island moved 5 cm after this major seismic event. As a mining engineer and having extensive study in geology and rock mechanics, there are many explanations for a lot of things. An island moving 5 cm in a southeastern direction can be the result of 2 fault lines, each moving 2.5 cm in either direction.( I hope you get my point here.)But the article makes a claim but never gives the point of reference. I have seen surveying errors over 2 cm based on having inconsistent measurements over several miles, based on the thickness of a string that held a plumb bob.

The other article states that the island moved 2 inches over 5 months, so some more noise reported in the pressers.
 
Last edited:
Nothing to worry about, just those micro black holes from CERN acting up again.
 
Winemaker said:
I am not trying to debate the subject of climate change, I'm trying to question measuring methods. There is enough evidence to prove/disprove climate change.

I had also read that the African island moved 5 cm after this major seismic event. As a mining engineer and having extensive study in geology and rock mechanics, there are many explanations for a lot of things. An island moving 5 cm in a southeastern direction can be the result of 2 fault lines, each moving 2.5 cm in either direction.( I hope you get my point here.)But the article makes a claim but never gives the point of reference. I have seen surveying errors over 2 cm based on having inconsistent measurements over several miles, based on the thickness of a string that held a plumb bob.

The other article states that the island moved 2 inches over 5 months, so some more noise reported in the pressers.
Click to expand...

Maybe you need to seek out some better journalism. What articles are you referring to? Seems like you're mixing flaws in reporting with uncertainty of the facts.

According to National Geographic, "Since mid-July, GPS stations on the island have tracked it sliding more than 2.4 inches to the east and 1.2 inches to the south, according data from Institut National de L’information Géographique et Forestière. Using these measurements, Pierre Briole of the Ecole Normale Supérieure in Paris estimated that a magma body that measures about a third of a cubic mile is squishing its way through the subsurface near Mayotte."

https://relay.nationalgeographic.com/proxy/distribution/public/amp/science/2018/11/strange-earthquake-waves-rippled-around-world-earth-geology
 
Winemaker said:
I,too, find measurements like this to be interesting. Relative to what? How was the measurement taken? By a physical survey? GPS? What is the margin of error?


It's similar to temperature claims that it is 1.9 degree warmer than 100 years ago. The digital thermometer wasn't invented until 1977, and when was it put into widespread use? Analog thermometers were marked off in increments of 2 degrees, and 99.9% of temp readings prior to 1980 were all even numbers.
Click to expand...

I find it hard to believe analog thermometers are such, probably as I used some in the lab, long mercury ones as they are more accurate than alcohol ones.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermometer


"According to British Standards, correctly calibrated, used and maintained liquid-in-glass thermometers can achieve a measurement uncertainty of ±0.01 °C in the range 0 to 100 °C, and a larger uncertainty outside this range: ±0.05 °C up to 200 or down to −40 °C, ±0.2 °C up to 450 or down to −80 °C.[42]"
 
Mr._Graybeard said:
Maybe you need to seek out some better journalism. What articles are you referring to? Seems like you're mixing flaws in reporting with uncertainty of the facts.

According to National Geographic, "Since mid-July, GPS stations on the island have tracked it sliding more than 2.4 inches to the east and 1.2 inches to the south, according data from Institut National de L’information Géographique et Forestière. Using these measurements, Pierre Briole of the Ecole Normale Supérieure in Paris estimated that a magma body that measures about a third of a cubic mile is squishing its way through the subsurface near Mayotte."

https://relay.nationalgeographic.com/proxy/distribution/public/amp/science/2018/11/strange-earthquake-waves-rippled-around-world-earth-geology
Click to expand...

Now that makes more sense. The first articles I read were the one listed in the first post of this thread. I did not go any further than that. I suspected magma inflation as it moves Yellowstone Nat'l Park and both volcanoes on the Big Island all the time. One article implied that the movement occurred during this sound anomaly, not over a period of months.

Also, the original article I read has been edited to quantify the movement. They must have read my complaint here on the E-R forum.
 
Last edited:
Sunset said:
I find it hard to believe analog thermometers are such, probably as I used some in the lab, long mercury ones as they are more accurate than alcohol ones.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermometer


"According to British Standards, correctly calibrated, used and maintained liquid-in-glass thermometers can achieve a measurement uncertainty of ±0.01 °C in the range 0 to 100 °C, and a larger uncertainty outside this range: ±0.05 °C up to 200 or down to −40 °C, ±0.2 °C up to 450 or down to −80 °C.[42]"
Click to expand...

The issue isn't necessarily the accuracy of thermometers but their scales and calibration of old, how they were read, and their consistency. Fahrenheit originally used the freezing point of water (32 degrees, ice water in a bucket), a midpoint temp of a live human body (assumed 100 degrees then, but now accepted as 98.6), and the boiling point of water (212 degrees, at sea level at normal atmospheric pressure). Was the water used in all cases distilled?

But I digress. Accepted world wide temps have only been recorded since 1880, I believe by treaty. And all of those numbers from 1880 to 1980, had to be corrected to make up for those inconsistencies, and accurate climate studies must show how they make their corrections. Only specialized thermometers of those times were broken down into tenths, let alone individual whole numbers. Temps taken at sea were merely readings taken out of a bucket thrown overboard. It wasn't until the 1940's, that they used the inlet water for engine cooling.

Even with modern studies, when a "yearly temp" is given, to say it's "80.02 degrees" it can only be +/- 0.1 degrees, within defined degrees of accuracy.
 
Winemaker said:
The issue isn't necessarily the accuracy of thermometers but their scales and calibration of old, how they were read, and their consistency....

But I digress. Accepted world wide temps have only been recorded since 1880, I believe by treaty. And all of those numbers from 1880 to 1980, had to be corrected to make up for those inconsistencies, and accurate climate studies must show how they make their corrections...

Even with modern studies, when a "yearly temp" is given, to say it's "80.02 degrees" it can only be +/- 0.1 degrees, within defined degrees of accuracy.
Click to expand...

I don't see where you're going with this line of reasoning.

Are you saying that no-one can reliably measure world-wide changes in temperature over time? I thought you agreed in post #37 that you weren't disputing those facts.

I'd also like to learn more about where you heard about "accepted world temps." I'm not aware of any serious scientific uncertainty in that area.

I'd come back to what Mr. Graybeard suggested...
Mr._Graybeard said:
Maybe you need to seek out some better journalism. What articles are you referring to? Seems like you're mixing flaws in reporting with uncertainty of the facts.
Click to expand...
 
Winemaker said:
Also, the original article I read has been edited to quantify the movement. They must have read my complaint here on the E-R forum.
Click to expand...

That's the nature of reporting in the Internet age. Get the story up fast, even if it's incomplete. You have to treat every story like it's a report on a natural disaster (and I guess this is a natural phenomenon), with information dribbling out over time.
 
CaptTom said:
I don't see where you're going with this line of reasoning.

Are you saying that no-one can reliably measure world-wide changes in temperature over time? I thought you agreed in post #37 that you weren't disputing those facts.

I'd also like to learn more about where you heard about "accepted world temps." I'm not aware of any serious scientific uncertainty in that area.

I'd come back to what Mr. Graybeard suggested...
Click to expand...

My original complaint that the original article reported was there was movement, 5 cm. It gave no references whatsoever, and inferred that the movement was recently discovered after this seismic noise.

I then made a comparison about the recordings of temperature, and how they make certain claims but give no references. I mistakenly gave the example of a thermometer, which obviously roused some folk's feathers. Perhaps I should have used a watch or a clock, which are/have been accurate, but cannot be absolutely synchronized together in one's house.

Accepted world temperature standards began in 1880, when reasonably reliable instrumentation and standards were set. Data was first recorded, starting in the 1850's, but is generally not used. Data from the 1880's is used, but is corrected to certain algorithms, and is generally referenced in scientific reports, but not in everyday magazine articles.
 
Winemaker said:
My original complaint that the original article reported was there was movement, 5 cm. It gave no references whatsoever, and inferred that the movement was recently discovered after this seismic noise...
Click to expand...

Understood. I see how this got off track, sorry.

But now that we're here, I'm still confused...

Winemaker said:
Accepted world temperature standards began in 1880, when reasonably reliable instrumentation and standards were set. Data was first recorded, starting in the 1850's, but is generally not used. Data from the 1880's is used, but is corrected to certain algorithms, and is generally referenced in scientific reports, but not in everyday magazine articles.
Click to expand...

I fully admit to having virtually no first-hand knowledge in this area. I'm not a meteorologist, or climate scientist, or all that familiar with all the jargon in those fields. I honestly don't know what the "accepted world temperature standards" you keep referring to are.

Or why exactly what they would be relevant to.
 
The earth rang. Would that be one ringy dingy? Was Lily Tomlin at the switchboard?
 
CaptTom said:
Understood. I see how this got off track, sorry.

But now that we're here, I'm still confused...



I fully admit to having virtually no first-hand knowledge in this area. I'm not a meteorologist, or climate scientist, or all that familiar with all the jargon in those fields. I honestly don't know what the "accepted world temperature standards" you keep referring to are.

Or why exactly what they would be relevant to.
Click to expand...

The point there I was trying to make was just because you found a logged temperature in a ship's records from last 50, 75 or 100 years ago, it does not mean that it is an accepted temperature to be used for any credible study. Furthermore, I cannot get a thermometer from Walmart, although it may be somewhat accurate, and use it in a scientific study. It currently has to be approved by the National Institute of Standards and Technology; and they have certain levels of approval.

I'm sorry I'm not making myself clear.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom