Plate tectonics relation to Earthquakes.

[Dr. Funkenstein]

Out of 39 of the major earthquakes around the world, 35 of them occured in Winter, Fall, and early spring, with the remaining 4 (four) occuring in Summer (June,July,August).

So the question is, are the movement of plate tectonics actually either the contraction or expansion of the whole of the planet, in direct correlation to it's position to the Sun?.

Winter, fall and spring are the closest earth comes to the sun, within our calendar year. Is this a expansion period?, thereby giving plate tectonics movements validity, as a cause of earthquakes?. Perhaps expansion of the planet as a whole, in relation to it's distance to the Sun, is the real culprit. Wheras in the Summer time, the farthest the planet is away from the sun, contraction occurs, with less earthquake activity.

 

Of the 10 (Ten) largest earthquakes, 8.7 on the scale and above, None was recorded in the primary Summer months of June July and August.

[Strange]

Out of 39 of the major earthquakes around the world, 35 of them occured in Winter, Fall, and early spring, with the remaining 4 (four) occuring in Summer (June,July,August).

 

Can you provide a source for this data? And what do you mean by "major"? And over how many years is this taken? And summer where?

You might be interested in this: http://www.livescience.com/4800-reason-earthquake-season-revealed.html

[Acme]

...

Winter, fall and spring are the closest earth comes to the sun, within our calendar year. ...

I second everything Strange called for so I'll wait to make further comment 'til you answer. However, the above statement is incorrect. When it's Summer in the Northern Hemisphere it's Winter in the Southern Hemisphere and vice versa. Seasons are due to the tilt of the Earth's axis relative to the Sun, not Earth's distance from the Sun. Seriously, that's grammar school information.

[Dr. Funkenstein]

I assumed that the tilt of the axis effecting the season was a given, however the southern hemisphere is below the equator and therefore not privy to winter as we in the nothern hemisphere know it, due to its position in the tropic zone, which covers most of the southern hemisphere.

 

For ten largest see USGS sataistics Earthquakes. The largest was actually 17 in number but the pattern i stated is percise.

 

From 1648=2012 averaged out to 400+ years, recorded earthquake dates numbers in the average of 1,000 +, of those an average of 190 were dated within June, July and august. Source USGS.

 

This data is worldwide, the sparcity of earthquakes within the three month span of june to August is grossly out of porportion to the total of earthquakes everywhere.

Now again, Could this be due to contraction&expansion of the molten core of this planet in direct correlation to it's distance to the Sun? A good portion of the southern hemisphere stay tropical (hot) regardless of the axis tilt. Time of year is only significant, as it relates to distance from/to Sun. A distance which is seperated in no great number, from it's closet proximity to it's farthest proximity. Metal contracts in cold, expands in heat.

[Strange]

 

Source USGS

 

Could you be more specific. The USGS website was the first place I checked but I couldn't easily find the sort of statistics you are quoting.

 

 

This data is worldwide, the sparcity of earthquakes within the three month span of june to August is grossly out of porportion to the total of earthquakes everywhere.

 

If there really were an effect, I would have expected it to be mentioned in scientific articles. Again, I can't find anything. Have you found any work described this "anomaly"; or do you think you have spotted something (rather obvious) that has somehow been missed by thousands of professionals?

 

 

Could this be due to contraction&expansion of the molten core of this planet in direct correlation to it's distance to the Sun?

 

I would be fairly certain that (a) the Sun has negligible effect on the core and (b) the core has no significant effect on earthquakes.

[Acme]

I assumed that the tilt of the axis effecting the season was a given, however the southern hemisphere is below the equator and therefore not privy to winter as we in the nothern hemisphere know it, due to its position in the tropic zone, which covers most of the southern hemisphere.

Nonsense. While there is greater land mass in the Northern hemisphere this has nothing to do with the temperature of the core.

 

For ten largest see USGS sataistics Earthquakes. The largest was actually 17 in number but the pattern i stated is percise.

 

From 1648=2012 averaged out to 400+ years, recorded earthquake dates numbers in the average of 1,000 +, of those an average of 190 were dated within June, July and august. Source USGS.

 

This data is worldwide, the sparcity of earthquakes within the three month span of june to August is grossly out of porportion to the total of earthquakes everywhere.

Now again, Could this be due to contraction&expansion of the molten core of this planet in direct correlation to it's distance to the Sun?

Again, no. Recording of earthquakes in the oceans, particularly in the Southern hemisphere is an historically recent occurrence. There simply are no records going back hundreds of years to compare with records of today.

 

A good portion of the southern hemisphere stay tropical (hot) regardless of the axis tilt. Time of year is only significant, as it relates to distance from/to Sun. A distance which is seperated in no great number, from it's closet proximity to it's farthest proximity. Metal contracts in cold, expands in heat.

No, no, and no. In fact the Northern hemisphere has been found to be getting slightly warmer than the Southern. >>

As global temperatures rose over the course of the 20th century (top), the temperature between the two hemispheres changed little until the 1980s, though it has been rising since.

Image Credit: Andrew Friedman.

Northern Hemisphere Is Becoming Warmer Than Southern Hemisphere

 

This is atmospheric temperature; the Sun does not heat the core.

Edited October 24, 2014 by Acme

[Robittybob1]

Nonsense. While there is greater land mass in the Northern hemisphere this has nothing to do with the temperature of the core.

 

Again, no. Recording of earthquakes in the oceans, particularly in the Southern hemisphere is an historically recent occurrence. There simply are no records going back hundreds of years to compare with records of today.

 

No, no, and no. In fact the Northern hemisphere has been found to be getting slightly warmer than the Southern. >>

Northern Hemisphere Is Becoming Warmer Than Southern Hemisphere

 

This is atmospheric temperature; the Sun does not heat the core.

Earthquakes aren't occurring in the core so what do you mean? They are occurring in the top 200 km of crust the Lithosphere.

 

If the Southern Hemisphere has a greater proportion of crustal plates there might be more Earthquakes in the Southern Hemisphere.

 

I doubt if the small difference in air temperature will have any effect on the occurrence of earthquakes.

[billiards]

Dr Funkenstein, the Earth does not expand and contract seasonally. If it did this would be measurable (especially now we have satellites), someone would have noticed it and reported it by now. Nobody has.

 

Secondly, if you believe there is a seasonal variation in earthquakes, this could be easily demonstrated by a histogram. Until I see such a histogram produced from a large dataset of earthquake events that meets scientific standards, I will believe the null hypothesis.

[Acme]

 

Nonsense. While there is greater land mass in the Northern hemisphere this has nothing to do with the temperature of the core.

 

Again, no. Recording of earthquakes in the oceans, particularly in the Southern hemisphere is an historically recent occurrence. There simply are no records going back hundreds of years to compare with records of today.

 

No, no, and no. In fact the Northern hemisphere has been found to be getting slightly warmer than the Southern. >>

 

Northern Hemisphere Is Becoming Warmer Than Southern Hemisphere

 

This is atmospheric temperature; the Sun does not heat the core.

Earthquakes aren't occurring in the core so what do you mean? They are occurring in the top 200 km of crust the Lithosphere.

 

If the Southern Hemisphere has a greater proportion of crustal plates there might be more Earthquakes in the Southern Hemisphere.

 

I doubt if the small difference in air temperature will have any effect on the occurrence of earthquakes.

 

Mr. Bibbitybop I mean Furkenstein is wrong that the Southern hemisphere is warmer than the Northern and that the core is heated by the Sun and that the core is expanding and contracting to cause earthquakes. I don't understand your misunderstanding of my understanding of Farkenstein's misunderstanding. Edited October 24, 2014 by Acme

[Robittybob1]

Mr. Bibbitybop I mean Furkenstein is wrong that the Southern hemisphere is warmer than the Northern and that the core is heated by the Sun and that the core is expanding and contracting to cause earthquakes. I don't understand your misunderstanding of my understanding of Farkenstein's misunderstanding.

Well that is good to know we are on the same page. So the real problem is Mr. Furkenstein. I had a lack of sleep problem yesterday, I'll see if I can get it right today. Sorry about that confusion.

I'll have to remember Acme is OK!

 

Yet it is you who uses the word "core" in the sentence "While there is greater land mass in the Northern hemisphere this has nothing to do with the temperature of the core". OK, maybe you don't mean the Inner or Outer Core of the Earth just the substance of the Lithosphere.

Edited October 24, 2014 by Robittybob1

[Acme]

Well that is good to know we are on the same page. So the real problem is Mr. Furkenstein. I had a lack of sleep problem yesterday, I'll see if I can get it right today. Sorry about that confusion.

I'll have to remember Acme is OK!

Yes; problem is with the original poster. Yes; Acme is A-OK.

 

Yet it is you who uses the word "core" in the sentence "While there is greater land mass in the Northern hemisphere this has nothing to do with the temperature of the core". OK, maybe you don't mean the Inner or Outer Core of the Earth just the substance of the Lithosphere.

I was referring to that part of the core that is 'metallic' per the OP. To further clarify, the heat in the metallic core is not attributable to the Sun by any active means. (Those means include magnetic coupling as proposed here in another thread.)

 

Like physics as is under discussion in another thread, geology is rife with amateur crackpottery. Good grief.

Edited October 24, 2014 by Acme

[Robittybob1]

Yes; problem is with the original poster. Yes; Acme is A-OK.

 

I was referring to that part of the core that is 'metallic' per the OP. To further clarify, the heat in the metallic core is not attributable to the Sun by any active means. (Those means include magnetic coupling as proposed here in another thread.)

 

Like physics as is under discussion in another thread, geology is rife with amateur crackpottery. Good grief.

Good grief - you sound like my mother!

The OP was not referring to the metallic core either. Which other thread are you referring to? The heating of the crust during summer was what the OP means.

[Acme]

Good grief - you sound like my mother!

The OP was not referring to the metallic core either. Which other thread are you referring to? The heating of the crust during summer was what the OP means.

Post 4 is where Fenstein invokes metallicity of molten core. The OP is not about heating of the crust except as to suggest that heating the crust heats the core and causes it to expand which causes earthquakes. Since the whole thing is so much gobbledygook one can only expect garbled meanings.

 

I was referring to Plate Tectonic Mechanism ? thread. I'd stay away if I were you, but when you ignore my admonition and go anyway, put on your boots.

[Strange]

The OP was not referring to the metallic core either.

 

Oh yes he was:

 

Could this be due to contraction&expansion of the molten core of this planet in direct correlation to it's distance to the Sun?

[Robittybob1]

 

Oh yes he was:

 

Forgive me then, for I understood "OP" to mean Opening Post so I looked at the first post and the words metallic core were not there, but now I'm told it was in post #4. Does OP mean thread starter to you?

Don't think for a minute I'm in agreement with Funkenstein.

Post 4 is where Fenstein invokes metallicity of molten core. The OP is not about heating of the crust except as to suggest that heating the crust heats the core and causes it to expand which causes earthquakes. Since the whole thing is so much gobbledygook one can only expect garbled meanings.

 

I was referring to Plate Tectonic Mechanism ? thread. I'd stay away if I were you, but when you ignore my admonition and go anyway, put on your boots.

I've only been here a couple of weeks and I hadn't come across that thread yet. At a glance it seems too technical for me.

[Dr. Funkenstein]

The data of USGS (dates of earthquakes) still reflect a majority of earthquakes taking place throughout the world during the winter, spring and autumn times of year. If I don't question why, whats the point of having a love for science

 

These times of the year, this planet is closest to the Sun. placing hemispheres aside, tilt of axis begs to me the question of rather this proximity of the planet to the sun has some influence on plate tectonics which manifest as earthquakes.

 

Now rather the core of the planet or the crust of the same perhaps is effected by the proximity of the sun to this planet, deserves consideration in light of the data on earthquakes complied by USGS and disseminated by my interest.

 

Since the exact circumference of the planet at all, or maybe at no time is know, and geological strata depict an amalgamation of soil stacked one upon the other would suggest that, either the planet grows, or geological stratification accumulate by some process other then the blowing wind. So perhaps contraction and expansion.

 

The core of the planet has to expand and contract, even if it's a slight movement, It is inconceivable to claim this core to be static and stationary. Pure planetary motion would shift the dimensions of this core at the very least.

 

There has to be I believe a single cause for Plate tectonics, earthquakes, geological strata, Volcanic eruptions and all things related to the process of Earth in object form.

[Acme]

The data of USGS (dates of earthquakes) still reflect a majority of earthquakes taking place throughout the world during the winter, spring and autumn times of year. If I don't question why, whats the point of having a love for science

You have been asked several times to share the data you are using and you have not done so. Your assertions are virtually worthless if we cannot see your data.

 

These times of the year, this planet is closest to the Sun.

No, no, a thousand times no. The seasons have nothing to do with Earth's distance to the Sun. The only thing that changes with seasons is the angle of incidence for the incoming radiation and that is a result of Earth's tilt.

 

placing hemispheres aside, tilt of axis begs to me the question of rather this proximity of the planet to the sun has some influence on plate tectonics which manifest as earthquakes.

Again and again and again; the distance from Earth to the Sun does not change with the seasons.

 

Now rather the core of the planet or the crust of the same perhaps is effected by the proximity of the sun to this planet, deserves consideration in light of the data on earthquakes complied by USGS and disseminated by my interest.

The heat flow of the core is always up, or per se outward. There is no heat from the Sun going down to the core.

 

Since the exact circumference of the planet at all, or maybe at no time is know, and geological strata depict an amalgamation of soil stacked one upon the other would suggest that, either the planet grows, or geological stratification accumulate by some process other then the blowing wind. So perhaps contraction and expansion.

Word salad with no foundation in fact. New crust is formed at spreading centers and by volcanoes and it gets recycled at subduction zones back down into the mantle.

 

The core of the planet has to expand and contract, even if it's a slight movement, It is inconceivable to claim this core to be static and stationary. Pure planetary motion would shift the dimensions of this core at the very least.

More gobbledygook with no basis in fact.

 

There has to be I believe a single cause for Plate tectonics, earthquakes, geological strata, Volcanic eruptions and all things related to the process of Earth in object form.

You might begin by studying what is actually known as opposed to going off half-coked with your uninformed idle speculation.

[Robittybob1]

Again and again and again; the distance from Earth to the Sun does not change with the seasons.

 

 

From memory since the Earth takes an elliptical orbit the Sun is closer to the Earth when the Southern Hemisphere is in summer. It might be worth checking this out.

[Acme]

 

Again and again and again; the distance from Earth to the Sun does not change with the seasons.

From memory since the Earth takes an elliptical orbit the Sun is closer to the Earth when the Southern Hemisphere is in summer. It might be worth checking this out.

 

I agree, however in the context of my quote that you used this is not what Furkenstein was talking about. I was responding to this:

... winter, spring and autumn times of year. ... These times of the year, this planet is closest to the Sun.

Moreover, he said in post #1

 

...Winter, fall and spring are the closest earth comes to the sun...

In no case is this correct inasmuch as Winter in the North is Summer in the South and neither autumn or spring are at perihelion or aphelion. (I'll give a reference below to the effect of apsides on temperatures.)

 

So, the again and again and again stands because he is in error both times, while I should have written after it "the distance from Earth to the Sun does not change with cause the seasons' temperature extremes.

 

One more again and again; in no case does energy from the Sun heat the core.

 

So here's the effect of our elliptical orbit on temperatures. [bolding mine]

Earth's orbit

Events in the orbit

... In modern times, Earth's perihelion occurs around January 3, and the aphelion around July 4 (for other eras, see precession and Milankovitch cycles). The changing Earth-Sun distance results in an increase of about 6.9%[3] in solar energy reaching the Earth at perihelion relative to aphelion. Since the southern hemisphere is tilted toward the Sun at about the same time that the Earth reaches the closest approach to the Sun, the southern hemisphere receives slightly more energy from the Sun than does the northern over the course of a year. However, this effect is much less significant than the total energy change due to the axial tilt, and most of the excess energy is absorbed by the higher proportion of water in the southern hemisphere.[4] ...

I hope that isn't too technical for you Bobbity. Now that you have picked my nit you are free to address Forkenstine's infestation with a fine toothed comb.

[Robittybob1]

I hope that isn't too technical for you Bobbity. Now that you have picked my nit you are free to address Forkenstine's infestation with a fine toothed comb.

Thanks for checking that but what is going through my mind is not so much the temperature increase but the since the distance to the Sun is less the strength of the gravitational forces will be greater then too, probably by the same proportion (6.9%) being a factor of 1/(r^2). Now I haven't actually run the figures but it should be in the same proportion to incident light logically. The Moon too would be having larger fluctuations in orbital distances so there would be more stresses in the Earth's crust during the 3 months either side of the perihelion and coinciding with full moons.

We had a person in NZ predicting earthquakes and when I studied it there was a 1-2% increase in the frequency of earthquakes at the times of the full moon (+/- a couple of days). Since then I read that there was no difference in the frequency, so I'm unsure now.

I'll just leave you with those thoughts for I want to spend time on another issue.

Edited October 25, 2014 by Robittybob1

[Acme]

.

Addendum:

I should also point out that while most quakes occur on plate boundaries, many don't. The New Madrid quakes of the early 1800s come to mind; they were the largest quakes in the recorded history of the Eastern US and all occurred in Winter in the Northern hemisphere.

 

We are all still waiting for a data source supporting Faultensteins assertions.

Thanks for checking that but what is going through my mind is not so much the temperature increase but the since the distance to the Sun is less the strength of the gravitational forces will be greater then too, probably by the same proportion (6.9%) being a factor of 1/(r^2). Now I haven't actually run the figures but it should be in the same proportion to incident light logically. The Moon too would be having larger fluctuations in orbital distances so there would be more stresses in the Earth's crust during the 3 months either side of the perihelion and coinciding with full moons.

We had a person in NZ predicting earthquakes and when I studied it there was a 1-2% increase in the frequency of earthquakes at the times of the full moon (+/- a couple of days). Since then I read that there was no difference in the frequency, so I'm unsure now.

I'll just leave you with those thoughts for I want to spend time on another issue.

I don't get the 'T' link to Wiki on Earth as you don't seem to quote from it; care to explain? In any regard, the Sun's gravitational effect on Earth is far far far less than the Moon's. That's why ocean tides are the result not of the Sun, but the Moon. Indeed the Moon does add some heat to the crust through tidal effects. (I quote the exact amount here in some other thread but will have to look for it.) Nevertheless and again and again and again, this heat is not transferred downward to the core. The core's heat flow is up & out.

 

Edit: Here's that reference. AGAIN, this is not heating the core.

These are not the only factors heating Earth. Tidal heating from the Moon has been and remains a contributor. Granted it is slight today, but it is there.

 

 

...

This source gives the value from tidal heating as .007 W/m² (Scroll down to the illustration of cubes.) >> http://www.skepticalscience.com/heatflow.html

 

 

...The spinning of the Earth, as well as the rotation of the Moon around the Earth and the orbit of both bodies around the Sun, do indeed have an impact on the energy of the Earth, through tidal friction. The ultimate source of this energy is the Earths rotation, to which the Moon and the Sun provide a gentle brake, resulting the generation of frictional heat and the slowing down of the Earths rotation (days were two hours shorter 600 million years ago). The Moon gains some energy from this interaction, being gradually boosted into a higher orbit above the Earth. The total Earth energy flow from tidal effects is about 3.7 TW (0.007 Wm-2 ), of which 95% goes into the familiar ocean tides and some 5% (0.2 TW or 0.0004 Wm-2) goes into Earth tides, which are small deformations of up to a few centimetres that occur on twice-daily or longer timescales. Earth tides contribute approximately 0.5% to the heat flow of the Earth. ...

 

Edit: According to this source the tidal effect of the Sun on the Earth is 1/2 that of the Moon.

 

Tides @ AstronomyNotes.com

...The Sun's gravity also produces tides that are about half as strong as the Moon's and produces its own pair of tidal bulges. They combine with the lunar tides. At new and full moon, the Sun and Moon produce tidal bulges that add together to produce extreme tides. These are called spring tides (the waters really spring up!). When the Moon and Sun are at right angles to each other (1st & 3rd quarter), the solar tides reduce the lunar tides and you have neap tides. ...

Let me say again that this heating is in the crust and oceans and does not heat the core. Does not heat the core. Does not heat the core.

Edited October 25, 2014 by Acme

[Robittybob1]

.

Addendum:

I should also point out that while most quakes occur on plate boundaries, many don't. The New Madrid quakes of the early 1800s come to mind; they were the largest quakes in the recorded history of the Eastern US and all occurred in Winter in the Northern hemisphere.

 

We are all still waiting for a data source supporting Faultensteins assertions.

 

I don't get the 'T' link to Wiki on Earth as you don't seem to quote from it; care to explain? In any regard, the Sun's gravitational effect on Earth is far far far less than the Moon's. That's why ocean tides are the result not of the Sun, but the Moon. Indeed the Moon does add some heat to the crust through tidal effects. (I quote the exact amount here in some other thread but will have to look for it.) Nevertheless and again and again and again, this heat is not transferred downward to the core. The core's heat flow is up & out.

 

Edit: Here's that reference. AGAIN, this is not heating the core.

 

Edit: According to this source the tidal effect of the Sun on the Earth is 1/2 that of the Moon.

 

Tides @ AstronomyNotes.com

 

Let me say again that this heating is in the crust and oceans and does not heat the core. Does not heat the core. Does not heat the core.

That T link was some sort of error in the quote function.

But recent studies I have completed would indicate that there could be heating of the core. The reason I say heating is that there is work being done on the core by the gravitational attraction of the Moon and the Sun and it causes the Inner Core to be offset by up to 60 km from center.

i found out about that in this study "Earth Inner Core Periodic Motion due to Pressure Difference Induced by Tidal Acceleration"http://arxiv.org/abs/1302.3960

 

 

The result is an eccentricity of about 60 km to produce this nutation. These values

are small compared to the diameter of EIC of 2443 km

This continual stirring of the Outer Core must logically result in some form of frictional heating.

[Acme]

That T link was some sort of error in the quote function.

But recent studies I have completed would indicate that there could be heating of the core. The reason I say heating is that there is work being done on the core by the gravitational attraction of the Moon and the Sun and it causes the Inner Core to be offset by up to 60 km from center.

i found out about that in this study "Earth Inner Core Periodic Motion due to Pressure Difference Induced by Tidal Acceleration"

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/1302.3960

 

 

The result is an eccentricity of about 60 km to produce this nutation. These values

are small compared to the diameter of EIC of 2443 km

This continual stirring of the Outer Core must logically result in some form of frictional heating.

 

How perfectly coy of you. The other thread was too technical huh? I have downloaded the pdf and will read it ASAP. Rest assured that in no case has Freckenstein done any such research nor are his ideas presupposed on any serious studiosity. (Yes I made up that word.) I'll respond to your conclusions after I read the paper.

Edited October 25, 2014 by Acme

[Strange]

Forgive me then, for I understood "OP" to mean Opening Post so I looked at the first post and the words metallic core were not there, but now I'm told it was in post #4. Does OP mean thread starter to you?

 

Yes, it is ambiguous; either "original post" or "original poster" ...

The data of USGS (dates of earthquakes) still reflect a majority of earthquakes taking place throughout the world during the winter, spring and autumn times of year.

 

Source please.

 

Otherwise I have no reason not to assume you are just mistaken. Or even making it up.

[Acme]

That T link was some sort of error in the quote function.

But recent studies I have completed would indicate that there could be heating of the core. The reason I say heating is that there is work being done on the core by the gravitational attraction of the Moon and the Sun and it causes the Inner Core to be offset by up to 60 km from center.

i found out about that in this study "Earth Inner Core Periodic Motion due to Pressure Difference Induced by Tidal Acceleration"

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/1302.3960

This continual stirring of the Outer Core must logically result in some form of frictional heating.

So I read the paper and it strikes me as speculative. I can find nothing on the author's qualifications or any indication that the paper is other than some guy's posting to arXiv. Since it says nothing about heating, to conclude anything about heating without any calculations is unwarranted. I welcome any clarification.

 

But of course this is not what Funkenstein talked about nor has any reference been forthcoming by Funkenstein regarding historical earthquake size or frequency or timing. Let's stay on topic.