Facebook Twitter

Russia’s Shiveluch volcano began churning out ash to a height of 9,500 meters (more than 31,000 feet) on Monday.


Shiveluch volcano - © Photo NASA/JSC


Activity began increasing on the 2-mile-high volcano in May 2009. It has been periodically spewing ash since that time, increasing the crater size by 50%.

“It is the most powerful eruption this year,” said a source at the Far Eastern Institute of Volcanology and Seismology.

Although the eruption poses no immediate threat to nearby settlements, the ash clouds could pose a threat to air traffic.

Of the more than 150 volcanoes on Kamchatka, 29 are active.

See entire article:
http://en.ria.ru/russia/20120417/172867616.html

Thanks to Alex Meyer for this link

Since increased activity in 2009 coincides with the beginning of the low solar cycle C24, and the “greatest eruption of this year” comes 6 days after the very large earthquakes in Sumatra, this again confirms IMO the connection with the lower radiation from the Sun, says reader F. Guimaraes.

 

19 Responses to Russian volcano spews ash almost 6 miles high

  1. TomO says:

    And if we are truly approaching the plane of the galaxy, it might help prove the electric universe theory, the expanding Earth theory, as well as the hollow Earth theory, which would go hand in hand in my mind. OR, in the minds and opinions of the climate alarmists, just another nail in the coffin of carbon dioxide as they will find a connection there, somehow.

    • F. Guimaraes says:

      The more serious study of some hypothesis of the EU model seems a natural consequence of the failures of the present models to explain the recent observed facts, in connection with the Sun, the weather, etc.
      But we also know that the great scientific discoveries only happen in times of crisis of the old paradigms, as it’s happening now with GW and the “dynamo-nuclear fusion-gravitational” model for the stars.

      • TomO says:

        As for the nuclear fusion/molten centers, I offer you this test. Draw a circle and populate the area inside of it with dots, but leave the very center empty, please.

        Now place your pencil point on the outside of the circle and consider each dot inside a discrete mass. Notice that on the surface of the circle the “gravitational attraction” for the total mass within the circle is towards the center.

        Now move the pencil tip 1/4th the distance towards the center. Now note that there is far less mass pulling down on the pencil point, but the total force is pulling towards the center. The closer to the center you place your pencil point, the more mass is pulling up, and at the center, the entire sum of mass is pulling up. You are NOT being crushed to a pulp at the center, thus there is no reason to assume a molten center to the Earth or nuclear fusion at the center of the Sun.

        In fact, one might consider the possibility that the center is hollow based on the effects of centrifigal forces. I have no idea why we look at the Earth or the Sun, realize that they are composed of discreet particles of mass, and pretend the whole of that mass is a point at the center.

        But as in so many things in the world of Physics, it was overrun by the world of mathematics, just as our real world and its empirical data is not being overrun by mathematics and computer simulation.

        If Tesla had been born in the last 50 years, he would never have made any of his discoveries because all he would have been doing is fiddling with mathematical equations trying to predict what will happen in the real world.

        • F. Guimaraes says:

          If somebody rely in models and forget the facts that person is doing Mathematics, not Physics. Mathematics should not be considered a science IMO because it needs not to be backed by experimental evidence. It’s essentially based in pure imagination and logic. The logical part is what makes it “objective”, to some extent, although not necessarily scientific.
          The problem with GW models is that they have poor predictive power, which shows that their theories/models are non scientific.
          They may be interesting, curious, sophisticate, pathetic sometimes, but they’re not scientific.
          Similar problem is happening in Astrophysics. I refuse to accept that you and me and everyone else here have been essentially created by an “explosion” some time ago. It’s ridiculous, to say the least, and this is not the worst problem they have!
          In the hands of Newton, Einstein, Tesla, and others, Mathematics brought many important scientific results because they used it as a language to describe Nature, and they did not mistake the description for the object being described.

  2. F. Guimaraes says:

    Thanks for the quote Robert!
    The correlation between increased seismicity and volcanic activity and the intensity of solar radiation, during long periods of decades and centuries, is quite evident, but I don’t know of any theory that can explain this connection scientifically.
    I believe the main “suspect” is the magnetic field of Earth as it responds to the variations of solar radiation, with possible long time modulations caused by the interstellar field of the region of the Milky Way that we’re moving through.
    For example, here is an excerpt from “The Watchers” (Mar/15/2011)
    ” … The Earth’s geomagnetic field is currently undergoing a reversal. It is not known when it will be completed, but it is already well underway, will continue into 2012 and beyond. The field is weakening with consequences of irradiation from the Sun and deep space. But the reversal also means deep seated changes inside the Earth with consequences of earthquakes in places not familiar with them and new volcanoes … ”
    (http://thewatchers.adorraeli.com/2011/03/15/about-geomagnetic-reversal-and-poleshift/)
    The fact that the entire process has been accelerating in recent times is beyond our present understanding of the behavior of the Sun and the planets, based on an essentially gravitational model.

  3. Igor says:

    Siberia is also tied to the most massive volcanic extinction of any kind. Permian era,its known that 90 percent of marine and 70percent of land mammals disappeared during the time.

  4. John Smith says:

    Shout out to fellow iceagenow posters. Since the weekend I have been posting lots on the stores the Canadian Weather Network are linked to the front page. If anyone like IE. Kennith Lund would like to come on and help me spread the word it be awesome, I have been posting stuff that Rob has compiled to help bring more traffic here too. Very easy to make an account, just email password and name, make a fake one if you want.

    Cheers!

    http://www.theweathernetwork.com/

  5. frank says:

    ROBERT IS RIGHT AGAIN!

  6. Brent Walker says:

    There is a very interesting paper written by Japanese scientists that links low solar magnetic strength to increased earthquake activity. It is due to increased cosmic ray activity and hence greater production of muons (heavy electrons) that weaken the calderas of certain types of volcanoes. the reference for this paper is: Toshikazu Ebiska, Hiroko Miyahara, Tatsuhiko Sato, Yasuhiro Ishimine: Explosive volcanic eruptions triggered by cosmic rays: Volcano as a bubble chamber- – Godwana Research, November 2010.
    But there is much more to it than this. I have written a paper which I am presenting shortly at an actuarial convention about the effect of extra-terrestrial forces on nature’s risks.
    It is not overly technical and can be accessed at
    http://www.actuaries.org/HongKong2012/Papers/WBR9_Walker.pdf
    The paper describes the many extraterrestrial forces that have a bearing on the incidence rates of extreme weather events, earthquakes and volcanic activity.

    • F. Guimaraes says:

      Thanks for sharing your work with us. I’ll read it and post a longer comment later.
      Regarding the muons, would they not be absorbed before having any important effect on the magma? Would energy conservation be violated in this case, because the large volcanic eruptions are too much energetic?

      • F. Guimaraes says:

        You work is very interesting and well written, showing the ideas pretty clearly and objectively.
        It’s quite comprehensive though, which makes almost impossible to write a simple good comment about it here.
        It calls attention to the important works of Landscheidt and Geoff Sharp and others proponents of the solar inertial motion theory (SIM) for the behavior of the Sun in dynamic equilibrium with the planets of the solar system,

        (e.g: http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/243)

        and the importance of the, let’s say, spin-orbit coupling of the various components of the system.
        These ideas are very interesting and IMO they are the best attempt so far to improve upon the, relatively poor, nuclear-fusion-dynamo model for our Sun.
        They bring light on some interesting aspects of the oscillations in the intensity of the solar cycles, in particular reinforcing the synodic period of Uranus and Neptune (171.4 years), which is supposed to be the central aspect of the occurrence of solar grand minima.
        I have some reservations though about the ability of the SIM to really address the entirety of the solar behavior and its predictive power.
        My main objection is the following.
        If you consider the connection of solar radiation with Earth’s climate, which IMO is quite evident in the last 400 years (at least) then a graph like this

        http://www.landscheidt.info/images/sunssbam1620to2180gs.jpg

        or this

        http://www.landscheidt.info/images/landscheidtpred.png

        does not correspond to the observed data on solar radiation, for example,
        file:///000-magfield-volcanoes/Ray-Tomes-C14-reconstructing-solar-cycles-over-11000%20years-nice_files/ssnrec-11000-yr-sm.png
        or on Earth’s temperature, for example,
        http://muller.lbl.gov/pages/IceAgeBook/Image2.gif

        Therefore, it cannot explain the Ice Ages either and neither can the Milankovitch cycles.
        In other words, all these models despite their good physical background and sophistication are still scratching the surface (IMO) of the real physics behind the solar behavior.
        I believe the Sun has a much more sophisticate dynamics than that proposed by the nuclear-fusion-dynamo model, even with the important improvements brought by the SIM model.
        I believe there is a connection with the interstellar field of our region of the Milky Way that is basically being neglected in all these models.
        I have this feeling that in the next months and years, our Sun will teach us many important lessons, if we’re only open and paying attention to learn.
        Thanks for sharing your work with us.

  7. Nicolas says:

    Wehey !!! Time to head for the sun n leave the chickenheads to their outdated bbc type retarded points of view…they can a argue who’s right n maybe where the snow is coming from lmao ;o)

  8. John the 1st says:

    Another volcano that doesn’t make CO2.

  9. Jay Curtis says:

    The Kamchatka peninsula is north of Japan and across the Bering Sea due west of the Aleutian Islands. The whole area is very active seismically and volcanically. It would be great to have a map every now and then for some of these events.

  10. Igor says:

    Sobering stats regarding ancient Siberian traps. 7 million square kms of lava flowed and controversial arguments remain if it was a volcanic eruption…or a colossal mantle collapse from plate techtonics.Sadly,if this geologic history holds water…my guess is the atmosphere must have been like a meat smoke house from the siberian borreal forest incinerating instantly,if a chunk of the mantle truly fell toward the earth core.


Hit Counter provided by seo company