Supermoons and Natural Disasters

So, I read this yesterday.

Quote:

---

Biggest Full Moon in 19 Years Almost Certainly Won't Cause a Huge Natural Disaster

On March 19th, the moon will be closer--and thus bigger--than it's been in two decades

By Dan NosowitzPosted 03.10.2011 at 4:29 pm

On March 19th, the moon will be closer to Earth than it's been since 1992. The full moon that night will appear about 14 percent larger and significantly brighter than usual, but despite the brightness, the supermoon has a dark side. Supermoons have been linked to massive natural disasters in the past, from earthquakes to floods--but that connection is typically touted by astrologists. Astronomers and scientists, with typical drollness, say a catastrophe is unlikely.

March 19th marks this year's lunar perigee, the point in the moon's orbit at which it is closest to Earth. It's the moon's elliptical orbit that's responsible for the differences in distance between the moon and Earth (the opposite, the point at which the moon is farthest from the Earth, is called the lunar apogee). This month's perigee will leave the moon, says Steve Owens at Dark Sky Diary, about 8 percent closer to Earth than usual, and about 2 percent closer to Earth than the average lunar perigee. In fact, it'll be the closest positioning since 1992.

Past supermoons have coincided with natural disasters--the Indonesian earthquake in 2005, Australian flooding in 1954--but scientists note that those are unrelated, more likely than not. Says John Bellini, a geophysicist at the U.S. Geological Survey: "A lot of studies have been done on this kind of thing by USGS scientists and others. They haven't found anything significant at all." The tides will pull a bit higher, but earthquakes are almost completely unaffected and volcanoes are not likely to show unusual behavior. John Vidale, a seismologist at the University of Washington in Seattle, said "Practically speaking, you'll never see any effect of lunar perigee. It's somewhere between 'It has no effect' and 'It's so small you don't see any effect.'"
Besides, it's still 2011. Everyone knows there won't be any world-ending catastrophes until next year, right?

http://www.popsci.com/science/articl...ural-disaster#

---

Today, I read about a terrible 9.8 magnitude earthquake off the coast of Japan and a large tsunami.

So, physics buffs...does anyone think earthquakes like this are correlated?

No.

Hell no.

On 9/11 2001 I was on my first date with my girlfriend. Today I agreed to the contract for a new job. So every time a disaster happens something great happens to me to balance global karma is just as plausible as a theory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ziggy Stardust

So every time a disaster happens something great happens to me to balance global karma is just as plausible as a theory.

---

Never play win the lottery, :down::mad:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

So, I read this yesterday.



Today, I read about a terrible 9.8 magnitude earthquake off the coast of Japan and a large tsunami.

So, physics buffs...does anyone think earthquakes like this are correlated?

---

Not strongly enough to have a measurable influence. It can conceivably have an effect, solid ground does respond to tidal forces and those are slightly stronger at perigree, but the tidal effect is already miniscule and the difference between perigree and apogee on that miniscule effect is correspondingly tiny and have no statistically significant impact on earthquake strength or frequency. It should be noted pressures like tidal forces can just as easily strengthen the stability of a fracture zone as weaken it.

Just a giant highly improbably coinkidink.

You all realize we won't be hearing the end of this, right?

That this is pure Kathaksung bait?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

That this is pure Kathaksung bait?

---

So what's it doing in the serious forum? I believe it belongs in GC.

Was curious if folks thought there was any merit to it. Thought at least a few would and would debate and discuss.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

Was curious if folks thought there was any merit to it. Thought at least a few would and would debate and discuss.

---

In case you haven't noticed, your infatuation with baiting people is less appreciated than is Lewk's.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

Was curious if folks thought there was any merit to it. Thought at least a few would and would debate and discuss.

---

I'm sure you did, too, and that's the sad part

It's sad that I thought people would engage in a conversation about physics and be willing to play devil's advocate?

Well what's there to say, your opening post already mentions there is no connection, or one so small you don't notice it. Yes, there are forces, but they are small compared to tectonics.

Sounds like Flixy's next band hit. Tectonic shifts > electric guitar, drums, big hair, ballerinas dancing at high tide under a big moon!

"We are Rumble Fist, and this is our new song: Arsegravy of the worst kind"

Like the title :up:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

It's sad that I thought people would engage in a conversation about physics and be willing to play devil's advocate?

---

I stand by my earlier statement.

Do I believe it? Not really. Am I willing to believe there could be a correlation if someone gave me a good reason why this particular variation in the moon's distance could impact plate tectonics? Sure.

I thought you were the metallurgist or something. I at least expected someone like you to explain why this is total bunk to us unwashed masses.

I guess it's kinda like phantom time and...Do we have history majors? Anyhow, I don't have any personal passions for discussing crank ideas such as poly-water, N-rays or the Moon generating tectonic movements. You can calculate for yourself the gradient of the force exerted by Luna and evaluate the order of magnitude of that against the internal pressures of the Earth's dynamo. *shrug* And I'm not familiar with geo-physics, so I couldn't opine an expert view either way.

The metallurgist?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

I at least expected someone like you to explain why this is total bunk to us unwashed masses.

---

My explanation about how it was basically meaningless, made before Being or Nessus replied, didn't register?

Being or Nessus?

Either way, he has an axe to grind with me, I wouldn't take it personally

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy

My explanation about how it was basically meaningless, made before Being or Nessus replied, didn't register?

---

It did. But Nessus is right, my axe to grind is with her because she has a problem with me bringing up Internet conspiracies for debate on an Internet site.

It's not very interesting (IMO) from the scientific perspective, and it's a piss-poor conspiracy theory by itself because it doesn't have any malicious actors. Now, if you included stuff like the Lizard people controlling the Moon, okay, that might be slightly amusing, but even so the actually interesting part of the conspiracy theory, IMO, would be the Lizard people.