Gordon Watts

Abstract: Earthquake researcher, Charlotte King, has been featured in many news reports and studied extensively by the scientific community, and is most notably famous for her accurate prediction of the famous Mount St. Helen's eruption, in SW WASHINGTON STATE, which erupted at 8:32 A.M., on May 18, 1980, and taking the lives of 57 people. Subsequent news coverage of King reports that “Charlotte King's first claim to fame is that she predicted the 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helen's with 12 minutes.” Source: “Fun With Predictions: The Bryant Park Project,” by Laura Conaway, NPR, 03 January 2008, 1:26 PM (ET),

LINK: https://www.NPR.org/sections/bryantpark/2008/01/fun_with_predictions.html

Archived: https://Archive.ph/dC8oO

And: https://Web.Archive.org/web/20240602112034/https://www.npr.org/sections/bryantpark/2008/01/fun_with_predictions.html

We find that statistical analyses support her claims: When all 4 data points were used, there was only a 0.28805353%, or less than one percent, chance of her being able to accurately predict all 4 quakes within the time-frame in question. When we eliminated one “questionable” state point (where we believed she made the prediction before the quake, but were unable to verify it), there was still only a 0.94867778% chance she could make all 3 predictions correctly, and the odds, being far under the standard five (5%) percent threshold for statistical significance, imply that King's claims are not by chance and that there is a correlation. Moreover, based on recent research into this phenomenon, we propose a mechanism for causation: The science backs up her claims that she can sense these things. [See scientific research, below.] However, as far as this undersigned investigative reporter knows, King has not been examined in a scientific manner to determine whether her stunning prediction, above, was a genuine ability, as she claims, or merely a “one off.”((**)) So, we have undertaken to examine the matter – both as a purely fascinating scientific endeavor, as well as a potentially life-saving skill that some people claim to have – the ability to “sense” earthquakes, volcanoes, solar flares, CME's (solar coronal mass ejections), and other solar weather phenomenon due to LF sound, geomagnetic, or radio waves. ((**)) The question posed – using statistics – is “what are the odds” that King could get 4 predictions correct given a certain time-frame? If the odds are very low, and she scores 4-for-4, then we may assume that it is “probably” not by chance, and infer a probable (even if not definite) correlation with causation.

TITLE: "Growing threats of Solar Flares and the collapse of earth's protective magnetic field: A look at why citizens & lawmakers are slow to “Protect the Grid”: –Proposed Solutions–" Description: Original Submission for the online journal, Academia Letters, 800–1,600 words, sans references; WORD-COUNT: 1,597 words for this submission, not counting references. If you see this submitted twice, please forgive and overlook: My last submission rendered no email confirmation.

[Abstract is written mainly for fellow-scientists/researchers; Summary is more 'broad'.] In September 1859, the famous "Carrington Event" occurred (with estimated Dst readings of −850 nT to −900 nT), the largest recorded solar geomagnetic event since accurate records were made, causing widespread failures to contemporary telegraph systems and producing brilliant polar aurorae. In July 2012, a solar storm of much greater strength almost hit earth, narrowly missing because we'd moved about nine (9) days [about 2.46% of earth's 365¼−day orbit] from its trajectory[70], with a peak Dst value of −1,182 nT, as reported by Space Weather[31]. As a result, astronomers & scientists worldwide began calculating the probability estimation of another catastrophic Carrington−like geomagnetic event, since current technology (communications, GPS, power grids, satellites, etc.) are much more vulnerable to a severe solar storms than in the past when the only 'electronics' available were long−wire telegraphs-before even the telephone had been invented. Prior published research gave widely varying probability estimations of another such event. Moreover, prior research did not take into account the upcoming Maunder Minimum or acceleration in the geomagnetic pole movement, and the acceleration in the collapse of earth's protective magnetic field; nor, did they account for "lesser" magnetic storms which were very destructive, in their own right, causing many failures of communications and the power grid in various parts of the world. Historically, earth's magnetic north pole has wandered at a rate of about 0-15 km/year, but beginning in 1990, it accelerated to its current velocity of about 60 km/year[64] [65][66], which affects compasses, GPS, & other navigation. Moreover, the last time earth's protective magnetic field dropped by 30%, it needed fully 3,000 years[56], but, at the rapid rate it's decreasing now, it's projected to need only about 338.5 or 363.2 years (or 364.3 years or 333.9583 years), to drop by another 30%, depending of which set of data is used. While the data aren't in complete agreement, they're all very close, and suggest that a "geomagnetic flip," with concurrent field collapse to almost zero strength, is imminent. This is relevant because the weaker earth's protective magnetic field gets, the less it protects earth from severe geomagnetic storms. We review solar/geomagnetic data of all storms from the Carrington Event until present and estimate the probability of another similar catastrophic solar storm in the next decade: Prior prominent research of another Carrington Event are, at one extreme, Riley's estimates of about 12% probability[50], and Moriña's estimates[40] about 1.17% (taking the average of "0.46% and 1.88%," from his research paper). We find an 8.57% chance of another Carrington−class solar storm in the next decade. While we may overestimate the probabilities of another similar storm, the dangers posed to modern−day technology (much more vulnerable to geomagnetic solar storms or EMP detonations) suggest that it's better to use cautious & conservative estimates-especially given new unknowns and variables, such as the impending geomagnetic flip and concomitant collapse of earth's protective magnetic field-which, of course, make us even more vulnerable to a "direct hit." I stand by my estimate as it's methods are sound, with results between both extremes in the reported literature-and put forth proposed solutions for lawmakers and citizens.