Talk:Earthquake weather/Archive 1

alines

I believe it's the alines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.157.207.175 (talk • contribs) 15:55, 30 September 2004

Thucydides?

Please somebody check again or delete that reference to Thucydides. He died in 395 BC according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thucydides Quote:``Thucydides (between 460 and 455 BC - 395 BC) was an ancient Greek historian. Could it be Xenophon? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.205.217.93 (talk • contribs) 21:33, 30 September 2004

The original source from which I took the "Thucydides" name reference was this article, although the name of ancient Helice in the context of Earthquake lights can be found in other articles/websites.

Maybe we should ask the author of the article about his source. (Alberto Enriquez aenriquez{at}adn.com)

And BTW, Strabo has an accound of the Helice earthquake story, but nothing about the lights. (here's the link in case anyone wants to make an article about it). Bogdan | Talk 22:13, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

disambig

I have disambiguated this page from Earthquake Weather, which is about an album by The Clash My mistake—it's not by The Clash; it was an independent project by one of its members.. The following text, added by IP addresses 70.199.10.223 and 70.199.159.100 on 29 Jan 2006 and by 70.198.237.230 on 31 January 2006, was in the article. If it is to be restored, some sort of record of authorship (even by the IP addresses) will need to be provided somewhere prominent for GFDL purposes. (Also it needs to be cleaned up into WP style). --Trovatore 06:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Previous text

(Went ahead and put it in the article, so I've removed it from here.) --Trovatore 06:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Deleted some irrelevancies

Removed a bunch of stuff about a study that hasn't happened and a link that isn't there yet - absurd attempt to make something of nothing. Expanded USGS myth quote - as it was the only relevant serious reference. Removed the celebration of the 1906 earthquake bit as irrelevant. The whole thing needs to go to WP:AFD. Vsmith 03:00, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Merging with Earthlights

No one discussed the proposed merging of Earthquake Lights with Earthlights so I took the liberty of merging them as it's been a suggesting for a long time. I think they are more commonly called Earthlights so I made this the main article. If anyone objects then open a discussion. Cyberia23 00:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm too late to prevent your merging them, but earthquake lights are brief but huge, on the order of the aurora borealis. Earthlights or Will o' the wisps are wispy, leprechaun-sized flames produced by natural gas that hover just over the ground. Therefore I will edit this page into shape. Speciate 06:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Earthquake Lights have anything to do with Will-o-wisps which I thought were supposed to be ghosts or faeries of legend. I didn't add the "Other Names" section, someone else did. Cyberia23 22:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Weather affecting quakes

It may be worth mentioning that while there is no scientific basis for "earthquake weather" as the myth prefers it, there may be some basis for heavy rainfall causing previously stuck faults to be lubricated and thus more likely to move.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/314/5801/897b and http://www.nature.com/news/2006/061016/full/061016-15.html, a Nature article I read previously but don't have access to right now.

Feyandstrange, having login cookie problems atm, 66.92.49.123 11:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Yet another I stumbled on, after reading this wikipedia article a few days ago (I'm not the original OP of this section) http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/10/101005131958.htm

Paul Devereux link?

Is it worth adding a link to the entry for Paul Devereux? He is one of the most cited authors on the subject in terms of identification of earthquake lights/earthlights as UFOs etc. What do you think? DiabolicalMasterspy 20:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Earthquake in Peru

Some people have reported these lights during the earthquake off the coast. It's not verifiable but there is a video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNy6YQB8nnw which supposedly has footage of the lights. They're visible somewhere around the 48 second mark.--Zeph1 16:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

That was real, here we have another video, earthquake in Peru, Aug. 15th 2007 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5qep7TbylA&mode=related&search=

Predictions

Zhonghao Shou, a retired chemist in California, has made dozens of earthquake predictions has some prediction become true?

According to the page, he claims 70% accuracy. So at least he claims that some predictions have come true. Not sure if these predictions are published openly beforehand or not in such a way that would enable verification of his claim. 216.36.186.2 (talk) 18:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi. his website is directly linked from the article. Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 21:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

To discuss about merging with earthquake light follow this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Earthquake_light Lpele (talk) 15:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Circumhorizontal arc

The phenomenon described here is in no way 'similar to aurora borealis'. It is the same as a circumhorizontal arc, an atmospheric optical effect that has been described and explained thoroughly, and that appears in many places. It is caused by the refraction of light in certain types of clouds, when the sun is high in the sky. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumhorizontal_arc :) 145.23.254.155 (talk) 08:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the comment from 145.23.254.155 above, the youtube videos linked by this article shows (clearly in my opinion) a Circumhorizontal arc. See the wikipedia article for a good image of one and see how well it matches the videos. See also http://www.atoptics.co.uk/halo/cha2.htm for details. Note that the purported time of the videos was around 14:00 local time May 12 at a latitude of 34 degrees North (Tanshui is at 34°35′N 105°44′E).

If you plug that data into http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/horizons.cgi you will find the Sun's elevation was between 63 and 68 degrees. This is entirely consistent with the observations: sun must be above 58 degrees (yes); the arc appears red closest to the sun and bluish further away (yes); the arc appears horizontal (yes); the arc appears 44 degrees away from the sun (67 minus 44 is 23 degrees above horizon, which looks about right).

The text in the article has a "citation needed" tag for the claim that it shows a circumhorizontal arc. The above should be sufficient for an intelligent layperson to at least verify that it is not a mysterious phenomenon. I do not know how else one could obtain a reliable source for the same. The paragraph appears to give weight (implicitly) to a connection with the earthquake, when I do not believe there is a reliable source. Here is the paragraph:

On May 12, 2008, 30 minutes prior to the Sichuan Earthquake, a cell phone captured footage of multi-colored clouds in the sky (see external link below). The footage was uploaded to Youtube[5]. There is also footage from Meixian, Shaanxi province approximately 550km northeast of epicenter [6] recorded 10 minutes before the event. However, the footage appears to show a circumhorizontal arc, which is caused by refraction of the sun's light through ice particles in a cirrus cloud, and is similar to a rainbow.[citation needed]

I feel it should be removed or substantially rewritten. Opinions?

-84user (talk) 15:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I also agree with the above, a quick look at the video shows a clear rainbow effect on the clouds and explanation given above is reasonable and much more likely than an earthquake-caused light. 1 minute typing "iridescent clouds" into google images or even wikipedia gives striking images of a very similar effect, which i have seen myself from my garden and yet the article makes it sound as if the earthquakes caused the lighting effect.

I maintain that the clouds in the youtube video are in fact iridescent clouds and their timing was coincidental with the time of day and elevation of the sun. look on astronomy picture of the day for a great explanation of this effect.

This article needs rewriting from a less speculative point of view.

-de210 04:20, 13 August 2008 GMT

Before 05/12/08 Sichuan earthquake

Youtube videos show 'things' (rainbows or Aurora-borealis) the 12 may 2008 before the China (Sichuan) earthquake :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u43I4YRMmDM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQHY-0c1hYE

The 05/02/08 7 days before there was a Volcano Erupts in Chile -after 9,000 years- meaning that earth activity is at its roof
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/05/photogalleries/volcano-photos/index.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.27.60.48 (talk) 10:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

How can we know that these videos took place before the May 12, 2008 earthquake? James Lednik (talk) 07:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

We cannot, but I see no reason to doubt it, the elevation angles for the arc are consistent with the time and latitude claimed. See my Talk:Earthquake light#Explanation for videos showing a Circumhorizontal arc above. -84user (talk) 15:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Merging with Earthquake cloud

I agree with the proposal to merge these articles. Earthquake cloud should redirect to Earthquake light as it seems that they are the same phenomenon. It seems that when the earthquake is in the night, people talk about lights and when quake in is the day time, people talk about "cloud", but the "cloud" seems to produce light and is not a defraction of other light source like in a rainbow. Lpele (talk) 15:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe they should go under the article "Atmospheric earthquake phenomena". 76.236.66.133 (talk) 19:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I oppose this proposal, especially if earthquake cloud is redirected to earthquake light. They are not nessecarily the same thing, see Talk:Earthquake cloud. It appears that earthquake clouds are not always luminous, and earthquake lights don't always involve clouds. Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 20:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Requested merge

Earthquake_cloud → Earthquake_light — Regarding this issue I strongly disagree. This are two distinct phenomena, eventhough the cause is most likely the same; the effects cloud/light are evidently different in nature. That merits two separate articles, unless a more comprehensive article integrates them such as Earthquake_signs for instance. Abestrobi (talk) 00:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I also disagree with the merge (Oppose). Earthquake clouds are not the same as earthquake lights. Earthquake clouds involve not only the rainbow-coloured clouds, but other phenomena such as rapidly-appearing clouds, as well as five distinct types of clouds visible on satellite photos, sometimes stretching for hundreds of kilometres, are also considered earthquake clouds. Also, earthquake lights and clouds are not always seen together, and books that I've read often talk about one and not the other, or keep them seperate topics. Also, the book I'm reading suggests that earthquake clouds may come as much as 103 days prior to the predicted earthquake. The photos from the Sichuan earthquake suggest they are the same thing, but there are still many different types of what are said to be earthquake clouds, some quite different from the ones observed. Earthquake lights can also come as a bright sky glow at night, or it can also happen during the day. Historical records suggest earthquake clouds can also appear like a long thin line, or appear as coloured bands of clouds with thunder and lightning that lead to excssive rain, or long-lasting snake-like black thread-like clouds that appear out of nowhere. Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 19:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Indirect citation for destruction of Helike and Boura

The following sentence is found in the History section

Records of earthquakes that were accompanied by lights can be found as far back as 373 BC in ancient Greek writings, that "immense columns of flame" foretold the earthquake that destroyed the cities of Helike and Boura[citation needed].

I have found an indirect reference to the destruction of Helike and Boura, but the portent seems to have been a comet rather than earthquake lights. (There may still be some other reference to what might have been earthquake lights.)

The citation was found on page 289 of Velikovsky's Worlds in Collision Macmillan (1950).

Statement in text: "The Hindu book of Varahasanhita sees in the meteorites portents of devastation by fire and earthquake." (2)

(2) Frazer, Aftermath (supplement to The Golden Bough) (1936), p. 312. Two Greek cities, Bura and Helice, were destroyed by earthquake and a tidal wave and swallowed by the earth and sea in the year -373, when a comet shone in the sky.

RobertFritzius (talk) 22:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)RobertFritzius RobertFritzius (talk) 11:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Merge/Move/Redirect to Earthquake Weather

Somebody just haul off and do it. We don't need two articles for Earthquake Lights and Earthquake Clouds, and who knows what other weird in-the-sky phenomena somebody might create another redundant article for.--Mike18xx (talk) 00:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

water and seismic activity

Isn't water known to trigger seismic activity though? As in, the water makes contact with magma and causes steam pressure below ground. John Riemann Soong (talk) 22:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Earthquake in Turkey

After the August 17, 1999 Izmit Earthquake, there were countless reports of a bright white light shooting out of the ground coinciding with the earthquake. The TV channels on the scene right after the catastrophe were interviewing people reporting a large column of flame and a very bright ray over the sea. Fishermen reported that their nets had melted. Another common testimony was that the stars in the sky "jolted" (resembling a momentary distortion of the visibility of the entire night sky). The subsequent reports of an exceptionally clear night sky or numerous sightings of groups of shooting stars are probably related to the power outage, though it is known that the partially cloudy sky completely cleared within seconds after the quake (maybe due to the heavy winds reportedly accompanying the white light, or some magnetic phenomenon). Okans (talk) 18:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

lights

The "lights" phenomenon may be real, but they aren't "earthquake weather" as the term is generally understood. I think the bulk of the discussion on that should go in its own article, and this one should be about earthquake weather in the common understanding of that term (even if the lights are real, and the common-understanding version is not real). --Trovatore (talk) 22:26, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

The lights and clouds would appear to be the same phenomenon. There is evidence that, while weather doesn't influence earthquakes, earthquakes may create strange atmospheric conditions. See this article. While the idea may have archaic origins, I think that this is all inherently related. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 22:36, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Not the point. Related or not, they aren't what people are talking about when they say earthquake weather. Conflating these (real or imagined) phenomena is original research by synthesis. --Trovatore (talk) 22:39, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Someone clearly knows their topic, because I never heard of earthquake weather before, and I'm a meteorologist. Either way, people can argue that atmospheric phenomena/physics related items are weather, so it all could be lumped together. If rainbows and circumzenith arcs are weather related, certainly these lights could be, especially if it has anything to do with atmospheric refraction or aurora. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:45, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, the general consensus is that earthquake weather isn't real, so there's no reason as a meteorologist that you should have heard of it. Not being real, though, is no reason not to have a WP article.

These other things may be real for all I know, but they aren't earthquake weather in the common understanding. In fact if they're real, and earthquake weather isn't, then that's all the more reason not to merge them. --Trovatore (talk) 22:48, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I simply don't see how atmospheric conditions preceding and coinciding with an earthquake could not be considered "earthquake weather". Reverting the mergers without discussion is not helpful either. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 22:51, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Conflating them with "earthquake weather" is original research, pure and simple. You can't do that. It doesn't matter whether your reasons for wanting to call them "earthquake weather" are good -- the fact is that people don't. --Trovatore (talk) 22:53, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-earthquake-weather.htm Who are the people you are talking about? ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 22:55, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Apologies if it isn't clear, but the above link is simply to illustrate a direct link between the term "earthquake weather" and a realistic modern theory of atmospheric conditions surrounding earthquakes. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 23:21, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any mention there of either earthquake lights or earthquake clouds. But even if there were, it wouldn't prove anything -- these are interesting sidelights to mention in a discussion of the folklore concept, and I don't object to a mention in passing in this article. But the term earthquake weather refers to the folklore, and that's what this article should be about, until such time as general usage of the term changes.

This is an encyclopedia; we're not supposed to be creative here. It's an extremely conservative form. Creativity isn't bad; it's good. But it's not encyclopedic. --Trovatore (talk) 23:01, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

So you feel that we should have an article on earthquake weather, which isn't real, and maybe a separate article(s) for documented atmospheric conditions related to earthquakes? As Ceranthor said on my talk page, this article could easily be a GA. Why are you aggressively reverting real-world context to turn these back into nuggets in the great litterbox of WP? Do you have any references to support your position? Because I'm not even sure what it is. "This is what people are talking about" isn't really the stuff of reliable sources. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 23:10, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Clearly the burden of proof is on you here. I think you know very well that these lights and so on are not what people have in mind when they say earthquake weather. You would need very clear references to the contrary to make the merge. --Trovatore (talk) 23:23, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)LOL, I'm not sure what has to be proven. Do I need to prove that clouds and atmospheric lights can be considered weather? I've never heard of "earthquake weather" except as the name of a Joe Strummer album. You are the one who keeps referring to mysterious "people" who disagree with me. You are the one who is reverting articles to a state of no real-world context. You reference a "consensus", but I'm not quite sure who that refers to either. What am I meant to prove? ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 23:29, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

No, you don't need to prove that they "can be considered weather". You need to prove that they are generally considered to be "earthquake weather". In English, as I'm sure you know, you cannot always reduce the meaning of a multi-word phrase to its component parts. There is a generally understood folklore surrounding earthquake weather, and it has never included these novel things. --Trovatore (talk) 23:33, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

So you feel that we should have an article on earthquake weather, which isn't real, and maybe a separate article(s) for documented atmospheric conditions related to earthquakes? ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 23:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Actually even combining the documented ones may be too much, unless you have references that consider them all together. We're not allowed to create articles based on perceived commonalities, unless someone else has perceived them first. --Trovatore (talk) 23:59, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Is it enough to find source that talk about weather related to earthquakes, or is it important that they say exactly "earthquake weather"? Is it enough to connect the phrase to meteorites, and then connect meteorites to EQLs? Does it even matter if I find sources, when your idea of consensus-forming is unilateral reversion? ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 00:59, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

It is important that they say exactly earthquake weather. This is a term that has an understood (if somewhat vague) meaning in folklore; to expand on it, at a minimum, you need references that use the term. Even if you had those, there would be an argument for a separate earthquake weather (lore) article or some such, given that the concepts are so different.

I don't really feel you're in a position to talk about consensus -- the talk pages show that the merger was discussed, but that there was never a consensus for it. When you make bold changes to long-standing articles, the burden is on you to show they should be kept. --Trovatore (talk) 01:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't see what is so different about the concepts? "Earthquake weather" is linked to Ion Emission, EQLs are linked to ionization, EQCs linked to ionization. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 01:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Analogy: It's roughly as though you wanted to go to the werewolf article and make it primarily about lycanthropy. Earthquake weather is a well-understood term, for a phenomenon that (probably) doesn't exist. Its nonexistence, though, is no reason not to document what is in the literature about it. --Trovatore (talk) 01:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Did you notice that lycanthropy is a redirect to werewolf? Clinical lycanthropy is a better example. I would not try to make that merger because there is so very-much content about Werewolves. This is not the case with "earthquake weather". If you want to make a definition page, that can be done at Wiktionary. I am talking about adding real-world content. Merging stubs into stubs to create content. There is not enough content on "earthquake weather" in folklore to create a full article. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 01:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed it was a redirect; I think that's an error. You're right about clinical lycanthropy; that is probably a better example.

The article is short, but I don't see that as a problem -- there are plenty of good short articles. It's better than trying to mix things together that don't mix without an original inference on the part of editors. As for "real-world content", that's completely irrelevant -- we have (and should have) lots of stuff that doesn't correspond to the actual facts of the real world. --Trovatore (talk) 01:53, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Trovatore, I didn't get to read the full lead of the article but they would be better as separate articles. The difference is that earthquake weather is disputed, but not earthquake lights, at least. See what I wrote. ceranthor 00:36, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Being disputed doesn't make it a different article, and EQLs and EQCs were disputed as well. Now there is (some) evidence to support all of them, and even connections between them if you don't mind getting your hands dirty in Google. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 01:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) The fact is, I don't understand your argument. Something that has been held as not-very-well-known folklore has recently garnered evidence that it might have bearing in real life, but that can't be mentioned in the article. There must be an article on what people don't believe, to have a separate article on what people do, even though they completely overlap. The idea that ionic disturbances in the atmosphere could be considered weather is apparently absurd, even if there are sources. Is a section in the Noah's Ark article describing real-world scientific beliefs inappropriate? It is perfectly acceptable to create a great article around something that has roots in folklore or myth. I don't understand why it wouldn't be. It's the same topic. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 02:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I've put up an RfC, as obviously we don't agree, and we are putting too much energy into this. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 02:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Request for Comment

Basically a content/policy dispute. Should earthquake cloud and earthquake light be merged into this article? Should this article contain information on real-world atmospheric phenomena related to earthquakes, or should it be limited to information on the folklore belief? If (some) validity can be shown for the folklore belief, should separate articles be created for current theory and folklore? ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 02:43, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

There's no such thing as earthquake weather, or earthquake clouds, or earthquake lights. So as long as they are accurately labeled as pseudoscience, I don't have a strong opinion if they stay as 3 articles or 1. -Atmoz (talk) 05:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Earthquake weather isn't "pseudoscience" because it makes no pretense to be science. It's folklore. Let a windless, cloudy day get a little hot and a little more humid than is usual for Los Angeles, and Angelenos will turn to each other and say "you know what it is, it's earthquake weather". And if there's an earthquake they'll be vindicated, and if there isn't it'll be forgotten.

As to earthquake clouds or earthquake lights, I have not examined the evidence and can't comment on whether they're pseudoscience. But they seem a separate thing, not part of the very specific piece of lore called earthquake weather. --Trovatore (talk) 05:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's not get into the validity of the three concepts, as another editor has already stressed the opposite opinion above, and we'll gain nothing with argument about that here. Let's instead focus on the format of the articles. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 06:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Trovatore has, on this talk page, repeatedly referred to a folkloric concept supposedly known as 'earthquake weather', and clearly stated over again that 'everyone' knows what it means. At no point that I can see has any citation of an actual folklorist been given to support this statement. Also, it has never been made clear who "everyone" is, since Trovatore seems to be the only one who's ever heard of it. I'm afraid your LA example, which I would presume is based on experience, is not an adequate WP:RS for the very existence of such a subject.

(outdent)In fact, based on the sources and statements in this article, I suggest that the actual fact of a folkloric concept called specifically 'earthquake weather' is in itself WP:OR, and this article should be deleted. Unless adequate sourcing is provided. BTW, folklore is somewhat of an actual academic discipline, did you know? Or so I'm told, I have no personal experience of it. :P Eaglizard (talk) 10:05, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

• Further note: I'm going to give it another couple of days, but if nobody responds here soon to convince me that this article even deserves to exist, I'm going to AfD it. No offense to those working on the page, but this is the sort of thing that can happen when you RfC. :/ Eaglizard (talk) 22:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I, for one, object. There are a few points I'd like to address:
    1. Earthquake cloud already failed an AFD for which I nominated it, thus I think an AFD of the three merged articles will survive. Earthquake weather is a notable topic; are are a few reliable sources I found just from a quick google search (WiseGeek Southern California Earthquake Center) One might argue that these sources refute the existence of something, thus it should not have an article; but remember, something doesn't have to exist to be a notable topic.
    2. I agree with the merge of Earthquake cloud --> Earthquake weather. To me, a cloud=weather (see cloud), and earthquake cloud was barely beyond a stub once all the WP:POV and WP:OR crap was removed.
    3. However, I do object to the merge of Earthquake light --> Earthquake weather, because I have seen no evidence of people claiming that earthquake lights are meteorological phenomena: they are geological in nature as I understand the theory goes. They are related, but not to the point where they should appear under one banner. -RunningOnBrains^{(talk page)} 18:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Just to clarify, if no verifiable info on earthquake lights can be found, they should probably redirect to earthquake prediction rather than here (Earth light and Earthquake lights should be changed as well). -RunningOnBrains^{(talk page)} 18:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Running. I was certainly hoping someone would defend the article! I for one have little interest in the noisy waters of AfD. :/

While I completely agree that there is a common concept often referred to as "earthquake weather", I feel that it should be presented in proper context. If its a vernacular phrase, describe it as such. Claiming it is "folklore", however, could be a slightly higher standard. Or not, I really don't know. Maybe it exists in some "dictionary of folklore" or whatever it would be. But that's exactly what I would read this article to find out...Eaglizard (talk) 21:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the existence of three different cultural artifacts with the same title "Earthquake Weather", listed at Earthquake weather (disambiguation), makes it obvious that (contra Eaglizard) the name and concept of "earthquake weather" is widespread. Although I believe the name in current usage primarily refers to hot still weather, I have no objection to merging the other articles on related conditions into this one as well. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:45, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

We'll ignore the fact that WP is not a RS. Speaking of Joe Strummer, how about the phrase Death or Glory? Arguably more common and widespread than "eq". It has a dab listing 8 significant "cultural artifacts". It has no page of its own. Listen, I'm not saying "earthquake weather" doesn't exist, or doesn't deserve an article. (I might say that eventually, but I'm not saying it now.) I'm just asking that the subject be clarified. What is it exactly? A meme? A phrase? A "cultural artifact"? Do we have one source that calls it anything in particular? Eaglizard (talk) 09:04, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

You didn't even try looking it up in Google scholar, did you?

“ The term “earthquake weather” is often encountered in California, but meteorological textbooks do not mention it. Those who use the term are unanimous in referring to a condition of hot and calm weather, without much cloud, but usually more or less haze. The condition is not greatly unlike that which usually precedes a summer afternoon thunderstorm in the Middle West. As the term “earthquake weather” has not yet become commonplace in scientific literature it would be interesting to learn what seismologists think about the matter." ” — Palmer, Andrew H. (1918), "California earthquakes during 1917", Bull. Selsm. Soc. America, 8: 10. As quoted in "Earthquake Weather", Monthly Weather Review, 46 (4): 180–181, 1918, doi:10.1175/1520-0493(1918)46<180c:EW>2.0.CO;2.

I think in the 90 years since these two reliable sources were published, there might have been a few other references as well; Google scholar gives 275 hits for that phrase, although some are just coincidental concatenations of the two words. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:22, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

How about a new article entitled, Pre-Earthquake Phenomena? We could wrap all three articles, weather/clouds/lights, into that.BrendanFrye (talk) 02:14, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Eh, I decided to be bold and merged earthquake clouds into earthquake weather. Seems to be some consensus on this page for that. Didn't touch Earthquake Lights, in terms of a merge, as there is no consensus for that. BrendanFrye (talk) 23:07, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with this. "Earthquake weather" is not just any weather phenomenon that someone associates with earthquakes. It is a specific piece of folklore. Articles should not become grab bags, nor should they break ground in treating at the same time topics that have traditionally been treated separately. --Trovatore (talk) 03:12, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure, that's fine. BrendanFrye (talk) 04:19, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

USGS Earthquake Lights page

What happened to it? I was reading it just last week.124.158.32.91 (talk) 21:48, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Herodotus the Time-Traveller

"This theory led to a belief in earthquake weather". Mmm, no it didn't. Spread it, supported it, popularized it perhaps; but a 4th century theory of Aristotle could not possibly be the source of belief in a phenomenon described by Herodotus -- who died before Aristotle was born!

(Yes, I know the USGS page says this. It's still nonsensical. They're geologists, not classicists.)

And unless the USGS material is public domain, its wholesale insertion here may be a copyright issue. Vultur (talk) 13:24, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

USGS would be public domain, however I think it should be credited.209.91.15.36 (talk) 05:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Bad link

I tried following the first reference [John S. Derr (January 2005). "FAQs: What are earthquake lights? Are they real?". United States Geological Survey. Retrieved July 11, 2009.], but I I could not find anything about earthquake lights in USGS's FAQ. It seems like the entry has been removed from the FAQ, and it would be interesting to know why.

Googling brought me to http://www.sott.net/articles/show/157210-FAQ-Earthquake-Effects-Experiences which may be the original FAQ entry, but I don't think this kind of site can be used as a trustworthy source. Perhaps there exists an archived version of the original FAQ entry somewhere else? If not, I guess this reference can not be used. Danmichaelo (talk) 20:23, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Witsunday Vocanic Provience Queensland

Bowen seems to be a good place to view Volcanic earthquake lights across the bay they seem to be frequent at the moment......anyone else noticed?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.165.119.123 (talk) 01:56, 6 January 2012 (UTC) 

They occure every now and again today..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.213.26.103 (talk) 03:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC)