California Forest Fires, are They Caused by Climate Change or is Something Else Occurring.

a reply to: 5StarOracle

Yes, people can start fires for malicious intent, but these people have no control over what happens after they start a fire/fires.

originally posted by: BeefNoMeat
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

So Phage woke up, stubbed his toe and spilled coffee on his spam — it’s still midday out there — he’s allowed a mistake every decade or so.
...

Phage makes a lot more mistakes than that, it's just that Phage never admits to any mistakes. Just of note, several years ago (first thread started back in 2006, Phage wasn't in ATS yet but in other threads years later Phage would argue there was no evidence for this) I started a thread showing how interstellar dust, and even the amount of energy entering our Solar System, and Earth, was increasing. I argued that all the evidence showed that this trend would continue, and we would continue to receive more and more of these events with more and more energy, and interstellar dust making it's way to us. I argued that this extra energy, and particles from outside the Solar System would change the dynamics in every planet with an atmosphere, and it would even change our Sun.

I showed how even back in 1978 there were French astronomers who were arguing that there was a new region of the Local Fluff that if Earth/the solar system were to enter could cause dramatic Climate Changes. Back then it was thought that it would take 10,000-50,000 years for the Solar System/Earth to enter this cloud, but a couple years ago or so it was discovered that we are much closer to that region of the Local Fluff, and within less than 100 years we will be well within that cloud, unless something happens to change our direction. I have shown since then that we have encountered small cloudlets of this region which can account for the changes we have seen occurring not only on Earth, but to planets and moons with an atmosphere in our Solar System, as well as our Sun. Phage was one of the naysayers claiming there was no evidence for any of this.

Here is one of my original threads from back in 2006.

The Whole Solar System is Undergoing Global Warming.

Ribbon at edge of our solar system: Will the Sun enter a million-degree cloud of interstellar gas?

Here we are today with my argument being true, and Phage alongside other naysayers being wrong. That's not the only time Phage has been wrong. i have posted actual research from several astronomers/astro-physicists who for example were arguing that solar activity can trigger earthquakes on Earth. Like always Phage has claimed there is no evidence for this even though several research papers argue the contrary to what Phage claims. These are just some of the instances that Phage has been wrong.

BTW, perhaps some have forgotten, but planets and moons with an atmosphere in our Solar System are still experiencing dramatic Climate Changes in the form of warming.

Scientists find evidence of global warming on Mars

The article above is from May 2016. Mars has also been warming since at least 2001.

Climate Change on Jupiter.
Is shrinking superstorm evidence of climate change on Jupiter?

Climate change on Saturn.

The sudden warming of Saturn at least since 2004 which NASA could not truly explain.

The inexplicable enormous storms that appeared on a normally free storm Saturn but have appeared earlier than ever before.

And now.

Hexagon on Saturn: Nasa scientists ponder colour-changing north pole

Saturn's moon Titan also undergoing warming.
Is Titan Earth's evil twin? Saturn's moon has giant dunes made of METHANE that hint at dramatic global warming

The unexpected warm temperatures of Saturn's moon Enceladus.

Even Pluto and it's moon Charon some time ago started emitting more x-rays than their cores could produce, which seems to point to them just re-emitting x-rays they are absorbing from some other source.

Pluto is alive—but where is the heat coming from?

One more time... The Solar System is continuing to receive more and more high energetic cosmic rays, especially x-rays.

There's another more exotic explanation that many will scoff at. Research it and see if it isn't not only feasible but downright likely.

Space based satellites, wildfires and PG&E

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I am still of the mind that the neglect of Forestry Management Protocols regarding underbrush and dead-tree removal is the primary reason for all the ready Fuel-for-Fires out there in All of California's scenic landscape & woodlands


the libs shot-themselves-in-the-foot Again with the stupid --- Let Nature Do It's Thing policy


same stupidity with the Open Borders crappola...they reap undesired consequences for knucklehead ideas .>>> Ravaged Forests and ravished females the result of halfwitted notions

a reply to: Knapperdude

I have a friend who rents a herd of goats to help clear land of unwanted brush and weeds. That's what California needs to do to manage the grasslands.

I'd would love to chat with you sometime about your ring counting and the kinds of events you are able to determine from reading them. People are blown away when I can read an old tree stump and tell them what the environment was 150 years ago. The whole life story of those trees are written in the rings. Fascinating to no end for me. Are you a flintknapper by chance as well?

Moved to another thread

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Those are not "events". I guess you missed this:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: proteus33

Poor management, people wanting to maliciously start fires, plus the "natural climate change" and other geological changes Earth is undergoing all would make fires, and other catastrophes worse.

originally posted by: Phage

Those are not "events". I guess you missed this:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Thomas Andersen, PhD, calls them events...

...
Version 1.2 of the Cosmic Ray App now has the ability to sends events to the Cosmic Ray Observer server! Take part in a real physics experiment. Events are shown in real time on the cosmicrayobserver.com global server.
...

cosmicrayapp.com...

There you go... As for your claim, yet again, that it is normal you are once again ignoring all the data combined which tells a different picture to your claims...

I know you are a control freak, and you need to believe that you, and the AGWarmers are capable of stopping/controlling nature and the entire galaxy from causing changes on Earth. But sooner or later you have to put on your big boy/girl pants and realize that there are a lot of things you, or anyone else, can't control and we can only adapt to those changes...

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Ok. A cosmic ray strike is an "event."
Events that happens everywhere, all the time.

Did you see Dr. Andersen's response to my questions?

Hi Sam,

The app records cosmic rays from space, these hit at about the same rate everywhere on the planet, at about 100 per second per meter sq. So about 50 - 100 cosmic rays pass through your body each second.

In the screenshot below, three iPhones are collecting data in North America, the smaller dots show phones that have done so in the past weeks.

So sometimes there will be a large circle, it just shows a single phone, watching for cosmic rays. Note that airline staff and people who live in Denver get more cosmic rays as they are higher up in the atmosphere.

--------------------------
Thomas Andersen, PhD

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Perhaps you may want to ask him yourself if you find his response to me unsatisfactory.

a reply to: Phage

Yes...they do happen all the time... But if we are receiving more cosmic rays, including x-rays, from outside the Solar System, does that mean that it is the norm and these events are not happening more and more frequent to the point that more secondary cosmic rays, including x-rays, are making it to the surface of the Earth?... More energy being received at high altitudes, and at the Earth's surface will cause changes to the Earth's climate, as well as geological events which we have been witnessing keep happening more and more frequent... despite you "phage' claiming the contrary...

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

does that mean that it is the norm and these events are not happening more and more frequent

Yes, cosmic ray flux increases during solar minimum and decreases during solar max, but you are talking about massive cosmic ray strikes causing the California fires. There is no massive concentration of cosmic ray strikes. You made an incorrect assumption about what you were seeing.

including x-rays, are making it to the surface of the Earth?

X-rays don't really make it to the surface of the Earth. That is why rockets and satellites are used to make observations of solar, interstellar, and intergalactic x-rays. www-xray.ast.cam.ac.uk...

More energy being received at high altitudes, and at the Earth's surface will cause changes to the Earth's climate

That would depend upon the on the form of energy. For example, the upper atmosphere is not the same as the troposphere. It has a dramatic temperature response to the Solar cycle, the troposphere does not.

as well as geological events which we have been witnessing keep happening more and more frequent

I assume you mean earthquakes, again.

originally posted by: Phage

Yes, cosmic ray flux increases during solar minimum and decreases during solar max, but you are talking about massive cosmic ray strikes causing the California fires. There is no massive concentration of cosmic ray strikes. You made an incorrect assumption about what you were seeing.

First of all, i didn't state that "cosmic ray strikes" caused the California fires..." You should learn some reading comprehension. However, the "worsening" situation with the amount of cosmic rays, including x-rays, increasingly hitting us more and more will affect, and has been affecting the Earth's climate despite you claiming it isn't so...

Even during solar maximums the amount of cosmic rays, including x-rays, we keep receiving has been increasing more and more despite "you Phage" claiming the contrary.

originally posted by: Phage
X-rays don't make it to the surface of the Earth. That is why rockets and satellites are used to make observations of solar, interstellar, and intergalactic x-rays.

More X-rays, and other cosmic rays, hitting Earth's atmosphere don't simply dissipate and disappear... They cause secondary reactions in the upper atmosphere and down below which affect every layer of Earth's atmosphere including Earth's surface...

originally posted by: Phage
The would depend on the on the form of energy. The upper atmosphere is not the same as the troposphere.

Where in the world did i write "the upper atmosphere is the same as the Troposphere..."? Excerpt where i made such a claim or admit you are simply making red herrings and claiming things about my posts that I didn't write...

originally posted by: Phage
I assume you mean earthquakes, again.

Not just earthquakes...an increase in other geological activity as well such as volcanic activity, and an increase in activity in underwater vents/underwater volcanoes, which there could be more than 3 million underwater volcanoes compared to the ~150-155 land volcanoes that are active.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

First of all, i didn't state that "cosmic ray strikes" caused the California fires

Fair enough. This is what you said:

Now, for the past 45 minutes or so i have seen at least one of the two overlapping events increase from 809 to over 890. But it keeps going up and down. That number we are seeing is from just one of the two events.

What a coincidence that this increase in Cosmic Rays is occurring worse than what we have seen since we started observing the space weather, and we are seeing the worse forest fires in California not seen in 80 years.

It sounded like you were going for a direct cause and effect with those California "events."

Even during solar maximums the amount of cosmic rays, including x-rays, we keep receiving has been increasing more and more despite "you Phage" claiming the contrary.

No. I didn't claim that. But I did point out that solar activity has been decreasing for some time. I even posted this chart to demonstrate it. As you can see, the counts are not particularly high in comparison to other solar minimums. It's a bit disingenous of you to start the chart you posted during a solar max of 1990-1991.

They cause secondary reactions in the upper atmosphere and down below which affect every layer of Earth's atmosphere including Earth's surface...

For example?

Where in the world did i write "the upper atmosphere is the same as the Troposphere..."?

Nowhere, I was pointing out that the effects of incoming energy vary.

an increase in other geological activity as well such as volcanic activity, and an increase in underwater vents/underwater volcanoes, which there could be more than 3 million underwater volcanoes compared to the ~150-155 land volcanoes that are active.

There is no indication that surface volcanic activity is increasing, or that undersea activity is increasing.

Or earthquakes, for that matter.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Fair enough, Miss. I have no dog in your’s and Phage’s back-and-forth, but I will say once you even that score with him, you’d be best served leaving it at that. It’s a sunk cost. You’re never getting the time, effort, or embarrassment back. Tap out.

And, no, you didn’t claim cosmic rays caused the wildfires, but as I mentioned earlier, the OP was — ostensibly — an attempt to say “hey, those crazy Cali liberals aren’t burning down because of the climate change religion they preach, but instead, it’s likely related to cosmic rays more so than climate change”. Be a strong woman and just admit it. It’s all good.

Whatever. This sh$t is like talking to a lobotomized keyboard warrior. You and 90% of the regulars here are dug in and will never accept the science of the Carbon Cycle, come hell or high water (muthaf$cking pun intended).


ETA: What’d you do to get banned the first time? And no, your types don’t forget their login or whatever lame-a$$ excuse, beyond being legitimately banned.

originally posted by: Phage

No. I didn't claim that. But I did point out that solar activity has been decreasing for some time. That would indicate that cosmic ray flux would be increasing.

LOL, you were just claiming in this thread that the amount of cosmic rays/xrays hitting us is normal... You even tried to claim that's what the email of Dr. Thomas Andersen is stating even though that's not what he wrote...

originally posted by: Phage
For example?

...
Phage is leaving out the fact that the strength of Earth's magnetic field also affects on whether or not cosmic rays penetrate our two barriers and hit Earth's surface.

The cosmic rays which first hit Earth's magnetic field are called "primary cosmic rays." When primary cosmic rays hit Earth's atmosphere the rays collide with atoms producing "secondary cosmic rays." When those secondary cosmic rays hit other atoms in our atmosphere they produce more secondary cosmic rays.

Of course the strength of the cosmic rays will decrease as they keep on colliding with atoms in our atmosphere/magnetic field.
But if the primary cosmic rays have enough energy, greater than 500 million electron volts, the atmospheric cascade they produce will reach Earth's surface.

COSMIC RAYS AND EARTH

In another thread I showed how back in 2008 the cosmic ray energy increase hitting Earth had increased to 300-800 billion electron volts.

Since then cosmic rays reaching our Solar System and Earth have continued to increase, which means more and more nuclear byproducts produced by the cascading effect of the primary cosmic rays are reaching Earth's surface.

originally posted by: Phage
Nowhere, I was pointing out that the effects of incoming energy vary.

When you specifically claim in a response to another person, and I quote:

originally posted by: Phage
The would depend on the on the form of energy. The upper atmosphere is not the same as the troposphere.

You are implying that somewhere i made the argument that "the upper atmosphere is the same as the Troposphere..."

originally posted by: Phage
There is no indication that surface volcanic activity is increasing, or that undersea activity is increasing.

Or earthquakes, for that matter.

So you keep claiming, meanwhile actual geologists/volcanologists state the opposite of your claims...

The 2010–2014.3 global earthquake rate increase
Tom Parsons 1 and Eric L. Geist 1

1 U. S. Geological Survey, Menlo Park, California, USA
...
1. Introduction

Obvious increases in the global rate of large (M ≥ 7.0) earthquakes happened after 1992, 2010, and especially during the first quarter of 2014 (Table 1 and Figure 1). Given these high rates, along with suggestions that damaging earthquakes may be causatively linked at global distance [e.g., Gomberg and Bodin, 1994; Pollitz et al., 1998; Tzanis and Makropoulos, 2002; Bufe and Perkins, 2005; Gonzalez-Huizar et al., 2012; Pollitz et al., 2012, 2014], we investigate whether there is a significant departure from a random process underlying these rate changes. Recent studies have demonstrated that M ≥ 7.0 earthquakes (and also tsunamis) that occurred since 1900 follow a Poisson process [e.g., Michael, 2011; Geist and Parsons, 2011; Daub et al., 2012; Shearer and Stark, 2012; Parsons and Geist, 2012; Ben-Naim et al., 2013]. Here we focus on the period since 2010, which has M ≥ 7.0 rates increased by 65% and M ≥ 5.0 rates up 32% compared with the 1979 – present average. The first quarter of 2014 experienced more than double the average M ≥ 7.0 rate, enough to intrigue the news media [e.g., www.nbcnews.com...]. We extend our analysis to M ≥ 5.0 levels, as many of these lower magnitude events convey significant hazard, and global catalogs have not generally been tested down to these thresholds.

2. Methods and Data

We work with the Advanced National Seismic System (ANSS) catalog of M≥ 5.0 global earthquakes for the period between 1979 and 2014.3 with a primary focus on the recent interval between 2010 and 2014.3 that shows the highest earthquake rates (Table 1 and Figure 1). A variety of tests suggest that the catalog is complete down to magnitudes between M=4.6 and M=5.2, depending on the method used to assess it (see supporting information). We examine a range of lower magnitude thresholds above M =5.0 to account for this uncertainty.
...

profile.usgs.gov...

The two USGS seismologists who posted their findings are Tom Parsons and Eric L. Geist.

Underwater volcanoes, not climate change, reason behind melting of West Antarctic Ice Sheet

There are an estimated 3 million underwater volcanos, and most of them are bigger than the majority of the land volcanos.

As for your claim about "the sun's activity decreasing overall, i have posted some of the strange changes our own sun has been undergoing.

Declining solar activity linked to recent warming

The Sun may have caused as much warming as carbon dioxide over three years.

Quirin Schiermeier

An analysis of satellite data challenges the intuitive idea that decreasing solar activity cools Earth, and vice versa. In fact, solar forcing of Earth's surface climate seems to work the opposite way around — at least during the current Sun cycle.

Joanna Haigh, an atmospheric physicist at Imperial College London, and her colleagues analysed daily measurements of the spectral composition of sunlight made between 2004 and 2007 by NASA's Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment (SORCE) satellite. They found that the amount of visible light reaching Earth increased as the Sun's activity declined — warming the Earth's surface. Their unexpected findings are published today in Nature1.
...
Haigh's team compared SORCE's solar spectrum data with wavelengths predicted by a standard empirical model based mainly on sunspot numbers and area, and noticed unexpected differences. The amount of ultraviolet radiation in the spectrum was four to six times smaller than that predicted by the empirical model, but an increase in radiation in the visible wavelength, which warms the Earth's surface, compensated for the decrease.

Contrary to expectations, the net amount of solar energy reaching Earth's troposphere — the lowest part of the atmosphere — seems to have been larger in 2007 than in 2004, despite the decline in solar activity over that period.
...

(continued below)

...
"We're seeing — albeit limited to a very short period — a very interesting change in solar irradiation with remarkably similar changes in ozone," says Haigh. "It might be a coincidence, and it does require verification, but our findings could be too important to not publish them now."
Sun surprise

The full implications of the discovery are unclear. Haigh says that the current solar cycle could be different from previous cycles, for unknown reasons. But it is also possible that the effects of solar variability on atmospheric temperatures and ozone are substantially different from what has previously been assumed.
...

www.nature.com...

You also forget the fact that the molten iron river speeding under Russia and Canada was found to have trebled in speed.

Molten iron river discovered speeding beneath Russia and Canada

This would increase the pressure in the Earth's crust, which would increase the activity of underwater and land based volcanoes.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

LOL, you were just claiming in this thread that the amount of cosmic rays/xrays hitting us is normal.

It is, for being near solar minimum. Why did you post a chart which begins during a solar maximum and extends to a solar minimum? That's called cherry picking.



And speaking of cherry picking:

Obvious increases in the global rate of large (M ≥ 7.0) earthquakes happened after 1992, 2010, and especially during the first quarter of 2014

As can be seen in the chart I posted.

As for your claim about "the sun's activity decreasing overall, i have posted some of the strange changes our own sun has been undergoing.

That article is talking about the period from 2004-2007. What's strange about declining solar activity after solar max?

This would increase the pressure in the Earth's crust, which would increase the activity of underwater and land based volcanoes.

According to whom?