It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Solar System Travelling to An Area Much Hotter and Denser Which Could Explain Climate Change.

page: 5
80
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 22 2022 @ 09:23 PM
link   
One more thing. This Interstellar Cloud has a very strong magnetic field.



Published: 24 December 2009

A strong, highly-tilted interstellar magnetic field near the Solar System

M. Opher, F. Alouani Bibi, G. Toth, J. D. Richardson, V. V. Izmodenov & T. I. Gombosi

Abstract

Magnetic fields play an important (sometimes dominant) role in the evolution of gas clouds in the Galaxy, but the strength and orientation of the field in the interstellar medium near the heliosphere has been poorly constrained. Previous estimates of the field strength range from 1.8–2.5 μG and the field was thought to be parallel to the Galactic plane1 or inclined by 38–60° (ref. 2) or 60–90° (ref. 3) to this plane. These estimates relied either on indirect observational inferences or modelling in which the interstellar neutral hydrogen was not taken into account. Here we report measurements of the deflection of the solar wind plasma flows in the heliosheath4 to determine the magnetic field strength and orientation in the interstellar medium. We find that the field strength in the local interstellar medium is 3.7–5.5 μG. The field is tilted ∼20–30° from the interstellar medium flow direction (resulting from the peculiar motion of the Sun in the Galaxy) and is at an angle of about 30° from the Galactic plane. We conclude that the interstellar medium field is turbulent or has a distortion in the solar vicinity.


A strong, highly-tilted interstellar magnetic field near the Solar System


What's more, there is evidence that geomagnetic field variations affect the climate of planets like Earth. So when a new strong geomagnetic field is introduced in the Solar System it will, and does, cause drastic changes to planets, moons and even the Sun itself.


Title:
Climate determinism or Geomagnetic determinism?
Authors:
Gallet, Y.; Genevey, A.; Le Goff, M.; Fluteau, F.; Courtillot, V.
...
Abstract

A number of episodes of sharp geomagnetic field variations (in both intensity and direction), lasting on the order of a century, have been identified in archeomagnetic records from Western Eurasia and have been called "archeomagnetic jerks". These seem to correlate well with multi-decadal cooling episodes detected in the North Atlantic Ocean and Western Europe, suggesting a causal link between both phenomena. A possible mechanism could be a geomagnetic modulation of the cosmic ray flux that would control the nucleation rate of clouds. We wish to underline the remarkable coincidence between archeomagnetic jerks, cooling events in Western Europe and drought periods in tropical and sub-tropical regions of the northern hemisphere. The latter two can be interpreted in terms of global teleconnections among regional climates. It has been suggested that these climatic variations had caused major changes in the history of ancient civilizations, such as in Mesopotamia, which were critically dependent on water supply and particularly vulnerable to lower rainfall amounts. This is one of the foundations of "climate determinism". Our studies, which suggest a geomagnetic origin for at least some of the inferred climatic events, lead us to propose the idea of a geomagnetic determinism in the history of humanity.

Climate determinism or Geomagnetic determinism?

Climate determinism or Geomagnetic determinism?




Abstract

We report new archeointensity results from Iranian and Syrian archeological excavations dated from the second millennium BC. These high-temperature magnetization data were obtained using a laboratory-built triaxial vibrating sample magnetometer. Together with our previously published archeointensity results from Mesopotamia, we constructed a rather detailed geomagnetic field intensity variation curve for this region from 3000 BC to 0 BC. Four potential geomagnetic events (“archeomagnetic jerks”), marked by strong intensity increases, are observed and appear to be synchronous with cooling episodes in the North Atlantic. This temporal coincidence strengthens the recent suggestion that the geomagnetic field influences climate change over multi-decadal time scales, possibly through the modulation of cosmic ray flux interacting with the atmosphere.
...

Possible impact of the Earth's magnetic field on the history of ancient civilizations


The Mayans: Climate determinism or geomagnetic determinism?

So we have evidence that geomagnetic variations can be seen in the historical record as having an effect on the climate of Earth.

But what's more, large magnetic fields do affect iron atoms and planets like Earth are rich with iron atoms. So it is plausible that geomagnetic variations also affect the iron atoms that are part of a planet's core hence influence what happens to the core of planets like Earth.

The fact that we are entering this Interstellar cloud which has a large magnetic field could very well be the reason why we see an increase in the heat being produced by the core of planets and moons which are geologically active.

The introduction of this large magnetic field from the Interstellar Cloud first affected Pluto causing Pluto to exert more heat as it kept orbiting away from Earth.

Then a couple years later we started to see that the amount of cosmic rays from an unknown source close to our Solar System kept increasing which also have been affecting Earth and other planetary objects, moons and even our Sun itself has been affected.

This new strong magnetic field from the interstellar cloud is causing the iron atoms in the liquid core of planets and moons to increase in speed.

So the Solar System, and even our sun, have shown drastic changes not seen in the past which could be explained due to our encounter with the Interstellar cloud which is denser and has a strong magnetic field.

In this thread I also included a scientific research that proves Earth's molten iron started tripling it's speed around the year 2000.


Deep below our planet’s surface a molten jet of iron nearly as hot as the surface of the sun is picking up speed.

This stream of liquid has been discovered for the first time by telltale magnetic field readings 3000 kilometres below North America and Russia taken from space.

The vast jet stream some 420 kilometres wide has trebled in speed since 2000, and is now circulating westwards at between 40 and 45 kilometres per year deep under Siberia and heading towards beneath Europe (see diagram, below). That is three times faster than typical speeds of liquid in the outer core.
...

...
Livermore thinks the acceleration of the jet is down to push-back from magnetic fields. The flow of iron generates the magnetic field, but, he says, the magnetic field may then be affecting the flow of the iron.
...
www.newscientist.com...



edit on 22-6-2022 by ElectricUniverse because: add excerpt and correct links.



posted on Jun, 24 2022 @ 08:19 PM
link   
a reply to: VierEyes

Adapting to changes isn't thwarting mother nature. What a weird thing to say.



posted on Jun, 24 2022 @ 08:36 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785

So what are you personally and your party doing to prepare?



posted on Jun, 24 2022 @ 08:41 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

I learned in a 4th grade experiment that co2 traps heat.

Less of that in the atmosphere would be a good start.

What would you do? Nothing?



posted on Jun, 24 2022 @ 10:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: scraedtosleep

I learned in a 4th grade experiment that co2 traps heat.

Less of that in the atmosphere would be a good start.

What would you do? Nothing?


Apparently you didn't learn that atmospheric CO2 is needed for life on planet Earth to exist, and atmospheric CO2 is plant food...

In case you didn't know, 99% of all life on Earth is CARBON BASED... Which means we need CARBON/atmospheric CO2 for life to exist and thrive on Earth...

CO2 as a greenhouse gas is nearly inconsequential. First of all, as a greenhouse gas it only exists at 0.04% of all gases in our atmosphere.

Water vapor is molecule for molecule 10 times stronger as a greenhouse gas than CO2. Water vapor also exists as up to about 5% of all gases in the atmosphere around the Ecuator and in the poles from about 0.01%-1%. Which is a lot higher than atmospheric CO2 content for the most part.

What's more, real science has discovered that in the poles atmospheric CO2 has a cooling effect, and even though at the poles water vapor content can be as low as 0.01% at around -42C, the poles of Earth have been the areas of the planet in which the most warming has been occurring. Which means that CO2 is not the cause of the "warming."

This is direct evidence that CO2 is not the cause of the warming on Earth.

As it is atmospheric CO2 is still low, even at 0.04% of all atmospheric gases. Study after study has found that increased levels of atmospheric CO2 increases vegetation growth. Even NASA had to admit that Earth has become greener because of the increased atmospheric CO2.

Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds

Lowering atmospheric CO2 will lower the amount of vegetation on Earth, will lower the amount of food we can grow. Will cause vegetation to need more water, leaving less for humans and animals.


Flora around the world are sucking up 17 percent more heat-trapping gas than 30 years ago — and appear to be doing it without increasing water consumption.
By John Dyer

Published on 7/28/2017 at 3:06 PM
...
Canadell and his colleagues showed that plants are becoming more efficient at using carbon dioxide to thrive while requiring less water by tightening tiny pores called stomata that permit gas to enter without letting water out, said Canadell. “The incredible finding is that plants are able to increase carbon uptake and create biomass and carbon stock in the biomass but with barely any extra use of water,” he said.
...


Plants Are Absorbing More CO2 From the Atmosphere Without Using More Water

Rising CO2 is causing plants to release less water to the atmosphere, researchers say

Recent increases in terrestrial carbon uptake at little cost to the water cycle

Response of plants' water use efficiency to increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration

What's more, an increase in atmospheric CO2 levels causes plants to release less water to the atmosphere in the form of vapor. Water vapor is a far stronger greenhouse gas than CO2 will ever be. So plants themselves are helping cool the atmosphere. But the increase in warming is not just due to water vapor, and much less to CO2. I posted evidence that shows that the Solar System, and Earth, have been getting more and more cosmic rays, and also the magnetic field from the interstellar cloud we are encountering and we are going into can explain the increase in the heat being emitted by planets and moons that are geologically active. This addition of a large magnetic field in our Solar System is causing the iron atoms in the iron molten rivers which are part of the outer core of planets and moons to increase in speed, which increases the pressure and increases the heat that planets and moons that are geologically active exert.

This also explains why this has been happening, which the green activist passing for scientists don't want people to know.

Volcano discovered under fastest-melting Antarctic glacier

Hidden Volcanoes Melt Antarctic Glaciers from Below

NASA Discovers Mantle Plume Almost as Hot as Yellowstone Supervolcano That's Melting Antarctica From Below

Atmospheric CO2 is not and has not been the cause of Climate Change. If it was so, we wouldn't have caught even "green activists" passing for scientists having lied and used scared tactics which were lies to impose their religion of "human induced climate change." The activist scientists wouldn't have had a need to falsify data, erase raw temperature data, etc if there was any truth to their claims.

The Greatest Scientific Fraud Of All Time -- Part XXIII

UN IPCC Official Admits 'We Redistribute World's Wealth By Climate Policy'

Scientists discover 91 volcanoes below Antarctic ice sheet

Molten iron river discovered speeding beneath Russia and Canada

This is Why it is Not Possible that CO2 is the Cause of Global Warming.

EPA Chief concedes climate rule; it's about 'reinventing a global economy'

A Heated Debate: Are Climate Scientists Being Forced to Toe the Line?

Thousands and Thousands of Scientists Can't be Behind a Hoax(AGW), Right?

Peer Reviewed Scientific Research That Refutes Anthropogenic Global Warming and More.



edit on 24-6-2022 by ElectricUniverse because: add comments, excerpts and links.



posted on Jun, 25 2022 @ 04:22 AM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

This is actually pretty simple to confirm

If this is true you'd be seeing a commensurate rise in the upper most layers of the atmosphere, the ones that are widely considered to be part of outer space, rather than the breathable parts, which are beyond the range of man made pollution, with the heat generated radiating downwards.

If it is false you'd be seeing a marginal rise in the upper most layers caused by trapped heat radiating upwards.

We'd also be seeing a similar phenomena on the moon which actually has an extremely thin atmosphere (Seriously, I grew up thinking that it didn't too, but it Really Does) commensurate with it's significantly lower mass and gravity

Anyone want to run the numbers?
edit on 25-6-2022 by AaarghZombies because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2022 @ 06:07 PM
link   
a reply to: AaarghZombies

We have to take into consideration as well the increased cosmic rays that Earth has been receiving from an unknown source close to, or even inside, the Solar System. These cosmic rays normally are trapped and stopped in the upper atmosphere, but we have been receiving more than enough for them to also reach the surface of Earth. In a similar thread to this one I ran the numbers and it was more than enough to reach the surface of the Earth.

As for my argument that the upper atmosphere has been warming up? I have already posted proof of it in the past. You have to understand that this interplanetary cloud is not homogeneous, we have been encountering sections of it already which have also increased the amount of interplanetary dust that the Solar System has been receiving and not just an increase in cosmic rays.


ESA sees stardust storms heading for Solar System

PRESS RELEASE
Date Released: Monday, August 18, 2003
Source: Artemis Society

Until ten years ago, most astronomers did not believe stardust could enter our Solar System. Then ESA's Ulysses spaceprobe discovered minute stardust particles leaking through the Sun's magnetic shield, into the realm of Earth and the other planets. Now, the same spaceprobe has shown that a flood of dusty particles is heading our way.
...........
What is surprising in this new Ulysses discovery is that the amount of stardust has continued to increase even after the solar activity calmed down and the magnetic field resumed its ordered shape in 2001.
...

www.spaceref.com...



Space 29 September 2009

By David Shiga

Space radiation hits record high

Now, the influx of galactic cosmic rays into our solar system has reached a record high. Measurements by NASA's Advanced Composition Explorer (ACE) spacecraft indicate that cosmic rays are 19 per cent more abundant than any previous level seen since space flight began a half century ago."The space era has so far experienced a time of relatively low cosmic ray activity," says Richard Mewaldt of Caltech, who is a member of the ACE team. "We may now be returning to levels typical of past centuries."

www.newscientist.com...




Surprise In Earth's Upper Atmosphere: Mode Of Energy Transfer From The Solar Wind


www.sciencedaily.com
"Its like something else is heating the atmosphere besides the sun. This discovery is like finding it got hotter when the sun went down," said Larry Lyons, UCLA professor of atmospheric and oceanic sciences and a co-author of the research, which is in press in two companion papers in the Journal of Geophysical Research.
...
"We all have thought for our entire careers — I learned it as a graduate student — that this energy transfer rate is primarily controlled by the direction of the interplanetary magnetic field," Lyons said. "The closer to southward-pointing the magnetic field is, the stronger the energy transfer rate is, and the stronger the magnetic field is in that direction. If it is both southward and big, the energy transfer rate is even bigger."

However, Lyons, Kim and their colleagues analyzed radar data that measure the strength of the interaction by measuring flows in the ionosphere, the part of Earth's upper atmosphere ionized by solar radiation. The results surprised them.

"Any space physicist, including me, would have said a year ago there could not be substorms when the interplanetary magnetic field was staying northward, but that's wrong," Lyons said. "Generally, it's correct, but when you have a fluctuating interplanetary magnetic field, you can have substorms going off once per hour.
...




Steve Cole
Headquarters, Washington
202-358-0918
[email protected]

Nov. 19, 2008

WASHINGTON -- Scientists announced Wednesday the discovery of a previously unidentified nearby source of high-energy cosmic rays. The finding was made with a NASA-funded balloon-borne instrument high over Antarctica.

Researchers from the Advanced Thin Ionization Calorimeter (ATIC) collaboration, led by scientists at Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, published the results in the Nov. 20 issue of the journal Nature. The new results show an unexpected surplus of cosmic ray electrons at very high energy -- 300-800 billion electron volts -- that must come from a previously unidentified source or from the annihilation of very exotic theoretical particles used to explain dark matter.

"This electron excess cannot be explained by the standard model of cosmic ray origin," said John P. Wefel, ATIC project principal investigator and a professor at Louisiana State. "There must be another source relatively near us that is producing these additional particles."
...


Mysterious Source of High-Energy Cosmic Radiation Discovered

Stratospheric Radiation on Earth Continues to Increase.

Cosmic Rays, especially X-Rays, The Solar System is Receiving Have been Increasing



Posted on November 19, 2008 by Nancy Atkinson

Cosmic Rays from Mysterious Source Bombarding Earth

[/caption]

Scientists have discovered an unidentified source of high-energy cosmic rays bombarding Earth from space. They say it must be close to the solar system and it could be made of dark matter. “This is a big discovery,” says John Wefel of Louisiana State University and Principal Investigator for ATIC, Advanced Thin Ionization Calorimeter, a NASA funded balloon-borne instrument high over Antarctica. “It’s the first time we’ve seen a discrete source of accelerated cosmic rays standing out from the general galactic background.”
...

www.universetoday.com...


X-rays that don't come from any known source
NASA-funded sounding rocket solves one cosmic mystery, reveals another

Date:
September 26, 2016
Source:
NASA

Summary:
Space is filled with types of light we can't see -- from infrared signals released by hot stars and galaxies, to the cosmic microwave background. Some of this invisible light that fills space takes the form of X-rays, the source of which has been hotly contended over the past few decades. A new study confirms some ideas about where these X-rays come from, shedding light on our solar neighborhood's early history. But it also reveals a new mystery -- an entire group of X-rays that don't come from any known source.
...
However, DXL also measured some high-energy X-rays that couldn't possibly come from the solar wind or the Local Hot Bubble.

"At higher energies, these sources contribute less than a quarter of the X-ray emission," said Youaraj Uprety, lead author on the study and an astrophysicist at University of Miami at the time the research was conducted. "So there's an unknown source of X-rays in this energy range."
...

www.sciencedaily.com...



edit on 25-6-2022 by ElectricUniverse because: ad excerpt and link.



posted on Jun, 27 2022 @ 07:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
One more thing. This Interstellar Cloud has a very strong magnetic field.

" Published: 24 December 2009

A strong, highly-tilted interstellar magnetic field near the Solar System

...We find that the field strength in the local interstellar medium is 3.7–5.5 μG... "
3.7–5.5 μG doesn't seem like a "very strong magnetic field" as you put it.

The Earth's magnetic field is many times stronger but I still wouldn't call it "strong" or "very strong". At the Earth's surface the magnetic fiels ranges from 0.25 to 0.65 G, compared to a strong refrigerator magnet of 100 Gauss.

If you take the midpoint of 0.25 to 0.65 G as 0.45 G, the 4.6 μG midpoint of the 3.7–5.5 μG local interstellar medium magnetic field is about five orders of magnitude or roughly 100,000 times weaker than the Earth's magnetic field at the surface.

Some of the papers you've posted in this thread are interesting but I think you are having difficulty interpreting them when you call 3.7–5.5 μG a "very strong magnetic field".


originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
... in space because the atoms of the cloud are so spread out there is no heat but as the atoms of the cloud hit the EArth's atmosphere they will concentrate and heat up our upper atmosphere, heating the planet more. ...

However, about your question on how will we feel this temperature on Earth? They are not felt in space the same as in a planet like Earth. In space the atoms are so spread out that it won't feel exactly like heat, but it does act a lot like radiation burns and that's one of the main problems we will have to face, because the radiation will change the dna of every living thing on Earth and we can experience radiation burns, the incidence of cancer will increase dramatically, etc, more so if the Earth's magnetic field continues to weaken as it has been doing.

I do give you credit for understanding that the atoms in interstellar space are spread out so a million degree temperature in space isn't what we think of based on our experience with temperatures on Earth. But you don't seem to carry this logic of how spread out the atoms are when you talk about them impacting the earth. The earth is already impacted by lots of radiation from space but the earth's magnetic field and atmosphere does help protect us from some of that radiation.

Another reason a million degree interstellar medium might not affect Earth as much as you think is that at those temperatures the atoms are largely ionized and our sun's heliosphere interacts with ionized interstellar medium. We have been studying the voyager data as those probes pass through the edge of the heliosphere.


"Illustration of the heliosphere formed from the solar wind's interaction with the local interstellar medium. Credit: NASA/IBEX/Adler Planetarium."

Heliosphere and Local Interstellar Medium

The heliosphere is created by the interaction of the outward-flowing solar wind with the interstellar medium. The solar wind, traveling at speeds between ~300 and 800 km s-1, is slowed and compressed at the solar wind termination shock, located approximately 100 au from the Sun. Beyond the termination shock, the solar wind plasma continues to flow away from the Sun until it is diverted around the heliopause, the boundary separating the solar wind and interstellar plasmas. The Sun is moving with respect to the local interstellar matter, creating a comet-like heliosphere. The interstellar plasma is compressed and diverted at the heliospheric bow wave, but neutral atoms such as hydrogen, helium, oxygen, and neon can traverse inside the heliosphere and interact with the solar wind plasma via charge-exchange. These interactions create non-thermal ions that are "picked up" by the solar wind, and energetic neutral atoms that propagate ballistically through the heliosphere.


At a million degrees there aren't many neutral atoms. Not only is hydrogen ionized at that temperature, but heavier atoms are as well (referred to by astronomers as "metals" meaning anything heavier than hydrogen and helium).

Note the last entry for hot ionized medium, where not only hydrogen but also "metals" are highly ionized, so the heliosphere interaction with the hot interstellar medium is significant.

So if the heliosphere enters a hotter interstellar medium I think there would be interesting changes in the interaction at the bow shock and other parts of the heliosphere, but the impact of such a change on planets inside the heliosphere may be far less than you imagine.



posted on Jun, 27 2022 @ 08:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

So if the heliosphere enters a hotter interstellar medium I think there would be interesting changes in the interaction at the bow shock and other parts of the heliosphere, but the impact of such a change on planets inside the heliosphere may be far less than you imagine.


 



and that's why an exhaustive research needs to see if there is a 250MY cycle of entering this same molecular hot-cloud every repeating Orbit of the Galaxy.... what patterns emerge ? if any ? any associated catastrophe happen ?



posted on Jun, 27 2022 @ 02:58 PM
link   
a reply to: St Udio

It certainly doesn't hurt to look for any repetitive patterns and cycles in climate, etc, and people are constantly looking for patterns, but for the reasons I mentioned I don't really expect patterns related to entering gas as hot as a million degrees to show any dominant effects in the Earth's climate history. Maybe entering regions of higher density interstellar medium at lower temperatures where it's not ionized could allow the interstellar medium (ISM) to enter the heliosphere and have more of an impact on climate. Has anybody found such a 250 million year pattern? If not, there are numerous possible reasons.

There are so many competing factors affecting climate such as solar magnetic cycles, Earth's magnetic field inversions, Milankovich cycles, changes in atmospheric composition, changes in albedo (like high reflectivity of earth's surface in ice ages), meteorite impacts, and changes in volcanism, that the ISM effects may be dwarfed by those other factors. The ISM is typically not dense and even relatively more dense regions of the ISM may not be all that dense, though there are exceptions.

In addition to the potentially more dominant local effects mentioned above, the gas clouds in the interstellar medium may not be stable. A hot gas cloud will radiate away some energy over 250 million years so it's unlikely to be as hot the next time we pass through it, and other types of ISM regions clouds may also dissipate unless they are dense enough to form a star. So we aren't passing through exactly the same thing on each 250 million year pass, because the ISM is somehwat dynamic.



posted on Jun, 27 2022 @ 03:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

thanks for the courtesy in reply

a day-or-so ago in YouTube, i happened to connect with a Voyager 1 & 2 video on present location outside our heliosphere where the molecular cloud is 'hot' in Kelvin degrees measure of temperature...

i am sure all the deep-space missions were designed to report on the dense cloud of energy the solar system was going to enter...

as far as cyclical events on a 250 million year recurrence...what about dense asteroid strikes on Earth-Moon-Mars perhaps ...because the Nemesis Star or else Planet X / niburu seems to be myth-ing in physical presence to be the cause of Oort cloud disturbances and bombardments or dense debris fields heading to inner solar system

bitte'



posted on Jun, 27 2022 @ 07:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

First of all every single scientific research that talks about this magnetic Field from the Interstellar Coud calls it "a strong magnetic field."

Here you have several examples.

A strong, highly-tilted interstellar magnetic field near the Solar System

A strong, highly-tilted interstellar magnetic field near the Solar System

A Strong Magnetic Field Shaped the Early Solar System

Second of all, you are not taking in consideration the fact that Earth's magnetic field has been weakening and in 2014 the rate of the weakening became 10 times faster.

Earth's Magnetic Field Is Weakening 10 Times Faster Now

On the graph from the Oulu, Finland, on 2014-2015 the amount of x-rays increased coinciding with the weakening of Earth's magnetic field which increased it's weakening 10 times faster in 2014.



Link

What's more, in 1989 is when Pluto's warming began to intensify the farther away it was orbiting from our Sun, and coincidentally the increase in x-rays that Earth started receiving from an unknown source close to or even in the outer edges of our Solar System began affecting Earth around 1990-1991 as it can be seen on the graph from the Oulu, Finland, Neutron monitor/Cosmic Ray observatory. It all seems to be connected. First Pluto began to change, in the form of warming, the farther away it orbited from our Sun, and inner planets like Earth started showing similar symptoms around 1990-1991.

Ironically the research I presented, from two USGS scientists, about the increase in earthquakes on Earth also occurred first in 1992, in 2010 and "especially in 2014" when Earth's magnetic field suddenly began weakening 10 times faster. All of it seems connected, and it is too much of a coincidence that so many planets and moons that are geologically active have all, or most, been experiencing "dramatic warming" just like Earth.


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

And again, you are not taking in consideration that this "strong magnetic field" from the interstellar cloud is an addition to the magnetic fields that have been affecting the Solar System, including planets and moons which are still geologically active.

I also presented evidence that Earth's molten iron core tripled it's speed in the year 2000, and Phil Livermore of the University of Leeds, UK, stated and I quote:


Deep below our planet’s surface a molten jet of iron nearly as hot as the surface of the sun is picking up speed.

The vast jet stream some 420 kilometres wide has trebled in speed since 2000, and is now circulating westwards at between 40 and 45 kilometres per year deep under Siberia and heading towards beneath Europe (see diagram, below). That is three times faster than typical speeds of liquid in the outer core.

Livermore thinks the acceleration of the jet is down to push-back from magnetic fields. The flow of iron generates the magnetic field, but, he says, the magnetic field may then be affecting the flow of the iron.
...

www.newscientist.com...

Some info on Phil Livermore


Position: Professor of Mathematical Geophysics Areas of expertise: Applied mathematics; Geophysics; Earth's magnetic field...

environment.leeds.ac.uk...

So I am not inventing anything. Livermore himself thinks that magnetic fields affect the iron atoms in the molten river of iron which is part of Earth's core, and the same would occur to other planets, dwarf planets and moons that are geologically active and whose cores include a molten iron river.

Pluto and Charon both have dramatically increased the heat they are exerting, and the answer to what could be causing planets and moons in our Solar System to have their molten iron cores increase in speed is the addition of the "strong magnetic field from the Interstellar cloud."

What's more, we have also seen an increase in not just earthquakes, but volcanic and magmatic activity like we saw recently in Tenerife.

IMO the closer we get to this Local Interstellar cloud, the more dramatic geological changes and warming Earth & other planets & moons in the Solar System will experience. Even our sun seems to have been reacting to these changes.


edit on 27-6-2022 by ElectricUniverse because: add comments and correct excerpt.



posted on Jun, 27 2022 @ 09:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Thrumbo
Can the effects of a hotter region of the universe be mitigated on earth, at least for some time, by drastically reducing C02 emissions?

Global warming might not be directly caused by us, but if the problem slowly begins to threaten life as we know it on Earth, changing our way of life with it may make it more bearable and livable for generations.

That's my idea anyway.

The other option is a very human behavior and thinking as well.

"It's not our fault! They lied to us! Why would we have to change our lifestyles because of something we aren't responsible for?"


Gina McCarthy, Obama and now China Biden's EPA's chief admitted that even if we were to implement the most drastic changes that Obama/Biden and the globalists want for the U.S., that the most that global temperatures could decrease is by 0.01C.

She was made to admit that these drastic changes the globalist elitists want was to change the global economy to something else they want, and essentially it would not reduce the globe's temperatures.

A 0.01C increase of decrease in temperature is smaller than the margin of error and the natural changes in climate/temperatures we experience every day.

So such drastic changes would not help at all the "climate" of the globe...

As for Gina claiming that other nations will follow us like China, Russia, etc?... give me a break they have been saying from the start they would not implement such drastic changes, and even the so-called "Paris Accord" helped immensely China, Russia, India, and other countries allowing them to not only continue to emit as much CO2 as they have been emitting, but they can increase the amount of CO2 emissions in the future for as much as they want...

The "Green New Deal" and the "human induced climate change" bandwagon are nothing but hoaxes to make the rich elites richer, while impoverishing the rest of the world and more so western countries like the U.S.



posted on Jun, 28 2022 @ 08:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: AaarghZombies
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

This is actually pretty simple to confirm

If this is true you'd be seeing a commensurate rise in the upper most layers of the atmosphere, the ones that are widely considered to be part of outer space, rather than the breathable parts, which are beyond the range of man made pollution, with the heat generated radiating downwards.

If it is false you'd be seeing a marginal rise in the upper most layers caused by trapped heat radiating upwards.

We'd also be seeing a similar phenomena on the moon which actually has an extremely thin atmosphere (Seriously, I grew up thinking that it didn't too, but it Really Does) commensurate with it's significantly lower mass and gravity

Anyone want to run the numbers?


This is, actually, the biggest lie of climate change advocacy.

Since water vapor is the biggest greenhouse gas. ANY change in temperature will cause more water vapor. It's a feedback effect.

It's warmer this year, so next year more water evaporates. Then it's even warmer next year, so even more water evaporates. Then it's warmer still. So still more water evaporates.

It's like putting a microphone next to the loud speaker, and then whispering.


Because of this, absolutely any temperature change will cause a greenhouse effect larger than the initial change.

IE. The thing they found in that study would happen no matter what the cause is.

That differentiation between layers always happens no matter what heats the Earth. Because no matter what causes the initial increase, the greenhouse effect amplifies it.
edit on 28-6-2022 by bloodymarvelous because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2022 @ 12:03 PM
link   
a reply to: St Udio

ElectricUniverse added another cycle which might need explored-researched.... the Earth mantle heating up from entering a hot-dense cloud of gas & energy that causes a million year cycle of excessive Vulcanism & lava
thus creating billions of acres of new landmass



around India and in Siberia are two massive 'traps' of humongeous volcano land building eras --- were they a rresult of a molecular cloud cause 250 MY apart ?



posted on Jun, 28 2022 @ 01:48 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

My understanding is that their heating effect would be negligible because they retain their energy rather than transferring it.



posted on Jun, 29 2022 @ 05:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: AaarghZombies

My understanding is that their heating effect would be negligible because they retain their energy rather than transferring it.


Care to clarify exactly what are you referring to?



posted on Jun, 29 2022 @ 06:38 AM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Such an interesting post, take my star!

I've always struggled to believe that this is all man made, what i dont get is why isn't this more mainstream media?



posted on Jun, 29 2022 @ 04:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phatdamage
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Such an interesting post, take my star!

I've always struggled to believe that this is all man made, what i dont get is why isn't this more mainstream media?



Because it doesn't make them money and doesn't give them control to actually tell people the truth of what is going on. Using propaganda to claim "climate change" is happening because of mankind, and in specific anthropogenic CO2, gives them control and makes them trillions of dollars meanwhile the rich elitists buy mansions, even close to the sea because they know there is nothing we can do to stop this. They just want to pay for their expensive way of living while taking complete control over the little guys and gals as they want to control every aspect of our lives while reducing the world's population with their "Green Agenda scheme."

These drastic changes the "Green New Deal" and the "anthropogenic Climate Change crowd are demanding will cause suffering and death to levels not seen before.

Sequestering atmospheric CO2 will make sure there are less harvests to feed people, there is less water, and ironically sequestering atmospheric CO2 will be bad for the environment as plants and all the green biomass of Earth needs atmospheric CO2 and even the levels that exist now at about 0.04% of all atmospheric gases is very low.

For atmospheric CO2 to cause damage it would have to increase by a lot more, which will take a long time for it o happen unless we are struck by a meteor, or volcanic/magmatic events increase dramatically. Which eventually it will happen NATURALLY but no one knows exactly when.

All these people, from Obama, Biden, John Kerry, to hypocrite famous people like Leonardo Decaprio among others demand the rest of us give up a civilized way of living while they use their private planes to travel around, rent huge yacht and buy mansions close to the sea to enjoy life at our expense for as long as they can...


edit on 29-6-2022 by ElectricUniverse because: correct comment.



posted on Jul, 7 2022 @ 02:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

I learned in a 4th grade experiment that co2 traps heat.

Less of that in the atmosphere would be a good start.

What would you do? Nothing?
Are you suggesting our nationalized education system was teaching you propaganda way back in 4th grade?! Say it ain’t so!



new topics

top topics



 
80
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join