Cycles within cycles

Although the results of their testing is not at this link from NOAA, it does indicate that they did note the testing dated back to 400,000BC and 4 climate changes. But the scope of this core sample is primarily for CO2 testing, it was at another time checked and tested for iron isotope alignment anomalies. One discovery through these samples shows that highly elevated CO2 reading in the atmosphere usually trigger a global cooling event. Normally a reading below 300 ppm is acceptable, yet in recent readings, the CO2 level is nearly 400 and accelerating. Lots of info here, here, and here. And to give more attention to the magnetic reversal phenomonena, we have this:

The BGS goes on to say that Earth’s magnetic field has had many highs, lows and reversals in its past, with the last reversal taking place around 800,000 years ago. I take issue with this date because there have been many magnetic reversals since that time.

There's the Gothenburg magnetic reversal of 11,500 years ago, when the mammoths went extinct.

There's the Mono Lake magnetic reversal of 23,000 years ago, when the earth descended into catastrophic glaciation.

There's the Lake Mungo magnetic reversal of 33,500 years ago, when the Neanderthals went extinct.

And there are several others, such as the Laschamp, the Blake, Biwa I, Biwa II, Biwa III ... the list goes on. (See Magnetic Reversal Chart.)

There's even the Big Lost magnetic reversal of 640,000 years ago, when - just by coincidence? - the Yellowstone supervolcano erupted.

In fact, my research shows that our planet undergoes a magnetic reversal about every 11,500 years and, agreeing with the BGS on this point, I think the next reversal is now due.

The problem is that a magnetic reversal could be disastrous.

As I warn in "Not by Fire but by Ice": "Polarity reversals, equinoctial precession, and ice ages, all march to the same drummer. As do extinctions, new species appearance, volcanism, and rising land. Toss in the specter of massive floods, 30-story tsunami (tsunami is both singular and plural), and radioactivity falling on your head, and you've got the picture."

from this link
and, just as a reminder, visit this link and browse through the hundreds of articles. Quite a few of them do discuss the global climatological cycles in the sense of where antiquity was, and where we are headed.

reply to post by stereologist

The MSM certainly seems to be unable at times to report science well. Not sure why you distrust academics.

Because it is the special interest academics that crowd in behind the 'manmade global warming' agenda. Hence the Al Gore religion. It is also SIG academics that cite ugly inconsistencies with job numbers and unemployment figures. The IPCC has been caught tampering with data, as well as NASA and the NOAA. Historian academics have drawn a line in the sand at around 5,000 BC as a limit of archyaeology they are willing to support. History in the classroom still indoctrinates students to think Columbus discovered America, and that Venus and Mars have always been desolate rocks. They are told about what they can do about 'global warming' and their 'carbon footprint', yet those agendas are pet projects of the Cap & Trade profiteers and energy barons.
Financial academics make every effort to convince us that we need to keep printing and borrowing money. We know this is a huge mistake, but to the average MSM viewer, they are pummeled with lies and disinfo on a daily basis. Like they say, if you keep parroting the same story loud enough and often enough, people tend to believe it, whether it is true and accurate or not. Academics and geopolitical agendas are what has put us in 4 different wars now, with the end goal of controlling the resources.
That's just my take on the MSM academian.

reply to post by OuttaTime

The ice core samples were examined under microscopes at the iron isotopes and found to have polarization variations. Granted they are on a microscopic level but as far as I can tell, all of those samples are still preserved and available to other scientists to examine. Whether or not they showed a reversal or a wandering event is not completely verifiable globally as I am not aware of Antarctic ice core samples.

Are you thinking ice cores when the cores where actually sediment cores in the oceans or on land?

My trouble with MSM academics is that they seem to follow some sort of agenda.

If you were in academia or attended meetings of academics you would know that there is no agenda. That is the sort of bogus claim made by frauds such as Sitchin and Hancock and Calleman and others that have their own agenda. If you live by a large enough academic center you should visit a meeting and see something like a poster session. That is where people present their work and others come by to ask questions. You would see some sparks fly. New information and new experiments shed light on established ideas.

Back when Darwin wrote his book, he was mocked. Then eventually, people who do not follow his book are mocked.

Actually people that followed his work today would be challenged. You misunderstand the process if you think it is mocking. The idea is to challenge new concepts. They can be as powerful as Darwin's work or as unknown as issues about the reliability of certain staining techniques used in biological research.

Seems like a flip in political academics. But these are the kind of people who discredit Pluto as being a planet and have it removed to add two other rocks in out outer fringes.

Pluto was always an odd duck. Now other objects are being found that are like Pluto. They are Pluto sized and so Pluto is now recognized as being part of a different class of objects in the solar system. Pluto was not discredited. It is important to avoid anthropomorphisizing celestial objects.

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by OuttaTime

 

Are you thinking ice cores when the cores where actually sediment cores in the oceans or on land?

The vostok samples are ice cores, although there were also sediment samples taken for the seabed also.

Actually people that followed his work today would be challenged. You misunderstand the process if you think it is mocking. The idea is to challenge new concepts. They can be as powerful as Darwin's work or as unknown as issues about the reliability of certain staining techniques used in biological research.

When the book was published, other scholars found the idea that we evolved from apes as preposterous, and they called him ape man and such. He became an academic outcast. His ideas were not politically correct a century ago. The popular consensus back then was more relying on the biblical Genesis. The process of thought has progressed vastly in the last few decades and we have found ourselves in a brand new realm of thought and theory. A hundred years ago, quantum physics would have not been accepted as much as it is today.

Pluto was always an odd duck. Now other objects are being found that are like Pluto. They are Pluto sized and so Pluto is now recognized as being part of a different class of objects in the solar system. Pluto was not discredited. It is important to avoid anthropomorphisizing celestial objects.

I can agree with that. Pluto has just been a fringe part of our solar system, but 100 years ago, it was classed as a planet due to its coordination with the sun. It rotated in a predictable orbit, so we accepted it as the 10th planet. But back then our understanding of our planet and galaxy was not very well known, but we have progressed in great strides. We are on the cusp of a great many scientific discoveries, and yes, there are agendas on both sides. Mainstreamers usually have a financial motivation for their work, as does the non-MSM. We live in a profit motivated world, and it is a general consensus that the more popular ideas nest where the money is. After all, that's where grants and scholarships come from.

reply to post by OuttaTime


Do you know where the paleomagnetism tests are for these ice cores? It is not included here. The issue is with paleomagnetism and not CO2. So the links you provide discuss CO2 and not paleomagnetism or a connection between reversals and temperature. The second link from Science Daily states that elevated CO2 levels exist for a very warm climate.

global temperatures were 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit higher than they are today, the sea level was approximately 75 to 120 feet higher than today, there was no permanent sea ice cap in the Arctic and very little ice on Antarctica and Greenland

Mammoths went extinct 8000BC. That does not match the 9500BC date provided.
Mammoths

If we look at temperatures for a long period of time I do not see the "23,000 years ago, when the earth descended into catastrophic glaciation. "
[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Epica-vostok-grip-40kyr.png]Temperature proxies for 40,000 years

Neanderthals are known well after the 33,500 year ago mark claimed in the article.
[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthals#Timeline]Neanderthals

When we read the article we see that it does not report what the BGS says, rather it is a fringe author piece full of glaring mistakes or lies if the author actually did the research they claim.

In fact, my research shows that our planet undergoes a magnetic reversal about every 11,500 years and, agreeing with the BGS on this point, I think the next reversal is now due.

This is where the article admits that the claims are not from the BGS. In fact, this author doesn't understand the difference between an excursion and a reversal.

reply to post by OuttaTime

Hence the Al Gore religion.

Scientists do not adhere to the musings of a politician. That is for Rush Limbaugh and his cronies to do - argue with a politician.

It is also SIG academics that cite ugly inconsistencies with job numbers and unemployment figures.

Take the time to learn how these values are derived. The name given to these values and how they are derived may seem quite inconsistent to you. Again, this is just political in nature and does not concern how the process is performed.

The IPCC has been caught tampering with data, as well as NASA and the NOAA.

Not true. The issue was a mathematical one. The name of that type of procedure was purposely misrepresented by hooligans like Rush Limbaugh. I listen to Rush at times. I know he is as dumb as a brick when it comes to scientific issues, but he sure can lie about them.

Historian academics have drawn a line in the sand at around 5,000 BC as a limit of archyaeology they are willing to support. History in the classroom still indoctrinates students to think Columbus discovered America, and that Venus and Mars have always been desolate rocks.

Falsehoods. History is based on writing. That is where history begins. Archaeological work goes back much farther, even millions of years. Columbus was the first documented European in the Americas. Ask a second grader. That is second grade material here. Venus has always been a desolate rock. That is pretty clear. Mars is unknown. Ask a third grader. Third graders in my area discuss astronomy.

They are told about what they can do about 'global warming' and their 'carbon footprint', yet those agendas are pet projects of the Cap & Trade profiteers and energy barons.

Back to politics.

Financial academics make every effort to convince us that we need to keep printing and borrowing money. We know this is a huge mistake, but to the average MSM viewer, they are pummeled with lies and disinfo on a daily basis.

Just more politics and not academic research.

Like they say, if you keep parroting the same story loud enough and often enough, people tend to believe it, whether it is true and accurate or not. Academics and geopolitical agendas are what has put us in 4 different wars now, with the end goal of controlling the resources.

That is not true in science or in academia. In those areas new research is constantly being done. Existing ideas are retested and new ideas are formulated. This is why there are hundreds of thousands of research papers published every year often challenging the status quo.

That's just my take on the MSM academian./quote]
BTW, MSM means main stream media. If you think that the people in the MSM are academically minded I would argue that they are not. I would also suggest that economists and financial forecasters are not academics. They can tell you exactly what happened after the fact, yet seem unable to detect that huge and catastrophic events are about to happen. They are a laughable group of charlatans.

I think it was Gailbraith that once quipped that economic forecasters serve the purpose of making astrology look legitimate.

reply to post by stereologist


The info gathered from the vostok samples can be found here. Although it does not have info about the magnetic reversals, I remember seeing a datagroup using those same samples. I'm still looking for it.
You may be correct in that the author may not know the difference between a reversal from an excursion, but either way, it was a series of recordable events. What I don't quite understand about the table in this source is why, given the activity during the Bruhnes chronology, why it has lasted so long, in accordance with all the previous data.
And from this quote:

The work of David Gubbins[2] suggests that excursions occur when the magnetic field is reversed only within the liquid outer core; reversals occur when the inner core is also affected. (from this link

Would I be correct in assuming that excursions are a geomagnetic effect from solar reversals that wrap our magnetosphere and briefly reverse it, whereas it self corrects? If so, it is still essentially a reversal that does not stick, but snaps back into the N/S association. It would still explain the geomagnetic phenomenon that author spoke of. He may be grabbing at straws in his assumptions, but all material these days has to be taken with a grain of salt. Science is perpetual and persistent, but how we measure and calculate are always different.

reply to post by OuttaTime

The vostok samples are ice cores, although there were also sediment samples taken for the seabed also.

I do not see anything to support the notion that paleomagnetic data can be gleaned from ice cores. I believe you are mistaken to think that the ice cores were used for paleomagnetic studies. Can you find anything that states that ice cores were used?

When the book was published, other scholars found the idea that we evolved from apes as preposterous, and they called him ape man and such. He became an academic outcast. His ideas were not politically correct a century ago. The popular consensus back then was more relying on the biblical Genesis. The process of thought has progressed vastly in the last few decades and we have found ourselves in a brand new realm of thought and theory. A hundred years ago, quantum physics would have not been accepted as much as it is today.

That's not correct. He was not an academic outcast. That is not how science is viewed. It is often portrayed that way by junky Hollywood movies. His ideas were rejected by religious groups that passed laws to prevent the teaching of evolution. That is what the Scopes trial was about. The goal by both sides was to have Scopes lose to appeal the case to a higher court. There is a difference between popular ideas and scientific thinking. Einstein received his only Nobel prize for his 1905 paper on a quantum effect.
1905 papers

Of course, QT is more accepted today. More experiments have been done. More testing and retesting has been done.

Much of what Darwin wrote was readily accepted. It was Darwin's claims about man having evolved that irritated people's vanities. It was nonscientists such as politicians and religious leaders that were vexed by this idea.

There is a huge difference between scientists discussing an issue and the rancor from those offended for social, political, religious, or financial reasons.

reply to post by OuttaTime


I know that the reason for reversals is being studied quite intensely. It related not just to the issue of magnetic reversals, but also to how the Earth works. The magnetic field is due to convection cells in the outer liquid part of the Earth's core. If models can exhibit the sort of magnetic reversal process seen on Earth, then the way in which the convection cells move can be better understood. So if a model of convection cells is tested and it does not produces the sort of reversals observed, then the model can be laid to rest and other models tested.

In the case of the latest magnetic orientation we see one that is relatively stable compared to the others in the last 5 million years. These events are based on rather complex interactions inside of the Earth and do not operate like clockwork. Just as the Sun's reversals have a mean of 11 means they can last from 8 too 14 years. That's a little under plus or minus 30% of the mean, a large variation.

Further down in the wikipedia entry you linked to it states

These eras of frequent reversals have been counterbalanced by a few "superchrons" – long periods when no reversals took place.

The problem with understanding the Earth's field is that the cause is deep inside of the Earth where today we cannot observe what is happening with any certainty. The Sun reverses every 11 years or 22 years for a full cycle. The Sun is unlikely to directly affect the Earth's core.

Here is an interesting article from 1979
Possible relationships between changes in global ice volume, geomagnetic excursions, and the eccentricity of the Earth's orbit
Note that this is a 1979 article, but it is cited in 2 more recent articles from 2009 and 2002.

The 2009 article is here
A possible link between the geomagnetic field and catastrophic climate at the Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum
From the abstract

This suggests a possible coupling between Earth's core magnetofluid dynamo sphere and the atmosphere-hydrosphere during an abrupt catastrophic climate event.

The 2002 article is here
Orbital Influence on Earth's Magnetic Field: 100,000-Year Periodicity in Inclination

reply to post by stereologist


I think I confused the seabed samples with the ice core samples as far as geomagnetism, but I could have swore they had examined the cores for iron content and were studied with magnetoscopes to determine alignment. But in lieu of that I was reading the info from this link which provided this:

Through analysis of seafloor magnetic anomalies and dating of reversal sequences on land, paleomagnetists have been developing a Geomagnetic Polarity Time Scale (GPTS). [bold]The current time scale contains 184 polarity intervals in the last 83 million years[/bold].[8][9]

Changing frequency of geomagnetic reversals over time
The rate of reversals in the Earth's magnetic field has varied widely over time. 72 million years ago (Ma), the field reversed 5 times in a million years. In a 4-million-year period centered on 54 Ma, there were 10 reversals; at around 42 Ma, 17 reversals took place in the span of 3 million years. In a period of 3 million years centering on 24 Ma, 13 reversals occurred. No fewer than 51 reversals occurred in a 12-million-year period, centering on 15 million years ago. Two reversals occurred during a span of 50,000 years. These eras of frequent reversals have been counterbalanced by a few "superchrons" – long periods when no reversals took place.[10]

So it would seem that our timeline is chock full of geomagnetic events, whether they be reversals or excursions, and if we are in a 'superchron' moment now, it is just a matter of time before something gives.

As with many other incidents, even with Darwin, we live in a society that loves political correctness. People with ideas outside the box have a smaller impact than the guy with politically correct ideas.

reply to post by stereologist


Indeed there is much more to be learned about solar activity and its' influence on surrounding planets. It is a fringe theory that occasionally the reversal of the sun is so powerful that it can align surrounding bodies with the same solar pattern. It may not force the reversal but may have great influence since other planets also have their own polarity. It may be marked by a reversal or an excursion, which we cannot know 100% for sure, but we can tell they indeed happened, although we do not really know the true extent of the after-effects of each one. Since we cannot go back in time before satellites and examine the solar anomalies, we normally go by recent discoveries and base historical patterns on modern dynamics. Many folks are basing their works on the current consensus that our geomagnetic shield is greatly diminished, leaving us more vulnerable to outside magnetic and solar activities. We can also understand that out stratosphere collapses during each solar minimum. The one in 2008 was expected scientifically, but it collapsed further than they had predicted, yet they don't understand why it collapsed further. Their models seem to be missing a dynamic.

reply to post by OuttaTime

As with many other incidents, even with Darwin, we live in a society that loves political correctness. People with ideas outside the box have a smaller impact than the guy with politically correct ideas.

As far as the general public is concerned that is true, but in scientific circles that is not.

Within an academic environment the issue is based on the facts and not what some dubious public pressure wants the facts to say. A sensational cover article by Time a few years back suggested that a woman's chance of marriage after a certain age was lower than the chance of being killed by a terrorist. The poorly written article probably sold magazines, but it was wrong. Of course, it colored people's outlook, but it was wrong. The study it referenced was not properly done and that was pointed out by the US Census Bureau. That did not stop Time from running the article. There are many other examples of that sort of trashy article such as the claim of a link between caffeine and cancer.

These are examples of ideas that are outside of the box. They had an impact. They were just plain wrong. How did they get it wrong? They did not follow through on the methods scientists use to test ideas.

Want another example of an idea out of the box? Consider cold fusion. Personally, I think people like hearing about ideas outside of the box. Think about all of the famous scientists you can. Were any of them inside of the box? No. They were all outside of the box: Archimedes, Kepler, Newton, DaVinci, Einstein, Bohr, ...

reply to post by OuttaTime


The problem with the Sun or another celestial body altering the orientation of another bodies magnetic field is that it would take a great deal of energy, far more than is available. The Sun switches every 11 years on average. How come the Earth switches every tens of thousands at the fastest?

Not all planets may have a magnetic field. Or that field may be small. The strength of the Earth's field increases as you go into the Earth. In fact, less than 2% of the field strength is experienced at the surface.

In space the field strength is around 25nT. The surface field strength can be up to 0.6G.
1T = 10^4 G
1nT = 10^4 nG = 0.00001 G

You can see that the field strength in space is miniscule compared to the surface strength which in turn is small compared to the core strength of the field. It is doubtful that the Sun can exert much influence over the core where our field is generated.

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by OuttaTime

 

As with many other incidents, even with Darwin, we live in a society that loves political correctness. People with ideas outside the box have a smaller impact than the guy with politically correct ideas.

As far as the general public is concerned that is true, but in scientific circles that is not.

Within an academic environment the issue is based on the facts and not what some dubious public pressure wants the facts to say. A sensational cover article by Time a few years back suggested that a woman's chance of marriage after a certain age was lower than the chance of being killed by a terrorist. The poorly written article probably sold magazines, but it was wrong. Of course, it colored people's outlook, but it was wrong. The study it referenced was not properly done and that was pointed out by the US Census Bureau. That did not stop Time from running the article. There are many other examples of that sort of trashy article such as the claim of a link between caffeine and cancer.

These are examples of ideas that are outside of the box. They had an impact. They were just plain wrong. How did they get it wrong? They did not follow through on the methods scientists use to test ideas.

Want another example of an idea out of the box? Consider cold fusion. Personally, I think people like hearing about ideas outside of the box. Think about all of the famous scientists you can. Were any of them inside of the box? No. They were all outside of the box: Archimedes, Kepler, Newton, DaVinci, Einstein, Bohr, ...

It seems a bunch of the science you hear about in the news is all about sensationalism and ratings. Very very few of our founding scientists were inside the box. Hearing ideas outside the box seems to fascinate and encourage people, whether it is true or not.

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by OuttaTime

 

The problem with the Sun or another celestial body altering the orientation of another bodies magnetic field is that it would take a great deal of energy, far more than is available. The Sun switches every 11 years on average. How come the Earth switches every tens of thousands at the fastest?

Not all planets may have a magnetic field. Or that field may be small. The strength of the Earth's field increases as you go into the Earth. In fact, less than 2% of the field strength is experienced at the surface.

In space the field strength is around 25nT. The surface field strength can be up to 0.6G.
1T = 10^4 G
1nT = 10^4 nG = 0.00001 G

You can see that the field strength in space is miniscule compared to the surface strength which in turn is small compared to the core strength of the field. It is doubtful that the Sun can exert much influence over the core where our field is generated.

Maybe it's because the sun is alot more volatile and composed of mostly hydrogen and helium wrapped around a molten core. Not quite sure.
I was just reading about how Mars only has pockets of magnetism, but yeah, many planets have a minimal magnetic field. Most of the universe is mostly energy, and not magnetic.

reply to post by OuttaTime

It seems a bunch of the science you hear about in the news is all about sensationalism and ratings. Very very few of our founding scientists were inside the box. Hearing ideas outside the box seems to fascinate and encourage people, whether it is true or not.

That's true. The problem is that often ideas outside of the box may not appear that way to the average person. It might sound like quibbling to someone unassociated with the material. The devil is in the details.

Many of the early scientists were not actually scientists according to modern standards. The scientific process has been developed over hundreds if not thousands of years and should continue to be refined just as the various areas of study are refined.

On science vs politics:

Science costs money. Lots of money. Often # loads of money.

Money in these kinds of quantities comes mainly from 3 sources:

1. Government grants - influenced directly by politics. Definately open to corruption and bias.
2. Private Grants - From individuals or coprorations with vested interest in making a return on their investment. Therefore there is incentive for corruption and a specific agenda other than the scientific notion of seeing if a hypothesis works out i.e. possible bias.
3. Fundraising - Influenced directly by politics and public opinion i.e. How much the issue is hyped in the political arena and MSM and how much people care about it. Also the direction the research takes will sometimes be influenced by non-scientists on the committee of the organisation, therefore open to corruption and bias.

Then you have the issue of scientists being paid to go on TV and support one side or the other, which is also open to corruption and bias.

Then you have the fact that for anything to be accepted it has to be peer reviewed by the scientists in those very positions above.

Then you have the fact that statistics and graphs can be manipulated, data massaged to tell a story that is favourable for your agenda.

Yet we are expected to believe that science is still pure, uncorruptible and that there is no agenda behind the research? I think not.

reply to post by Cecilofs


Science does take a lot of money especially for some disciplines with the need for large devices and complex devices. Other work does not require buckets of money. To claim that science costs lots of money is a bit over the top. Research is conducted in many countries without access to large resources.

The fund raising is not the source of the problem. The problem lies in where the research is done.

1. Government funding vs government research - Government funding particularly in western countries does not influence the science. Politics is not involved except in the allocation of funds. The distribution is done through advisory panels that review requests for funding. Government research on the other hand can be secret, not always. Secret projects rarely have easy to track funding sources. Non-secret projects may have to go through the same application process for funding where a panel of scientists reviews applications.

2. Private groups such as universities and businesses do the bulk of the research. University funding comes through a variety of forms from donors to government sources. Businesses provide their own funding or government funding. Government funding comes through the same panel review process. Business research through non-government funding is often secret. The business has a need to protect their intellectual assets to make a profit.

3. Research is also done by amateurs with personal funding. Amateur astronomers or bird watchers or insect collectors or paleontologists or archaeologists or whatever also can be important sources of information.

The claims of potential bias in research are unfounded. No group is an island of study. There are many researchers in many fields and they interact and examine other researchers' work. That is how mistakes, misrepresentations, bad work, or outright fraud are uncovered. The scientific process is designed to do this.

Yet we are expected to believe that science is still pure, uncorruptible and that there is no agenda behind the research? I think not.

To claim that anything involving humans is not corruptible is true. The difference is that the scientific process exposes mistakes.

Here is a newspaper article about a retest of work in which someone received a Nobel Prize and the work was overturned. That is the 3rd time that has happened. It will happen again because of the manner in which science attempts to correct itself when necessary.
SPACE TEST JOLTS INNER-EAR THEORY