Leading scientists state, that earth`s core and earth-near space are changing, with consequences for

Originally posted by Larry L


It's people like you though, who are hell-bent on blaming the evil scumbag humans for everything. We certainly do our fair share of damage, but the amount of CO2 we produce is completely insignificant to climate change. The leaves of the world which rot after they are shed from the trees durring the Autumn months produces FAR more CO2 every year than humans.

Here, the idiocy practically oozes off you. You can't comprehend that it's IRRELEVANT what percentage humans produce compared to nature. ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT. What matters is that there was a somewhat stable cycle which had a somewhat set amount of carbon interacting with this cycle, and we caused an imbalance to these natural cycles. The ocean and trees can only produce take in so much CO2 each year, hence the rising atmospheric levels, ignoramus.

Originally posted by moniesisfun
reply to post by Larry L

 

Neither. How about yoj back up your claims, jerk? I'll wait for you to apologize when you figure out you've been duped.

My claims are backed up by the world's most respected climatologists in The Great Global Warming Swindle documentary....which you OBVIOUSLY haven't, and I'm sure you'll refuse to ever, watch. If you ever actually do watch it though to educate youself on the matter......I'll be waiting for YOUR appology once you realise how badly YOU'VE been duped. Though I ASSURE you......I won't hold my breath. The truly brainwashed will never even CONSIDER watching a documentary that calls into question their belief system.

Just like all the Muslims rioting. These people would never watch the video they're rioting over. They just hear what it's about and start killing people because of their rage. Man-Made Global Warming Groupies are akin to religious zealots. "This is what I belive, and I'll RAGE at anyone who questions that belief." Enjoy your RAGE, but the truth could set you free of that rage, if you'd just consider it.

Originally posted by Larry L

Originally posted by moniesisfun
reply to post by Larry L

 

Neither. How about yoj back up your claims, jerk? I'll wait for you to apologize when you figure out you've been duped.

My claims are backed up by the world's most respected climatologists in The Great Global Warming Swindle documentary....which you OBVIOUSLY haven't, and I'm sure you'll refuse to ever, watch. I

I watched it you presumptuous prick.

It was full of complete garbage.

Shows how foolish you really are buying that up.

Originally posted by moniesisfun

Originally posted by Larry L


It's people like you though, who are hell-bent on blaming the evil scumbag humans for everything. We certainly do our fair share of damage, but the amount of CO2 we produce is completely insignificant to climate change. The leaves of the world which rot after they are shed from the trees durring the Autumn months produces FAR more CO2 every year than humans.

Here, the idiocy practically oozes off you. You can't comprehend that it's IRRELEVANT what percentage humans produce compared to nature. ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT. What matters is that there was a somewhat stable cycle which had a somewhat set amount of carbon interacting with this cycle, and we caused an imbalance to these natural cycles. The ocean and trees can only produce take in so much CO2 each year, hence the rising atmospheric levels, ignoramus.

You are completely ignorant on these matters obviously, if you honestly think the climate of this Earth has EVER been a "stable cycle". It's always in a state of fluctuation, ranging from extreme highs to extreme lows and everything in-between. ANd as it happens the most extreme highs in recorded human history happen almost A THOUSAND years before out industrial revolution even started. You, my dear, are the ignorant one, not I.

Are you also silly enough to believe in the "Magic Bullet Theory" the government offically gives in regards to JFK's assassination. That one bullet doing ALL that damage then magically popping out of Connally on a stretcher in absolutely PRESTINE condition? You must....because that's the same kind of rediculous theory the government OFFICIALLY states regarding man-made global warming.

Originally posted by moniesisfun

Originally posted by Larry L

Originally posted by moniesisfun
reply to post by Larry L

 

Neither. How about yoj back up your claims, jerk? I'll wait for you to apologize when you figure out you've been duped.

My claims are backed up by the world's most respected climatologists in The Great Global Warming Swindle documentary....which you OBVIOUSLY haven't, and I'm sure you'll refuse to ever, watch. I

I watched it you presumptuous prick.

It was full of complete garbage.

Shows how foolish you really are buying that up.

I will once again call you a LIAR here. I do not believe for a SECOND that you watched it. And is ATS now allowing people to call others "pricks", so long as that person is towing the company propaganda line of man-made global warming? Interesting.

I rest my case on the fact that this fool has chosen to stick with deflective tactics, and illogical representations of my case.

He is not only illogical, but I liar.

You get no more chow from me.

Originally posted by moniesisfun
I rest my case on the fact that this fool has chosen to stick with deflective tactics, and illogical representations of my case.

He is not only illogical, but I liar.

You get no more chow from me.

Nope....YOU are the liar. YOU are the one resorting to ad homenim attacks. A "prick" did you call me? Yup....that was it.....the crutch of the weak. I havn't deflected a single thing. I've replied to every "point" (and I use that term VERY lightly since you've really made no points), you've made, and with each logical counter-point I've made your RAGE has increased.

Let me ask you something. Do you have a job in the "climate change" industry, which as it happens is now the #1 highest government funded research area? It really seems like you do with the way you're so against anyone even questioning whether global warming has anything to do with man's CO2 output (which it doesn't). It's as though you'll lose your job/income if anyone questions man-made global warming. (though in all honesty, I DON'T question it at all. I know it's complete non-sense, so I'm not questioning anything lol)

Just to make it clear, the presumptuous fool is wrong again.

I don't work in the oil industry or any related industry.

I've spent years looking up data from both sides, looking up opinions from both sides, and have weighed it all.

The arguments for are quite strong, and backed by an incredible amount of science spanning decades.

The arguments against are quite weak, and have been thoroughly debunked time and time again...by real scientists, with peer reviewed studies.

These very few climatologists...some 3-10% max, are generally less informed and most have a stance that they're not yet sure we're the primary cause of the climate changes.

When you hear, "leading professionals from all around the world"...it should be a red flag. It means you're likely being duped. Which that video was just one big dupe on the ignorant public.

Originally posted by moniesisfun
Just to make it clear, the presumptuous fool is wrong again.

I don't work in the oil industry or any related industry.

I've spent years looking up data from both sides, looking up opinions from both sides, and have weighed it all.

The arguments for are quite strong, and backed by an incredible amount of science spanning decades.

The arguments against are quite weak, and have been thoroughly debunked time and time again...by real scientists, with peer reviewed studies.

These very few climatologists...some 3-10% max, are generally less informed and most have a stance that they're not yet sure we're the primary cause of the climate changes.

When you hear, "leading professionals from all around the world"...it should be a red flag. It means you're likely being duped. Which that video was just one big dupe on the ignorant public.

edit on 2-10-2012 by moniesisfun because: (no reason given)

I didn't ask if you worked for the oil industry. I asked if you worked in the climate change research industy....which would be THE OPPOSITE of the oil industry for all intents and purposes. If your reading comprehension is SO bad that you couldn't make out that simple question, I REALLY have to call into question whether your reading comprehension is in any way good enough to be trusted to read scientific data reports.

Also.......do you mean "debunked and peer reviewed" as in: taking superior scientist's work, and twisting the words and studies to fit the man-made global warming agenda and putying them into IPCC reports, and then when the REAL scientists I'm refering to go to the IPCC and say "hey, you're twisting my words and data, I'm not saying that at all, I want my work removed from the IPCC reports and my name removed from the IPCC scientist list.", ...........then the IPCC kicks them out of the commision, yet keeps their names on the lists, and keeps the twisted data in the reports to still support man-made global warming? Is THAT the kind of debunking and peer review you're taliking about?
PLEASE. That is the complete antithesis of what scientificresearch and peer review is supposed to be. They twist data, and often flat-out lie to fit an agenda. They do it to ensure they keep getting that 5 billion dollars a year in "climate change research" funds given to "climate research scientist" by the US government alone. That's not even talking about all the funding from other governments.

If all you had to do was tell a few little white lies to keep getting your piece of that HUGE pie, you'd do it too. And hell....I'd even say I believe in man-made global warming if someone offered me a couple million dollars to change my opinion on the matter.

Because the truth is....I don't REALLY care about the man-made global warming agenda. I don't think it really hurts anything aside from wasting billions of dollars in funding that I'd prefer went to cleaning up pollution, or funding education for people who can't afford it....or many other things. All I'm doing is speaking out against the lies, propaganda and agenda for no other reason than my utter distain for propaganda, and that some of the best scientists in the world have had their careers ruined for pointing out that it's all a sham. But as I said.......I think it's one of the few examples of propaganda that don't really hurt anyone outside of the field.

So be happy believing all the lies and propaganda you like if it makes you feel better about yourself. You aren't really hurting anything aside from some quality scientist's careers.....which in the end will affect us as a whole negatively, but not really directly in our lifetime. You'll be long dead before you find out just how full of crap you were all those years ago (now).

Disregard my whole "conversation" with this guy. He pm'd me talking about he's slamming shots making me look like a fool......LOL *rolls eyes*. If there's anyone that can be taken seriously that wants to chat about this subject, I'm MORE than happy to ablige to the extent I can with this extremely limited browser. But I'm not going to debate with someone who just argues......and as far as I know, doesn't even know which way is UP right now.

reply to post by Larry L


yea I'm in the wrong here.

fully admit it. too much on the mind.

apologies!

nope, don't work in the field...

out at the bar. enjoy your evening!

oh and mentioning anything from a pm is against t&c!, but to be fair you're lying again...i said i was taking shots over a year ago while watching he docu, laughing my ass off at it!

Originally posted by 1littlewolf

Your link implies nothing untoward regarding a One World Government and it is simply your twisted logic which tries to imply it is so.

Really?... What the hell does GLOBAL GOVERNANCE derived from corporate mandates and a "social-democratic pattern of GLOBALIZATION means?...

Originally posted by 1littlewolf
Easily available birth control is sorely needed in Africa to enable women to be break free from the pregnancy – birth – pregnancy- birth cycle which limits their opportunities to get education and a job if they so choose. Despite your avatar I’m guessing you’re probably a close minded male…

Except the fact that FORCED sterilization, and health problems are being caused by the vaccines being distributed to third world nations...

Originally posted by 1littlewolfThe thread in your link is nothing more than an inaccurate opinion piece further tainted by your own inaccurate opinions.

WRONG, I have posted several times research, and evidence that corroborates everything I have stated.

The one making a false conclusion based on nothing but opinion is you...

Originally posted by 1littlewolf
If TPTB are truly going use some sort of CO2 conspiracy to take hold of the world (a premise so ridiculous I’m surprised I’m even taking the time to respond) then:

Riiight... It's not as if TPTB/governments have done extensive experiments against their own people and others without people's consent...

It's not as if TPTB have taken a hold of the global economy and have invaded every country in the world through various means...

Sir, you are completely ignorant on these topics, I wonder what you are doing in a website like this one...

Originally posted by 1littlewolf
A few links proving the existence of secret super-volcanoes under the ocean and the dangers of interstellar dust clouds as related to global warming would also be appreciated.

BTW, those underwater volcanoes are no secret... You are just too ignorant to even try to find out the truth yourself...

For example.


www.antarctica.ac.uk...

news.discovery.com...

Here is a photo where you can see some of the underwater volcanoes which have been discovered all over the world.

...
More than 3,000,000 underwater volcanoes!

In 2007, oceanographers Hillier and Watts surveyed 201,055 submarine volcanoes. “From this they concluded an astounding total of 3,477,403 submarine volcanoes must reasonably exist worldwide,” said this article by John O’Sullivan.

Hillier and Watts “based this finding on the earlier and well-respected observations of Earth and Planetary Sciences specialist, Batiza (1982) who found that at least 4 per cent of seamounts are active volcanoes.”

According to Batiza’s survey, the Pacific mid-plate alone contains an incredible 22,000 to 55,000 underwater volcanoes, with at least 2,000 of them considered active.

Thinking that anyone could know exactly how many volcanoes lurk beneath the surface of the ocean is ludicrous, of course. But that 3,477,403 number, coming from two well-respected oceanographers, does reinforce my point rather nicely, namely, that underwater volcanoes are heating the seas.
...

www.themoralliberal.com...

And if you want to read research about the interstellar cloud which the entire Solar System will be completely inside within 100 years here are some threads and info about it.

Back around in 2004, and throughout the years I have presented these research papers which show that even back in the 1970s at least some scientists knew that our Solar System was approaching a nearby interstellar cloud which could have some possible effects on the global climate.

Is the solar system entering a nearby interstellar cloud

Vidal-Madjar, A.; Laurent, C.; Bruston, P.; Audouze, J.

Astrophysical Journal, Part 1, vol. 223, July 15, 1978, p. 589-600.

Observations indicating a hydrogen density gradient in the vicinity of the solar system are reviewed, particularly observations of an anisotropy in the far-UV flux around 950 A from the brightest and closest O and B stars as well as a variation in the local D/H ratio along the lines of sight to Alpha Cen and Alpha Aur. Possible mechanisms that may strongly affect the observed D/H ratio on a very small scale are considered, selected radiation pressure is proposed as the most likely mechanism for deuterium separation, and it is shown that this mechanism would be effective only if the density gradient of the nearby interstellar medium has remained stable for at least about 10 million years. This time scale is taken to imply the existence of a nearby (less than 2 pc distant) interstellar cloud. Observational arguments in favor of such a cloud are presented, and implications of the presence of a nearby cloud are discussed, including possible changes in terrestrial climate. It is suggested that the postulated interstellar cloud should encounter the solar system at some unspecified time in the 'near' future and might have a drastic influence on terrestrial climate in the next 10,000 years.

Keywords: ASTRONOMICAL MODELS, DEUTERIUM, HYDROGEN ATOMS, INTERSTELLAR GAS, SOLAR SYSTEM, ABUNDANCE, EARLY STARS, GAS DENSITY, INTERSTELLAR EXTINCTION

adsabs.harvard.edu...

At first the research suggested that it would take us from 10,000-50,000 years to reach this cloud, but recent reearch says we will be well within the cloud within the next 100 years.

I have also posted evidence that we have been already experiencing effects from small sections of this cloud which we have been encountering for many years.

Ribbon at Edge of Our Solar System: Will the Sun Enter a Million-Degree Cloud of Interstellar Gas?
ScienceDaily (May 24, 2010) — Is the Sun going to enter a million-degree galactic cloud of interstellar gas soon?

Scientists from the Space Research Centre of the Polish Academy of Sciences, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Southwest Research Institute, and Boston University suggest that the ribbon of enhanced emissions of energetic neutral atoms, discovered last year by the NASA Small Explorer satellite IBEX, could be explained by a geometric effect coming up because of the approach of the Sun to the boundary between the Local Cloud of interstellar gas and another cloud of a very hot gas called the Local Bubble. If this hypothesis is correct, IBEX is catching matter from a hot neighboring interstellar cloud, which the Sun might enter in a hundred years.
...

www.sciencedaily.com...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/63ffeeb144dd.jpg[/atsimg]

The Sun traveling through the Galaxy happens to cross at the present time a blob of gas about ten light-years across, with a temperature of 6-7 thousand degrees kelvin. This so-called Local Interstellar Cloud is immersed in a much larger expanse of a million-degree hot gas, named the Local Bubble. The energetic neutral atoms (ENA) are generated by charge exchange at the interface between the two gaseous media. ENA can be observed provided the Sun is close enough to the interface. The apparent Ribbon of ENA discovered by the IBEX satellite can be explained by a geometric effect: one observes many more ENA by looking along a line-of-sight almost tangent to the interface than by looking in the perpendicular direction. (Credit: SRC/Tentaris,ACh/Maciej Frolow)

www.sciencedaily.com...

Read this from 1996 when they thought it was farther away.

Our solar system may be headed for an encounter with a dense cloud of interstellar matter
Our solar system may be headed for an encounter with a dense cloud of interstellar matter–gas and dust–that could have substantial implications for our solar systems interplanetary environment, according to University of Chicago astrophysicist Priscilla Frisch. The good news is that it probably won’t happen for 50,000 years. Frisch presented the results of her research Monday, June 10, at the meeting of the American Astronomical Society in Madison, Wisc.

Frisch has been investigating the interstellar gas in the local neighborhood of our solar system, which is called the Local Interstellar Medium (LISM). This interstellar gas is within 100 light years of the Sun. The Sun has a trajectory through space, and for most of the last five million years, said Frisch, it has been moving through a region of space between the spiral arms of the Milky Way galaxy that is almost devoid of matter. Only recently, within the last few thousand years, she estimates, the Sun has been traveling through a relatively low-density interstellar cloud.

“This cloud, although low density on average, has a tremendous amount of structure to it,” Frisch said. “And it is not inconsistent with our data that the Sun may eventually encounter a portion of the cloud that is a million times denser than what we’re in now.”

Frisch believes the interstellar cloud through which we’re traveling is a relatively narrow band of dust and gas that lies in a superbubble shell expanding outward from an active star-formation region called the Scorpius-Centaurus Association. “When this superbubble expanded around these stars, it expanded much farther into the region of our galaxy between the spiral arms, where our sun lies, because the density is very low,” Frisch said. “It didn’t expand very far in the direction parallel to the spiral arms because it ran into very dense molecular clouds.”
...

www-news.uchicago.edu...

All of this research, and much more I have posted in threads such as the following.
www.abovetopsecret.com...



www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by 1littlewolf

BTW, that little picture of yours is a complete fabrication. AGW/Carbon Credits has become a multi-billion dollar industry which funds researchers, and which many corporations are using to gain huge profits...

And the claim that "90% of scientists agree with you is again nothing but a LIE...

I have posted in the past the fact that many scientists have even written back to their directors in their respective scientific groups and complained about the claim that ALL, or MOST scientists agree with the AGW lie...

As an example here is one such group.

World’s Largest Scientific Society Rejects Man-Made Climate Fears

WORLD’S LARGEST SCIENCE GROUP REJECTING MAN-MADE CLIMATE FEARS

By Marc Morano
July 31, 2009
NewsWithViews.com

An outpouring of skeptical scientists who are members of the American Chemical Society (ACS) are revolting against the group’s editor-in-chief — with some demanding he be removed — after an editorial appeared claiming “the science of anthropogenic climate change is becoming increasingly well established.”

The editorial claimed the “consensus” view was growing “increasingly difficult to challenge, despite the efforts of diehard climate-change deniers.” The editor now admits he is “startled” by the negative reaction from the group’s scientific members. The American Chemical Society bills itself as the “world’s largest scientific society.”

The June 22, 2009 editorial in Chemical and Engineering News by editor in chief Rudy Baum, is facing widespread blowback and condemnation from American Chemical Society member scientists. Baum concluded his editorial by stating that “deniers” are attempting to “derail meaningful efforts to respond to global climate change.”

Dozens of letters were published on July 27, 2009 castigating Baum, with some scientists calling for his replacement as editor-in-chief.

The editorial was met with a swift, passionate and scientific rebuke from Baum’s colleagues. Virtually all of the letters published on July 27 in castigated Baum’s climate science views. Scientists rebuked Baum’s use of the word “deniers” because of the terms “association with Holocaust deniers.” In addition, the scientists called Baum’s editorial: “disgusting”; “a disgrace”; “filled with misinformation”; “unworthy of a scientific periodical” and “pap.”
...

Link

Another example...

50 NASA Scientists Against Global Warming

James Delingpole · Apr 11 at 1:40am
Science is not a numbers game. As Einstein said when Hitler commissioned a pamphlet called 100 Scientists Against Einstein: "If I were wrong, one would have been enough." (H/T Marc Morano)

Nonetheless, I think we should all be quietly encouraged by the recent letter by 50 former NASA astronauts, engineers and scientists protesting at the way their once-great institution has been prostituting its name in order to promote the great man-made global warming scam.

The letter says:

We, the undersigned, respectfully request that NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites. We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data. With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled.

The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements.

As former NASA employees, we feel that NASA’s advocacy of an extreme position, prior to a thorough study of the possible overwhelming impact of natural climate drivers is inappropriate. We request that NASA refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject. At risk is damage to the exemplary reputation of NASA, NASA’s current or former scientists and employees, and even the reputation of science itself.

ricochet.com...


You should try to iform yourself first instead of implying people are making false claims when in fact you are just ignorant on the specific topics being discussed...

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


So let me get this right. You think that some interstellar cloud that may be anywhere from a century, to many millennia out is causing climate change on planet earth.



You think that's a reasonable assumption?

I'm just clarifying your stance.

According to the hypothesis presented in this document, a more dense interstellar cloud would mean less solar radiation would hit the earth, causing a decrease in temperature!

As for the temperature of the cloud itself, wouldn't the temperature change as it crosses through the heliosphere

I'm pretty sure that protective bubble exists for a reason!

Link

I've emailed a couple of astrophysicists to see what their position is on the heliosphere's interactions with a highly dense, high temperature interstellar cloud would mean. I'm thinking the heliosphere would "protect" us from the high temperature as it passes, but am not sure. Will post back to the thread if one of them responds.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


We`re actually moving towards two clouds.

The G cloud is a denser and colder one.

The other cloud we`re flying into is the local bubble.
Our Local cloud we`ve been in for about 45000 years, which isn`t very dense and also not very magnetic, is embedded in this giant cloud, together with the G cloud and some other clouds.

The giant local bubble is much less dense than our cloud, but it`s very hot and it consists of plasma, so it is very magnetic.

The charge transfer between the highly charged plasma ions and the neutral atoms generates X-ray emission. We assume a typical abundance of heavy ions for the Local Bubble plasma and estimate the X-ray emissivity due to charge exchange from the interface between the cold neutral cloud and the hot plasma.

arxiv.org... side 12


Normally that high temperature wouldn`t be transfered into our cloud or into the solar system, because it`s matter-density is very low, which is typical for plasma, but how is it at the interaction zone?

We study the influence of heat conduction within the plasma on the interaction between a cloud and the plasma. We consider the extreme case and assume that hot plasma electrons instantly heat the plasma in the interaction region and that plasma flow can be described as isothermal.

adsabs.harvard.edu...


There are shock waves, so that in those places the matter of the big local bubble is pressed together and therefore it is denser there. And at that interaction zone is the ribbon, NASA talked so much about 2009 and 2010 and which has changed so dramatically, so it could be much more less than 100 years away.

In the last press conference 2012 there was absolute silence about it.


At that press conference NASA stated, we would reach the dense and colder G cloud within the next thousand years.

Priscilla Frisch, a leading scientist in this range and member of the 2012 press conference team, stated 2008:

Absorption line studies seem to suggest that, by coincidence, the
heliosphere is just now passing through the transition zone – possibly a shock transition –
between the “Local Interstellar Cloud” and “Cloud G”

Yes, we are in a transition zone, but with the plasma local bubble.

Relative velocities of potentially interacting clouds are often
supersonic, consistent with heating, turbulent, and metal-depletion properties.
Cloud-cloud collisions may be responsible for the filamentary morphologies found
in ∼1/3 of LISM clouds,

arxiv.org... Side 1

Those filamentary morphologies can cause sudden changes upon our heliosphere.

But the effects of a denser cloud and of a plasma cloud are somehow comparable:
- By both our heliosphere gets more compressed.
- Denser cloud: More matter is coming into our solar system.
- Plasma cloud: Dangerous interaction between the plasma of the cloud, our sun, our earth`s magnetic field and perhaps our earth`s outer core can occure (if the earth`s outer core is plasma too, then, cause our magnetic field has great breaches and is weakening, interaction is possible). Read about magnetic reconnection between plasmas in my last post before this one, if you`re interested.

And our heliosphere is already shrinking and weakening independable of the eleven years solar cycle.

science.nasa.gov...

In 1999 the solar wind disappeared for two days.

science.nasa.gov...


At the press conference of 2012 NASA stated that
- against their prior assumption the helioshere of our solar system isn`t compressed by the velocity and the matter of the local cloud we`re in, but by it`s magnetism.
- our heliosphere is compressed by this magnetism from above and at the downside like a beachball, when one sits upon it and it`s also compressed at it`s nose.
- there are two flow trajectories coming in from the nose, one of them is faster, the other one is slower. They didn`t explain why.
- at one side of our heliosphere (in the shown picture the right side) there can only the local bubble (the giant cloud of hot plasma) be seen, not any dust of our local cloud.
- and that`s something I really can`t understand, our solar system would be flying through such a cloud every 45 thousand years. What? The shapes of the single clouds are very different. Priscilla Frisch said that, the same scientist, who has been working with this stuff for many years. She didn`t say: by average or: about, or something like that. This is, as if a middle school student would say: 2 plus 2 = 5. Okay, I don`t want to put too much weight upon that, but it wonders me.

Here is the video:

www.youtube.com...

reply to post by aboriginee


I`ve forgotten somethimg:
I`ve been wondering about the contradictions about the case, which cloud we`re interacting with.
But now, especially regarding the last press conference, I`ve come to the conclusion, that I believe their last (indirect) statements and it`s the local bubble. NASA, never a straight answer.

reply to post by aboriginee


And here I am once more.
Correction:
I wrote ( in the context of NASA`s announcements in their 2012 press coference):
- at one side of our heliosphere (in the shown picture the right side) there can only the local bubble (the giant cloud of hot plasma) be seen, not any dust of our local cloud.

Right is: From the viewpoint of our solar system only the G cloud can be seen in that direction, because it`s dense.
The hot local bubble is between the heliosphere and the G cloud.

reply to post by aboriginee

Originally posted by aboriginee

For old bunnies, may I ask some questions?

Why is the Indo-Australien plate breaking up?
And why is the read sea breaking apart?
And why is Africa breaking apart?

Simple plate tectonics. All the continents of the world come together and then break apart again every approximately every 400 million years following the ‘Wilson Cycle’. We are currently in the middle of one of these cycles which is why all the continents are more or less evenly spread across the globe. Last time they were together they formed the two super continents Gondwana and Laurasia at the height of the dinosaur era following the breakup of Pangaea. About a billion years ago they were together again though in a different order in another supercontinent called Rodinia


Pangaea breaking apart

On the whole the continents themselves are fairly stable and remain together as most of the activity takes place in the oceanic plate which is quite a bit thinner in comparison to the continents themselves. But this is not a rule and it is not uncommon for them to break apart even mid cycle. Here is a link you may find interesting.
www.le.ac.uk...

Why have there been so many sinkholes appearing worldwide during the last years?

I wasn’t aware that they’d been increasing but then I haven’t really been following the situation either. Sinkholes usually occur in limestone dominated regions and are caused by acidic rainwater or groundwater dissolving this limestone. If they have been increasing then just off the top of my head I would suggest it could be due to increased acidity in rainwater (possibly groundwater too) due to atmospheric pollution.

Could it be, that the earth is expanding?

No.

The expanding Earth Theory is complete rubbish and is not supported by either physical or fossil evidence. If the Earth had expanded like the theorists are proposing then it would be more or less completely flat and relatively featureless. It is plate subduction which has caused most of the mountain ranges and volcanoes which we see around us today as seen in that first link in this post.

The mantle conducts electricity due to the amount of iron etc in it. Even water conducts electricity with enough dissolved ions in it. But liquids (even very viscous ones such as the mantle) are not magnetic because (strong)magnetism requires an alignment of molecules which can only be provided by a solid.

Yes, the outer mantle is very conductive.

www.sciencedaily.com...

ScienceDaily (Dec. 4, 2008) — Researchers from INSU-CNRS, working with chemists at a CNRS research unit, have explained that the high conductivity of the Earth’s upper mantle is due to molten carbonates. They demonstrated the very high conductivity of this form of carbon.

But also the inner mantle is conductive, cause of the pressure acting upon it.

www.zmescience.com...

it appears that a mineral called Wustite (FeO), believed to be a significant component of the Earth’s mantle, can be made to conduct electricity at high temperatures and pressures.

The very lower part of the mantle is liquid.

www.ucl.ac.uk...

Thermodynamics of silicate liquids in the deep Earth

The predicted melting temperature of MgSiO3 perovskite at
136 GPa is 5400±600 K, which if lowered by freezing point depression by 1300 K, yields a mantle solidus
temperature of 4100 K, identical to recent estimates of the temperature at the base of the mantle. We argue
on this basis that partial melting at the base of the mantle is plausible.

But that liquid layer is also conductive.

www.sciencedirect.com...

This observation, combined with previous measurements of the conductivity of olivine (A. Duba, H.C. Heard and R. Schock, 1974) make it possible to state with reasonable confidence that melts occurring within the mantle will be more conductive by 3–4 orders of magnitude than their refractory residues. Potential applications to geothermometry are discussed.

Correct. There is a hell of a lot of metal down there and liquid or not it will still conduct electricity

In terms of the very weak magnetic field which the interstellar cloud would have, there is no way this could or would affect the mantle. This would be akin to a child's horseshoe magnetic causing a volcano to erupt. Magnetic fields can and do effect interstellar gas/plasma such as in early stars simply due to the low density of such entities.

Magnetism cannot cause Earthquakes, and any magnet actually capable of doing so would have long since sucked every piece of iron off the planet deep into space.

Here`s s.th. about magnetic reconnection between plasmas, even through far distances:

en.wikipedia.org...

Magnetic reconnection is a physical process in highly conducting plasmas in which the magnetic topology is rearranged and magnetic energy is converted to kinetic energy, thermal energy, and particle acceleration

'Dayside reconnection' allows interconnection of the Earth's magnetic field with that of the Sun (the Interplanetary Magnetic Field), allowing particle and energy entry into the Earth's vicinity.

Between plasmas even small forces can generate great changes:

en.wikipedia.org...

Magnetic reconnection in highly conductive systems is important because it concentrates energy in time and space, so that gentle forces applied to a plasma for long periods of time can cause violent explosions and bursts of radiation

Keep in mind that all these plasmas are in unconfined space with little to no other extraneous forces acting upon them. This is why they are as reactive to magnetism as your links suggest.

Owens, a scientist, claims, that the earth`s outer core is plasma.

www.gsi.de...

Under extreme conditions of temperature, pressure and density, matter can assume a fourth state: the plasma

www.wincom.net...

Owen points out that a plasma core provides a better explanation for the behaviour of the mantle which surrounds the Earth's outer core. The mantle lies directly beneath the crust and its convection currents are responsible for the creation of new crust and continental movement.

This is very interesting and I personally hadn’t ever heard this theory.

However it is still very doubtful that even if this was true that a plasma core would ever be influenced by the very weak magnetic forces which originate from space. The core is confined by immense pressure from the Earth which surrounds it. It is not free and is very dense unlike the plasmas and gases one finds in space.

reply to post by Larry L

Originally posted by Larry L

I'm only going to be replying to a particular thing you said here. Due to the limitations of my browser, I can't really post up data charts or pics of any kind aside from just links.

The part I'm replying to is simply you stating that NOW is the warmest period is human history. WRONG. And if you were really the "Earth scientist" you claim to be, instead of just spreading man made global warming propaganda, you never would have said that, since you'd know about the period which is known to climatologists as "The Medieval Warm Period", which lasted about 300-400 years, from (about) 1000ad to (about) 1400ad. Those are estimates and just working off top of my head memory. A time when there were wine vineyard, year round, in the most northern parts of England. This is also one of the most prosperous times in ALL of human history based on the things we were building back then.

This "medieval warm period" was then followed by about 100-200 years of what REAL climatologist refer to as "the little ice age". A period in Englands history when the Thames would be completely frozen over in the winter months, and Englanders would be having huge bazzars right on the frozen over Thames.

Whether you believe me or not about being an Earth scientist is no concern of mine. The facts speak for themselves and browser issues or not you have yet to post a single link.

If we were discussing this topic even just a decade ago then the Medieval Warm Period would be comparable to the Current Warm Period but unfortunately temperatures have still kept of rising. 9 out of the 10 hottest years on record have been since the year 2000 and most of your Great Global Warming Swindle’s graphs stop at the year 2000. I encourage you to look at the link I placed at the end of my last post critiquing your documentary.

Then you could talk about the Holocene era in which temeratures were FAR higher than even the medieval warm period for over 4000 years. A time when Arctic researchers say the was no norther ice cap at all. Polar Bears existed at this time, and they seem to have made it through perfectly fine. Man made CO2 had nothing to do with either of these warm periods. In fact CO2 is one of the LEAST effective greenhouse gasses. The most effective GHG in out atmosphere is water vapor. CO2 is not even half a percent of our atmosphere. And the majority of that half a percent comes from the oceans, the 2nd majority form Volcanos, the 3rd majority from dying grasses, leaves and the like. Humans are WAY down the list of CO2 contributors. (Hopefully you're learning something here)

Atmospheric Co2 has almost doubled since the industrial revolution and even the most ardent global warming denialists do not dispute that humans are the cause.

I do not for a second deny that temperatures have been hotter in past. The difference between then and now is that there were measurable natural reasons for these temperature rises. There is only one thing which can currently account for the rise in temperatures we are seeing at the moment and that is man made CO2. Another difference is the speed at which these rises/falls took place. It happened over 100’s to 1000’s of years. The rises we are seeing now are happening over just a few decades and are rising exponentially faster as we can see in the past decade.

You're just spreading propaganda based on basically pseudo-science, and numbers cooked to portray an agenda. Once you watch The Great Global Warming Swidle you'll be better educated on this agenda, and btw, when you watch it pay attention to WHO the people are that are being interviewed......some of the most respected climatologists and ecologists and other science fields in the world, even the founder of GreenPeace. Well......I should say WERE well respected......until they started speaking out against man-made global warming. Most have had their lives threatened since.

Again I will direct you to the critique made of this film presented not only in the link at the end of my last post but also in many other sources such as Wikipedia. Not only are they not as respected as the documentary claims, but many of them have been bankrolled as professional debunkers by major oil firms. Also many of the graphs have either been doctored or end at the year 2000 or simply do not come from the sources which the film makers claim they come from.

THIS is the definition of propaganda. A series of half truths and erroneous claims based upon questionable data.

Oh, and just one more quick thing. That last pic you posted in your previous post...the NASA satelite image. That is one single frame from a video, and the frame is from the end of summer. In The Great Global Warming Swindle, they have the actual video from that satelite from when it launch in the early/mid 90's through till the video I keep refering to was made, and it shows every single year the ice cap recedes to that point by end of summer, and fills all the way back out by the end of winter. This is nothing new according to actual arctic research scientists, and it's only now that there are satelite images showing the ice receding every year that can be shown to the public to rile them up to suit an agenda, are people outside of Arctic science even paying attention to the yearly ice recession and extention.

Again, this is all gone over in the video, and includes data from the world's PREMIER Arctic scientist. (I can't rememeber his name off the top of my head, it's been so long since I've watched The Great Global Warming Swindle). His credientials are in the video.

NASA has shown that Arctic ice has receded further this summer than it ever has in the 100 years or so since it has been monitored. I’m sorry but there is simply no way around this fact. I’m not even going to bother posting a link since it is all over the news and a simple Google search will show dozens of legitimate sources which prove I am correct.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


I refuse to argue with the same person posting the same excerpts and drawing the same erroneous conclusions from them in two different threads.

When I am next able I will respond to all your claims in both this and the other thread here where our discussions have been much more epic.

reply to post by 1littlewolf

Simple plate tectonics. All the continents of the world come together and then break apart again every approximately every 400 million years following the ‘Wilson Cycle’. We are currently in the middle of one of these cycles which is why all the continents are more or less evenly spread across the globe. Last time they were together they formed the two super continents Gondwana and Laurasia at the height of the dinosaur era following the breakup of Pangaea. About a billion years ago they were together again though in a different order in another supercontinent called Rodinia

That means, the Atlantic Ridge is opening and creating new sea floor, while in the Pacific Ring of Fire some sea floor disappears caused by subduction.

Here you can see opening rates on the sea floor by average per year:

volcano.oregonstate.edu...

Slow: 1-5 cm/yr total opening rate
Medium: 5-10 cm/yr total opening rate
Fast: 10-20 cm/yr total opening rate

With that opening rates the size of the earth remains constant.

But now something new has appeared:

www.spiegel.de...

In the last five years, the geologic transformation of northeastern Africa has "accelerated dramatically," says Wright. Indeed, the process is going much faster than many had anticipated. In recent years, geologists had measured just a few millimeters of movement each year. "But now the earth is opening up by the meter," says Lorraine Field, a scholar at the University of Bristol who also attended the conference.

I can`t claim, that the earth is growing at the moment, cause I`m no scientist, but one can see, that irregularities can occur.

Perhaps there were times of expanding and times of stability during the long history of earth. Unlike other growing-earth-theorists Owen included plate movement and conduction into his theory.

www.scientificexploration.org... side 471

Owen (1992) is a little more conservative in that his Earth was already
80% of the modern size during this period of “great expansion.” Owen
used the same geometry exercise used herein to prove that the generation of
crustal material does not equal the amount of subduction plus the amount of
foreshortening (collision)

.

All of these models include descriptions of the growth of the Tethys Sea and
the fit of Pangaea, all based on magnetic anomalies

However it is still very doubtful that even if this was true that a plasma core would ever be influenced by the very weak magnetic forces which originate from space. The core is confined by immense pressure from the Earth which surrounds it. It is not free and is very dense unlike the plasmas and gases one finds in space

Some citations out of an article about plasma physics from the National Academies Press:


www.nap.edu... side 46, 47

Plasma populations throughout the universe interact with solid bodies, gases, magnetic fields, electromagnetic radiation, magnetohydrodynamic waves, shock waves, and other plasma populations. These interactions can occur locally as well as on very large scales between objects such as galaxies, stars, and planets.

Magnetic field lines connecting different plasma populations act as channels for the transport of plasmas, currents, electric fields, and waves between the two environments. In this way, the two plasmas become coupled electromagnetically to one another.

When a flowing magnetized plasma strikes a solid object, an atmosphere, or a magnetosphere, strong interactions of various types can occur.

Often the mesoscale and macroscale dynamics are produced by microscale phenomena (as magnetic reconnection leads to coronal mass ejections and magnetospheric substorms), while macroscale phenomena can drive dynamics at the smaller scales

Something about climate change:


www.staff.science.uu.nl...

Space weather ... is set by solar magnetism. Solar activity modulation affects satellite orbits, influences jet stream patterns and contributes to the causes of minor, possibly major, ice ages

Solar magnetism can change jet steams and cause climate change, also pole excursions (which can lead to magnetic pole shifts or are the beginning of them) can do that.

www.nature.com...

Short lived geomagnetic 'events' provide useful stratigraphic markers; they may enhance climatic and evolutionary changes and they provide stringent parameters for geomagnetic models. During such events the virtual geomagnetic pole undergoes excursions outside the usual range

Before ice ages often warming periods occur.