[Closed] At the current rate of deterioration in the global weather systems patterns!

I find your stellar procession stuff interesting..

but the seismic and weather non-events you worried about don't make sense unless I'm missing something..

Does faux science prove so gripping because it's both more accessible (due to requiring less education) and more exciting (because it's full of half-baked conspiracy theory style ideas) than real science?

pretty good book

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Cycle-Cosmic-Catastrophes-History-Civilization/dp/1591430615

[img] [/img]

Yunki, you appear to be missing out climate change!

Seismic activity and the weather are two forms of energy transference or management systems that the planet uses to regulate it's surface conditions.

Every culture that has developed has had writing, however our records only go back a few thousand years.

wrong.

and certain online communities are then exploiting your new found interests and insecurities to peddle conspiracy theories, and alternative new age 'science'

100% this.

keva if there was a cycle in the milky way that meant every so many thousand years or so, this planet passed through a sector of space that caused extreme weather globally.

Weather so extreme that it was called by most ancient peoples the world storm/flood and has been recorded in many forms over the Millennium by civilizations from different parts of the world with no contact, do you not think that they would have made a film about it?

alpin - Member

Every culture that has developed has had writing, however our records only go back a few thousand years.

wrong.

Thanks for pointing that out alpin, took you long enough but better late than never, some cultures simply rely on oral traditions, however every culture will advance and progress.

How is it possible for a race as old as ours, to have made so little progress for all the time in our history! what we did in the past 2,000 years could have been done at any point in our history, why was it not?

How much time do we think we have until the planet is uninhabitable?

I think we will be invaded by a race of super sexy green female aliens who will strip the planet of all its resources making it uninhabitable and make me personally there sexy slave two whole days before man's reckless use of fossil fuels drive the planet to the brink of destruction.

Here's a question, if humanity has been around for well over 100,000 years in it's current form, why is it only now that we are seeing such population growth?

Because we developed agriculture.

[img] [/img]

can bombard the earth with certain types of energy, this energy is absorbed by the earths core, which in turn increases the heat of the core.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inner_core

If your going to offer this^ as evidence to support your theory then a least have the common decency to read what is you putting forward because...........

Little is known about how the inner core grows. Because it is slowly cooling..................

FFS

Here in France the evening weather forecast now makes much of overnight temperatures during heat waves. Daytime temperatures aren't rising much long term but overnight readings are, showing less heat is being lost overnight when there is a clear sky. For example the Pic du Midi weather station recorded a record +13.5°C the night before last and the Aiguille du Midi +4°C.

kaesae - Member

How is it possible for a race as old as ours, to have made so little progress for all the time in our history! what we did in the past 2,000 years could have been done at any point in our history, why was it not?

It couldn't- every development is a stone placed upon a previous stone. Obviously.

if we are being bombarded by so much energy from astral bodies (other than the sun) that it is heating up the earth's core then surely we can measure or harness that energy in some way? Sounds like it would make a great free energy source.

I have crystals what colour do you need?

As for seismic activity not increasing and the nice graph showing numbers, all very well however you are missing out intensity?

It couldn't- every development is a stone placed upon a previous stone. Obviously.

Except technological development is never linear, it comes in leaps and bounds.

Technology arises suddenly quite often because of need. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic_Revolution

Yup, but you couldn't have had the first agricultural revolution without the slower development that led up to that point. Should go without saying that technological development doesn't come at a linear rate, but also that there's prerequisites to development- no agriculture without tool use, no large population centres without agriculture, and so on.

[img] http://www.firetown.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/38236_453812311012_197766376012_6637441_5427842_n1.jp g" target="_blank">http://www.firetown.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/38236_453812311012_197766376012_6637441_5427842_n1.jp g"/> [/img]

A couple more questions about your theories kaesae:

The energy that is affecting our planet is being channeled through the Sun, Suns are the primary physical regulatory force in the milky way.

But the energy output from Sun has not changed. Surely if the Sun started channelling the astral energy of the Milky Way, and bombarding us with enough energy to reverse the cooling of the Earth's core, then we'd be able to detect and measure it?

Surely if we could harness such an enormously powerful energy then I think we'd go a long way to solving our fossil fuel issues.

When Suns are forced into closer proximity to each other due to their course / trajectory or processional orbit through the milky way

Has that happened though? Our nearest neighbour sun/star is [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxima_Centauri ]Proxima Centauri[/url], which is 24,938,000,000,000 miles away (4.24 light years). Is that "close proximity"? When and why did it suddenly get closer if we're all following a similar orbit around the centre of the galaxy?

As well as distance I'm also a little confused by the timescales. As I understand it, our "cosmic year", the time it takes our sun to orbit the centre of the Milky Way, is roughly 225 million years. But the Climate Change debate is about an apparent temperature rise in the past 100 years.

Given the galactic timescales involved, it seems unlikely that our relative position has altered enough in a century to cause such an issue.

Indeed, near the end of the video you posted (very nice by the way), it does actually talk about a possible link to climate change from galactic procession: but that was historical periods of extended cooling, not warming, which coincided with us passing through the spiral arms of the Milky Way. And the timescale involved was 500 million years, not 100 years.

As for seismic activity not increasing and the nice graph showing numbers, all very well however you are missing out intensity?

As Junkyard pointed out, that particular graph [i]was[/i] for intense (above 7.0) earthquakes.

The British and US Geological Surveys both explicitly state that there has been no recent increase (or decrease) in seismic activity, either in intensity or frequency.

You asked me to do research and "Look at seismic activity globally" and that's what I found. Where are you getting the idea that seismic activity has increased?

How is it possible for a race as old as ours, to have made so little progress for all the time in our history!

I suspect he meant "race" as in "human race" (i.e. species)?

Also....

[img] [/img]

Every culture that has developed has had writing, however our records only go back a few thousand years.

Written language was initially developed as a way of keeping track of agricultural surplus. Ancient Sumerian around 5,500 years ago is one of the first examples.

Agricultural surplus wasn't really possible without the invention of agriculture.

The spread of agriculture relied on having a relatively stable climate free of ice ages which were pretty frequent up to around 10,000-15,000 years ago.

Once the ice ages stopped agriculture delveloped pretty quickly, stable agriculture occured in the "Fertile Crescent" (the modern Middle East) as much as 9000 years ago.

kaesae - Member
Do we know for certain if our sun effects the weather on this planet?

I cannot believe you asked that tbh and GrhamS you are quite optomistic

GrahamS you are quite optomistic

In the new spirit of not being argumentative or derogatory I've tried to treat kaesae's theories with as much respect as I can muster.

I've stuck to a polite carefully considered analysis and deliberately avoided words like "fruitloop", "crackpot" and "new age mumbo-jumbo" 😀

But the energy output from Sun has not changed. Surely if the Sun started channelling the astral energy of the Milky Way, and bombarding us with enough energy to reverse the cooling of the Earth's core, then we'd be able to detect and measure it?

Grahams if the energy output of the sun is constant and as you claim has not changed, how then do you explain solar flares?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_flare

Our planet will be affected by a lot of other astral bodies just as it is by the moon, however none will have as significant an effect as our sun.

You are missing out volcanic activity and only focusing on earth quakes in terms of seismic activity, why is that? How many tremors, earth quakes and after shocks are equivalent to an eruption?

Our planet orbits the sun on an axis that axis is not a straight line it wobbles, we could say that it wobbles from the positive to the negative polarity of it's magnetic field along it's axis.

Our solar system will adhere to a similar law when it makes it's way through the milky way along an axis, if we say that our solar system dips beneath the axis of the milky way for a set period of time let's say 500'000 years as an example and then proceeds to a position above the axis for 500,000 years, could this not account for our flipping of the magnetic poles?

Did you notice that there are sectors or area's of space inside the milkyway that we will pass through during our stellar progression that are far more densely populated by stars?

If all of the solar systems in the milky way are also moving in a similar fashion to us and remain equally distant from each other, how exactly do you propose that there can be areas that have far greater density in terms of stars? If all of the solar systems adhere to the what you are saying and remain equidistant how then can the milkyway function?

If we go through the middle of a spiral arm as opposed to being on the edge of a spiral arm or in between spriral arms are you proposing that we will still experience the exact same conditions on this planet? also that electromagnetic and magnetic fields throughout the entire milkyway do not experience any field variations, regardless of our position in the milkyway?

Time scale is only relevant or relative to our position in the milky way, how far has our solar system traveled in the past 100 years and what are we now approaching in terms of stellar configurations within the milkyway ?

Grahams if the energy output of the sun is constant and as you claim has not changed, how then do you explain solar flares?

Lol what? Two unrelated things!

Also when did the Hurdy Girdy start sing songs of mirth.

Ace thread keep it up.

No one seems to have guessed at how much time we actually have left?

Here's an alternative question, is the weather we are seeing now more or less severe than weather that has affected the planet in the past? for example the last ice age and was the last ice age also caused by green house gases or man made technologies?

No one seems to have guessed at how much time we actually have left?

dj zinc holds the answer

No one seems to have guessed at how much time we actually have left?

Are you kidding? There are teams of scientists all over the world trying to work out what'll happen to the climate and weather in the future. It's in the news quite a lot!

I'm really not sure what your point is.

I think kaesae's original point was to question how much time humans have left on the planet if the climate related changes we are seeing now continue to escalate (and if the few who denied climate change is happening still retain their original beliefs and are they still in employment to further those beliefs)
Maybe I am wrong, regardlessI have no idea how this thread ended up here, however I have found it entertaining and to be fair I often find kaesae's threads entertaining if somewhat irrational and eccentric!

Nacho are you suggesting that the majority of people on the earth today are rational?

If indeed the majority of the population of the earth are indeed irrational as our current attitude towards ourselves as individuals and as a collective whole as well as our attitude towards the world we live on clearly demonstrates, WTF would most people know about rationality?

And does the fact that we are clearly an irrational species not demonstrate that members of our species should avoid using the term irrational, because clearly they have no concept of it's meaning or grasp of it's significance relative to our current situation or any circumstantial events?

Nope. I wasn't going that deep. Just stating that IMHO your threads generally are. 😀

Yes but let's face it, we humans are not exactly a rational race are we, it's a bit like the saying never trust a bald barber!

I may appear irrational to you! however how rational a person are you and how accurate is your understand of what rationality actually means.

I also have to questions your honesty as well, it has been by experience that not many capitalist personages appreciate the truth or honesty for that matter.

For example when someone you know asks a questions, do you tell them what they want to hear or the truth?

Are you polite to people and cordial even if you think they are a ****?

Basically I am questioning everything and I'm not afraid to make some mistakes in the process of learning, in fact I can't think of a way to learn that wouldn't involve changing my perspective or view point once my knowledge increases, so since it is a natural part of learning, how can it be a mistake?

molgrips - Member

Grahams if the energy output of the sun is constant and as you claim has not changed, how then do you explain solar flares?

Lol what? Two unrelated things!

Molgrips I am a bit old fashioned and see things in a straight forward way, when ever I can.

However I do realize that there are individuals that are far more intelligent and knowledgeable than me, so perhaps you could help me with this question, how can the energy of the Sun not change or have not changed, but during a Solar flare it increases? How can it not change but increase?

True, I wouldn't class humans as a rational race.
If someone asks me a question I prefer to answer with the truth and I consider myself generally an honest person.
I try to be polite and cordial with people although if I think they are a **** I just avoid interaction where possible.
But what has this to do with how long humanity has left on this planet?

WOT?

OMFG, you is dicin me innit!

Humanity has some time left actually, what's coming isn't enough to destroy us, but it is going to set us back a good bit!

Solar flares are single quick events that take a day or two, and are only a symptom of solar activity, they don't make the sun hotter themselves.

Solar output changes over years on various cycles, and sunspots are linked with this. However over millions of years it has only declined slightly afaik. Not enough on its own to directly cause ice ages etc, but perhaps enough to influence prevailing weather patterns or to tip positive feedback cycles.

Basically I am questioning everything and I'm not afraid to make some mistakes in the process of learning,

There is loads of good science on this issue - it's a good place to start, but make sure you do lots of reading before jumping to conclusions 🙂

As for the fate of mankind - I think we will carry on, technology will eventually sort out our continuation, but in the process there will be a lot of pain and hardship caused by climate change.

If nobody else is going to ask:

was the last ice age also caused by green house gases or man made technologies?

Which technologies would those be?

is that what you call being in denial

Grahams if the energy output of the sun is constant and as you claim has not changed, how then do you explain solar flares?

It's a massive nuclear-powered fire - like any big fire, sometimes it flares up, sometimes it is a bit quieter, but the overall energy/heat reaching us at this distance is relatively stable (roughly 240 Watts per square metre). [url= http://royalsociety.org/uploadedFiles/Royal_Society_Content/policy/publications/2010/4294972962.pdf ]Sustained variations in the energy emitted by the Sun over the past 150 years is estimated to be small: about 0.12 Wm² (says The Royal Society)[/url]

Whereas the energy required to reverse the cooling of the Earth's core, which you hypothesised, would be massive and very noticeable.

Our planet will be affected by a lot of other astral bodies just as it is by the moon..

The moon is very close to us (~252,711 miles at its furthest point). It is close enough that we are affected by its gravitational pull.

Our nearest star is 24,938,000,000,000 miles away.

It's not a hard analogy: if I hold a magnet one centimetre from an iron plate then they will be pulled together. If the magnet is over 98.6 million centimetres away then it exerts absolutely no pull at all on the plate. That's the equivalent distances we are talking about.

You are missing out volcanic activity and only focusing on earth quakes in terms of seismic activity, why is that?

Because that hasn't increased either?

This from the [url= http://www.volcano.si.edu/faq/index.cfm?faq=06 ]"Global Volcanism Program" (part of the Smithsonian Institute)[/url]:
[img] [/img]

if we say that our solar system dips beneath the axis of the milky way for a set period of time let's say 500'000 years as an example and then proceeds to a position above the axis for 500,000 years, could this not account for our flipping of the magnetic poles?

You'd have to show our position relative to the axis has changed during that period and that some (presumably magnetic) force was is acting on us from the Milky Way altered based on our relative position to the axis.

It's certainly not the accepted explanation of [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geomagnetic_reversal ]geomagnetic reversal[/url] and wouldn't explain the varying frequency and duration of pole-flips or the periods where it doesn't quite flip (geomagnetic excursions). Or why the Sun does a similar flip every 12 years or so.

But more importantly, you are talking about changes over millions of years and saying it is responsible for climate change of 100 years.

If we go through the middle of a spiral arm as opposed to being on the edge of a spiral arm or in between spriral arms are you proposing that we will still experience the exact same conditions on this planet?

No, I'm saying that such changes happen over hundreds of millions of years - they are not responsible for the climate change in the space of 100 years or for allegedly reversing the cooling of the Earth's core (without anyone noticing) in 100 years.

Time scale is only relevant or relative to our position in the milky way, how far has our solar system traveled in the past 100 years and what are we now approaching in terms of stellar configurations within the milkyway ?

Our solar system hasn't moved significantly closer to anything else in the Milky Way in the past 100 years. It simply just doesn't happen that quickly. [i]That[/i] is why timescales are relevant.

Our solar system's speed through the Milky Way is reckoned to be 220km/s (136.7 miles pre second) or 0.073% of light speed.

Even if we had spent the past century hurtling DIRECTLY towards the nearest star AND tha star was somehow going against the processional orbit and was hurtling DIRECTLY back towards us at the same speed then we'd STILL only be 3% ([url= http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=100+years+at+%28136.7+miles+per+second+x+2%29 ]862 billion miles[/url]) closer than we are now.

It would still be very, very, very far away ([url= http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=24%2C938%2C000%2C000%2C000++miles+-+862.12+billion+miles+ ]over 24 trillion miles or 4.096 light years[/url])

was the last ice age also caused by green house gases or man made technologies?

I [i]really[/i] hope this is a rhetorical question, but I can't be sure!

how can the energy of the Sun not change or have not changed, but during a Solar flare it increases?

How can we define a "sea level" when I can quite clearly see waves?

That the sea isn't level at all!

was the last ice age also caused by green house gases or man made technologies?

The last glacial period was the most recent glacial period within the current ice age occurring during the last years of the Pleistocene, from approximately 110,000 to 10,000 years ago.[1]
During this period there were several changes between glacier advance and retreat. The maximum extent of glaciation was approximately 18,000 years ago. While the general pattern of global cooling and glacier advance was similar, local differences in the development of glacier advance and retreat make it difficult to compare the details from continent to continent (see picture of ice core data below for differences).
From the point of view of human archaeology, it falls in the Paleolithic and Mesolithic periods.
The last glacial period is sometimes colloquially referred to as the "last ice age", though this use is incorrect because an ice age is a longer period of cold temperature in which ice sheets cover large parts of the Earth, such as Antarctica. Glacials, on the other hand, refer to colder phases within an ice age that separate interglacials. Thus, the end of the last glacial period is not the end of the last ice age. The end of the last glacial period was about 12,500 years ago, while the end of the last ice age may not yet have come: little evidence points to a stop of the glacial-interglacial cycle of the last million years.
The last glacial period is the best-known part of the current ice age, and has been intensively studied in North America, northern Eurasia, the Himalaya and other formerly glaciated regions around the world. The glaciations that occurred during this glacial period covered many areas, mainly on the Northern Hemisphere and to a lesser extent on the Southern Hemisphere. They have different names, historically developed and depending on their geographic distributions: Fraser (in the Pacific Cordillera of North America), Pinedale, Wisconsinan or Wisconsin (in central North America), Devensian (in the British Isles), Midlandian (in Ireland), Würm (in the Alps), Mérida (in Venezuela), Weichselian or Vistulian (in Northern Europe and northern Central Europe), Valdai in Eastern Europe and Zyryanka in Siberia, Llanquihue in Chile, and Otira in New Zealand.

I think you are agreeing with him,

However humans did make big changes to the environment even then. Deforestation and altering the fauna.

Our planet orbits the sun on an axis that axis is not a straight line it wobbles, we could say that it wobbles from the positive to the negative polarity of it's magnetic field along it's axis

could this not account for our flipping of the magnetic poles?

Here's an alternative question, is the weather we are seeing now more or less severe than weather that has affected the planet in the past? for example the last ice age and was the last ice age also caused by green house gases or man made technologies?

Nacho are you suggesting that the majority of people on the earth today are rational?

None[ some illdefined cosmic thingy] will have as significant an effect as our sun.

it has been by experience that not many capitalist personages appreciate the truth or honesty for that matter.

You keep saying stuff like this – still running a bearing business for profit then - that is a serious question are you still the definition of a capitaist despite your criticism if it. Have a word with yourself an your business before criticising others.

If you would be so good to explain the extent of carbon-generating technology available to humans 12,800 years ago it would be appreciated.

Its a straw man as no one is claiming there is not natural change what the doubters have to show is that pumping billion of tons of a green house gas into the environment which leads to the earth storing more heat does not [ and by what method/mechanism] lead to a warmer climate. It is not an either or scenario either. We could have natural warming or coling exacerbated by man's actions. Clearly man had no affect on earlier climate change but that is not proof that we are not affecting it now.

Natural climate change has happened before, and lots of animals died. Plus, man made climate seems to be changing things far quicker than has ever changed before besides meteorite impacts, so we have no precedent.

And the flipping of magnetic poles is not our fault. It happens randomly all the time.

A long time ago there was a world flood

There have been several world floods, it's part of a cycle that our planet goes through regularly, that and tectonic instability that includes entire continents large areas of land sinking and occasionally rising also moving position or drifting.

Here's something for you to watch, not really relevant but interesting

Yeah I heard about that. The only survivors* were some old bloke and some animals who escaped in a [s]big[/s] chuffing huuuuuge boat, that then repopulated the Earth.

(* aside from fish. And crabs. And jellyfish. And dolphins. And whales. And seals...)

There have been several world floods

Really?

Good luck!

As a geologist I can't think of any point in the geological record where there is no evidence of land masses.

kaesae: I really don't mean to be a bore, but does [i]anything[/i] you claim have [i]any[/i] actual evidence for it, or indeed basis in [i]our[/i] reality?

Y'know, the cosmic energy from the Milky Way, being channelled through the sun, reversing the cooling of the Earth's core, and making the poles flip, causing increases in seismic activity, leading to climate change. Oh and world floods now too.

Cos, and I'm just putting this out there, it does sound just a [i]little[/i] far-fetched...

Kasaea [without meaning to cause offence] your argument is all over the place and not even close to cogent- I doubt anyone, including yourself, actually know what you are trying to say

There have been several world floods

The water is all in Glasgow !

Wettest summer in 20 something years.

Must be global warming.

Dryest summer in living memory in Skye and the Western Isles.

Must be global warming.

Assuming global is about 150 miles.

For stucol, who clearly missed it the first time...

😉

To be fair, I don't think kaesae is trying to make wild claims - it sounds to me as if he is telling us what he's read or heard to start a discussion.

He admitted he was not well informed earlier.

Our nearest star is 24,938,000,000,000 miles away.

[url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomical_unit ]um no it isn't[/url]

^^^ next nearest after the sun- this was discussed earlier in the thread

I don't think kaesae is trying to make wild claims

next nearest after the sun- this was discussed earlier in the thread

Okay, forgive me for not reading reams of what is quite frankly nonsense 😀

reasonable point and well made

I guess this thread proves that not all "theories" are equally valid.

This thread isn't about theories is supposed to be about awareness and looking into current matters. I have proposed a possible alternative cause for what is happening to this world and solar system.

A while ago I started a thread about my stellar realignment theory! in that thread I concluded by saying that time would tell and since the time is almost here we could simply wait.

Now the time of these global events is even closer and we will of course have to wait even less time to experience them, however I will say this, keep an eye on Japan and see what happens.

We could all say this, that and the next thing, however as history has proven over and over again, time will tell!

This thread isn't about theories is supposed to be about awareness and looking into current matters.

Realy? Every post you have made has been theories or odd questions. (which you never answer)

And surely if we want to do [i]something[/i] about climate change then a solid theory about what is causing it is pretty essential.

If it is man made, then we act to lower our emissions etc.

If it is some unavoidable natural cycle, and we can have no influence on it at all, then we can act on defending ourselves from the worst of it.

A while ago I started a thread about my stellar realignment theory! in that thread I concluded by saying that time would tell and since the time is almost here we could simply wait.

Yep. Very nearly here. Post back in another 500 million years and we'll see if you were right.

You might want to set a reminder...

I have proposed a possible alternative cause for what is happening to this world and solar system.

With all due respect, I think that's a bit of an exaggeration.

You've not "proposed an alternative cause," you've just made up something random based on (by your own admission) a weak understanding of, well, just about everything to be honest. Your "alternative cause" is about as valid as "well, there's a lot more wicked people dying these days so Hell's getting hotter to accommodate them, which is causing global warming."

A number of people have patiently explained facets of geology and astrophysics to you, and suggested that maybe, just maybe, your "alternative cause" is at best speculative science fiction. Now, you don't have to take all that at face value of course, but you said you had a desire to learn and increase your knowledge, so listening to people who [i]actually know things[/i] might be a good place to start perhaps?

Or if you want to start on something simpler in your quest for knowledge, you could do worse than reading [url= http://theoatmeal.com/comics/apostrophe ]this[/url].

I will say this, keep an eye on Japan and see what happens

Ten percent of the world's active volcanoes are found in Japan, which lies in a zone of extreme crustal instability. They are formed by subduction of the Pacific Plate and the Philippine Sea Plate. As many as 1,500 earthquakes are recorded yearly, and magnitudes of four to six on the Richter scale are not uncommon. Minor tremors occur almost daily in one part of the country or another, causing slight shaking of buildings.

if the fate of mankind will be communicated through wikipedia & youtube we deserve damnation.. 😆

as for arguing over who's better informed on a MTB forum 🙄

kaesae: do you know if any work has been done to look for any correlations between this work and what it shows and the movement of the stars or other astral bodies?

Well, our relative movement amongst all the other astral bodies and earth's biological diversity has been examined:
[url= http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/04/24/svensmark_supernova_life_on_earth/ ]A lay-layman's guide to:[/url]
[url= http://calderup.wordpress.com/2012/04/24/a-stellar-revision-of-the-story-of-life/ ]A layman's guide to:[/url]
[url=ftp://ftp2.space.dtu.dk/pub/Svensmark/MNRAS_Svensmark2012.pdf]A paper.[/url]

This thread isn't about theories

Why are there so many of your "theories" in it then ?

[its] supposed to be about awareness

Learn some actual science and get some then ?

I have proposed a possible alternative cause for what is happening to this world and solar system.

Sorry, but no, you haven't.

A while ago I started a thread about my stellar realignment theory! in that thread I concluded by saying that time would tell and since the time is almost here we could simply wait.

So no scientific knowledge involved in that either then by the sound of it ?
Just .... Let's wait and see.

Now the time of these global events is even closer and we will of course have to wait even less time to experience them,

How long do we have to wait then ?

however I will say this, keep an eye on Japan and see what happens.

Go on then, What's going to happen in Japan ?
Enlighten everyone.

We could all say this, that and the next thing, however as history has proven over and over again, time will tell!

What does that even mean ?

We're all DOOMED!

I've concluded that kaesae is actually an elaborate deep geek troll.

So much effort though! There are far easier ways to troll geeks, as a great man once said:

[img] [/img]

Let's recap so we can evaluate, what did we learn? actually we did not manage to learn or accomplish anything of value.

We did of course discover who are the winners and who is the LLOOOOSSEERR, so some people will be well chuffed with themselves, however if we look at energy / man power in relation to anything accomplished in a physical sense or even investment vs potential return, what we have in real terms to show for our efforts, is the fact that we are all undeniably retarded!

Edukator, how would you like to help me research something? I have sensitive eyes so can't spend too much time in front of monitors.

However I do have an idea that could shed some more light on the authenticity of the world flood myth.

Any chance you could loan your expertise in geology to my researching the myths?

We did of course discover who are the winners and who is the LLOOOOSSEERR, so some people will be well chuffed with themselves

I'm really not sure why you choose to paint it like that. It is a discussion, not a competition.

You were the one that told me to "go and research the ideas I have presented and contribute to the thread" so I did:

You said the Earth's core was heating up, but I researched (the link you provided) and found it was cooling down.

You posted a video to support the idea that the Milky Way could heat up the Earth's Core - but actually it stated that passage through the Milky Way might be linked to periods of cooling.

You said the sun was putting out more energy, I researched and found it wasn't..

You said seismic activity was increasing, I researched and found it wasn't.

You said volcanic activity was increasing, I researched and found it wasn't either.

I'm sorry if you didn't like my answers, but that was what I found. I'm not trying to score points or "win" - just have a discussion that illuminates, educates and entertains.

Let's recap so we can evaluate, what did we learn? actually we did not manage to learn or accomplish anything of value.

Personally I've learnt a fair and enjoyed the thread. Sorry if you didn't. 🙁

Perhaps you are correct Grahams, however it is not hard to prove anything these days and wikipedia will simply say what ever is popular.

How about if we start off with something simple, say for example sunspots?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunspot

Can we learn anything about our solar system or the weather patterns on this planet from sun spots or can we at least rule them out as being important to any research relative to weather patterns?

Perhaps you are correct Grahams,[b] however it is not hard to prove anything these days [/b]and wikipedia will simply say what ever is popular.

And yet you seem to find it impossible to prove any of the theories you have been coming up with ??

Wierd that isn't it ?

You are correct Nealglover and I pronounce you the winner!

Did you bother to read about Sun spots and can you tell me if a low or break in sun spot activity is generally followed by a high?

it is not hard to prove anything these days and wikipedia will simply say what ever is popular.

That's why I gave you links to folk like the British Geological Survey, US Geological Survey, Smithsonian Institute, Berkeley, and The Royal Society.

Wiki is actually a good place to start, but only if you follow the citations and check the sources.

How about if we start off with something simple, say for example sunspots?

How about we clear up your "several world flood" theory before we start on another one?
When were these floods? Are you talking about early Earth before there was life on it or something more recent?

(actually I'm off to bed but I'll be interested to hear what you say tomorrow)

Don't know whether this is relevant, but its's weather related so I'll post it here anyway and see if there's any answer.
It's fairly widely accepted that cloud seeding, or weather engineering, were part of the Beijing Olympics delivery plan, but does anyone know if it was used or considered for the London games.
I'd reckon that the technology would have been available, at least as a sub-contracted service. And every other threat seems to have been taken seriously. Until August, we were having a very wet summer, but then it seemed to brighten up significantly in the East London area whilst unexpected downpours broke out in surrounding locations.
I also don't know what the legal implications would be if it was later shown that manipulated weather had impacted crops or other economic factors? Would the insurance industry be exempt from pay outs if there was shown to be unnatural causes?

http://www.technologyreview.com/news/409794/weather-engineering-in-china/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_seeding

Can we learn anything about our solar system or the weather patterns on this planet from sun spots or can we at least rule them out as being important to any research relative to weather patterns?

You have been told this before

it is hard to debate with someone who says outlandish stuff, presents no evidence, explains the theory in very vague terms and then dismisses any fact as it simply being not hard to prove anything these days
Here I go again
[img] [/img]

http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm

[img] [/img]
Figure 1: Reconstructed cosmic radiation (solid line before 1952) and directly observed cosmic radiation (solid line after 1952) compared to global temperature (dotted line). All curves have been smoothed by an 11 year running mean (Krivova 2003).
http://www.skepticalscience.com/cosmic-rays-and-global-warming.htm
[img] [/img]
the top figure compares temperature to solar cycles. The bottom figure plots the difference between temperature and solar cycle length, showing a strong divergence in the mid 1970s (Lassen 1999).

Did you bother to read about Sun spots and can you tell me if a low or break in sun spot activity is generally followed by a high?

[url= http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Is+a+low+or+break+in+sun+spot+activity+is+generally+followed+by+a+high%3F ]answer to your question is here[/url]