Forum menu
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 - MemberHow 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?
Graham thanks you for leading the link to the graph which is titled
[b]Number of worldwide earthquakes with a magnitude of 7 or greater over the last two decades. [/b]
It is little wonder you come up with these “whacky” ideas with little basis in reality. Why not join a suitable website to discuss them there?
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!
Which race is ours? How old is it?
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?
Is this a real question?
Are you suggesting if it went out nothing would change?
Are you suggesting that summer is not hotter than winter- have you noticed that say when there is less hours of sunlight in winter it is colder than when there is lots in summer.
I dont think anyone alive thinks the sun is anything other than the prime driver
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 - MemberGrahams 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.
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.
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
Or we could give it the correct term and call it the Milankovitch cycles
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
could this not account for our flipping of the magnetic poles?
basically No
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?
FFS it is not hard to get the idea that there has been natural climate change before, [b]no one denies it[/b] what you need to show is that the burning and realising of billions of tons of C02 annually, a know greenhouse gas, will have no effect. No one thinks the climate does not change naturally. Are you claiming we cannot change it? Perhaps you think we cannot pollute either? Alter the Sea Ph level etc
Nacho are you suggesting that the majority of people on the earth today are rational?
By your standards i would assume no . Form where I sit you seem some distance from rational and throw wishy washy ideas about without any real comprehension – earlier you asked if the sun affected weather and then more recently said
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
where did the water go then?
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.