On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 08:18:22 +1000
Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:

> On 13/04/2024 12:48 am, Phil Hendry's Chop shop wrote:
> > On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 13:57:22 +1000
> > Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
> >
> >> **And that, alone, is a HUGE concern, given the low level of Solar
> >> activity at present.
> >
> > Nope.
> >
> > Our KEY factor now is the *rapidly diminishing magnetosphere*.
> >
> > It's down over 30%
>
> **Just a reminder: You are claiming that the magnetosphere is
> "rapidly diminishing".

No, actual scientific measurements are PROVING it:

https://www.esa.int/Applications/Observing_the_Earth/FutureEO/Swarm/Swarm_probes_weakening_of_Earth_s_magnetic_field
https://www.science.org/content/article/earths-waning-magnet

> That claim is NOT an hypothesis.

No, it's factual synopsis of extant and ongoing changes.
> You need to construct a proper hypothesis. You have, thus far, failed
> miserably to do so.

You need to quit shape-shifting and obfuscating when trapped by the
facts, it's the mark of a craven, lying coward!

https://www.universetoday.com/156234/the-rapid-changes-were-seeing-with-the-earths-magnetic-field-dont-mean-the-poles-are-about-to-flip-this-is-normal/

This figure from the study shows the team’s reconstruction of the
Earth’s DM over the past 9,000 years. They based their reconstruction
on different prior measurements of the Earth’s DM. The thin black lines
show the 95% credible interval of the preferred pfm9k.2 (paleomagnetic
field model) case. Overall, the graph shows that the current weakening
of the magnetic field is a recurring phenomenon

On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 08:18:22 +1000
Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:

> **Just a reminder: You are claiming that the magnetosphere is
> "rapidly diminishing".

View it and weep, ya turd-licking chucklenuts!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_magnetic_field#/media/File:Geomagnetic_axial_dipole_strength.svg
Strength of the axial dipole component of Earth's magnetic field from
1600 to 2020

The graph shows the absolute magnitude of the axial dipole component |g10|, taken from the following models:

CALS3k.4: http://www.gfz-potsdam.de/en/section/earths-magnetic-field/topics/field-models/calsxk/cals3k4/
M. Korte and C. Constable (2011). "Improving geomagnetic field reconstructions for 0-3ka". Phys. Earth Planet. Int. 188: 247-259. DOI:10.1016/j.pepi.2011.06.017.
gufm1: http://jupiter.ethz.ch/~cfinlay/gufm1.html archive copy at the Wayback Machine
A. Jackson, A. R. T. Jonkers, and M. R. Walker (2000). "Four centuries of geomagnetic secular variation from historical records". Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. A 358: 957-990. DOI:10.1098/rsta.2000.0569.
IGRF-12: http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/IAGA/vmod/igrf.html
E. Thébault et al. (2015). "International Geomagnetic Reference Field:
the 12th generation". Earth, Planets and Space 67: 79.
DOI:10.1186/s40623-015-0228-9.

Peter Jason <pj@jostle.com> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> Peter Jason <pj@jostle.com> wrote
>>> Ördög <ordog@your.service.biz> wrote
>>>> JTEM wrote
>>>>> Ördög

>>>> Let's see who will be laughing when the planet becomes barely
>>>> habitable.

>> Not going to happen.

>>> It's barely habitable now.

>> Even sillier than you usually manage and that's saying something.

>>> Did you know the Sheeple actually RESPIRE?
>>> They all without exception draw in oxygen-laden air and excrete that
>>> vile devil gas CO2. And if this were not bad enough they generate
>>> even more on cremation!!!!

>> And worse stuff when they rot in their graves.

>>> Every brat born is a 80-year font of CO2, spewing,farting, belching
>>> that gas without a care in the world!

>> Quite a few don't manage to last that long and
>> kill themselves in various ways well before that.

>>> Clearly therefore, at the end of the day, fast approaching, the
>>> solution is to cull the birth rate.

>> Nope, its fixing itself fine. NOT ONE modern first world
>> country is even self replacing now if you take out immigration
>> and that's true of most of the second world too.

> Rubbish!

Fact actually.

> Then why has the population increasedup to 7+ Billion from the 1950s?

Because the 3rd world keeps fucking away.

> The population of Egypt is over 100million,up from 10million in British
> colonialism times.

Irrelevant to what has happened there since 1950

Even there the fertility rate has HALVED since then.

> We'll all be standing on each others'shoulders before any decline
> occurs.

Just another ignorant fantasy. Quite a few like Russia
and Japan are ALREADY declining right now.

>> Birth rates have been dropping like a stone
>> except where its already right down in the noise
>> now EVERYWHERE even in the third world.

>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_fertility_rate#1950_and_2015

Follow that link, fool.

>>> Yeah man!

>>> But don't leap off that cliff just yet, because there's hope....in the
>>> form of Gene manipulation whereby the ratio ofmales to females born
>>> is tilted in favor of males, sogradually reducing the number of
>>> females
>>> to give birth.

>> Fantasy.

>>> It will be tested in Africa,

>> Its India that cares about that, not Africa.

> Yes, yes; India too.

>>> Now isn't that good news?

>> Nope, just another silly fantasy.

>>> All the denizens of the Global-Warming
>>> Cult can get that haircut and find a REAL job!

>>> And dear Greta can become a working girl.

>> No one is stupid enough to fuck her.

On 12/04/2024 9:42 pm, Scout wrote:
>
>
> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
> news:l7r62vFdo59U6@mid.individual.net...
>> On 11/04/2024 9:21 pm, Scout wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
>>> news:l7oimnF1vu3U5@mid.individual.net...
>>>> On 11/04/2024 8:26 am, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>>> Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
>>>>>> warren wrote
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Models and projections are just that, theoretical conjecture.
>>>>>>> None of
>>>>>>> it  is factual.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Here's the thing:
>>>>>
>>>>> We'll see,,,
>>>>>
>>>>>> Way back in the first half of the 19th century, my favourite
>>>>>> mathematician, Joseph Fourier, published his hypothesis that CO2 was
>>>>>> an atmospheric gas that prevented the planet from freezing, provided
>>>>>> it was in sufficient quantities. Further: Fourier extended his
>>>>>> hypothesis to include the possibility the more CO2 would cause the
>>>>>> planet to warm excessively:
>>>>>
>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Fourier#Discovery_of_the_greenhouse_effect
>>>>>
>>>>>> Before the end of the 19th century, Svante Arrhenius had solidified
>>>>>> Fourier's hypothesis into a theory, backed by extensive experimental
>>>>>> data and upwards of 100,000 hand calculations. His theory has never
>>>>>> been successfully challenged. NOT ONCE.
>>>>>
>>>>> But the formula he produced doesnt come even close
>>>>> to covering the tiny increase in world temperatures
>>>>> of 2 degrees C at most over the time when atmospheric
>>>>> CO2 levels have actually doubled.
>>>>
>>>> **Points:
>>>> * CO2 levels have NOT doubled.
>>>> * There will be an inevitable lag with CO2 levels and temperatures.
>>>> * Arrhenius did not have the use of powerful computers for his
>>>> calculations. Given the technology as his disposal, his figures are
>>>> very
>>>> impressive.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius#Greenhouse_effect
>>>>>
>>>>>> Arrhenius' predictions have been shown to be remarkably accurate.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bullshit they have
>>>>>
>>>>>> Until  a better theory to explain the present warming trend hasbeen
>>>>>> presented,  then Arrhenius' theory is the accepted one.
>>>>>
>>>>> But his FORMULA isnt.
>>>>
>>>> **Let's discuss in 100 years. So far, his data points to pretty decent
>>>> accuracy.
>>>
>>> Of course, because if you extend that backwards in time.
>>
>> **I'm suggesting that we look forward in time.
>
> Translation: I don't want to look at data which refutes my claims..

**Not at all. Here's what we see when looking back in time:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change#/media/File:Global_Temperature_And_Forces_With_Fahrenheit.svg

And further back:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change#/media/File:Common_Era_Temperature.svg

And this is deeply concerning:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change#/media/File:1955-_Ocean_heat_content_-_NOAA.svg

And here is a graph of atmospheric CO2 concentration:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change#/media/File:Carbon_Dioxide_800kyr.svg

And here is a graph taking all known influences into account:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change#/media/File:2017_Global_warming_attribution_-_based_on_NCA4_Fig_3.3_-_single-panel_version.svg

And here is the graph that should get you thinking (though I seriously
doubt it):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoclimatology#/media/File:%22EDC_TempCO2Dust%22.svg

Note the VERY close correlation between CO2 levels and temperature rise
(and fall).

When CO2 levels rise, so do temperatures. EVERY SINGLE TIME. Here's the
kicker:

Sometimes temperature rise leads and sometimes it lags. Thing is they
are inextricably linked. And that is very important.

Right now, at this time in the history of the planet, we are seeing a
dramatic rise in CO2 levels, followed closely by a consequent rise in
temperatures. As temperatures rise further, we will (are seeing)
outgassing of CO2 from the oceans and the release of massive amounts of
methane (not forgetting that methane is more than TWENTY TIMES more
potent than CO2 as a GHG) from permafrost regions.

https://earth.org/data_visualization/what-is-permafrost/

As a consequence, we can expect a spike in CO2 emissions (methane breaks
down relatively quickly into CO2), followed by another spike in temperature.

The cycle will continue apace.

>
>>
>> . you have a
>>> problem. Because the data points do NOT correlate to global
>>> temperatures.
>>
>> **Sure they do.
>
> No they don't. they  approximate it.

**Near enough.

>
> https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ousama-Ben-Salha/publication/335336077/figure/fig2/AS:794925952151553@1566536524311/Average-global-temperature-and-atmospheric-CO2-concentration-1880-2014-Source-the.png
>
> You have areas where concentrations are depressed by CO2 is regularly
> increasing. If there were truly correlated then global temperatures should
> have decline during those periods. Then you have other areas where the
> temperatures far exceed what the CO2 would seem to indicate when means you
> have global warming... without cause.

**You are making the faulty assumptions that:

* Climate is not chaotic in nature.
* That a CO2 level rise is followed by an instantaneous temperature rise.

>
> Further lets remind people of this fundamental principle. Correlation =/=
> Causality.

**Let's do just that:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoclimatology#/media/File:%22EDC_TempCO2Dust%22.svg

>
> Just because you find a correlation does NOT establish it is the cause of
> something.

**Indeed. Which is why Arrhenius proved it more than 120 years ago. If
YOU think Arrhenius got it wrong, then YOU need to present your
alternate hypothesis. Until you do, then Arrhenius' theory stands.

>
> Which of course, if we expand the time scale becomes pretty evident as
> suddenly CO2 and temperatures are not even close.

**Close enough:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoclimatology#/media/File:%22EDC_TempCO2Dust%22.svg

>
>
>>  I refer to you to the Early medieval  warming period
>>> followed by the Mini Ace Age of the late medieval. So what caused the
>>> temperature to drop and as it recovers back to what it was.. why is that
>>> a bad thing?
>>
>> **"Bad thing"? It was a thing. Previous cooling and warming periods you
>> mention were likely caused by changes in Solar activity.
>
>
>
> Were likely?

**Yes.

How do you know?

**Me? I don't. I listen to the climatologists. Which is what you should do:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period

How do you know the current heating isn't
> also cause by changed in solar activity.

**Because Solar activity has been declining over the past couple of
Solar cycles:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle#/media/File:Solar_Cycle_Prediction.gif

We are presently experiencing a fairly low level of Solar activity.

And that should concern you greatly, as Solar activity is likely to
return to normal sometime in the future. Of course, no one knows when.
It could on the next cycle, or it could be in 1,000 years time. When it
does return to normal activity, then we will see a dramatic increase in
warming.

>
> Clearly we can't simply point at CO2 and say "that's the cause".

**CO2, methane and other GHGs are MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS. Without CO2, this
planet would freeze over. Too much CO2 and it overheats. We know this
from proxy measurements of past epochs:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoclimatology#/media/File:All_palaeotemps.svg

Look at the temperatures 50 million years ago. That was when CO2 levels
were much higher than they are today. Cause and effect.

>
> Indeed I would like to see you present your proof of this change in
> "solar activity" and how you know they were the cause then.. but aren't
> the cause now?

**_I_ don't know that Solar activity was the cause. CLIMATE SCIENTISTS
are pretty certain that variations in Solar activity was the cause.

On 2024-04-12, Phil Hendry's Chop shop <jon@than.ball> wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 10:36:58 -0000 (UTC)
> Borax Man <rotflol2@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> ["Followup-To:" header set to aus.politics.]
>> On 2024-04-07, warren <warreno@charter.net> wrote:
>> > Models and projections are just that, theoretical conjecture. None
>> > of it is factual.
>> >
>>
>> You know, if I throw you off a cliff and you start tumbling down to
>> the ocean, it's only "models" that predict what is going to happen,
>> not hard proof.
>
> Incorrect.
>
>> Nice right wing talking point, but it doesn't mean much.
>
> No wonder you used it as a non sequitur.
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2000/climate_change/1023334.stm
>
> I have closely followed the carbon dioxide warming arguments. From what I have learned of how the atmosphere ticks over 40 years of study, I have been unable to convince myself that a doubling of human-induced greenhouse gases can lead to anything but quite small and insignificant amounts of global warming.
>
> The author is a professor of atmospheric science at Colorado where he
> is an expert in tropical meteorology.
>

The reason we need models, is that it Global Warming cannot be
experimentally proven, as we only have one planet, and therefore no
"control" to compare against. The use of models isn't because
scientists want to pervert science, it is because we want to see how
the climate would behave given these changes.

Theoretical conjecture, perhaps, but models can demonstrate their
validity by having predictive power, and in being able to model the
past as well. That is, you can run your model for what has happened
in the past, to see if your model, your simulation, concords with what
has happened. Remember, our picture of the atom is just a model too.

Let me ask you this then, what is causing the current observed
warming? I used to reject AGW myself, but the denialists were far
worse at predicting future trends.

On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 10:40:53 +1000
Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:

> **Not at all. Here's what we see when looking back in time:

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/geomagnetic-excursions-interglacial-termination-abrupt-climate-change.384098/

In summary, there is a significant amount of evidence that supports the
idea that geomagnetic excursions are responsible for the abrupt climate
changes seen during the Younger Dryas period. This correlation has been
observed in various studies, and it is believed that a cyclic external
event is causing these changes. The frequency of the forcing event is
around 12,000 years and is also responsible for smaller events known as
geomagnetic jerks. However, it is important to note that the external
forcing event's impact is dependent on several factors such as the
earth's axis tilt, timing of perihelion, and the distribution of
continents and ice sheets. Additionally, there is evidence of a
correlation between geomagnetic field intensity and cold climate events.

The Paleoclimatic data shows that the Younger Dryas cooling event occurred over 15 years in three 5 years steps. The entire Younger Dryas cooling event was complete in 40 years. The planet cooled from interglacial warm to within 25% of the glacial temperatures. Temperature in the North America cooled by around 18F. What is interesting is the Younger Dryas is one of a series of similar cooling events, including the termination of past interglacial periods. During the glacial period the external forcing event has less affect on the geomagnetic field and planetary temperature as the planet is already cold and vast regions of the planet's surface is covered with ice sheets which insulate the planet's surface from the cyclic forcing event, and planetary temperature is already very cold so increased GCR has less effect. The affect of the external cyclic event that is forcing the geomagnetic event it appears is dependent on the earth’s axis tilt at the time of the event, timing of perihelion, the eccentricity of the earth’s orbit, the distribution of the continents on the surface of the planet, and the area of the planet’s surface covered by ice sheets. http://www.paleomag.net/members/qingsongliu/References/EPSL/Thouveny%20excursions%20since%20400%20ka%20EPSL%202004.pdf

Reference:
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/geomagnetic-excursions-interglacial-termination-abrupt-climate-change.384098/

On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 10:33:13 -0000 (UTC)
Borax Man <rotflol2@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On 2024-04-12, Phil Hendry's Chop shop <jon@than.ball> wrote:
> > On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 10:36:58 -0000 (UTC)
> > Borax Man <rotflol2@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> ["Followup-To:" header set to aus.politics.]
> >> On 2024-04-07, warren <warreno@charter.net> wrote:
> >> > Models and projections are just that, theoretical conjecture.
> >> > None of it is factual.
> >> >
> >>
> >> You know, if I throw you off a cliff and you start tumbling down to
> >> the ocean, it's only "models" that predict what is going to happen,
> >> not hard proof.
> >
> > Incorrect.
> >
> >> Nice right wing talking point, but it doesn't mean much.
> >
> > No wonder you used it as a non sequitur.
> >
> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2000/climate_change/1023334.stm
> >
> > I have closely followed the carbon dioxide warming arguments. From
> > what I have learned of how the atmosphere ticks over 40 years of
> > study, I have been unable to convince myself that a doubling of
> > human-induced greenhouse gases can lead to anything but quite small
> > and insignificant amounts of global warming.
> >
> > The author is a professor of atmospheric science at Colorado where
> > he is an expert in tropical meteorology.
> >
>
> The reason we need models, is that it Global Warming cannot be
> experimentally proven, as we only have one planet, and therefore no
> "control" to compare against. The use of models isn't because
> scientists want to pervert science, it is because we want to see how
> the climate would behave given these changes.
>
> Theoretical conjecture, perhaps, but models can demonstrate their
> validity by having predictive power, and in being able to model the
> past as well. That is, you can run your model for what has happened
> in the past, to see if your model, your simulation, concords with what
> has happened. Remember, our picture of the atom is just a model too.
>
> Let me ask you this then, what is causing the current observed
> warming? I used to reject AGW myself, but the denialists were far
> worse at predicting future trends.

The same thing that's ALWAYS driven climatic cycles of glaciation:

In summary, there is a significant amount of evidence that supports the
idea that geomagnetic excursions are responsible for the abrupt climate
changes seen during the Younger Dryas period. This correlation has been
observed in various studies, and it is believed that a cyclic external
event is causing these changes. The frequency of the forcing event is
around 12,000 years and is also responsible for smaller events known as
geomagnetic jerks. However, it is important to note that the external
forcing event's impact is dependent on several factors such as the
earth's axis tilt, timing of perihelion, and the distribution of
continents and ice sheets. Additionally, there is evidence of a
correlation between geomagnetic field intensity and cold climate events.

Reference:
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/geomagnetic-excursions-interglacial-termination-abrupt-climate-change.384098/

The Paleoclimatic data shows that the Younger Dryas cooling event occurred over 15 years in three 5 years steps. The entire Younger Dryas cooling event was complete in 40 years. The planet cooled from interglacial warm to within 25% of the glacial temperatures. Temperature in the North America cooled by around 18F. What is interesting is the Younger Dryas is one of a series of similar cooling events, including the termination of past interglacial periods. During the glacial period the external forcing event has less affect on the geomagnetic field and planetary temperature as the planet is already cold and vast regions of the planet's surface is covered with ice sheets which insulate the planet's surface from the cyclic forcing event, and planetary temperature is already very cold so increased GCR has less effect. The affect of the external cyclic event that is forcing the geomagnetic event it appears is dependent on the earth’s axis tilt at the time of the event, timing of perihelion, the eccentricity of the earth’s orbit, the distribution of the continents on the surface of the planet, and the area of the planet’s surface covered by ice sheets. http://www.paleomag.net/members/qingsongliu/References/EPSL/Thouveny%20excursions%20since%20400%20ka%20EPSL%202004.pdf

Reference:
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/geomagnetic-excursions-interglacial-termination-abrupt-climate-change.384098/

On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 20:33:13 +1000, Borax Man <rotflol2@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On 2024-04-12, Phil Hendry's Chop shop <jon@than.ball> wrote:
>> On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 10:36:58 -0000 (UTC)
>> Borax Man <rotflol2@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> ["Followup-To:" header set to aus.politics.]
>>> On 2024-04-07, warren <warreno@charter.net> wrote:
>>> > Models and projections are just that, theoretical conjecture. None
>>> > of it is factual.
>>> >
>>>
>>> You know, if I throw you off a cliff and you start tumbling down to
>>> the ocean, it's only "models" that predict what is going to happen,
>>> not hard proof.
>>
>> Incorrect.
>>
>>> Nice right wing talking point, but it doesn't mean much.
>>
>> No wonder you used it as a non sequitur.
>>
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2000/climate_change/1023334.stm
>>
>> I have closely followed the carbon dioxide warming arguments. From what
>> I have learned of how the atmosphere ticks over 40 years of study, I
>> have been unable to convince myself that a doubling of human-induced
>> greenhouse gases can lead to anything but quite small and insignificant
>> amounts of global warming.
>>
>> The author is a professor of atmospheric science at Colorado where he
>> is an expert in tropical meteorology.
>>
>
> The reason we need models, is that it Global Warming cannot be
> experimentally proven, as we only have one planet, and therefore no
> "control" to compare against. The use of models isn't because
> scientists want to pervert science, it is because we want to see how
> the climate would behave given these changes.
>
> Theoretical conjecture, perhaps, but models can demonstrate their
> validity by having predictive power, and in being able to model the
> past as well. That is, you can run your model for what has happened
> in the past, to see if your model, your simulation, concords with what
> has happened. Remember, our picture of the atom is just a model too.

> Let me ask you this then, what is causing the current observed warming?

That's far from clear and its far from clear that what
minimal warming we may have seen is even a bad thing.

> I used to reject AGW myself, but the denialistswere far worse at
> predicting future trends.

That's a stupid way to decide whether
the claims of AGW are correct or not.

And even if their predictions are correct and
there isnt any evidence that they are, its very
far from clear that we can actually do anything
about what is predicted anyway.

Even if we banned all use of fossil fuels tomorrow
and wrecked the economy completely in the
process, its very far from clear that that would
avoid what the hysterics are predicting is certain.

On Sun, 14 Apr 2024 04:58:21 +1000
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 20:33:13 +1000, Borax Man <rotflol2@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On 2024-04-12, Phil Hendry's Chop shop <jon@than.ball> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 10:36:58 -0000 (UTC)
> >> Borax Man <rotflol2@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> ["Followup-To:" header set to aus.politics.]
> >>> On 2024-04-07, warren <warreno@charter.net> wrote:
> >>> > Models and projections are just that, theoretical conjecture.
> >>> > None of it is factual.
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>> You know, if I throw you off a cliff and you start tumbling down
> >>> to the ocean, it's only "models" that predict what is going to
> >>> happen, not hard proof.
> >>
> >> Incorrect.
> >>
> >>> Nice right wing talking point, but it doesn't mean much.
> >>
> >> No wonder you used it as a non sequitur.
> >>
> >> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2000/climate_change/1023334.stm
> >>
> >> I have closely followed the carbon dioxide warming arguments. From
> >> what I have learned of how the atmosphere ticks over 40 years of
> >> study, I have been unable to convince myself that a doubling of
> >> human-induced greenhouse gases can lead to anything but quite
> >> small and insignificant amounts of global warming.
> >>
> >> The author is a professor of atmospheric science at Colorado where
> >> he is an expert in tropical meteorology.
> >>
> >
> > The reason we need models, is that it Global Warming cannot be
> > experimentally proven, as we only have one planet, and therefore no
> > "control" to compare against. The use of models isn't because
> > scientists want to pervert science, it is because we want to see how
> > the climate would behave given these changes.
> >
> > Theoretical conjecture, perhaps, but models can demonstrate their
> > validity by having predictive power, and in being able to model the
> > past as well. That is, you can run your model for what has happened
> > in the past, to see if your model, your simulation, concords with
> > what has happened. Remember, our picture of the atom is just a
> > model too.
>
> > Let me ask you this then, what is causing the current observed
> > warming?
>
> That's far from clear and its far from clear that what
> minimal warming we may have seen is even a bad thing.
>
> > I used to reject AGW myself, but the denialistswere far worse at
> > predicting future trends.
>
> That's a stupid way to decide whether
> the claims of AGW are correct or not.
>
> And even if their predictions are correct and
> there isnt any evidence that they are, its very
> far from clear that we can actually do anything
> about what is predicted anyway.
>
> Even if we banned all use of fossil fuels tomorrow
> and wrecked the economy completely in the
> process, its very far from clear that that would
> avoid what the hysterics are predicting is certain.

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/geomagnetic-excursions-interglacial-termination-abrupt-climate-change.384098/

In summary, there is a significant amount of evidence that supports the
idea that geomagnetic excursions are responsible for the abrupt climate
changes seen during the Younger Dryas period. This correlation has been
observed in various studies, and it is believed that a cyclic external
event is causing these changes. The frequency of the forcing event is
around 12,000 years and is also responsible for smaller events known as
geomagnetic jerks. However, it is important to note that the external
forcing event's impact is dependent on several factors such as the
earth's axis tilt, timing of perihelion, and the distribution of
continents and ice sheets. Additionally, there is evidence of a
correlation between geomagnetic field intensity and cold climate events.

The Paleoclimatic data shows that the Younger Dryas cooling event occurred over 15 years in three 5 years steps. The entire Younger Dryas cooling event was complete in 40 years. The planet cooled from interglacial warm to within 25% of the glacial temperatures. Temperature in the North America cooled by around 18F. What is interesting is the Younger Dryas is one of a series of similar cooling events, including the termination of past interglacial periods. During the glacial period the external forcing event has less affect on the geomagnetic field and planetary temperature as the planet is already cold and vast regions of the planet's surface is covered with ice sheets which insulate the planet's surface from the cyclic forcing event, and planetary temperature is already very cold so increased GCR has less effect. The affect of the external cyclic event that is forcing the geomagnetic event it appears is dependent on the earth’s axis tilt at the time of the event, timing of perihelion, the eccentricity of the earth’s orbit, the distribution of the continents on the surface of the planet, and the area of the planet’s surface covered by ice sheets. http://www.paleomag.net/members/qingsongliu/References/EPSL/Thouveny%20excursions%20since%20400%20ka%20EPSL%202004.pdf

Reference:
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/geomagnetic-excursions-interglacial-termination-abrupt-climate-change.384098/

On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 12:42:33 -0600
Phil Hendry's Chop shop <jon@than.ball> wrote:

> On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 10:33:13 -0000 (UTC)
> Borax Man <rotflol2@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 2024-04-12, Phil Hendry's Chop shop <jon@than.ball> wrote:
> > > On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 10:36:58 -0000 (UTC)
> > > Borax Man <rotflol2@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> [...]
> [...]
> [...]
> > >
> > > Incorrect.
> > >
> [...]
> > >
> > > No wonder you used it as a non sequitur.
> > >
> > > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2000/climate_change/1023334.stm
> > >
> > > I have closely followed the carbon dioxide warming arguments. From
> > > what I have learned of how the atmosphere ticks over 40 years of
> > > study, I have been unable to convince myself that a doubling of
> > > human-induced greenhouse gases can lead to anything but quite small
> > > and insignificant amounts of global warming.
> > >
> > > The author is a professor of atmospheric science at Colorado where
> > > he is an expert in tropical meteorology.
> > >
> >
> > The reason we need models, is that it Global Warming cannot be
> > experimentally proven, as we only have one planet, and therefore no
> > "control" to compare against. The use of models isn't because
> > scientists want to pervert science, it is because we want to see how
> > the climate would behave given these changes.
> >
> > Theoretical conjecture, perhaps, but models can demonstrate their
> > validity by having predictive power, and in being able to model the
> > past as well. That is, you can run your model for what has happened
> > in the past, to see if your model, your simulation, concords with what
> > has happened. Remember, our picture of the atom is just a model too.
> >
> > Let me ask you this then, what is causing the current observed
> > warming? I used to reject AGW myself, but the denialists were far
> > worse at predicting future trends.
>
> The same thing that's ALWAYS driven climatic cycles of glaciation:
>
> In summary, there is a significant amount of evidence that supports the
> idea that geomagnetic excursions are responsible for the abrupt climate
> changes seen during the Younger Dryas period. This correlation has been
> observed in various studies, and it is believed that a cyclic external
> event is causing these changes. The frequency of the forcing event is
> around 12,000 years and is also responsible for smaller events known as
> geomagnetic jerks. However, it is important to note that the external
> forcing event's impact is dependent on several factors such as the
> earth's axis tilt, timing of perihelion, and the distribution of
> continents and ice sheets. Additionally, there is evidence of a
> correlation between geomagnetic field intensity and cold climate events.
>
> Reference:
> https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/geomagnetic-excursions-interglacial-termination-abrupt-climate-change.384098/
>
> The Paleoclimatic data shows that the Younger Dryas cooling event occurred over 15 years in three 5 years steps. The entire Younger Dryas cooling event was complete in 40 years. The planet cooled from interglacial warm to within 25% of the glacial temperatures. Temperature in the North America cooled by around 18F. What is interesting is the Younger Dryas is one of a series of similar cooling events, including the termination of past interglacial periods. During the glacial period the external forcing event has less affect on the geomagnetic field and planetary temperature as the planet is already cold and vast regions of the planet's surface is covered with ice sheets which insulate the planet's surface from the cyclic forcing event, and planetary temperature is already very cold so increased GCR has less effect. The affect of the external cyclic event that is forcing the geomagnetic event it appears is dependent on the earth’s axis tilt at the time of the event, timing of perihelion, the eccentricity of the earth’s orbit, the distribution of the continents on the surface of the planet, and the area of the planet’s surface covered by ice sheets. http://www.paleomag.net/members/qingsongliu/References/EPSL/Thouveny%20excursions%20since%20400%20ka%20EPSL%202004.pdf
>
> Reference:
> https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/geomagnetic-excursions-interglacial-termination-abrupt-climate-change.384098/

Do you have a link to the paper? The one that was linked in the forum
didn't load for me.

I'd like to read it.

What about the paper convinced you of this theory?

I find all too often, people are swayed by a single paper,
but don't quite understand it.

On 12/04/2024 9:22 pm, Scout wrote:
>
>
> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
> news:l7rheqFgiq4U3@mid.individual.net...
>> On 12/04/2024 9:08 am, Phil Hendry's Chop shop wrote:
>>> On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 08:06:20 +1000
>>> Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 12/04/2024 4:03 am, Phil Hendry's Chop shop wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 11 Apr 2024 11:06:33 +1000
>>>>> Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 11/04/2024 9:58 am, Phil Hendry's Chop shop wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 11 Apr 2024 07:30:15 +1000
>>>>>>> Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 8/04/2024 8:13 am, warren wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Models and projections are just that, theoretical conjecture.
>>>>>>>>> None of it is factual.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> **Here's the thing:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Way back in the first half of the 19th century, my favourite
>>>>>>>> mathematician, Joseph Fourier, published his hypothesis that CO2
>>>>>>>> was an atmospheric gas that prevented the planet from freezing,
>>>>>>>> provided it was in sufficient quantities. Further: Fourier
>>>>>>>> extended his hypothesis to include the possibility the more CO2
>>>>>>>> would cause the planet to warm excessively:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Fourier#Discovery_of_the_greenhouse_effect
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Which was wrong because the planet is incapable of warming
>>>>>>> "excessively" - that's what closed loop/negative feedback
>>>>>>> self-regulating systems are all about.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> **You have ZERO idea about such things.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yet I just described them accurately to you.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is a closed loop negative feedback system,period.
>>>>
>>>> **Not quite. We do not inhabit a planet with a closed system, though
>>>> it can be regarded as 'semi-closed'. We are still open to space. The
>>>> feedback system you speak of has been overridden by our huge
>>>> injection of CO2 and other GHGs into the atmosphere.
>>>
>>> The feedback system has not been changed to any significant degree,
>>> ergo the continued temperature regime stuck in recover mode from the
>>> last little ice age.
>>>
>>> Humans always do better under warmer conditions.
>>
>> **Prove it. In your proof, examine how civilisation flourished in the
>> relatively cool, European climate, compared to (say) the warmer
>> equatorial regions.
>
> Well, let's see.. while Europe was living in huts in the mud.. Egyptians
> were raising monuments to the test of time.

**Yeah, that's why Rome completely subjugated Egypt.

>
> When French and English we living in filth and squalor, Rome was ruling
> the bulk of the known world.

**Umm, Rome was part of Europe last time I looked.

>
> When Mesopotamina was advancing knowledge and math.. Northerners were
> barbarians living in filth...

**And yet, it was Europeans who ended ruling the world for centuries.
None of the Equatorial nations managed that.

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com

On 13/04/2024 8:45 am, Phil Hendry's Chop shop wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 08:18:22 +1000
> Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>
>> On 13/04/2024 12:48 am, Phil Hendry's Chop shop wrote:
>>> On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 13:57:22 +1000
>>> Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>>
>>>> **And that, alone, is a HUGE concern, given the low level of Solar
>>>> activity at present.
>>>
>>> Nope.
>>>
>>> Our KEY factor now is the *rapidly diminishing magnetosphere*.
>>>
>>> It's down over 30%
>>
>> **Just a reminder: You are claiming that the magnetosphere is
>> "rapidly diminishing".
>
> No, actual scientific measurements are PROVING it:

**You fucking moron.

YOU are making the claim that the magnetosphere is causing the planet to
warm. YOU need to prove your hypothesis.

Just saying that the magnetosphere has diminished by around 10% does not
explain why the planet is warming.

Present your hypothesis.

>
> https://www.esa.int/Applications/Observing_the_Earth/FutureEO/Swarm/Swarm_probes_weakening_of_Earth_s_magnetic_field
> https://www.science.org/content/article/earths-waning-magnet
>
>> That claim is NOT an hypothesis.
>
> No, it's factual synopsis of extant and ongoing changes.

**It is NOT an hypothesis you moron.

>
>> You need to construct a proper hypothesis. You have, thus far, failed
>> miserably to do so.
>
> You need to quit shape-shifting and obfuscating when trapped by the
> facts, it's the mark of a craven, lying coward!

**No. I am simply stating that you have failed miserably to present a
cogent hypothesis to explain the present warming trend.

>
> https://www.universetoday.com/156234/the-rapid-changes-were-seeing-with-the-earths-magnetic-field-dont-mean-the-poles-are-about-to-flip-this-is-normal/
>
> This figure from the study shows the team’s reconstruction of the
> Earth’s DM over the past 9,000 years. They based their reconstruction
> on different prior measurements of the Earth’s DM. The thin black lines
> show the 95% credible interval of the preferred pfm9k.2 (paleomagnetic
> field model) case. Overall, the graph shows that the current weakening
> of the magnetic field is a recurring phenomenon
>

**Irrelevant. You need to present your hypothesis that links the
influence of the magnetosphere on the warming trend observed on our planet.

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com

On 13/04/2024 8:38 am, Phil Hendry's Chop shop wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 08:15:00 +1000
> Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>
>> On 13/04/2024 7:56 am, Phil Hendry's Chop shop wrote:
>>> On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 07:51:42 +1000
>>> Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 13/04/2024 12:37 am, Phil Hendry's Chop shop wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 08:21:21 +1000
>>>>> Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> **"Bad thing"? It was a thing. Previous cooling and warming
>>>>>> periods you mention were likely caused by changes in Solar
>>>>>> activity. We know that the Sun is the major driver of
>>>>>> temperatures on this planet.
>>>>>
>>>>> Finally!
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, we have a 3/6/12K year solar micronova cycle!
>>>>>
>>>>>> However, we also know that CO2 and other GHGs exert a measurable
>>>>>> and significant effect.
>>>>>
>>>>> We absolutely DO NOT know that .04% of CO2 has any effect at all!
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> **Sure we do. Arrhenius proved it more than 120 years ago.
>>
>> **Sure we do. Arrhenius proved it more than 120 years ago.
>>
>
> Theory is not proof.

**Yes, it most certainly is:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

https://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/darwin/evolution-today/what-is-a-theory

Einstein's theories are regularly used today, despite the fact that they
are theories.

You're thinking of an hypothesis.

An hypothesis is a proposal without any rigorous science to back it.
Much like your absurd claims.

>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> In fact, we know that Solar activity has fallen
>>>>>> over the past few Solar cycles, yet the planet continues to
>>>>>> warm.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes we do, it's called a lagging indicator in a natural cycle back
>>>>> to glaciation, and we NOW these temperatures now are historically
>>>>> on the low end of that cycle, even with the recent recover to
>>>>> norms.
>>>>
>>>> **What "natural cycle"?
>>>
>>> Uh...CLIMATE!!!
>>
>> **What "natural cycle"?
>
> CLIMATE!

**WHAT "natural cycle".

>
>>>
>>>> You need to present evidence of this so-called "natural cycle" you
>>>> speak of.
>>>
>>> https://science.nasa.gov/science-research/earth-science/milankovitch-orbital-cycles-and-their-role-in-earths-climate/
>>>
>>> Cycles also play key roles in Earth’s short-term weather and
>>> long-term climate. A century ago, Serbian scientist Milutin
>>> Milankovitch hypothesized the long-term, collective effects of
>>> changes in Earth’s position relative to the Sun are a strong driver
>>> of Earth’s long-term climate, and are responsible for triggering
>>> the beginning and end of glaciation periods (Ice Ages).
>>
>> **Indeed. However, CO2 and other GHGs are now overriding the effects
>> of these alleged cycles.
>
> Not even close at .04% total concentration, fail.

**You keep making this claim, yet you continue to fail miserably in
proving Arrhenius wrong.

That makes you a failure.

>
>
>>>
>>> Specifically, he examined how variations in three types of Earth
>>> orbital movements affect how much solar radiation (known as
>>> insolation) reaches the top of Earth’s atmosphere as well as where
>>> the insolation reaches. These cyclical orbital movements, which
>>> became known as the Milankovitch cycles, cause variations of up to
>>> 25 percent in the amount of incoming insolation at Earth’s
>>> mid-latitudes (the areas of our planet located between about 30 and
>>> 60 degrees north and south of the equator).
>>>
>>> The Milankovitch cycles include:
>>>
>>> The shape of Earth’s orbit, known as eccentricity;
>>> The angle Earth’s axis is tilted with respect to Earth’s orbital
>>> plane, known as obliquity; and The direction Earth’s axis of
>>> rotation is pointed, known as precession.
>>
>> **Irrelevant to the influence of GHGs on climate.
>
> Since scapegoated GHGs have a minute impact, partial credit.

**Then present your alternate hypothesis that proves Arrhenius wrong.

Here is how you go about doing that:

https://www.livescience.com/21490-what-is-a-scientific-hypothesis-definition-of-hypothesis.html

Present your hypothesis or shut the fuck up.

>
>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> This is deeply concerning, as we also know that Solar activity is
>>>>>> likely to return to normal sometime in the future (no one knows
>>>>>> when).
>>>>>
>>>>> Won't matter because the solar micronova will realign the
>>>>> continents and usher in anther glacial epoch.
>>>>
>>>> **When will this alleged "solar micronova" occur? Where will it
>>>> occur?
>>>
>>>
>>> 2046
>>>
>>> Far eastern Europe into Asia.
>>>
>>> The prior one hot North and South America.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> **Prove it.
>
> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/solar-superflares-rocked-earth-less-than-10-000-years-ago-and-could-strike-again/
>
> https://www.livescience.com/64964-huge-ancient-solar-storm-hit-earth.html
>
> A gigantic solar storm hit Earth about 2,600 years ago, one about 10 times stronger than any solar storm recorded in the modern day, a new study finds.

**Prove that such an event will occur in 2046.

>
> These findings suggest that such explosions recur regularly in Earth's
> history, and could wreak havoc if they were to hit now, given how
> dependent the world has become on electricity.
>
> Now, researchers have found radioactive atoms trapped within ice in Greenland that suggest an enormous proton storm struck Earth in about 660 B.C., one that might dwarf the Carrington Event.
>
> Previous research found that extreme proton storms can generate radioactive atoms of beryllium-10, chlorine-36 and carbon-14 in the atmosphere. Evidence of such events is detectable in tree rings and ice cores, potentially giving scientists a way to investigate ancient solar activity.
>
> The scientists examined ice from two core samples taken from Greenland. They noted a spike of radioactive beryllium-10 and chlorine-36 about 2,610 years ago. This matches prior work examining tree rings that suggested a spike of carbon-14 about the same time. [Photos: Craters Hidden Beneath the Greenland Ice Sheet]
>
> Previous research detected two other ancient proton storms in a similar manner — one happened about A.D. 993-994, and the other about A.D. 774-775. The latter is the largest solar eruption known to date.
>
> Regarding number of high-energy protons, the 660 B.C. and the A.D.
> 774-775 events are about 10 times larger than the strongest proton
> storm seen in the modern day, which occurred in 1956, Muscheler said.
> The A.D. 993-994 event was smaller than the other two ancient storms by
> about a factor of two to three, he added.
>
> https://www.livescience.com/ancient-solar-storm-solar-minimum
>
> An extremely powerful solar storm pummeled our planet 9,200 years ago, leaving permanent scars on the ice buried deep below Greenland and Antarctica.
>
> A new study of those ancient ice samples has found that this previously unknown storm is one of the strongest outbursts of solar weather ever detected and would have crippled modern communications systems if it had hit Earth today.
>
> But perhaps most surprising, the massive storm appears to have hit during a solar minimum, the point during the sun's 11-year cycle when solar outbursts are typically much less common, according to the study, published Jan. 11 in the journal Nature Communications. Because of this unexpected discovery, the study researchers are concerned that devastating solar storms could hit when we least expect them — and that Earth might not be prepared when the next big one arrives.
>
> "These enormous storms are currently not sufficiently included in risk
> assessments," study co-author Raimund Muscheler, a geology researcher
> at Lund University in Sweden, said in a statement. "It is of the utmost
> importance to analyze what these events could mean for today's
> technology and how we can protect ourselves."

On Sun, 14 Apr 2024 10:11:07 +1000
Borax Man <rotflol2@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 12:42:33 -0600
> Phil Hendry's Chop shop <jon@than.ball> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 10:33:13 -0000 (UTC)
> > Borax Man <rotflol2@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On 2024-04-12, Phil Hendry's Chop shop <jon@than.ball> wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 10:36:58 -0000 (UTC)
> > > > Borax Man <rotflol2@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > [...]
> > [...]
> > [...]
> > > >
> > > > Incorrect.
> > > >
> > [...]
> > > >
> > > > No wonder you used it as a non sequitur.
> > > >
> > > > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2000/climate_change/1023334.stm
> > > >
> > > > I have closely followed the carbon dioxide warming arguments.
> > > > From what I have learned of how the atmosphere ticks over 40
> > > > years of study, I have been unable to convince myself that a
> > > > doubling of human-induced greenhouse gases can lead to anything
> > > > but quite small and insignificant amounts of global warming.
> > > >
> > > > The author is a professor of atmospheric science at Colorado
> > > > where he is an expert in tropical meteorology.
> > > >
> > >
> > > The reason we need models, is that it Global Warming cannot be
> > > experimentally proven, as we only have one planet, and therefore
> > > no "control" to compare against. The use of models isn't because
> > > scientists want to pervert science, it is because we want to see
> > > how the climate would behave given these changes.
> > >
> > > Theoretical conjecture, perhaps, but models can demonstrate their
> > > validity by having predictive power, and in being able to model
> > > the past as well. That is, you can run your model for what has
> > > happened in the past, to see if your model, your simulation,
> > > concords with what has happened. Remember, our picture of the
> > > atom is just a model too.
> > >
> > > Let me ask you this then, what is causing the current observed
> > > warming? I used to reject AGW myself, but the denialists were far
> > > worse at predicting future trends.
> >
> > The same thing that's ALWAYS driven climatic cycles of glaciation:
> >
> > In summary, there is a significant amount of evidence that supports
> > the idea that geomagnetic excursions are responsible for the abrupt
> > climate changes seen during the Younger Dryas period. This
> > correlation has been observed in various studies, and it is
> > believed that a cyclic external event is causing these changes. The
> > frequency of the forcing event is around 12,000 years and is also
> > responsible for smaller events known as geomagnetic jerks. However,
> > it is important to note that the external forcing event's impact is
> > dependent on several factors such as the earth's axis tilt, timing
> > of perihelion, and the distribution of continents and ice sheets.
> > Additionally, there is evidence of a correlation between
> > geomagnetic field intensity and cold climate events.
> >
> > Reference:
> > https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/geomagnetic-excursions-interglacial-termination-abrupt-climate-change.384098/
> >
> > The Paleoclimatic data shows that the Younger Dryas cooling event
> > occurred over 15 years in three 5 years steps. The entire Younger
> > Dryas cooling event was complete in 40 years. The planet cooled
> > from interglacial warm to within 25% of the glacial temperatures.
> > Temperature in the North America cooled by around 18F. What is
> > interesting is the Younger Dryas is one of a series of similar
> > cooling events, including the termination of past interglacial
> > periods. During the glacial period the external forcing event has
> > less affect on the geomagnetic field and planetary temperature as
> > the planet is already cold and vast regions of the planet's surface
> > is covered with ice sheets which insulate the planet's surface from
> > the cyclic forcing event, and planetary temperature is already very
> > cold so increased GCR has less effect. The affect of the external
> > cyclic event that is forcing the geomagnetic event it appears is
> > dependent on the earth’s axis tilt at the time of the event, timing
> > of perihelion, the eccentricity of the earth’s orbit, the
> > distribution of the continents on the surface of the planet, and
> > the area of the planet’s surface covered by ice sheets.
> > http://www.paleomag.net/members/qingsongliu/References/EPSL/Thouveny%20excursions%20since%20400%20ka%20EPSL%202004.pdf
> >
> > Reference:
> > https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/geomagnetic-excursions-interglacial-termination-abrupt-climate-change.384098/
> >
>
> Do you have a link to the paper? The one that was linked in the forum
> didn't load for me.
>
> I'd like to read it.
>
Reference: Morner, R. A., 1971, Late Weichselian paleomagnetic reversal. Nature Physical Science, vol. 234, no. 52, pp. 173-174 (December 27, 1971).

Reference:
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/geomagnetic-excursions-interglacial-termination-abrupt-climate-change.384098/

> What about the paper convinced you of this theory?

It's not one paper, it's an ongoing series of studies on past climatic
epochal catastrophes, like Lake Mungo:

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Location-of-Lake-Mungo-and-the-extent-of-its-shorelines-based-on-digital-elevation-models_fig3_278674194

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/278674194_The_Mungo_Mega-Lake_Event_Semi-Arid_Australia_Non-Linear_Descent_into_the_Last_Ice_Age_Implications_for_Human_Behaviour

It indicates a non-linear transition to more arid ice age conditions.
The mega-lake restricted mobility for people living in the area, yet
archeological traces indicate that humans rapidly adapted to the new
conditions. People repeatedly visited the island, transporting stone
tools across water and exploiting food resources stranded there. They
either swam or used watercraft to facilitate access to the island and
across the lake. Since there is no evidence for watercraft use in
Australia between initial colonization of the continent prior to 45 ka
and the mid-Holocene, repeated visits to the island may represent a
resurrection of waterfaring technologies following a hiatus of at
least 20 ky.

> I find all too often, people are swayed by a single paper,
> but don't quite understand it.

Not so much:

https://ia803200.us.archive.org/11/items/mdocs/Books/The%20Next%20End%20of%20the%20World%20-%20The%20Rebirth%20of%20Catastrophism%20by%20Ben%20Davidson%20%282021%29.pdf

My Best Estimates:
Earth’s Magnetic Field Will Decrease to The Point Where Modern Society Breaks Down
Between 2030 and 2050.
In the Model Presented in This Book: The Solar Micronova, Magnetic Excursion and Great
Waves are Due to Occur within 10-40 years.
I Expect a Reduction of 20-50% of the Earth’s Biology, Spread Between Extinctions and
Non-Extinction Population Reductions. I Expect Human Losses Will Be 75-95%, Mainly Due
to Our Lack of Survival Awareness.
Nearly Every Country Has Mountain Peaks That Will Stay Dry in a Great Wave, Even a
Wave That Exceeds My Expectation by 300%. My Expectation is Already “High” Based on
a “Better Safe Than Sorry” Policy. Humans Survive Every One of These Events. It’s in Our
Blood, We Are Survivors. The Appropriate Reaction to this Information is Mindful
Consideration, Contemplation and Action. The Inappropriate Reaction is Fear.. Fear is a
Thief of Time and Focus.
The Time Between Societal Breakdown and Micronova/Great Wave Could Be Months to
Years; Long Enough That Storing Supplies Might Not Be Enough- You Need Seeds,
Equipment, and Knowledge or Books.
I Expect the Earth to Tilt ~90 Degrees, as Chan Thomas Describes, along the Core-Mantle
LLSVP Axis. The Fact That Thomas Came to These Conclusions, and Decades Later We Are
Seeing That the Magnetic Poles Agree, is Probably the Most Amazing Coincidence in
Catastrophism- He Had No Access to Major White’s Information.
Of Those Who Get Lucky at First, Those Who Survive Long-Term Will Surely Have Been
Prepared to Do So.
~ Ben Davidson

On Sun, 14 Apr 2024 10:45:38 +1000
Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:

> **And yet, it was Europeans who ended ruling the world for centuries.
> None of the Equatorial nations managed that.

The equator is not a consistently positioned zone through history, where
landmasses are concerned.

On Sun, 14 Apr 2024 10:50:10 +1000
Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:

> On 13/04/2024 8:45 am, Phil Hendry's Chop shop wrote:
> > On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 08:18:22 +1000
> > Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
> >
> >> On 13/04/2024 12:48 am, Phil Hendry's Chop shop wrote:
> >>> On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 13:57:22 +1000
> >>> Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> **And that, alone, is a HUGE concern, given the low level of
> >>>> Solar activity at present.
> >>>
> >>> Nope.
> >>>
> >>> Our KEY factor now is the *rapidly diminishing magnetosphere*.
> >>>
> >>> It's down over 30%
> >>
> >> **Just a reminder: You are claiming that the magnetosphere is
> >> "rapidly diminishing".
> >
> > No, actual scientific measurements are PROVING it:
>
> **You fucking moron.
>
> YOU are making the claim that the magnetosphere is causing the planet
> to warm. YOU need to prove your hypothesis.

30% MORE solar input will do that - just as 30% greater solar
irradiation generated on the sun would cook us out.

> Just saying that the magnetosphere has diminished by around 10% does
> not explain why the planet is warming.
>
> Present your hypothesis.
>
> >
> > https://www.esa.int/Applications/Observing_the_Earth/FutureEO/Swarm/Swarm_probes_weakening_of_Earth_s_magnetic_field
> > https://www.science.org/content/article/earths-waning-magnet
> >
> >> That claim is NOT an hypothesis.
> >
> > No, it's factual synopsis of extant and ongoing changes.
>
> **It is NOT an hypothesis you moron.

Nor need it be, dipshit.

https://ia803200.us.archive.org/11/items/mdocs/Books/The%20Next%20End%20of%20the%20World%20-%20The%20Rebirth%20of%20Catastrophism%20by%20Ben%20Davidson%20%282021%29.pdf

My Best Estimates:
Earth’s Magnetic Field Will Decrease to The Point Where Modern Society Breaks Down
Between 2030 and 2050.
In the Model Presented in This Book: The Solar Micronova, Magnetic Excursion and Great
Waves are Due to Occur within 10-40 years.
I Expect a Reduction of 20-50% of the Earth’s Biology, Spread Between Extinctions and
Non-Extinction Population Reductions. I Expect Human Losses Will Be 75-95%, Mainly Due
to Our Lack of Survival Awareness.
Nearly Every Country Has Mountain Peaks That Will Stay Dry in a Great Wave, Even a
Wave That Exceeds My Expectation by 300%. My Expectation is Already “High” Based on
a “Better Safe Than Sorry” Policy. Humans Survive Every One of These Events. It’s in Our
Blood, We Are Survivors. The Appropriate Reaction to this Information is Mindful
Consideration, Contemplation and Action. The Inappropriate Reaction is Fear.. Fear is a
Thief of Time and Focus.
The Time Between Societal Breakdown and Micronova/Great Wave Could Be Months to
Years; Long Enough That Storing Supplies Might Not Be Enough- You Need Seeds,
Equipment, and Knowledge or Books.
I Expect the Earth to Tilt ~90 Degrees, as Chan Thomas Describes, along the Core-Mantle
LLSVP Axis. The Fact That Thomas Came to These Conclusions, and Decades Later We Are
Seeing That the Magnetic Poles Agree, is Probably the Most Amazing Coincidence in
Catastrophism- He Had No Access to Major White’s Information.
Of Those Who Get Lucky at First, Those Who Survive Long-Term Will Surely Have Been
Prepared to Do So.
~ Ben Davidson
>
> >
> >> You need to construct a proper hypothesis. You have, thus far,
> >> failed miserably to do so.
> >
> > You need to quit shape-shifting and obfuscating when trapped by the
> > facts, it's the mark of a craven, lying coward!
>
> **No. I am simply stating that you have failed miserably to present a
> cogent hypothesis to explain the present warming trend.

Your fascination with the word "hypothesis" really only confirm your
own fealty to theory over fact and paleo-records.

> > https://www.universetoday.com/156234/the-rapid-changes-were-seeing-with-the-earths-magnetic-field-dont-mean-the-poles-are-about-to-flip-this-is-normal/
> >
> > This figure from the study shows the team’s reconstruction of the
> > Earth’s DM over the past 9,000 years. They based their
> > reconstruction on different prior measurements of the Earth’s DM.
> > The thin black lines show the 95% credible interval of the
> > preferred pfm9k.2 (paleomagnetic field model) case. Overall, the
> > graph shows that the current weakening of the magnetic field is a
> > recurring phenomenon
>
> **Irrelevant.

Yes you are, you scumsucking denialist shill.

https://ia803200.us.archive.org/11/items/mdocs/Books/The%20Next%20End%20of%20the%20World%20-%20The%20Rebirth%20of%20Catastrophism%20by%20Ben%20Davidson%20%282021%29.pdf

1.3 Imminent Concern
Earth has magnetic reversals and magnetic excursions. Reversals include a flip of Earth’s
magnetic field after long (100,000s of years) epochs, while excursions are rapid flips and
flips-back of the magnetic pole. Both events include an intensity minimum during the flip
that allows space energy to penetrate into the Earth system. Excursions occur much more
frequently than full reversals, somewhere around 10,000 - 15,000 years apart on average.
While some researchers believe the cycle to be relatively exact, everything from ~11,500
years (Walker) to exactly 12,068 years (Douglas Vogt), to 21,000 - 26,000 years
(axial/apsidal precession catastrophism theory), the geologic evidence available today
tells a slightly more complex story of the processes involved.
In modern science, there are some recognized events that paint a scary picture of the
near-term future. Excursions have taken place ~12,000 - 13,000 years ago (Gothenburg),
~24,000 - 28,000 years ago (Lake Mungo), ~33,000 - 37,000 years ago (Mono Lake),
~41,000 - 46,000 years ago (Laschamp), ~60,000 years ago (Greenland/Vostok), and
~72,000 years ago (Toba). A rapid look at the most recent events shows ~12,000 to 13,000
years between them, meaning that the cycle is approximately due to reset now. While
the exact dating of these events has endured considerable disagreement (as evidenced
by the uncertainty of time in which they are supposed to have occurred) they tell a story
of a recurring magnetic change on our planet, one that matches other cycle timelines
and the evidence of disaster.
The forecast that another event is due soon is based on the historical events, but it is also
complimented by what we actually see today: the exact changes in Earth’s magnetic
field we would expect at the beginning of the next magnetic excursion. The magnetic
field strength is weakening and the magnetic poles are shifting. This ongoing shift has
been observed and reported by NASA, the European Space Agency (ESA), the USGS
and others, and yet its significance has been downplayed in popular science media and
the most important journals, even while world magnetic models require unplanned
updates (article pictured) as the shift accelerat

On Sun, 14 Apr 2024 11:18:50 +1000
Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:

> >>>> **What "natural cycle"?
> >>>
> >>> Uh...CLIMATE!!!
> >>
> >> **What "natural cycle"?
> >
> > CLIMATE!
>
> **WHAT "natural cycle".

YOU are in a loop, chucklenuts, now slime off and shill elsewhere,
because here is where you go to be spanked.

https://ia803200.us.archive.org/11/items/mdocs/Books/The%20Next%20End%20of%20the%20World%20-%20The%20Rebirth%20of%20Catastrophism%20by%20Ben%20Davidson%20%282021%29.pdf

1.3 Imminent Concern
Earth has magnetic reversals and magnetic excursions. Reversals include a flip of Earth’s
magnetic field after long (100,000s of years) epochs, while excursions are rapid flips and
flips-back of the magnetic pole. Both events include an intensity minimum during the flip
that allows space energy to penetrate into the Earth system. Excursions occur much more
frequently than full reversals, somewhere around 10,000 - 15,000 years apart on average.
While some researchers believe the cycle to be relatively exact, everything from ~11,500
years (Walker) to exactly 12,068 years (Douglas Vogt), to 21,000 - 26,000 years
(axial/apsidal precession catastrophism theory), the geologic evidence available today
tells a slightly more complex story of the processes involved.
In modern science, there are some recognized events that paint a scary picture of the
near-term future. Excursions have taken place ~12,000 - 13,000 years ago (Gothenburg),
~24,000 - 28,000 years ago (Lake Mungo), ~33,000 - 37,000 years ago (Mono Lake),
~41,000 - 46,000 years ago (Laschamp), ~60,000 years ago (Greenland/Vostok), and
~72,000 years ago (Toba). A rapid look at the most recent events shows ~12,000 to 13,000
years between them, meaning that the cycle is approximately due to reset now. While
the exact dating of these events has endured considerable disagreement (as evidenced
by the uncertainty of time in which they are supposed to have occurred) they tell a story
of a recurring magnetic change on our planet, one that matches other cycle timelines
and the evidence of disaster.
The forecast that another event is due soon is based on the historical events, but it is also
complimented by what we actually see today: the exact changes in Earth’s magnetic
field we would expect at the beginning of the next magnetic excursion. The magnetic
field strength is weakening and the magnetic poles are shifting. This ongoing shift has
been observed and reported by NASA, the European Space Agency (ESA), the USGS
and others, and yet its significance has been downplayed in popular science media and
the most important journals, even while world magnetic models require unplanned
updates (article pictured) as the shift accelerat

On Sun, 14 Apr 2024 11:18:50 +1000
Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:

> >> **Indeed. However, CO2 and other GHGs are now overriding the
> >> effects of these alleged cycles.
> >
> > Not even close at .04% total concentration, fail.
>
> **You keep making this claim, yet you continue to fail miserably in
> proving Arrhenius wrong.
>
> That makes you a failure.

Given he was never once proved right - not so much.

https://ia803200.us.archive.org/11/items/mdocs/Books/The%20Next%20End%20of%20the%20World%20-%20The%20Rebirth%20of%20Catastrophism%20by%20Ben%20Davidson%20%282021%29.pdf

Key Points:
1) There is evidence of a cyclical disaster of tremendous proportions that
punctuations long epochs of geophysical calm,
2) we are due for another disaster event based on the past cycle length, and
3) the magnetic changes we would expect to see are already taking place, and
accelerating.

The work described several interesting points about the evidence discovered, specifically
the layers of tropical and polar sedimentary evidence found near the arctic shelves:
- The layers appear to be separated by ~10,000 - 12,000 years.
- The layers (5 discovered) each include a magnetic field excursion.
- The Earth’s crust shifts back and forth, putting the current polar regions in the tropics
and then back to the poles.
- The major magnetic shift takes place rapidly (~1 day), driving the cyclical deluge and
ice age.
- The scientists initially thought they had found 9 layers, but further study revealed one
event was so bad it actually thrust an entire slab overtop another to make it appear
that the layers had doubled.
World in Peril can be read for free at
https://archive.org/details/worldinperiltheorigin/mode/2up

On Sun, 14 Apr 2024 11:18:50 +1000
Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:

> Present your hypothesis.
>
> And once more: An hypothesis is not a bunch of random facts and data.

https://ia803200.us.archive.org/11/items/mdocs/Books/The%20Next%20End%20of%20the%20World%20-%20The%20Rebirth%20of%20Catastrophism%20by%20Ben%20Davidson%20%282021%29.pdf

There has been at least some level of biosphere stress with all the recent geomagnetic
excursions, but some are definitely worse than others. During some, a tremendous
amount of the biosphere disappears, for others, it might be several bad surge deposits
with perhaps only 10% to 20% of species’ population numbers being lost- and few
extinctions. One piece of excellent news is that we have not seen two of the terrible ones
in a row, and the last one was a terrible one.
In the next chart, we find the known geomagnetic excursions dating back to the “Blake”
event, with a biosphere impact score for each. A 10/10 would be a complete
extermination of life on Earth. 9/10 is catastrophic/extreme, like Toba, when as little as a
few dozen reproducing human females survived. For comparison, a major hurricane or
earthquake is unlikely to even register a “1” on this chart, and a volcanic eruption that
cools the planet 2-3 degrees might be a “1-3”.
Excursion Name Estimate Time Biosphere Impact /10
Gothenburg ~12,000 years ago 8/10 (Severe)
Lake Mungo 24 - 28,000 years ago 4/10
Mono Lake 33 - 37,000 years ago 5/10
Laschamp 41 - 46,000 years ago 8/10 (Severe)
Vostok/Greenland ~60,000 years ago 5/10
Toba ~72,000 years ago 9/10 (Extreme)
??? ~84,000 years ago <4/10
??? ~96,000 years ago <4/10
Blake 105-115,000 years ago 8/10 (Severe)
With score of “8” or “9”, the Gothenburg, Laschamp, Toba, and Blake magnetic
excursions stand out above the Lake Mungo, Mono Lake, and Vostok/Greenland events.
The further back in time, the less the evidence stands out, such that we actually have no
evidence at all of the events between Toba and Blake - we can’t even say for sure there
were any. If they did occur, they were not as bad as ‘the really bad ones’. It is perhaps
comforting that we get at least one break cycle between the horrific events, and
32
perhaps we should expect the next one to be a “4” or a “5”.

One week later they discovered a transient (sporadic) accretion recurrent nova that is
still on a regular cycle- the door is now WIDE open.
But, the science of 2020 wasn’t done yet. In a paper titled “Simulations of Multiple Nova
Eruptions Induced by Wind Accretion in Symbiotic Systems,” it was demonstrated that the
standard model of these eruptions was too strict, and that the donor star sending material
into the other’s atmosphere could be of any type. This further indicates that various
accretion and accumulation schemes are viable options. In fact, virtually any similar
interaction can induce an outburst from a star.
In October 2020, Dr. Sofue of the University of Tokyo reported the discovery of a poor little
star that wandered into a molecular cloud- and exploded. In the next image, from Dr.
Sofue’s paper, we can see the cloud of gas and dust (gray on the left, green/yellow on
the right) and the spherical cavity in the middle where the star exploded. This occurred
because the star entered the cloud, and the interaction triggered the nova event- likely
by accretion.

On 2024-04-14, Phil Hendry's Chop shop <jon@than.ball> wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Apr 2024 10:11:07 +1000
> Borax Man <rotflol2@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 12:42:33 -0600
>> Phil Hendry's Chop shop <jon@than.ball> wrote:
>>
>> > On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 10:33:13 -0000 (UTC)
>> > Borax Man <rotflol2@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > On 2024-04-12, Phil Hendry's Chop shop <jon@than.ball> wrote:
>> > > > On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 10:36:58 -0000 (UTC)
>> > > > Borax Man <rotflol2@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > [...]
>> > [...]
>> > [...]
>> > > >
>> > > > Incorrect.
>> > > >
>> > [...]
>> > > >
>> > > > No wonder you used it as a non sequitur.
>> > > >
>> > > > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2000/climate_change/1023334.stm
>> > > >
>> > > > I have closely followed the carbon dioxide warming arguments.
>> > > > From what I have learned of how the atmosphere ticks over 40
>> > > > years of study, I have been unable to convince myself that a
>> > > > doubling of human-induced greenhouse gases can lead to anything
>> > > > but quite small and insignificant amounts of global warming.
>> > > >
>> > > > The author is a professor of atmospheric science at Colorado
>> > > > where he is an expert in tropical meteorology.
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > The reason we need models, is that it Global Warming cannot be
>> > > experimentally proven, as we only have one planet, and therefore
>> > > no "control" to compare against. The use of models isn't because
>> > > scientists want to pervert science, it is because we want to see
>> > > how the climate would behave given these changes.
>> > >
>> > > Theoretical conjecture, perhaps, but models can demonstrate their
>> > > validity by having predictive power, and in being able to model
>> > > the past as well. That is, you can run your model for what has
>> > > happened in the past, to see if your model, your simulation,
>> > > concords with what has happened. Remember, our picture of the
>> > > atom is just a model too.
>> > >
>> > > Let me ask you this then, what is causing the current observed
>> > > warming? I used to reject AGW myself, but the denialists were far
>> > > worse at predicting future trends.
>> >
>> > The same thing that's ALWAYS driven climatic cycles of glaciation:
>> >
>> > In summary, there is a significant amount of evidence that supports
>> > the idea that geomagnetic excursions are responsible for the abrupt
>> > climate changes seen during the Younger Dryas period. This
>> > correlation has been observed in various studies, and it is
>> > believed that a cyclic external event is causing these changes. The
>> > frequency of the forcing event is around 12,000 years and is also
>> > responsible for smaller events known as geomagnetic jerks. However,
>> > it is important to note that the external forcing event's impact is
>> > dependent on several factors such as the earth's axis tilt, timing
>> > of perihelion, and the distribution of continents and ice sheets.
>> > Additionally, there is evidence of a correlation between
>> > geomagnetic field intensity and cold climate events.
>> >
>> > Reference:
>> > https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/geomagnetic-excursions-interglacial-termination-abrupt-climate-change.384098/
>> >
>> > The Paleoclimatic data shows that the Younger Dryas cooling event
>> > occurred over 15 years in three 5 years steps. The entire Younger
>> > Dryas cooling event was complete in 40 years. The planet cooled
>> > from interglacial warm to within 25% of the glacial temperatures.
>> > Temperature in the North America cooled by around 18F. What is
>> > interesting is the Younger Dryas is one of a series of similar
>> > cooling events, including the termination of past interglacial
>> > periods. During the glacial period the external forcing event has
>> > less affect on the geomagnetic field and planetary temperature as
>> > the planet is already cold and vast regions of the planet's surface
>> > is covered with ice sheets which insulate the planet's surface from
>> > the cyclic forcing event, and planetary temperature is already very
>> > cold so increased GCR has less effect. The affect of the external
>> > cyclic event that is forcing the geomagnetic event it appears is
>> > dependent on the earth’s axis tilt at the time of the event, timing
>> > of perihelion, the eccentricity of the earth’s orbit, the
>> > distribution of the continents on the surface of the planet, and
>> > the area of the planet’s surface covered by ice sheets.
>> > http://www.paleomag.net/members/qingsongliu/References/EPSL/Thouveny%20excursions%20since%20400%20ka%20EPSL%202004.pdf
>> >
>> > Reference:
>> > https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/geomagnetic-excursions-interglacial-termination-abrupt-climate-change.384098/
>> >
>>
>> Do you have a link to the paper? The one that was linked in the forum
>> didn't load for me.
>>
>> I'd like to read it.
>>
> Reference: Morner, R. A., 1971, Late Weichselian paleomagnetic reversal. Nature Physical Science, vol. 234, no. 52, pp. 173-174 (December 27, 1971).
>
> Reference:
> https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/geomagnetic-excursions-interglacial-termination-abrupt-climate-change.384098/
>
>> What about the paper convinced you of this theory?
>
> It's not one paper, it's an ongoing series of studies on past climatic
> epochal catastrophes, like Lake Mungo:
>
> https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Location-of-Lake-Mungo-and-the-extent-of-its-shorelines-based-on-digital-elevation-models_fig3_278674194
>
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/278674194_The_Mungo_Mega-Lake_Event_Semi-Arid_Australia_Non-Linear_Descent_into_the_Last_Ice_Age_Implications_for_Human_Behaviour
>
> It indicates a non-linear transition to more arid ice age conditions.
> The mega-lake restricted mobility for people living in the area, yet
> archeological traces indicate that humans rapidly adapted to the new
> conditions. People repeatedly visited the island, transporting stone
> tools across water and exploiting food resources stranded there. They
> either swam or used watercraft to facilitate access to the island and
> across the lake. Since there is no evidence for watercraft use in
> Australia between initial colonization of the continent prior to 45 ka
> and the mid-Holocene, repeated visits to the island may represent a
> resurrection of waterfaring technologies following a hiatus of at
> least 20 ky.
>
>
>> I find all too often, people are swayed by a single paper,
>> but don't quite understand it.
>
>
> Not so much:
>
> https://ia803200.us.archive.org/11/items/mdocs/Books/The%20Next%20End%20of%20the%20World%20-%20The%20Rebirth%20of%20Catastrophism%20by%20Ben%20Davidson%20%282021%29.pdf
>
> My Best Estimates:
> Earth’s Magnetic Field Will Decrease to The Point Where Modern Society Breaks Down
> Between 2030 and 2050.
> In the Model Presented in This Book: The Solar Micronova, Magnetic Excursion and Great
> Waves are Due to Occur within 10-40 years.
> I Expect a Reduction of 20-50% of the Earth’s Biology, Spread Between Extinctions and
> Non-Extinction Population Reductions. I Expect Human Losses Will Be 75-95%, Mainly Due
> to Our Lack of Survival Awareness.
> Nearly Every Country Has Mountain Peaks That Will Stay Dry in a Great Wave, Even a
> Wave That Exceeds My Expectation by 300%. My Expectation is Already “High” Based on
> a “Better Safe Than Sorry” Policy. Humans Survive Every One of These Events. It’s in Our
> Blood, We Are Survivors. The Appropriate Reaction to this Information is Mindful
> Consideration, Contemplation and Action. The Inappropriate Reaction is Fear. Fear is a
> Thief of Time and Focus.
> The Time Between Societal Breakdown and Micronova/Great Wave Could Be Months to
> Years; Long Enough That Storing Supplies Might Not Be Enough- You Need Seeds,
> Equipment, and Knowledge or Books.
> I Expect the Earth to Tilt ~90 Degrees, as Chan Thomas Describes, along the Core-Mantle
> LLSVP Axis. The Fact That Thomas Came to These Conclusions, and Decades Later We Are
> Seeing That the Magnetic Poles Agree, is Probably the Most Amazing Coincidence in
> Catastrophism- He Had No Access to Major White’s Information.
> Of Those Who Get Lucky at First, Those Who Survive Long-Term Will Surely Have Been
> Prepared to Do So.
> ~ Ben Davidson

On Sun, 14 Apr 2024 14:35:10 -0000 (UTC)
Borax Man <rotflol2@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On 2024-04-14, Phil Hendry's Chop shop <jon@than.ball> wrote:
> > On Sun, 14 Apr 2024 10:11:07 +1000
> > Borax Man <rotflol2@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 12:42:33 -0600
> >> Phil Hendry's Chop shop <jon@than.ball> wrote:
> >>
> >> > On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 10:33:13 -0000 (UTC)
> >> > Borax Man <rotflol2@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > On 2024-04-12, Phil Hendry's Chop shop <jon@than.ball> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > > On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 10:36:58 -0000 (UTC)
> >> > > > Borax Man <rotflol2@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > [...]
> >> > [...]
> >> > [...]
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Incorrect.
> >> > > >
> >> > [...]
> >> > > >
> >> > > > No wonder you used it as a non sequitur.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2000/climate_change/1023334.stm
> >> > > >
> >> > > > I have closely followed the carbon dioxide warming arguments.
> >> > > > From what I have learned of how the atmosphere ticks over 40
> >> > > > years of study, I have been unable to convince myself that a
> >> > > > doubling of human-induced greenhouse gases can lead to
> >> > > > anything but quite small and insignificant amounts of global
> >> > > > warming.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > The author is a professor of atmospheric science at Colorado
> >> > > > where he is an expert in tropical meteorology.
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> > > The reason we need models, is that it Global Warming cannot be
> >> > > experimentally proven, as we only have one planet, and
> >> > > therefore no "control" to compare against. The use of models
> >> > > isn't because scientists want to pervert science, it is
> >> > > because we want to see how the climate would behave given
> >> > > these changes.
> >> > >
> >> > > Theoretical conjecture, perhaps, but models can demonstrate
> >> > > their validity by having predictive power, and in being able
> >> > > to model the past as well. That is, you can run your model
> >> > > for what has happened in the past, to see if your model, your
> >> > > simulation, concords with what has happened. Remember, our
> >> > > picture of the atom is just a model too.
> >> > >
> >> > > Let me ask you this then, what is causing the current observed
> >> > > warming? I used to reject AGW myself, but the denialists were
> >> > > far worse at predicting future trends.
> >> >
> >> > The same thing that's ALWAYS driven climatic cycles of
> >> > glaciation:
> >> >
> >> > In summary, there is a significant amount of evidence that
> >> > supports the idea that geomagnetic excursions are responsible
> >> > for the abrupt climate changes seen during the Younger Dryas
> >> > period. This correlation has been observed in various studies,
> >> > and it is believed that a cyclic external event is causing these
> >> > changes. The frequency of the forcing event is around 12,000
> >> > years and is also responsible for smaller events known as
> >> > geomagnetic jerks. However, it is important to note that the
> >> > external forcing event's impact is dependent on several factors
> >> > such as the earth's axis tilt, timing of perihelion, and the
> >> > distribution of continents and ice sheets. Additionally, there
> >> > is evidence of a correlation between geomagnetic field intensity
> >> > and cold climate events.
> >> >
> >> > Reference:
> >> > https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/geomagnetic-excursions-interglacial-termination-abrupt-climate-change.384098/
> >> >
> >> > The Paleoclimatic data shows that the Younger Dryas cooling event
> >> > occurred over 15 years in three 5 years steps. The entire Younger
> >> > Dryas cooling event was complete in 40 years. The planet cooled
> >> > from interglacial warm to within 25% of the glacial temperatures.
> >> > Temperature in the North America cooled by around 18F. What is
> >> > interesting is the Younger Dryas is one of a series of similar
> >> > cooling events, including the termination of past interglacial
> >> > periods. During the glacial period the external forcing event has
> >> > less affect on the geomagnetic field and planetary temperature as
> >> > the planet is already cold and vast regions of the planet's
> >> > surface is covered with ice sheets which insulate the planet's
> >> > surface from the cyclic forcing event, and planetary temperature
> >> > is already very cold so increased GCR has less effect. The
> >> > affect of the external cyclic event that is forcing the
> >> > geomagnetic event it appears is dependent on the earth’s axis
> >> > tilt at the time of the event, timing of perihelion, the
> >> > eccentricity of the earth’s orbit, the distribution of the
> >> > continents on the surface of the planet, and the area of the
> >> > planet’s surface covered by ice sheets.
> >> > http://www.paleomag.net/members/qingsongliu/References/EPSL/Thouveny%20excursions%20since%20400%20ka%20EPSL%202004.pdf
> >> >
> >> > Reference:
> >> > https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/geomagnetic-excursions-interglacial-termination-abrupt-climate-change.384098/
> >> >
> >>
> >> Do you have a link to the paper? The one that was linked in the
> >> forum didn't load for me.
> >>
> >> I'd like to read it.
> >>
> > Reference: Morner, R. A., 1971, Late Weichselian paleomagnetic
> > reversal. Nature Physical Science, vol. 234, no. 52, pp. 173-174
> > (December 27, 1971).
> >
> > Reference:
> > https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/geomagnetic-excursions-interglacial-termination-abrupt-climate-change.384098/
> >
> >> What about the paper convinced you of this theory?
> >
> > It's not one paper, it's an ongoing series of studies on past
> > climatic epochal catastrophes, like Lake Mungo:
> >
> > https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Location-of-Lake-Mungo-and-the-extent-of-its-shorelines-based-on-digital-elevation-models_fig3_278674194
> >
> > https://www.researchgate.net/publication/278674194_The_Mungo_Mega-Lake_Event_Semi-Arid_Australia_Non-Linear_Descent_into_the_Last_Ice_Age_Implications_for_Human_Behaviour
> >
> > It indicates a non-linear transition to more arid ice age
> > conditions. The mega-lake restricted mobility for people living in
> > the area, yet archeological traces indicate that humans rapidly
> > adapted to the new conditions. People repeatedly visited the
> > island, transporting stone tools across water and exploiting food
> > resources stranded there. They either swam or used watercraft to
> > facilitate access to the island and across the lake. Since there is
> > no evidence for watercraft use in Australia between initial
> > colonization of the continent prior to 45 ka and the mid-Holocene,
> > repeated visits to the island may represent a resurrection of
> > waterfaring technologies following a hiatus of at least 20 ky.
> >
> >
> >> I find all too often, people are swayed by a single paper,
> >> but don't quite understand it.
> >
> >
> > Not so much:
> >
> > https://ia803200.us.archive.org/11/items/mdocs/Books/The%20Next%20End%20of%20the%20World%20-%20The%20Rebirth%20of%20Catastrophism%20by%20Ben%20Davidson%20%282021%29.pdf
> >
> > My Best Estimates:
> > Earth’s Magnetic Field Will Decrease to The Point Where Modern
> > Society Breaks Down Between 2030 and 2050.
> > In the Model Presented in This Book: The Solar Micronova, Magnetic
> > Excursion and Great Waves are Due to Occur within 10-40 years.
> > I Expect a Reduction of 20-50% of the Earth’s Biology, Spread
> > Between Extinctions and Non-Extinction Population Reductions. I
> > Expect Human Losses Will Be 75-95%, Mainly Due to Our Lack of
> > Survival Awareness. Nearly Every Country Has Mountain Peaks That
> > Will Stay Dry in a Great Wave, Even a Wave That Exceeds My
> > Expectation by 300%. My Expectation is Already “High” Based on a
> > “Better Safe Than Sorry” Policy. Humans Survive Every One of These
> > Events. It’s in Our Blood, We Are Survivors. The Appropriate
> > Reaction to this Information is Mindful Consideration,
> > Contemplation and Action. The Inappropriate Reaction is Fear. Fear
> > is a Thief of Time and Focus. The Time Between Societal Breakdown
> > and Micronova/Great Wave Could Be Months to Years; Long Enough That
> > Storing Supplies Might Not Be Enough- You Need Seeds, Equipment,
> > and Knowledge or Books. I Expect the Earth to Tilt ~90 Degrees, as
> > Chan Thomas Describes, along the Core-Mantle LLSVP Axis. The Fact
> > That Thomas Came to These Conclusions, and Decades Later We Are
> > Seeing That the Magnetic Poles Agree, is Probably the Most Amazing
> > Coincidence in Catastrophism- He Had No Access to Major White’s
> > Information. Of Those Who Get Lucky at First, Those Who Survive
> > Long-Term Will Surely Have Been Prepared to Do So. ~ Ben Davidson
>
> Ahh, catastrophism...

On 2024-04-14, Phil Hendry's Chop shop <jon@than.ball> wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Apr 2024 14:35:10 -0000 (UTC)
> Borax Man <rotflol2@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2024-04-14, Phil Hendry's Chop shop <jon@than.ball> wrote:
>> > On Sun, 14 Apr 2024 10:11:07 +1000
>> > Borax Man <rotflol2@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 12:42:33 -0600
>> >> Phil Hendry's Chop shop <jon@than.ball> wrote:
>> >>

[ SNIP ]

>> > Reference: Morner, R. A., 1971, Late Weichselian paleomagnetic
>> > reversal. Nature Physical Science, vol. 234, no. 52, pp. 173-174
>> > (December 27, 1971).
>> >
>> > Reference:
>> > https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/geomagnetic-excursions-interglacial-termination-abrupt-climate-change.384098/
>> >
>> >> What about the paper convinced you of this theory?
>> >
>> > It's not one paper, it's an ongoing series of studies on past
>> > climatic epochal catastrophes, like Lake Mungo:
>> >
>> > https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Location-of-Lake-Mungo-and-the-extent-of-its-shorelines-based-on-digital-elevation-models_fig3_278674194
>> >
>> > https://www.researchgate.net/publication/278674194_The_Mungo_Mega-Lake_Event_Semi-Arid_Australia_Non-Linear_Descent_into_the_Last_Ice_Age_Implications_for_Human_Behaviour
>> >
>> > It indicates a non-linear transition to more arid ice age
>> > conditions. The mega-lake restricted mobility for people living in
>> > the area, yet archeological traces indicate that humans rapidly
>> > adapted to the new conditions. People repeatedly visited the
>> > island, transporting stone tools across water and exploiting food
>> > resources stranded there. They either swam or used watercraft to
>> > facilitate access to the island and across the lake. Since there is
>> > no evidence for watercraft use in Australia between initial
>> > colonization of the continent prior to 45 ka and the mid-Holocene,
>> > repeated visits to the island may represent a resurrection of
>> > waterfaring technologies following a hiatus of at least 20 ky.
>> >
>> >
>> >> I find all too often, people are swayed by a single paper,
>> >> but don't quite understand it.
>> >
>> >
>> > Not so much:
>> >
>> > https://ia803200.us.archive.org/11/items/mdocs/Books/The%20Next%20End%20of%20the%20World%20-%20The%20Rebirth%20of%20Catastrophism%20by%20Ben%20Davidson%20%282021%29.pdf
>> >
>> > My Best Estimates:
>> > Earth’s Magnetic Field Will Decrease to The Point Where Modern
>> > Society Breaks Down Between 2030 and 2050.
>> > In the Model Presented in This Book: The Solar Micronova, Magnetic
>> > Excursion and Great Waves are Due to Occur within 10-40 years.
>> > I Expect a Reduction of 20-50% of the Earth’s Biology, Spread
>> > Between Extinctions and Non-Extinction Population Reductions. I
>> > Expect Human Losses Will Be 75-95%, Mainly Due to Our Lack of
>> > Survival Awareness. Nearly Every Country Has Mountain Peaks That
>> > Will Stay Dry in a Great Wave, Even a Wave That Exceeds My
>> > Expectation by 300%. My Expectation is Already “High” Based on a
>> > “Better Safe Than Sorry” Policy. Humans Survive Every One of These
>> > Events. It’s in Our Blood, We Are Survivors. The Appropriate
>> > Reaction to this Information is Mindful Consideration,
>> > Contemplation and Action. The Inappropriate Reaction is Fear. Fear
>> > is a Thief of Time and Focus. The Time Between Societal Breakdown
>> > and Micronova/Great Wave Could Be Months to Years; Long Enough That
>> > Storing Supplies Might Not Be Enough- You Need Seeds, Equipment,
>> > and Knowledge or Books. I Expect the Earth to Tilt ~90 Degrees, as
>> > Chan Thomas Describes, along the Core-Mantle LLSVP Axis. The Fact
>> > That Thomas Came to These Conclusions, and Decades Later We Are
>> > Seeing That the Magnetic Poles Agree, is Probably the Most Amazing
>> > Coincidence in Catastrophism- He Had No Access to Major White’s
>> > Information. Of Those Who Get Lucky at First, Those Who Survive
>> > Long-Term Will Surely Have Been Prepared to Do So. ~ Ben Davidson
>>
>> Ahh, catastrophism...
>
> The dominant factor in most all terrestrial geology and climate
> disasters, yes.
>
> Or are you in the discredited Lyell/uniformitarianism camp yet?
>
>
>> So in 25 years we're going to have an event that will kill most of
>> humanity?
>
> It seems to be trending that way, mainly keyed to the trough of the
> next solar cycle which allows the galactic current sheet to accrete
> dust over the sun without regular flaring releases.
>
>> You are sceptical of climate change, but not this??
>
>
> Neither I nor a multitude of defense and CIA analysts have any
> skepticism at all on this, so...
>
> That said, maybe it's 1-200 years off - once can hope.
>

Yes, I think Hutton and Lyle were on to something. Catastrophism I
don't think holds water, or explains the geological record very well.

On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 11:20:48 -0000 (UTC)
Borax Man <rotflol2@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Yes, I think Hutton and Lyle were on to something. Catastrophism I
> don't think holds water, or explains the geological record very well.

Well you're another weapons grade MORON then!

https://ia803200.us.archive.org/11/items/mdocs/Books/The%20Next%20End%20of%20the%20World%20-%20The%20Rebirth%20of%20Catastrophism%20by%20Ben%20Davidson%20%282021%29.pdf

The sun shines down on the Earth with life-giving light that looks yellow and white as it
crosses the sky, but one day that will change. Dust, gas, and plasma will begin to
accumulate in the sun’s atmosphere, causing a dimming to a reddish hue. When the sun
darkens almost black from accumulation, the light and solar plasma cannot escape, and
the energetic pressure inside the solar atmosphere grows. The pressure eventually
overcomes the outer shell, erupting in a micronova.
The initial eruption will produce a bright flash of visible, UV and x-ray light, which may
thermally and energetically destroy parts of the biosphere. This is the burning aspect
described by the Buddhist Sermon of the Seven Sons. This phase will not last for very long,
a few minutes at most or even possibly just a few seconds. For the next 4-20 hours (until
the micronova shockwave arrives at Earth), energetic protons and electrons will be
bombarding the upper atmosphere, delivering an incredible excess of electricity.
Ambient atmospheric electricity, telluric currents, and atmospheric pressure cells
connected to the global electric circuit will all be amplified.
When the shockwave arrives, it will be a long impact, hours to days to even weeks. At first
the shockwave will be comprised mostly of plasma, accelerated to high speeds, which
would induce electrical disruptions on Earth that would destroy every power grid, create
more-unstable atmospheric electricity conditions, and could even cause a sun-facing
magnetic field collapse, bringing an arc discharge (similar to a magnetar burst) from the
sky to the ground (pictured). It will also begin to bring the isotopes
of the nova.

The bombardment will transition from plasma to dust and other molecules as the second
component of the wave arrives, which will have the isotopes of heavy elements in the
nova attached to the dust, and which will present itself in vastly non-homogenous ways.
If you are facing the sun when the plasma arrives, it may be nighttime when the dust and
heavier components hit. The turning of the Earth through the phases of the shockwave
impact means that the isotope distribution is different across the globe. This is missed in all
dating techniques.
At this point, the dust begins to block out the sky, and it lingers in the inner solar system
while the larger pieces of the shell arrive- the impactors. Silicate material like glass and
congealed/cooled plasma and dust that have agglomerated in the shell expansion will
arrive at the end of the shockwave, and the bombardment here likely plays a key role in
how bad of a disaster the Earth actually faces. If larger pieces hit the Earth, it could turn
a bad event into a cataclysm.

The dust continues to linger in the solar system and at the top of Earth’s atmosphere, just
as nuclear or volcanic winter might do, and we enter a period of tremendous cooling
due to lack of sunlight. The extra water vapor evaporated by the heat and electricity of
the micronova thus-far will then be frozen and dropped as snow and ice to reflect even
more sunlight. This story will continue in Chapter 6, but for now, suffice to say that
eventually, the atmospheric freeze-out and lowered evaporation (due to lower
temperatures) leaves the atmosphere at a deficit of vapor clouds, and as the dust fades
away the planet quickly warms again, aided by super flare activity (which heats instead
of cools) expected to occur in the wake of the micronova magnetic
disruption to the sun.