Best Arguments on Climate?

Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light?

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: Best Arguments on Climate?

Unread postby sketch1946 » Sat Feb 11, 2017 7:40 pm

The study was based on one lake? Climate change... magic words for funding.... I'm amused now, like have we done a photoshop revert-to-snapshot reintroduction of the medieval warm period and the little ice age?

The most believable account I've read so far for a huge population decline about the time of the first European interactions with the Native American population was the spread of European diseases from the first contacts, but before major settlement... seems possible even likely?
Not so trendy as climate change....

A similar effect of rapid population decline happened in New Zealand, this link mentions only venereal disease, influenza and measles, but there were also other serious diseases, cholera, tuberculosis, whooping cough etc

(the link doesn't mention population decline due to the 'musket wars' which led to widespread social upheaval - when the Maori obtained muskets and started do some home-grown genocide)

http://nzetc.victoria.ac.nz/tm/scholarl ... dy-d6.html
sketch1946
 
Posts: 191
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2017 7:56 pm

Re: Best Arguments on Climate?

Unread postby Lloyd » Sun Feb 12, 2017 8:58 pm

Climate change drove population decline in New World before Europeans arrived
http://popular-archaeology.com/issue/winter-2017/article/climate-change-drove-population-decline-in-new-world-before-europeans-arrived

The Little Ice Age apparently ended the native agricultural societies along the Ohio and MS rivers.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4112
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Best Arguments on Climate?

Unread postby sketch1946 » Sun Feb 12, 2017 9:35 pm

Hi Lloyd,
that's the same study I was responding to from Grey Cloud's post...
my comment about 'climate change' as magic word for funding still seems relevant :-)

"The sediment studied was from Martin Lake in northeast Indiana."

How accurately can climate change can be inferred from sediments in ***one lake?

Here is a link to a study suggesting climate variability going back 6000 years, in the same area:

..."climatic and hydrologic) variability in central North America during the mid-Holocene (~ 8,000-6,000 years ago). Pollen analyses from lakes in the northern Great Plains suggest a mid-Holocene shift from grasslands to vegetation dominated by weedy annuals, whereas charcoal evidence indicates persistent decade-to-century scale drought cycles at this time"

"Their analysis, showing ***drying to the north and ***wetter or ***no change in the southwest, used physical, chemical, and biological data from sediment cores or exposed sections for ***35 lake basins."

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/drought ... _lake.html
sketch1946
 
Posts: 191
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2017 7:56 pm

Re: Best Arguments on Climate?

Unread postby Roshi » Mon Feb 13, 2017 4:28 am

https://phys.org/news/2017-02-curiosity ... -mars.html
Mars scientists are wrestling with a problem. Ample evidence says ancient Mars was sometimes wet, with water flowing and pooling on the planet's surface. Yet, the ancient sun was about one-third less warm and climate modelers struggle to produce scenarios that get the surface of Mars warm enough for keeping water unfrozen.

A leading theory is to have a thicker carbon-dioxide atmosphere forming a greenhouse-gas blanket, helping to warm the surface of ancient Mars. However, according to a new analysis of data from NASA's Mars rover Curiosity, Mars had far too little carbon dioxide about 3.5 billion years ago to provide enough greenhouse-effect warming to thaw water ice.


Mars had flowing water, but they found too little CO2.

Also see:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... -data.html
The Mail on Sunday today reveals astonishing evidence that the organisation that is the world’s leading source of climate data rushed to publish a landmark paper that exaggerated global warming and was timed to influence the historic Paris Agreement on climate change.

A high-level whistleblower has told this newspaper that America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) breached its own rules on scientific integrity when it published the sensational but flawed report, aimed at making the maximum possible impact on world leaders including Barack Obama and David Cameron at the UN climate conference in Paris in 2015.
Roshi
 
Posts: 129
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2016 9:35 am

Re: Best Arguments on Climate?

Unread postby dodeca » Fri Feb 24, 2017 3:40 pm

dodeca
 
Posts: 46
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 1:32 pm

Re: Best Arguments on Climate?

Unread postby seasmith » Fri Feb 24, 2017 4:12 pm

From rocks in Colorado, evidence of a ‘Chaotic Solar System’

The discovery promises not only a better understanding of the mechanics of the solar system, but also a more precise measuring stick for geologic time. Moreover, it offers a better understanding of the link between orbital variations and climate change over geologic time scales.
...
The finding is important because it provides the first hard proof for the “chaotic solar system,” a theory proposed in 1989 to account for small variations in the present conditions of the solar system.


http://news.wisc.edu/from-rocks-in-colo ... 2Vw2I.dpuf
seasmith
 
Posts: 2616
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm

Re: Best Arguments on Climate?

Unread postby Lloyd » Fri Feb 24, 2017 11:38 pm

Sea. Smith, what geologic time scales? The geologic column could only have been deposited over a very short time span. The following is from a possible paper I'm co-writing.

1. Gradual erosion & deposition (GED) cannot form horizontal sedimentary strata, but can only form sloped alluvial & delta fans.(1)
_a. Turbulent floods can sort and deposit horizontal strata, as found at the Mt. St. Helens volcanic site in the 1980s and the Colorado Bijou Creek flood site in 1965.(1a)
_b. The larger a flood is, the larger is the area over which it deposits strata.
_c. Most sedimentary strata cover very large areas of continents or of a former supercontinent.(1c)
_d. This requires a continent- or supercontinent-wide flood or floods.

2. GED cannot sort sediments into different broad horizontal beds that show little to no signs of erosion between strata.(2)
_a. GED can only produce sloped strata on lake or sea floors or banks over relatively small areas.(2a)
_b. There cannot have been thousands of years of gradual erosion depositing only one kind of sediment, such as sand, in a shallow inland sea, then thousands of years depositing only another kind of sediment, such as clay, over the sand, and then more millennia depositing just calcite and/or growing shells etc forming limestone.
_c. That is because there are no large upstream sources of such pure materials and no signs of such sources from the past.
_d. The lack of erosion between conforming strata is further evidence that the strata were sorted and deposited by floodwaters that soon receded, not by GED.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4112
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Best Arguments on Climate?

Unread postby seasmith » Sat Feb 25, 2017 7:36 am

Colorado Bijou Creek

The dominant grade size represented by sand of the Bijou Creek flood deposits, based on mechanical analyses of 137 samples from the four localities studied, is medium grained (0.5-0.25 mm); 51 samples were in this class; 37 were dominantly fine grained; and 36 dominantly coarse grained. The very large objects, such as beams and concrete slabs from bridges, that were deposited during the storm indicate a velocity of water well above that necessary to carry fine to coarse sand; grain size in the deposits probably was determined by the size of sand particles available in the source area a few miles to the south. Sorting was fair in most of the 137 samples; it was good in only seven and poor in ten.


http://jsedres.sepmonline.org/content/37/3/829.short

Turbidity currents,
pretty pictures, and an amazing 3D imaging tool
Posted on September 23, 2013 by Pete Rowley

As well as my work on pyroclastic modelling, my first postdoc was spent investigating submarine turbidity currents. It’s fair to say most of the general population have never heard of the things, which might be considered bizarre considering the fact that a single one of these flows can transport more sediment than the all the worlds rivers put together manage in a year. To put that into numbers, rivers are estimated to throw out something like 13-15 billion tons. That equates to around 5 x 10^12 L, or 5 cubic km of sediment. For scale, that’s about 5 times the amount of material that Mt St Helens threw out in 1980. However, even a small turbidity current will deposit volumes of 10 cubic kilometers. 100 cubic kilometers is relatively common. There are big ones which have been known to move as much as 3,500 cubic km. (Sidenote, the deposit of a submarine turbidity current is called a turbidite).
...
...


https://lithics.wordpress.com/2013/09/2 ... -currents/
The Niobrara Formation exhibits pronounced rhythmic rock layering due to changes in the relative abundance of clay and calcium carbonate,” notes Meyers, an authority on astrochronology, which utilizes astronomical cycles to measure geologic time. “The source of the clay (laid down as shale) is from weathering of the land surface and the influx of clay to the seaway via rivers. The source of the calcium carbonate (limestone) is the shells of organisms, mostly microscopic, that lived in the water column.”

http://news.wisc.edu/from-rocks-in-colo ... 3Oybk.dpuf

LL. Oyd, (hey i like that, sounds like a honkey rap artist :D ),
Deep sedimentary deposits are found right around the world in countless number and infinite variety.
I'm not endorsing the articles i post, unless otherwise indicated; just some interesting news, as do you.

Personally, i favor a view of long erosional processes overlaid and interspersed with the deposits of cataclysmic events.
In the field, i judge age by the deterioration of the exposed rock; different rates for different composition rocks, but the method seems consistent across scale. I'm not a professional and only use a rock hammer, safety glasses and a 10X magnifier (essential!!)

As to the recent article:
Let's cut the est, age of their 90 million-year-old layer cake of sedimentary rock by a factor of 1000, making it 90 thousand years. They have alternating layers of calcite and clay, Not the large number of grain sizes required for rapid auto sorting. All those many, many layers (see pic in article) have been lithified, presumably by the common method of pressure and heat.

Those layers could be resulting from cycles of sedimentation during times of seawater friendly to marine creatures, alternating with periods of barren countryside and/or harsh climate.

Or, for a young-earther, some other process laid down many alternating layers of fossil-bearing and non-fossil-bearing soft deposits very rapidly, squeezed out all the water, cooked them into Rock, and then made a river to carve a very deep canyon to exposed the lithified layer-cake.

Now i don't know, because it was before my time, but i'm keeping an open mind.
seaslop
seasmith
 
Posts: 2616
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm

Re: Best Arguments on Climate?

Unread postby Lloyd » Sun Feb 26, 2017 5:04 pm

Sea. Smith, it wouldn't be possible to have a megasequence deposited and then thousands of years hiatus before the next megasequence, because that would be plenty of time to erode the previous megasequence into huge ditches. So there wouldn't be a fairly smooth boundary between the earlier and later megasequences.

The Grand Canyon formed when Grand and Hopi Lakes broke through their natural dams. Grand Lake's breach eroded Hopi Lake's natural dam so it breached too after a short delay. This may have been some centuries after the Great Flood.

Sea?
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4112
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Best Arguments on Climate?

Unread postby sketch1946 » Sun Feb 26, 2017 8:46 pm

Hi Lloyd, SS,
Have you guys considered the hypothetical layering from 3km tides, such as might have happened in a close encounter of a cosmic kind?

Imagine a celestial body raising a 3km tide, it would more or less cause exposure of the seafloor at the north pole, immense body of water stretched at the equator or line through the centre of earth and the celestial body, the earth would rotate inside this hypothetical body of water, any mountains that had been formed would act as giant paddle-wheel-like stirrers, the currents and turbidity and sedimentation in this model would be massive.... maybe leading to the huge layer-cake sedimentary evidence we can see in the walls of the grand canyon, the cliffs of the Great Australian Bight, and other places...
Tidal fields.jpg

https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/scenario/tides.htm

This website below is a great resource: (max depth 2000km) but if you zoom in to any part of the world, you can by adjusting the tidal 'height', see progressively how such a huge tide would affect the continents... most of the continents would be covered if the sea was 2km higher in a tide, it's then possible to imagine this body of water racing around the earth at the earth's rotation speed, with the mountains being washed over... of course it's maintained that there were no mountains in the so-called age of the dinosaurs....
https://calculatedearth.com/
Modern observations show that nothing on earth is happening today, (except huge catastrophic events like tsunamis, or the relatively tiny Mt St Helens pyroclastic flow) that is capable of laying down whole layers of sediment that cover whole animals intact, or white cliffs of Dover beds of billions of crushed and ground up shells.... or mammoth size quick frozen creatures with daisies in their mouths, or billions of sea creatures fossilised in what must be a single event...

I read of one guy whose colleague was washed off the highway in a single flash flood event, her car buried in meters of mud...

All that stirring and inundation and sedimentation that would theoretically happen in the event of a close pass by another moon or bigger size object, could have happened in a relatively short period of time in this model...

The principle of straying solar system objects and the principles of Alfven's analysis in cosmogony, ie harmonic influences in planetary orbits, the proved phenomenon of gravity-assist, and the notion of resonances that can smooth and settle orbits is openly discussed by mainstream scientists...
sketch1946
 
Posts: 191
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2017 7:56 pm

Re: Best Arguments on Climate?

Unread postby kell1990 » Sun Feb 26, 2017 9:22 pm

I'm of the opinion that there was indeed a close encounter with another celestial object in the past. There may have been many of these encounters. I think that the last one occurred about 12,900 years ago and led to the demise of the megafauna in North America. It may also have wiped out the tropical forests in what is now the Sahara desert.

One this that has stuck in my craw is the mammoths, flash frozen with buttercups in their mouths. According to everything I can find out about the temperature drop necessary for this to happen, it would have taken an almost instantaneous drop of about 200 degrees F. How in the world could that have happened?
kell1990
 
Posts: 70
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2016 10:54 am

Re: Best Arguments on Climate?

Unread postby sketch1946 » Sun Feb 26, 2017 10:04 pm

Mainstream science dismisses Velikovsky..

V wrote detailed and carefully researched books on the proposition that ancient legends and stories were linked to orbital changes of both Mars and Venus. He wrote in the period from 1940's onwards for a couple of decades.. I would have to check the details... not important except they were early, and he proposed that electric forces might act in the solar system....

I had received the impression that he was part of the 'lunatic' fringe, but when I read first his "Ramses II and his Time", I was blown away by how careful, diligent and well researched he was. I bought his other books, and I still consider him a scholar as good as any as a historian, whether his orbital changes actually happened, I can't know for sure, back then catastrophism was mocked and scorned... Shoemaker Levy 9 changed all that... :-)
V predicted that Venus would be hot..... it turned out that the surface of Venus is hot enough to melt lead, rotates in a retrograde rotation compared with earth, harmonic orbit with earth, 5:3... etc...
Venus does five orbits while earth does three.

Ransom and Hoffee calculated possible orbits to allow for classical gravitational theory, angular momentum etc, but didn't have the 'advantage' of using a third body... :-)

Now we have mainstream predictions of another so-far undiscovered body much more massive than earth, Planet 9... so maybe this is the 'missing link' of celestial mechanics needed to calculate a possible scenario for his orbital changes that led to the ancient descriptions world-wide of Venus as a 'comet' derived from the greek for long wavy hair as proposed by V

"...The predicted planet could be a super-Earth, with an estimated mass of 10 Earths (approximately 5,000 times the mass of Pluto), a diameter two to four times that of Earth, and a highly elliptical orbit with an orbital period of ***approximately 15,000 years."

"On the basis of models of planet formation that might include ***planetary migration from the inner Solar System..."

"Vesper and his mentor, NMSU math and physical science professor Paul Mason, performed computer simulations of 156 encounters between our solar system and rogue planets of various sizes and trajectories."

These speculations are hardly any different from the sort of proposal Velikovsky put forward more than fifty years ago... then lunatic fringe... now no problem...these sort of proposals abound in mainstream speculation, if I was childish, I would hang out hoping for an apology from someone, maybe Carl Sagan or others that mocked Velikovsky.... I think he was just a bit too far ahead of his time....

Mainstream orbital change theories:
"Such encounters may not be terribly uncommon; some studies indicate that rogue planets outnumber "normal" worlds circling host stars throughout the Milky Way galaxy."

"The simulations suggest that, in about 60 percent of the encounters, the incoming rogue planet would be flung out of the solar system. Most of the time, this would be a relatively simple "rogue in, rogue out" affair, Vesper said. But in about 10 percent of all cases, the rogue would take at least one of our solar system's native planets with it as it departed, he added."
http://www.space.com/35277-planet-nine- ... lanet.html

"An analysis of Pluto's orbit, in a preprint by Matthew J. Holman and Matthew J. Payne, found perturbations much larger than predicted by Batygin and Brown's proposed orbit for Planet Nine. Holman and Payne suggested three possible explanations. The data regarding Pluto's orbit could have significant systematic errors. There could be unmodeled mass in the Solar System, such as an undiscovered small planet in the range of 60–100 AU in addition to Planet Nine; this could help explain the Kuiper cliff. There could be a planet more massive or closer to the Sun instead of the planet predicted by Batygin and Brown."

"..in their initial paper Batygin and Brown proposed that Planet Nine formed closer to the Sun and was ejected onto a distant eccentric orbit following ***a close encounter with Jupiter or Saturn..."

"...Three-body interactions during these encounters can perturb the path of planets on distant orbits around another star or free-floating planets in a process similar to the capture of irregular satellites around the giant planets, leaving one in a stable orbit around the Sun..."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planet_Nine

So there you go... rogue planets, rogue in rogue out, no limits to orbital changes, capture, no capture, disappearing planets, possible collisions, possible tidal interations.. all we need now is an effective Birkeland/Alfven solar system electromagnetic working model... so we we can have interplanetary lightning bolts and fire from heaven just like many old world-wide legends have been trying to tell us for two or three thousand years.
sketch1946
 
Posts: 191
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2017 7:56 pm

Re: Best Arguments on Climate?

Unread postby sketch1946 » Mon Feb 27, 2017 1:01 am

sorry, mistake:
sketch1946 wrote:harmonic orbit with earth, 5:3... etc...
....Venus does five orbits while earth does three.

500px-Venus_pentagram.jpg

bad memory, should check everything:

resonant ratios and degrees of error after each cycle
earth/venus 8:13 error 1.5 degrees
mars/venus 1:3 error 20.6 degrees
mars/earth 1:2 error 42.9 degrees

"...consider the orbits of Earth and Venus, which arrive at almost the same configuration after 8 Earth orbits and 13 Venus orbits. The actual ratio is 0.61518624, which is only 0.032% away from exactly 8:13. The mismatch after 8 years is only 1.5° of Venus' orbital movement. Still, this is enough that Venus and Earth find themselves in the opposite relative orientation to the original every 120 such cycles, which is 960 years...."

The presence of a near resonance may reflect that a perfect resonance existed in the past,
****or that the system is evolving towards one in the future."

In the earth/venus resonance:
"The two near commensurabilities listed for Earth and Venus are reflected in the timing of transits of Venus, which occur in pairs 8 years apart, in a cycle that repeats every 243 years."

"...Orbital resonances greatly enhance the mutual gravitational influence of the bodies, i.e., their ability to alter or constrain each other's orbits. In most cases, this results in an unstable interaction, in which the bodies exchange momentum and shift orbits until the resonance no longer exists."

"The special case of 1:1 resonance (between bodies with similar orbital radii) causes large Solar System bodies to ***eject most other bodies sharing their orbits; this is part of the much more extensive process of clearing the neighbourhood..."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_resonance
sketch1946
 
Posts: 191
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2017 7:56 pm

Re: Best Arguments on Climate?

Unread postby D_Archer » Mon Feb 27, 2017 2:27 am

That picture in the above post, you can also see it on the chadni plate in the video of the conference talk by Kongpop U-yen> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQGsUmQShfU

He investigates how the sun (or incoming charge) influences climate/disasters, very informative.

Regards,
Daniel
- Shoot Forth Thunder -
User avatar
D_Archer
 
Posts: 1087
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:01 am
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Best Arguments on Climate?

Unread postby nick c » Mon Feb 27, 2017 3:57 pm

kell1990 wrote:One this that has stuck in my craw is the mammoths, flash frozen with buttercups in their mouths. According to everything I can find out about the temperature drop necessary for this to happen, it would have taken an almost instantaneous drop of about 200 degrees F. How in the world could that have happened?

Must reading, now available on line free:
The Extinction of the Mammoth by Charles Ginenthal
User avatar
nick c
Moderator
 
Posts: 2241
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

PreviousNext

Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests