Thermal Engineer Claims Supernova Theory Explains Global Warming, Extinction Events, Ice Ages

Do Supernova Events Cause

Extreme Climate Changes?

“Global warming will not be reduced by reducing man made CO2 emissions”

In recent years, mass die-offs of large animals – like the sudden deaths of 211,000 endangered antelopes within a matter of weeks – have been described as “mysterious” and remain largely unexplained.

Determining the cause of the retreat to ice ages and the abrupt warmings that spawned the interglacial periods has remained controversial for many decades.

William Sokeland, a heat transfer expert and thermal engineer from the University of Florida, has published a paper in the Journal of Earth Science and Engineering that proposes rapid ice melt events and ice age terminations, extreme weather events leading to mass die-offs, and even modern global warming can be traced to (or at least correlate well with) supernova impact events.

The perspectives and conclusions of researchers who claim to have found strong correlations that could explain such wide-ranging geological phenomena as the causes of glacials/interglacials, modern temperatures, and mysterious large animal die-offs should at least be considered…while maintaining a healthy level of skepticism, of course.

Discovery – if that is potentially what is occurring here – is worth a look.


Sokeland, 2017

Scientists generally state that debris from supernova does not impact our planet.  They have no concept that incoming particles from exploding stars are focused by our sun’s gravity and the magnetic fields of the sun and earth.
[M]any harmful effects are possible in the Supernova and Nova Impact Theory, SNIT, including extreme changes of the climate.

Supernova Impacts and Solar Activity, Global Warming Correlation

The scattering of solar energy due to the small particles of supernova debris is also reflected in TSI data as shown in Fig. 3. The timing of impact for supernova debris streams allows the identification of the times and duration time periods for supernova debris streams impacting our planet. Fig. 3 indicates the duration of a single supernova debris stream flowing past our planet is at least 50 years and at times more than 100 years.

Fig. 3 shows an excellent correspondence between sunspot minimums, irradiance depressions, and supernova impact times. The six smaller dips in TSI generated by nova WZ Sagittae in the red portion of the TSI curve of Fig. 3 beginning with the Dalton minimum indicate we have been impacted by six different debris streams from the nova. The last one was in the 1965 to 1970 time region and it is the debris stream of Nova WZ Sagittae that started our current global warming episode near 1966.

Supernova Impacts and Ice Ages, Ice Sheet Melts, and Warm Period Correlations

Incoming supernova debris streams cause warming and melting ice caps that produce increased sea levels.  The increase in sea levels that correlates with supernova impact times is shown in Table 5. 
Termination of the last ice age results due to melting of numerous supernova impacts that correlate time of impact by changing sea level and geothermal energy released for 2,800 years from the exit crater of Dr. J. Kennet’s nano-diamond meteor theory and part of the process involves Dr. O’Keefe’s tektite theory. Correlation of Dr. Frezzotti’s ice melt Antarctica data with supernova impact times over the past 800 years establishes the Global Warming model in conjunction with the November 2016 Antarctic sea ice melt.
Supernova 393 debris impacted earth near 857 AD and started the Medieval Warming Period. When the warm part of the supernova oscillation or cycle stopped and the cooling occurred, the Little Ice Age began near 1250 AD. Supernova 393 also caused the decline of the Mayan Empire near 900 AD. Supernova 393 is proposed to have caused a gamma ray attack upon earth 1,200 years ago.
Two supernovas, G299 and G296.7-0.9, impacted the earth to produce first the Roman warming period shown in Fig. 4 with the normal cooling and then a third unknown supernova created some warming with a lot of cooling dropping temperature to a minimum near 1,100 years ago (900 AD). This cold period produced the Dark Ages. Then SN 393 occurred causing more warming than cooling, but the end result was the Little Ice Age. The Dark Ages and the Little Ice Age were very disastrous periods of time for our planet’s human populations. It should be concluded that the increase in CO2 caused by supernovas 1006 and 1054 that is currently being observed is a boon to mankind and will protect us from the coming cold phase that will be caused by these currently impacting supernovas.
Consider the Minoan Warming of Fig. 4. The incoming carbon from supernova G29.6+0.1 causes the warm up as shown by the increased Greenland ice core temperatures.

Supernova Impacts and Timings of Megafauna Extinctions and Civilization Collapses

Noted megafauna extinctions in the past 50,000 years are correlated with the times when the debris of supernova explosions impact earth. The time of extinction should be near the time of impact of a supernova debris stream. The time of impact is derived from the time the light of the supernova explosion was seen on earth by adding a correction for the fact that the debris from the explosion moves slower than the speed of light and is shown in the second equation. The severity of the extinction will depend on the distance of the supernova from our planet, the type supernova that indicates the power of the explosion and the surroundings of the supernova when it explodes.  In general, most major disturbances of earth’s biosphere can be attributed to the explosion of supernovas.
Due to the scattering of light for small particles, the sunspots will tend to disappear when a hollow sphere of small particles enters our solar system between the sun and the earth. Other signs of the presence of the small particles are the increase of animal die offs for birds, bees, and fish and a decrease in TSI (total solar irradiance).
Recent outstanding examples of animal and human die offs due to the incoming debris were the Saiga antelope in Asia in May of 2014 and people dying in  India in May of 2015-2016These die offs were caused by SN 1006 and would have been called megafauna extinctions if the populations were restricted to small island land areas.  The deaths of the destructive hollow spheres for supernovas 1054 and 1006 will be minimal in the beginning but will increase in intensity as the years of higher particle mass and densities are approached.  Since these supernovas are over 7,000 light-years away from our planet, the effects should not be as severe as the extinctions listed in Table 2 that were due to supernova remnants that were closer to our planet.
Supernova G32.0-4.9 impact time of 4,530 ya corresponds to the fall of Egypt’s fourth dynasty in 2494 BC. It is reported that Ancient Europeans vanished 4,500 years ago. Could supernova debris actually destroy the structure of an empire and change DNA in Europe? An impact time of 4,210 years ago matches the 4.2 Kiloyear Event.
Supernova W50 with an impact time of 17,600 ya and a declination +4 appears to have caused rapid melting of the Patagonian ice sheet 17,500 years ago and corresponds to the last glacial maximum of 18,000 years ago.
Supernova G31.9+0.0 impact time of 8,092 ya produces another correlated woolly mammoth extinction event at Lake Hill on St Paul Island in the Bering Sea 7,600 years ago. The climate change produced by this supernova caused these mammoth to die due to lack of fresh water or drought.
Supernova W51C provides the impact time of 8,130 years ago and this date coincides with the end of the 8.2 Kiloyear Event.
The W50 meteor at 12,800 ya matches the beginning of deglaciation in Antarctica 12,500 years ago. Supernova Vela has a range of impact times shown in Table 1 and Fig. 7 suggests the change of temperature date of 11,700 years ago should be used. Vela’s thermal impact in the northern hemisphere was large because it is the second closest supernova to our planet.
Supernova G82.2+5.3 in Table 3 with an impact time of 5,903 ya produced the 5.9 Kiloyear Event and it is so close in time to the Piora Oscillation that the two different events due to different supernovas are often considered the same event

The SNIT [Supernova and Nova Impact Theory] Model vs. Climate Models

Any model that claims to know the energy source for global warming must predict the past effects like Antarctic melts in Fig. 3a. Then the model can be successfully used to predict global warming effects in the future. If the proposed model cannot predict past global warming events from previously recorded independent data, the model is useless.
The SNIT model shows unusual and distinct conditions for beginning and ending ice ages. To start an ice age, a close supernova explosion like SN Monogem Ring must produce an extreme amount of iron on earth’s surface. To end an ice age a meteor from a supernova explosion must penetrate earth’s mantle and release geothermal energy over a long period of time to melt the ice.
Applying Occam’s razor, supernova debris impact is the simplest method that explains all these extinction and biosphere disturbance events because the only assumption is all debris streams travel at the same velocity from the remnant to our planet.

What Can We Do?

The debris streams of supernovas 1006 and 1054 have already began to destroy life on earth. When President Obama received a rough draft of this work, he issued an executive order to NASA stating, “Space weather has the potential to simultaneously affect and disrupt health and safety across entire continents”.
Since supernovas 1054 and 1006 are currently incoming, the planet’s average temperatures should continue to increase, global warming. Global warming will not be reduced by reducing man made CO2 emissions and in reality the only defense is to move to a cooler hemisphere, harvest CO2 from the atmosphere, or stop the incoming particles. 

80 responses to “Thermal Engineer Claims Supernova Theory Explains Global Warming, Extinction Events, Ice Ages”

  1. SebastianH

    That … was a good laugh. A retired professor once again 😉

    a healthy level of skepticism, of course.

    At least you seem to understand that this is pretty far-fetched.

    Global warming will not be reduced by reducing man made CO2 emissions and in reality the only defense is to move to a cooler hemisphere, harvest CO2 from the atmosphere, or stop the incoming particles.

    Umm, does that make sense? Reducing emissions vs. harvesting CO2 from the atmosphere? What is the difference exactly?

    1. Kenneth Richard

      At least you seem to understand that this is pretty far-fetched.

      The very high correlation between supernova impact events and sudden changes/disturbances in the biosphere and weather/climate (i.e., temperature changes of degrees C per decade, the sudden collapse of ice sheets, etc.) from the geological record do not seem to render these alleged cause-effect occurrences as “far-fetched”. How else does one explain the sudden death of 211,000 antelope within a matter of a few weeks about a year ago? There are many geologists who attribute these same supernova events with species extinctions, for example. Why is this far fetched and worthy of laughing at? Geologists aren’t laughing.

      I think we should always maintain a healthy level of skepticism with any theory that attempts to explain such epic-scale events…including the theory that a million species will experience extinction by 2050 due to human fossil fuel use. Actually, that theory (or belief) seems far more unlikely than the theory unveiled here that says supernova impact events can and do cause massive changes in the biosphere and in the weather/climate of the Earth.

      Finally, I completely agree that the last sentence, especially the comment about “harvesting” CO2, does not seem to make a lot of sense. But that’s exactly why I chose to include it. We still have much to learn about the Earth and the climate system. The science is far from settled…including CO2 science.

      1. SebastianH

        How else does one explain the sudden death of 211,000 antelope within a matter of a few weeks about a year ago?

        Let’s name the reasons for this Pasteurella multocida and Clostridium perfringens. Are those good names for Supernovae or could it be the names of two bacteria maybe? 😉

        including the theory that a million species will experience extinction by 2050 due to human fossil fuel use. Actually, that theory (or belief) seems far more unlikely than the theory unveiled here that says supernova impact events can and do cause massive changes in the biosphere and in the weather/climate of the Earth.

        Also as unlikely as gravity causing warming?

        I don’t know where the million species going extinct thing comes from, but it’s likely an extrapolation of the current rate of extinction of known species over an estimation of the number of all existing species. When you google “extinctions per day” you’ll get values of up to 200 species (also a bit on the high side of estimating how many species exist). With such a high extinction rate (if true) we’ll get to a million in less than 33 years …

      2. W. P. Sokeland

        Harvesting CO2 means to remove it from the atmosphere and store it for future release. When the cool down phase starts if we have destroyed too much CO2 we may have another case of the dark ages!

    2. W. P. Sokeland

      When your Great Great Great Grand children are dying because you ignored incoming exploding debris streams, I hope you experience real sorrow.

  2. Stephen Richards

    Cosmic originated particles could have an influence on cloud formation and there is a little evidence for that from CERN. However, the author(s) has not captured every supernova or all the different types.
    So correlation is all it is at the moment but it is a better correlation than CO2

    1. W. P. Sokeland

      Yes, much more work needs to be done.

  3. Boris Winterhalter

    For those that are not aware of the work done by Nir Shaviv and Jan Veizer might Google the Israeli astronomer Nir Shaviv and that of Canadian geologist Jan Veizer. They together have the theory that supernovas might have a very important role influencing Earth’s climate.

    The idea is that supernova explosions do occur in our galaxy and naturally most often in the spiral arms with a multitude of stars capable of exploding and sending off massive amounts of galactic cosmic particles as GCR (galactic cosmic radiation).

    Because our solar system traversing galactic space is occasionally in more dense parts of the spiral arms with more frequent super novas, these times our planet would experience more GCR bombardment and hence influence our climate in accordance with Henrik Svensmark’s cosmic ray theory and that studied also by CERN as mentioned by Stephen.

    1. yonason

      @Boris Winterhalter 19. October 2017 at 9:58 PM

      Thanks for reminding me. I meant to post on one aspect of that. Since you’ve done a good write-up, I’ll stick to just posting a link to some of the material that can be found on Nir Shaviv’s blog.
      http://www.sciencebits.com/ice-ages

    2. yonason

      …also…

      Here’s what I get when I click on your link. Do you have another that works? Thanks in advance.

      ” Haettua sivua ei löydy

      Cannot find the page

      Den sökta sidan kan ej hittas”

      I hope they didn’t delete it in retaliation for your stand against climate disinformation.

    3. yonason

      OK, got it.
      https://ilmasto.wordpress.com/

      Google Translate does a good job of helping me read it, as well.

    4. W. P. Sokeland

      Do they correlate specific disturbances with specific impact times of debris streams from supernova or nova explosions?

  4. Sparks

    Detecting a supernova in Ice-core samples during solar minimums is fantastic at best. However, what is the cause of detection? obviously the sun allows more GCRs to be recorded on our planet, wouldn’t that mean our sun is the source of this deficiently minded horse shit?

    Cause ‘n effect

    1. W. P. Sokeland

      Sorry, you have no basis for your statement.

      1. Sparks

        Your apology is unacceptable,I do base my statement on fact…

      2. Sparks

        Galactic cosmic rays are regulated by the sun and planetary configuration.

        Our Galaxy is always lit up with cosmic rays, When Ice core samples here on Earth show an increase in GCR’s, refer to my comment above.

  5. Jack Dale
    1. yonason
      1. Jack Dale

        Breitbart – you really are an idiot, a useless one at that.

        1. yonason

          @Jack Dale 20. October 2017 at 5:40 AM

          Such a pathetically obvious ploy.

          Attack the messenger. Typical logical fallacy employed by deceptive activists. The facts are all correct, as anyone can verify. The article provides links, but why attack the facts, when you can try to elicit an emotional reaction from the retards who believe your propaganda.

          If you want to establish that Breitbart is worthy of attacking, you have to establish that what they write is deliberately and consistently false. You can’t rely on a circular argument, either. You call them names, which invalidates what they say, which justifies your abuse. Sorry. That’s not how it works, at least not if you are being honest.

          Now, care to try again with a bit more actual thought, and less hearsay? Convince me they aren’t telling the truth, and I’ll drop them faster than you can say John Cook is a lying idiot. (Please note how I provided actual factual proof for my assertion.)

          1. Jack Dale

            “A Sheriff has claimed a Breitbart article claiming an illegal immigrant was arrested in connection with the deadly fires in northern California is “false and misleading”.

            Sonoma County Sheriff Robert Giordano discussed the false claim published in the far-right publication, which is run by President Donald Trump’s former chief strategist Steve Bannon, at a press conference on Tuesday.

            “There is a story out there that he’s the arsonist in these fires,” Sheriff Giordano said at a press conference on Tuesday.

            “That’s not the case. There’s no indication he’s related to these fires at all … I wanted to kill that speculation right now, so we didn’t have things running too far out of control.””

            http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/breitbart-sonoma-wildfires-fake-story-immigrant-started-arson-sherriff-says-a8011071.html

          2. yonason

            RED HERRING

            It looks to me like it was the ICE director who linked Gonzales to the fires, NOT Breitbart. Breitbart was just reporting what was alleged by ICE. While it could be a mistake on the part of ICE, it can hardly be a lie on the part of Breitbart.

            That said, Gonzales has allegedly admitted to starting fires “to stay warm.” See here…
            http://www.pressdemocrat.com/news/7529964-181/suspected-arsonist-arrested-in-sonoma

            A man suspected of arson was arrested at Maxwell Farms Regional Park in Sonoma on Sunday afternoon after he was seen leaving a creek bed where a fire was burning, authorities said.

            Three Sonoma County Probation officers patrolling the area because of ongoing fires in the region noticed Jesus Fabian Gonzalez, 29, walking out of the creek area and a plume of smoke behind him, Sheriff’s Sgt. Spencer Crum said.

            Sheriff’s Deputy John Grohl was called to the scene and extinguished the fire, which was then completely doused by Sonoma Valley Fire Protection District personnel.

            Gonzalez was wearing a trench coat and told officers he started the fire because he was cold, Crum said.

            Gonzalez lives under a bridge nearby and is well known to law enforcement, he said.

            He was arrested on suspicion of felony arson and transported to the Sonoma County Jail for booking.

            Looks like ICE has a prima facie case here, which means the Sonoma county Sheriff is premature in exonerating Gonzales, and so you’ve “proven” nothing.

            Now, lets get back to the article in question. Take one from Delingpole’s list, say David Suzuki, self styled environmental expert.
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGGEBbFlHtc

            Riiiiiight!

            See also here.
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NP5eXtCIKuY

            Yep. Suzuki certainly belongs on that list!

            Care to try again?

    2. W. P. Sokeland

      Thanks, Jack, Please study the data presented in the papers as real value and forget that I got scammed. I am trying to reach thinking minds!

  6. Jack Dale

    Kenneth – you lied about Sokeland’s doctorate.

    Corresponding author: William Sokeland, MSc, scientist,
    research fields: turbine engines, spacecraft, comets, tornadoes,
    hurricanes, and earth thermal conditions.

    1. Scott

      Need some Aloe for that Burn Jack?

    2. tom0mason

      Your research of Mr. Sokeland appears partial and biased — are you not a source of predatory blog postings of ‘alternative science facts’ ?
      It certainly seems so!

      1. yonason

        Yes. Always.

    3. W. P. Sokeland

      He did not lie. He published what the editors printed and if you read my papers as a thesis, you should agree I have a Phd.

    4. W. P. Sokeland

      Jack,

      You may wish to study my other papers. Maybe you will understand the SNIT theory.

      Sokeland Papers – Non-manmade Global Warming by exploding stars November 6, 2017

      Location: https://independent.academia.edu/WilliamSokeland/Analytics/activity/documents

      Supernova and Nova Explosion’s Space Weather: Correlated Megafauna Extinctions, Antarctica Ice Melts and Biosphere Mega-disturbances—Global Warming

      WZ Sagittae Space Weather—Global Warming

      WZ Sagittae, SN 1054, and SN 1006 Space Weather—Global Warming

      Location : http://www.davidpublisher.org/Home/Journal/JEASE
      Supernova and Nova Explosion’s Space Weather: Correlated Megafauna Extinctions, Antarctica Ice Melts and Biosphere Mega-disturbances—Global Warming

      WZ Sagittae Space Weather—Global Warming

      A fourth paper is available that is not published due to lack of funds.

      It takes time and thought to understand a new theory. For examples one reviewer states that particles in space cannot travel at 88% the speed of light when the neutrino has higher speeds. Another seems to believe the force of gravity from our star cannot reach the distance to the exploding star remnant’s incoming particles and seems to ignore the acceleration due to the impulse of the explosion. Good Luck, Jack

  7. Does Supernova Theory Explain Global Warming, Extinction Events, Ice Ages? | Principia Scientific International

    […] Read more at No Tricks Zone […]

  8. Frank

    From the article: “The last one was in the 1965 to 1970 time region and it is the debris stream of Nova WZ Sagittae that started our current global warming episode near 1966.
    There were some outbursts from this Nova: ” WZ Sagittae is an ultrashort period cataclysmic nova, with outbursts observed in 1913, 1946, 1978 and 2001. During the well-observed 2001 outburst, the nova reached a peak visual magnitude of 8.21. The 1913 event was the brightest of the observed outbursts, reaching a photographic magnitude of 7.0.” The distance to this star is 142 light years according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WZ_Sagittae. So the debris must have multi-c-speed to trigger the warming periode of 1966 after only 53 years. This is impossible.
    End of review.

    1. W. P. Sokeland

      If you had studied my work, you would have noted 19 years is the time it takes the debris from WZ Sagittae to reach earth. Therefore, the explosion of 1946 would have started the 1966 global warming. I am sorry for you!

      1. Frank

        You don’t get the core! The distance to the star which produced this novae is 142 light years. (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WZ_Sagittae )How fast should be the steam of debris to reach the earth after 19 years? 7.75*c?
        Or the other way around: There is no star within a range of 19 lightyears which is a candidate for a novae. I hope you agree that no matter can move with c? If not…see Einstein!

        1. W. P. Sokeland

          The 19 year time period is the time required for the debris stream to reach earth after the “visual” explosion is seen. Therefore, debris stream traveling slower than speed of light.

      2. yonason

        W. P. Sokeland 23. October 2017 at 7:05 PM

        Do you mean that after we receive the visual from WZ Sge, that it takes another 19 years before we then see the arrival of the debris?

        Oh wait, I see. You write about that here…
        http://www.davidpublisher.org/Public/uploads/Contribute/59a8d78179db5.pdf

        Thanks

        1. SebastianH

          “Debris” that travels at 88% the speed of light and at a radius of 142 lightyears still has enough energy to influence anything. I leave it to you/him to calculate the necessary outburst energy to achieve this 😉

          1. W. P. Sokeland

            You are not considering the focusing effect of our sun’s gravity over the distance of many light years or magnetic fields of the sun and earth since the particles are positively charged. You can calculate the results in am looking for other cases that involve exploding star climate change.

        2. yonason

          To whom it may concern…

          Chatbot_SebH mocks me for an error I did not make.

          I neither wrote nor implied that I agreed with Sokeland’s 19 years. My point was just to show that Frank hadn’t read his material, and was accusing him of making an assertion he didn’t make.

          As usual, Chatbot logic is a failed paradigm.

          1. Frank

            Yonason, I hope you agree that the novae WZ sagitae can’t explain the warming after 1966 because this woul require a debris-speed of 0.88*c which is not possible. This is what I wrote http://notrickszone.com/2017/10/19/ph-d-thermal-engineer-claims-supernova-theory-explains-global-warming-extinction-events-ice-ages/comment-page-1/#comment-1233229 and there is no reason at all to read absolute nonsense in deep.

          2. yonason

            Yonason, I hope you agree that the novae WZ sagitae can’t explain the warming after 1966 because this woul require a debris-speed of 0.88*c which is not possible.

            Yes, but that’s not what you wrote, which in the link you provide was…
            “The distance to this star is 142 light years according to [wiki-pee ref redacted]. So the debris must have multi-c-speed to trigger the warming periode of 1966 after only 53 years.”

            and in your next response was…
            “How fast should be the steam of debris to reach the earth after 19 years? 7.75*C?”

            NOTE – 142/19 = 7.47, NOT 7.75, fyi.

            Only after my first comment, to clarify what was meant by the 19 years not to endorse it, did SebH and then you move the goalpost and pretend it was otherwise.

            Everyone makes mistakes, but don’t pretend you didn’t make one when you did. And even worse is pretending the misunderstanding was on the part of the one who caught you making it.

          3. Frank

            “Only after my first comment, to clarify what was meant by the 19 years not to endorse it, did SebH and then you move the goalpost and pretend it was otherwise.”
            This is not correct, see the timstamp of my response with “0.88*c speed of debris”,http://notrickszone.com/2017/10/19/ph-d-thermal-engineer-claims-supernova-theory-explains-global-warming-extinction-events-ice-ages/comment-page-1/#comment-1233527 , it’s 24th of october 7:04 pm. Perhaps Sebastian read this and made his comment at 10:55 pm. Anyway, it’s not the clue. The real clue is my conclusion in my 1st post: utter nonsense!

          4. yonason

            OK, Frank, I see now that you have a post outside this thread, which precedes SebH’s by a couple of hours. But it doesn’t help you, because it is still after your initial mistake, and after (probably in response to?) my criticism of it .

            I REPEAT!!!! I was not addressing whether Sokeland was correct or not, but that the specifics of what you wrote were totally wrong, and that SebH was mocking me for being wrong when I was not.

            You chatbots all want to hold everyone accountable for mistakes but yourselves, and I’m not going to let you get away with it. Your errors give you no room to criticize others. While Sokeland’s 19 years would require an unrealistic value of 88% (in reality it should more like in the range from 0.2% to 20%)**, you falsely accused him of requiring superluminal debris velocity, which you only corrected AFTER I pointed out your error (about 5 hrs later – check the time stamps!)

            ALSO – SebH’s comment was…

            ““Debris” that travels at 88% the speed of light and at a radius of 142 lightyears still has enough energy to influence anything.”

            SebH appears to be accusing me of believing in the 88%, when all I was doing was clarifying that Sokeland wasn’t invoking superluminal velocities.

            And while were at it, SebH also mocks the idea that debris could influence the earth, presumably because it wouldn’t have enough energy left after traveling all that way in empty space. Really? IT’S EMPTY SPACE – It would not slow down, even at 0.1*c or slower. As to it arriving here, it does. And it may even have an influence on earth’s climate, as well.
            https://www.sciencealert.com/a-huge-space-explosion-showered-earth-with-radioactive-fallout

            “We were very surprised that there was debris clearly spread across 1.5 million years,” said lead researcher Anton Wallner from the Australian National University. “It suggests there were a series of supernovae, one after another.”

            It’s an interesting coincidence that they correspond with when Earth cooled and moved from the Pliocene into the Pleistocene period,” he adds.”

            NOTE – In at least one of Sokeland’s papers he explicitly says it’s 88%, so there’s no excuse for you to think, as you obviously originally did, that his theory required superluminal velocities.

            **REF from Max Plank Inst., giving a value of 10%, which is probably the upper limit, or thereabouts.
            http://wwwmpa.mpa-garching.mpg.de/~thj/popular/Collapsing_stars.html

            You make so many mistakes, but want us to ignore them because you are criticizing someone you think is wrong. But it doesn’t matter if he’s wrong or right, because if you are wrong and refuse to admit it, and especially as wrong as you are, then your criticism isn’t worth rat spit.

            And THAT’S the memo!

          5. W. P. Sokeland

            Thanks!

          6. SebastianH

            yonason, you are a weird one. That sentence above doesn’t mock you at all, it’s sarcasm directed at anyone taking this seriously, but ok … your replies further down here deserve mocking, so here we go:

            SebH appears to be accusing me of believing in the 88%,

            No, why would you even think that? You asked for clarification, I provided a reply to the stuff that this author writes.

            And while were at it, SebH also mocks the idea that debris could influence the earth, presumably because it wouldn’t have enough energy left after traveling all that way in empty space. Really? IT’S EMPTY SPACE – It would not slow down, even at 0.1*c or slower.

            You do know that a sphere with a radius of 142 light years has a very large area, right? It should have been obvious what I meant and yet you manage to interpret that in your own weird way … again. Too much divine intervention logic? It’s basic math.

            But it doesn’t matter if he’s wrong or right, because if you are wrong and refuse to admit it, and especially as wrong as you are, then your criticism isn’t worth rat spit.

            That’s good advice for you right there. Your skepticism isn’t worth anything when you are constantly wrong and refuse to admit it, yonason 😉

            Also, it is a weird strategy to pick fight over nothing and telling an audience that XY did something you imagined instead of directly replying to whatever comment you find to be incorrect.

          7. yonason

            @ SebastianH 30. October 2017 at 8:53 PM

            SebH appears to be accusing me of believing in the 88%,

            No, why would you even think that?

            Here’s your comment I was addressing…

            ““Debris” that travels at 88% the speed of light and at a radius of 142 lightyears still has enough energy to influence anything. I leave it to you/him to calculate the necessary outburst energy to achieve this” – SebastianH 24. October 2017 at 10:55 PM

            That’s why I knew you were addressing me. BECAUSE YOU SAID YOU WERE.

            None of the rest of your attempts to pretend you weren’t wrong are of any use, nor are your comments deserving of response. They are just as wrong now as when I criticized them before, and for the same reasons.

        3. W. P. Sokeland

          Yes, 19 more years after visual explosion.

    2. W. P. Sokeland

      You are discussing the mega-outburst from WZ Sagittae. There are many more outbursts occurring in the 33 year period between mega-outbursts that are thermally effective at our planet. I have a plot of the extra outburst in one of my reports at academia.edu under my name, Sokeland.

      1. Sunsettommy

        A lot of people seem unaware,that Supernovas can also cause new star formation by its expanding SHOCK WAVE, compressing interstellar gas clouds.

  9. yonason

    ASIDE – Gotta hand it to India. They DO recycling!
    http://parlepurva.blogspot.com/2017/05/segregation-chart-english.html

  10. Frank

    Yes, the matter of the debris won’t accelarate to 88% (!) of c. ( c= speed of light) which would be necesarry for the “debris” to arrive the earth 19 years after the visual light. Here http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/01/24/nova_explosion_gk_persei_expanding_debris_animation.html you find an estimation for the speed of the debris after a super novae, it’s about 1000 km/s in the interstellar space, this is 0.003* c! You overestimate the possible speed of the debris ( this is matter)by the factor 300. The debris can’t be the reason for the rising temperatures after 1960…they are still on the way.

  11. W. P. Sokeland

    NASA claims particles travelling from a supernova explosion have a velocity near the speed of light. https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/GLAST/news/supernova-cosmic-rays.html. Further, the particles are focused by our sun’s gravity and could deliver plenty of energy to our planet to cause global warming. What slows the atoms down after the supernova explosion?

  12. W. P. Sokeland

    The three published papers about exploding stars effects on climate change by Sokeland are at Academia.edu and membership and views are for free. The paper, WZ Sagittae, SN 1054, and SN 1006 Space Weather, cannot be viewed elsewhere.

    Global Warming

  13. Sunsettommy

    What about GEMINGA?

    The Geminga supernova as a possible cause of the local interstellar bubble

    “THE Solar System resides at the edge of a cavity of hot (106 K), low-density (5×10−3 cm−3), X-ray emitting gas embedded in the interstellar medium1–4. This void, sometimes called the Local Bubble, is thought to be less than 107 years old, but its origin is unknown. Here we propose that the void was caused by the supernova that produced the Geminga pulsar. The initial identification5 of Geminga as a pulsar, and the subsequent detection6–8 of pulsations in high-energy γ-rays, give an age of 3×105 years and a pulsar distance in the range 40 to 400 pc (refs 6,7). Using this information, and the recently discovered9,10 proper motion of a likely optical counterpart, we find that the supernova was well positioned to produce the local void, provided that the explosion occurred within about 60 pc of the Solar System. Larger distances are not excluded by our analysis, but they would put the supernova at a position for which there is no evidence for such an energy input.”

    https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v361/n6414/abs/361706a0.html

    Many references in the link

    1. W. P. Sokeland

      I haven’t gone that far back but if you would accept the age of 350,000 years as a possibility for the Geminga a warm up and major ice melt occurs in the write up on Climate Change and Human Evolution.

      https://www2.palomar.edu/anthro/homo/homo_3.htm

      Good question!

  14. Sunsettommy

    One more showing that the interstellar region in the Solar neighnorhood is lower in density than usual.

    THE GAMMA-RAY SOURCE GEMINGA:

    “In 1974, the SAS-2 satellite conducted a gamma ray survey of the sky. The second brightest was found in the constellation Gemini but was not known to emit any radiation at any other wavelengths. The name Geminga was adopted both because as an appreviation for the “Gemini gamma ray source” and because Geminga signifies “it is not there” in Milanese dialect.

    For nearly 20 years, the nature of Geminga was unknown. Then, in March 1991, a periodicity of 0.237 sec was detected by the ROSAT satellite in soft X-ray emission. Therefore, Geminga is most likely a neutron star; for whatever reason, it is not visible as a radio pulsar, perhaps because its beams of radio radiation do not sweep past the Earth.

    A comparison of images of the suspected optical counterpart taken over an eight year period shows a proper motion that is consistent with a distance to Geminga of about 100 parsecs. Geminga is believed to have formed in a supernova explosion about 300,000 years ago; this nearby explosion may be responsible for the low density of the interstellar medium in the immediate vicinity of the Solar System.”

    http://www.astro.cornell.edu/academics/courses/astro201/geminga.htm

    1. W. P. Sokeland

      I mentioned DNA may change due to debris impact. It seems you may have found a big change in earth’s biota

      https://www.laboratoryequipment.com/news/2017/09/stone-age-child-reveals-modern-humans-emerged-more-300000-years-ago

  15. W. P. Sokeland

    I am pleased to see that some consider the debated topic seriously. Thank you from the author.