By Kenneth Richard on 19. October 2017
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.
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 2015-2016. These 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?
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.
Posted in Solar Sciences |
That … was a good laugh. A retired professor once again 😉
At least you seem to understand that this is pretty far-fetched.
Umm, does that make sense? Reducing emissions vs. harvesting CO2 from the atmosphere? What is the difference exactly?
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.
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? 😉
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 …
It comes from Thomas et al. (2004). I’ve provided the press release (one of several) multiple times now. Probably close to 10 times including the past times I’ve provided the link.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/01/0107_040107_extinction.html
By 2050 Warming to Doom Million Species, Study Says
And yet you still claim you don’t know where this is coming from.
Unbelievable. So you think that Googling “extinctions per day” is providing you with reliable, accurate results regarding CONFIRMED species extinctions? Of course you do. That’s the extent of your understanding when it comes to this topic, obviously. SebastianH, do you understand the difference between CONFIRMED species extinctions (scientific confirmation that a species has disappeared, and that we didn’t just lose track of it/them) and guesses about how many species might go extinct per day based on models? Do you think the IUCN is wrong about there being only 1 species extinction since 2000? Do you think they’re trying to cover something up — an aggressive animal rights activist group? And furthermore, the claim is that the million species extinctions will occur because of global warming. Do you have evidence that it was warming that caused those “extinctions”? Did you realize that there were 18,000 new species discovered in 2016 alone? That’s probably new information for you too.
So you don’t understand what extrapolation means and you are finishing you reply with the claim that there are many species unknown … Ok 🙂
Also, how exactly do you confirm that a species is gone forever?
Extrapolations of real observational evidence, or extrapolations using modeled expectations?
I would have thought you could look this information up yourself, but OK.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2005/05/when_do_they_call_an_animal_extinct.html
“It’s much harder to prove that an animal is extinct. The World Conservation Union used to operate under the 50-year rule, which held that an animal could be declared extinct only if it had not been seen in more than 50 years. In the 1990s, though, the rules were tightened and clarified: Today, the World Conservation Union will label a species extinct only if “there is no reasonable doubt that the last individual has died.” In general, scientists must now show that repeated efforts to survey a species’ known habitat failed to turn up any individual sightings or evidence of its continued survival.”
“The Fish and Wildlife Service (which is required by law to survey the status of any animal listed under the Endangered Species Act at least once every five years) will declare an animal extinct only after a lengthy review process involving three independent experts and a period of public comment.”
“Only a handful of endangered species, such as the Tecopa pupfish, the longjaw cisco, and the dusky seaside sparrow, have ever been taken off the list because they went extinct.”
“Does a species ever re-emerge from official extinction? It happens. The Fernandina rice rat and the Vietnamese warty pig, for example, were both declared extinct by the World Conservation Union in 1996. Evidence of living rice rats and the discovery of a fresh warty pig skull over the next few years led to a retraction.”
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!
When your Great Great Great Grand children are dying because you ignored incoming exploding debris streams, I hope you experience real sorrow.
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
Yes, much more work needs to be done.
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.
@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
…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.
OK, got it.
https://ilmasto.wordpress.com/
Google Translate does a good job of helping me read it, as well.
Do they correlate specific disturbances with specific impact times of debris streams from supernova or nova explosions?
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
Sorry, you have no basis for your statement.
Your apology is unacceptable,I do base my statement on fact…
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.
Kenneth – you fell for a scam
http://ethandoylewhite.blogspot.ca/2013/11/theres-new-scam-targeting-academics-and.html
http://library-blog.syr.edu/drs/2014/09/03/a-cautionary-tale-about-predatory-publishers/
https://librarianenumerations.wordpress.com/2013/12/18/beware-of-predatory-journals/
http://www.chronicle.com/forums/index.php?topic=81342.0
Yeah, Kenneth. Why are you listening to the real authorities? //s//
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/07/24/you-dont-have-to-be-venal-weird-and-creepy-to-work-in-climate-science-but-it-certainly-helps/
Breitbart – you really are an idiot, a useless one at that.
@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.)
“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
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
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?
Jack, is there a point at which you realize that we could not care much less than we do about your blog posts about “predatory journals”? It’s the same old, same old from you…every single time. We do care about the content of the scientific papers themselves.
The Journal of Earth Science and Engineering is a peer-reviewed (10. Peer review – All papers considered appropriate for this journal are reviewed anonymously by outside reviewers. The review process usually takes 1-2 weeks). The list of 56 reviewers for the journal from across the world — mostly Ph.D. geophysicists — is found in the above link.
To repeat, we do not care that you can locate blogs that decry the evils of paying for a paper to be published. Everyone who wants their paper published in any journal must pay a fee. It isn’t free. Do you have anything of consequence you can write about the paper itself? Or is this going to consistently be the best you’ve got?
Kenneith _ I understand that denizens of onetrickpony have no interest in intellectual integrity. Predatory journals are the vanity press for those whose publications do meet the standards of legitimate journals.
https://librarianenumerations.wordpress.com/2013/12/18/beware-of-predatory-journals/
Beware of Chip and Dale,stale arguments about science paper placements.
I have not seen this persistently long pursued fallacious arguments being done at the level as to what Chip and Dale is doing here,it is clear he wants to AVOID the contents of papers he thinks is being wrongly published.
It is a dumb argument because it is the CONTENT of the papers that matters,not who is publishing it or where it is being published.
Thank You!
Are you capable of addressing the peer-reviewed (by Ph.D. geophysicists) paper itself, Jack? There are rather impressive correlations between supernova events and changes in climate and disturbances in the biosphere. That’s what the paper says. Or is linking to blog posts about “predatory journals” the best “rebuttal” you can muster? Apparently so. I have yet to see a substantive post about the actual content of a paper from you. It’s the equivalent of “predatory journals suck” every time, making the “onetrickpony” characterization rather ironic coming from you.
I await his paper on the mechanism behind his “correlation”. Until then I remain skeptical.
@Kenneth Richard 20. October 2017 at 6:54 PM
Jack Dale raises a staunch…
But until then, Jack heroically stands by the 103% séance consensus, and their modeling of the magical non-mechanism for the non-correlation of CO2 with temperature.
Your “onetrickpony” seems be relying on predatory journals.
David Publishing shenanigans: http://www.chronicle.com/blogs/letters/sound-research-cannot-bolster-a-dubious-journal/
Here’s a Nature paper (Song et al., 2016 “The Hiatus of the Greenhouse Effect”) that says the greenhouse effect went on hiatus during 1992-2014. Since it’s Nature, and the Ph.D scientist reviewers are better at Nature than the Ph.D scientists at the Journal of Earth Science and Engineering – because they…just are – therefore, the Nature scientists are right. The Earth’s greenhouse effect did go on hiatus during 1992-2014. Right, Jack? Or is this Nature paper wrong? And how could that happen with, you know, the peer-reviewers being so superior at Nature vs. the ones at the Journal of Earth Science and Engineering?
New Paper Documents Imperceptible CO2 Influence On The Greenhouse Effect Since 1992
thanks!
@Kenneth Richard 21. October 2017 at 12:50 AM
Reminds me of the time my dad did some electrical wiring in our home. When done he called the city inspector, who said it wasn’t satisfactory. So my dad called a close relative who was an electrician to look at it. He said there wasn’t anything wrong with it, and put his official seal on it. When the inspector was called back, he then said everything was fine this time.
Same work, only different verification of it’s validity. But, when chatbots don’t understand what they are looking at, they have to rely on other authorities.
So thanks, chatbots, for once again confirming that you haven’t a clue.
Do you have clue? Particles from supernovae traveling at close the speed of light? Suuuure, and the author explains this away with the “focusing effect of our sun’s gravity over the distance of many light years”. I have no words for this …
Speaking of getting a clue, the comment of mine that the chatbot SebH is criticizing was in response to Kenneth Richard’s comment about how an idea is only acceptable to concrete thinking blockheads when it is presented in one of their pal-reviewed journals, but “wrong” if the exact same concept appears anywhere else.
Also, I wasn’t addressing the debris traveling at “near light speed” at all in that comment, though I have in one or two others here, and what I wrote is nothing like what SebH characterized it as. He continues to put words in other peoples mouths, and then mock them for what they never said. It’s one of the nasty habits employed by activists and trolls. The fact that he is unable to correct it shows he hasn’t the least bit of interest in an honest exchange.
So, YET AGAIN he proves he hasn’t a clue or care for what he is mumbling about.
Excuse me? You were trying to [-…snip – At this point I think you’ve been trolling long enough now. -PG]
Commenting here isn’t about always getting the last word in and demanding you are always right.
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!
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.
What is the “lie” here, Jack?
https://global-warming.conferenceseries.com/ocm/2017/william-p-sokeland-university-of-florida-usa
“Mr. Sokeland qualified for his PhD at the age of 33 years from the University of Florida and returned to participate in the Skylab project at McDonald Douglas.”
It is odd that Sokeland only claims an M.Sc in the article you posted. That is the source of my post.
All of the Ph.D’s in the program you posted for that conference are referred to as “Dr.” Sokeland is referred to as “Mr.”
https://d2cax41o7ahm5l.cloudfront.net/cs/pdfs/global-warming-2017-14583-tentative-program69548.pdf
Jack, who gives a dam whether he has a Masters or Doctorate, what about the PAPER itself?
You have yet to discuss the merit of the 18 page presentation itself,which makes me wonder if don’t care about it,just be here to waste time with absurd dead end complaints about degrees and placement of science papers.
You are running on nothing of value here.
There is no lie by me. I told them I had a masters of science. They put out that I was a Phd.
OK, I have removed the references to the Ph.D. from the post. It’s rather odd that the first identifying link in performing a search indicated you had earned a Ph.D. at age 33.
https://global-warming.conferenceseries.com/ocm/2017/william-p-sokeland-university-of-florida-usa
Rather odd that such specifics would be available if they were not accurate.
The correlations you present are quite intriguing re: Supernova and weather events.
Need some Aloe for that Burn Jack?
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!
Yes. Always.
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.
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
[…] Read more at No Tricks Zone […]
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.
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!
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!
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.
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
“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 😉
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.
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.
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 https://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.
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.
“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”,https://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!
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
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!
Thanks!
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:
No, why would you even think that? You asked for clarification, I provided a reply to the stuff that this author writes.
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.
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.
@ SebastianH 30. October 2017 at 8:53 PM
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.
Yes, 19 more years after visual explosion.
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.
A lot of people seem unaware,that Supernovas can also cause new star formation by its expanding SHOCK WAVE, compressing interstellar gas clouds.
ASIDE – Gotta hand it to India. They DO recycling!
http://parlepurva.blogspot.com/2017/05/segregation-chart-english.html
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.
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?
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
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
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!
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
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
I am pleased to see that some consider the debated topic seriously. Thank you from the author.