The Ice Age Cometh! Forget Global Warming!

Hello H2O

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Models can quickly and easily become garbage in/garbage out. I read an observation recently that said that, if scientists can't come up with evidence to promote their theory, they will construct a model that will do just that. IOW a model can tell you what you want to hear if you just put the right data into it.

Just about every day I hear how models are predicting this and that around covid, and it's spread. Sounds kind of scientific doesn't it... but is it?

Models have lost their wiz bang for me.
 
Last edited:

United Gnosis

Jedi Council Member
The last sentence [I think the guy has gone just a tad over the top] expresses what I came away with quite a number of months ago when I tried to look into some stuff Ben Davidson aka. Suspicious0bservers presented, combined with an irritation towards his level of "certainty" or let's call it "believe" in his theory that I found a bit rigid and way too certain. I'm speaking from a rather superficial standpoint though, since I haven't researched anything he said in great detail at all, so feel free to correct me. It also sounds a bit too materialistic IMO and there seems to be a bit too much electricity in his approach. He also seems to leave out things like the unpredictability of reality.

I don't see anything over-the-top. Only a few percent survived the last catastrophe. 6 catastrophes ago (72k years ago, Toba catastrophe), the survival of the human species bottlenecked down to around 5000 specimens. Pulsewater 1A, the appalachian rock fields, channeled scablands, imbricated hundred-ton boulders demonstrating the most recent megaflood that Carlson always talks about - and that is not 'a tad too much'? No, that is the evidence lying around, the model must be made to fit observations while retaining predictive power. I do not see that coherence in any other model.

Has he tried to put a possible twin sun of ours into his equations? Seems to me that there is a good likelihood that something like that is happening in our solar system (twin sun phenomena). As far as I know, Davidson thinks he has discovered or gathered data that point to a bigger picture (or force) beyond the solar system which can explain what has and will happen (soon) in the solar system and on earth in the smaller scales? Sort of like: Davidson thinks he has discovered the larger domino behind the scenes that brings all the smaller Dominos in the solar system into motion?

Yes, the twin sun has been considered, and is largely out of consideration. If there were a twin sun, it could explain all of the observed long-term cyclical phenomena, from heliosphere EM upheaval to a nova. However, there are two main concerns that rule it out;
1; while gravitational models imply other somewhat massive plantoids beyond Pluto, recent studies seem to point to the absence of any massive unobserved body.
2; The Radcliffe Wave remains unexplained, activity in the solar neighborhood remains unexplained, and the implied structure of our galaxy lacks the galactic parker spiral, which we observe both at stellar scales and in other galaxies.

Regarding 'discovery', I do not know where that impression would come from. Ben is a scientific due diligence reporter, a bit like PrehistoryDecoded. He very often mentions how his interpretations are based on the work of physicists like Alfven or Peratt, and his micronova model assumptions are influenced (partially) both by Chan Thomas' Adam and Eve story (50 years old?) and classified interviews from Los Alamos scientists. On the civilian side, Wal Thornhill could be said to have 'discovered' the understated influence of EM fields when he predicted that Deep Impact would flash and explode before making contact with Tempei-1. This is not a Davidson discovery, nor does he claim his model to be.

As far as I know comets have some place in his theories, but just as a small part and not so significant? Or at least it comes across to me that way. I feel quite at unease with his steadfast point by point predictions of "what will happen" according to his ideas "soon". If we have learned anything from the C's, then it is that the "future" is very fluent and never fixed and pretty much impossible to predict, in part because of quantum phenomena and because there is not really linearity but cycles and other densities and dimensions etc. Yet what he says sounds very fixed and "certain".

That's right, comets or asteroids do not play any major role in his proposed model. They are assumed to be some unspecified portion of the impactors, but being thrown off orbit by either the pressure wave or EM effects from the micronova proper, they are not causal to the process. This is in stark comparison to the and electromagnetically-active comet models we usually hear about, in which a powerfully charged EM body interacts with earth - not that it would explain galactic phenomena, nor even solar-scale ones.

Regarding the predictions, I am surprised that it snags at you thus. It is the function of science to make predictions, after all, and there is nothing wrong to making predictions in a scientific context. That is exactly how you verify that any model of reality is relevant. If, standing on the surface of the earth, I release a ball and predict it will drop, is that a wild statement that goes against the C's statement that 'the future is open'? Have they never made categorical statements/predictions about a fixed future, like "Programming is complete"?
I do not see how this is different.

I'm now aware that you do not peruse much of Davidson's content, so I understand that you think this is a hard prediction style. This is what the video was about - to follow into the general predictions of the model. In the past 2-3 years, as solar minimum progressed and predictions - from all types of solar experts - were coming out for the range of activity in cycle 25, he covered tons of them, and from the trends in field strength, held the notion that the flip would happen in 2-3 cycles - in the mid 30s or 40s. It's only with the measurements of the last year (earth field being progressively more overwhelmed, by progressively smaller storms) that he switched to saying maybe I'm wrong, but it looks like it might be only 1-2 cycles. He also went over the flare-supernova energy scales a few time, proposing a somewhat wide range of energetic magnitudes somewhat above a megaflare (Carrington event) and an few orders of magnitudes below novas. This to me shows the flexibility that you assume isn't there - because this video was designed to explore a general timeline, not the specific intensity of each stage.

That being said, what is wrong with step-by-step predictions? If you categorically refuse eating, what will happen? Is that not a step-by-step prediction?

Well, in regard to the bolded part I would say that Randall Carlson (among others) makes a pretty good case that some (if not most) similar features on earth can be explained (pretty convincingly IMO) by large scale flood/tsunami events (not seldom triggered by comets) that were orders of magnitude bigger than anything we can see today. IMO there is a good likelihood that many features of Mars could have been formed similarly (of course not excluding electrical scarring sometimes too). It seems to me that Davidson might be a bit too much into "everything was caused by electrical interactions" camp, while glancing over the IMO good evidence of other factors such as water.

I have watched over 40 of Randall's 1h+ youtube episodes. I'm not aware of Randall Carlson ever mentioning similar features on earth, because those features I am talking about are not present on earth. From the massive crustal imbalance thicker on one side than the other, to destructive erosion on the anode hemisphere with constructive landscaping on the cathode side. These are not in any way explainable by geological processes, even by catastrophic geological processes such as a stand-alone megaflood. Not that the flood itself would have a cause, without the greater context.

For reference, here is a good video on the electroeroded features of Mars:

I think part of the problem here is trying to explain it all in purely physical/materialistic terms, leaving out "higher" factors such as "the human-cosmic connection" and non-linearity. I also have to say that Davidson often rubs me the wrong way in his wiseacre kind of "know-it-all" way of delivering things that leaves me with the slight impression that „he likes to hear himself speak“. But that might just be how it comes across to me subjectively.

I do not think that this is critically inconsistent. It is my understanding that 'physical' (I guess you mean, 3d?) reality transcribes the higher dimensions down into physical terms. The Cs mentioned it a few times, for instance how 4d battles transcribe into weather patterns. That seems to be Ben's unspoken perspective, which he sets aside to reach his channel's target audience, that is, a secular, science-minded audience. He sometimes points out the human-cosmic connection with the tinyiest quips, which are all the more powerful for how rarely he slips them in. I'll try to notice a timestamp next time. For instance, one of the things he mentioned a few times - presenting studies on the mental health effects of cosmic rays, pointing out current worsening trends, and then underlining, (paraphrased) 'remember, no matter how crazy the EM fluctuations may become, you are by far the strongest quantum computer and EM engine around, so it's going to be in your hands'. That is not a materialistic perspective at all.

I appreciate your final analysis. I'm sure I would also feel that he is wise-acring if I hadn't spent the last 12 years gathering information that points me in the same direction. I would be interested to hear your more refined opinion if you challenged yourself to watch, say, a week or two of his daily morning news (about 5 minutes). I'd be curious to hear if that impression remained.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts,
 
Last edited:

Cosmos

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
Yes, the twin sun has been considered, and is largely out of consideration. If there were a twin sun, it could explain all of the observed long-term cyclical phenomena, from heliosphere EM upheaval to a nova. However, there are two main concerns that rule it out;
1; while gravitational models imply other somewhat massive plantoids beyond Pluto, recent studies seem to point to the absence of any massive unobserved body.
2; The Radcliffe Wave remains unexplained, activity in the solar neighborhood remains unexplained, and the implied structure of our galaxy lacks the galactic parker spiral, which we observe both at stellar scales and in other galaxies.

As far as I know, binary systems and multiple star systems in our galaxy (and in the universe at large) are estimated to be a pretty common phenomenon, some estimates even going as far as to suggest that it might even be the norm rather than the exception. As Pierre wrote:

CHAPTER 15: ENTER NEMESIS

As everybody knows, our solar system is powered by a single star, the Sun. Well, it is assumed that ours is a single-star solar system because we see only one sun rise each morning. However, this is actually quite a peculiar configuration, since most stars astronomers have observed are part of multi-star systems (most often binary).

Based on data from NASA’s Chandra X-ray observatory, it’s estimated that over 80% of all stars may be in either binary or multiple-star systems. [84= Cruttenden, W., Lost Star, p.111] Grazia and Milton, who studied the 60 star systems nearest to our own reached a comparable conclusion:

61% of the 60 nearest stars are components of a double (binary) or triple star system. [85= De Grazia, A. & Milton, E.R., Solaria Binaria, p.17]

[...]

Of course, it is just an estimation, and it doesn't have to mean that our solar system is one of those binary systems, just that it doesn't seem unlikely at all. In regards to the two points you brought up above, that quote, "rule this out", I don't quite understand why those two points (and the issues raised in them) would rule out a companion star of ours?

For example, the first point that is being raised is that "recent studies seem to point to the absence of any massive unobserved body". Well, as far as I know, that topic is still hotly debated among scientists and far from the "settled issue" that you (or Davidson?) seem to imply here. In other words; quite a number of scientists have looked into the issue and there are a number of differing opinions, while quite a number of those scientists and researchers seem to indeed think that a larger body as some part of the solar system is quite likely while others (like in your example) view it differently. Or in still other words; there doesn't seem to be a definite consensus on the topic, quite the contrary in fact. So it shouldn't be a point that "rules this out" IMO.

In regards to the issues being raised in point two; I'm not familiar with the "The Radcliffe Wave" so I can't comment on how this would "rule out" the binary hypothesis. Can you explain or point out a source that explains that phenomena and how this would "rule out" the binary hypothesis?

The next issue that is raised is "activity in the solar neighborhood remains unexplained". What activity and how does it "rule out" the binary hypothesis?

Next issue is "and the implied structure of our galaxy lacks the galactic parker spiral, which we observe both at stellar scales and in other galaxies." I don't know what "the implied structure of our galaxy" is, or is supposed to be, nor how and why it would "lack the galactic parker spiral, which we observe both at stellar scales and in other galaxies"; so, I can't comment on how this would "rule out" the binary hypothesis. Can you explain or point out a source that explains those phenomena and how those would "rule out" the binary hypothesis?

Regarding 'discovery', I do not know where that impression would come from. Ben is a scientific due diligence reporter, a bit like PrehistoryDecoded. He very often mentions how his interpretations are based on the work of physicists like Alfven or Peratt, and his micronova model assumptions are influenced (partially) both by Chan Thomas' Adam and Eve story (50 years old?) and classified interviews from Los Alamos scientists. On the civilian side, Wal Thornhill could be said to have 'discovered' the understated influence of EM fields when he predicted that Deep Impact would flash and explode before making contact with Tempei-1. This is not a Davidson discovery, nor does he claim his model to be.

Well, if you read carefully, I've asked:

As far as I know, Davidson thinks he has discovered or gathered data that point to a bigger picture (or force) beyond the solar system which can explain what has and will happen (soon) in the solar system and on earth in the smaller scales?

What you have described seems to be exactly that: Davidson has gathered data from various sources, connect the dots between them, which then lead to the creation of his model of a bigger picture. However, from where I stand, it does very much sound like he in fact did make a pretty concrete (pun intended) model out of this data from other sources with a follow-up of predictions based on that model? Also, see the underlined part in the next quote.

That's right, comets or asteroids do not play any major role in his proposed model. They are assumed to be some unspecified portion of the impactors, but being thrown off orbit by either the pressure wave or EM effects from the micronova proper, they are not causal to the process. This is in stark comparison to the and electromagnetically-active comet models we usually hear about, in which a powerfully charged EM body interacts with earth - not that it would explain galactic phenomena, nor even solar-scale ones.

That might be one of the problems here. If his predictions about future events (and discoveries about past events) just minimally (if at all) include the effects of "comets" in the "small scale", than one is left to wonder how reliable his "bigger domino" idea is in the first place, since it very much seems like those "smaller Dominos" (like comets) have/do and will play quite a significant role on what is happening on our planet itself and in the solar system at large. In other words; if his ideas and predictions in the small scale don't (or minimally) include comets, then one is left two wonder how accurate his bigger scale idea can be, when it seems pretty certain that this comet phenomena has had a much bigger impact than he gives it credit for. Fine, I understand that he thinks his model points to a bigger "Domino" that brings all the smaller ones "into motion", but if that is so, one would assume that the smaller dominoes should be satisfactory explained within that model (or included) since we seem to have observed them on the smaller scale here on earth (and other planets) in quite dramatic fashions.

Regarding the predictions, I am surprised that it snags at you thus. It is the function of science to make predictions, after all, and there is nothing wrong to making predictions in a scientific context. That is exactly how you verify that any model of reality is relevant. If, standing on the surface of the earth, I release a ball and predict it will drop, is that a wild statement that goes against the C's statement that 'the future is open'? Have they never made categorical statements/predictions about a fixed future, like "Programming is complete"?
I do not see how this is different.

My issue isn't so much in the predictions Davidson is making (which I still find much too "certain" and "predictable"), but the way he presents things, which leaves me with the distinct impression that he isn't very flexible in his ideas/beliefs/thinking (which a good scholar/researcher/scientist should be IMO). He also comes across as pretty invested in his ideas to me in a dogmatic/rigid way (which is a trait I don't find very appealing in researchers), with seemingly little room for the idea "to change your mind (even completely) at any point if the data supports it". I think what it comes down to is seeing everything as a possibility and trying not to believe anything, and my impression of what I've seen from him seems to be pretty contrary to that.

I'm now aware that you do not peruse much of Davidson's content, so I understand that you think this is a hard prediction style. This is what the video was about - to follow into the general predictions of the model. In the past 2-3 years, as solar minimum progressed and predictions - from all types of solar experts - were coming out for the range of activity in cycle 25, he covered tons of them, and from the trends in field strength, held the notion that the flip would happen in 2-3 cycles - in the mid 30s or 40s. It's only with the measurements of the last year (earth field being progressively more overwhelmed, by progressively smaller storms) that he switched to saying maybe I'm wrong, but it looks like it might be only 1-2 cycles. He also went over the flare-supernova energy scales a few time, proposing a somewhat wide range of energetic magnitudes somewhat above a megaflare (Carrington event) and an few orders of magnitudes below novas. This to me shows the flexibility that you assume isn't there - because this video was designed to explore a general timeline, not the specific intensity of each stage.

Generally speaking, the more a researcher knows, the more that researcher realizes how much he doesn't know and Davidson doesn't strike me as such a thinker (quite the contrary in fact), which is one of the reasons why what he says "rubs me the wrong way".

That being said, what is wrong with step-by-step predictions? If you categorically refuse eating, what will happen? Is that not a step-by-step prediction?

See point above. One of my main issues is his "sureness" of his thinking/ideas.

I have watched over 40 of Randall's 1h+ youtube episodes. I'm not aware of Randall Carlson ever mentioning similar features on earth, because those features I am talking about are not present on earth. From the massive crustal imbalance thicker on one side than the other, to destructive erosion on the anode hemisphere with constructive landscaping on the cathode side. These are not in any way explainable by geological processes, even by catastrophic geological processes such as a stand-alone megaflood. Not that the flood itself would have a cause, without the greater context.

I was referring to the bolded part, which was as follows:

and that Mars was shaped under planetary-scale electro-erosion, with the cathode above the Scar and anode below.

I'm not saying that there don't seem to be electrical scarring effects evident on Mars (and likely other planets such as earth too), just that the idea that "Mars was shaped under planetary-scale electro-erosion" (which seems to imply that much if not everything there was shaped in this fashion) is over the top to me. Sort of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I'm pretty certain that Carlson (very shortly) talked about features on Mars that strike him as possible suspicious candidates of flooding/tsunami events (and as you know, he and others explained similar features on earth that likely have been formed by large scale floods/tsunami events, which makes sense to me). And I'm willing to agree with that suspicion.

I do not think that this is critically inconsistent. It is my understanding that 'physical' (I guess you mean, 3d?) reality transcribes the higher dimensions down into physical terms. The Cs mentioned it a few times, for instance how 4d battles transcribe into weather patterns. That seems to be Ben's unspoken perspective, which he sets aside to reach his channel's target audience, that is, a secular, science-minded audience. He sometimes points out the human-cosmic connection with the tinyiest quips, which are all the more powerful for how rarely he slips them in. I'll try to notice a timestamp next time. For instance, one of the things he mentioned a few times - presenting studies on the mental health effects of cosmic rays, pointing out current worsening trends, and then underlining, (paraphrased) 'remember, no matter how crazy the EM fluctuations may become, you are by far the strongest quantum computer and EM engine around, so it's going to be in your hands'. That is not a materialistic perspective at all.

Well, you have watched/read way more from Davidson than I have, but from what I've seen. he doesn't strike me as someone looking into that direction or giving it much credence in his work. A lot of people don't do that, I understand, and that is fine. But yes, he strikes me as quite materialistic/simplistic, in a way that leaves little else open for discussion. Others, for example, who approach things similarly materialistic, still are able to implicitly include the possibility in their thinking of "something higher", "out of reach" or "not discovered" that might play a role or even a significant role in phenomena and could change everything. But as said, I haven't followed him as closely as you have, so I could be wrong. Would be nice to see such a timestamp...

I appreciate your final analysis. I'm sure I would also feel that he is wise-acring if I hadn't spent the last 12 years gathering information that points me in the same direction. I would be interested to hear your more refined opinion if you challenged yourself to watch, say, a week or two of his daily morning news (about 5 minutes). I'd be curious to hear if that impression remained.

Maybe I will do so, but at the moment, I'm not inclined to do so, because of the issues mentioned above.
 
Last edited:

MK Scarlett

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Here is the picture of a noctilucent cloud that we took from home near Paris on yesterday evening at 23h23. That's the second one we caught here, the first one was on 14th July 2009, a little earlier but at the exact same place in the sky (West/North).

Noctilucent clouds are the mark of a cooling of the upper atmospheric layers, and seeing them at such latitudes is not common. Needless to say, I admired it as it should be.

Nuage-noctulescent-Paris-Vendredi-18-juin-2021-23h23-20210618-233047.jpg
 

XPan

The Living Force
Here is the picture of a noctilucent cloud that we took from home near Paris on yesterday evening at 23h23. That's the second one we caught here, the first one was on 14th July 2009, a little earlier but at the exact same place in the sky (West/North).

Noctilucent clouds are the mark of a cooling of the upper atmospheric layers, and seeing them at such latitudes is not common. Needless to say, I admired it as it should be.

Nuage-noctulescent-Paris-Vendredi-18-juin-2021-23h23-20210618-233047.jpg

I just looked at spaceweather.com an hour ago, there was one photographer Bertrand Kulik, who also made/published 4 images from Paris, showing these Noctilucent Clouds: which at times were visible up to 50 degrees above the horizon. Remarkable !

Here in Stockholm it is almost too bright at midnight to see any around Midsummer. I saw occasionally some weak ones. Or - perhaps because only few ones ever showed up here.


bertrand-kulik-6M2A0402_DxOp_1624062029.jpg
18 June 2021
 

MikaelYosef

Jedi Master
Noctilucent clouds are the mark of a cooling of the upper atmospheric layers, and seeing them at such latitudes is not common. Needless to say, I admired it as it should be.

Nice photo. Out of curiosity as I've never seen them in person - is that photo a good representation of how bright they appeared to the naked eye? Or was the aperture/exposure of the camera changed to gather enough light to create the photo?
 

MK Scarlett

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Nice photo. Out of curiosity as I've never seen them in person - is that photo a good representation of how bright they appeared to the naked eye? Or was the aperture/exposure of the camera changed to gather enough light to create the photo?
It was done with the phone and not with a reflex (it was late and I was tired), so the picture is what phone could do, nothing more.
Look at the link shared by XPan previously, even if I do think that the photographer took them earlier than me, so it explains why mine is darker, plus his are done with a (great) reflex and manual settings.
 

MikaelYosef

Jedi Master
It was done with the phone and not with a reflex (it was late and I was tired), so the picture is what phone could do, nothing more.
Oh I understand, it's a really nice picture and in case of any communication confusion, I'm not trying to work out your methods. My question is purely curiosity and more about your personal memory - if you think what you saw with your own eyes versus what the camera captured.....is it pretty similar? Or do you think the phone camera increased the light a bit to make it appear brighter in the photo, compared to what you remember seeing?

On my bucket list is to one day see noctilucent clouds, and auroras. I can accept my list remaining incomplete, but it's just a small thing to stay motivated.
 

MK Scarlett

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Oh I understand, it's a really nice picture and in case of any communication confusion, I'm not trying to work out your methods. My question is purely curiosity and more about your personal memory - if you think what you saw with your own eyes versus what the camera captured.....is it pretty similar? Or do you think the phone camera increased the light a bit to make it appear brighter in the photo, compared to what you remember seeing?

On my bucket list is to one day see noctilucent clouds, and auroras. I can accept my list remaining incomplete, but it's just a small thing to stay motivated.
There is no problem at all MikaelYosef, nor confusion, and I'm sorry if I let you think otherwise. And in fact, I remember that light was brighter while dark was darker; My eyes have seen the whole more contrasted.

Edit: Clarity
 

Cosmos

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
For anyone interested, I found something about the topic of the last ice age, the coming ice age (and ice ages in general) that might be fruitful to the discussions here. I'll repost it here as well:

I have translated a section of the video above, that starts at 56:14. I had to translate it in a more free way since Zillmers speech is quite hard to follow even for germans, let alone to convey it accurately in written form! It is quite a mess! If I would have left it exactly as he said it (which I tried) no English speaker would have understood a thing I'm afraid. It would be very confusing even for a german, reading the german version. But rest assured that the translation is pretty accurate in terms of what he actually said or tried to say there, even though I had to expand here and there to get it across. I have the original transcription in German [which is pretty close to the original] if anyone is interested.

I also tried to bold important stuff, which is also tricky. In that section, Zillmer basically summaries intriguing questions/discoveries/facts about and around the topic of the ice age. The ice age topic is something that still confuses me, and it is of note IMO that what Zillmer says there seems to basically conform to what the C's have said about it in several areas years ago, which for a long time (and still does, to some extent) confuse the heck out of me.

What once sounded rather contradictory/impossible to me from the C's about the ice age (and ice ages in general) becomes clearer to me in Zillmers quote (combined with other books/papers about the topic from other angles).
A part of it also reminded me of the puzzle from the C's about the "Rhineland" in which they said on June 21, 1997: "Alfalfa fields in Rhineland yield as of yet undreamed of treasures". I wonder if there might be a connection here, since he talks about a intriguing discovery in the lower Rhineland 15-20 meters deep in the sediment. As far as I know Alfalfa is also cultivated in germany. Anyway, that is just a sidenote. Here is the quote:

And you can see the contradiction [with the animal] Hippopotamus... We have found in the latitudes in Germany an incredible number of Hippos, more than in Africa. What are hippos doing in our latitudes? That's actually incredible, isn't it? A friend of mine said; "near Vienna they found hippos in the river gravel, but no Hippo has escaped from the zoo..."

I said, you don't have to puzzle over it so much, since there have been hippos here... They can be found everywhere here, because that is just how it is. And the Pioneer of the geologists, Charles Lyell (geologists, don't like to hear that nowadays) has then had the following theory, probably because there was ice and snow and hippos couldn't of course live here during the ice age (even if there were warm periods in between):

He said that the Hippopotamus migrated up from Africa in the summer and back again in the winter.

[Zillmer says, sarcasticly:] The hippos probably wanted to cool down... But those claims must be considered ridiculous, of course, because hippos live at home [they don't migrate].

I had a big article/lecture published in the "Kölner Rundschau" [newspaper] and then I said in there, for example...; there is a book in which it is claimed that Germany was once on the equator: I said that this is all nonsense, because the climate has changed.

When we drill into the earth over here in the Lower Rhine area
(I come from Solingen near Cologne and Düsseldorf)[...], in the town of Bergisch-Gladbach or somewhere around there for example, 15 or 20 meters deep, then what you find there is tropical fauna; everything you find in the Serengeti, you also find here, with the difference being that you find it at a depth of 20 meters.

Why is it, by the way, that the buildings of Romans lie buried under mud everywhere?
The alleged
Roman buildings. That is also such a question, that people should ask themselves. But anyway, a rather long reader's letter was then sent to me by a professor, in which he said, that if I would be right about what I'm saying, one could stop all the drilling that is being done here and that what I say is all nonsense and there can't be such a thing.

To that I say; Yeah sure, then a few people would maybe have less work for a while, or you would have to maybe rethink/reconsider things. Of course, what I am saying here are seriously heavy things, because then one would have to rewrite every book: But I am simply trying to comprehend everything that is claimed from a logical perspective...

And in the science service it was then written that we have had an ice age here for a period of over two and a half million years
and, quote; "the permafrost zones reached several hundred meters deep into the earth's soil. But the decisive factor for the character of the ecosystem is the duration of the cold effects - millennia or tens of thousands of years." Well yes, let me put it that way; the so-called ice age animals had stoic calmness... - they actually write that! Yes believe it or not, they say in "stoic calm". Look here, I even marked that part, quote: "These animals endured great drought and temperatures far below freezing with stoic calmness"...

I'll put it this way, the gist of what they're saying is: a cold period came, it gets incredibly cold, the animals then stand there and have nothing to eat, the ground is frozen several hundred meters deep and in stoic calm they stand there and get used to the ice age...!?!

Oh come on, surely they can't be serious, can they?!? That simply can't be true.
[It seems at this point Zillmer tries to start an explanation on how specific animals can live and die under specific environmental/climatic conditions/difficulties nowadays, but abandons that attempt:] If an animal dies now, then.... [Now Zillmer slowly gets to the point he is trying to make in his analyses] All at once all these animals according to that mainstream view became extinct at the end of the Ice Age!?! I say, how did the animals get used to the ice age there in stoic calm for thousands of years and then the ice age stops and all of a sudden all animal species are extinct?

[Zillmer jokes or rather makes a sarcastic comment now, to bring the point across better] Probably they died out because they were so happy that they suddenly got something to eat again, because there is no other way!

[Now he really starts to get to the point] My claim is; when it gets cold the animals die out and not when it gets warm. In exaggerated terms; My wife does not leave the house at all when it gets cold without a thick fur coat, just like other people do it. So, we people dress warmly, or we would freeze to death if our heaters don't run. And the animals die in the same way. When do the animals die out?: At the beginning of a cold period, and there has been a cold period. And the animals don't die at the end of the cold period.

I am not really an advocate of the no-existence of the ice age, but I have coined the word
"snow age" instead
.
For me an Ice Age that is supposed to have lasted 2.5 to 3 million years is a relatively sudden event that I would call a "Snow Age", a short time event so to speak [it is not clear here if he means to say that there were several of those "short time" snow ages within that so-called Ice age timeframe of about 3 Million years]. And then, of course, at some point there was ice, but that happened relatively quickly and violently. And to create ice from snow, you need heat. By getting colder, no iceberg can be created; you can try to comprehend/observe that fact at your own pond at home; It becomes cold, and an ice layer develops: but no glacier develops there, without snow! Right there is something one should think about very carefully; Without warmth, no glaciers!

So, when do these animals die out? At the beginning or at the end of the ice age? As you can see, we have just discussed the answer; Of course, at the beginning.


And in an Ice Age burial site (to the great surprise of people in Germany) they found a jaguar. Jaguars are animals that only exist in the tropical climate in Central America or maybe South America. And for the first time outside of America, this jaguar has been found in an Ice Age burial site here. That animal doesn't belong here [in this supposed Ice Age climate in this region, at that time]. Along with that animal, rhinos and whatnot have been found too: Animals that love the heat but not the cold.

This also has to do with our people [humans]. Humans are said to have lived here [in the latitudes germany is in] during the ice age. We now come to the next topic in this presentation; to the evolution of man as the last major topic.

Above you see [Zillmer shows a picture of the evolution of man from the ape], what we all know. We have learned (I believed in it myself for 40 - 50 years), everybody learns it, that we somehow evolved from ape-like beings. When I was young (I come from near the Neanderthal) we were in the Neanderthal with our School class and I found it great and was intrigued see things like the Neanderthal standing like that... That is not said today at all anymore...[and Zillmer goes on].
 
Last edited:

c.a.

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Frances southern mountain range goes cold adding to the hot cold climate variable's of the coming ice age. {1}

2800m La #neige est là ce matin au @picdumidi #pyrenees

Large thunderstorms in the Southern Great Plains of the U.S. are some of the strongest on Earth. In recent years, these storms have increased in frequency and intensity, and new research shows that these shifts are linked to climate variability.

Co-authored by Christopher Maupin, Courtney Schumacher and Brendan Roark, all scientists in Texas A&M University's College of Geosciences, along with other researchers, the findings were recently published in Nature Geoscience.

In the study, researchers analyzed oxygen isotopes from 30,000-50,000 year old stalactites from Texas caves to understand trends in past thunderstorms and their durations, using radar-based calibration for the region's rainfall isotopes. They discovered that when storm regimes shift from weakly to strongly organized on millennial timescales, they coincide with well-known, global abrupt climate shifts during the last glacial period, which occurred between about 120,000 and 11,500 years ago.

Through modern-day synoptic analysis, researchers learned that thunderstorms in the Southern Great Plains are strongly related to changes in wind and moisture patterns occurring at a much larger scale. Understanding these changes and various correlations will not only help reconstruct past thunderstorm occurrences, but also help predict future mid-latitude thunderstorm patterns.

"Proxy records are available in the Southern Great Plains within caves," Maupin said. "There are probably thousands of caves in Southern Great Plains and in southern Texas. Why hasn't more research occurred in those areas? Cave deposits are so promising as proxies."

Schumacher said scientists understand modern-day rainfall patterns, and that large storms can deplete isotopes.

"However, we don't know what will happen in the future, and this work will help predict trends of storms in the future," she said. "If we can run a climate model for the past which is consistent with cave records, and run that same model moving forward, we can trust its findings more if it matched the cave records versus if they didn't. Out of two models, if one really matches the cave isotopes then you can trust that one in understanding storm distribution in the future."

Caves Hold Little-Known Climate Records

Maupin, a paleoclimatologist, described the limitations that exist in capturing the true distribution of weather events across time.

"There are really important questions about what has happened in the past regarding big weather events we get through mesoscale convective systems (large storms) versus non-mesoscale (smaller storms) stuff," Maupin said. "We get so much precipitation from really big storms, and model grids can't capture big weather events, because the grids themselves are so big. Paleoclimatology helps with organizing past events to develop a proxy record of how they respond to mean climate."

Maupin collaborated with National Taiwan University to do uranium thorium dating, and discovered that the stalactites and stalagmites were in fact from around the Ice Age
.

Interdisciplinary Collaboration

Schumacher's expertise was needed to make connections with various rainfall events that occurred over time. She had experience working with radar data and rain measurements on a global scale.

"Large storms that cover hundreds of miles provide around 50-80% of rain in Texas," Schumacher said. "In the modern day, these storms have different isotope signatures."

Maupin's research is pushing back on outdated principles in the paleo-world, because you have to study how storms get larger and what influences them, he said.

"These thunderstorms are so big that even if most of the rain occurs in Oklahoma, rain in Texas will still carry isotopic signature of these huge storms," Maupin stated. "You're fingerprinting these systems despite where they occur, and they don't have to be super localized to be recognized. Big storms cause depleted isotopic signatures. You can't explain the variability in stalactites with temperature changes alone."

Research Experience For Aggie Undergraduates

Celia Lorraine McChesney '16 and Audrey Housson '16 were two undergraduate researchers involved in this publication, and both learned a great deal through the field work, collaboration, and high-impact learning experience.

"The samples from the caves were used as a tool for high-impact learning in understanding Texas paleoclimate," Maupin said. "One of the undergraduates started micro-milling the stalactites. I was very fortunate to have access to the College of Geosciences' resources and to work with these talented undergrads on ground-breaking research."

McChesney said her experience working on her senior thesis at the lab was "invaluable," and the research allowed her to travel and go out into the field.

"As an undergraduate research student at Texas A&M, I was proud to be part of one of the first teams to correlate climate change and weather linkages in a paleoclimate record," Housson said. "This whole experience provided great exposure to the academic world, and made me more confident as a scientist. Now, as a geologist and civil engineer, I am working on heavy civil infrastructure projects like tunnels and dams related to water resources. I love how my career ties back into my undergraduate research where knowing the correlation between climate change and weather helps plan for water resources in the future."




{1} Chapter 38
 

Sergey

Jedi
Greenland added record amounts of snow and ice yesterday - 4 gigatons in one day.

Following a historic increase in snow and ice at the end of May, Greenland showed a huge increase at a time when it would normally lose snow and ice.

A look at the official figures provided by the Danish Meteorological Institute (DMI) reveals that yesterday, June 24, 4 gigatons were recorded in a single day, an astounding figure for this time of year: never before in recorded history has Greenland received so much snow and ice so late in the season.

85514156.png


Such a large accumulation at this time of year has never been recorded before-at least not since DMI records began in 1981. A growth of this magnitude would be considered normal in November-February, but not in late June.

Source: Greenland added record amounts of snow and ice

 

psychegram

The Living Force
As far as I know, binary systems and multiple star systems in our galaxy (and in the universe at large) are estimated to be a pretty common phenomenon, some estimates even going as far as to suggest that it might even be the norm rather than the exception.

Just gonna jump in on this point.

Yes, binarity is extremely common. Amongst really massive stars, the big, blue, hot ones, it goes up to about 100%. The fraction drops off towards lower masses (i.e. Sol). However, there are some caveats to that last part. Binaries are easier to find when the stars are very close (orbital periods of days to years) or when the mass ratio is close i.e. they're similar in brightness.

Nemesis, being a brown dwarf, will be extremely dim. The binary fraction for brown dwarf stars is not at all well constrained, because they're very hard to detect.

The same goes for a putative companion to the Sun. The Nemesis hypothesis estimates an orbital period on the order of 20 million years. That means it's really far away, and therefore very difficult to see. We have, it is true, found many brown dwarf stars at larger distances than that. However, detecting Nemesis could be quite challenging if it's in a particularly crowded part of the sky. The other way is via its gravitational influence on outer solar system bodies, which is how the still-hypothetical Planet X was inferred. Nemesis, however, while much larger than Planet X, is also much further out, making its influence on the Kuiper Belt much weaker.

Now, Nemesis has been rejected by the astronomical community, however this is on the basis that a 20 million year orbit would not be gravitationally bound for 4 billion years. I'm not sure I buy that argument personally.
 

United Gnosis

Jedi Council Member
Just gonna jump in on this point.

Yes, binarity is extremely common. Amongst really massive stars, the big, blue, hot ones, it goes up to about 100%. The fraction drops off towards lower masses (i.e. Sol). However, there are some caveats to that last part. Binaries are easier to find when the stars are very close (orbital periods of days to years) or when the mass ratio is close i.e. they're similar in brightness.

Nemesis, being a brown dwarf, will be extremely dim. The binary fraction for brown dwarf stars is not at all well constrained, because they're very hard to detect.

The same goes for a putative companion to the Sun. The Nemesis hypothesis estimates an orbital period on the order of 20 million years. That means it's really far away, and therefore very difficult to see. We have, it is true, found many brown dwarf stars at larger distances than that. However, detecting Nemesis could be quite challenging if it's in a particularly crowded part of the sky. The other way is via its gravitational influence on outer solar system bodies, which is how the still-hypothetical Planet X was inferred. Nemesis, however, while much larger than Planet X, is also much further out, making its influence on the Kuiper Belt much weaker.

Now, Nemesis has been rejected by the astronomical community, however this is on the basis that a 20 million year orbit would not be gravitationally bound for 4 billion years. I'm not sure I buy that argument personally.

There are multiple reasons why the nemesis hypothesis doesn't hold water. The key one you underline is the periodicity of the orbit. If the orbit is too short, there is no way to justify that it is so far out we cannot observe it. But if the orbit is in the millions of years, it does not serve as a factor to explain the short-phase catastrophe cycle.

Plus, that brown dwarf would be EM-inactive so that we do not observe it (and as per the assumed nature of a brown dwarf), and sufficiently far into the Oort cloud to not demonstrate orbital effects in the planetoids and Kuyper belt, yet it somehow would have to destabilize Sol's fairly powerful heliosphere (even for a G star), to the point of inducing geomagnetic jerks in the inner planets?

It obviously doesn't make any sense. It is still, sadly, quite popular, despite making the wildest unjustified claims of any hypothesis I've seen. The disparity in inner heliosphere disruption while no gravitational instability is detected in outer orbits would require some serious explaining.
 

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Two items of interest for this thread:



If you are living west of the Cascade crest of Oregon and Washington, tomorrow will be a day you will never forget.


The latest model runs, all at very high resolution, show even more profound extremes than previously predicted. And the end of the event will be extraordinary, with temperatures falling by as much as 50F within a few hours.

Also, I noticed that there are a number of short Ice Age threads on the forum that ought to be merged with this one if some of the mods can look into that.
 
Top Bottom