The Ice Age Cometh! Forget Global Warming!

[Laurs]

Rare mid-June snow in Iceland, so heavy in places that tourists had to be rescued after finding themselves trapped, and of which “The origin can be traced to the inflow of freezing Arctic air from Canada east to the Atlantic Ocean.”

Normally, June is the month with least precipitation in Iceland, and snow is rare, says Sveinbjörnsson, meteorologist. He continued, writing on his daily weather blog: “One has been able to observe the formation of a more severe type of Arctic depression, but what also makes it special is its location, i.e. how southern it is.

And looking further ahead, Sveinbjörnsson has said the following week (so from 28 June–5 July) will be cold across Iceland, Scandinavia and also mainland Europe.

This appears to be backed up by the latest GFS 2m Temperature Anomaly run (shown below), which sees an Arctic trough riding anomalously-far south on the back of a weak and wavy ‘meridional’ jet stream flow:

Much of Europe is set to suffer a late-June chill [tropicaltidbits.com].




In Portugal, temperature departures 16C below the seasonal average are predicted for June 17 (although the local paper indicates only 10 degrees C and has given weather warnings for hail, thunderstorms, rain and sharp temp drops):


GFS 2m Temp Anomalies for June 17 [tropicaltidbits.com]

Rare Mid-June Snowstorm Blasts Iceland: Tourists Require Rescuing - Electroverse

"What makes this Arctic depression so special is how southern it is" -- meteorologist Einar Sveinbjörnsson.

electroverse.net

 

[United Gnosis]

This evening, Suspicious0bservers published a great video for an expected timeline using the micronova model as working hypothesis. I've mentioned a few times that I consider that model to be the only model which coherently combines planetary, solar and galactic evidence - and that it is a valid 3d vehicle for the Wave is simply bonus correlation. Worth watching:

 

[Laura]

This evening, Suspicious0bservers published a great video for an expected timeline using the micronova model as working hypothesis. I've mentioned a few times that I consider that model to be the only model which coherently combines planetary, solar and galactic evidence - and that it is a valid 3d vehicle for the Wave is simply bonus correlation. Worth watching:

The question is: does that model have a track record?

I watched and it was interesting, but I wasn't terribly impressed because the model does not match some of the archaeological/geological type of evidence I've read. I think the guy has gone just a tad over the top.

 

[XPan]

Rare mid-June snow in Iceland, so heavy in places that tourists had to be rescued after finding themselves trapped, and of which “The origin can be traced to the inflow of freezing Arctic air from Canada east to the Atlantic Ocean.”

Normally, June is the month with least precipitation in Iceland, and snow is rare, says Sveinbjörnsson, meteorologist. He continued, writing on his daily weather blog: “One has been able to observe the formation of a more severe type of Arctic depression, but what also makes it special is its location, i.e. how southern it is.

And looking further ahead, Sveinbjörnsson has said the following week (so from 28 June–5 July) will be cold across Iceland, Scandinavia and also mainland Europe.

This appears to be backed up by the latest GFS 2m Temperature Anomaly run (shown below), which sees an Arctic trough riding anomalously-far south on the back of a weak and wavy ‘meridional’ jet stream flow:

Much of Europe is set to suffer a late-June chill [tropicaltidbits.com].




In Portugal, temperature departures 16C below the seasonal average are predicted for June 17 (although the local paper indicates only 10 degrees C and has given weather warnings for hail, thunderstorms, rain and sharp temp drops):


GFS 2m Temp Anomalies for June 17 [tropicaltidbits.com]

Rare Mid-June Snowstorm Blasts Iceland: Tourists Require Rescuing - Electroverse

"What makes this Arctic depression so special is how southern it is" -- meteorologist Einar Sveinbjörnsson.

electroverse.net

Laurs

how and where can I find those charts you showed ? I went to [tropicaltidbits.com] but I can't find these GFS 2m Temp anomalies charts you show in your entry with two illustrations. I often go to wetterzentrale.de - which has almost everything, but not GFS 2m Temp anomalies, only for the 850 hPa level (which is a map, showing temperatures at around 1.5 km up in the atmosphere)

I also couldn't find substance in the claim (whomever made it) of 16°C lower than normal temperatures over Portugal... because that is far too extreme I already thought of yesterday, when i read it... Perhaps in an ice age that would likely happen, yes.

Lisbon maybe has a normal Max of 24-25°C (I am guessing here) this time of the year. But going 16°C below that - would result into a temperature of only 8-10°C. That doesn't feel realistic.

As of now, 17 June 2021 15.00, it is

• 20°C. in Lisbon
• 17°C. in Porto
• 23°C in the south of Portugal
• It is a bit chilly in North Portugal as well North Spain (16-20°C), there are plenty of clouds in the area, due to a shallow but thunderstorm active cyclone. The airmass there is maritime chilly (but not 'cold' in any way). So, that extreme temperature anomaly chart over Spain/Portugal (17 Jun) really feels off to me.

And please don't get me wrong Laurs, I mean it humble.

I do like to be observant when it comes to weather - as well when it comes to the occasional traps and blindspots connected to weather projections and claims. Sometimes it happens that predictions are too good (or too bad) to be true. Generally they are doing a good job dependent how you look at it - but sometimes, it is really over the top. To reach 16°C lower than normal temperatures - is not so common during summer (more common in winter, and dependent where you live) Otherwise, it still requires many unusual factors coming together in order to accomplish such extreme anomalies.


Different Example: Canaries

I remember one time when the main stream media claimed that temperatures up to 50°C would be reached in the Canaries, due to that African hot air sometimes flows over the water reaching the islands (Such flow patterns do happen there, a few times every year)

I immediately felt "but...50°C (122°F)... that's nonsense, is it not ? (My ego of course loved the extreme headlines, the "emotional kick of excitement" from extreme weather events. You know ... boyz and their toyz!

So, I went on and checked things out - how much was real ? I found that the temperatures in the Canaries went up to generally 30-34°C - which for them is pretty hot (normal max is often just 25°). One station reported the highest of all - which was 39°C in Fuerteventura or Landzarote I don't remember which, bit being closer to the African continent than the others.

Well 39°C (102°F) ain't 50°C (122°F) ... So, most other places had even lower temperatures than !


GFS longer prognosis

When it comes to the GFS longer prognosis - oh boy, those are notoriously unreliable, as soon you go beyond day 5. The longer, the worse it get's. But hey - they are both interesting and pretty.

As you arrive at day 8 to 15 - they are utterly useless. On top, the predictions change every 6 hours, when you compare at the end of period - the are radically different. I have absolutely no confidence in medium range "weather" prognosis beyond day 5 or 6 (or so). They may indicate a possible change in large scale patterns - but nothing more at best. As soon you go into the finer details - it all get's thrown off, making it unreliable.

It is of course mesmerizing, all those beautiful detailed charts... I can easily caught in it, I have to be honest ! But they remain in essence, just pretty illustrations if I look at the prognosis on day 10. Sometimes I get annoyed that i spend too much time on 'weather', that does not even exist other than in colorful illustrations, while studying all those charts (Ah, expectations !)

Some areas in Europe easier to predict than others. Local weather patterns and typical geographic characteristics are a huge factor ! I find it for example very difficult to predict the weather in Sicily. I still haven't gotten the hang of it after 6 years. Much more complicated and differentiated than in Stockholm.

In Scandinavia, we sometimes get cyclones form unusual directions - and dependend of where you live within an area of let's say 400 km - and where exactly the front or cyclone is "expected" to go - but then decides to be off 100 km - it can be the difference between sunny warm weather - or dull cold and rainy. Apparently certain cyclone types, are more difficult and erratic to make predictions on. The ones that start spinning up, coming in from Poland going northwards towards to Sweden, are notoriously unreliable to pinpoint. Cyclones that comes in from the Atlantic, are much easier.

When I write about weather predictions on my homepage - I always add to the reader - after day 5 - always take it with grain of salt. Or two.


Yesterday's brainwash

We just had a headline at DN.se yesterday saying "Extreme heat coming to Sweden 30°C" [86°F] Only that 15-20 years ago, we would never write "extreme" to a heatware with 30°C. We would write "Heat (wave) coming to Sweden, up to 30°C) Not more. No less. Summer is 25°C. Heat is 30°C, but it isn't extreme in any way.

Happens every year in summer somewhere in Sweden. 35°C [95°F] on the other hand - would likely be considered extreme in our country - because it is a very rare event. We were once close in the past 40 years. I believe you have to go back to Aug 1975, the summer that crushed many older records.

The highest temperature ever measured in Sweden is 38°C. (100.4°F) registered in Ultuna on 9 Juli 1933, and in Målilla on 29 June 1947.


Mobile Phone Weather apps...

I am also sceptical about all those lovely weather apps in mobile phones. Most of them do not rely on real observations, but on calculated, projected predictions. People however believe it is all real weather. Well it isn't. Gradually without realizing, we slip into a pseudo world of make-belief.... but that's not weather observation.

For general use, sure - they are pretty neat. I just don't like how it gradually, silently allures me to think, it is all real.

 

[Laurs]

how and where can I find those charts you showed ? I went to [tropicaltidbits.com] but I can't find these GFS 2m Temp anomalies charts you show in your entry with two illustrations.

Hi @XPan, no worries, to get to the 2m Temp Anomalies, you go to tropicaltidbits.com, select Forecast Models (top bar on the right), select Regions (left under), select Europe, select Thermodynamics (right bottom), select 2m Temp Anomaly (bottom option).

As to a drop of 16 degrees C in Portugal (in some parts) as per the model, it's in the very light purple area on the chart from tropicaltidbits where this can occur. To the west of such a light purple spot, about 94 km, is the town of Evora (where there is a temp station), where today they had temperatures like 14 and 15C, while normally in June they have between 25 and 30C.

 

[United Gnosis]

The question is: does that model have a track record?

I watched and it was interesting, but I wasn't terribly impressed because the model does not match some of the archaeological/geological type of evidence I've read. I think the guy has gone just a tad over the top.

I'm quite certain of my affirmation - that I haven't come close to seeing a better matching model. However, I'd love to hear of any mismatches you or the network might point to. To the best of my knowledge, I am not aware of any.

However, I would argue there are matches that only makes sense using the micronova hypothesis - with, a plasma-aware or maybe even plasma-centric standard model as backdrop. For instance, it is, frankly, quite obvious that Valles Marineris is not a feature formed through geological processes, and that Mars was shaped under planetary-scale electro-erosion, with the cathode above the Scar and anode below.

Thus far, great, this is nothing that'll sound wild to anyone who read Velikovsky or looked into the EU. My problem with those is that they do not compute on a cosmological scale. As in, 'planets are overly misunderstood, powerful electrical entities, which can for unspecified reasons switch the physical laws they respond to, but the Sun always remains stable;. That model doesn't seem to offer any credible impetus for a major and sudden switch from simple organized orbitals, to some EM-billiard balls with atmospheres touching, and back to organized orbitals. How did they move into the chaotic regime? How did they settle back out? If the orbitals were already vulnerable/unstable, why didn't it happen only once, in geological times well past? If they weren't, and required a big jolt to move out of equilibrium, what was that cause of that jolt, and how do we explain the periodicity of the 12ky earth catastrophe cycle?

A disintegrated massive comet, filling an orbital with impactors, might seem to come close. But those do not explain the mismatched radioisotope signatures in the black mat - they keep talking of the few isotopes that are also found in asteroids, but never mention the shorter-lived isotopes that are of necessity local - both in space and time - to the stellar nova environment.

Nor does an impactor chain match the moon-landing astronauts' description of the black glass. We know the small spherical pellets are spread over the surface, but the astronauts allegedly also described larger rocks vitrifying from the top. Of course, this could easily have 10 layers of disinfo packed in, and I can't verify that, I'll admit.

But what I can verify is the Parker solar spiral, easily explained and measured. And I can verify, looking at pictures of galactic cores in different wavelengths, how the polarization shows tightly packed magnetic domains in a spiral, much tighter than the galaxy's arms, in a 'perfect' analogue to the solar-scale Parker spiral. I can look 'behind' us, away from the galactic core, and see the Radcliffe wave, which demonstrates what happens on the leading edge of the galactic Parker spiral, and which might be exactly the last one that hit us at the YDB (if it travels away from the core at 0.033c, or 10,000km/s. Note, the solar wind can reach 800km/s during solar max, and CMEs double-triple that).

Meanwhile, it is true that the stars in our local neighborhood (say less than 10 ly) have all demonstrated sudden unstable behavior in the last few decades. And Pluto's recent atmospheric collapse, venus inertial jerks, all over are signs of a serious disruption to the heliosphere, which, absent intrinsic solar instability which no credible model points to, that disruption would have to come from an outside source.

I'm definitely not saying I _know_. As I said, some of the tastiest info is locked behind multiple layers of counterintel. And it'd cost millions in gear and expertise to test black moon glass, not that I ever expect to lay eyes on it (except, maybe, being deposited live). But I still haven't heard of any model that better fits observations from - well, any scale. Nor have I found any mismatch or anything that would come close to ruling it out.

I'd love to hear more of your reservations :)

 

[XPan]

Hi @XPan, no worries, to get to the 2m Temp Anomalies, you go to tropicaltidbits.com, select Forecast Models (top bar on the right), select Regions (left under), select Europe, select Thermodynamics (right bottom), select 2m Temp Anomaly (bottom option).

As to a drop of 16 degrees C in Portugal (in some parts) as per the model, it's in the very light purple area on the chart from tropicaltidbits where this can occur. To the west of such a light purple spot, about 94 km, is the town of Evora (where there is a temp station), where today they had temperatures like 14 and 15C, while normally in June they have between 25 and 30C.

Oh thank you for explaining Laurs

On top I realized (forgot) that my many blockers, on the aforementioned site, took away menu bars and selections - no wonder I wasn't able to find anything. Oh gosh, they even animate at the start a "how to do" tutorial *rolling my eyes*

Very interesting site, by the way. I will add it to my arsenal and learn more.

 

[XPan]

Hi @XPan, no worries, to get to the 2m Temp Anomalies, you go to tropicaltidbits.com, select Forecast Models (top bar on the right), select Regions (left under), select Europe, select Thermodynamics (right bottom), select 2m Temp Anomaly (bottom option).

As to a drop of 16 degrees C in Portugal (in some parts) as per the model, it's in the very light purple area on the chart from tropicaltidbits where this can occur. To the west of such a light purple spot, about 94 km, is the town of Evora (where there is a temp station), where today they had temperatures like 14 and 15C, while normally in June they have between 25 and 30C.

Now we come closer Laurs

Evora. Portugal. Almost 300 meter above the ground. It appears it is surrounded by soft hills, and that would mean more easily entrapped by low clouds when present (keeping the temperatures down, especially during rainfall). They got 15°C today, while the normal average max appears to be 25-26°C for this time of the year (middle June), and close to 30° in the end of June/beginning of July.

Well, the official prognosis you also referred to earlier, predicting 10-11°C below normal, was the most realistic one, while GFS with 16°C maybe a bit too over the top. I have heard that GFS often is a bit over the top (both ways; below/above). The models often misjudge the max temperatures for Sicily due to it's special topographical features; the influence from the sea, the mighty Etna and the hilly area along the north coast, I have noticed.

I am intrigued by how extensive the tropicltidbits.com site appears to be !

Thank you !!

 

[Cosmos]

The question is: does that model have a track record?

I watched and it was interesting, but I wasn't terribly impressed because the model does not match some of the archaeological/geological type of evidence I've read. I think the guy has gone just a tad over the top.

The last sentence 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'm quite certain of my affirmation - that I haven't come close to seeing a better matching model. However, I'd love to hear of any mismatches you or the network might point to. To the best of my knowledge, I am not aware of any.

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?

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".

However, I would argue there are matches that only makes sense using the micronova hypothesis - with, a plasma-aware or maybe even plasma-centric standard model as backdrop. For instance, it is, frankly, quite obvious that Valles Marineris is not a feature formed through geological processes, and that Mars was shaped under planetary-scale electro-erosion, with the cathode above the Scar and anode below.

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.

Thus far, great, this is nothing that'll sound wild to anyone who read Velikovsky or looked into the EU. My problem with those is that they do not compute on a cosmological scale. As in, 'planets are overly misunderstood, powerful electrical entities, which can for unspecified reasons switch the physical laws they respond to, but the Sun always remains stable;. That model doesn't seem to offer any credible impetus for a major and sudden switch from simple organized orbitals, to some EM-billiard balls with atmospheres touching, and back to organized orbitals. How did they move into the chaotic regime? How did they settle back out? If the orbitals were already vulnerable/unstable, why didn't it happen only once, in geological times well past? If they weren't, and required a big jolt to move out of equilibrium, what was that cause of that jolt, and how do we explain the periodicity of the 12ky earth catastrophe cycle?

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.

 

[Glenn]

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.

 

[United Gnosis]

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,

 

[Cosmos]

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.

 

[MK Scarlett]

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.

 

[XPan]

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.

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.



18 June 2021

 

[MikaelYosef]

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?