63 replies to this topic

[Englishgent]

Gabriel Traveler, on 05 February 2012 - 06:33 AM, said:

Feel free to actually further the discussion by addressing the evidence cited, rather than simply making smart-ass comments!

I think Chrizs has covered everything perfectly

[Chrlzs]

Gabriel Traveler, on 05 February 2012 - 06:30 AM, said:

If they really want to clear things up, why don't the say "earthquake activity overall has remained fairly constant".

Because they, like me, figure that the reader might have near average reading comprehension and would have easily understood the bit that said:

Quote

This is because of the tremendous increase in the number of seismograph stations in the world and the many improvements in global communications. In 1931, there were about 350 stations operating in the world; today, there are more than 8,000 stations

..so, you still don't get it?  Just read the words  v e r y  s l o w l y  perhaps?

As for cherry picking, ask yourself why your end-of-times website, the one reporting the 6-fold increase, picked the 11-year period, and the specific date ranges it used, to get those numbers.  Here's twenty seconds of think music..

.

.

But I'm afraid it is even WORSE than that.  That website, and YOU for quoting it, are COMPLETELY BUSTED.  Read on..

Because that website you quoted is LYING.  Those numbers looked odd, so I CHECKED them - yes, the one thing that doomsday believers don't ever want you to do.  If you simply follow the links back to where he sourced the data, you will IMMEDIATELY see why the figures are wrong.

The source for the numbers, and his alleged six-fold increase, is this page:
USGS - List of earthquakes of HISTORICAL INTEREST

Now READ the very top line.  I quote:

Quote

Selected earthquakes of general historic interest.

Yes, Gabriel, this isn't a list of all earthquakes >=7.0 - those are SELECTED earthquakes, picked out largely on the basis of their effect on humanity.  It is NOT, I repeat NOT a full list of earthquakes as that website, and you, would have us believe.

For comparison, here is (part of) the data that SHOULD have been used - note that the actual number of +7 earthquakes for 1997 to 2007 is actually 161, not 99 as that ludicrous website claims.  I'll leave it to the reader to go back and check the actual figures for 1986 to 1996, but I'll guarantee you won't be seeing that 6-fold increase.

Gabriel, that is a very clear case of misleading the forum.  Maybe it wasn't deliberate on your part, but it demonstrates EXACTLY what I was saying about how this sort of stuff is falsely presented - so 'thanks' for the perfect example of how easy it is for garbage websites like that to deceive the gullible and ill-informed.


But frankly, I'm not impressed by wasting my time uncovering that website's deceit (or complete incompetence).  I expect a full explanation from you, and perhaps you might like to apologise..

As for you moving on to a myriad of other topics.. folks here are VERY familiar with that tinfoilhat tactic, and it won't wash.  You haven't even gone back to the Greenland rubbish, and you expect to be allowed to move onto lots of other topics?  You don't think we KNOW why you wish to move on quickly?  If you move fast, sometimes facts like the earthquake DECEPTION you tried to pull off above won't be noticed, and another deceit will slip through..

Nice try, but ... FAIL

Thanks, EnglishGent - it may not have been perfect before, but after the above it's getting close.

Gabriel's got sum 'splainin' to do.

Edited by Chrlzs, 05 February 2012 - 08:03 AM.

[Gabriel Traveler]

Englishgent, on 05 February 2012 - 07:22 AM, said:

I would if there was anything rational to comment on.  

Suit yourself. My point here isn't "the world is going to end on December 21st, 2012." My point is that there are strange things going on around the world, outside the norm, and as presented in the lecture that I repeatedly cite, this may be a result of our solar system currently entering a new region of space. I've given a crap load of evidence from a huge variety of sources to support that claim, or that at least deserve some serious consideration, imo. So the magnetic pole has increased its movement by 800%, and that isn't rational evidence? Wildlife experts are saying that snowy owl migrations are "unbelievable" and that isn't rational evidence? Astronomers are saying the sun is acting "a bit strange" and that isn't rational evidence? As far as I'm concerned, you guys are flat-earthers, unwilling to even consider a scenario that challenges your currently held beliefs about the universe. Too bad, could have been an interesting discussion!

[Gabriel Traveler]

I am more than willing to concede that that that earthquake site may be rubbish. There was no "deception" or "misleading the forum". If you did more follow-up on that than I did then good for you. I spent enough time as it was with all of the OTHER EVIDENCE that everyone is ignoring, and don't want to spend all day online. Yes, I just did a quick search on that. So touche.

Yet why is no one willing to address any of the other SEVERAL DOZEN issues mentioned above?

And no, I did not "move on quickly" from the Greenland issue, I posted the direct link above. Here it is AGAIN from The Daily Mail in the UK:

http://www.dailymail...celerating.html

[Gabriel Traveler]

Let's say for the sake of argument that earthquakes have been absolutely consistent and there is no evidence of a rise in either earthquake or volcanic activity. If you want to call that "moving on quickly" go ahead. I'll call it reasonably conceding a point, in particular because that's all anyone is commenting on here, as if that is my one piece of evidence. So how about taking a glance at all of the other stuff cited above? And what's your take on the Greenland article, now that (hopefully) you've seen the link and can read it for yourself? Is it a result of global warming as stated? If so, isn't the melting of the ice caps that rapidly an incredibly alarming development that threatens the future of the planet? In other words....things aren't perfectly normal around here? (Which is my point.)

[Gabriel Traveler]

And for those who are averse to clicking links:


The sun rises two days early in Greenland, sparking fears that climate change is accelerating
By DAILY MAIL REPORTER
Last updated at 4:29 PM on 14th January 2011
Comments (259)
Share
  
The sun over Greenland has risen two days early, baffling scientists and sparking fears that Arctic icecaps are melting faster than previously thought.
Experts say the sun should have risen over the Arctic nation's most westerly town, Ilulissat, yesterday, ending a month-and-a-half of winter darkness.
But for the first time in history light began creeping over the horizon at around 1pm on Tuesday - 48 hours ahead of the usual date of 13 January.
The mysterious sunrise has confused scientists, although it is believed the most likely explanation is that it is down to the lower height of melting icecaps allowing the sun's light to penetrate through earlier.

Climate change? The sun rose in Ilulissat, Greenland, two days early on Tuesday, ending a month-and-a-half of winter darkness. One theory is that melting ice caps have lowered the horizon allowing the sun to shine through earlier
Thomas Posch, of the Institute for Astronomy of the University of Vienna, said that a local change of the horizon was 'by far the most obvious explanation'.
He said as the ice sinks, so to does the horizon, creating the illusion that the sun has risen early.
Earth is ‘twice as dusty’ now as it was 100 years ago
MICHAEL HANLON: So did 2010 break the global warming record?
This theory, based on the gradual decline of Greenland's ice sheet, is backed by recent climate studies.
A report by the World Meteorology Organisation shows that temperatures in Greenland have risen around 3C above average over the last year.
It also reported that December was much warmer than usual with rainfall instead of snow recorded for the first time in Kuujjuaq since records began.

Low horizon: The fishing town of Ilulissat is Greenland's most westerly habitation. Temperatures in Greenland have risen 3C above average over the last year
It has even been suggested that the sun's early appearance could have an astronomical explanation.
But Wolfgang Lenhardt, director of the department of geophysics at the Central Institute for Meteorology in Vienna, scotched this theory.
He said: 'The constellation of the stars has not changed. If that had happened, there would have been an outcry around the world.
'The data of the Earth's axis and Earth's rotation are monitored continuously and meticulously and we would know if that had happened.'

[Englishgent]

Gabriel Traveler, on 05 February 2012 - 10:28 PM, said:

Suit yourself. My point here isn't "the world is going to end on December 21st, 2012." My point is that there are strange things going on around the world, outside the norm, and as presented in the lecture that I repeatedly cite, this may be a result of our solar system currently entering a new region of space. I've given a crap load of evidence from a huge variety of sources to support that claim, or that at least deserve some serious consideration, imo. So the magnetic pole has increased its movement by 800%, and that isn't rational evidence? Wildlife experts are saying that snowy owl migrations are "unbelievable" and that isn't rational evidence? Astronomers are saying the sun is acting "a bit strange" and that isn't rational evidence? As far as I'm concerned, you guys are flat-earthers, unwilling to even consider a scenario that challenges your currently held beliefs about the universe. Too bad, could have been an interesting discussion!

Nothing you have quoted causes me any concern. I dont consider myself to be a flat-earther as I really do believe that the earth is round....honestly.
What you have quoted is all natural. Snowy owls migrating in large numbers?. Yes, birds tend to do this and they do it for a reason. The times of migrations have changed throughout history. Nothing unsual about it.
Astronomers are still learning about the sun and whenever they find something new or unsual it doesnt mean it is something new. They just have not noticed it before and are doing so now probably due to new instrumentation becoming available.
The magnetic pole has shifted many times during the earth's history and it is no surprise that there is a slight shift now. it is about 10,000 years overdue anyway.
As for the sun rising two days early in Greenland, as soon as you quoted the Daily Mail it sent alarm bells ringing. There is not a lot that that paper gets right. They scaremonger in order to sell papers.
You say I am unwilling to consider anything that challenges my current beliefs?  Show me proper evidence from a respected source and I will reconsider my opinions.
Show me rubbish and that is what I will continue to call it.
Yes, things are changing on this planet (which is round still) but  nothing that I can see that is not in the normal life cycle of this  planet.  I little more research on your part and you might discover this  yourself.

edit, typo

Edited by Englishgent, 06 February 2012 - 02:10 AM.

[BFB]

Chrlzs, on 04 February 2012 - 09:04 AM, said:

The North Pole has always been wandering and will continue to do so.

True but the acceleration level havee increased dramatically in recent years.

Also the magnetic field intensity has decreased.

Something is going on with out magnetic field.

But something to worry about? No, not at all.

[BFB]

Englishgent, on 06 February 2012 - 02:09 AM, said:

The magnetic pole has shifted many times during the earth's history and it is no surprise that there is a slight shift now. it is about 10,000 years overdue anyway.

If you want to use interval based predictions its more like 500.000 years.

But no one can safely say if we are overdue, given interval predeictions are not reliable.

[Englishgent]

BFB, on 06 February 2012 - 10:11 AM, said:

If you want to use interval based predictions its more like 500.000 years.

But no one can safely say if we are overdue, given interval predeictions are not reliable.

Thank you BFB for that info, I was going from distant memory. It is overdue anyway. and got it a few years out.
By the way,,,,,Tomorrow's the day. I have already turned my compass round in readiness

[lightly]

I think it's interesting that the rate of N. magnetic pole drift has increased by 800% recently.    I wonder why Magnetic S. pole isn't also moving at the same rate? ..  from what i can gather,   It seems to be slowing it's drift ?  to nearly stationary?   Imbalance precedes a magnetic polarity reversal?



* seemingly obligatory demeaning remark*

Edited by lightly, 06 February 2012 - 01:21 PM.

[Chrlzs]

Gabriel Traveler, on 05 February 2012 - 10:28 PM, said:

My point is that there are strange things going on around the world, outside the norm

It's a big world.  Do you expect no 'strangeness'?  Is it possible that the strangeness you think is 'important' is in fact simply stuff you don't get?  Or that you are being made a fool of by people like that doomsday earthquake website owner who LIES to you and anyone else gullible enough not to check what he has done?

Quote

and as presented in the lecture that I repeatedly cite

So even after you are proven to be wrong, you will continue to use it?  What do you think the readers should deduce about your motives from that?

Quote

this may be a result of our solar system currently entering a new region of space.

I'll use the same amount of reasoning to give my opinion - this is all due to pink unicorns, led by an evil, greenish coloured elf called George.  There is just as much evidence for that, as you have given for your 'new region of space' theory.

Quote

I've given a crap load of evidence

Exactly.  OK, I would have rearranged the words slightly to clarify (shifting the fourth word two positions to the right..) but yes, you have done exactly that...

Quote

from a huge variety of sources

Well, the very first one was blown completely out of the water, and I'm about to demolish number two as well...  So you're batting zero, and I suspect *were I to be bothered* to continue, then the final result would be the same.  Zero.

And as I said, I'm NOT letting you continue on until each one has been properly looked at - because I'm very familiar with that tactic..  Others may wish to let you throw multiple loads at the fan in the hope something will stick, but I'm not going to waste my time on multiple unsupported one line claims.


So.. let's look at what you seem to think is the next best evidence, now that you have conceded that the earthquake one was WRONG.

You pointed at a Daily Mail (forgive my mirth..) 'report' of the Sun rising earlier than expected in Greenland.  Let's just ignore the fact that the Daily Mail is a make-it-up-tabloid for a moment..  Now, what would any real researcher or investigator do?

Well, the first thing would be to READ the title.  Did you NOT notice that the title clearly says accelerating climate change is the 'fear'?  You do realise that science is already aware that climate change appears to be increasing, and has some perfectly acceptable theories for that?

Then, not surprisingly, one should READ the actual article..  Did you not notice the explanation proffered?  Can you point us to the part about entering a new space region of radiation?  No?  That's because it isn't there, it isn't even hinted at.  Did you completely miss all this:

Quote

...it is believed the most likely explanation is that it is down to the lower height of melting icecaps allowing the sun's light to penetrate through earlier...
...a local change of the horizon was 'by far the most obvious explanation'...
...This theory ... is backed by recent climate studies...

None of that supports your theory in ANY WAY whatsoever.

Then, and this is where you really start to get into trouble, surely you should THINK about the article content.
For instance, IF the Sun was even slightly out of place, don't you think this fact would be noticed elsewhere?  Have you ever heard of planetarium software, ephemeris, Goto telescopes?
So how could this effect, IF IT IS EVEN REAL, possibly be anything but a local geographical or optical effect?

So what should a serious genuine researcher / investigator THEN have done?  They should have researched it.  Let's say the only possible resource you have is Google - then let's Google "sun+rise+early+greenland" to see how much actual evidence of this exists, and whether we can usefully examine that evidence.

I invite readers to do that, and see for yourself - did scientists measure this effect and raise it?  NO, it was just some local residents making their own 'observations', reported on a local radio station - quite possibly even a practical joke.  These observation were not properly recorded and are not testable/verifiable.  Furthermore, as anyone familiar with arctic conditions will know - the sunrises and sunsets at these times from those latitudes simply involve a small sliver of sun appearing and then slowly arcing back down below the horizon.  A change in the vantage point or the horizon, or one of several different atmospheric effects (including ice crystals, temperature inversion / refraction through atmospheric layers, etc) could cause/contribute to the effect - and because we have no accurate footage or proper recording of the observation conditions compared to previous years.. it's a complete and utter waste of time.

Now by all means, feel free to:

1. Provide links to the observations and evidence that the Sun actually rose too early in Greenland, from THE SOURCE.

2. Provide your full, properly reasoned explanation on exactly how this lends support to your theory.  No handwaving - provide numbers and diagrams and testable logic.


Anyway, failing that, we now have two strikes.  I'm willing to offer another chance - but please don't waste our time further - carefully pick out the absolute, very best evidence you have (just ONE SINGLE CLAIM), and then let's look at it in detail - you lay it all out for us, from start to finish.  That would be the observation, the evidence / provenance for that observation, and then the logical explanation of how the observation is evidence for your theory.

Take your time in making your choice as to which one is the best, the smokin' gun.. but I do hope for your sake you pick something better than the earthquakes and early sunrise.

And may I say you are getting off lightly.  The next step if this were a proper investigation would be things like testability, repeatability, falsifiability...

Anyway, at the moment, your hypothesis (it most certainly doesn't qualify as a valid competing theory) is about level with my elf-led pink unicorns, I reckon.  I suspect if we took a poll, I know who would win...  

Edited by Chrlzs, 06 February 2012 - 01:20 PM.

[BFB]

Englishgent, on 06 February 2012 - 01:09 PM, said:

Thank you BFB for that info, I was going from distant memory. It is overdue anyway. and got it a few years out.
By the way,,,,,Tomorrow's the day. I have already turned my compass round in readiness

HAHA its allways good to be prepared. Your prediction would nearly be as accurate as any geologists prediction, so I'll also turn my co*mpass, just in case.   

Chrlzs, on 06 February 2012 - 01:16 PM, said:

Now by all means, feel free to:

1. Provide links to the observations and evidence that the Sun actually rose too early in Greenland, from THE SOURCE.

´
Chrlzs you are absolutely right. Before you can start making claims that the sun rose two days earlier in Greenland, we will need a little more than a daily mail and the sun article.

But lets say it actually did do whats claimed.

I would bet the best explanation would be an atmospheric illusion.

In the last couple of years we have seen an unsual big concentration of methane in the atmosphere near the north pole. This could be the cause.

Methane has the ability to bend light in our atmosphere. The sun would be very low on the horizon in Ilulissat at this time of year(the claimed date), this would give the reflection hypothesis(atmospheric illusion) a really good stand.

My two guesses would be.

1. Its BS

Or

2. An atmospheric illusion.

* - edit

Edited by BFB, 06 February 2012 - 02:52 PM.

[Englishgent]

My vote is with George, the pink elf    

edit. by the way Chrizs, you said what I said but somehow your's came across much better lol  

Edited by Englishgent, 06 February 2012 - 03:19 PM.

[Chrlzs]

Englishgent, on 06 February 2012 - 03:16 PM, said:

My vote is with George, the pink elf    

Englishgent, Thanks!... but he's greenish - the unicorns are pink.  You really need to research this stuff better..  

Edited by Chrlzs, 06 February 2012 - 09:09 PM.