Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Cosmic rays streamed through Earth's atmosphere 41,000 years ago


Waspie_Dwarf

Recommended Posts

Cosmic rays streamed through Earth's atmosphere 41,000 years ago: New findings on the Laschamps excursion

Quote

Earth's magnetic field protects us from the dangerous radiation of space, but it is not as permanent as we might believe. Scientists at the European Geosciences Union General Assembly present new information about an 'excursion' 41,000 years ago where our planet's magnetic field waned, and harmful space rays bombarded the planet.

Earth's magnetic field cocoons our planet from the onslaught of cosmic radiation streaming through space while also shielding us from charged particles hurled outward by the sun. But the geomagnetic field is not stationary. Not only does magnetic north wobble, straying from true north (a geographically defined location), but occasionally, it flips. During these reversals, north becomes south, south becomes north, and in the process, the intensity of the magnetic field wanes.

Read More: ➡️ phys.org

 

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Panovska is pretty sharp on these things. The real trick is how well the global geomagnetic models with a backbone of naturally-filtered sediment records record the rapidity of excursions.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

Panovska is pretty sharp on these things. The real trick is how well the global geomagnetic models with a backbone of naturally-filtered sediment records record the rapidity of excursions.

And don't forget there is no correlation between any extinction event or natural disaster to the Laschamp's.

But cue the disaster blasters anyway. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Piney said:

And don't forget there is no correlation between any extinction event or natural disaster to the Laschamp's.

But cue the disaster blasters anyway. 

Pretty sure at least one of the best preserved woolly mammoths found in the Siberia permafrost dates to around 41kya.  Thus proving that a catastrophic event occurred that wiped out Atlantis (Plato got his dates wrong) 😁

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Essan said:

Pretty sure at least one of the best preserved woolly mammoths found in the Siberia permafrost dates to around 41kya.  Thus proving that a catastrophic event occurred that wiped out Atlantis (Plato got his dates wrong) 😁

Every time I read " rapid mass die off" or "flash frozen" I want to scream. 😬

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Piney said:

Every time I read " rapid mass die off" or "flash frozen" I want to scream. 😬

But the date coincides with the period modern humans started migrating into Europe and Neanderthals started dying out.

Our ancestors wore tinfoil heads of course...

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Abramelin said:

But the date coincides with the period modern humans started migrating into Europe and Neanderthals started dying out.

Not closely and just coincidentally.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Piney said:

Like I said. 

"Significant doubt" is not equal "definatively nòt".

If the bottleneck and the Lechamps event were UNrelated, they would have said so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Abramelin said:

"Significant doubt" is not equal "definatively nòt".

If the bottleneck and the Lechamps event were UNrelated, they would have said so.

The article did. Are you drunk? 

What part of "lack of corroborating evidence" didn't you understand?

On top of the fact it pretty much stated what I was going to which is the atmosphere caught most of the radiation and the spikes in radioisotopes wasn't really significant.

You know why I hate "catastrophism"?

Because it does the same thing to your brain American End Times Christianity does. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Abramelin Since you are linking to wikipedia may I suggest that you read this:

Quote

The phrase "correlation does not imply causation" refers to the inability to legitimately deduce a cause-and-effect relationship between two events or variables solely on the basis of an observed association or correlation between them.[1][2] The idea that "correlation implies causation" is an example of a questionable-cause logical fallacy, in which two events occurring together are taken to have established a cause-and-effect relationship. This fallacy is also known by the Latin phrase cum hoc ergo propter hoc ('with this, therefore because of this'). This differs from the fallacy known as post hoc ergo propter hoc ("after this, therefore because of this"), in which an event following another is seen as a necessary consequence of the former event, and from conflation, the errant merging of two events, ideas, databases, etc., into one.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

Put simply, your entire argument is based on a logical fallacy.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Waspie_Dwarf said:

Put simply, your entire argument is based on a logical fallacy.

You're right.

But I smell something, that's all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Abramelin said:

But I smell something, that's all.

What you smell is the stench of a failure in logic, nothing more, nothing less.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, what is it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, jules99 said:

It blames the radioisotopic spike which wasn't a very big spike.

2 hours ago, jules99 said:

Same here. But there is no correlating climate change. It just says there was. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Piney said:

Same here. But there is no correlating climate change. It just says there was.

Quote:

But up until now, it has not been clear whether such magnetic changes had any impacts on climate and life on the planet. Our new work draws together multiple lines of evidence that strongly suggest the effects were indeed global and far-reaching.

They are not 'just saying'.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Piney said:

It blames the radioisotopic spike which wasn't a very big spike.

How big was it then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

My idea:

Neanderthals were light skinned or had a tan. Their skin didn't protect them much from the sudden increase in UV-radiation. Hence: skin cancers.

The newcomers, our direct ancestors who came from Africa, had a dark skin and thus better protected against higher UV-radiation.

Edited by Abramelin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.