Tag Archives: Science

9/11 – 15 Years On……

11 Sep

It’s now been 15 years since 19 hijackers boarded four commercial aircraft, flying one into the Pentagon, one into each of the twin towers of the World Trade Centre and one into a field in Pensilvania. That’s still the official version and despite increasing public dissatisfaction and mounting evidence to the contrary, they’re sticking to it……’

Conspiracy Theorists have, apparently, cobbled together their own version of what they think happened. Unfortunately, due to some of the more ridiculous conspiracy theories on the World Wide Web, many completely unrelated to 9/11, the tightly controlled ‘free press’ label any ‘conspiracy theorist’ a deluded crackpot; insinuating that any challenge made to the official story is some ludicrous concoction dreamt up by crazy people, (which admittedly some are). However, there are large groups of professionals including pilots, physicists, engineers, ex-military/CIA/NSA operatives, architects, demolition experts and hundreds of thousands of others with the ability to reason, who are neither ‘crackpots’, ‘crazy’ or ‘deluded’ and have perfectly valid questions. If you’re obsessive enough and cross check details applying the scientific method I can say with 100 percent certainty is that the official story is simply not true. When FOI requests or questions are asked, no explanation is given, are hidden for ‘security purposes’, though it’s never clear whose security, or dismissed under the ‘conspiracy theorist’ banner. History is, however, littered with documented, proven False Flag ‘terrorist’ attacks such as the burning of the Reichstag building, attributed to an unemployed Dutch brick layer who just happened to be nearby and used by Hitler’s propaganda machine as proof of a Communist threat to push through draconian legislation. Sound familiar? Google ‘False Flag terrorist attacks’ and you’ll find hundreds of examples (Mostly executed by the U.S.)…

Small things add up, or don’t. For example, in the immediate aftermath Bush, Rice, Cheney and many other top officials all publicly stated that they had absolutely no incline ‘terrorists’ might use commercial aircraft as flying suicide bombs and that they had “no warnings”. Both statements which have been proven to be untrue. They ran scenarios where planes were used, even featuring an image of the WTC in crosshairs on the cover of one such ‘war game’ document and a model of the Pentagon in another. Several agents from the seemingly endless Defence Department offshoots provided evidence that they were tracking some of the alleged hijackers but were blocked from above (a possible scenario is the ‘patsy’ hijackers were operatives being manipulated into thinking they were taking part in an exercise or real Jihadi terrorist but both under the control of …..?) The 9/11 Commission Report failed to mention where the funding for such an operation came from, claiming it was “of little practical significance” despite a wire transfer of $100,000 being made to Mohamed Atta, the lead hijacker, by the head of the Pakistani Intelligence Service, the I.S.I. only 24hrs before the ‘attacks’. And the report made no mention of WTC Building 7 whatsoever? It is a little known fact that most footage of 9/11 has never been shown on US TV since that day; apparently the public found it too distressing. And in all probability so that some of the infamous quotes made by TV anchors were forgotten, eg: “Anyone who has ever seen a building brought down by controlled demolition knows that to make it to happen you first have to get to the underlying structure”. Another stating that “We heard multiple explosions just before
the tower fell and we ran for our lives”. G. W. Bush once claimed to have seen the first tower hit when it was shown to him after he finished his story. There is only one known piece of footage that only came to light 24hrs later. I could go on…

Larry Silverstein the lease holder of the entire WTC complex re-evaluated his insurance policy in the months prior to 9/11, not only massively increasing the value of the policy but also including a ‘terrorism’ clause should anything untoward happen. He hit the jackpot on 9/11, claiming each event as a separate attack and receiving a double payout. He also made some very odd statements when being interviewed afterwards, which I’ll cover in the next paragraph. Several people were warned not to fly and profits gained from ‘put’ options on United and American Airlines stock value falling (which was trading at 5 times the average daily levels), are still sitting in German banks, unclaimed…

WTC Building 7 also known as the Solomon Brothers Building is seen by many as the ‘smoking gun’ of 9/11. Building 7 was a 47 story steel framed skyscraper which stood one blrck to the north of the main WTC complex. Alone it would have been the tallest building in 33 States. Finished in 1983 it contained; The Emergency Management Centre (‘Giuliani’s Bunker’, unused on 9/11), the Securities & Exchange Commission, the field offices of both the CIA & FBI, & others. Security was tight & access restricted. Unbelievably, a large percentage of US citizens didn’t even know it collapsed on the afternoon of 9/11 approximately 5 hours after the Twin Towers and which was strangely reported 20 minutes before it happened by news anchors in New York whilst still pictured standing in full view of the cameras. It was at that moment that channels lost their satellite links. It underwent a global collapse at near free fall speed straight through its own centre, ending up in a pile, outer walls folded inwards causing no damage to buildings on the other side of the street even though buildings closer to ‘ground zero’ suffered much more damage and survived. Which brings me back to Mr Silverstein. In interview he said, “There had already been such terrible loss of life that the decision was made to ‘pull it’ [WTC 7], so that’s what we did”. ‘Pull it’ is a phrase almost exclusively used by demolition experts. It may not be absolute proof of prior knowledge but as has been pointed out if the decision was taken to pull it, then the preparations had to have been made months in advance, not in 5 hours. WTC 7 was not hit by an aircraft and had a few small fires on several floors but nothing which could explain a synchronised global collapse…

image

WTC 7 Undergoing Global Collapse

You Can’t Argue with Science unless you happen to be one of the Government owned/funded labs, who all came to the same miraculous conclusions regarding the whys & hows of 9/11. There is simply too much evidence to cover in this article but there are basic pieces of secondary school Newtonian Mechanics that should tell you something simply doesn’t add up. Let’s take ‘pancake theory’ as it became known. This is where one of the Towers, weakened by stress from fires, gave way after only 50 minutes & fell onto the floor below initiating the global collapse, all the way to the ground, floor by floor encountering more than 70 plus completely undamaged floors on the way. Even if this were remotely possible apply Newton’s 3rd law which simplified says “every action has an equal & opposite reaction”. So, as the floor above hits the floor below, the lower floor pushes up in response to being pushed down. Now, even if there was enough energy to sustain this ‘pancake effect’, there would have been a considerable delay as each floor dissipated it’s upward energy. Times this by 70 plus floors and factor in a unrealistically tiny 0.5 second delay per floor and the towers would have taken over 35 seconds to collapse. They collapsed in 12/14 seconds; the same time it would take a billiard ball with only wind resistance to fall the same distance. Plus as Newton discovered in his orchard, Gravity pulls at 90 degrees perpendicular to the Earth and cannot explain how 30 ton sections of steel were thrown 200-400 feet laterally. In the entire history of skyscrapers only three have ever collapsed due to fire; WTC Buildings 1,2 & 7. Skyscrapers have burnt for over 24 hours before & still never collapsed…

On the day of 9/11 I, like millions of others, watched it ‘live’. The very first thing to strike me as odd was the almost ‘Roadrunner’ nature of the hole left by the first plane. There it was, a cardboard cutout of an aircraft, wingtip to wingtip, engines and all. Now, I don’t mean to scare regular air travellers but planes are actually pretty flimsy. We’re told that they hit at almost 500 mph. When an Aluminium aircraft hits massive steel I beams set at 17 inch centres, there is no way the wing tips will destroy the steel beams. If you watch the footage in very slow motion the outline seems to appear as the jet fuel burns off. Turn Newton’s 3rd law on it’s head and imagine swinging one single I beam at a stationary aircrafts wing at 500mph. Would you be left with an intact wing & broken I beam or visa versa..?

The evidence is out there regardless of how secretive the establishment remain. Professor Stephen Jones of BYU has produced indisputable evidence of the presence of Nano-Thermate, a military grade explosive, in the toxic dust (See images at top).  It is fine enough to be added to paint and won’t explode until an ignition source is used. Architects & Engineers for 9/11 truth (2000 of them) dispute the official narrative & Pilots for 9/11 truth (again numbering in the thousands) including Top Gun & Commercial Pilots say the manoeuvres were simply impossible; aptly demonstrated in a flight simulator by John Lear of Learjet fame, who tried and failed to hit the targets hundreds of times, succeeding only once..?

All of this information is available online and on YouTube. Ask questions and demand answers…

9/11 was effectively part of a conspiracy that led to War Crimes and it’s time someone paid for their actions…

This article is dedicated to all of those directly affected on the day. The heroes involved in the clean up, whose deaths now outnumber those killed in the Towers due to lung disease as a result of toxic dust. The Soldiers who died fighting phoney wars and the millions of dead and displaced nameless families from far away places……

Infinity

To Be Continued……

Advertisements

What is Reality……

8 Mar

The answer to the question “What is reality?” is actually quite simple and can be put into one short sentence: it’s whatever you perceive as real. However, the simplicity immediately becomes complicated by the word ‘perceive’. Perception is subjective but there are many things we all perceive in a very similar way, but those things, such as the sky being blue are largely down to a common evolution. In the case of the sky, we agree on the colour because the receptors in our eyes are fundamentally the same in everyone (unless you are colour blind, which is a genetic defect of the eye). There is, however, a further complication to reality which is much, much deeper……

It is well known that an atom is predominantly empty space. It could be argued that it contains nothing ‘solid’ at all as we probe ever deeper. If everything we perceive as solid contains nothing at all, then how can anything exist to make our reality? This is the point at which we have to disassociate everything we think of as real and remind ourselves that perception is nothing more than an interpretation created by the sensory input to our brains. It becomes difficult to discuss, because all we have is language and mathematics to describe things, and both are coloured by our perception of reality……

Physicists ran into difficulties in the early 20th century. Called ‘The measurement problem’, the act of making a measurement actually affects the outcome. This is easily demonstrated visually with the famous double slit experiment, is still as yet unexplained and is one of the central mysteries of quantum mechanics. Follow this link to see a demonstration and the paradox will become clear. A well known thought experiment by Erwin Schrödinger in 1935 applies the double slit experiment to the macro scale with a cat in a box. Follow this link to learn about Schrödinger’s Cat and the paradoxical nature of the measurement problem becomes abundantly clear……

As we have developed the technology to ‘see’ things on smaller and smaller scales using particle accelerators, it appears that our ‘solid’ particles vanish altogether and all we are left with are forces and ‘virtual’ particles. The illusion of reality is a consequence of those forces being slowed down by the Higg’s mechanism; a sort of cosmic treacle that slows down the forces from the speed of light, giving them mass. Without it everything in the universe would move at the speed of light and nothing would exist at all……

So, what is reality? In our daily lives it is what we see, no matter how strange it is. But we have to accept that it is an illusion and, personally, I don’t believe we will ever really know. It’s a Rabbit hole which just get stranger the further down you go……

The reality right now is that I need a coffee, a smoke and more time to scratch my head……

Infinity

Absolute Zero……

23 Nov

‘I was thinking about absolute zero and thought, if there’s a minimum , why not a maximum’

Not being a thermal physicist I applied what I do know and read up on the other stuff, only to find I’m not the only one seeking the answer and it gets pretty complicated. Without over complicating the issue and removing those scary equations, here are some possible answers (yes, plural…..)

First of all back to school. What is heat? (heat and temp are for our purposes the same). Gold star to anyone whose answer was ‘it’s the product of the speed at which atoms move’. Absolute zero is the point at which all atoms stop moving as do quantum mechanical effects . This happens at 0 Kelvin or minus 460 F. You can’t get colder than that. It would be like trying to go south of the South Pole. That’s Absolute zero; simple hey……

Sun_in_XrayWhat about Absolute Hot. Surely, a similar set of equations govern that; like I said it’s not my field and had two choices; read up or blame ‘God’ (I’m starting to think I should have chosen the latter). Little did I know it but I’d opened a can of worms, the one labelled ‘The Theory of Everything; a sort of UN for physicists where String Theory, Quantum Mechanics and Multiverses go to argue their point……

I’m not actually going to try and explain the five most popular theories because they all have a fundamentally plausible reasons but involve very complicated mathematics which I was trying to avoid. I will, however, tell you what they are and my intuition as to the final answer……

There are many theories. 10 to the power of 32 Kelvin is one. That’s 100 million million million million million degrees Kelvin. It is based on the Standard Model of particle physics and relies on the Planck temperature. Max Planck’s measurements and ratios have proven accurate now we can test them and form the basis of many quantum calculations. But as one physicist put it, it’s largely accademic as it is in an order of magnitude beyond that of a Gamma Ray Burst or Quasar and makes the Sun look like a tiny spark millions of light years away. There are no sufficient words in the English language to express it. Saying it’s hot is like saying the universe is quite big……

Working Physicists at CERN think that the power of the particle accelerator which reaches 10 to the power of 17 K, is around the maximum temperature. To reach the energy needed the LHC produces 14 (Terra electron Volts, Terra meaning trillion); 15 orders of magnitude below the Planck temperature……

How about a boundless temperature that just keeps on going to infinity? It is possible but some very strange quantum effects would be observed. Anyway, much of this speculation has to do with those pesky billion billionths of a second when all conventional models break down.

Infinity

In my humble opinion absolute zero and absolute hot could be the same thing. (Now he’s has lost the plot I hear you cry), but hear me out. Once a really high temperature has been reached all bets are off with regard to the behavior of matter. The known interactions between the strong and weak nuclear forces, electromagnetism and gravity become unpredictable and, more importantly, equal out, forcing the system to stop, just as it does with absolute zero. So, the scale maybe +0 K – +300 K – K +infinity – K -infinity – -300 K to -0 K. This also explains beautifully why infinities pop up whichever way or with whatever model you choose to calculate……

Happy pondering……

DT_Triangle_Banner

Shares in the Planet Soon to hit Wall Street ……

3 Apr

I noticed the mainstream press have been bringing inner city pollution in UK cities under the spotlight.  To bring the figures within ‘safe’ limits the ‘expert’ on the news suggests we walk & cycle to work, tax diesel vehicles & turn off the lights when leaving a room.  If, & it’s a big if, global warming is totally man-made, the action being taken is akin to pissing on a forest fire. However, the ‘green’ taxes being levied on us all are massively disproportionate when making a comparison against the effect they are having in reducing CO2 emissions.

 

I did an astonishing complicated calculation on the back of a fag packet that just happened to be to hand and came upGreedy3 with the following conclusion: If we are paying taxes to combat CO2 emissions, Her Majesty’s Treasury will be distributing it amongst the myriad of measures put in place to that end. Of course monies allocated to the treasury are distributed as the Chancellor, Gideon Osborne, sees fit. Many of the measures put in place and the funds allocated to them are a dismal failure, such as the home insulation scheme and similar projects which have not been taken up by the public, leaving a surplus of cash which has doubtless been used to give the impression that the economy is performing far better than is apparent to most of us. Meanwhile, the ‘big six’ energy companies profits have quadrupled from £230 million in 2009 (when the recession began), to £1.2 billion in 2013.

 

The reason that all attempts to reduce the CO2 emissions have nothing whatsoever to do with climate change is because Global warming is an industry and industries have one objective; to return profits to shareholders, not to save the planet. A function which I’m sure it is achieving because if you happen to be Siemens, or for that matter any other of the multitude of companies offering to smear your roof with ugly, inefficient PV cells, the Government are positively throwing money in your direction.

 

Greedy2Finally, the figures for CO2 reduction laid out in the Kyoto agreement show our country to be 25% under the required quantities. This is nonsense at best and/or an accounting manipulation of the sort Lehman Brothers would be proud. The calculations for CO2 emissions fail to take into account the vast CO2 footprint created by imported goods on their journey from the far east, which by sea is somewhere around 8,000 miles (90% of UK imports arrive by sea). The same applies to the gas which we burn in power generation and domestically; again the CO2 from the journey is excluded. Another accounting trick is to remove CO2 in proportion to wind, water and privately generated PV electricity. But this is another deception. Because power stations cannot simply be turned on and off with the flick of a switch, even when green energy is being fed into the system, the gas and coal power stations continue to pump out CO2.

 

Politicians have done what politicians do, and do well; they have turned global warming into a business opportunity, taxing the public, rewarding the industries with tax breaks and dining out with the lobbyist at the best restaurants at Greedy1our expense. They have little, if any, interest in climate change and contrary to popular opinion there are many scientist who will not support the statement, ‘Global warming is man made’, because, like weather forecasting, the system is so complicated nobody knows for definite whether global warming is natural or partly assisted by man. Science is an evolving subject but it is, unfortunately, funded by governments so if you want that grant you are more likely to get it if you sign up…..

 

They don’t care about smoking, drugs or drinking

They don’t care about waging war on innocent people

They don’t care about starvation

They don’t care about human rights abuses, torture and dictators

They don’t care about you

 

They care about two things: money and themselves

 

They are worried about an uprising against their lies, that’s why they are ordering water canons

 

 

Thorium – the Answer to our Energy Needs…?

4 Feb

I’m out their with climate sceptics as to whether what is happening is the product of the population increase or a natural variation in the weather, like the ones we’ve seen throughout recorded history, but I’m also a realist and we can’t go on forever burning hydrocarbons but what if there was a safe alternative; that negates the CO2 hypothesis, should you choose to believe it, and the ever reducing supply of oil and gas. Well there is a perfectly safe way to produce energy in a nuclear reactor with none of the downsides to the reactors we currently rely on. Radioactive_Triangle

People tend to panic whenever ‘nuclear’ appears in a sentence but let’s not forget; the Sun is a giant nuclear reactor, nuclear reactions are responsible for every element in the periodic table which underpins our existence and there are 10 billion Neutrinos passing through your finger-nail every second and you don’t give them a second thought.  Radioactivity is everywhere, including the gas that comes from ‘Fracking’ in the form of Radon gas.

lean-03_1824459cI’m not going to explain the details of how one atom splits into two others, releasing energy but, crucially, 2 or more neutrons to sustain fission and keep the process going……

The Manhattan Project…..

We all know the story; the Yanks needed a nuclear fission bomb to bring about a swift end to the war.  Well, after gathering together the greatest minds on the planet (previous human rights misdemeanours forgiven), they were in the early days when most things at the atomic scale were still theoretical.  Rutherford had split the atom and that led to the Manhattan Project at a cost of $50 billion in our money.  MushRoom_Cloud_01When someone decided to use nuclear power for domestic purposes, there starting point was Uranium/Plutonium and the existing technology.  The trouble started because what the Americans wanted to do was eradicate a city.  This influenced the debate about obtaining maximum effect.  This bastardised technology is the bases of all reactors the world over; the practical offshoot is the product of weapons grade Plutonium.  Handy hey……

The Trouble with the Current Reactors……

Fukushima

Fukushima

The current style of reactor, worldwide, is basically the same.  They produce energy efficiently and run like clockwork until something goes wrong.  The designers new the dangers and consequently we have the classic looking dome shaped building, most of which is a double ‘safety’ measure.  The reactor takes up 1/10th of the building; the remainder to protect the outside world if/when things go wrong.  And, sooner or later, things do have a tendency to go wrong.

We have actually been surprisingly lucky thus far, in that most nuclear accidents have been caught in time and polluted a small area, if any.  But, as demonstrated by Fukushima, things go wrong and no matter how many layers of safety are in place, there is always going to be a situation that runs away and renders the safety measures redundant.  Then we are in the realms of ‘The China Syndrome’ and a complete reactor melt down in which heavy radioactive elements are released into the environment and spread around by natural processes……

The Solution……

The Thorium Based Molten Salt Reactor.  If I was to begin to explain how they work this article would turn into a 500 page thick Physics text book.  However, our saviour from boredom is at hand and has written a definitive guide in only six pages, which can be found at the end of the article.

My thanks to Alex Cannara for writing it……..

 

How does it Work……

It’s not actually that remarkable.  It has a simple layout and doesn’t require anywhere near the enormous multiple containment shields and constant pumping of water to remove heat.  It produces no nasty by-products and it’s a reality.  It produces no useful chemical elements that could be converted for use in weapons and shuts down automatically if it encounters a problem.  The technology has been tested and demonstrated but the power of the Nuclear Industry alongside the insatiable appetite for heavy elements with which to build bombs has left it unused……radioactive-waste-disposal

Some of the answers are already out there.  If governments argue about it, disregard it like the mental chewing gum they expect us to chew on, because they’ve already done the deal and another palm greased.  Do your own exploration of Thorium.  It’s a by product of the hunt for neodymium to make the shitty batteries we are all now using.  It’s a well known joke that the technology and components needed to make a Toyota Pius means as it is driven off the forecourt, it has done the equivalent of 200,000 miles, the average of a 10 year old car, partly down to the rare earth elements needed to make the batteries and motors……

Thorium Based Molten Salt Reactors…….

TR_Pg1TR_Pg2TR_Pg3TR_Pg4TR_Pg5TR_Pg6With thanks to Alex Cannara……

DT_Triangle_Banner

Was Einstien Wrong……?

30 Nov

‘Far be it from me, a ‘pub’ physicist to question one of the brightest minds of the 20th century, but is the most famous equation in physics, e=mc², actually completely accurate……’

What Does it Actually Mean……?

Einstein was trying to demonstrate the second law of thermodynamics, the conservation of energy, which you’ll einstein1remember from school says that energy can not be created or lost, only changed from one ‘type’ to another.

In the famous equation, e=mc², Einstein was telling us that energy and matter are two sides of the same coin and, that theoretically you could convert mass completely into energy, as with an atomic bomb which had not been invented at that time……

So why is it Wrong……?

It’s a case of splitting hairs. Read on……

Energy and Mass

The equation states that energy ‘e’ ,converts completely into mass ‘m’, proportional to the square of the speed of light ’c²’.  That statement is for all intents and purposes true.  However, a photon, about the smallest amount of stuff you can get, which can be thought of as a particle of light, does have mass.  Mass and energy cannot exist in isolation and can only be thought of as ‘mass energy’ ……

Momentum……

Had Einstein chosen to write his equation thus e=m๐c², indicating that the mass was at rest, this would have been correct but because a particle can’t be at rest, even at absolute zero you have to take momentum into account……

The Solution……

The solution isn’t that hard to work out but doesn’t look so neat.

The actual equation is:Einstein_V1_2

Despite the nit picking, the relationship between mass and energy is mind blowing.  If you could extract it there’s enough energy in a glass of water power the earth for a year.  Liberating it is the problem……

DT_Triangle_Banner

Climategate……?

12 Nov

‘I am a climate change sceptic’.  There, I put my head above the parapet and said it.  To be precise, I am a ‘man-made’ climate change sceptic.  I do not deny that the global average temperature has risen in recent years, although not consistently and at a rate of less than 1/3rd than the current IPCC predictions would have us believe.

Global Warming has become its own little industry over the past 25 years and supports bureaucrats, research grants and a whole plethora of Government sponsored alternatives offering generous tax breaks for the utility companies.  Up to ¼ of your gas and electricity costs comprise tax incentives.  If you see climate change conferences, attended by tens of thousands of delegates you get some perspective of just how big it has become.

I’m not the first to distance myself from the official line and some of the most respected contributors to IPCC reports, unhappy at the way their contributions were being presented, asked to be removed from the reports list of authors but this was denied to them, making their viewpoints which are completely at odds with the report appear unanimous……

In the 2007 report the global average temperature increase, based on the previous 15 years data observed an increase of 0.2˚C per year.  It extrapolated over the next 20 years a continuation of 0.2˚C based on computer modelling.  But the new report says the observed warming over the more recent 15 years to 2012 was just 0.05˚C per decade – below almost all computer predictions.  IPCC scientists accept their forecast computers may have exaggerated the effect of increased carbon emissions on world temperatures; and not taken enough notice of natural variability……

Natural Variability……

Climate change modelling is not unlike weather forecasting.  Although improvements are being made all the time, the shear quantity of variables makes it very difficult to draw accurate conclusions.  For example:  The oceans cover 1/3rd of the World’s surface.  It would be incredibly difficult, if not impossible, to give an accurate figure of how much heat the oceans absorbed and radiated in one year.  It is known that the process takes in the order of thousands of years to reach stability; even if external factors remained constant.  And that is just one part of calculating climate change.

Examine the graph below which shows approximately 100 years of climate data.

Past 100 years

One of the first things to note is the average drop in temperature before 1935; a period at which the industrial revolution was at its peak and during which fossil fuels would have been in high demand.

After the peak around 1940 the average appears to level off again until the late 1970s.  It continues to rise for 20 years and then flattens off.  This is reflected in the IPCC data where they admit that the global average temperature has in fact been stable for approximately 15 years, contrary to predictions……

Anomalies and Exceptions……

There have been warmer and colder than average temperature variations across the planet throughout recorded history.  During the ‘Medieval Warm Period’, which lasted from approximately 950 to 1250AD, vineyards were established as far north as York in the UK.  Shortly afterwards ‘The Little Ice-Age’ happened when the Thames in London froze over for extended periods of time and fares were held on it.

Sun Spot activity is well known for its effects on Earth.  It has an 11 year cycle and has proved to be an accurate predictor of temperature.  Another lesser known event is Geomagnetic Reversal (the reversal of the Earth’s magnetic poles).  These happen approximately every 450,000 years and are estimated to take between 1,000 and 10,000 years.  During a Geomagnetic event the protection from the Solar Winds can drop as low a 5%.  One assumes this must have a significant effect on climate……

180px-Atmosphere_gas_proportions.svgCarbon Dioxide, we all assume, is the demon gas and single-handedly responsible for climate change.  Okay, lets run with it.  Carbon Dioxide accounts for 0.039% of the Earth’s atmosphere, of which only 1/3rd is derived from unnatural sources.  The rest comes from normal like plant photosynthesis, the processes of plant decomposition and oceanic acidification.  When the many thousands of processes taking place, it would be hard for any scientist to deduce an increase in global temperatures is caused purely by the 0.013% man made CO2.

As far as any attempt made by mankind to control their contribution to CO2 is concerned, it is a case of closing the stable door after the horse has bolted.  Even if our contribution of greenhouse gasses was stopped immediately there is little chance of it making any difference to the outcome.  Once again we have given our anthropocentric view of the universe the credibility that the universe does not afford us.  Qué sera sera……

DT_Triangle_Banner