ESMB has entered archive mode. All posts and threads that were available to the general public are still readable. The board is still searchable. 

Thank you all for your participation and readership over the last 12 years.

If you want to join in the conversation, please join the new ESMB Redux at

Catastrophism and Scientology

Discussion in 'Evaluating and Criticising Scientology' started by Mimsey Borogrove, Dec 30, 2018.

  1. Mimsey Borogrove

    Mimsey Borogrove Crusader

    I have read that before, however, I think possibly, it is but one opinion:

    Ancient stomach contents analyzed
    The researchers also analyzed the stomach contents of well preserved carcasses of mammoths, woolly rhinos and ancient horses, as well as preserved feces. Those contained a similar variety of plants to the ones in the permafrost – mostly forbs.
    Woolly mammoth discovery raises exciting possibilities
    Froese said those had been barely detected before because those plants don't produce much pollen.
    The DNA analysis also showed that the vegetation changed dramatically around 10,000 years ago, when the Arctic grew warmer and wetter, giving rise to the tundra we know today, dominated by grasses and woody plants.
    "Most of the evidence we've been able to see is these large mammals disappear almost at the same time these vegetation changes were taking place," Froese said.
    Meanwhile, there was a population explosion of animals that adapted to eating woody plants, such as moose, elk and caribou. Froese thinks they likely out-competed mammoths, rhinos and horses.
  2. Mimsey Borogrove

    Mimsey Borogrove Crusader

    Here's an excellent video explaining the pole shift, the relation of geomagnetism to the rate of the rotation of the earth, and answers Mike Holland's questions ( above) Mimsey

  3. Mike Holland

    Mike Holland Patron

    Well, that lead to some interesting reading. The variations in the Earth's rotation are about 90% due to movement in the atmosphere. There is an annual cycle of about 3 milliseconds amplitude, an 11 year cycle of about 0.16 milliseconds, and several other cycles. In addition, the length of day is increasing by 0.028 millisecs per year. I couldn't find any evidence that the effect is greater in years of massive solar flares.

    I was interested to see that seismic activity varies slightly with the speed of rotation. When the Earth rotates faster, it swells a bit more at the equator, and the poles get slightly more flattened, and this distortion can lead to a few more earthquakes and tremors.
    I could not find any evidence for solar mini-novae. Nothing stronger than the magnetic storm of 1859, the Carrington event. Another large storm occurred in 1989, and a few this century. A bigger one than the Carrington would be disastrous for our electronic/mechanical civilisation. Read "Inconstant Moon" by Larry Niven, but I don't think he knew half of it.

    As for shifting the poles and equator suddenly, if that has happened without a planetary collision, then all our science and mechanics is totally wrong. The law of conservation of momentum rules it out. Problem with measuring the position of the poles is that the continents are shifting across the Earth's surface, and the stellar direction of the polar axis is shifting with orbital precession. So what do you measure it relative to? Anyway those processes are tasking place slowly over thousands or millions of years.

    Anyway, keep the wild ideas coming. We can all learn from the bit of truth and the bit of fantasy in them. I used to enjoy reading Velikovsky, Atlantis and Lemuria and all that stuff in my teens. Only after my break with Scientology I dug much deeper into science and philosophy to sort out my ideas, and became the hardened sceptic of today..
  4. Mimsey Borogrove

    Mimsey Borogrove Crusader

    For the life of me I couldn't remember the name of the Inconstant Moon story - I read it years ago. I wonder where he got his inspiration - it was published in 71. I think I met him at one of the Authors of the Future shindigs the church put on. I really liked Ring World but couldn't get through it's sequel - it didn't have the same feel to it. Maybe I'll reread the integral trees. I have a shit load of audio books to finish first. Here's a quote from it:

    "She had something there. Two hours was worth any price! But I'd worked this out before, staring at the moon from my balcony. "No. We'd die sooner. Listen, love, we saw the moon go bright about midnight. That means California was at the back of the Earth when the sun went nova." "Yes, that's right."

    "Then we must be furthest from the shock wave."

    She blinked. "I don't understand." "Look at it this way. First the sun explodes. That heats the air and the oceans, all in a flash, all across the day side. The steam and superheated air expand fast. A flaming shock wave comes roaring over into the night side. It's closing on us right now. Like a noose. But it'll reach Hawaii first. Hawaii is two hours closer to the sunset line." "Then we won't see the dawn. We won't live even that long." "No." "You explain things so well," she said bitterly. "A flaming shock wave. So graphic."

    Moving on - I think the term Micro Nova is a new one, possibly coined by Ben Davidson? Robert Schoch discusses that possibility of a massive solar flare in his last book - apparently there is evidence of burned rock - his belief being that it was the cause of the younger dryas. There are ample examples of melted rock if you google search them, that are unexplained by way of evidence.

    The rate of rotation varying with the strength of the geomagnetic field is scary since it is weakening as the poles migrate towards the equator. I think there's evidence for a micro nova if you look for it.


    Last edited: Jan 16, 2019
    Enthetan likes this.
  5. Mimsey Borogrove

    Mimsey Borogrove Crusader

    This guy discusses the micro nova concept and it's proof in his videos. He has a bunch of these videos, you can find at his you-tube page. Hi stuff is pretty far out there, but very interesting.


  6. Mike Holland

    Mike Holland Patron

    Some crackpot theories there. The problem with the Younger Dryas ice age is not what ended it, but what caused it. The glaciers were receding, then suddenly it got colder for about 1200 years, and then conditions reverted to the gradual warming as the glaciers slowly receded again. There was no sudden warming event. In addition, with a little googling, I found graphs of the occurrence of wildfires in north America, covering the period 18000 BC to about 600 BC. No spike anywhere. Annual lake varve deposits also no sign of any such dramatic events. Just business as usual.

    There are several theories about the onset of the Younger Dryass. Most popular is a comet impact raising dust, but the are no dust deposits anywhere to prove it.

    And when the second speaker started denying Anthropogenic climate change, I just switched off. The evidence is overwhelming. And what kind of fool conspiracy theorist would believe that tens of thousands of scientists of every political persuasion all over the world would all be complicit in a CIA plot? And kept it hushed up so that the newspapers have never got hold of a leak and broadcasted it? Or are all the worldwide news media also complicit?

    In the Green River lake varve deposits in Wyoming, five million years of climate history is recorded. The varve deposits vary in thickness depending on the seasonal weather, and show such variations as the 11 year sunspot cycle. They also show the 26000 year precession cycle caused by the Earths elliptic orbit. They do not show any solar flare events where the ensuing wildfires would have filed the air with ash and changed the weather patterns completely.

    Don't quote me on this, but I expect a flare would cause so much ash, and then so much evaporation, that the Earth would be enveloped in a cloud of dust and moisture for years, and the result would be an ice age.
    strativarius likes this.
  7. Dulloldfart

    Dulloldfart Squirrel Extraordinaire

    Interesting article on Velikovsky etc:

  8. Mike Holland

    Mike Holland Patron

    Paul, you've got to be joking. There is not a shred of science or evidence there. Small planets orbiting "below" large planets? Moons of Jupiter interfering with moons of Saturn? Science has come a long way in the last 500 years, and that author seems to be totally ignorant of it. All this stuff about "charge" and Venus' spin!
    How could Venus end up in such a circular orbit just a few thousand years after passing close to Earth? That goes against everything we know about gravity and orbital dynamics. He is proposing charge effects that decades of Astronomical observations have shown no sign of. And he doesn't provide a single calculation based on scientific principles to support his conjectures.
    We are still theorising about the formation of the solar system and how the planets could end up the way they are, but let us at least start from what we do know about the planets and orbital dynamics, collisions and conservation of energy and momentum..
    Lets leave him to smoke his hash and daydream.

    I enjoy reading ideas on the fringe of science - the aquatic ape theory, Arp's views on galactic evolution, alternatives to the big bang theory, Hoyles theory of continuous creation - but I like them to be consistent with known data, and provide some justification.

  9. Bill

    Bill Gold Meritorious Patron

    You really need to broaden your news sources beyond propaganda. You have so much misinformation here. Let me help. The so-called "skeptics" are not what you have been told. In general, the "skeptics" have similar thoughts on the subject:
    • The climate is changing, has changed, will always change. We don't "deny climate change".
    • The Earth has been warming since the 18th century. We don't "deny global warming".
    • There is no "CIA conspiracy". That's just plain silly. No one thinks that.
    • Humans have and will continue to affect the climate. No one doubts that.
    • There are not "tens of thousands of" climate scientists and many climate scientists do not agree with the propaganda.
    • Being skeptical is what science should be all about. It is not science to say "the science is settled", that's propaganda.
    The entire point of the disagreement is determining how much humans are responsible for the current warming trend. That's the whole thing. Nothing more, nothing less.

    And the answer to that is: scientifically, we don't know yet. Honest scientists, no matter what they believe, will admit that we just don't know. Yet.
    Last edited: Jan 17, 2019
    programmer_guy likes this.
  10. Mike Holland

    Mike Holland Patron

    A quick Google search revealed that 97-98% of scientists accept anthropogenic climate change.
    The whole subject of climate prediction is much too complicated for the human mind. There are so many cycles to consider, seasons, orbital factors, el Nino, etc. Increase the warming over the ocean and the extra moisture means more rain somewhere else. Arctic ice melts and more sea is exposed to absorb more heart. How much CO2 will the seas release as they warm? The only way to handle all the data and factors is to feed it into computers. But what the computer does with it depends on its programming.

    All the computer simulations so far indicate that there is a warming effect in addition to all the known cycles, and that this additional warming started around 1850. They also tell us that factoring in our co2 emissions plus the effect of land clearing pretty well explains this extra warming.
    If anyone wishes to deny these results, they had better produce a better computer simulation, and then prove that theirs is better. Opinions don't matter a damn. Without the computers we just haven't a clue.
    The various computer simulations aren't perfect, but they agree very well, and scientists usually publish an average of the various predictions. Unfortunately, so far things have been worse than their averaged prediction. They didn't expect to get the wilder weather so soon. The present rate of temperature rise is 5 times faster than any previous one recorded.

    I did not say there were tens of thousands of climate scientists. I said tens of thousands of scientists. Of 12,000 peer reviewed abstracts on the subject, 97% supported anthropogenic global warming.

    "The entire point of the disagreement is determining how much humans are responsible for the current warming trend. That's the whole thing. Nothing more, nothing less."

    That is your opinion and it happens to be wrong. There is much more to the disagreement than that. The Australian government do not accept anthropogenic global warming, because they have policies and investments in the coal mining business. Statistics on Google indicate that 40% of Americans don't accept global warming. Trump refuses to support the Paris agreement on reducing emissions.

    I agree about scepticism, but there are limits. That the universe is billions of years old is settled. Evolution is settled, although the mechanisms are still being studied. Relativity, Special and General, are pretty well established. The speed limit of the velocity of light is settled, but I do read science fiction, and wish there was evidence otherwise. Then there is the other side of science. Astrology has been chucked out. Mental telepathy has been chucked out (but I bet there are many on this forum who would disagree).Lemuria and Mu are forgotten, but there are still theories about Atlantis. The Moon is not made of cheese, and it is not hollow. Neither is the Earth - no hole at the North Pole as some Nazis believed. So a lot is settled, and not worth wasting your scepticism on.

    Edit: Just a footnote on how much humans are contributing to the warming trend, do you know that volcanoes worldwide (including undersea) produce 200-300 million tons of CO2 annually. Human coal burning and land clearing produced 38 billion tons in 2018, and the figure is going up. Much more than 100 times as much as all the volcanoes. Of course. that doesn't directly translate into warming, but that CO2 is greenhouse gas is vey basic physics. Some is converted into plant mass, but we are chopping down all the rain forests. Some would be absorbed by the oceans, but they are warming and releasing CO2.
    Last edited: Jan 17, 2019
  11. Bill

    Bill Gold Meritorious Patron

    This really should be over on the "Climate Change" thread. You are not fully informed on the subject. The "97% consensus" is propaganda. How many "scientists" (the criteria is undefined) believe humans are the primary cause of global warming as compared with humans are a contributing factor (which skeptics would agree with). Of course humans are a contributing factor. That's where we all agree. That's where you get a high degree of agreement. The propaganda says "consensus" but fails to delineate consensus with what.

    The alarmists depend almost totally on "computer simulations". Computer simulations are not facts. Treating simulations as facts is not science. Simulations are guesses -- that's science, you make guesses and then see if that happens. Virtually all the alarmist predictions for years that have now passed have been wrong. In science, that would be a call to update one's hypothesis not ignore.

    Almost all computer simulations, improved and revised, continue to fail to predict at all accurately. The ones that are more accurate are the ones that predict mild temperature increases.

    I could recommend some sources for the alternate viewpoint, but I doubt you'd read anything that doesn't agree with your current belief.
    Last edited: Jan 18, 2019
  12. Mimsey Borogrove

    Mimsey Borogrove Crusader

    The problem is the politicization of the man made climate debate. There are plenty of scientists that disagree. They do not get airtime. It's politically incorrect to hold a contrary view. It's career suicide to do so. Many moons ago on the climate thread, I posted an article about research funding. I forget the details, but lets say you want to research Amazonian frogs and their mating habits. You are more likely to get funded if your grant docs include how climate change effects the mating than if you don't.

    Science should not be constrained by public or political opinion / positions.

    Let's assume for a moment we are in fact entering another maunder type grand solar minimum that is worse because of the declining geomagnetic field due to the magnetic pole shift, and it's attendant increase in cloud cover, resultant increase in albedo effect and dropping temperature, despite the increase of greenhouse gasses, ok?

    By restraining this alternative concept - by writing this scenario off as junk science, politicalizing the issue, rather than funding proper research, we will find our selves ill prepared to feed our populations. It is a suicidal approach to something that potentially effects all of us. Millions could die, just like the millions that died in the maunder minimum. Where is the sanity in that?

    On another note - I agree his conspiracy theories seem outlandish - the CIA did in fact suppress the Chan Thomas book on the pole shift back in the 60's. However - some of the stuff like the dust beads on the moon, and other proof of the recurring novas is unsettling. There is more and more research on the electrical connections to earthquakes, the relationship between solar variations and earth weather. I find you have to sift through all this stuff to see what makes sense and what does not.

    Lets talk about the computer climate change simulations - as Bill says, they have consistently been wrong. They err on the high side. See graph. You can make a computer prove anything - it depends on how you program it. Garbage in = garbage out.

    One last thing - in the temperature graph you mentioned, and the one below, you will notice there was a big jump in the trends that occurred during the younger dryas. It makes me wonder - why was the average climate so much colder for so many thousands of years, and then moved to a higher average at the younger dryas? A simple explanation would be an orbit shift, from one that is further out to one that is closer to the sun. About the only thing that could cause such a change is a close encounter with a planet sized object. That is simple Newtonian math.

    What do you think of that possibility?



    Last edited: Jan 17, 2019
  13. Mimsey Borogrove

    Mimsey Borogrove Crusader

    Here's a good video on climate change and how by constraining the parameters affects the results of climate research.

    This is about the Chan Thomas book that the cia suppressed - there are 6 or 7 more in the series if you are interested.

  14. Bill

    Bill Gold Meritorious Patron

    You'd think that an ex-Scientologist would recognize the signs:
    What I learned from Scientology is that, whenever someone says "You must never, ever look over there, they are bad!!!", you'd better damn well look over there. Anyone who wants to control where you look is not telling the truth.

    In my experience with "skeptics" is that, for the most part, they will read anything and discuss anything. No one is restricting what they may read.

    What I get from CAGW sites (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming) is constant derogation and ridicule of anyone who dares question the gospel of "climate change is going to kill us all, give us control and we will save you".

    Ex-Scientologists should be able to recognize what is going on. But some don't seem to.
    Mimsey Borogrove likes this.
  15. Mike Holland

    Mike Holland Patron

    Climate Change said:
    Carbon Control is the only technology that can save this planet. Evil Climate Deniers are working to deny the Climate Change truth. Your very salvation depends on you never reading or listening to their lies!.

    Bill can you please provide the source for this quote? Who is Climate Change? How many climatologists does it represent? When and where was this statement published?

    "and ridicule of anyone who dares question the gospel of "climate change is going to kill us all, give us control and we will save you"."
    Same goes for this quote. You seem to love setting up paper tigers so that you can be seen to be destroying them. Remember "Anyone who wants to control where you look is not telling the truth" works both ways, so please show us that you are telling the truth.

    In the video about "The Facts", we are only left with the narrator's opinion that while the maths is correct, the conclusion is wrong. It would be lovely if he backed up his views with some correct maths that took these extra effects into account. I always assumed that the climatologists did their best to included everything in their modelling, but I haven't looked at their programs. Has he? And even if they have ignored some factors, which I doubt, how does he know that these factors would make their conclusion wrong?

    I am always interested in facts, but a little less so in opinions. In this discussion I have learned about solar flares recorded in Antarctic ice layers, and about the Earth actually pulsating with tiny changes in spin, causing earth tremors. Makes sense, but I thought the effects would be much too mall to detect. I am also surprised to learn that the atmosphere can affect the Earth's rotation speed.
  16. Bill

    Bill Gold Meritorious Patron

    :clapping: Well done! Obviously, my comment was my opinion. You pretending it was a news article requiring source confirmation is quite clever. :clapping:

    Of course, you either didn't get or wish to ignore my point that "Climate Change" advocates are disparaging, denigrating and trying to destroy all who question their dogma

    If you want to read about the smearing of skeptics, I can provide lots of sources (if they aren't already bookmarked in your browser). But those actually prove my point. Exactly like the Church of Scientology, their message is "These deniers are evil, do not read their lies." Exactly what I said.

    And you fell for it. The second you ran into someone who DARED to question the "Climate Change" dogma you turned it off. :hide: With a shudder -- you almost heard some blasphemy! Thank [the god of climate change] for your quick delete button!

    "I am always interested in facts". Sure. As long as it's not from "deniers" -- they are EVIL LIARS, right?

    While I really don't think you actually want to know ALL the facts, I could provide links to some evil denier sites. Warning: It is blasphemy.
    Last edited: Jan 19, 2019
  17. Mimsey Borogrove

    Mimsey Borogrove Crusader

    The point Ben is making is this:

    Based on the IPCC's premise that climate change nee global warming, is based on mankind increasing the release of CO2 resulting in increased temperature changes, their math works. It proves their point, 100%

    But! Scientists using their premise are looking at climate change only from that narrow scope of vision. That limited definition / position statement.

    Ben's point is they are ignoring other non-manmade causes, such as:

    The variations in climate due to variations in solar output, such as found in sunspot cycles, grand solar maximums and minimums, solar mass ejections

    They are not taking into account the fact as the solar output lessens, the earth's geomagnetic field lessens, allowing cosmic radiation to go deeper into the atmosphere causing increased clouds, and the albedo effect from that, reflecting the suns heat away, cools the climate

    See below video that discusses this cosmic ray / cloud connection - it is actual science - not junk science

    Volcanos releasing gas and ash into the atmosphere, and it's attendant cooling effect.

    The changes in the jet streams, where they loop deeper southwards, bringing unseasonable weather.

    The changes in the polar vortex, atmospheric rivers.

    The regular cycle of changes in the north Atlantic gyre.

    Historical data from tree rings, ice cores, mud sediments etc.

    There are more.

    By ignoring these other causes, their models are not accurate, their outcomes fail.

    There are reports from whistle blowers that show the IPCC has fudged it's numbers. See below. You are not dealing with science for science's sake - you are dealing with a corrupt politicalized, for profit "science" that pretends to be actual science. Were it so, it would look at the other causes. But it doesn't.

    I suggest you browse through the climate change thread - there are many, many posts on the subject.

    Please realize that nobody is arguing that increased CO2 isn't a problem, but that it isn't the only climate change cause.

    UPDATE – BOMBSHELL: audit of global warming data finds it riddled with errors

    Last edited: Jan 19, 2019
  18. Mike Holland

    Mike Holland Patron

    " Of course, you either didn't get or wish to ignore my point that "Climate Change" advocates are disparaging, denigrating and trying to destroy all who question their dogma"
    There you go again, Bill. I looked at the "lots of sources" you provided, and just found a list of climate change deniers who have financial backing from the fossil fuel mob. I did not find anything disparaging, denigrating or destructive, apart from one opinion columnist who spoke of depravity.

    How about getting off your high horse and discussing evidence without all the emotional jargon.

    "The variations in climate due to variations in solar output, such as found in sunspot cycles, grand solar maximums and minimums, solar mass ejections
    They are not taking into account the fact as the solar output lessens, the earth's geomagnetic field lessens, allowing cosmic radiation to go deeper into the atmosphere causing increased clouds, and the albedo effect from that, reflecting the suns heat away, cools the climate
    See below video that discusses this cosmic ray / cloud connection - it is actual science - not junk science
    Volcanos releasing gas and ash into the atmosphere, and it's attendant cooling effect.
    The changes in the jet streams, where they loop deeper southwards, bringing unseasonable weather
    Historical data from tree rings, ice cores, mud sediments etc."

    Mimsey, how do you KNOW that they are ignoring all this data? All of them? What are your sources?

    I am perfectly open to persuasion. All I ask for is EVIDENCE. I know, and all the climate scientists know, about the variability of the Sun's radiation during sunspot cycles. I and they also know about Earth's orbital eccentricities and rotation variations. I don't know, and don't accept, that they are ignoring these factors in their climate modelling. I accept the cosmic ray/cloud connection, but I did not know that the Earths geomagnetic field lessens with the Suns radiation. That doesn't make sense to me, so I would have to research it. Do you have any figures about the cooling effect of volcanic gas and dust? Obviously this is a factor with an explosion like Krakatoa, but is it with the hundreds of volcanoes that rumble away all the average year?
  19. Mimsey Borogrove

    Mimsey Borogrove Crusader

    In the video below, which I posted earlier, starting at 1:25, Ben gives the IPCC's definition of climate change taken from their literature. Watch it again. Here's a quote from WIKI

    Global warming is a long-term rise in the average temperature of the Earth's climate system, an aspect of climate change shown by temperature measurements and by multiple effects of the warming.[2][3] The term commonly refers to the [bcolor=#ffff00]mainly human-caused observed warming[/bcolor] since pre-industrial times and its projected continuation,[4] though there were also much earlier periods of global warming.[5] In the modern context the terms global warming and climate change are commonly used interchangeably,[6] but global warming more specifically relates to worldwide surface temperature increases; while climate change is any regional or global statistically identifiable persistent change in the state of climate which lasts for decades or longer, including warming or cooling.[7][8] Many of the observed warming changes since the 1950s are unprecedented in the instrumental temperature record, and in historical and paleoclimate proxy records of climate change over thousands to millions of years.[2]
    In 2013, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report concluded, [bcolor=#ffff00]"It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century."[9] The largest human influence has been the emission of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide.[/bcolor] In view of the dominant role of human activity in causing it, the phenomenon is sometimes called "anthropogenic global warming" or "anthropogenic climate change."

    It is pretty clear they are not seriously considering anything else.

    How do I know? I have been reading books and articles, watching videos, looking at graphs for years. I have formed the opinion based on that. If you look at the graphic below, you see the % co2 compared to the other gasses. I find it hard to believe that 0.03% CO2 is driving massive global warming and /or climate change.

    If you want more evidence, do what I did - do your own research.




    Last edited: Jan 19, 2019
  20. Mimsey Borogrove

    Mimsey Borogrove Crusader

    "Do volcanoes affect weather?
    Yes, volcanoes can affect weather and the Earth's climate. Following the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines, cooler than normal temperatures were recorded worldwide and brilliant sunsets and sunrises were attributed to this eruption that sent fine ash and gases high into the stratosphere, forming a large volcanic cloud that drifted around the world. The sulfur dioxide (SO2) in this cloud -- about 22 million tons -- combined with water to form droplets of sulfuric acid, blocking some of the sunlight from reaching the Earth and thereby cooling temperatures in some regions by as much as 0.5 degrees Celsius. An eruption the size of Mount Pinatubo could affect the weather for several years.
    A similar phenomenon occurred in 1815 with the cataclysmic eruption of Tambora Volcano in Indonesia, the most powerful eruption in recorded history. Tambora's volcanic cloud lowered global temperatures by as much as 3 degrees Celsius. Even a year after the eruption, most of the northern hemisphere experienced sharply cooler temperatures during the summer months. In parts of Europe and in North America, 1816 was known as "the year without a summer."

    What's erupting? List & map of currently active volcanoes

    "Even small changes in solar activity can impact Earth's climate in significant and surprisingly complex ways, researchers say.
    The sun is a constant star when compared with many others in the galaxy. Some stars pulsate dramatically, varying wildly in size and brightness and even exploding. In comparison, the sun varies in the amount of light it emits by only 0.1 percent over the course of a relatively stable 11-year-long pattern known as the solar cycle.

    Still, "the light reaching the top of the Earth's atmosphere provides about 2,500 times as much energy as the total of all other sources combined," solar physicist Greg Kopp at the University of Colorado told As such, even 0.1 percent of the amount of light the sun emits exceeds all other energy sources the Earth's atmosphere sees combined, such as the radioactivity naturally emitted from Earth's core, Kopp explained.

    "Is it true that the strength of the Earth's magnetic field is decreasing? What's the effect?

    "At most places there has been a general decrease in the strength over the past century, typically ten percent or so. No one can say with any certainty whether this represents a fluctuation or whether it is a decrease which will eventually lead to a reversal. Past reversals have taken place over a short period of time geologically speaking, 10,000 years or so. In order for a reversal to take place there must be a brief time during which the field is non existent.

    Earth's magnetic field, which protects the planet from huge blasts of deadly solar radiation, has been weakening over the past six months, according to data collected by a European Space Agency (ESA) satellite array called Swarm.
    The biggest weak spots in the magnetic field — which extends 370,000 miles (600,000 kilometers) above the planet's surface — have sprung up over the Western Hemisphere, while the field has strengthened over areas like the southern Indian Ocean, according to the magnetometers onboard the Swarm satellites — three separate satellites floating in tandem.
    The scientists who conducted the study are still unsure why the magnetic field is weakening, but one likely reason is that Earth's magnetic poles are getting ready to flip, said Rune Floberghagen, the ESA's Swarm mission manager. In fact, the data suggest magnetic north is moving toward Siberia.
    Last edited: Jan 19, 2019