Possible Earth Events
- Pole Shift (magnetic)
- Pole Shift (geographic)
- Shift in Earth’s Crust
- Tsunami & Tidal Waves
- Volcanoes & Nuclear Winter
- The Sun & Extreme Heat
- Extreme Storms & Weather
The Sun & Extreme Heat: When you ask yourself what past events have occurred on Earth that relate to the Sun, two things come to mind; ice ages and global warming. We all know that it’s a common belief that global warming is created by mankind with the burning of fossil fuels and maybe even that ice ages have nothing to do with the Sun. The following graph of ice core sample data from the Antarctic provides some very interesting fuel for thought. As you can see, this graph tracks the change in Earth’s overall temperature for the last 450,000 years.
This graph includes data from two different core drilling sites in the Antarctic. One called EPICA (in blue) is managed by the European Union and the other called Vostok (in green) is managed by the Soviet Union. At the bottom of this graph, you can see data that represents the ice volume (in red) on Earth during the same period. Our current position on this graph is at the far left, otherwise known as the zero point on the graph.
This graph shows that Earth’s overall temperature fluctuates from 6 degrees centigrade warmer to almost 9 degrees cooler than our current temperature. From this graph, you can easily see that when Earth is in a warming period that the ice covering Earth is melting at almost the identical inverse relationship to temperature, but maybe you can see something that others do not. Can you see a pattern?
The above graph shows that Earth is in an ice age period when the overall temperature is a mere 3 to 6 degrees centigrade cooler than it is today. The data also shows that Earth came out of the last ice age and started heating up approximately 20,000 yrs ago, came out of the ice age completely about 13,000 yrs ago, and has maintained a fairly stable temperature ever since. So, what does this data tell us? Have you figured it out yet?
This data basically tells us two things. First, ice ages have a cyclical pattern which obviously has nothing to do with humans causing global warming. After all, Earth started heating up and coming out of the last ice age about 20,000 years ago. You can see that as the planet started heating up, the ice volume was being reduced in direct proportion. In fact, in the last 13,000 years, the temperature on Earth has stayed fairly constant which is also reflected in a slowing of ice volume reduction across the planet.
Second, is the existence of an observable cycle within the 450,000 years of ice core sample data. If you look at the data, you can see an obvious pattern where Earth enters a cooling cycle for approximately 80,000 years followed by a heat cycle of about 20,000 years. These figures combined result in a cycle for ice ages of approximately 100,000 years, like clockwork.
Since mankind has not been burning fossil fuels for even 200 years, you can see that whatever caused the temperature on Earth to start increasing dramatically 20,000 years ago and then stabilize at the current temperatures for the last 13,000 years was not the result of humans. This data also proves that mankind is not the cause for the melting of polar and glacial ice that has been happening for 20,000 years. This one graph proves that global warming has nothing to do with mankind burning fossil fuels, and therefore, nothing to do with mankind at all.
The relationship between the Sun’s irradiance and our current state of global warming is often under debate, but not often enough as the “global warming agenda” appears to have most people convinced the cause is related to humans. From the below chart on cosmic radiation, you can see that there are two main sources of radiation that affect Earth’s surface temperature and climate, those being the Sun and the galaxy.
This means that either a change in the Sun’s irradiance or a change in Earth’s protective shield can alter Earth’s surface temperature and climate. Likewise, a change in galactic radiation or our protection from that radiation could also alter Earth’s surface temperature and climate. According to astronomers, the Sun has just completed Solar Cycle 23 which produced the largest solar flare ever recorded, but that hasn’t seemed to influence their conclusions on global warming. Of course, this solar cycle has repeated itself and been observed for over 100 years without any major deviations to concern scientists.
According to scientists, Earth’s magnetic core has been slowing down for decades and it’s theorized that Earth’s magnetic field is generated by this revolving magnetic core. Scientists have also determined that Earth’s magnetic field has weakened to its lowest levels in recorded history. However, scientists are reluctant to draw any correlation between these two events as they report the slowdown in Earth’s core is a minor perturbation and would not affect the more significant changes to Earth’s electromagnetic field. Of course, this electromagnetic field is what protects Earth from the Sun’s harmful radiation.
From the above chart on cosmic radiation, you can also see that Earth must also endure the affects of galactic radiation. This is radiation coming from the Milky Way galaxy and other sources, of which we are a member. The primary protection from this galactic radiation is the Sun’s electromagnet field also known as the heliosphere. Much like Earth’s electromagnetic field, the Sun also has a similar field, however, this heliosphere doesn’t only protect the Sun and Earth, but it stretches out beyond Earth to include every planet in our solar system.
Scientists have proven the Sun is going through changes today that they have never witnessed before. In October 2008, NASA scientists warned that the heliosphere, the protective shield of energy that surrounds our solar system, has weakened by 25 per cent over the past decade and is now at it lowest level since the space race began 50 years ago. This means that, since 2008, Earth is being bombarded with at least 25% more cosmic radiation from the galaxy.
This graph represents this 50 years of data in 10 year increments. This certainly would not be considered sound scientific analysis on any level; however, without access to detailed data on the decay rate of the heliosphere, this will have to do. Certainly this would not be considered proof of anything on a scientific level, but it does provide for an interesting theory and even more interesting visual.
If we consider the theory that heliosphere decay is not simply a one-time fluctuation that will reverse within the next 10 years, but rather the possibility that it’s a trend, a cycle, or pattern that continues on before it recovers, then this theory has far reaching consequences. Even with this crude graphical representation of the heliosphere decay data, any extrapolation of data out to 2012 or beyond would point, not just to further decay, but rather to an exponential decay. For Earth and the entire solar system, such a decay theory could be catastrophic.
To be certain, there is little known about long-term fluctuations in the heliosphere, but scientists are baffled at what could be causing this protective barrier to shrink in this way. If the heliosphere continues to weaken, scientists fear that the amount of cosmic radiation reaching the inner parts of our solar system, including Earth, will increase. This could result in growing levels of disruption to electrical equipment, damage satellites and potentially even harm life on Earth.
There is a very high energy galactic radiation that is dangerous to living things. Around 90 per cent of the galactic cosmic radiation is deflected by our heliosphere, so the boundary protects us from this harsh galactic environment. Without the heliosphere the harmful intergalactic cosmic radiation would make life on Earth almost impossible by destroying DNA and making the climate uninhabitable. Could an increase in intergalactic cosmic radiation have anything to do with other changes that are occurring on Earth? Since this is a new and unknown phenomenon, it’s likely the scientists have no idea of the overall impact of this radiation on planet Earth. Is it at all possible that an increase in galactic radiation could trigger earthquakes, volcanoes, or extreme weather on Earth?
NASA, NOAA, and ESA are also predicting that Solar Cycle 24, which just started, could be up to 50% stronger than its 'record breaking' predecessor Cycle 23 which produced the largest solar flare ever recorded. This means that we just entered a period where Earth could experience unprecedented radiation from the Sun in the next few years. The Sun will actually reach its 'apex' (maximum potential of solar cycle 24) in late 2011 into 2012.
Does anyone find it interesting that Earth has entered a period of unprecedented exposure to intergalactic cosmic radiation and is entering a period of unprecedented radiation from the Sun? Does anyone find it interesting that so many cosmic and Earth based events can be correlated? The fact is that Earth is being impacted by something external. Is it reasonable to consider that approaching the galactic equator is affecting the electromagnetic fields of both Earth and the Sun? It certainly seems more plausible than many of the other theories.
It doesn’t take a genius, climatologist, or any other kind of scientist to see the pattern in the below graph of ice core sample data. Even allowing for a small error of variance, the data shows conclusively that something causes Earth to heat up and cool down in a cyclical pattern. So, why are the governments and their scientist unable to see this pattern in Earth’s current warming cycle? Does anyone think their scientists are that blind or is it possible they just can’t tell people what they know? Is it possible they support the concept that “global warming” is man-made in order to divert attention from the truth?
Not everyone is on the global warming is man-made band wagon, however, it appears that most people are still receiving the majority of their news and information from the mainstream media, and that fact alone means that most people will not received a balance understanding of the facts. The fact is that global warming certainly wasn’t caused by humans and may not even be influenced by humans or the burning of fossil fuels. The ice core sample data doesn’t support such a theory. In fact, the ice core sample data provides proof that such a theory has no basis in science.
We often hear of the so-called “scientific proof” that global warming is man-made; however, this information is usually delivered by politicians and the media rather than the actual scientists. When was the last time you heard a government scientist get in front of the microphone and provide the results of their research? The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a scientific intergovernmental body tasked to evaluate the risk of climate change caused by human activity. This body employs about 3,000 scientists to research and support their claims that global warming is man-made. And it's openly discussed that many of these 3,000 scientists are not actually scintists at all. This chart shows how all IPCC agendas and reports are filtered by the government three separate times before they are ever published.
What we don’t ever hear about are the thousands of scientists that vehemently dispute the IPCC conclusions on the basis of real scientific evidence. This conglomerate of scientist has grown in numbered from about 17,000 in 2006 to more than 30,000 in 2009. Included in this group are over 9,000 PhD’s. Now compare the 30,000 independent scientists that have concluded that global warming is NOT man-made with the 3,000 government scientists that conclude otherwise. Do you have any thoughts on which group you would tend to believe if you knew there was a choice?
Instead of itemizing the proof into why global warming is NOT man-made, click here to find several videos on the subject. The following video includes interviews of climate scientists and biologists from numerous sources who explain, step by step, why the global warming alarmists are incorrect. In some cases, blatantly so. Everyone in the world needs to hear this side of the global warming story.
Global Warming or Global Governance (120min)
The conclusions from these scientists, using sound research, and actual scientific analysis are staggering and include:
- Global warming is a real phenomenon.
- CO2 is not responsible for global warming.
- Mankind’s influence on global warming is insignificant.
- Global warming is directly related to emissions from the Sun.
- The global warming agenda is about money, not science.
- How the third world is paying for the global warming agenda.
The question then becomes; if CO2 is increasing and is caused by Earth heating up, is the sun really getting hotter? The answer is yes, however, the Sun, like everything else, operates in cycles. The data provided by NASA called “Solar Cycles” reveals exactly this point. Although these cycles have been predictable for the last 50 years, NASA, NOAA, and ESA are also predicting that Solar Cycle 24, which just started, could be up to 50% stronger than its 'record breaking' predecessor Cycle 23 which produced the largest solar flare ever recorded.
One question might be whether scientists have even questioned the possibility of Solar Cycles that my take hundreds, thousands, or millions of year to repeat. If Earth’s temperature is directly related to the Sun’s output, then we most certainly have proof of these cycle buried within the ice core data from the Antarctic.
Even allowing for a error of variance, the above graph shows conclusively that something causes Earth to heat up and cool down in a cyclical pattern. The governments and their scientists know that answer. This is why NASA is sending up two new satellites in 2009 to do nothing but monitor the sun. NASA is also decommissioning the Hubble Telescope in 2010. This certainly means that NASA will cut the feed to the general scientific community, but does anyone really believe they will just turn it off? It’s more likely they intend on using it to monitor cosmic activities, but just don’t want that data getting into the hands of the public.
This image provides a visual representation of how the Arctic ice pack has receded exponentially from 2000 to 2007. As you can see from this image, the yellow line represents the median minimum size of the ice pack from the years 1979 to 2000. In 2005, the ice pack shrunk dramatically to a new minimum represented by the blue line. And in 2007, the ice pack shrunk even further as represented by the white area in this image. To further support this visual, let’s look at even more recent data of the Arctic ice melt.
In this image, the older ice is referenced by the dark blue color. According to calculations from the National Snow and Ice Data Center, ice older than two years now accounts for less than 10 percent of the Arctic ice pack. From 1987 data on the central Arctic Basin, researchers have concluded that 57 percent of the ice pack was 5 or more years old, and 25 percent of that had been around at least 9 years. By 2007, only 7 percent of the ice was 5 or more years old, and very old ice (at least 9 years) had completely disappeared. Recent reports for 2009 reveal the Arctic ice continues to recede more rapidly that the scientist's ongoing revised calculations.
The Arctic Ice is melting at an exponential rate, but the scientists also make a point to state that the Antarctic ice pack has grown slightly. In their attempts to dispel the concept of global warming, scientist somehow correlate an exponential melting in the Arctic with a slight growth in the Antarctic as somehow balancing out. Although the Antarctic ice volume is greater than the Arctic, this is primarily due to the fact that most of the Arctic ice develops over water while most of the Antarctic ice develops over land. The below image provides a comparison between the Arctic and Antarctic. As you can imagine, as Earth and the ocean temperatures increase, the Arctic is affected more directly than the Antarctic.
Some consideration must be given to the scientist assertions that ice in the Arctic is decreasing while ice in the Antarctic is increasing, but how do they account for the fact that glaciers are also melting at the fastest rate ever recorded? The fact is they usually don’t discuss the glacial melting in the same breath. The reality is those scientists who promote that global warming is man-made and those who promote that global warming is a myth, only provide data to supports their side of the claims.
This is nothing new, and in fact, you can say this about most research of any nature. The only way to gain a clearer picture is to assimilate and combine the research from both sides of an issue. Much like a jury in a court case, in order to give justice to any topic, we must hear the facts, weight the evidence, and draw our own conclusions.
We’ve all heard the back and forth ranting about global warming and the melting ice packs. One day the news says that the Arctic ice pack has built back to historic levels, but what they don’t tell you is when summer came, the ice pack receded past all previously recorded low points. They just want you to believe the ice pack was building up because Earth is getting colder. And the reason the Arctic ice recedes more quickly and more severely each year during the warm season is because it’s no longer a hardened ice pack. Any ice pack that builds up over just a single year isn’t the same density as ice that was built up over decades. This means, under current conditions, the Arctic ice pack is melting more rapidly and more deeply during the warm season.
Our climate exists in a delicate balance that includes: emissions from the Sun, reflective cloud cover, reflective ice cover, thermal currents in the ocean, heat and ash from volcanic activity, etc. There are signs all around us that this pendulum has swung out of balance.
While NASA climate scientists were reviewing radiation data emanating from the tropics simply to test existing notions, they uncovered a phenomenon they were not expecting. They found that progressively more thermal radiation has been escaping the atmosphere above the tropics and progressively less sunlight has been reflecting off of the clouds.
A similar phenomenon holds true for ice cover on the planet. More ice cover means more sunlight is reflected and less radiation (heat) is absorbed by the surface of Earth. Conversely, less ice cover means more radiation is absorbed by Earth. Is it, therefore, logical to consider this pattern could become cyclical? In other words, is it possible that as more ice melts, then more radiation is absorbed by our planet and if more radiation is absorbed by our planet, then more ice melts?
It’s common knowledge that our Sun goes through scientifically observed heating and cooling cycles called “solar cycles”. This image shows the different heating and cooling periods for the recent solar cycle 23. But is it possible there are other longer-term cycles that, to this point, have gone scientifically unobserved? Absolutely! The ice age core data reveals the possibility of just such cycles. Is it also possible that some cycles are triggered by external cosmic forces that have yet to be discovered? Absolutely! Due to the nature of the question, the answer is neither easy to prove or easy to answer, however, there is some scientific evidence to justify such a theory.
A Russian scientist by the name of Dr. Aleskey Dmitriev has confirmed just such a possibility. Dr. Aleskey Dmitriev is a Russian professor of geology and mineralogy and the chief scientific member of the United Institute of Geology, Geophysics and Mineralogy within the Siberian department of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Dr. Dmitriev is an expert on global ecology and fast-processing Earth events. According to Dr. Dmitriev, since 1963, our entire solar system has been changing. His research has found that every planet in our solar system, the sun and even our moon are experiencing increases in energy field, changes in luminosity and even changes in atmosphere. Dr. Dmitriev attributes these changes to the affects of some external force acting on our solar system.
In addition to Dr. Dmitriev’s research, there are more recent discoveries related to ongoing changes in our solar system. Depending on the specific planet and our ability to observe and measure changes on that planet, these changes could be in the form of either an electromagnetic or geophysical nature. In the case of the Sun, the strength of the heliosphere has been reduced by 25% over the last 10 years. In the case of Mars, the polar ice cap is melting. In the case of Jupiter, a change is occurring in the chemical make up. In the case of Venus, we are seeing storm activity that has never been witnessed before. In with Earth, we are experiencing a weakened electromagnetic field, global warming, and an increase in severe weather, earthquakes, and volcanic activity.
Here are a couple possible causes for the observable changes to the Sun, Earth, and our entire solar system.
- The Sun is going through an internal, natural, and previously unobserved cycle without any external cosmic influence.
- An external cosmic force, previously unobserved by modern scientists, is acting on the Sun and solar system.
Timeline 2012 has provided evidence that changes to the Sun and our solar system are possibly being triggered by an external cosmic force, such as a rogue body passing through our solar system or from our solar system aligning with the galactic and celestial equators. However, without further proof, there is the possibility the cause is from an internal, natural, and long-term cycle of the Sun which has never been recorded or observed by modern scientists. The later theory can be supported by the observable cycles in the ice age core sample data. Either theory can be supported by the fact that changes in our solar system have been observed for almost 50 years by scientists such as Dr. Aleskey Dmitriev.
For arguments sake, let’s consider the theory that these changes are the result of our entire solar system approaching and ultimately aligning with the galactic and celestial equators sometime in the near future.
Besides these direct impacts to both the Sun and Earth, there are many other possible changes that could be triggered by this alignment. One change is the theory that the Sun could become hyperactivated and get much hotter, even larger, during the alignment. Imagine the impact on Earth and other planets if the Sun gets 20% to 30% hotter during the event. Imagine what happens to Earth’s electromagnetic field from either changes in the Sun and/or the energy being produced by the alignment.
We’ve discussed the possible changes to the Sun and Earth from the alignment of the galactic and celestial equators, but what about changes to other planets in our solar system? Jupiter’s atmosphere is often described as a combination of highly charged storms and chemical gases. Recent reports suggest that there are already changes occurring in the chemical composition of Jupiter which scientists don’t understand. Is it so hard to imagine that the same energy field that could cause the Sun to get 20% to 30% hotter could also cause a chain reaction that transforms Jupiter?
Some prophecy, related to the coming events, states that Jupiter will be transformed into a blue “star”. These same prophecies don’t explain what may cause this transformation or give any indication of how it’s going to occur, but once you gain an understanding of the cosmic potentials you may begin to see this becomes a very realistic possibility.
There’s more going on during the coming events than just the possibility of the Sun getting 20% to 30% hotter. What happens in the upper atmosphere of Earth from the Sun’s increased irradiance, the increased radiation from the galaxy, or from the alignment of the galactic and celestial equators? And what if Earth stops rotating and then begins to rotate in the opposite direction? What kind of forces and influences could it have on electromagnetic field and satellite technology? What about EMI (electromagnetic interference) from the geophysical activities on the surface of Earth? Could this result in electrical discharges or arcing energies between objects on Earth and in space?
Right now, all it takes is a Sun flare to knock out ground-based power grids and cause satellites to fail. We are already seeing this across the planet today. How many times have you gone to use your cell phone only to see there is no signal? It’s possible that some of these events are the result of system overloads and ground-based system failures; however, it’s certain that our power grids and satellites are experiencing more failures as we approach this time in history. The below video is Part 1 of 5 in a series by National Geographic that describes the science of the Sun and how solar flares affect Earth and can cause failures in our power grids.
Whether satellites and power grids fail as a result of the energy field created by the alignment, the increase in radiation from the Sun, or one of the other EMI factors is probably not very important. What may be more important is the affect of solar winds and energy bursts that are likely to damage or destroy anything solar related and most electronics whether on Earth or in orbit.
These are likely to be some very high powered energy and radiation fields that expand as they move through space and our solar system. Even if the direct impact from a hyperactive Sun may only affect 50% of Earth’s surface, the energy field would affect Earth’s entire electromagnetic field.
All GPS and satellite systems require communication and control from ground based systems. Even if some satellites or ground-based electronics manage to survive these events, it’s still questionable whether anyone on the ground would be able to reestablish communication with anything in orbit. GPS systems also require three satellites in order to triangulate positions and function as a navigation device. This means a GPS would only function after such events if three navigation satellites, from the same network, are still in operational, are still communicating with ground-based systems, and are all operating in your quadrant of space. Hmmm. I wouldn’t want to calculate the probability of that occurring.