It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

100,000 year cycle Upgrade

page: 3
120
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 01:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Uberdoubter

I had to put that in




posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 05:12 PM
link   
Just out of curiosity, would any of the conditions affecting Earth on this short 100,000 year cycle also affect the planet Mars? I wonder, because so much of the terrain looks like something much more active is going on than one would expect from a place with little or no tectonic activity for possibly billions of years. Just wondering.



posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 06:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: muzzleflash


Is anyone capable of entertaining this or are we all too invested in "modern science's timescales" to consider that we got it all wrong?

I'll take a swipe...

These records are based on ice and sediment cores, tree rings, carbon dating, right??

Then applied to the whole world, when the cores themselves were taken at only a few locations.

Theres some skew there, somewhere.


Also we could be interpreting what we are finding in those core samples incorrectly.

Evidence is evidence but it must be interpreted properly, and there are plenty of ways to interpret a piece of evidence - some of them can be diametrically opposed views even.



posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 06:46 PM
link   
a reply to: bobsa

Thank you for responding.

I am going to do some research on Hapgood and McIntosh's work tonight, I really appreciate the suggestions because I would like to learn more about this.

The Greek origins theory seems plausible because the Ottomans did inherit their lands from what was once Greek 1500 to 2000 years earlier.

Very interesting.



posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 07:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Astrocyte
Nobody puts in that much effort unless they want to distract you from a bad argument.

1) The issue, at root, is human civilization. Increasing the stressload on the societies and culture we live in is only desirable to elites - the vast majority of humans would suffer from rising sea levels (see pacific, indian and atlantic island states at risk) larger and more frequent hurricanes, larger and more frequent tornado's, greater evaporation (drying out of land) as well as precipitation, leading to draughts and floods; oh yes - and the famine that results from radically changed weather patterns, effectively turning agricultural regions into deserts and deserts into agricultural regions. No biggy, right? Long-term, the system will adapt, right? But can you blame sane humans for thinking about their progeny? For thinking about all the life on Earth that will needlessly suffer? Forest fires are another major hazard, and as we are beginning to increasingly see, it creates serious havoc on communities.

2) Economically speaking, science and technology cannot grow in the background context of climate change; climate change will wear down our ability to respond; its like anything else that works in a population-statistical sense; past a certain threshold, the disease takes hold, and everything falls apart. Stupid brains - and the minds which emerge from them - prefer idealizations to facts, and in the process, cancer takes hold and the body dies. Idealization is the enemy of reason; it dissociates you from attuning to the reality points that will help reorient the system back into sync with the world around it.

3) The Sun has grown in the last 630,000 years (since yellowstones eruption), which is to say, what would happen if an eruption were to occur at the same time that humans are dysregulating the planets biochemistry? This a big unknown; that is, our input is a truly new and novel input into the planets complex dynamics, so it be completely presumptuous of you to assume that our input is innocuous, given that are input is a brand new one which still, in fact, will interact with other cyclical/natural inputs.

A realistic person will come to recognize that the Earths biosphere is not exactly guaranteed to survive anthropogenic warming; and a sane person would recognize that civilization - knowledge, science, human wellbeing - is worth saving, because we've come too far at a sheer material level of development to allow ourselves to throw it all away.

I thought he explained quite well the insignificance that humans pose. You should read his post and try to understand what it is saying with an unbiased mind.



posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 08:45 PM
link   
a reply to: ICycle2

I don't think anyone would really disagree with the concept of our environment operating in a cyclical nature, that seems to be a very common sense position.

I do however think that when we begin to gauge these cycles and quantify them (in temperatures, in years, etc), that is where the real problems begin to appear.

If we have any hope of even beginning to develop a good picture of how these cycles work and in what range we might expect them to operate within, we have to ensure that the holistic approach works. We cannot have viable data sets and make decent conclusions from them if they do not match other data which seems to be equally valid.

Now, sometimes if two pieces of information do not add up it is merely the fault of our own comprehension or the result of our ignorance. This is likely especially considering the history of Earth and the incredible mystery of it all.

It is possible that all of this information is good but that we are missing critical pieces that can join it all together in a easy to understand way. But it is also possible that we are under false impressions and making bad interpretations and evaluations of what little information we do have to go on.

I am not sure which is the case currently because I lack the data necessary to determine it. I also get a strong feeling that we are all in that same boat.

You know, at the same time, I have to also consider the possibility that the Earth climate may not even be operating on a long term cyclical basis. This could be a completely random series of ever-changing events as the result of cosmic phenomena and Earth's attempt to compensate for those cataclysmic changes. So it could possibly be very randomized and there isn't actually a predictable cycle at all on the larger scale of time.

I realize that most of us naturally will not enjoy the notion of there not being a cycle and that it is instead chaotic and unpredictable. Our minds and survival instincts are geared towards being able to anticipate future events accurately and to make our decisions as a result of those predictions with reliance and confidence.

It is a difficult problem.



posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 08:52 PM
link   
Icycle2,

Good job on the compilation.
I just skimmed over the post, but I noticed a couple of ommisions,
1)The Chesapeak bay impact that was the much bigger brother of popagi.
2) Michigan ~800,000 k(date im not certain will post reference)/Long valley caldera both of these events are curiously close to the last magnetic reversal.
Michigan has been shown to be the source of the australasian tektite strewn field.
3) A period of episodic cosmic encounters, 37? year cycle that shows in the tree rings, from the 23rd-21st cent bce. It is and the run up to the 4.2 kilo year event. The Akkadians, The Indus, The first intermediate period in egypt all show climate related stresses. It essentially stopped raining in the syrian highlands for 200 years.



posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 09:59 PM
link   
a reply to: punkinworks10

Bronze age climate anomolies


The Chesapeake Bay impact crater was formed by a bolide that impacted the eastern shore of North America about 35.5 ± 0.3 million years ago, in the late Eocene epoch. It is one of the best-preserved "wet-target" or marine impact craters, and the largest known impact crater in the U.S.

Chesapeak Bay Crater
edit on p00000010k011032017Wed, 25 Oct 2017 22:01:24 -0500k by punkinworks10 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2017 @ 12:55 AM
link   
a reply to: ICycle2

Phage could come in here and demolish the OP but I’m sure he is tired of beating this dead horse. There is a lot of threads on this already.



posted on Oct, 26 2017 @ 01:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Blue Shift

Obviously the external influences must affect Mars



posted on Oct, 26 2017 @ 01:32 AM
link   
a reply to: muzzleflash

I think that science is doing a tremendous amount of work. It is obvious that that there are many gaps/mistakes, like within this very thread, but slowly and surely they are piecing it together. Even with their own debate and decision making processes there are many opposing arguments and flaws
That said; it stays interesting and my own opinions change weekly as I found new research but we need to understand all the possibilities. Still this thread could not be taken as the answers and hopefully just be enjoyed. Can you see the humour?
For me however it is clear that we work on a cyclic basis with the ad-hock events thrown in.



posted on Oct, 26 2017 @ 01:33 AM
link   
a reply to: punkinworks10

Thanx for highlighting it. Many of the lists I made are some years old and with making this thread I only did a quick check.



posted on Oct, 26 2017 @ 03:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Astrocyte




Nobody puts in that much effort unless they want to distract you from a bad argument.


Since when does well researched material, a hypothesis backed up by other scientific facts, and well laid out thesis basically, equate to someone just wanting to distract you?

LoL thats the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard, you may not agree but saying anyone putting out that much information just means they are trying to fool you, is a total affront to any research ever done on anything.

it boggles my mind how some of you Church of Climatology people think.
edit on 26-10-2017 by SailorJerry because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2017 @ 05:54 AM
link   
a reply to: muzzleflash


there are plenty of ways to interpret a piece of evidence - some of them can be diametrically opposed views even.

But they discount those, huh. Those are 'anomalies'. Nowhere in the world can one go and see the entire column of history all in one place. Except for calamitous events like the Cretaceous boundary layer that appear all over the world, for instance, all the other guesstimates are represented by core samples from different places. That record is broken up into bits and pieces over time due to the earths dynamic change cycles like erosion, plate tectonics, the seasons, catastrophic events, etc.



posted on Oct, 26 2017 @ 11:10 AM
link   
Icycle2,

This just in,

Two layers of volcanic ash bearing the unique chemical fingerprint of Yellowstone's most recent super-eruption have been found in seafloor sediments in the Santa Barbara Basin, off the coast of Southern California. These layers of ash, or tephra, are sandwiched among sediments that contain a remarkably detailed record of ocean and climate change. Together, both the ash and sediments reveal that the last eruption was not a single event, but two closely spaced eruptions that tapped the brakes on a natural global-warming trend that eventually led the planet out of a major ice age.

"We discovered here that there are two ash-forming super-eruptions 170 years apart and each cooled the ocean by about 3 degrees Celsius," said U.C. Santa Barbara geologist Jim Kennett, who will be presenting a poster about the work on Wednesday, 25 Oct., at the annual meeting of the Geological Society of America in Seattle. Attaining the resolution to detect the separate eruptions and their climate effects is due to several special conditions found in the Santa Barbara Basin, Kennett said.

One condition is the steady supply of sediment to the basin from land -- about one millimeter per year. Then there is the highly productive ocean in the area, fed by upwelling nutrients from the deep ocean. This produced abundant tiny shells of foraminifera that sank to the seafloor where they were buried and preserved in the sediment. These shells contain temperature-dependent oxygen isotopes that reveal the sea surface temperatures in which they lived.

But none of this would be much use, said Kennett, if it not for the fact that oxygen levels at the seafloor in the basin are so low as to preclude burrowing marine animals that mix the sediments and degrade details of the climate record. As a result, Kennett and his colleagues can resolve the climate with decadal resolution.


Yellowstone Twins Super Eruptions



posted on Oct, 26 2017 @ 02:59 PM
link   
a reply to: punkinworks10

Thanx



posted on Oct, 27 2017 @ 02:47 PM
link   
a reply to: ICycle2

I like to thank (thax) everyone with positive input towards this thread. I'm surprised with the reaction (which is mostly about the coding - layout).
edit on 1C172017-10-27T14:48:29-05:00FridayAmerica/Chicago2 by ICycle2 because: Mistake



posted on Oct, 27 2017 @ 03:40 PM
link   
a reply to: FissionSurplus

Thanx



new topics

top topics



 
120
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join