California Forest Fires, are They Caused by Climate Change or is Something Else Occurring.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

The reason the govt blames people for natural events is control.

If the disaster is someone's fault than demonizing a culprit allows them to gather support to push new regulations or policies.

If the truth came out that it's normal Nature stuff than there's no boogeyman to fear monger with.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Oh boy... I already showed how Phage was leaving out factual information.

Oh girl...I think you better edit that post where you were presenting as fact that the “Camp Fire” was a Smokey-the-Bear-type dip-sh?t move, when it was only in name.

Do you even research, gal?

a reply to: Phage

Oh Phage...

...
“We show that the X-ray contribution from the solar wind charge exchange is about forty percent in the galactic plane, and even less elsewhere,” said Massimiliano Galeazzi, an astrophysicist at the University of Miami and an author on the study. “So the rest of the X-rays must come from the Local Hot Bubble, proving that it exists.”

However, DXL also measured some high-energy X-rays that couldn’t possibly come from the solar wind or the Local Hot Bubble.

“At higher energies, these sources contribute less than a quarter of the X-ray emission,” said Youaraj Uprety, lead author on the study and an astrophysicist at University of Miami at the time the research was conducted. “So there’s an unknown source of X-rays in this energy range.”

In the decades since we first discovered the X-ray emission that permeates space, three main theories have been bandied about to explain its origins. First, and quickly ruled out, was the idea that these X-rays are a kind of background noise, coming from the distant reaches of the universe. Our galaxy has lots of neutral gas that would absorb X-rays coming from distant sources – meaning that these X-rays must originate somewhere near our solar system.
...

www.nasa.gov...

There is a reason why in the OP, not this one, I posted "cosmic rays, especially x-rays..."

Once again, Phage is just tying to play semantics...

BTW, Phage... I can play semantics too... x-rays in particular are high energetic particles in the ranges between 80ev-1000kev, not "100kev as you claimed...

A soft X-ray (80-1500 eV) grazing-incidence monochromator with varied-line-spacing plane gratings at PF-BL-11A

originally posted by: Phage

Oh. And the energy levels. That's another thing. The cosmic rays were in the 300-800 GeV range, right? X-rays have energy levels of 100eV to 100keV. Not even close to the particle radiation which was detected. And quite different. Because it was particle radiation, not x-rays.
...

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

“So there’s an unknown source of X-rays in this energy range.”

Yes? X-rays:

X-rays are electromagnetic waves with wavelengths in the range of 0.01 to 10 nanometers and energies in the range of 100 eV to 100 keV

courses.lumenlearning.com...

As opposed to 300-800 GeV.

See the difference? X-rays are not the same thing as high energy particles. You are talking about two different things entirely.

x-rays in particular are high energetic particles in the ranges between 80ev-1000kev

No, not particles, electromagnetic radiation. And when you get much over 100 keV, you're generally talking about gamma rays.

In any case, they don't approach the energy levels of the cosmic rays detected in 2008. Very different.

originally posted by: Phage
...
As opposed to 300-800 GeV.

See the difference? X-rays are not the same thing as high energy particles. You are talking about two different things entirely.

Which is why in that particular thread i named it "cosmic rays, especially x-rays...."

BTW, once again I showed that you are wrong, soft x-rays are in the ranges between 80ev-1500ev, meanwhile the higher ranges of x-rays reach 1000kev, but you claimed x-rays ranges are only between 100ev-100kev. You got both ranges wrong...


A soft X-ray (80-1500 eV) grazing-incidence monochromator with varied-line-spacing plane gratings at PF-BL-11A

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

BTW, once again I showed that you are wrong, soft x-rays are in the ranges between 80ev-1500ev,

That would be 1.5 keV, right?

meanwhile the higher ranges of x-rays reach 1000kev,

No. Those would be called gamma rays.

originally posted by: Phage

That would be 1.5 keV, right?

meanwhile the higher ranges of x-rays reach 1000kev,

No.

Those are the ranges for soft x-rays Phage...now what are you trying to imply Phage?...

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Just making sure that you understood the units you were talking about.

And that the cosmic rays detected in 2008 were not x-rays.

originally posted by: muzzleflash
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

The reason the govt blames people for natural events is control.

If the disaster is someone's fault than demonizing a culprit allows them to gather support to push new regulations or policies.

If the truth came out that it's normal Nature stuff than there's no boogeyman to fear monger with.

You are 100% right. The reason why government agencies, and certain groups, keep trying to blame it all on mankind is for control. Plain and simple. But these plans for controlling people and keeping us under the false belief that "we can stop/mitigate climate change" includes increasing the price of energy/oil/gas to prices that most people wouldn't be able to pay for. Similar to how it is in Venezuela when Chavez introduced heavy measures 'to combat climate change."

It has 'ray' in the name so it must be cosmic. lol.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Just making sure that you understood the units you were talking about.

And that the cosmic rays detected in 2008 were not x-rays.

And Phage, even in this thread I pointed to how the name of that particular thread i made was/is...

Cosmic Rays, especially X-Rays, The Solar System is Receiving Have been Increasing

Because the energy we have been receiving which keeps increases includes other forms of cosmic rays as well as high energetic x-rays as I pointed to this other article.

NASA-Funded Sounding Rocket Solves One Cosmic Mystery, Reveals Another

Are you going to try to continue to play semantics meanwhile never admitting to being wrong Phage?...

originally posted by: roadgravel
It has 'ray' in the name so it must be cosmic. lol.

Lol, no it' called "cosmic rays" because they come from sources outside the solar system.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

So Phage woke up, stubbed his toe and spilled coffee on his spam — it’s still midday out there — he’s allowed a mistake every decade or so.

But beyond having a pissing contest with him, any means to show actual causation (re: cosmic rays cause forest fires...ostensibly the OP is a musing on the possibility, but I’m betting it’s more of a “climate-change-is-a-government-sponsored-hoax used to fatten the academic coffers of the deep state university system”)? Not some dinky app. Where’s the beef?

Genetic mutation of plant life could cause some plants to be become much more susceptible to fire by killing cells, changing their chemical make-up, thinning bark etc.

It is my understanding though that CA has become so overly regulated that common fire break practices have become illegal. Also the state is failing to do proscribed burns and forestry practices allowing for slash/culling of trees leaves entire forests of veritable tinder by killing the trees but not removing them. These are unwanted forest trees they wish to kill off to make room for more valuable timber.

And then there's the owls...

On the other hand I don't think Directed Energy Weapons are out of the question.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

And Phage, even in this thread I pointed to how the name of that particular thread i made was/is...

Yeah. But this is this thread. And it's about cosmic rays.

But in that one you claim that x-rays are increasing?

Are you going to try to continue to play semantics meanwhile never admitting to being wrong Phage?...

Not unless I am.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Their claim that these fires are "worse" isn't very scientific either.

We would need to see the history of that region over the last 1000 years to determine how "bad" the fire is.

Notice that the terminology "worse" and "bad" are subjective opinions because they are based on only a few decades of data. It's all so vague and unknown.

My problem with the MSM is that they have access to the truth but will discard it and focus on the excitement of fear mongering and use it to play politics. It generates higher ratings if you scare the news watching audiences.

a reply to: BeefNoMeat

But beyond having a pissing contest with him, any means to show actual causation

I've got an email into the developer. Asking him what the numbers on the map mean. I'm guessing it's number of users.

a reply to: BeefNoMeat

Ah, so according to your own pissing contest is either "anthropogenic climate change" or there can be no "natural climate change," even thou when there is evidence that the Earth's surface is receiving a lot more energy than it has for several decades, but that can't possibly be the reason for the climate changes and other changes Earth, and other planets in the Solar System have been undergoing?...

BTW, that "dinky app" was engineered by a software engineer with a PhD in Physics alongside graduate students of physics...

a reply to: BeefNoMeat

“climate-change-is-a-government-sponsored-hoax used to fatten the academic coffers of the deep state university system”

That would be an accurate assessment

a reply to: Gothmog

So. Climate isn't changing?
Or, the government is causing it to change on purpose?