Oil Induced Ice Age

[Zarkov]

Currently there is a film of petroleum oil covering all the surface waters and seas and oceans of the world.

 

This was first noted by micro layer marine biologists in the 1930's. This layer has been analysed as comming from petroleum products.

 

The layer of oil is reducing water evaporation, decreasinf rain fall and leading to massive droughts.

 

Ultimately there will be a heating up phase leading to a melt down of the polar ice caps.

 

This will release large amounts of fresh water onto the surface of the sea, resulting in massive evaporation induced cloud cover.

 

An Ice Age will be the end result.

[blike]

What caused the micro-layer zarkov?

[fafalone]

All right then.

 

1) A few millionths of a percent does not constitute a layer, the layer is not a significant percentage.

 

2) If the polar ice caps melted, the water from them would NOT be above the layer since the density of petroleum is less than one (which is why it's on the surface anyway)

 

3) Ice-ages have been linked to cosmic rays over the past billion years, through cosmic ray diffusion from galactic spiral arm movement with meteorites. Furthermore, the author of the research acknowledges glacial influences, however it is the formation that would cause an ice age, and increased cloud cover would warm the earth even further, since the heat could not escape. This is why Venus is hotter than Mercury, even though Mercury is closer to the sun.

[Zarkov]

Hi Blike, the layer is caused by oil pollution. Oil is falling/washed from the skys, oil is there from oil spills, washed off the roads, pumped out of ships,,,,,,,general lack of understanding how

 

Black Gold is the base for the Devil!!

 

Ps I do not hold personal gods or devils.

 

 

Ever since the industrial revolution this layer of oil has been slowly getting thicker, like some in the population!!

 

Oh and by the way :_

From the air down, oil film, less salty fresh water, salty water.....

Just in case you do not understand density layering!

[fafalone]

It is you who does not understand density layering.

 

Salt waters density is 0.8

Pure waters density is 1

Pure ice has a density of 0.92

 

All petroleum products have a density <0.5

 

Therefore, no kind of abundant water, especially that of a glacier, has a density that would let it stay above petroleum.

[blike]

Yea, but realize in the 1930s, they weren't polluting as bad as we are now.

[fafalone]

Physical Review Letters, Jun.29.02

 

Cosmic Ray Diffusion from the Galactic Spiral Arms, Iron Meteorites, and a Possible Climatic Connection

 

Nir J. Shaviv

1Canadian Institute for Theoretical Astrophysics, University of Toronto, 60 St. George Street, Toronto, Ontario M5S 3H8, Canada

and Racah Institute of Physics, Hebrew University, Jerusalem 91904, Israel

(Received 15 August 2001; published 16 July 2002)

We construct a Galactic cosmic ray (CR) diffusion model. The CR flux reaching the Solar System

should periodically increase each crossing of a Galactic spiral arm. We confirm this prediction in the CR

exposure age record of iron meteorites. We find that although the geological evidence for the occurrence

of iceage epochs in the past eon is not unequivocal, it appears to have a nontrivial correlation with the

spiral arm crossings—agreeing in period and phase.

DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.89.051102 PACS numbers: 98.35.Hj, 92.40.Cy, 92.70.Gt, 98.70.Sa

 

 

With the possible exception of those at extremely high

energies, cosmic rays (CRs) are believed to originate from

supernova (SN) remnants [1,2]. Moreover, most SNe in

spiral galaxies like our own are those which originate from

massive stars; thus, they predominantly reside in the spiral

arms, where most massive stars are born and shortly thereafter

explode as SNe [3].

Thus, while the Sun is crossing the Galactic spiral arms,

the cosmic ray flux (CRF) is expected to be higher. To

estimate the CRF variation, we construct a simple diffusion

model which considers that the CR sources reside in the

Galactic spiral arms. We expand the basic CR diffusion

models (e.g., Ref. [2]) to include a source distribution

located in the Galactic spiral arms. Namely, we replace a

homogeneous disk with an arm geometry as given by

Taylor and Cordes [4], and solve the time dependent

diffusion problem. To take into account the ‘‘Orion spur’’

[5], in which the Sun currently resides, we add an arm

‘‘segment’’ at our present location. Since the density of HII

regions in this spur is roughly half of the density in the real

nearby arms [5], we assume it to have half the typical CR

sources as the main arms. We integrate the CR sources

assuming a diffusion coefficient of D 1028 cm2= sec,

which is a typical value obtained in diffusion models for

the CRs [2,6,7].We also assume a halo half-width of 2 kpc,

which again is a typical value obtained in diffusion models

[2], but, more importantly, we reproduce with it the 10Be

survival fraction [8]. Thus, the only free parameter in the

model is the angular velocity

 

p around the

Galaxy of the Solar System relative to the spiral arm

pattern speed, which is later adopted using observations.

Results of the model are depicted in Fig. 1. For the nominal

values chosen in our diffusion model and the particular

pattern speed which will soon be shown to fit various data,

the expected CRF changes from about 25% of the current

day CRF to about 135%. Moreover, the average CRF

obtained in units of today’s CRF is 76%. This is consistent

with measurements showing that the average CRF over the

period 150–700 Myr before present (BP), was about 28%

lower than the current day CRF [12].

Interestingly, the temporal behavior is both skewed and

lagging after the spiral arm passages. The lag arises because

the CRs are emitted from SNe which on average

occur roughly 15 Myr after the average ionizing photons

are emitted. The skewness arises because it takes time for

the CRs to diffuse after they are emitted, thereby forming a

wake after them. This typically introduces a 10 Myr lag in

the flux, totaling about 25 Myr with the SN delay. This lag

is actually observed in the synchrotron emission from

M51, which shows a peaked emission trailing the spiral

arms [1].

The spiral pattern speed of the Milky Way has not

yet been reasonably determined through astronomical observations.

Nevertheless, a survey of the literature reveals

that almost all observational determinations cluster either

around

 

9 to 13 km s1=kpc [13] or around

 

2 to 5 km s1=kpc [15]. In fact, one analysis

[14] revealed that both

 

5 or 11:5 km s1=kpc fit

the data. However, if the spiral arms are a density wave

[16], as is commonly believed [17], then the observations

of the four-arm spiral structure in HI outside the Galactic

solar orbit [18] severely constrain the pattern speed to

 

* 9:1 2:4 km s1=kpc, since the four-arm density

wave spiral cannot extend beyond the outer four to one

Lindblad resonance [11]. We therefore expect the spiral

pattern speed obtained to coincide with one of the two

aforementioned ranges, with a strong theoretical argumentation

favoring the first range.

To validate the above prediction that the CRF varied

periodically, we require a direct ‘‘historic’’ record from

which the actual time dependence of the CRF can be

extracted. To find this record, we take a compilation of

74 iron meteorites which were 41K=40K exposure dated

[19]. CRF exposure dating (which measures the duration a

given meteorite was exposed to CRs) assumes that the CRF

history was constant, such that a linear change in the

integrated flux corresponds to a linear change in age.

However, if the CRF is variable, the apparent exposure

age will be distorted. Long periods during which the CRF

is low would correspond to slow increases in the exposure

age. Consequently, Fe meteorites with real ages within this

low CRF period would cluster together since they will not

have significantly different integrated exposures. Periods

with higher CRFs will have the opposite effect and spread

apart the exposure ages of meteorites. To avoid real clustering

in the data (due to one parent body generating many

meteorites), we remove all occurrences of Fe meteorites of

the same classification that are separated by less than

100 Myr and replace them by the average. This leaves us

with 42 meteorites.

From inspection of Fig. 1, it appears that the meteorites

cluster with a period of 143 10 Myr or, equivalently,

j

 

j 11:0 0:8 km s1=kpc, which falls within the

preferred range for the spiral arm pattern speed. If we fold

the CR exposure ages over this period, we obtain the

histogram in Fig. 2. A Kolmogorov-Smirnov (K-S) test

yields a probability of 1.2% for generating this nonuniform

signal from a uniform distribution. Moreover, Fig. 2 also

describes the prediction from the CR diffusion model. We

see that the clustering is not in phase with the spiral arm

crossing, but is with the correct phase and shape predicted

by the CR model using the above pattern speed. A K-S test

yields a 90% probability for generating it from the CR

model distribution. Thus, we safely conclude that spiral

arm passages modulate the CRF with a

143 Myr period.

In 1959, Ney [20] suggested that the Galactic CRF

reaching Earth could be affecting the climate since the

CRF governs the ionization of the lower atmosphere, to

which the climate may in principle be sensitive to. If this

hypothesis is correct, we may be able to see a correlation

between the observed long term CRF variability and the

climate record on Earth.

Interestingly, the CRF reaching Earth is also variable

because of its interaction with the variable solar wind.

Thus, solar activity variations will also have climatic

effects if the CRF affects the climate (e.g., [21]). Under

the assumption that it does affect climate, we can estimate

how large an effect can a possible CRF-temperature relation

be. This can be derived from the fact that the best fit to

the global warming in the past 120 years is obtained if

somewhat less than half is attributed to anthropogenic

greenhouse gases and somewhat more than half to the

increased activity of the Sun [22,23]. Thus, between

about 1940 and 1970, the global temperature, which decreased

by 0.15 K, is best explained as 0:2 K attributed

to the reduced solar activity and

0:05 K to greenhouse

gases [22,23]. A global CRF climate effect is presumably

more likely to arise from CRs that can reach the troposphere

and equatorial latitudes. Thus, it is reasonable to

assume that a possible effect would arise from CRs that

have high rigidities ( * 10–15 GeV=nucleon). We therefore

normalize the low geomagnetic data from Haleakala,

Hawaii, and Huancayo, Peru, to the higher geomagnetic

data of Climax, Colorado [24] that were measured over a

longer period (e.g., [25]). We find that the 0:2 K cooling

correlated with a 1.5% increase in the high rigidity CRF.

Thus, changing the CRF by 1% would correspond to a

global change of 0:13 K, on the condition that CRs are

indeed the link relating solar activity to the climate.

For the nominal values chosen in our diffusion model,

the expected CRF changes from about 25% of the current

day CRF to about 135%. This corresponds to a temperature

change of about

10 to 5 K, relative to today’s temperature.

This range is sufficient to markably help or hinder

Earth from entering an ice-age epoch (IAE).

Extensive summaries of IAEs on Earth can be found in

Crowell [9] and Frakes et al. [10]. Those of the past eon are

summarized in Fig. 1. The nature of some of the IAEs is

well understood, while others are sketchy in detail. The

main uncertainties are noted in Fig. 1. For example, it is

unclear to what extent the milder mid-Mesozoic glaciations

can be placed on the same footing as other IAEs,

nor is it clear to what extent the period around 700 Myr BP

can be called a warm period since glaciations were present,

though probably not to the same extent as the periods

before or after. Thus, Crowell [9] concludes that the evidence

is insufficient to claim a periodicity. On the other

hand, Williams [26] claimed that a periodicity may be

present. This was elaborated upon by Frakes et al. [10].

Comparison between the CRF and the glaciations in the

past 1 Gyr shows a compelling correlation (Fig. 1). To

quantify this correlation, we perform a 2 analysis. To be

conservative, we do so with the Crowell data which are less

regular. Also, we do not consider the possible IAE around

900 Myr, though it does correlate with a spiral arm crossing.

For a given pattern speed, we predict the location

of the spiral arms using the model. We find that a minimum

is obtained for

 

10:9 0:25 km s1=kpc,

with 2

min 1:1 per degree of freedom (of which there

are 5 6 1). We also repeat the analysis when we

neglect the lag and again when we assume that the spiral

arms are separated by 90

(as opposed to the somewhat

asymmetric location obtained by Taylor and Cordes [4]).

Both assumptions degrade the fit (2

min 2:9 with no lag,

and 2

min 2:1 with a symmetric arm location). Thus, the

latter analysis assures that IAEs are more likely to be related

to the spiral arms and not a more periodic phenomena,

while the former helps assure that the CRs are more likely

to be the cause, since they are predicted (and observed) to

be lagged.

The previous analysis shows that to within the limitation

of the uncertainties in the IAEs, the predictions of the CR

diffusion model and the actual occurrences of IAE are

consistent. To understand the significance of the result,

we should also ask what the probability is that a random

distribution of IAEs could generate a 2 result which is as

small as previously obtained. To do so, glaciation epochs

were randomly chosen. To mimic the effect that nearby

glaciations might appear as one epoch, we bunch together

glaciations that are separated by less than 60 Myrs (which

is roughly the smallest separation between observed glaciations

epochs). The fraction of random configurations that

surpass the 2 obtained for the best fit found before is of

order 0.1% for any pattern speed. (If glaciations are not

bunched, the fraction is about 100 times smaller, while it is

about 5 times larger if the criterion for bunching is a separation

of 100 Myrs or less). The fraction becomes roughly

6 105 (or a 4 fluctuation), to coincidentally fit the

actual period seen in the iron meteorites.

Last, before 1 Gyr BP, there are no indications for any

IAEs, except for periods around 2–2.5 Gyr BP (Huronian)

and 3 Gyr BP (late-Archean) [9]. This too has a good

explanation within the picture presented. Different estimates

to the star formation rate (SFR) in the Milky Way

(and therefore also to the CR production) point to a peak

around 300 Myr BP, a significant dip between 1 and 2 Gyr

BP (about a third of today’s SFR) and a most significant

peak at 2–3 Gyr BP (about twice today’s SFR) [27,28].

This would imply that at 300 Myr BP, a more prominent

IAE should have occurred—explaining the large extent of

the Carboniferous-Permian IAE. Between 1 and 2 Gyr BP,

there should have been no glaciations, and indeed none

were seen. Last, IAEs should have also occurred 2 to 3 Gyr

BP, which explains the Huronian and late-Archean IAEs.

To conclude, by considering that most CR sources reside

in the Galactic spiral arms, we predict a variable CRF.

A record of this signal was indeed found in iron meteorites,

and it nicely agrees with the observations of the

Galactic spiral arm pattern speed. Next, if the apparent

solar activity climate correlation is real and arises from

modulation of the Galactic CRF reaching Earth, then

typical variations of up to O10 K could be expected

from the variable CRF. For each spiral arm crossing, the

average global temperature should reduce enough to trigger

an IAE. The record of IAEs on Earth is fully consistent

with the predicted and observed CRF variation—both in

period and in phase. Moreover, the fit improves when the

predicted lag in the IAEs after each crossing is included

and when the actual asymmetric location of the arms is

considered. Moreover, a random mechanism to generate

the IAEs is excluded. Nevertheless, one should bear in

mind that the weakest link still remains the glaciological

record with its uncertainties. That is, more research on the

timing and extent of glaciations is required.

The last agreement is between the eon time scale star

formation activity of the Milky Way and the presence or

complete absence of IAEs. Here a more detailed research

on the SFR activity would be useful to strengthen (or

perhaps refute) the long term correlation.

If the apparent correlation between observed CRF variations

and climate on Earth is not simply a remarkable

coincidence, an unavoidable question is what is the physical

mechanism behind the CRF-temperature relation?

Currently, there is no single undisputed mechanism

through which cosmic rays can affect the climate. There

are, however, several observational indications that such a

relation could exist. For example, Forbush events during

which the CRF suddenly drops on a time scale of days were

found to correlate with the amount of ‘‘storminess’’ as

encapsulated by the vorticity area index [29], or a concurrent

drop in the cloud cover [30]. There were also

claims that the Galactic CRF, which is modulated by the

solar cycle and slightly lags behind it, correlates with the

low altitude cloud cover variations [25,31]. Clearly, an indepth

study on the possible climatic effects of cosmic rays

is imperative.

The author is particularly grateful to Peter Ulmschneider

for the stimulating discussions which led to the development

of this idea. The author also thanks Norm Murray,

Chris Thompson, and Joe Weingartner for their very helpful

comments and suggestions.

[1] M. S. Longair, High Energy Astrophysics (Cambridge

University Press, Cambridge, 1994), 2nd ed., Vol. 2.

[2] V. S. Berezinski

¢

, S.V. Bulanov, V.A. Dogiel, V. L.

Ginzburg, and V. S. Ptuskin, Astrophysics of Cosmic

Rays (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1990).

[3] P. M. Dragicevich, D. G. Blair, and R. R. Burman, Mon.

Not. R. Astron. Soc. 302, 693 (1999).

[4] J. H. Taylor and J. M. Cordes, Astrophys. J. 411, 674

(1993).

[5] Y. M. Georgelin and Y. P. Georgelin, Astron. Astrophys.

49, 57 (1976).

[6] W. Webber and A. Soutoul, Astrophys. J. 506, 335 (1998).

[7] U. Lisenfeld, P. Alexander, G.G. Pooley, and T. Wilding,

Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 281, 301 (1996).

[8] A. Lukasiak, P. Ferrando, F. B. McDonald, and W. R.

Webber, Astrophys. J. 423, 426 (1994).

[9] J. C. Crowell, Pre-Mesozoic Ice Ages: Their Bearing on

Understanding the Climate System (Memoir Geological

Society of America, Boulder, CO, 1999), Vol. 192.

[10] L. A. Frakes, J. E. Francis, and J. I. Syktus, Climate Modes

of the Phanerozoic (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,

U.K., 1992).

[11] N. J. Shaviv (to be published).

[12] B. Lavielle, K. Marti, J. Jeannot, K. Nishiizumi, and

M. Caffee, Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 170, 93 (1999).

[13] The first range of results for

 

includes

11:5 km s1=kpc, C. C. Lin, C. Yuan, and F. H. Shu,

Astrophys. J. 155, 721 (1969);

11:5 km s1=kpc,

C. Yuan, Astrophys. J. 158, 871 (1969);

11:5 km s1=kpc, C. Yuan, Astrophys. J. 158, 889

(1969); 13:5 1:5 km s1=kpc, M.A. Gordon,

Astrophys. J. 222, 100 (1978);

11:5 km s1=kpc [14];

9–13 km s1=kpc, E.M. Grivnev, Sov. Astron. Lett. 9,

287 (1983); and 7:5–11:5 km s1=kpc, G.R. Ivanov,

Pis’ma Astron. Zh. 9, 200 (1983) [sov. Astron. Lett. 9,

107 (1983)].

[14] J. Palous, J. Ruprecht, O. Dluzhnevskaia, and T. Piskunov,

Astron. Astrophys. 61, 27 (1977).

[15] The second range of results for

 

includes 2:5 1:5 km s1=kpc, M. Creze and M. O. Mennessier,

Astron. Astrophys. 27, 281 (1973);

5 km s1=kpc

[14];

5 km s1=kpc, A.H. Nelson and T. Matsuda,

Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 179, 663 (1977); 1:4 3:6 km s1=kpc, I.N. Mishurov, E. D. Pavlovskaia, and

A. A. Suchkov, Astron. Zh. 56, 268 (1979);

2–4 km s1=kpc, E.M. Grivnev, Sov. Astron. Lett. 7,

303 (1981); and 2:3 1 km s1=kpc, L.H. Amaral and

J. R. D. Lepine, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 286, 885

(1997).

[16] C. C. Lin and F. H. Shu, Astrophys. J. 140, 646 (1964).

[17] J. Binney and S. Tremaine, Galactic Dynamics (Princeton

University Press, Princeton, 1988).

[18] L. Blitz, M. Fich, and S. Kulkarni, Science 220, 1233

(1983).

[19] H. Voshage and H. Feldmann, Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 45,

293 (1979).

[20] E. P. Ney, Nature (London) 183, 451 (1959).

[21] W. H. Soon, E. S. Posmentier, and S. L. Baliunas, Ann.

Geophys. 18, 583 (2000).

[22] W. H. Soon, E. S. Posmentier, and S. L. Baliunas,

Astrophys. J. 472, 891 (1996).

[23] J. Beer,W. Mende, and R. Stellmacher, Quat. Sci. Rev. 19,

403 (2000).

[24] G. A. Bazilevskaya, Space Sci. Rev. 94, 25 (2000).

[25] H. Svensmark, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 5027 (1998).

[26] G. E. Williams, Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 26, 361 (1975).

[27] J. M. Scalo, in Starbursts and Galaxy Evolution (Editions

Frontie´res, Gif-Sur-Yvette, 1987),

p. 445.

[28] H. J. Rocha-Pinto, J. Scalo, W. J. Maciel, and C. Flynn,

Astron. Astrophys. 358, 869 (2000).

[29] B. A. Tinsley and G.W. Deen, J. Geophys. Res. D12,

22 283 (1991).

[30] M. I. Pudovkin and S.V. Veretenenko, J. Atmos. Terr.

Phys. 57, 1349 (1995).

[31] N. Marsh and H. Svensmark, Space Sci. Rev. 94, 215

(2000).

[Zarkov]

No this has been a continual build up.

 

Today in the west of the USA, and in Sydney, fire storm years, relative humidities of 5% have been reported.

 

We are entering a critical time for LIFE on this Planet.

 

With all the talk of Global Warming being due to greenhouse gases, the oil problem has not been examined to my knowledge.

 

This is the real cause of Global Warming.

Thanks, Blike

[Radical Edward]

water is a greenouse gas, and a large amount of water in the atmosphere would actually aid the planet heating up.

 

conversely there is a thought that the heating of the polar caps could lead to a layer of fresh water sitting around near the north pole, disrupting the currents such as the gulf stream, and leading to a mini ice age in the locality of northern Europe and so on.

[Radical Edward]

Originally posted by fafalone

It is you who does not understand density layering.

 

Salt waters density is 0.8

Pure waters density is 1

Pure ice has a density of 0.92

 

All petroleum products have a density <0.5

 

Therefore, no kind of abundant water, especially that of a glacier, has a density that would let it stay above petroleum.

 

you sure about salt water there? by that logic icebergs would sink.

[Zarkov]

It alright Rad E, we know what he means!!

knowing

[Radical Edward]

Originally posted by Zarkov

Currently there is a film of petroleum oil covering all the surface waters and seas and oceans of the world.

This was first noted by micro layer marine biologists in the 1930's. This layer has been analysed as comming from petroleum products.

The layer of oil is reducing water evaporation, decreasinf rain fall and leading to massive droughts.

Ultimately there will be a heating up phase leading to a melt down of the polar ice caps.

This will release large amounts of fresh water onto the surface of the sea, resulting in massive evaporation induced cloud cover.

An Ice Age will be the end result.

 

I fail to see how this layer of petroleum products (extremely thin) whould have a significant effect though, as I pointed out, water is actally a greenhouse gas, and the reduction of water in the atmosphere would actually aid the globe cooling down, as opposed to heating it up.

A massive release of water vapour into the atmosphere would actually result in the planet heating up, this is one of the major concerns at the moment, since we are quite close to this threshold for massive accelerated Global warming.

[Zarkov]

RadE, it is all to do with "water temperature".

 

This is a concept not explored. If you expose a sealed container of water in the sun, you can measure it's temperature at equilibrium.

 

In PNG I obtained readings of above 80 degrees C. In Tasmania readings of 60+ degrees C.

 

This is not air temperature. It is this water temperature that is important.

[Zarkov]

Lack of water vapour, will basically create desert conditions, where the max temp will be raised and the min temp will be lowered, in other words the range in the temperature spread will widen.

 

Mean temperatures will basically remain the same. But the water temperature will increase enourmously!!

 

It is this temperature that will dry out the land and eventually drive the heat required to create an Ice Age

[Radical Edward]

again the atention must focus on the retention of this heat. take mercury for example - the side that is facing the sun is hot enough to melt lead, wheras the side facing away from the sun is minus hundreds of degrees.

large amounts of water vapour in the atmosphere would lead to a heating effect rather than a cooling one.

 

note that I am not discounting the possibility of an ice age occuring, I merely doubt how and why you say it would work.

[Zarkov]

OK, first step to this is to melt the ice caps, releasing >80% world's fresh water into the top layers of the sea! This occurs as the Earth dries out. Heat not captured.

 

second, the layer of brackish water is heated to high temperatures with high evaporation, leading to massive water vapour back into the air, heat captured, heating up the planet, but shading the polar regions.

 

The polar regions start depositing all the evaporated water as ice and snow.

 

The radiant heat of a water vapourless planet will drive the Ice Age to completion.

 

RadE, I am not a subscriber to the Greenhouse Effect. Global warming will be minimal.

[Sayonara]

Originally posted by fafalone

Physical Review Letters, Jun.29.02

 

[lots and lots of snipping]

 

[31] N. Marsh and H. Svensmark, Space Sci. Rev. 94, 215

(2000).

 

:offtopic:

 

Naughty Admin. Not drop of petroleum in that whole article.

 

Interesting though.

[fafalone]

That article goes to the cause of ice-ages (there being no mention of petrol being the point)

 

 

 

Zarkov gets more cretinous every post.

[Sayonara]

Originally posted by fafalone

That article goes to the cause of ice-ages (there being no mention of petrol being the point)

I could post an article that explains in minute detail how smoking causes lung cancer. This does not exclude any other factors from causing lung cancer.

 

(Although TBH I think the whole "Oceans trapped by oil microfilm" idea is yet more speculation based on 'what if' extrapolative thought processes.)

 

 

Do you like my new sig? I think it's rather fetching.

[fafalone]

The author of the article states that the research is not conclusive.

[fafalone]

And I love the sig

[aman]

The United States is covered by thousands of vapor trails from aircraft, all day every day. Discover magazine had an article that investigated the time period after 9/11 when all aircraft was grounded for several days. The results compiled showed an increase of 3 degrees average over the U.S during this period and the temperatures went back to normal after the planes went back in the air.

I thought that was interesting.

Just aman

[Sayonara]

The research will be very difficult to conclude, I imagine (try getting cosmic rays in a centrifuge). But looking at the article CRs probably do play a significant role in Ice Age cycles.

 

However, what I meant to say with the lung cancer analogy is that there are almost certainly other factors involved.

 

 

Also, I would suggest that the particulars of the distribution of water on a planet would have a distinct effect on the way in which an Ice Age progressed. IF petroleum were preventing water evaporation and thereby modifying the water cycle, even by the most minute degree, would the interaction of CRs with the planet's hydrosphere not be altered in turn?

 

Zarkov's idea is intriguing but, and alas, beleagured by his already well-catalogued shortcomings.

 

 

I still think he could do with attaching diagrams to his initial posts...

[aman]

When we pass through the tail of a comet or a dense cloud of past dust the Earth gets covered by an increased layer of crap. Maybe It soaks up the oil. I think the investigators in the arctic see a lot more space dust on the ground than they do oil. Oil is organc compounds and bacteria just loves that stuff.

Just aman

[Zarkov]

Yes there is an Oil Dynamic, it is constantly evaporating, redepositing, being nibbled by bugs etc, BUT all that goes up comes down, and all that goes ashore comes back, and all that gets eaten gets replaced by more and more!!

 

Basically Global Warming is not happening.....world temp increases are slight

 

Basically the Greenhouse effect is happening but no real impact as yet (CO2 levels have gone up 100%+, methane 3X etc)> The consequences of this should be increased rainfall, this is not happening.

 

Oil slick theory would expect "HEAVY" rain / draught etc.......this is what is happening.

 

There is a ?world wide increase in cloud.....but this cloud is sparse and most does not hold rain. It is a consequence of low humidities.

 

There is an increase of dust / aerosols, this is a consequence of the air not being washed as often.

 

All the signs are there and yet there has not been any research into this aspect. It is not even considered in the models.

 

I do expect there could be some movement in this area.....I have been trying to alert professional people for at least 15 years!