Sun oddly quiet - hints at "Little Ice Age"?

[Doc Savage Fan]

Originally posted by: NeoV
more anti-GW spew from GenX, how surprising. Ignore actual facts about the ice conditions, mention something completely irrelevant about the weather in your home state, giggle at how clever you are - we know the pattern.

How often has the 'northwest passage' been open? According to you, it's because of the summer?

We get it - you don't believe the stats that say the earth is warming, or that mankind has anything to do with it - you don't need to pull a Rush on every GW thread with a pile of BS to make your 'stance' known.

Stunt - you may want to actually read what actual scientists say about GW instead of the 'here are the lies we use to refute GW' talking points that you've clearly memorized. The National Center for Policy Analysis - aka the source of most of that anti-GW drivel you posted - is funded by Exxon.

Refute the article and spare us your personal attacks.

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: XMan
From National Geographic:

http://news.nationalgeographic...un-global-cooling.html

Interesting article. Anecdotally this has been one of the cooler springs around here that I can remember. We even had snow in early April.

I read somewhere, I am looking for a link now, that the Earth was due for an "Ice Age" and that maybe global warming was to some degree counter acting the predicted cooling. When I read the article I put it down to the fact that global climate is an extremely complex system and I am not sure we humans have the science to completely understand it yet.

 

[Budmantom]

The dem's don't let the facts get in the way of their political agenda, the debate is over and the radical lefts science is in.

Now let's start taxing carbon, hope and change.

 

[NeoV]

what are you talking about Doc??? - from the ARTICLE:

Even if the current solar lull is the beginning of a prolonged quiet, the scientists say, the star's effects on climate will pale in contrast with the influence of human-made greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2).

"I think you have to bear in mind that the CO2 is a good 50 to 60 percent higher than normal, whereas the decline in solar output is a few hundredths of one percent down," Lockwood said. "I think that helps keep it in perspective."

Why would I want to 'refute' any of that?

 

[MovingTarget]

Originally posted by: Budmantom
The dem's don't let the facts get in the way of their political agenda, the debate is over and the radical lefts science is in.

Now let's start taxing carbon, hope and change.

:roll: Science isn't left or right, much less radically so. GW is pretty well generally accepted within the scientific community. Just because one agrees with what science has said, and agrees that action must be taken, does not mean that one has to support such nonsense as taxing carbon, signing Kyoto, or punitively taxing gasoline consumption...that is political, whereas the science shouldn't be.

/taps sarcasm meter...hopes the battery isn't dead so he won't have to change it again...

 

[eleison]

Originally posted by: MovingTarget

Originally posted by: Budmantom
The dem's don't let the facts get in the way of their political agenda, the debate is over and the radical lefts science is in.

Now let's start taxing carbon, hope and change.

:roll: Science isn't left or right, much less radically so. GW is pretty well generally accepted within the scientific community. Just because one agrees with what science has said, and agrees that action must be taken, does not mean that one has to support such nonsense as taxing carbon, signing Kyoto, or punitively taxing gasoline consumption...that is political, whereas the science shouldn't be.

/taps sarcasm meter...hopes the battery isn't dead so he won't have to change it again...

Sorry I did not read most of this thread.. or even this posting -- don't want to waste too much of my time. But I would like to interject the following: You guys are all wrong.. Like most terrible things like swine flu that comes from mexico, its el nino. ALso, GWB is not generally accepted in the scientific community according to the communist news network. That is all.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Originally posted by: NeoV
what are you talking about Doc??? - from the ARTICLE:

Even if the current solar lull is the beginning of a prolonged quiet, the scientists say, the star's effects on climate will pale in contrast with the influence of human-made greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2).

"I think you have to bear in mind that the CO2 is a good 50 to 60 percent higher than normal, whereas the decline in solar output is a few hundredths of one percent down," Lockwood said. "I think that helps keep it in perspective."

Why would I want to 'refute' any of that?

From the article:
"In general, recent research has been building a case that the sun has a slightly bigger influence on Earth's climate than most theories have predicted."

"There are many uncertainties," said Jose Abreu, a doctoral candidate at the Swiss government's research institute Eawag. "We don't know the sensitivity of the climate to changes in solar intensity. In my opinion, I wouldn't play with things I don't know."


Sounds to me that the science isn't nearly as settled as we were led to believe. Abreu flat out admits that "We don't know the sensitivity of the climate to changes in solar intensity." It's becoming quite apparent that our 'experts' have vastly underestimated the effects of solar activity and extraterrestrial factors on our climate. So here we have this potentially huge variable that we don't understand...it's getting harder and harder to ignore that elephant in the middle of the room.

In addition, this article doesn't even mention current research underway regarding a known direct correlation between cloud formation and solar winds interacting with cosmic rays that can be traced back thousands of years. The amount of cosmic rays that get through the solar wind determines how many clouds form. The amount of cloud cover determines how hot or cold the planet is. Current MMGW warming science does not address anything about this potential explanation for our climate changes. All experiments to date have reinforced this theory. Research and a large scale experiment at CERN is currently underway.

The "science is NOT settled" and you can quote me on that.

 

[microbial]

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

Originally posted by: NeoV
what are you talking about Doc??? - from the ARTICLE:

Even if the current solar lull is the beginning of a prolonged quiet, the scientists say, the star's effects on climate will pale in contrast with the influence of human-made greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2).

"I think you have to bear in mind that the CO2 is a good 50 to 60 percent higher than normal, whereas the decline in solar output is a few hundredths of one percent down," Lockwood said. "I think that helps keep it in perspective."

Why would I want to 'refute' any of that?

From the article:
"In general, recent research has been building a case that the sun has a slightly bigger influence on Earth's climate than most theories have predicted."

"There are many uncertainties," said Jose Abreu, a doctoral candidate at the Swiss government's research institute Eawag. "We don't know the sensitivity of the climate to changes in solar intensity. In my opinion, I wouldn't play with things I don't know."


Sounds to me that the science isn't nearly as settled as we were led to believe. Abreu flat out admits that "We don't know the sensitivity of the climate to changes in solar intensity." It's becoming quite apparent that our 'experts' have vastly underestimated the effects of solar activity and extraterrestrial factors on our climate. So here we have this potentially huge variable that we don't understand...it's getting harder and harder to ignore that elephant in the middle of the room.

In addition, this article doesn't even mention current research underway regarding a known direct correlation between cloud formation and solar winds interacting with cosmic rays that can be traced back thousands of years. The amount of cosmic rays that get through the solar wind determines how many clouds form. The amount of cloud cover determines how hot or cold the planet is. Current MMGW warming science does not address anything about this potential explanation for our climate changes. All experiments to date have reinforced this theory. Research and a large scale experiment at CERN is currently underway.

The "science is NOT settled" and you can quote me on that.

Science is just a progress report on our objective understanding of natural phenomena- an update, if you will..

Science is never settled--if what you mean by "settled" is to take an issue of investigation off the table. That is not how science or scientist work.

All scientific investigations are subject to constant revisitation, and if warranted, revision.

Unlike politics, the strength of science is it's unwavering objectivity and refusal to apply dogmatic thinking. The facts are the facts. Sometime facts are confounding--especially in an instance where you have some climate research being done in geological timeframes (vis-a-vis ice ages), and ecological timeframes, like global atmospheric and sea temperature changes post-industrial revolution.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Originally posted by: microbial

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

Originally posted by: NeoV
what are you talking about Doc??? - from the ARTICLE:

Even if the current solar lull is the beginning of a prolonged quiet, the scientists say, the star's effects on climate will pale in contrast with the influence of human-made greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2).

"I think you have to bear in mind that the CO2 is a good 50 to 60 percent higher than normal, whereas the decline in solar output is a few hundredths of one percent down," Lockwood said. "I think that helps keep it in perspective."

Why would I want to 'refute' any of that?

From the article:
"In general, recent research has been building a case that the sun has a slightly bigger influence on Earth's climate than most theories have predicted."

"There are many uncertainties," said Jose Abreu, a doctoral candidate at the Swiss government's research institute Eawag. "We don't know the sensitivity of the climate to changes in solar intensity. In my opinion, I wouldn't play with things I don't know."


Sounds to me that the science isn't nearly as settled as we were led to believe. Abreu flat out admits that "We don't know the sensitivity of the climate to changes in solar intensity." It's becoming quite apparent that our 'experts' have vastly underestimated the effects of solar activity and extraterrestrial factors on our climate. So here we have this potentially huge variable that we don't understand...it's getting harder and harder to ignore that elephant in the middle of the room.

In addition, this article doesn't even mention current research underway regarding a known direct correlation between cloud formation and solar winds interacting with cosmic rays that can be traced back thousands of years. The amount of cosmic rays that get through the solar wind determines how many clouds form. The amount of cloud cover determines how hot or cold the planet is. Current MMGW warming science does not address anything about this potential explanation for our climate changes. All experiments to date have reinforced this theory. Research and a large scale experiment at CERN is currently underway.

The "science is NOT settled" and you can quote me on that.

Science is just a progress report on our objective understanding of natural phenomena- an update, if you will..

Science is never settled--if what you mean by "settled" is to take an issue of investigation off the table. That is not how science or scientist work.

All scientific investigations are subject to constant revisitation, and if warranted, revision.

Unlike politics, the strength of science is it's unwavering objectivity and refusal to apply dogmatic thinking. The facts are the facts. Sometime facts are confounding--especially in an instance where you have some climate research being done in geological timeframes (vis-a-vis ice ages), and ecological timeframes, like global atmospheric and sea temperature changes post-industrial revolution.

I couldn't agree with you more. There's no question that we've seen a significant warming trend for several decades...the $64 question is 'why?' and therein lies the rub. MMGW 'science' needs to address the potential impact of extraterrestrial factors more realistically in light of current research developments.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
Hmmm....and where's all the "science is settled" people?

Hmmm, did you even read the linked article? It neither refutes nor confirms MMGW so of course the science won't be settled. BTW - anyone who puts quotes around the word SCIENCE can always be summarily dismissed from these kinds of topics. Your mind is already made up.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
Hmmm....and where's all the "science is settled" people?

Hmmm, did you even read the linked article?

Yes...I did...and what, pray tell, are you trying to say? Please be specific.

 

[lokiju]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Genx87
MN has had mild summers the past two years and last Spring was unbelievably cold. Some of the lakes still had ice on them in mid may during the fishing opener. This Spring has been a bit normal however after a second year in a row of brutal winter.

Holy hell, I know you Minnesotans take pride in being "different" but I didn't know you used a different calendar than the rest of us.

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: microbial

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

Originally posted by: NeoV
what are you talking about Doc??? - from the ARTICLE:

Even if the current solar lull is the beginning of a prolonged quiet, the scientists say, the star's effects on climate will pale in contrast with the influence of human-made greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2).

"I think you have to bear in mind that the CO2 is a good 50 to 60 percent higher than normal, whereas the decline in solar output is a few hundredths of one percent down," Lockwood said. "I think that helps keep it in perspective."

Why would I want to 'refute' any of that?

From the article:
"In general, recent research has been building a case that the sun has a slightly bigger influence on Earth's climate than most theories have predicted."

"There are many uncertainties," said Jose Abreu, a doctoral candidate at the Swiss government's research institute Eawag. "We don't know the sensitivity of the climate to changes in solar intensity. In my opinion, I wouldn't play with things I don't know."


Sounds to me that the science isn't nearly as settled as we were led to believe. Abreu flat out admits that "We don't know the sensitivity of the climate to changes in solar intensity." It's becoming quite apparent that our 'experts' have vastly underestimated the effects of solar activity and extraterrestrial factors on our climate. So here we have this potentially huge variable that we don't understand...it's getting harder and harder to ignore that elephant in the middle of the room.

In addition, this article doesn't even mention current research underway regarding a known direct correlation between cloud formation and solar winds interacting with cosmic rays that can be traced back thousands of years. The amount of cosmic rays that get through the solar wind determines how many clouds form. The amount of cloud cover determines how hot or cold the planet is. Current MMGW warming science does not address anything about this potential explanation for our climate changes. All experiments to date have reinforced this theory. Research and a large scale experiment at CERN is currently underway.

The "science is NOT settled" and you can quote me on that.

Science is just a progress report on our objective understanding of natural phenomena- an update, if you will..

Science is never settled--if what you mean by "settled" is to take an issue of investigation off the table. That is not how science or scientist work.

All scientific investigations are subject to constant revisitation, and if warranted, revision.

Unlike politics, the strength of science is it's unwavering objectivity and refusal to apply dogmatic thinking. The facts are the facts. Sometime facts are confounding--especially in an instance where you have some climate research being done in geological timeframes (vis-a-vis ice ages), and ecological timeframes, like global atmospheric and sea temperature changes post-industrial revolution.

The problem is research is being used to set a political agenda and to make ALGore rich.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
Hmmm....and where's all the "science is settled" people?

Hmmm, did you even read the linked article? It neither refutes nor confirms MMGW so of course the science won't be settled. BTW - anyone who puts quotes around the word SCIENCE can always be summarily dismissed from these kinds of topics. Your mind is already made up.

In this forum over the years, I don't know how many times I've read that the 'science is settled' on this issue...my comment is addressed to these people.

Of course the article doesn't refute or confirm MMGW...but doesn't it strike you as a little bit convoluted to use this statement as a premise to conclude "so of course the science won't be settled". Somehow...someway...this must make perfect sense to you.

And lastly...as far as quoting "science is settled" is concerned...thanks for summarily dismissing me solely on the trite basis for using quotes around the phrase...I can see that it's much easier (and probably less embarassing) for you to do this rather than engage in any intelligent dialogue on the subject...assuming, of course, that you're capable.

 

[microbial]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: microbial

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

Originally posted by: NeoV
what are you talking about Doc??? - from the ARTICLE:

Even if the current solar lull is the beginning of a prolonged quiet, the scientists say, the star's effects on climate will pale in contrast with the influence of human-made greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2).

"I think you have to bear in mind that the CO2 is a good 50 to 60 percent higher than normal, whereas the decline in solar output is a few hundredths of one percent down," Lockwood said. "I think that helps keep it in perspective."

Why would I want to 'refute' any of that?

From the article:
"In general, recent research has been building a case that the sun has a slightly bigger influence on Earth's climate than most theories have predicted."

"There are many uncertainties," said Jose Abreu, a doctoral candidate at the Swiss government's research institute Eawag. "We don't know the sensitivity of the climate to changes in solar intensity. In my opinion, I wouldn't play with things I don't know."


Sounds to me that the science isn't nearly as settled as we were led to believe. Abreu flat out admits that "We don't know the sensitivity of the climate to changes in solar intensity." It's becoming quite apparent that our 'experts' have vastly underestimated the effects of solar activity and extraterrestrial factors on our climate. So here we have this potentially huge variable that we don't understand...it's getting harder and harder to ignore that elephant in the middle of the room.

In addition, this article doesn't even mention current research underway regarding a known direct correlation between cloud formation and solar winds interacting with cosmic rays that can be traced back thousands of years. The amount of cosmic rays that get through the solar wind determines how many clouds form. The amount of cloud cover determines how hot or cold the planet is. Current MMGW warming science does not address anything about this potential explanation for our climate changes. All experiments to date have reinforced this theory. Research and a large scale experiment at CERN is currently underway.

The "science is NOT settled" and you can quote me on that.

Science is just a progress report on our objective understanding of natural phenomena- an update, if you will..

Science is never settled--if what you mean by "settled" is to take an issue of investigation off the table. That is not how science or scientist work.

All scientific investigations are subject to constant revisitation, and if warranted, revision.

Unlike politics, the strength of science is it's unwavering objectivity and refusal to apply dogmatic thinking. The facts are the facts. Sometime facts are confounding--especially in an instance where you have some climate research being done in geological timeframes (vis-a-vis ice ages), and ecological timeframes, like global atmospheric and sea temperature changes post-industrial revolution.

The problem is research is being used to set a political agenda and to make ALGore rich.

More to the point: the problem is making public policy in willful contradiction with the scientific consensus view. The inescapable conclusion one has to reach in such cases-- is that some other narrower interest or political pressure is driving policy.

The Bush administration is gone, so let's hope that practice has ended.

 

[dainthomas]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: dahunan

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: XMan
From National Geographic:

http://news.nationalgeographic...un-global-cooling.html

Interesting article. Anecdotally this has been one of the cooler springs around here that I can remember. We even had snow in early April.

The world has been setting record cold and snow records for the past two-three years now. It is good to see those again after such a strong solar cycle.

Tell that to the areas of earth are MELTING .. smartass.... stubborn people like you help destroy everything about this world

http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=antarctic+ice+shelf+melting

Somebody call the press, antartic ice shelfs melting during its summer.

But it's been there FOREVER!!!1111!!!!1!!!!

Or, like, a hundred years or something.

Is GW happening? Yes, although very slightly (~1 degree C in 150 years). Is it caused by increased CO2? Nobody knows, and anyone who says they do know has an agenda.

 

[Carmen813]

"I think you have to bear in mind that the CO2 is a good 50 to 60 percent higher than normal, whereas the decline in solar output is a few hundredths of one percent down," Lockwood said. "I think that helps keep it in perspective."

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Originally posted by: Carmen813
"I think you have to bear in mind that the CO2 is a good 50 to 60 percent higher than normal, whereas the decline in solar output is a few hundredths of one percent down," Lockwood said. "I think that helps keep it in perspective."

"We don't know the sensitivity of the climate to changes in solar intensity."

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: microbial

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: microbial

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

Originally posted by: NeoV
what are you talking about Doc??? - from the ARTICLE:

Even if the current solar lull is the beginning of a prolonged quiet, the scientists say, the star's effects on climate will pale in contrast with the influence of human-made greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2).

"I think you have to bear in mind that the CO2 is a good 50 to 60 percent higher than normal, whereas the decline in solar output is a few hundredths of one percent down," Lockwood said. "I think that helps keep it in perspective."

Why would I want to 'refute' any of that?

From the article:
"In general, recent research has been building a case that the sun has a slightly bigger influence on Earth's climate than most theories have predicted."

"There are many uncertainties," said Jose Abreu, a doctoral candidate at the Swiss government's research institute Eawag. "We don't know the sensitivity of the climate to changes in solar intensity. In my opinion, I wouldn't play with things I don't know."


Sounds to me that the science isn't nearly as settled as we were led to believe. Abreu flat out admits that "We don't know the sensitivity of the climate to changes in solar intensity." It's becoming quite apparent that our 'experts' have vastly underestimated the effects of solar activity and extraterrestrial factors on our climate. So here we have this potentially huge variable that we don't understand...it's getting harder and harder to ignore that elephant in the middle of the room.

In addition, this article doesn't even mention current research underway regarding a known direct correlation between cloud formation and solar winds interacting with cosmic rays that can be traced back thousands of years. The amount of cosmic rays that get through the solar wind determines how many clouds form. The amount of cloud cover determines how hot or cold the planet is. Current MMGW warming science does not address anything about this potential explanation for our climate changes. All experiments to date have reinforced this theory. Research and a large scale experiment at CERN is currently underway.

The "science is NOT settled" and you can quote me on that.

Science is just a progress report on our objective understanding of natural phenomena- an update, if you will..

Science is never settled--if what you mean by "settled" is to take an issue of investigation off the table. That is not how science or scientist work.

All scientific investigations are subject to constant revisitation, and if warranted, revision.

Unlike politics, the strength of science is it's unwavering objectivity and refusal to apply dogmatic thinking. The facts are the facts. Sometime facts are confounding--especially in an instance where you have some climate research being done in geological timeframes (vis-a-vis ice ages), and ecological timeframes, like global atmospheric and sea temperature changes post-industrial revolution.

The problem is research is being used to set a political agenda and to make ALGore rich.

More to the point: the problem is making public policy in willful contradiction with the scientific consensus view. The inescapable conclusion one has to reach in such cases-- is that some other narrower interest or political pressure is driving policy.

The Bush administration is gone, so let's hope that practice has ended.

Unless we are willing to as a world, go back to a 17th or 18th Century lifestyle, then we have to do it in a way that will not destroy our economy. (globally)

There is nothing wrong with moving toward more environmental practices...but we didnt get where we are overnight and we won't go there overnight either.

 

[Grabo]

Originally posted by: dainthomas


Is GW happening? Yes, although very slightly (~1 degree C in 150 years). Is it caused by increased CO2? Nobody knows, and anyone who says they do know has an agenda.

http://climate.jpl.nasa.gov/evidence/:

"Certain facts about Earth's climate are not in dispute: * The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century. Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many JPL-designed instruments, such as AIRS. Increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response."

The amount of atmospheric co2 has been on the rise since the industrial revolution.
It's currently at around 390ppm, whereas it hasn't been above 300 for the last 650k years.

Yes, it has changed rapidly before, and likely been a lot higher a longer time ago, but humans weren't around then to help cause it or suffer from it.

I know NASA and alot of other totally untrustworthy organizations believe they know a thing or two, but I'd better believe everything is a political agenda and only believe what I can see.

Maybe that's all a hoax to make AlGore, the institution, the man, one rich bastard?
Maybe the cows' flatulence has changed radically lately?
Maybe it's another greenhouse gas: water vapour! From goats!

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: microbial
We've been in one for the past 20K yrs.

Bottom line climate is a complex issue. Long-term factors and short-term factors, sometimes what you get is confounding evidence. Both are valid-not an either/or exclusion.

My advice: Look at the poles. What is happening to the ice sheets is more likely to be immediately important to us.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ice/chill.html

:thumbsup:

 

[Nemesis 1]

Goosh I am sorry. On this pic I posted . link article. I said Helix was cool and unexplainable . But notice again lower Big Object with small oblejts around it. Please click on picture take a real look. Is that not a Pentagon with 12 stars around it. I do believe it is. LOL . What the hell! Its scary but this shit is getting exciting also .

Climate change solar shut down Galaxy eleptic crossing soon . 2012 the 3600 year appearance of the brown darf Nemesis crossing 12/12/23. Appearance of a Hugh double helix near center of galaxy. Than the pentagon in pic with 12 stars around it .

Yep. Color me Impressed at his glory and power.

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/porta...-6903.aspx?RelNum=6903

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: eleison

Originally posted by: MovingTarget

Originally posted by: Budmantom
The dem's don't let the facts get in the way of their political agenda, the debate is over and the radical lefts science is in.

Now let's start taxing carbon, hope and change.

:roll: Science isn't left or right, much less radically so. GW is pretty well generally accepted within the scientific community. Just because one agrees with what science has said, and agrees that action must be taken, does not mean that one has to support such nonsense as taxing carbon, signing Kyoto, or punitively taxing gasoline consumption...that is political, whereas the science shouldn't be.

/taps sarcasm meter...hopes the battery isn't dead so he won't have to change it again...

Sorry I did not read most of this thread.. or even this posting -- don't want to waste too much of my time. But I would like to interject the following: You guys are all wrong.. Like most terrible things like swine flu that comes from mexico, its el nino. ALso, GWB is not generally accepted in the scientific community according to the communist news network. That is all.

Based on that post you should probably stop wasting too much time posting as well.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
Goosh I am sorry. On this pic I posted . link article. I said Helix was cool and unexplainable . But notice again lower Big Object with small oblejts around it. Please click on picture take a real look. Is that not a Pentagon with 12 stars around it. I do believe it is. LOL . What the hell! Its scary but this shit is getting exciting also .

Climate change solar shut down Galaxy eleptic crossing soon . 2012 the 3600 year appearance of the brown darf Nemesis crossing 12/12/23. Appearance of a Hugh double helix near center of galaxy. Than the pentagon in pic with 12 stars around it .

Yep. Color me Impressed at his glory and power.

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/porta...-6903.aspx?RelNum=6903

I think I saw that on my toast this morning. All hail the glory and power of my toaster! :laugh:

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
Goosh I am sorry. On this pic I posted . link article. I said Helix was cool and unexplainable . But notice again lower Big Object with small oblejts around it. Please click on picture take a real look. Is that not a Pentagon with 12 stars around it. I do believe it is. LOL . What the hell! Its scary but this shit is getting exciting also .

Climate change solar shut down Galaxy eleptic crossing soon . 2012 the 3600 year appearance of the brown darf Nemesis crossing 12/12/23. Appearance of a Hugh double helix near center of galaxy. Than the pentagon in pic with 12 stars around it .

Yep. Color me Impressed at his glory and power.

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/porta...-6903.aspx?RelNum=6903

I think I saw that on my toast this morning. All hail the glory and power of my toaster! :laugh:

Interesting, I had a pancake come out like that. Wonder if he's right.