Global Warming is about giving your government more regulatory powerand your eventual enslavment.

In article ,
BradGuth wrote:
On Oct 16, 12:07 am, ukastronomy
wrote:
On 16 Oct, 02:03, Hank Kroll wrote:

My book, COSMOLOGICAL ICE AGES explains how the carbon resources were
made. Our sun is in a 105,000-year elliptical orbit around the Procyon
and Sirius star systems.

What evidence can you provide for this claim?

How many people apart from yourself agree with your claim - where does
their published support (if any) appear?
--
Martin Nicholson - Daventry, UKhttp://www.martin-nicholson.info/index.htm
Dealing with John Greaves FAQhttp://www.geocities.com/badastrobuster/index.htm

You don't believe in ice core samples or diatoms?

You have some other significant stellar encounter that'll cycle nearby
our solar system every 105,000 years?

How many such cycles do you have evidence for? And where is that
evidence?

Stars happen to pass our solar system from time to time. Perhaps there
were two such passages some 105,000 years apart?

However, our solar system orbiting Sirius with that period is incompatible
with the positions and velocities we observe of the stars today.

~ BG


--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pausch at stjarnhimlen dot se
WWW: http://stjarnhimlen.se/

On Oct 20, 9:26*pm, wrote:
On Oct 20, 8:26 am, "





So it is your claim that we have been able to measure the surface ( I
assume you must mean this as opposed to atmospheric ) temperature,
with consistent measuring devices, all over the world, including the
oceans ( which make up 70% of the earth's surface ), to an accuracy of
1 or 2 degrees C. for the last 150 years??

NONSENSE!

Have you already forgotten the predictions 25 short years ago of the
"coming ice age"? Were those "scientists" just stupid?

Are you really claiming that Canada does not have a huge arable area
right now that will simply grow if Canada warms up?

Do you really claim that the huge ( much bigger than the Northern ice
cap ) Southern ice cap has not GROWN over the last several years?

Do you really think China, for example, should be exempted from
putting more than one huge coal-fired energy plant a day on line?

Do you really think the world should devote a substantial part of its
available resources to chase a "theory" when we have so many pressing
needs which are killing millions right now? Or do you perhaps also
value dogs more than humans?

Do you really think current climate computer "models" are not subject
to SUBSTANTIAL modifications as our knowledge of the subject
increases?

Do you really think the many PhD climatology scientists who think most
of the current future climate models are seriously flawed are
charlatans?

Don't you think the current modelers who are predicting disaster ought
to open up all the details of their models for debate and discussion?
It is called the "scientific method"

You claim to be a "scientist". In what field, exactly?

Quoting directly from the UK Met Office Hadley Center

"The dataset is based on regular measurements of air temperature at a
global network of long-term land stations and on sea-surface
temperatures measured from ships and buoys."

Very specifically since 1850. *Europe, China and Japan all had sites
that record temperatures at high profile sites (Paris, Bejing. London)
in to the early 1700's See

Rayner, N.A., Parker, D.E., Horton, E.B., Folland, C.K., Alexander,
L.V., Rowell, D.P., Kent, E.C. and Kaplan, A., 2003: Global analyses
of SST, sea ice and night marine air temperature since the late
nineteenth century. J Geophys Res, 108 D14.

P. Brohan, J.J. Kennedy, I. Harris, S.F.B. Tett and P.D. Jones,
Uncertainty estimates in regional and global observed temperature
changes: a new dataset from 1850. J. Geophys. Res, 111,

The National Climatic Data Center had records for both land and sea
surface temperatures that date back to 1854. See

Smith and Reynolds Vol. 17 Journal of Climate.
Peterson and Vose Vol 78 Bulletin of the American Meteorological
Society
A large number of sites across the US have measured temperature
records back to 1812. At the time the US Army collected the daily high
and low temperatures at forts across what was the entire US at the
time. The Army still requires these reading to this day.

As far a predictions for a ice age 25 years ago. There were no
scientific publications that described anything you claim NewsWeek,
Time and National Geographic are the sources of the myth of global
cooling. Looking at the papers referenced in NewsWeek, Time and the
National Geographic you will note that the cooling described would
occur in 10,000 IF we continued to put aerosols into the air such that
there was a 1000 fld increase each year. Read
"The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus" *by Thomas
C. Peterson, William M. Connolley, and John Fleck. *Bulletin of the
American Meteorological Society Vol. 89 2008

Looks pretty bad for you so far, you are batting 0 for 2

As far as the PhD. Climatologist who say that global warming isn't
occurring there are none. There are some retired meteorologists who
question how much of the observed warming is man-made, but then again
they have been getting paid by the oil/gas industry to say so and
freely admit that they are spokesman for the oil/gas industry.

If you wish to debate how to reduce the warming and want question the
methods and means I agree China and India are and will continue to be
large sources of emissions. However the profligate waste of energy by
the US is equally bad.

Exactly how was man causing global warming in the 1850ties? Millions
of cars running around?

With this and your other weak arguments you have proven my point--
global warming is a natural cycle which we still do not understand
fully.

To you Greens however it is a religion. I call the notion that global
warming is definitively and primarily caused by man-made CO2 a stupid,
knowing hoax.

And your suggestion that temperatures all over the world, including
oceans, was taken with carefully calibrated similar instruments
accurate to within a few degrees C is just plain silly. That doesn't
even happen today.

And is the southern ice cap ( much larger than Greenland ) growing
today? Yes or no?

You are, once again, what kind of "scientist"? I notice you also
prefer to remain anonymous--- "mommycal"---- Why???

Who was doing this precise temperature measuring in the Amazon or
central Africa or Antarctica or in Siberia in 1854? You can't be that
dumb, can you?

On Oct 21, 8:38*am, "
wrote:

Exactly how was man causing global warming in the 1850ties? Millions
of cars running around?

Millions of homes buring coal in their furnaces. Thousands of power
plants and industrial processes using coal to heat and light and
provide energy.

Unca Rollo

On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 06:38:45 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

Exactly how was man causing global warming in the 1850ties? Millions
of cars running around?

Coal was used increasingly as a fuel in Europe from about AD 1000 on.
The usage increased dramatically around the late 1700s. For the most
part, this was low grade coal by modern standards, and burned almost
always in very inefficient ways.

The rise in coal burning, followed shortly by an observed rise in
atmospheric CO2 and in global warming, represents one of the stronger
pieces of evidence that the climate is influenced by human activities.
_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

On Oct 21, 8:38 am, "
wrote:
On Oct 20, 9:26 pm, wrote:



On Oct 20, 8:26 am, "

So it is your claim that we have been able to measure the surface ( I
assume you must mean this as opposed to atmospheric ) temperature,
with consistent measuring devices, all over the world, including the
oceans ( which make up 70% of the earth's surface ), to an accuracy of
1 or 2 degrees C. for the last 150 years??

NONSENSE!

Have you already forgotten the predictions 25 short years ago of the
"coming ice age"? Were those "scientists" just stupid?

Are you really claiming that Canada does not have a huge arable area
right now that will simply grow if Canada warms up?

Do you really claim that the huge ( much bigger than the Northern ice
cap ) Southern ice cap has not GROWN over the last several years?

Do you really think China, for example, should be exempted from
putting more than one huge coal-fired energy plant a day on line?

Do you really think the world should devote a substantial part of its
available resources to chase a "theory" when we have so many pressing
needs which are killing millions right now? Or do you perhaps also
value dogs more than humans?

Do you really think current climate computer "models" are not subject
to SUBSTANTIAL modifications as our knowledge of the subject
increases?

Do you really think the many PhD climatology scientists who think most
of the current future climate models are seriously flawed are
charlatans?

Don't you think the current modelers who are predicting disaster ought
to open up all the details of their models for debate and discussion?
It is called the "scientific method"

You claim to be a "scientist". In what field, exactly?

Quoting directly from the UK Met Office Hadley Center

"The dataset is based on regular measurements of air temperature at a
global network of long-term land stations and on sea-surface
temperatures measured from ships and buoys."

Very specifically since 1850. Europe, China and Japan all had sites
that record temperatures at high profile sites (Paris, Bejing. London)
in to the early 1700's See

Rayner, N.A., Parker, D.E., Horton, E.B., Folland, C.K., Alexander,
L.V., Rowell, D.P., Kent, E.C. and Kaplan, A., 2003: Global analyses
of SST, sea ice and night marine air temperature since the late
nineteenth century. J Geophys Res, 108 D14.

P. Brohan, J.J. Kennedy, I. Harris, S.F.B. Tett and P.D. Jones,
Uncertainty estimates in regional and global observed temperature
changes: a new dataset from 1850. J. Geophys. Res, 111,

The National Climatic Data Center had records for both land and sea
surface temperatures that date back to 1854. See

Smith and Reynolds Vol. 17 Journal of Climate.
Peterson and Vose Vol 78 Bulletin of the American Meteorological
Society
A large number of sites across the US have measured temperature
records back to 1812. At the time the US Army collected the daily high
and low temperatures at forts across what was the entire US at the
time. The Army still requires these reading to this day.

As far a predictions for a ice age 25 years ago. There were no
scientific publications that described anything you claim NewsWeek,
Time and National Geographic are the sources of the myth of global
cooling. Looking at the papers referenced in NewsWeek, Time and the
National Geographic you will note that the cooling described would
occur in 10,000 IF we continued to put aerosols into the air such that
there was a 1000 fld increase each year. Read
"The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus" by Thomas
C. Peterson, William M. Connolley, and John Fleck. Bulletin of the
American Meteorological Society Vol. 89 2008

Looks pretty bad for you so far, you are batting 0 for 2

As far as the PhD. Climatologist who say that global warming isn't
occurring there are none. There are some retired meteorologists who
question how much of the observed warming is man-made, but then again
they have been getting paid by the oil/gas industry to say so and
freely admit that they are spokesman for the oil/gas industry.

If you wish to debate how to reduce the warming and want question the
methods and means I agree China and India are and will continue to be
large sources of emissions. However the profligate waste of energy by
the US is equally bad.

Exactly how was man causing global warming in the 1850ties? Millions
of cars running around?

With this and your other weak arguments you have proven my point--
global warming is a natural cycle which we still do not understand
fully.

To you Greens however it is a religion. I call the notion that global
warming is definitively and primarily caused by man-made CO2 a stupid,
knowing hoax.

And your suggestion that temperatures all over the world, including
oceans, was taken with carefully calibrated similar instruments
accurate to within a few degrees C is just plain silly. That doesn't
even happen today.

And is the southern ice cap ( much larger than Greenland ) growing
today? Yes or no?

You are, once again, what kind of "scientist"? I notice you also
prefer to remain anonymous--- "mommycal"---- Why???

Who was doing this precise temperature measuring in the Amazon or
central Africa or Antarctica or in Siberia in 1854? You can't be that
dumb, can you?

Gee you really are slow on the uptake. Only you claimed there was
global warming in 1850. In order to accurate determine the slope of a
line you need more than 1 one data point. To determine the change in
slope of a line you need many points. The most accurate way to
determine the rate of change in global average temperature (the slope
of the line) is to compute the mean global temperature every year over
a long period of observations. Using the long record of observations I
can compute the slope. The slope will vary significantly from year to
year, but an average slope computed using 20 to 30 years of slopes
will average out the year to year variation.

Station temperatures and sea surface temperatures have been measured
with 1 deg C accuracy for a very long time. Even the cheapest give-
away thermometer can read to 0.5 deg C and meteorologists/
oceanographers have been measuring the temperature with far more
accurate instruments for more than a hundred years.

No weak arguments. The long term changes in climate are well
understood. If you had bothered to look in a textbook or web page
about Milankovich cycles and continental drift you would have found a
detailed description about long term climate change.

According to the National Snow and Ice Data Center both polar caps are
showing increases in temperatures and decreases in ice thickness in
the case of Antarctica (precursor to a ice free Antarctic) and nearly
a complete loss of ice in the Arctic.

I use a pseudonym your_mommy_called to prevent hate mail just like
you.

Poor stupid lawyer, he looks at the world around himself, doesn't
understand the simplest of concepts that every one around him seems to
understand without trouble and screams I'm important. Every one just
looks at the trained monkey in the cage.

On Oct 21, 10:41*am, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 06:38:45 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:
Exactly how was man causing global warming in the 1850ties? Millions
of cars running around?

Coal was used increasingly as a fuel in Europe from about AD 1000 on.
The usage increased dramatically around the late 1700s. For the most
part, this was low grade coal by modern standards, and burned almost
always in very inefficient ways.

The rise in coal burning, followed shortly by an observed rise in
atmospheric CO2 and in global warming, represents one of the stronger
pieces of evidence that the climate is influenced by human activities.
_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatoryhttp://www.cloudbait.com

Interestingly, a very large part of the rise of CO2 can be attributed
to the way we grow our food now. Food production used to be solar
powered and sustainable. Not too many years ago there were 15 million
individual farms in the US, now there are only about 1 million. Most
farming is now done by large agribusinesses. Extensive uses of
hydrocarbon based fertilizer and oil for mechanized farming are
contributing a huge portion of the CO2 in the atmosphere. The use of
corn and soybeans as the staple of our food supply has replaced time
honored ways of land use such as crop rotation and leaving fields
fallow to replenish the soil fertility. Corn here in the Midwest is
not grown on traditional fertile soil any more, rather it is grown
with ancient hydrocarbons that we pump out of the ground. We are
literally eating oil in our daily food stuffs. Can we do this forever?

The petroleum cycle gets even more interesting. We make and use vast
quantities of plastics out of oil. These are used once and discarded.
Slowly but surely this stuff makes its way to the ocean, the ocean
being the lowest elevation on the planet. Large amounts of plastic
rides around in the top layer of the ocean, being slowly pulverized
into finer and finer bits, but never really degrading into its
molecular components. Oceanographers have found that these fine bits
of plastic, which resemble zoo plankton, are making up more and more
of the material constituents of the top few meters of the ocean water.
Filter feeders ingest them, small fish eat these filter feeders, end
eventually larger fish (tuna) eat these smaller fish. Then we eat the
fish. We are literally eating our own plastic waste (yum, have you had
your sushi today?).

Unca Rollo

On Oct 21, 10:06*am, wrote:
On Oct 21, 8:38*am, "
wrote:

Exactly how was man causing global warming in the 1850ties? Millions
of cars running around?

Millions of homes buring coal in their furnaces. Thousands of power
plants and industrial processes using coal to heat and light and
provide energy.

Unca Rollo

GBYD

On Oct 21, 11:29*am, wrote:
On Oct 21, 8:38 am, "
wrote:



On Oct 20, 9:26 pm, wrote:

On Oct 20, 8:26 am, "

So it is your claim that we have been able to measure the surface ( I
assume you must mean this as opposed to atmospheric ) temperature,
with consistent measuring devices, all over the world, including the
oceans ( which make up 70% of the earth's surface ), to an accuracy of
1 or 2 degrees C. for the last 150 years??

NONSENSE!

Have you already forgotten the predictions 25 short years ago of the
"coming ice age"? Were those "scientists" just stupid?

Are you really claiming that Canada does not have a huge arable area
right now that will simply grow if Canada warms up?

Do you really claim that the huge ( much bigger than the Northern ice
cap ) Southern ice cap has not GROWN over the last several years?

Do you really think China, for example, should be exempted from
putting more than one huge coal-fired energy plant a day on line?

Do you really think the world should devote a substantial part of its
available resources to chase a "theory" when we have so many pressing
needs which are killing millions right now? Or do you perhaps also
value dogs more than humans?

Do you really think current climate computer "models" are not subject
to SUBSTANTIAL modifications as our knowledge of the subject
increases?

Do you really think the many PhD climatology scientists who think most
of the current future climate models are seriously flawed are
charlatans?

Don't you think the current modelers who are predicting disaster ought
to open up all the details of their models for debate and discussion?
It is called the "scientific method"

You claim to be a "scientist". In what field, exactly?

Quoting directly from the UK Met Office Hadley Center

"The dataset is based on regular measurements of air temperature at a
global network of long-term land stations and on sea-surface
temperatures measured from ships and buoys."

Very specifically since 1850. *Europe, China and Japan all had sites
that record temperatures at high profile sites (Paris, Bejing. London)
in to the early 1700's See

Rayner, N.A., Parker, D.E., Horton, E.B., Folland, C.K., Alexander,
L.V., Rowell, D.P., Kent, E.C. and Kaplan, A., 2003: Global analyses
of SST, sea ice and night marine air temperature since the late
nineteenth century. J Geophys Res, 108 D14.

P. Brohan, J.J. Kennedy, I. Harris, S.F.B. Tett and P.D. Jones,
Uncertainty estimates in regional and global observed temperature
changes: a new dataset from 1850. J. Geophys. Res, 111,

The National Climatic Data Center had records for both land and sea
surface temperatures that date back to 1854. See

Smith and Reynolds Vol. 17 Journal of Climate.
Peterson and Vose Vol 78 Bulletin of the American Meteorological
Society
A large number of sites across the US have measured temperature
records back to 1812. At the time the US Army collected the daily high
and low temperatures at forts across what was the entire US at the
time. The Army still requires these reading to this day.

As far a predictions for a ice age 25 years ago. There were no
scientific publications that described anything you claim NewsWeek,
Time and National Geographic are the sources of the myth of global
cooling. Looking at the papers referenced in NewsWeek, Time and the
National Geographic you will note that the cooling described would
occur in 10,000 IF we continued to put aerosols into the air such that
there was a 1000 fld increase each year. Read
"The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus" *by Thomas
C. Peterson, William M. Connolley, and John Fleck. *Bulletin of the
American Meteorological Society Vol. 89 2008

Looks pretty bad for you so far, you are batting 0 for 2

As far as the PhD. Climatologist who say that global warming isn't
occurring there are none. There are some retired meteorologists who
question how much of the observed warming is man-made, but then again
they have been getting paid by the oil/gas industry to say so and
freely admit that they are spokesman for the oil/gas industry.

If you wish to debate how to reduce the warming and want question the
methods and means I agree China and India are and will continue to be
large sources of emissions. However the profligate waste of energy by
the US is equally bad.

Exactly how was man causing global warming in the 1850ties? Millions
of cars running around?

With this and your other weak arguments you have proven my point--
global warming is a natural cycle which we still do not understand
fully.

To you Greens however it is a religion. I call the notion that global
warming is definitively and primarily caused by man-made CO2 a stupid,
knowing hoax.

And your suggestion that temperatures all over the world, including
oceans, was taken with carefully calibrated similar instruments
accurate to within a few degrees C is just plain silly. That doesn't
even happen today.

And is the southern ice cap ( much larger than Greenland ) growing
today? Yes or no?

You are, once again, what kind of "scientist"? I notice you also
prefer to remain anonymous--- "mommycal"---- Why???

Who was doing this precise temperature measuring in the Amazon or
central Africa or Antarctica or in Siberia in 1854? You can't be that
dumb, can you?

Gee you really are slow on the uptake. Only you claimed there was
global warming in 1850. In order to accurate determine the slope of a
line you need more than 1 one data point. To determine the change in
slope of a line you need many points. The most accurate way to
determine the rate of change in global average temperature (the slope
of the line) is to compute the mean global temperature every year over
a long period of observations. Using the long record of observations I
can compute the slope. The slope will vary significantly from year to
year, but an average slope computed using 20 to 30 years of slopes
will average out the year to year variation.

Station temperatures and sea surface temperatures have been measured
with 1 deg C accuracy for a very long time. Even the cheapest give-
away thermometer can read to 0.5 deg C and meteorologists/
oceanographers have been measuring the temperature with far more
accurate instruments for more than a hundred years.

No weak arguments. The long term changes in climate are well
understood. If you had bothered to look in a textbook or web page
about Milankovich cycles and continental drift you would have found a
detailed description about long term climate change.

According to the National Snow and Ice Data Center both polar caps are
showing increases in temperatures and decreases in ice thickness in
the case of Antarctica (precursor to a ice free Antarctic) and nearly
a complete loss of ice in the Arctic.

I use a pseudonym your_mommy_called to prevent hate mail just like
you.

Poor stupid lawyer, he looks at the world around himself, doesn't
understand the simplest of concepts that every one around him seems to
understand without trouble and screams I'm important. Every one just
looks at the trained monkey in the cage.

Poor stupid "scientist". Even your friend Roland claims man started
global warming in the 1850ties with "millions of coal fired
fireplaces"

Still haven't given us a clue as to your "scientific" background. I'll
bet you don't even have a degree.

Hate mail? What a joke--I can respond in kind to fanatics who spew
insults.

And like most fanatics you ignored my questions for which you have no
answer--you would be a hoot on a witness stand. Or perhaps you teach
part time in a rundown "charter school" and that makes you a
physicist. You Greens are funny.

Or perhaps you have to "keep your proprietary computer model
algorithms secret" like most of the modelers--that is no "scientific
method"--it is quackery.

And your claim that "only retired PhD scientists paid by the oil
companies" dare question GW orthodoxy is pathetic. Google is your
friend but I am not going to do your research for you. Save yourself
some time--go he

http://www.junkscience.com/

On Oct 21, 12:05*pm, wrote:
On Oct 21, 10:41*am, Chris L Peterson wrote:



On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 06:38:45 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:
Exactly how was man causing global warming in the 1850ties? Millions
of cars running around?

Coal was used increasingly as a fuel in Europe from about AD 1000 on.
The usage increased dramatically around the late 1700s. For the most
part, this was low grade coal by modern standards, and burned almost
always in very inefficient ways.

The rise in coal burning, followed shortly by an observed rise in
atmospheric CO2 and in global warming, represents one of the stronger
pieces of evidence that the climate is influenced by human activities.
_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatoryhttp://www.cloudbait.com

Interestingly, a very large part of the rise of CO2 can be attributed
to the way we grow our food now. Food production used to be solar
powered and sustainable. Not too many years ago there were 15 million
individual farms in the US, now there are only about 1 million. Most
farming is now done by large agribusinesses. Extensive uses of
hydrocarbon based fertilizer and oil for mechanized farming are
contributing a huge portion of the CO2 in the atmosphere. The use of
corn and soybeans as the staple of our food supply has replaced time
honored ways of land use such as crop rotation and leaving fields
fallow to replenish the soil fertility. Corn here in the Midwest is
not grown on traditional fertile soil any more, rather it is grown
with ancient hydrocarbons that we pump out of the ground. We are
literally eating oil in our daily food stuffs. Can we do this forever?

The petroleum cycle gets even more interesting. We make and use vast
quantities of plastics out of oil. These are used once and discarded.
Slowly but surely this stuff makes its way to the ocean, the ocean
being the lowest elevation on the planet. Large amounts of plastic
rides around in the top layer of the ocean, being slowly pulverized
into finer and finer bits, but never really degrading into its
molecular components. Oceanographers have found that these fine bits
of plastic, which resemble zoo plankton, are making up more and more
of the material constituents of the top few meters of the ocean water.
Filter feeders ingest them, small fish eat these filter feeders, end
eventually larger fish (tuna) eat these smaller fish. Then we eat the
fish. We are literally eating our own plastic waste (yum, have you had
your sushi today?).

Unca Rollo

The end is near, the end is near Dr Malthus

On Oct 21, 3:44 am, (Paul Schlyter) wrote:
In article ,



BradGuth wrote:
On Oct 16, 12:07 am, ukastronomy
wrote:
On 16 Oct, 02:03, Hank Kroll wrote:

My book, COSMOLOGICAL ICE AGES explains how the carbon resources were
made. Our sun is in a 105,000-year elliptical orbit around the Procyon
and Sirius star systems.

What evidence can you provide for this claim?

How many people apart from yourself agree with your claim - where does
their published support (if any) appear?
--
Martin Nicholson - Daventry, UKhttp://www.martin-nicholson.info/index.htm
Dealing with John Greaves FAQhttp://www.geocities.com/badastrobuster/index.htm

You don't believe in ice core samples or diatoms?

You have some other significant stellar encounter that'll cycle nearby
our solar system every 105,000 years?

How many such cycles do you have evidence for? And where is that
evidence?

Stars happen to pass our solar system from time to time. Perhaps there
were two such passages some 105,000 years apart?

However, our solar system orbiting Sirius with that period is incompatible
with the positions and velocities we observe of the stars today.

~ BG

--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pausch at stjarnhimlen dot se
WWW: http://stjarnhimlen.se/

I can agree with the possibility of more than one other than Sirius
star coming our way, however the best available proper motions of such
potential other nearby stars seems to exclude that possibility,
especially of those offering the intensity plus UV spectrum potential.

Terrestrial ice cores that go back nearly a million years are
suggesting that we've had perhaps 12 some odd stellar encounter cycles
within that brief amount of time. It's as though our sun was the
third and least tidal bound partner of the once truly impressive
Sirius star system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:F...ate_Change.png

Those vast layers upon layers of diatoms (DE) are yet another matter
of stellar encounters as having given our otherwise passive solar
environment that astonishing degree of growth/population spurts.

~ BG