Posted by: graemebird | November 7, 2009

Supernova Civilisational Survival/ Vela And The Mastodon/ Three Intersecting Sets/ No Time For Mucking About Anymore.

Dig this. The last time I tried to make a link between the alleged Quarternary extinction event (the event that was thought to have wiped out the Mastodon and perhaps most of human life in North America) and the Vela Supernova remnant, the years didn’t go together all that well. I had wide dates for the Supernova, which didn’t hit dead centre with the date I had for the extinction.

I had the extinction at 12400 years ago according to one source. And I had the supernova at 11,000 to 12,300 years. You see you really want the centre of both events to be approximately the same. And thats not really cutting it.

Vela was supposed to be only 800 light-years from us. So the consequences for earth, in accordance with the theory, would be most grievous.

Here is what the wikipedia says:

“The Vela supernova remnant is a supernova remnant in the southern constellation Vela. Its source supernova exploded approximately 11,000-12,300 years ago (and was about 800 light years away). The association of the Vela supernova remnant with the Vela pulsar, made by astronomers at the University of Sydney in 1968,[2] was direct observational proof that supernovae form neutron stars.”

If we take wikipeida’s range and add the two bands together and divide by two we get the figure of 11,650 years ago as their best guess, ignoring rounding errors.

Well I just got a quote for the extinction event. Would you believe some Scandinavian crowd have narrowed it down to a single date. 11,712 years ago? This I must still verify. Dead centre of Vela Supernova estimates. Could hardly be closer.

We are talking about the year 9703 BC. If true then this was a year of utter disaster. We cannot know just how advanced the human race was prior to then. All technological remnants would have been greedily cannibalised by the survivors with the exception of big rock structures.

What is more, this is almost the exact date now given for the end of the ice age. Round this down to the nearest century. You put “11700 years ago” in the google, you will now find all these links claiming that this was when there was an accelerated melting of the ice caps. An accelerated melting over about 60 years they reckon they’ve got it down to now. And good Lord why would there not have been? The initial gamma ray shock itself would have been just horrific.

We are also talking about when the North American meltwater lakes burst that is surely the cause of all the flood myths that have been handed down to us. Though I might check that one since the rough date is from memory. But it no longer looks like a gradual lake burst, starting off as a trickle and growing to several Amazons. No nothing like that. More like an explosion of water. Still I’m extrapolating wildly.


Policy-wise the situation is very clear. We need to think holistically. And its a question of three intersecting sets.

All policy programs must be of a nature that they reduce compulsion in total and reduce thieving in total. They may add a small amount of new stealing if the same program comes in tied to massive reduction in the old stealing. Revenue-neutrality is never acceptable. And its the same with compulsion. There would seem to be little excuse for any new compulsion, except perhaps something to do with new building standards. But even to get that over, the amount of old compulsion would have to be massively reduced.

Thats one intersecting set.

Then the next intersecting set is policies that make us less vulnerable to nuclear intimidation and more survivable under extended nuclear war.

And then the third intersecting set is policies that make us more survivable with regards to the full spectrum of natural disasters that I’ve shown that another supernova would throw at us.

We cannot possibly go after everything in all three sets as a matter of policy. We must leave most of it to the individuals. But anything in the region where the three sets meet……. Such measures must be prioritized with extreme prejudice. It must be a case of crisis and anti-Leviathan.



  1. Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    Life under the Marxist usurper Currency Lad. Of course she was banned from going to New York. This is a President that would give the Castro brothers cover but not put a good word in for a courageous woman.

    I have been desperately trying to help various economist bigshots out. Anyone who takes me up on this can likely do great work which will propel them to worldwide recognition.


    “Here’s my problem. Underlying the focus on nominal demand or GDP is some notion that there’s a quantity equation:

    MV = PY

    where M is the money supply, V the velocity of money, P the price level, Y real GDP…..”

    All this confusion, and all this wonderment at which measure of money to use. It comes from one thing alone. One item out of these four.

    “Y is real GDP”

    We should not be using GDP for Y. Okay so Y is usually doubling for national income. But another variation of that same formula is MV=PQ.

    See we are using GDP for Q. We must not and we cannot do that. This is where all the confusion comes in. If we substitute in Gross Domestic REVENUE for Q…. then within about a year of doing statistical work on the figures, everything will fall into place.

    And these years of thinking maybe we ought to us monetary base, or wider monetary aggregates for M…. Well this will all fall away like a bad dream.

    You think I’m being ridiculous laying forth on ten different subjects at once. But comparing paradigms can become a bit of a specialty in and of itself. I cannot do the quant. work that needs to be done. I’m just trying to make it easier for everyone.

    When people get familiar with the statistics again after making this basic mental-shift, they will see that production is the production of producer and intermediate goods as well as consumer goods. That broad monetary aggregates are not money but what money buys. And that monetary base is the banks money whereas M1 is the publics money.

    You guys ought not waste your time by trying to see patterns between metrics that do not belong together.”

    No no Mark you are a moron and you’ve got to stop filibusting.

    “Good news! The U.S. Department of Commerce, which compiles Gross Domestic Product (GDP), has just added a new national income statistic, Gross Output (GO), as a measure of total spending in the economy. I have been making the case for this new statistic for over ten years. Now it is a reality. In The Structure of Production (1990) and Economics on Trial (1993), I was critical of GDP for two reasons:”

    “GO is defined as Intermediate Input (II) plus GDP (final output).3″

    If you want to prove me right or wrong, you have to

    1. (a)get the gross output figures, and the intermediate output figures, and then
    (b)make your trend-line plotting these against total labour hours.
    (c) Use a price deflator based on the John Willians shadow government statistics.

    2. Or show that the labour department has already done some of this. By showing that their numerator was many times higher than GDP.

    Simple as that dummy. If you don’t understand this you are just a blockhead. I’m giving you the chance to do path-breaking work or otherwise to simply prove me wrong.

    Easy. All you have to do. The test is there. I think you will find that productivity has crept up in tiny fashion as only the best and luckiest people still have a job

  2. 1183FDB
    Nov 7th, 2009 at 2:07 pm
    “There is a very important distinction between “before” and “at the very commencement”, when you are writing sentences like………………….”

    I would quote the rest of this asshole FDB. But he and the absolutely fucking insane Andrew Reynolds will send you into insulin shock if I quote them in full.

    We all know what these fucking idiots are doing. They are filibusting away the reality of molten iron in all three basements of the buildings that were demolished during the big affair on the 11th of September 2001.

  3. Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    “That very little was done to avert the crisis is a matter for history. If it was where were the huge structural deficits?”

    Oh my God. They are in America. Causing unemployment and obviously so. You people are such morons, that you have excuses to do MORE damage, no matter how much damage you’ve already done.

    What an idiot you are. Structural deficits? When you are that mentally challenged you just have to be kept away from policy by any means necessary?

    In your idiotic theory how could a “structural” deficit do magic that a deficit brought on by “automatic stabilisers” NOT do you imbecile.

    This is crankery on the Hail-Bopp mass suicide level. This is just incredible idiocy. You must work for the treasury.

    All deficit increases brought through on the spending side reduce employment. Because it takes money away from business-to-business spending. From the spending that winds up as business costs. Because wages and salaries are a business cost. That is so obvious that you’d have to be a drooling mutant or a Keynesian not to see that. Furthermore it would be very easy to show this in the data.

  4. Here’s Cambria and his Goldman Sachs homeys … minutes before the greatest stealing spree in the history of human life on earth ……

  5. It wasn’t enough that these parasites had been getting the money creation benefit all these years. They felt so destitute that they had to steal TRILLIONS to make things better for their shabbily dressed servants.

  6. Supposing the rest of us had gotten the opportunity to steal as much as we liked. Some of us would have headed off with some millions, some rare psychopaths would have blushed at running for the hills with billions.

    But only Cambria and his Goldman Sachs homies would be so deluded as to think that it is their RIGHT to steal TRILLIONS.


  8. Moderated Elsewhere:

    Its very very easy to produce a definitive proof that higher CO2 levels will heat the atmosphere, if that indeed is what higher CO2 levels will do.

    First you produce a temperature record. Then you produce a CO2 record. Then you relate one to the other in a causal way with care that the reasoning isn’t circular. Particularly you have to careful not to allow the reasoning to be circular with relation to the proxies used.

    Direct measurement is preferable to proxy studies. But you can get a reconstruction using three or more convergent proxies for any given geographical area.

    The science workers pushing this scam have a perfectly sound direct CO2 record going back to the end of the Napoleonic wars. They reject it for no other reason than they don’t like what they are seeing. They use proxy studies tendentiously. They use an ice core study as if it were direct measurement. And the fact is they haven’t made a link. No link at all of CO2 causing warming. These people are not scientists. They are just going from one grant to another. They are there to be manipulated and they don’t care.

    Here is the CO2 temperature record. No causal link can be made to this record and temperature. Rather its the other way around. But one link can clearly be made. The link between a sudden drop in CO2 levels and famine. Thats a link that can be made in the course of a single afternoon. They don’t want to take no for an answer. They want to either ignore the evidence or beat it up until it confesses.


    I have some published proxy data that compares ice core data to leaf stomata data. I will list some points for you.

    1. I have tried to pull rock core, that is rheologically competent, and attain accurate fluids data. It doesn’t work very well because of core de-pressuring and pore expansion (dilation).

    2. Ice core is worse because it is NOT rheologically competent (it cracks and contaminates). The plot of CO2 measured in ice core is a linear decreasing set of values, the deeper the ice core is obtained.

    3. Depth is of course reflective of Age. It therefore appears that CO2 decreases with the age of the rock and CO2 was therefore lower.

    This is a SAMPLING error! There is no way to correct for it. It is classic Junk Science!

    It is actually similar to the land based Temp data that the IPCC uses. Remember, they do not actually throw the data points out that are contaminated by Urban Heat Island Effects,. They “correct” the data by normalizing it to a nearby uncontaminated data point. This is NOT scientifically acceptable.

    This is why: 1 valid point @ T=15 and 10 nearby contaminated points = 22 are normalized to 15. You now have 15 data points that will average in to another valid Temp= 8. Instead of the average being 15+8/2 = 11.50 the average becomes ((11X15)+(8))/12 = 14.42 degrees of very alarming global warming! An increase of 2.92 degrees in literally seconds!

    Here are the data points: (Taylor Dome Ice Core)
    (from Wagner 2002- proceedings of the NAS)

    Yr – 8992: Leaf (310 ppm) Ice (265 ppm)
    – 8450: Leaf (273 ppm) Ice (260 ppm)
    – 7900: Leaf (302 ppm) Ice (260 ppm)
    – 7650: Leaf (327 ppm) Ice (261 ppm)
    – 6900: Leaf (292 ppm) Ice (265 ppm)

    Other Chemical Analysis:
    (from Beck 2007- Energy & Environment))
    Yr – 1825: Chem (380 ppm) Ice (290 ppm)
    – 1885: Chem (300 ppm )Ice (300 ppm)
    – 1940: Chem (440 ppm) Ice (307 ppm)

    Ask yourself the following. Where did all that nasty CO2 disappear to from 1940? Why did that 0.46 degree Temp anomaly suddenly drop by 0.23 degrees by 1975? How is that sudden rise any different than the 0.50 degree rise that we have seen since 1975?

    I can’t send you a link to the “ice papers” but confirm the 1940 Temp spike on the link I am providing of historical Arctic temperatures.

    EDIT: I have pulled literally hundreds of rock cores and observed fluid data. Ice of greater age is from greater depth.

    1. The pressure changes as you pull the core up from a great depth. As the pressure decreases the ice cracks and the CO2 bubbles expand leading to a larger bubble that has a lower concentration of CO2.

    2. This is Charles Law and Boyles Law! It is FACT! Almost anyone dealing with pressurized data knows this stuff!

    3. I am looking at an unattributed CO2 vs depth profile that is based on Jaworowski’s observations – it is classic. At 136m-285 ppm at 224m-275 ppm at 304m-265ppm at 338m-260 ppm. (All Taylor Dome Data).

    4. It is linear, just as expected! The relative data may have some value but the absolute data are meaningless! This is also usually the case with rock data. Just because some “ice folks” have been doing this for a long time (20 years?) remember that geologists have been doing this kind of work since 1900.

    5. I base my comments on my own experience, but the Jaworowski link is 100% spot on the mark regarding the ice core data!

    Note Fig 2

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: