Arcadia Discussion Zone

Wombat assured Seeker1:


But it also shows two 15 year trends as well. One up followed by one down.



Would you like to explain to me that these are not real?

Does it change anything?

Regards to all

Wombat.

I watched and I watched and I watched thinking surely this is going to get the point soon, but no.

The result, since this massive attack on Alex Jones he now has more street credibility with me than he had before.



Now comes the question I've been asking all week.

Do you know what was in those e-mails?

Also do you know that initially Prof Philip Jones at the University of East Anglia admitted that the e-mails were genuine. He's on video doing it.

I loved the bit where it said Science has all the answers. It sure does. And they were all dreamed up in the toilet.



Yep! But it ain't man made, Gungadin

you know as a sidebar
I have been doing some research on Napoleon and when he was in Egypt
He brought with him many scientists and on was named Fourier
He discovered the "greenhouse effect"

Fourier is also credited with the discovery in 1824 that gases in the atmosphere might increase the surface temperature of the Earth.[4] This was the effect that would later be called the greenhouse effect. He described the phenomenon in 1824[5] and then again in a very similar paper in 1827[6] whereby an atmosphere serves to warm a planet.[7] This established the concept of planetary energy balance — that planets obtain energy from a number of sources that cause temperature increase. Planets also lose energy by infrared radiation (that Fourier called "chaleur obscure" or "dark heat") with the rate increasing with temperature. A balance is reached between heat gain and heat loss; the atmosphere shifts the balance toward the higher temperatures by slowing the heat loss.

Wow Wombat that article from the Maldives is really interesting

Something is amiss


"The Maldives is one of the small states. We are not in a position to change the course of events in the world. But what you do or do not do here will greatly influence the fate of my people. It can also change the course of world history." -- Statement by H.E. Maumoon Abdul Gayoom (Maldives) Kyoto, Japan, 3rd Conference of the Parties of the UNFCCC

So?

Regards to all

Wombat.

Roscoe
I started video documenting these articles like in 2007
I had articles from major news agencies

I have noticed and what I expected that is why I video documented them ...is the links have been erased
ya I would like to know what is on those emails

Just prepare yourself that it maybe things are much WORST than you think

leave that option out there

If Gore was wrong then I would have thought Georgie would have taken special delight in exposing him
and many people have been on the side that CO2 and Global warming isn't happening

the problem is the Glaciers are melting
and like my videos have shown beach erosion is everywhere
plus that Inuit village had to be evacuated


ya I agree with you guys lets see these emails
if the data has been dumped and faked
the people of the WORLD will loose ANY trust in these organizations

Just remember the story about Noah everybody was laughing at him when he built his ark

and here is something to think about

Are the governments thinking about an ark

The Svalbard Global Seed Vault (Norwegian: Svalbard globale frøhvelv) is a secure seedbank located on the Norwegian island of Spitsbergen near the town of Longyearbyen in the remote Arctic Svalbard archipelago.[1] The facility was established to preserve a wide variety of plant seeds from locations worldwide in an underground cavern. The seed vault holds duplicate samples, or "spare" copies, of seeds held in genebanks worldwide. The seed vault will provide insurance against the loss of seeds in genebanks, as well as a refuge for seeds in the case of large scale regional or global crises. The island of Spitsbergen is about 1,300 kilometres (810 mi) from the North Pole. The seed vault is managed under terms spelled out in a tripartite agreement between the Norwegian government, the Global Crop Diversity Trust (GCDT) and the Nordic Genetic Resource Center (previously named the Nordic Gene Bank, a cooperative effort of the Nordic countries under the Nordic Council of Ministers).

Construction of the seed vault, which cost approximately 45 million Norwegian Kroner (9 million USD),[2] was funded entirely by the Government of Norway.[2] Storage of seeds in the seed vault is free of charge. Operational costs will be paid by Norway and the Global Crop Diversity Trust.[2] The primary funding of the Trust came from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, United Kingdom, Norway, Australia, Switzerland, and Sweden, though funding has been received from a wide variety of sources including four developing countries: Brazil, Colombia, Ethiopia, and India.[3]


Be prepared

So Wombat
there is a quote from the President of the Maldives at Kyoto

I see your point and the Swedish report is conflicting with other reports

Someone is lying
I agree

Hopefully Copenhagen will shed some light on it
We can continue to do nothing and see what happens
that is what we have been doing all along

I'll be the first one to say I was duped
to be honest I really hope this is a El Nino and this is one big joke

I just hope you guys are not wrong
that we dallied to long and we will see millions die

So, lovuian

What do you think – other than your “wow Wombat”. I agree with your wow!

Who said this, when and what did he mean? If you can work it out it will help you better understand the Maldives, Kirabati, Tuvalu and virtually all the atolls' position in relation to sea level rise.

“No other work of mine was begun in so deductive a spirit as this; for the whole theory was thought out on the west coast of S. America before I had seen a true coral reef. I had therefore only to verify and extend my views by a careful examination of living reefs. But it should be observed that I had during the two previous years been incessantly attending to the effects on the shores of S. America of the intermittent elevation of the land, together with the denudation and deposition of sediment. This necessarily led me to reflect much on the effects of subsidence, and it was easy to replace in imagination the continued deposition of sediment by the upward growth of coral. To do this was to form my theory of the formation of barrier-reefs and atolls.”

Regards to all

Wombat.

OK, because I have to go out to meet some mates, here's the answer:

Charles Darwin, 1887, and he meant that coral atolls behave as if they float. Yep. That's right, float!

More on Tuvalu for Seeker1 and "floating atolls":

“Coral atolls have proven over thousands of years that, if left alone, they can go up and down with any sea level rise. And if we follow some simple conservation practices, they can continue to do so and to support atoll residents. But they cannot survive an unlimited population increase, or unrestricted fishing, or overpumping the water lens, or unrestrained coral mining.”

Read about it in:

Eschenbach, W. “On the cause of erosion in Tuvalu: Tuvalu Not Experiencing Increased Sea Level Rise”. Energy & Environment, Volume 15, Number 3, 1 July 2004 , pp. 527-543.

Or his summary here:

http://solomonstarnews.com/index.php?op ... angeown=89

UPDATE 22/12/12: regrettably the Solomon Star News link no longer gives access to the article. A more detailed exposition can be found here:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/27/floating-islands/

Now analyse that Kiribati (delete Tuvalu) Pres. on the youtube video of lovuian's, in light of this.

- The salty well

- The sea wall construction materials (ignore the 44 gal drums as an exception)

- The frequency and size of the fish catch

- not to mention that the poor chap in the outrigger who can't see the next atoll 15 kilometres away because of climate change! The formula for distance at sea hasn't changed too has it? Isn't it still:
Distance (in miles) = Square root of 3xHeight of point of sight above sea level/2 (in feet).

Try a 50 foot mast.

Oh well.....never let the truth get between an alarmist and a cameraman.

Regards to all

Wombat.

deleted - double post

Can I just state here that the spin seems to be taking shape against the hackers not the people who lied to us.

Can I just state that the person responsible for those e-mails has stepped down. If the e-mails are blown out of all proportion as the media spin seems to be saying, then this professor need not have fallen on his sword.

The current increasing media onslaught is an indication of the utter panic these people are in at the leaking of this information. They've been caught with their fingers in the cookie jar and they are wetting themselves.

Well, roscoe, when it hits the fan there will be many an embarrassed journo, and many, many scientists and parliamentarians. A few TV networks will be grovelling as well – Australia’s ABC for example. But the ABC will have an excuse – it’s the Australian Government’s propaganda mouthpiece. He who pays the piper…

Makes one think that Madame Defarge had a point doesn’t it?

However, there will be some in the Australian Parliament who will stand tall. The likes of independent Senator Steve Fielding…oh for more like him… and Senator Barnaby Joyce of the National Party - they get it. Of course the new leader of Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition, the Hon. Tony Abbott, MP also gets it, but he’s a Rhodes Scholar so that probably accounts for his perspicacity.

Talking of the fan and what hits it:

“….parrotfish feed primarily upon the encrusting coralline algae and other surface algae that are associated with coral reefs and the jaws themselves are often used scraping instead of crushing. As the coralline algae is chewed and processed through the parrotfishes gut, it is emitted in large clouds of fine coralline sand. A single parrotfish may excrete over one thousand pounds of beautiful Caribbean beach sand in one year.”

http://www.seacortez.com/fish/scaridae.html

I have experienced these amazing creatures while diving on the reefs around the Cocos Islands and the North Keeling atoll in the Indian Ocean; on Western Australia’s great Ningaloo Reef system, and on many of the reef fringed sandy cays on the Great Barrier Reef. They fairly make a racket, click, click, clicking as they chomp away. And, lovuian, the reef systems in Australia are in excellent shape, notwithstanding the untruths that are uttered by, and through, the main-stream media.

Regards to all

Wombat.

God Bless you Wombat
Have a drink on me with your mates

I am so HAPPY to hear that those beautiful reefs are in excellent shape



This is reassuring
I would rather be wrong than right

If it is a lie then it is one BIG one and I can't wait for them to be exposed

I live in Houston and we have huge amounts of CO2 emissions
The oil industry will be happy that is for sure
to hear that this Global Warming thingy is all one big joke on the World

This is something to watch "Climagate" is right

Well, it is good to see that the people of the USA are working this thing out for themselves. Democracy and freedom from oppression may yet be the winners here. Well done USA. Keep it going.

The December released Harris Poll recently came my way (extract below):



See the real McCoy at:

http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris ... _12_02.pdf

Regards to all

Wombat.

Correction.

In my post 6 up from this one (8 Dec) I referred to the Tuvalu Pres. This should have been the Kiribati Pres. as per the youtube video clip on Kiribati's problems.

Apologies.

Regards to all

Wombat.

Article below by Christopher Booker entitled, "Copenhagen climate summit: Blindfolds are hiding the crucial issues at Copenhagen".

I should admit my bias, I'm a sceptic on this, always have been, so I'm grateful to Wombat and others for putting the sceptical case so well in recent days, whilst obviously respecting some well marshalled arguments from the other point of view, particularly on the part of Seeker. I just happen to disagree.

Booker's someone I've got a lot of time for, as he's been fighting a fairly lonely battle against this for some years now, just as he has against that other sacred cow of bien pensant opinion - the European Union (don't even get me started on that one).

As he says:



Unfortunately, I think it's too late, because the politics of this seem as completely "settled" as the science so clearly isn't. The political class is too invested in this now to give up on it. But at least the argument's starting to shift a bit, and other voices are at least being heard.

This is just my opinion, but I actually think many of the energy conservation measures proposed by the warmist lobby make perfectly good sense, for reasons that have nothing to do with global temperature, and everything to do with saving money on fuel, reducing reliance on energy purchased from unpleasant regimes, having less pollution and a cleaner environment, and so on. But crippling the world's economy is only going to lead to even more global poverty, something those at the Copenhagen boondoggle would be better off addressing, along with other real-life issues like the absence for so many of clean drinking water, conflict resolution, unfairness in world trade, etc. I also find the hypocrisy of all those delegates turning up in their fleets of carbon guzzling limos and private planes very hard to take, as well as all the holier-than-thou posturing.

I find the whole spectacle very depressing, actually.

Here's the article:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/colu ... ssues.html

It's fine, Richard. I often tend to follow where scientific thinking is on many subjects. You have to be pretty disingenuous to suggest there is no scientific consensus that it's occurring and is at least partly anthropogenic.

I admit I'm a Fortean because I do search for where scientists ignore anomalies. However, global warming is established precisely through an anomaly requiring explanation...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific ... literature

The one thing that irritates me is climate skeptics seem to think the greenhouse effect is a hoax created in the 20th century, and yet it was first proposed by Arrhenius and Fourier in the 19th century.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arr ... use_effect
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Fou ... use_effect

You cannot explain the temperature of Earth without understanding the natural effect of natural greenhouse gasses. My question to climate skeptics is why they somehow think human-generated greenhouse gasses are magically devoid of the properties of natural greenhouse gasses.

So here's my next question. If we agree, even if the greenhouse effect is not at this moment being influenced by manmade use of fossil fuels, that fossil fuels are still worth transitioning away from, why not do it anyway? Fossil fuel consumption has other environmental consequences and other pollution problems besides CO2 and is nonrenewable. There are OTHER benefits to transitioning to renewable resources. So why not just look at it as a win win? If the climate scientists are right, we also help end global warming as a problem. If they're wrong - well, there's still benefits to the transition to Green energy.

No I am not an apocalypticist. The truth is, even the most dire global warming models seem to think the most dire consequences are headed not for me but my children and grandchildren. On the other hand, there is some evidence, if certain models are correct, that there will be costs to further delays in dealing with the problem. If that weren't the case, I'd be willing to see the matter debated for another twenty years. There is some merit, though, to the precautionary principle.

That's my position, and no recent revelations have affected it.

Another good blog to consider, if you have an open mind, skepticism of (climate) skeptics is always good, too. (I'm skeptical of some RlC skeptics.)

Here's but one topic to consider.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate ... period.htm

I agree there is uncertainty in some areas, there's just not enough uncertainty to justify no action. That's where I differ. No, I don't think the world is ending, it's just that I happen to think the world will become less hospitable to human life in a century or two if we do nothing.

And if I was truly selfish, I wouldn't care, since I don't think the major consequences to me or where I live will come in my lifetime, but yes, I do care about the future.

BTW, about those reefs, I'm glad Australia's is doing swimmingly. In the meantime, Florida's are not doing so well.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article ... 97,00.html

And no, I don't primarily blame global warming, but yes other human activities are at least partly responsible for the decline. I'm glad there are species that will help replenish them. I just hope the rate of replenishment exceeds the rate of damage. That's the key question.

Polls are good at answering political questions, not so good for scientific questions.

Depending on who and how you poll, a large amount of the American public appears to believe creationism deserves "equal time" with the teaching of evolution.

On the other hand, if you poll scientists, especially biological scientists, those numbers drop precipitously.

Very fair points, here, and above and below. Fossil fuels are a robber industry, and do need to be transitioned away from, and as I said earlier, many of the energy conservation measures make perfectly good sense. The problem, I feel, is that some of the carbon reduction measures being discussed at Copenhagen are so sweeping, that they cannot but have a deletorious effect upon the world's economy, which will increase poverty. And if we want to lift people out of even existing levels of poverty, then you only do that by increasing propsperity, and that means people making more, trading more, selling more, doing more - and thereby generating more carbon. Overpopulation is also another problem that can only be cured by making people wealthier (the poorest country in the world, Somalia, also has one of the highest birthrates), so that the economic incentive for a large family is removed, people have access to contraception, and to the safe termination of unwanted pregnancies through proper health care, and so on. That only happens by a country becoming richer (and solving various other problems, obviously). So people need to become wealthier, and I fear that Copenhagen can only work against that.

With that in mind, let me put this dilemma to you. It's personal and anecdotal, but it illustrates the point quite well.

It's winter time here in the UK, which means that certain local fruits and vegetables are unavailable because they're out of season. Some years ago, one would just have to accept that, and for the most part I do anyway, because I like eating locally grown and reared food (I live in a very rural county), and I like the seasonality of different produce. But because of globalisation one can now buy food from all over the world, so one has a choice. I'm fond of strawberries, and last weekend I bought a large box of them - grown in Egypt. They're delicious. And Fair Trade accedited, so there's benefit going directly back to the people who grew them. Now, those concerned about global warming would doubtless say I shouldn't have purchased them, because of the carbon cost of transporting them from Egypt to the UK. So forgetting my selfish desire to eat strawberries in the middle of winter here's the ethical dilemma - I can buy those strawberries, and make my own miniscule contribution to improving the standard of living of the Egyptian farmer who grew them, but potentially make the problem of global warming worse. Or I can choose not to buy them, give no assistance to the farmer, but potentially lessen the problem of global warming in the future. Because I'm a sceptic, it's not so much of a dilemma, but you know what I mean.

I also buy orange juice squeezed from fruit grown in your state in the US, btw. Should I not do so?

Anyway, that's a tiny example, but an indication, I feel, of the sort of thorny issue this becomes when you start to really look at the real-life consequences.

I’m a bit behind the rapid flow on this since R.W and Seeker made their posts following mine above. So excuse the delayed response. It’s bloody late here!

Great article R.W– thanks for posting it. Your press in the UK seems to have a greater ability to think for itself than our pap in Oz – with the exception of “The Australian” which is by far the superior newspaper in this country. That, and of course “Quadrant”.

Seeker says:

Well, Seeker, you seem to be overstating the position somewhat. Nobody here has been arguing that global warming is not occurring. I have pointed out to you on at least three occasions that I accept the IPCC’s 0.74 C º +/- 0.18 C º increase in GATA from 1905 to 2005. I have not seen anybody on this thread dispute that.

I am bemused by your apparent inability to recognise this fact. It makes me wonder about your motivation in persisting with such a line of argument.

However, I do dispute your view that there is a consensus that anthropogenic CO2-e is partly the cause. The statement is a very bald assertion. This is where the science appears to be fundamentally flawed.

As you know, the models proclaim the GATA increase is CO2-e driven. These are models which are proven to be unreliable when measured against observed data. These are the models that the modellers themselves admit cannot account for the full variation in the observed data sets. (I’ll spare you the CRU email that corroborates this point, because you have seen it here on at least two occasions prior). These are the models that have been programmed to work to a faulty algorithm.

In saying “it is at least partly anthropogenic”, I ask you, where is the evidence? The projections of models are not evidence. The models’ algorithms are not evidence.

Do you really think that the quality and integrity of the scientists that question this convenient view of the “Alarmists” is somehow inferior? These Alarmists are the same people who support the CRU “scientists” - the very scientists who have demonstrated their preparedness to break the laws of the land through tax avoidance, destruction of information, manipulation of peer review processes, black-mailing of professional journals and what seems to have been falsification of data? Do you have a view on this?

Are you aware that there are thousands of internationally recognised scientists who dispute the Alarmist’s view?

Seeker asks:


I’ve made a rather abbreviated and simple effort to answer this previously. Did you have a view on it? But, in short: there is no win/win. In fact the opposite occurs. The environment still cops it from the polluting developing nations – so it (the environment) loses; and we cop it through a massive tax impost on Carbon (which, given the appalling state of the science, may not be the reason for the warming) and we lose. Looks more like lose/lose to me!

A somewhat more eloquent composition is contained in the article that Richard.Webster posted.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/colu ... ssues.html

May I suggest that you read the second paragraph at least:

“The first of these is the matter of cost: the scarcely believable bill our politicians wish to land us with as the price of their proposals to meet the supposed threat of global warming. Few people have even begun to take on board the astronomic scale of the sums involved – the International Energy Agency talks blithely of $45 trillion - because on this politicians and media have in recent days remained more than ever silent.”

There seems to be a bit of a disconnect as to what you think the market force is that will drive the economy to the next level. The reason the Agricultural Revolution occurred in Britain when it did was essentially because of the way in which the changed technology drove improvements in productive capacity and efficiency. Similarly, the reason the Industrial Revolution occurred was the same – improvements in productive capacity and efficiency.

Alternative (green) technologies at the current time do not provide the same leap in productive capacity and efficiency. Until they do, there will be a net cost to the societies that are forced into them. Subsidies and taxes don’t drive economic competitiveness.

No, Seeker, I respect your view but we need to think longer and harder before we leap into this one.

Regards to all

Wombat.

Wise words Wombat
that is all I ask to lets think longer and harder on this one before we leap to conclusions


It is hard to argue on the basis of Data when some of it is corrupted

Why corrupt it because Knowledge is POWER

Talk to the Rothschilds about that
Think of the lucky person who knows where the prime real estate is


And the public will be the LAST to know ...we can all agree on that one

Did you explain why the glaciers were melting so rapidly? Where is the link that I can read. I am very interested.
Take your time ...

Do they need to become wealthier, or do they need more basic human needs met? See, to me, this is part of the problem.

I think GDP measures the wealth of a society - but it's not always clear that as societies become wealthier (esp. if the wealth is in the hands of a small few) that human needs are always better met.

It's exactly because of this problem that some development specialists have suggested we look at other measures of "wellbeing" for societies other than GDP - such as the Human Development Index (HDI), or the ISEW or GPI...

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/ ... o-the-gdp/



Well, there is a growing "locavore" movement, mostly led by Michael Pollan, who seems to have adopted "eat local" as their slogan. But like you I have mixed feelings about that, I mean in many ways it seems sad we have to deny ourselves all the rich flavors of the world's palate, just because something we might like doesn't grow locally. Pollan mostly seems incensed that you can now eat berries and other produce out of season by having it imported from all over the world - but I agree with you if you take his same logic to its natural conclusion, it means you shouldn't eat anything shipped from elsewhere and I'm not sure I agree with it.

I don't think I want to see fewer goods - produce or otherwise - shipped from place to place all over the world. I do think international trade has benefits, at least when it is fair trade and isn't corporate exploitation, I just happen to think we need to figure out ways to transport things from place to place in ways that use less fossil fuels, or at least less polluting fossil fuels.

Did you know you can run vehicles on the excess food grease produced by fast food restaurants? Just think about that for one second. Imagine running a fleet of vehicles on stuff we would normally throw away. Little or no pollution and given the world's appetite for fast food close to a renewing resource. Another win-win?

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2005/01 ... onvert.php

There will be NO RETURN in efficiency with 'green' because efficiency is tossed...and 'green' costs the taxpayers EXTRA on every public 'green' construction job.

Example: Projects designated LEED certified in construction often require that a percentage of the lumber of the project be 'green.' What does that mean? That means that the logs are dragged from the mountains with horses and then hand-hewn...no chain saws or machinery used. Said logs must also be harvested a certain number of miles from the construction site. So...one of the new 'green' jobs being created is a very old fashioned logger. The lumber costs about 10 times the amount as the lumber you can purchase from Lowes. Please consider what the cost is to the taxpayer. This is STUPID. End of story.

I accept other models. I just question their validity.

It's solar variation? Doesn't seem supported by solar monitoring, or the temperatures of the rest of the solar system.
It's Milankovich cycles, eccentricity of Earth's orbit? Maybe, but those seem to cause slower periods of change.
Cosmic rays? Fine, but what I do not understand from your theory is why the level of cosmic ray bombardment of the Earth has increased over the last 60 years, and appears to continue to be increasing.

It seems logical to me it's anthropogenic.

a) the natural greenhouse effect of Venus causes it to have an artificially higher temperature.
b) the natural greenhouse effect of Earth causes its global temperature to be higher than it should be (this was demonstrated by Arrhenius and Fourier in the 19th century)
c) adding manmade greenhouse gasses to natural greenhouse gasses should therefore add to an existing natural effect

No one can dispute CO2 levels in the atmosphere are steadily increasing, and you said you don't dispute we're warming. I understand correlation is not causation.

But the above scientific model suggests exactly why one should correlate with the other, and may in fact be causing the other.

I've never seen a skeptic show why the greenhouse model shouldn't work - to question a model, you have to suggest what about it is wrong - I haven't seen that yet.



Model appears to be valid. Model explains the variation we've seen. Where's the problem? I'll ask you again. If it works on Venus, why doesn't it work here?



Mostly because

a) there hasn't been a century of R & D into improving their efficiency as there has been with fossil fuels
b) the real COSTS (externalities - pollution) of fossil fuels are usually dumped as "externalities" that don't show up at the pump/meter - society just pays them in health bills and other ways

Finally, there's one other problem. We haven't even talked about the issue of whether we're running out or not. I don't know if the Peak Oil scenario is true, but it seems likely we're going to confront Hubbert's Peak eventually, even if we haven't passed it already.

At that point, cheap oil itself will rapidly start becoming a thing of the past. And although I don't like conspiracy theories, as you know, there is quite a bit of reason to suspect increased interest in geopolitical control over Central Asia and the Middle East may have to do with some possible hinting that control over the remaining, dwindling resources may be critical for those with power & money at stake.

BTW, I'm not against nuclear power, although I'd prefer to see more R & D going into nuclear fusion, which I believe is less dangerous for the environment than fission.

Because the magnetosphere is dying...I have been monitoring it for at least 5 years and I have never seen it at such low levels.

Any particles coming towards us from the sun would have immediated access to us because of this.

The last time things were at these levels was 15 years after the invention of the telegraph. The solar storms that hit earth while the magnetosphere was 'down' caused fires to arc from the telegraph wires...think about it; we have wires everywhere now....

The fluctuations in the magnetosphere can cause earthquakes...like a belt that is tightened and loosed quickly. Fluctuations in the magnetosphere have also been linked to increases in violent/crazy behavior in humans.