Home       Great Shift Table of Contents/Summary   
Preparing Yourself      No Catastrophic Earth Changes     Skeptic's Corner    
 Your Soul Origins    Links     About Russell     Newsletter/Activities    Contact Us

No Catastrophic Earth Changes

Data analysis of Solar and Geomagnetic Activity first posted April, 2009/updated in 2011, 2012 and 2014 Newsletters 42, 43 and 47.

New February 2, 2009/updated June 2012: ECgraph2 (Increased Volcanic Activity).

New January 3, 2009/updated June 2012: ECgraph1 updated (Frequency of Moderate to Very Strong Earthquakes). See also major earthquakes (6.1 and greater) graph below updated through 2011.

New May 8, 2006/updated February 2009: Evidence for decrease in Yellowstone earthquake activity as a result of an Earth energy healing ceremony.

New January 18, 2006: What do I mean by catatstrophic Earth changes? Review my proposed quantitative criteria for a catatstrophic event: Quantifying Catastrophe. See, also review of geophysical events in 2005 in Great Shift/Earth Changes Newsletter #3

New August 12, 2005: I will be periodically adding geophysical and astrophysical data graphs with brief text discussion. These can be accessed through View Data Graphs (latest addition: May 8, 2006)

One aspect of the approach I have developed to understanding the Great Shift has been to develop hypotheses concerning measurable geophysical (Earth) and astrophysical (Solar) changes as a way to test higher dimensional information that suggests a dimensional shift is underway. These higher dimensional sources of information suggest the following:

Earth is experiencing severe geophysical stresses as a result of the dimensional shift that must be relieved in the form in increased earthquake and volcanic activity, and severe weather events such as tornadoes and hurricanes. At the same time solar activity is increasing to provide energy in support of the dimensional shift.

Collectively, human consciousness has reached a level that allows us to shift the location and/or reduce the magnitude or intensity of geophysical events (earthquakes, volcanoes, tornadoes, hurricanes, geomagnetic storms) so as to reduce harm to humans.

Human consciousness is influenced by the Earth's magnetic field, with lower field intensities facilitating changes in consciousness.

The second item explains, in part at least, why the catastrophic Earth changes prophesied by indigenous peoples and various religious traditions have not come to pass, and are unlikely to occur in the coming years. I should clarify here what I mean by "no catastrophic earth changes." In the early 1990s my work as an environmental scientist led me to conclude that humanity had passed the point of no return in the damage we had done to planet Earth and that a great dying of humans, on the order of billions of people, was inevitable. Thus, my operational definition of catastrophic earth changes includes events that cause hundreds of millions to billions of people to die. There are still possible timelines that would result in deaths of this order of magnitude, but I prefer to focus my energy and encourage others to focus their energies on creating a timeline where this does not occur. The evidence presented here suggests that we've done a good job so far.

Neverthless, with more than six billion people alive today, and the intensity of geophysical and environmental stresses being experienced by Mother Earth, additional events, such as the tsunami in Indonesia in December of 2004, are possible which could cause death tolls on the order of hundreds of thousands to millions. When faced with tragedies of this magnitude, it helps to remember that death is a wonderful transition akin to birth, and that the souls of those who have passed on are safe and being well cared for. Such tragedies provide us with the opportunity to offer love, care and assistance to the survivors.

The Table below, taken from Chapter 5 of the Great Shift manuscript, summarizes the results for the seventeen hypotheses that I developed. Only one of these hypotheses (increase in the Schumann resonance) was not supported by the data I analyzed. In the chapter text (and footnotes to the table) I am careful to identify hypotheses where other explanatory factors are available and where the data are consistent with mainstream science's understanding of the phenomena. However, as far as I can tell, five of the geophysical trends have no explanation within the current scientific understanding of earth processes:

Increased frequency of destructive earthquakes (intensity of VIII and greater on the Mercalli scale and magnitude of greater than 6.1 on the Richter scale).

Downward trend in average magnitude of destructive earthquakes. (Note, June, 2012: I have note been able to update this dataset, but since I posted the graph below, this trend does not appear to have continued).

Increased number of active volcanoes.

Stable frequency of major geomagnetic storms, despite increased solar storm activity.

Stable intensity of major geomagnetic storms, despite increased solar storm activity.

The graphs below, compiled from three different datasets, suggest that there was a jump in the frequency of major earthquakes in 1967 and 1992, while at the same time there has been a steady overall decrease in the average magnitude of these earthquakes, as measured on the Richter scale. The decrease in average magnitude is actually more significant than it appears because the Richter scale is logarithmic. The updated graph below, using the USGS dataset II source shows a continuing upward trend in major earthquakes since the graph was first posted.

The following additional data graphs are available: 1) Other Earthquake Trends, 2) Volcanic Activity Trends, 3) Yellowstone Earthquake Trends

 

Back to Top

Table 5-1 Summary of Geophysical and Astrophysical Hypothesis Testing
Hypotheses
Confirmed?
Comments
Earthquakes (a): 50-year global increase in destructive earthquakes
Yes
1
Earthquakes (b): 50-year decline in average magnitude of destructive earthquakes
Yes
1
Earthquakes (c): 100-year decrease in earthquake deaths globally
Yes
2
Volcanoes: 50-year global increase in volcanic eruption activity
Yes
1
Tornadoes (a): 50-year increase in frequency of tornadoes in U.S.
Yes
2
Tornadoes (b): 50-year decrease in relative number of  tornado deaths in U.S.
Yes
2
Hurricanes (a): 50-year increase in number of hurricanes affecting U.S.
Possibly
3
Hurricanes (b): 50-year decline in relative number of hurricane deaths in U.S.
Yes
2
Schumann Resonance: Global shift in 7.8 Hz harmonic upwards since 1987
No
 
Solar/Geomagnetic (1a): 50-year increase in the frequency of major SPEs
Yes
4
Solar/Geomagnetic (1b): 50-year increase in the intensity of major SPEs
Yes
4
Solar/Geomagnetic (2a): 50-year frequency of major geomagnetic storms stable
Yes
1
Solar/Geomagnetic (2b): 50-year intensity of major geomagnetic storms stable
Yes
1
Magnetics (1): 10,0000-year intensity-civilization correlation
Yes
4
Magnetics (2): Decline in intensity during the last 500 years
Yes
4
Magnetics (3): Greater intensity decline in last 50 years
Yes
4
Magnetics (4): Rapid recent changes in location of magnetic pole
Yes
4

SPE = solar proton event (major event defined as proton flux > 10 MeV)

1. Trends are not predicted by mainstream science.
2. Other explanatory factors are involved (i.e. better warning and emergency response infrastructure to reduce deaths, sturdier building construction, etc.).
3. Hypothesis not confirmed for period 1950 to 1996, but recent mainstream science modeling suggests that it will be true in the future.
4. Data trends are also consistent with mainstream science's understanding of Earth magnetic field changes and SPE cycles.

Back to Top

C4.1 Quantifying Catastrophe. [This text is taken from Appendx C; comments welcome]

One of the greatest ecological catastrophes in Earth history happened billions of years ago when free oxygen became a significant gas in the atmosphere. Up until that time Earth was inhabited by myriads of bacteria which found oxygen to be lethally toxic. The consequence of this shift in the composition of the Earth's atmosphere was a great dying of methanogenic, nitrate-reducing, sulfate-reducing, and other bacteria whose survival depended on the absence of oxygen. Their loss was our gain and the amazing diversity of life that we see on planet Earth is fueled by the added energy that oxygen metabolism adds to living systems.

In order to classify an event as catastrophic some baseline needs to be established. A central thesis of this book is that a great dying of billions of humans is no longer inevitable, and better yet, unlikely. However, below I identify a number of events that could result in such a catastrophic dying. Here I suggest some ways to quantify catastrophe and differentiate it from the natural and human-caused disasters which are a "normal" part of human experience. I will use two types of human death statistics as possible indicators for defining a catastrophic event (calculations based on world population of 6.5 billion in early 2006):

(1) Single event death total > 0.9% world population = 60 million. I acknowledge that this would be an extreme event, and would effectively double the number of human deaths in a year (in 2002 deaths from all causes totaled about 57 million, or about 0.9% of the population in that year--Worldwatch Institute, 2005:49). Percentage-wise this is not as extreme as the influenza pandemic of 1918 which killed an estimated 20 to 40 million (1.2 to 2.4 percent of the world's population--Worldwatch Institute, 2005:43). In 1992 the HBD Kryon, was asked the question: Will it be necessary for large numbers of humankind to be terminated in order to achieve balance? He responded: "The answer is yes. The numbers, however, only approaches one percent of the life force here" (Kryon I, 1993:97). That percentage worked out to 55 million at the time, somewhat less than the number I have proposed. However, as I note below, other higher dimensional sources suggest the possibility of a much higher number.

(2) Cumulative deaths (1992-2012)>30 percent = 2.0 billion. I have chosen the cumulative numbers to apply to the time period from the end of the Armageddon bypass (Section 7.6.2) to the year that many predict something spectacular will happen (and which I say "something interesting might happen-Section 7.7). I have set the cumulative threshold at a percentage that is near, but less than the percentages for disastrous famines, and disease epidemics in recorded history. The bubonic plague in Europe (1346-1349) and the 1770 famine in India killed up to one-third of the population and smallpox epidemics in China (161-162 and 310-312) are estimated to have killed up to 40 percent of the population (Cook, 1981). The most catastrophic dying of humans over a more extended period affected the indigenous peoples of the western hemisphere where more than 90 percent of the population (90 million from 1492 to 1600; Wright, 1992). This is the kind of percentage that would likely have died under the pre-1987 timeline.

I am committed to creating a reality in which no single event in the next ten years or so exceeds the first criterion (>60 million deaths). I believe that we have the capacity to keep the actual number far below this. The second criterion, which relates to cumulative deaths from disastrous events, implies multiple events that would exceed the 60 million-death threshold. As I said, I am committed to creating a reality where nothing approaching this super-catastrophic threshold occurs. However a variety of channels have suggested that the number of deaths between now and the not-to-distant future could be as high as 30 to 40 percent, or 2.0 to 2.6 billion (Valerie Donner, The New Ground Crew, email communication dated December 1, 2005). This range is within the percentages of disastrous historical events, but I would take no satisfaction in seeing cumulative deaths in the coming years coming anywhere near close to this range.

Back to Top