The EU and Climate exchange

Plasma and electricity in space. Failure of gravity-only cosmology. Exposing the myths of dark matter, dark energy, black holes, neutron stars, and other mathematical constructs. The electric model of stars. Predictions and confirmations of the electric comet.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

DangerousDann
Posts: 14
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2018 6:02 pm

The EU and Climate exchange

Unread post by DangerousDann » Fri Mar 30, 2018 3:50 am

Hello all, i'm new here, but have rejected the standard cosmology for the past 10 years. I was delighted to find a better explanation in the EU, and devour every piece of information I can.
Recently though, I got a boot to the chest with the realization that there seems to be quite a large sort of "climate deniers" quality to EU proponents. Don't take that wrongly, its not a four letter word, but , simply put; the belief that co2 rising and climate change are not man made. Justified primarily by the amazingly unknown, or invisible electrical forces on earth being much stronger than anything we puny humans could ever do to it.
Before I go on, is this line of questioning ok?I don't want to get booted for bringing up sensitive topics or drama, I just need to know if anyone else can add to my understanding.
My argument opposing this stance is simply that : regardless of weather a nuclear solar sun,, or electrical,, or combination of both bring heat to earth, co2 will still insulate and increase the capture of heat energy. So man made climate change is obviously still very important. That is if we like Earth the way it is now. (or was 20 years ago)
Thoughts?

Lastly, my main concern regarding the future of EU(which no doubt could help the climate in the long run, with proper funding) is that stating any hint of climate denial no matter what the reason (true or otherwise), is not likely to be perceived well by people concerned with climate, like me. It doesn't sit well, and seems to do more damage to EU reputation than good. The timing couldn't be worse. I cannot accept that the EU Thunderbolt Gods are so powerful that we can do nothing to take better care of our planet. Its eating me up. Its a big black mark on the EU I simply cannot accept. Talk about a hopeless cosmology. We are not powerless to change . And the planet indeed seems to notice us, and is reacting from where I'm sitting. Thoughts? Advice?

User avatar
neilwilkes
Posts: 366
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2008 4:30 am
Location: London, England
Contact:

Re: The EU and Climate exchange

Unread post by neilwilkes » Fri Mar 30, 2018 7:22 am

Sorry to say this, but Anthropogenic Global Warming is a myth that has become very close to a religion.
CO2 levels in the past have followed temperature rises, and the world is not burning up regardless of CO2 levels rising rapidly in the last 100 years - CO2 is not a climate forcer and it is not a pollutant either, no matter how much Barack & Al say it is.
See www.realclimatescience.com and check out Tony Heller's excellent work where he shows how NOAA & NASA have managed to airbrush the massive warm spell in North America in the 1930's and replace areas on the world temperature maps that have no data with angry red colours. I do not expect you to take my word for it - go read for yourrself, with their own data before it gets "fixed" to show the result the climate prophets want.
https://realclimatescience.com/100-of-u ... tampering/
https://realclimatescience.com/governme ... ice-fraud/
Another cracker is Tuvalu - the South Pacific island chain commonly we are told will "vanish due to Sea Level rise & climate Change". Well, it has actually grown in size recently, not shrunk! Don't believe me?
http://www.gstimes.in/13-2-2018-current ... se-threat/
and also
https://www.earth.com/news/rising-sea-levels-tuvalu/ amongst many others.

Please do not get me wrong - the Climate is changing. BUT not for the reasons we are given on a daily basis (CO2) and instead there is a complex set of causes happening here including a greatly increased GCR count, a rapidly weakening magnetic Shield around earth due to the ongoing pole flip and the Sun entering what looks to be set to become a grand minimum. We are going to get a lot colder over the next 35 years - not warmer.

Finally - go here & grab these resources.
https://realclimatescience.com/unhiding ... r-windows/

Stuff like this has to stop - it is not science but apocalyptic pronouncements that are more reminiscent of a religion than science - we must all make sacrifices or the world will burn, or we will get a superflood. This sounds like Noah & the Apocalypse of St John to me, not science.
You will never get a man to understand something his salary depends on him not understanding.

Webbman
Posts: 533
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2014 10:49 am

Re: The EU and Climate exchange

Unread post by Webbman » Fri Mar 30, 2018 7:56 am

the word you use "deniers" is a authoritation/religious type expression where other points of view are not allowed, investigated or tolerated. Opposing views will be met with sanctions, smears and casted out.

what does that make you?
its all lies.

jacmac
Posts: 596
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 12:36 pm

Re: The EU and Climate exchange

Unread post by jacmac » Fri Mar 30, 2018 8:49 am

I have just posted this on the topic on EU/PC hater logic.

Dann said:
"Simply put, weather solar heat from a nuclear sun or electrical sun is irrelevant,"

It is not the heat Dann, it is the electricity.
Check out the weather predictions of Pierce Corbyn at WeatherAction.wordpress.com.
Check out the scientific papers on the connections of the earth's atmosphere to the sun
as reported by Ben Davidson at Suspicious0bserver.org (too numerous to mention)

There is a lot more going on than the man made increase in the co2 in our atmosphere.

Jack
Ps. I am totally in favor of cleaning up our man made pollution, for many reasons,
but to stop "climate change" is not one of them.
Pss. "Hogwash" is when a whole community of 'Scientists" fail to include changing solar activity
in their calculations.
jacmac

Doctor Zordirz
Posts: 4
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2012 11:59 am
Location: Binghamton, NY U.S.A.

Re: The EU and Climate exchange

Unread post by Doctor Zordirz » Fri Mar 30, 2018 6:01 pm

In light of the evidence against a theory, that which seems to support it is irrelevant.


It's like how in logic an argument based on a false premise is invalid. It doesn't matter how many of the other premises are true.

What are the premises of AGW theory? What observations seem to contradict them?

I was also really surprised how many of the EU folks aren't buying into AGW... I thought we had all come to that way of thinking independently but, who knows? Maybe we all just brainwashed ourselves with too many YouTube videos :lol:

BeAChooser
Posts: 169
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2015 7:24 pm

Re: The EU and Climate exchange

Unread post by BeAChooser » Fri Mar 30, 2018 6:05 pm

DangerousDann wrote:Recently though, I got a boot to the chest with the realization that there seems to be quite a large sort of "climate deniers" quality to EU proponents. ... snip ... Lastly, my main concern regarding the future of EU(which no doubt could help the climate in the long run, with proper funding) is that stating any hint of climate denial no matter what the reason (true or otherwise), is not likely to be perceived well by people concerned with climate, like me. It doesn't sit well, and seems to do more damage to EU reputation than good.
I take offense to your use of the term "climate deniers" because I doubt anyone here denies that "climate" changes. Now, other than that, I can't speak for others or the majority regarding belief in man-made climate change or global warming or whatever you want to call it. I can only admit that I'm one who doesn't believe that man's CO2 is primarily responsible for changes in the earth temperature or the frequency and severity of weather events. I think I can make a good case regarding that but I won't do so on this forum since that's not the purpose of this forum. I also think a good case can be made that the sun plays the primary role and the mainstream is wrong to essentially ignore it.

Beyond that, I will say I see a lot of similarity to the reasons that (I think) both climate research and modern astrophysics have gone astray. The mainstream *scientists* in both are acting like priests, not scientists. Both are claiming their fields are "settled" science, when they clearly aren't. Both depend on models that have proven to have no predictive value over scores of years. Both refuse to honestly discuss data that appears to contradict their *theories*. Both are attempting to silence their critics and refusing to publish works critical of them in the journals they control. Both are limiting financial support to their critics. And both have motivations other than *science* for steering the conclusion in the direction that they have. In the last 3 decades, mainstream climate scientists have gone so far as to "adjust" (I would call it tamper) with the database of temperatures ... to the extent it can no longer be trusted. Mainstream astrophysics (to my knowledge) haven't done that yet but they do control, for the most part, what type of data is being gathered. Experiments that might help EU proponents make their case are often overlooked when planning their many billion dollar experiments (that end up finding nothing).

In summary, I think both efforts are symptomatic of a major problem with government funded BIG science. They've become beasts that are too big to fail. It's a problem we'd all better address before wasting countless more billions and more time ... resources that are becoming more limited.

User avatar
Metryq
Posts: 513
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2012 3:31 am

Re: The EU and Climate exchange

Unread post by Metryq » Sat Mar 31, 2018 3:21 am

@DangerousDann

Another Web resource you should check out is Watts Up With That. Meteorologist Anthony Watts hosts articles both pro and con on AGW, although he is not a proponent of AGW. Watts is also not a proponent of "iron sun" (basically EU), but I don't hold that against him.

Read the various articles, dive into the forums. I think the crowd over there will be generally very courteous to address any questions you might have.

User avatar
nick c
Site Admin
Posts: 2483
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

Re: The EU and Climate exchange

Unread post by nick c » Sat Mar 31, 2018 7:39 am

Doctor Zordiz wrote:I was also really surprised how many of the EU folks aren't buying into AGW... I thought we had all come to that way of thinking independently but, who knows? Maybe we all just brainwashed ourselves with too many YouTube videos
The EU position is not the result of a political consensus, it is the natural fallout from an electric Sun model. The Earth (and all the bodies of the solar system) are part of an electrical circuit centered on the Sun. The qualities of their atmospheres (weather) are determined by the ambient electrical environment. Anthropogenic effects on the Earth's atmosphere are marginal at best, and not the determining factor.
Perhaps the "brainwashing" is coming from the prevailing political consensus concerning AGW and not from an objective scientific analysis.

JHL
Posts: 158
Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2014 3:11 pm

Re: The EU and Climate exchange

Unread post by JHL » Sat Mar 31, 2018 8:36 am

Lots of good replies here - I like Nick's perspective - so please realize how loaded your initial premise is, Dan:
Recently though, I got a boot to the chest with the realization that there seems to be quite a large sort of "climate deniers" quality to EU proponents. Don't take that wrongly, its not a four letter word, but , simply put; the belief that co2 rising and climate change are not man made.
The two assumptions you've lodged are that 1) Climate Change is somehow de facto reality and 2) that questioning it therefore constitutes denial, and that these presumptions address a belief or belief system. Since the first is conjecture the second becomes circular.

AGW Climate Change - I emphasize the term so as to lend it a popular, cultural brand name as opposed to actual scientific finding - is itself a belief system that reality, as research science typically applies itself to it, has failed to validate. There being no settled evidence for it, the average EU proponent has not failed by way of belief but has simply observed the logical scientific status quo. As far as anybody knows, there simply is no AGW.

In other words, AGW Climate Change, and not these imaginary deniers, has the onus of reliably demonstrating its place in objective reality. It has not done this. In fact, as time passes findings mitigate against it, not for it, and if you'll follow that thread you'll see how, why, and where.

If I were you I'd start with the Thunderbolts video clips on the subject and also do not miss the Suspicious Observers treatment on the natural equalizing negative feedback system involving polar melt and natural cooling. Like the other commenters I've followed the subject for years and I've never seen evidence that AGW Climate Change is anything but a theory endlessly searching for the proof it's never found, one that for some reason suffers chronic fraud, I'll add. That's not denial; that's a completely reasonable conclusion based on consistent evidence.

archmage
Posts: 6
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2011 12:20 am

Re: The EU and Climate exchange

Unread post by archmage » Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:50 pm

I'm actually QUITE concerned about climate.

I think framing this as "global warming" may be missing the point. Even "climate change" doesn't serve to encapsulate the claimed issues if they're widely unknown:

From memory, this is what I thought the claimed problem was (I'll post whatever links I can quickly grab):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification - Ocean serves as a large global CO2 buffer. It's being "used up" fast due to the rate of change of CO2 (if not value (because this is being absorbed and buffered), then total emission). The absolute value of CO2 PPM and global temperature are less of a concern. Of course deforestation contributed to this loss of buffer, and release of CO2 as well.

- "The point of bringing it up again is to note that if the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere changes more slowly than this, as it always has throughout the Vostok record, the pH of the ocean will be relatively unaffected because CaCO3 compensation can keep up. The [present] fossil fuel acidification is much faster than natural changes, and so the acid spike will be more intense than the earth has seen in at least 800,000 years."

- "A 2013 study claimed acidity was increasing at a rate 10 times faster than in any of the evolutionary crises in Earth's history.[54] In a synthesis report published in Science in 2015, 22 leading marine scientists stated that CO2 from burning fossil fuels is changing the oceans' chemistry more rapidly than at any time since the Great Dying, Earth's most severe known extinction event, emphasizing that the 2 °C maximum temperature increase agreed upon by governments reflects too small a cut in emissions to prevent "dramatic impacts" on the world's oceans, with lead author Jean-Pierre Gattuso remarking that "The ocean has been minimally considered at previous climate negotiations."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction - so we are said to be in the Holocene Extinction event now, wherein "current rate of extinction of species is estimated at 100 to 1,000 times higher than natural background rates." - Of course they say this has been ongoing for over 10K years, but I'm more concerned about what they say has changed in the last 100 years, and particularly the rates of change in the last 50 years.

Particularly of interest is that as the Ocean acidifies, and the ocean warms, the Ocean oxygen levels deplete. This also appears to be happening rapidly: https://www.nature.com/articles/nature21399

The phytoplankton of the ocean are said to be responsible for a huge chunk of the global oxygen production... something like HALF. I think an extinction event accelerates and worsens dramatically when our oxygen producers at the bottom of the food chain are impacted... I don't know how threatened the phytoplankton are, but I remember feeling uneasy about it... they say life began in the oceans... I think an extinction event can begin there as well.

Now then, I don't know with certainty that there is Anthropogenic Global Warming, and I'd rather frame it as climate and ocean RATE of change correlated with extinction: but if the rates of change are as dire as reported, and if the correlation between these changes and extinction events is valid, and if CO2 and methane and such are contributing, then we should be trying to eliminate these factors.

I don't think any of this threatens any cosmology view we espouse.

In this vein, I'm interested in Eric Lerner's plasma fusion research. Anyone think that's a promising avenue for energy production?
Last edited by archmage on Sat Mar 31, 2018 1:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Brigit Bara
Posts: 643
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 1:37 pm

Re: The EU and Climate exchange

Unread post by Brigit Bara » Sat Mar 31, 2018 1:19 pm

The phytoplankton of the ocean are said to be responsible for a huge chunk of the global oxygen production... something like HALF. I think an extinction event accelerates and worsens dramatically when our oxygen producers at the bottom of the food chain are impacted... I don't know how threatened the phytoplankton are, but I remember feeling uneasy about it...
Phytoplankton rely on co2 and nitrogen for respiration, energy production and growth, like plants.

Methane, co2, and Nitrogen compounds are trace gases, which have been catagoized as gree nhous e gases. But they actually have vast, unquantifiable natural cycles in earth's atmosphere.

For example, plants exhale co2 in the evenings, and all decomposing plant matter releases methane in UV light.

The natural sources of these trace beneficial gases dwarf human contributions.
“Oh for shame, how these mortals put the blame upon us gods, for they say evils come from us, when it is they rather who by their own recklessness win sorrow beyond what is given…”
~Homer

Webbman
Posts: 533
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2014 10:49 am

Re: The EU and Climate exchange

Unread post by Webbman » Sat Mar 31, 2018 1:34 pm

co2 is plant food. I know this has escaped many people's grasp but plants on this planet are barely getting by because of their overwhelming success.

i for one will feed them best i can! Its my primary function!
its all lies.

JHL
Posts: 158
Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2014 3:11 pm

Re: The EU and Climate exchange

Unread post by JHL » Sat Mar 31, 2018 5:55 pm

Brigit Bara wrote:Methane, co2, and Nitrogen compounds are trace gases, which have been catagoized as gree nhous e gases. But they actually have vast, unquantifiable natural cycles in earth's atmosphere.

The natural sources of these trace beneficial gases dwarf human contributions.
The third strike against CO2 hysteria is that sensitivity to it is far less than assumed: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/03/30/game-over/

Webbman
Posts: 533
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2014 10:49 am

Re: The EU and Climate exchange

Unread post by Webbman » Sat Mar 31, 2018 8:21 pm

archmage wrote:I'm actually QUITE concerned about climate.

I think framing this as "global warming" may be missing the point. Even "climate change" doesn't serve to encapsulate the claimed issues if they're widely unknown:

From memory, this is what I thought the claimed problem was (I'll post whatever links I can quickly grab):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification - Ocean serves as a large global CO2 buffer. It's being "used up" fast due to the rate of change of CO2 (if not value (because this is being absorbed and buffered), then total emission). The absolute value of CO2 PPM and global temperature are less of a concern. Of course deforestation contributed to this loss of buffer, and release of CO2 as well.

- "The point of bringing it up again is to note that if the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere changes more slowly than this, as it always has throughout the Vostok record, the pH of the ocean will be relatively unaffected because CaCO3 compensation can keep up. The [present] fossil fuel acidification is much faster than natural changes, and so the acid spike will be more intense than the earth has seen in at least 800,000 years."

- "A 2013 study claimed acidity was increasing at a rate 10 times faster than in any of the evolutionary crises in Earth's history.[54] In a synthesis report published in Science in 2015, 22 leading marine scientists stated that CO2 from burning fossil fuels is changing the oceans' chemistry more rapidly than at any time since the Great Dying, Earth's most severe known extinction event, emphasizing that the 2 °C maximum temperature increase agreed upon by governments reflects too small a cut in emissions to prevent "dramatic impacts" on the world's oceans, with lead author Jean-Pierre Gattuso remarking that "The ocean has been minimally considered at previous climate negotiations."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction - so we are said to be in the Holocene Extinction event now, wherein "current rate of extinction of species is estimated at 100 to 1,000 times higher than natural background rates." - Of course they say this has been ongoing for over 10K years, but I'm more concerned about what they say has changed in the last 100 years, and particularly the rates of change in the last 50 years.

Particularly of interest is that as the Ocean acidifies, and the ocean warms, the Ocean oxygen levels deplete. This also appears to be happening rapidly: https://www.nature.com/articles/nature21399

The phytoplankton of the ocean are said to be responsible for a huge chunk of the global oxygen production... something like HALF. I think an extinction event accelerates and worsens dramatically when our oxygen producers at the bottom of the food chain are impacted... I don't know how threatened the phytoplankton are, but I remember feeling uneasy about it... they say life began in the oceans... I think an extinction event can begin there as well.

Now then, I don't know with certainty that there is Anthropogenic Global Warming, and I'd rather frame it as climate and ocean RATE of change correlated with extinction: but if the rates of change are as dire as reported, and if the correlation between these changes and extinction events is valid, and if CO2 and methane and such are contributing, then we should be trying to eliminate these factors.

I don't think any of this threatens any cosmology view we espouse.

In this vein, I'm interested in Eric Lerner's plasma fusion research. Anyone think that's a promising avenue for energy production?

you should try to build some resistance to this hysterical propaganda. Its not as dire as it might seem. Their history is that of being continually wrong so you can be confident that the trend will continue.
its all lies.

Aardwolf
Posts: 1330
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

Re: The EU and Climate exchange

Unread post by Aardwolf » Tue Apr 03, 2018 5:56 pm

archmage wrote:I'm actually QUITE concerned about climate.

I think framing this as "global warming" may be missing the point. Even "climate change" doesn't serve to encapsulate the claimed issues if they're widely unknown:

From memory, this is what I thought the claimed problem was (I'll post whatever links I can quickly grab):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification - Ocean serves as a large global CO2 buffer. It's being "used up" fast due to the rate of change of CO2 (if not value (because this is being absorbed and buffered), then total emission). The absolute value of CO2 PPM and global temperature are less of a concern. Of course deforestation contributed to this loss of buffer, and release of CO2 as well.

- "The point of bringing it up again is to note that if the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere changes more slowly than this, as it always has throughout the Vostok record, the pH of the ocean will be relatively unaffected because CaCO3 compensation can keep up. The [present] fossil fuel acidification is much faster than natural changes, and so the acid spike will be more intense than the earth has seen in at least 800,000 years."

- "A 2013 study claimed acidity was increasing at a rate 10 times faster than in any of the evolutionary crises in Earth's history.[54] In a synthesis report published in Science in 2015, 22 leading marine scientists stated that CO2 from burning fossil fuels is changing the oceans' chemistry more rapidly than at any time since the Great Dying, Earth's most severe known extinction event, emphasizing that the 2 °C maximum temperature increase agreed upon by governments reflects too small a cut in emissions to prevent "dramatic impacts" on the world's oceans, with lead author Jean-Pierre Gattuso remarking that "The ocean has been minimally considered at previous climate negotiations."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction - so we are said to be in the Holocene Extinction event now, wherein "current rate of extinction of species is estimated at 100 to 1,000 times higher than natural background rates." - Of course they say this has been ongoing for over 10K years, but I'm more concerned about what they say has changed in the last 100 years, and particularly the rates of change in the last 50 years.

Particularly of interest is that as the Ocean acidifies, and the ocean warms, the Ocean oxygen levels deplete. This also appears to be happening rapidly: https://www.nature.com/articles/nature21399

The phytoplankton of the ocean are said to be responsible for a huge chunk of the global oxygen production... something like HALF. I think an extinction event accelerates and worsens dramatically when our oxygen producers at the bottom of the food chain are impacted... I don't know how threatened the phytoplankton are, but I remember feeling uneasy about it... they say life began in the oceans... I think an extinction event can begin there as well.

Now then, I don't know with certainty that there is Anthropogenic Global Warming, and I'd rather frame it as climate and ocean RATE of change correlated with extinction: but if the rates of change are as dire as reported, and if the correlation between these changes and extinction events is valid, and if CO2 and methane and such are contributing, then we should be trying to eliminate these factors.

I don't think any of this threatens any cosmology view we espouse.

In this vein, I'm interested in Eric Lerner's plasma fusion research. Anyone think that's a promising avenue for energy production?
I call your scary climate doomsday potential future scenarios and raise you NASA's greening planet fact;

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/20 ... ning-earth
From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change on April 25.

An international team of 32 authors from 24 institutions in eight countries led the effort, which involved using satellite data from NASA’s Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectrometer and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer instruments to help determine the leaf area index, or amount of leaf cover, over the planet’s vegetated regions. The greening represents an increase in leaves on plants and trees equivalent in area to two times the continental United States.

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests