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

Xantos
Posts: 58
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 4:11 am

Re: The EU and Climate exchange

Unread post by Xantos » Sun Jun 03, 2018 3:23 pm

DangerousDann wrote:Wow,, so the answer is yes, tons of chemistry deniers here.

I am a person who tests the science I have been told is fact to the best of my ability.

The chemistry is solid and factual. Just take two identical bottles, put water in both, with a thermometer. Then put some co2 in one of them, seal them up and put them in the sun for a few minutes and watch the difference in temperature, even after the light source is removed, the co2 bottle is much warmer.

So anyone telling me its irrelevant is someone who has not tested it for themselves.

The ph of the ocean is changing very quickly dead zones are spreading.

And the "weather" in my homeland is rather quickly killing everything I know and love here in Oregon, weather it be by record fire seasons, or just plain drought. All the indigenous fish have died off due to warming water, and invasive species are moving up from the equator in search of cooler climate, or just because its now warm enough for them here, were it was not 30 years ago.

Frost used to kill many tree eating Beatles annually, but now they survive the warm winters and have terrible impacts on our forests. The state park " Snow park" is now "Mud Park", as the snow melts even in the winter. Suggesting that its all Nasa Hype from where I'm sitting is so far onto the delusional , oblivious scale, I can't help but wonder if we're living on the same planet.

I never meant to suggest that climate change is the end of the world (in fact earth will better off without us) , but climate driven migration is already starting, and where people get hungry and desperate to feed and water their kids, bullets start flying quickly thereafter.

I don't see any benefit in rooting steadfast against obvious climate change science. In fact, I'm doing what I can to clean up my act, including growing my own food and building a self sufficient solar system to get clean energy and lead by example.

It makes me sad to see the bold work done by the EU and the Safire project allow proponents to stubbornly ignore so many other fields of science and climate , or even worse, to pit themselves against this budding movement to clean energy. All the while talking about how compartmentalized the bloated scientific community operates today , ignoring the plasma that is all around them.

Maybe its human nature to only see what it is we personally consider important when we get passionate about our work or ideals. I guess more cities need to flood, people need to die by the millions before it is taken seriously.

I sure wish the EU could offer helpful , functional discoveries to the issue instead of joining some crusade against the establishment and incidentally bolster this dogmatic us versus them nonsense, as if we old timers cannot see what is really going on in our environment. Its a bit insulting .

What good is the Electric universe if it cannot do anything helpful? Just being right is all that matters? Sounds like a hopeless cosmology to me, another big bang we have no control over. There is no reason to embrace it with this belief that it is the end all and cure all we have no control over. As if there is no other relevant science.

The very argument that electricity rules all, and will save or destroy what it likes regardless of co2 levels, is not something the general public will accept with open arms. I wish that aspect of this "belief" (which is all it really is, like a religion) could be toned down a bit, for the sake of the EU.

It make for easy titles like "crack pot", quacks, climate deniers in disguise, etc, etc. Its embarrassing to me, I don't share links anymore because of the near religious conviction of this yet unproven climate impact proponents of the EU claim will or is happening.

Because I KNOW co2 causes heating, you cannot change facts, I tested it myself, you should too. There will be no more little ice ages for thousands of years with 400 ppm co2, dream on if you believe otherwise, but Ill stake my belief in the science of core samples over this little understood bluster any day.

Anyhow, I got my answer, thanks for all your time. Sadly, while I believe the universe is all electric, and the EU will someday , hopefully be realized for its work, it will not happen until the growing crisis of the climate is dealt with.

Finding a clean and cheap energy source is probably the best hope for the EU in the coming decades, otherwise it has little importance. I wish luck and happiness to all who work hard to find truth.
I like giving headshots to flawed experiments.

You can't test for CO2 effect in this way. It's erroneous. Explanation, why this test is bogus and you should delete it from your mind's memory as a viable experiment and stop showing it to kids, if you're doing that. Do more reading. There is lots of papers on the theme of ionosphere effects on weather, Earth-Sun connection, quakes, weather etc.
What good is the Electric universe if it cannot do anything helpful? Just being right is all that matters? Sounds like a hopeless cosmology to me, another big bang we have no control over. There is no reason to embrace it with this belief that it is the end all and cure all we have no control over.
You're missing the point. It's not about belief or being helpful. Science IS about knowledge AND being right (getting to the core truth of phenomena).
The very argument that electricity rules all, and will save or destroy what it likes regardless of co2 levels, is not something the general public will accept with open arms. I wish that aspect of this "belief" (which is all it really is, like a religion) could be toned down a bit, for the sake of the EU.
They don't have to accept it with open arms. Truth sometimes hurts. Electric Universe is not a belief (unlike AGW). If the Sun decides tommorow to start releasing killer CMEs one after the other or we get hit by one of those particle beams that missed us a couple of years ago, we're done. So electricity does rule everything. As far as we're concerned electricity is mankind's God.
Finding a clean and cheap energy source is probably the best hope for the EU in the coming decades, otherwise it has little importance. I wish luck and happiness to all who work hard to find truth.
We've already found it. It's called nuclear energy. Whoever told you solar is cheap duped you really, really well.

Within a decade, the Climate Change religion will die off and Electric Universe explanations for planets and climate will rule. It is an inevitable outcome of research and technological progress. Unfortunately, people like you have all been duped very badly by liars that want your money.

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

Re: The EU and Climate exchange

Unread post by DangerousDann » Wed Jun 06, 2018 12:45 pm

" Finding a clean and cheap energy source is probably the best hope for the EU in the coming decades, otherwise it has little importance. I wish luck and happiness to all who work hard to find truth."

quote by Xantos

"We've already found it. It's called nuclear energy. Whoever told you solar is cheap duped you really, really well.

Within a decade, the Climate Change religion will die off and Electric Universe explanations for planets and climate will rule. It is an inevitable outcome of research and technological progress. Unfortunately, people like you have all been duped very badly by liars that want your money."

Xantos

Posts: 52
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 4:11 am

Fukushima ring a bell. How can you sit there acting like nuclear power is somehow clean? Its a massive accident waiting to happen during earth quakes or floods. Proven deadly to most life, this is not a solution, poisoning our planet with waste coolant is not my idea of good thinking, its a step backwards, back into the stone age of ignorance. Now cold fusion, or clean fusion being developed seems possible, and progress has been made, but it is certainly not available for widespread use globally. And solar is a dollar per watt, the panels are guaranteed for 25 years, maybe you should look into your facts before saying things that are no longer true. China has made amazing progress in solar development and is leading the world in production. So naturally our loving POTUS gets jealous and slaps a tariff on them.

Top

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

Re: The EU and Climate exchange

Unread post by Aardwolf » Mon Jun 11, 2018 9:07 am

DangerousDann wrote:China has made amazing progress in solar development and is leading the world in production.
I guess appalling Chinese human rights abuses, together with thousands of unnecessary deaths and general hardship of their working class population is irrelevant. Let's just keep buying their cheap stuff.

With regards to nuclear power, the harmful effects of long term low level radioactive contamination are way overblown.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 2215009884
Summary

Following the 1986 Chernobyl accident, 116,000 people were permanently evacuated from the 4,200 km2 Chernobyl exclusion zone [1]. There is continuing scientific and public debate surrounding the fate of wildlife that remained in the abandoned area. Several previous studies of the Chernobyl exclusion zone (e.g. [2,3]) indicated major radiation effects and pronounced reductions in wildlife populations at dose rates well below those thought [4,5] to cause significant impacts. In contrast, our long-term empirical data showed no evidence of a negative influence of radiation on mammal abundance. Relative abundances of elk, roe deer, red deer and wild boar within the Chernobyl exclusion zone are similar to those in four (uncontaminated) nature reserves in the region and wolf abundance is more than 7 times higher. Additionally, our earlier helicopter survey data show rising trends in elk, roe deer and wild boar abundances from one to ten years post-accident. These results demonstrate for the first time that, regardless of potential radiation effects on individual animals, the Chernobyl exclusion zone supports an abundant mammal community after nearly three decades of chronic radiation exposures.

User avatar
GaryN
Posts: 2668
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:18 pm
Location: Sooke, BC, Canada

Re: The EU and Climate exchange

Unread post by GaryN » Mon Jun 11, 2018 10:52 am

In fact, about a thousand people never left Chernobyl and have survived just fine for 30 years.
Will The Truth About Chernobyl Ever Come Out?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca ... e54404ee24
In order to change an existing paradigm you do not struggle to try and change the problematic model. You create a new model and make the old one obsolete. -Buckminster Fuller


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 » Thu Jun 28, 2018 11:24 am

Aardwolf wrote:
DangerousDann wrote:China has made amazing progress in solar development and is leading the world in production.
I guess appalling Chinese human rights abuses, together with thousands of unnecessary deaths and general hardship of their working class population is irrelevant. Let's just keep buying their cheap stuff.

With regards to nuclear power, the harmful effects of long term low level radioactive contamination are way overblown.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 2215009884
Summary

Following the 1986 Chernobyl accident, 116,000 people were permanently evacuated from the 4,200 km2 Chernobyl exclusion zone [1]. There is continuing scientific and public debate surrounding the fate of wildlife that remained in the abandoned area. Several previous studies of the Chernobyl exclusion zone (e.g. [2,3]) indicated major radiation effects and pronounced reductions in wildlife populations at dose rates well below those thought [4,5] to cause significant impacts. In contrast, our long-term empirical data showed no evidence of a negative influence of radiation on mammal abundance. Relative abundances of elk, roe deer, red deer and wild boar within the Chernobyl exclusion zone are similar to those in four (uncontaminated) nature reserves in the region and wolf abundance is more than 7 times higher. Additionally, our earlier helicopter survey data show rising trends in elk, roe deer and wild boar abundances from one to ten years post-accident. These results demonstrate for the first time that, regardless of potential radiation effects on individual animals, the Chernobyl exclusion zone supports an abundant mammal community after nearly three decades of chronic radiation exposures.
Well said.

Slightly OT, but on the subject of radiation being exaggerated, has anyone seen Hiroshima lately?
You would never know it was nuked - nowhere does there seem to be any no-go areas, yet we are constantly told a so-called "Nuclear War" (not that this is even possible in the manner portrayed by Hollywood & the fear mongers) would render large areas inhabitable for centuries yet please see the image attached. Curious
Attachments
Hiroshima-Peace-Memorial-Museum.jpg
You will never get a man to understand something his salary depends on him not understanding.

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

Re: The EU and Climate exchange

Unread post by Aardwolf » Fri Jun 29, 2018 9:13 am

neilwilkes wrote:Slightly OT, but on the subject of radiation being exaggerated, has anyone seen Hiroshima lately?
You would never know it was nuked - nowhere does there seem to be any no-go areas, yet we are constantly told a so-called "Nuclear War" (not that this is even possible in the manner portrayed by Hollywood & the fear mongers) would render large areas inhabitable for centuries yet please see the image attached. Curious
Even more curious, the Bikini Atoll tests were about 1,000 times more powerful than Hiroshima yet;

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/ ... -site.html
But, much to the surprise of a team of research divers who explored the area, the mile-wide crater left by the detonation has made a remarkable recovery and is now home to a thriving underwater ecosystem.
The planet, and nature specifically, doesn't seem to take much notice of the supposedly dangerous effects of low-level radiation exposure.

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 » Mon Jul 02, 2018 4:15 am

Good link.
One thing does bother me though - don't Coral's like warm water?
Also - how are there Corals in the Arctic Circle????? (Spitzbergen)

It is high time that the public realised they are being conned over CO2. It is not now and never has been a pollutant.
I am not saying we should make a mess - not at all - and the biggest 2 problems we face in this regard are
1 - too many people. 8 billion now and counting, where it used to be stable at around 1 billion.
2 - too much plastic is used. The sheer amount of plastic in the oceans is a crime against the planet and needs to stop NOW, not be gradually phased out by 2050 - when WW2 started we did not set targets for a gradual reduction of Nazis by 1950, we stopped them (or did we? that's another topic altogether) immediately.
You will never get a man to understand something his salary depends on him not understanding.

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 » Mon Jul 02, 2018 8:52 am

Also - how are there Corals in the Arctic Circle????? (Spitzbergen)
I understand your question as we associate "coral" with tropical oceans. But there are species of corals that thrive in cold water:
http://wwf.panda.org/our_work/oceans/co ... er_corals/

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 » Thu Jul 19, 2018 3:24 am

Good call, nick - one slight problem with that is the Spitzbergen corals are apparently warm water corals!

See http://www.npolar.no/en/news/2012/2012- ... lerev.html
You will never get a man to understand something his salary depends on him not understanding.

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 » Thu Jul 19, 2018 10:28 am

Neil,
Apparently we have a misunderstanding, perhaps my fault.
I was referring to the post:
One thing does bother me though - don't Coral's like warm water?
Also - how are there Corals in the Arctic Circle????? (Spitzbergen)
And the answer to that post is the same, corals do presently grow in cold water environments. However, I should have realized that you were referring to warm water corals. I took the quote too literally and out of context.

I have been well aware of fossilized warm water corals in Arctic environments for many years, including in Spitzbergen.

see p 44 - 46 of Earth In Upheaval (1955)
Velikovsky wrote: Corals of the Polar Region

Spitzbergen in the Arctic Ocean....
...Not only fossil trees and coal but corals, too, were found there.
In that same section Velikovsky makes an extremely important distinction. Merely explaining this as the result of some ancient warm period is wholly inadequate. These trees and corals could not grow in the Arctic regardless of the warmth of the climate! The reason is photoperiodicity. They could not survive a 6 month long night. Their existence in the Arctic is prima facie proof that when these trees and corals were living, the Earth did not have the present 23.5 degree inclination to the ecliptic and/or was on a different orbit.

User avatar
webolife
Posts: 2539
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: The EU and Climate exchange

Unread post by webolife » Thu Jul 19, 2018 11:18 pm

nick c wrote:Neil,
Apparently we have a misunderstanding, perhaps my fault.
I was referring to the post:
One thing does bother me though - don't Coral's like warm water?
Also - how are there Corals in the Arctic Circle????? (Spitzbergen)
And the answer to that post is the same, corals do presently grow in cold water environments. However, I should have realized that you were referring to warm water corals. I took the quote too literally and out of context.

I have been well aware of fossilized warm water corals in Arctic environments for many years, including in Spitzbergen.

see p 44 - 46 of Earth In Upheaval (1955)
Velikovsky wrote: Corals of the Polar Region

Spitzbergen in the Arctic Ocean....
...Not only fossil trees and coal but corals, too, were found there.
In that same section Velikovsky makes an extremely important distinction. Merely explaining this as the result of some ancient warm period is wholly inadequate. These trees and corals could not grow in the Arctic regardless of the warmth of the climate! The reason is photoperiodicity. They could not survive a 6 month long night. Their existence in the Arctic is prima facie proof that when these trees and corals were living, the Earth did not have the present 23.5 degree inclination to the ecliptic and/or was on a different orbit.
I agree with a less inclined axis in the past, but here are some more scenarios for past climate that are well supported by geologic/fossil evidence:
1. In the pre-deluge earth [or let's say the earth of prefossilization times, the earth we see represented by the fossil record up to the pliocence/pleistocene], the entire planet was subject to sub-tropical temps.
2. A global greenhouse atmosphere was in place, due to the presence of higher amounts of water vapor.
3. Lower topography in the original continental masses, means that there would have been no boundary mountain ranges as are prevalent today due as a primary effect of [rapid] continental drift. This would i
ensure a moderate climate worldwide, unlike the zonal climate pattern of today, as well as a lack of micro-climates, especially of the sub-alpine or alpine variety. Lush vegetation found fossilized in the Arctic and Antarctic indicates this.
4. The arrangement of the continents was more united, or there was a single continent, likely centered or located on the equatorial region, so fossilized corals may have drifted to their polar locations... of course, it is only a popular presumption that corals require warm temperatures to thrive, however in a sub-tropical world, they would be widespread.
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.

User avatar
webolife
Posts: 2539
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: The EU and Climate exchange

Unread post by webolife » Fri Jul 20, 2018 1:18 pm

In more direct response to Nick's proposition that coral polyps could not survive the Arctic winter due to light deprivation, I would agree that this is strong suggestive evidence for a subsequent polar axis shift; however it is also possible that while perhaps they would not be in optimal growth mode, they would survive in the warm watery environment that characterized the polar regions at the time. Still it is just as likely to me that the fossils may have drifted to their present locations.
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.

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 » Fri Jul 20, 2018 5:22 pm

web,
Corals are only part of the problem.
There are remains of various large trees and other plants that do not grow in the Arctic. There are also coal deposits.
Additionally, at the time of the apparent warming of the Arctic the tropical regions of the Earth were not correspondingly hotter.

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 » Sun Jul 29, 2018 8:48 am

nick c wrote:web,
Corals are only part of the problem.
There are remains of various large trees and other plants that do not grow in the Arctic. There are also coal deposits.
Additionally, at the time of the apparent warming of the Arctic the tropical regions of the Earth were not correspondingly hotter.
We've also got a similar problem in the Antarctic as well, what with all the coal, gas & Oil reserves there are there then either Oil is indeed Aboitic and not a fossil fuel, or else that region too was once free of ice & therefore much warmer than it is now. A Pole Shift does not explain this at all - the whole planet would need to have been inclined at 90 degrees to what it is now & that did not happen (at least there is no evidence for it that I am aware of which is not the same thing of course)

Interestingly, we are in the process of a magnetic pole shift now - at the same time as the Sun seems to be entering what looks likely to be a Maunder Minimum at best with a prolonged cold period coming for the rest of this century but it might also get much worse as the Beaufort Gyre is also stuck and that is known to be a major factor in the Younger Dryas Cold Snap (the one before the Younger Dryas warm period when temperatures suddenly rose again, possibly due to a bolide impact across the Northern Hemisphere).

http://www.whoi.edu/news-release/follow ... resh-water
You will never get a man to understand something his salary depends on him not understanding.

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests