Climate Change

Historic planetary instability and catastrophe. Evidence for electrical scarring on planets and moons. Electrical events in today's solar system. Electric Earth.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: Army: Sun, Not Man, Is Causing Climate Change

Unread postby Lloyd » Mon Jun 30, 2008 4:07 pm

- Dogg, I had the impression that Carl Sagan invented the greenhouse gas theory after scientists were surprised to find that Venus was hot, as Velikovsky predicted, whereas others expected it to be cold, because the thick atmosphere should have blocked penetration of sunlight. If each molecule of a gas is supposed to absorb IR from sunlight, the expectation seems to be that each molecule would be a tiny greenhouse. That's probably the expectation with regard to Venus.
- Is anything wrong with my proposed experiment? It seems to me it would prove whether there's anything to the greenhouse gas theory.
- Who are the so-called scientists measuring troposphere temperatures via windspeed instead of temperature guages? Are there no objections from actual scientists? Do you have any links on that?
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4328
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Polar vulcans

Unread postby FS3 » Mon Jun 30, 2008 4:08 pm

May I add another observation regarding the polar vulcanoes.

...Sonar scans at a stretch of the ridge about 500 kilometers from the North Pole revealed several distinctive volcanic features, says Reves-Sohn. The largest of these undersea features, which usually have flat tops scarred with prominent central craters, are about 2 kilometers across and a few hundred meters tall...


We know that the polar regions are of uttermost importance for the electric interaction with our sun. That´s were the currents "come in". If we assume an enhanced em-activity by the sun it would be logical that vulcanism is triggered firsthand THERE - at the poles - as for we do know as well that vulcanism is closely connected to electric environment, for not to mention that it might be mainly an electrical phenomenon.

FS3
User avatar
FS3
 
Posts: 223
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:44 pm
Location: Europe

Re: Army: Sun, Not Man, Is Causing Climate Change

Unread postby nick c » Mon Jun 30, 2008 8:57 pm

Lloyd wrote:
- Dogg, I had the impression that Carl Sagan invented the greenhouse gas theory after scientists were surprised to find that Venus was hot, as Velikovsky predicted, whereas others expected it to be cold, because the thick atmosphere should have blocked penetration of sunlight.

Well, sort of...the Venus Greenhouse theory was originated by Rupert Wildt:
In 1940, however, he also hypothesized that the carbon dioxide in the venusian atmosphere trapped heat, a phenomenon later called the greenhouse effect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Wildt

When confronted with the anomalous high temperatures of Venus which supported Velikovsky, mainstream was quite desperate. Wildt's model fell far short of providing an explanation for the heat of Venus.
Enter Carl Sagan, he took Wildt's model and from it created the untenable concept of the 'accelerated' or runaway Greenhouse effect. Mainstream immediately grasped onto this, even though Venus' cloudtops reflected away almost all the sunlight and the dense atmosphere allowed little or no light penetration, but it was better than the alternative...Velikovsky.
So it entered the body of scientific knowledge that Venus was the victim of a runaway greenhouse and therefore, due to industrial CO2 emissions, the Earth could suffer a similar fate.
Venus' hot condition has nothing whatsoever to do with a greenhouse effect. Venus is hot because of it's recent birth and/or catastrophic history, it is not in thermal equilibrium with its' environment, ie the heat source is internal. That is why the planet displays uniform temperatures on both the day and night side, this despite a slow rotation.
It is important to remember that the Venus 'runaway greenhouse' is the prototype for the greenhouse disaster predicted for Earth.

Nick
User avatar
nick c
Moderator
 
Posts: 2418
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

Re: Polar vulcans

Unread postby moses » Mon Jun 30, 2008 10:40 pm

FS3 wrote:May I add another observation regarding the polar vulcanoes.

...Sonar scans at a stretch of the ridge about 500 kilometers from the North Pole revealed several distinctive volcanic features, says Reves-Sohn. The largest of these undersea features, which usually have flat tops scarred with prominent central craters, are about 2 kilometers across and a few hundred meters tall...


We know that the polar regions are of uttermost importance for the electric interaction with our sun. That´s were the currents "come in". If we assume an enhanced em-activity by the sun it would be logical that vulcanism is triggered firsthand THERE - at the poles - as for we do know as well that vulcanism is closely connected to electric environment, for not to mention that it might be mainly an electrical phenomenon.

FS3

This also ties in with the theory that Mars oscillated between Venus and the Earth,
in the Saturn System. Maybe the Arctic area was periodically hit with powerful
electrical discharges. The volcanoes the result.
Mo
moses
 
Posts: 1092
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 3:18 pm
Location: Adelaide

Re: Army: Sun, Not Man, Is Causing Climate Change

Unread postby electrodogg1 » Tue Jul 01, 2008 7:25 am

Lloyd,

Here's a link to the article about using windspeed as a proxy for troposphere temperature.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 144943.htm
Best,

David
electrodogg1
 
Posts: 50
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2008 8:20 am
Location: La Quinta, California

Re: Army: Sun, Not Man, Is Causing Climate Change

Unread postby plasmana » Tue Jul 01, 2008 7:52 pm

nick c wrote:When confronted with the anomalous high temperatures of Venus which supported Velikovsky, mainstream was quite desperate. Wildt's model fell far short of providing an explanation for the heat of Venus.

Enter Carl Sagan, he took Wildt's model and from it created the untenable concept of the 'accelerated' or runaway Greenhouse effect. Mainstream immediately grasped onto this, even though Venus' cloudtops reflected away almost all the sunlight and the dense atmosphere allowed little or no light penetration, but it was better than the alternative...Velikovsky.


Nick C, do you have any sources for the Sagan aspect? I would be very interested in learning more about this.
plasmana
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2008 4:21 am

Re: Army: Sun, Not Man, Is Causing Climate Change

Unread postby nick c » Tue Jul 01, 2008 9:41 pm

hello plasmana,

plasmana wrote:Nick C, do you have any sources for the Sagan aspect? I would be very interested in learning more about this.


The various catastrophic journals Pensee, Kronos, Aeon, The Velikovskian, and others are loaded with articles on the subject of Venus and Sagan's Runaway Greenhouse.
First, I would refer you too:
Carl Sagan and Immanuel Velikovsky by Charles Ginenthal
http://www.velikovskian.com/sagan.htm

A few (of many) articles from Kronos to note:
-Kronos III,#2
p32 "The Ten Points of Sagan" Immanuel Velikovsky
p62 "Sagan's Folly" Lewis M Greenberg
p83 "Sagan's 'Ten Plagues'" Ralph Juergens
p135 "Sagan's Appendices: A Quick Appendectomy" C J Ransom
-Kronos IV,#3 p.56
"Venus- A Youthful Planet" Immanuel Velikovsky
-Kronos IV, #4 p1
"Velikovsky and Venus: A Preliminary Report on the Pioneer Probes"
by Lewis M Greenberg
The list could go on and on...

Wal Thornhill on Sagan and the Venus Greenhouse:
The discovery that Venus was almost red hot made it imperative for scientists to invent an explanation. The result was the "enhanced" or "runaway" greenhouse effect. Rupert Wildt originally proposed the greenhouse theory more than 60 years ago. He predicted that Venus would be warmer than the Earth by a few tens of degrees Celsius due to the trapping of infrared radiation in the planet's lower atmosphere. After the Venera and Mariner probes to Venus showed how unearthly are the temperatures there, Carl Sagan proposed the "enhanced greenhouse effect" in 1960. This was followed by a "runaway greenhouse effect" postulated by S. I. Rasool and C. de Bergh in 1970. According to James Pollack, for the enhanced greenhouse effect to work, a vital 0.1 per cent water vapour as well as 0.02 per cent sulphur dioxide and some unspecified heat absorbing particles in the clouds are required in addition to 96 per cent carbon dioxide in the Venusian atmosphere.
[...]
That brings us to the assumption that the infernal heat of Venus is due to a greenhouse effect. That could only be so if we ignore everything we know about greenhouses. "The much ballyhooed greenhouse effect of Venus's carbon dioxide atmosphere can account for only part of the heating and evidence for other heating mechanisms is now in a turmoil," confirmed Richard Kerr in Science magazine in 1980. Nothing has changed since then. The greenhouse theory does not explain the even surface temperatures from the equator to the poles: "atmospheric temperature and pressure in most of the atmosphere (99 percent of it) are almost identical everywhere on Venus - at the equator, at high latitudes, and in both the planet's day and night hemispheres. This, in turn, means the Venus weather machine is very efficient in distributing heat evenly," suggested NASA News in April 1979. Firsoff pointed out the fallacy of the last statement: "To say that the vigorous circulation (of the atmosphere) smooths out the temperature differences will not do, for, firstly, if these differences were smoothed out the flow would stop and, secondly, an effect cannot be its own cause. We are thus left with an unresolved contradiction." In another paper, Firsoff argues that Venus's high albedo results in the absorption of less solar energy than does the more transparent atmosphere of the Earth. "Increasing the mass of the atmosphere may intensify the greenhouse effect, but it must also reduce the proportion of solar energy reaching the surface, while the total of the available energy must be distributed over a larger mass and volume. Indeed, if the atmosphere of Venus amounts to 75 air-masses, as is assumed by Rasool and de Bergh, the amount of solar energy per unit mass of this will be about 0.01 of that available on the Earth. Such an atmosphere would be strictly comparable to our seas and remain stone-cold, unless the internal heat of Venus were able to keep it at temperatures corresponding to the brightness temperatures derived from the microwave emission."
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=9aqt6cz5
color emphasis added


Also, from The Electric Sky by Donald E. Scott, pp20-21:
But if sunlight entrapment in a mixture of gases can indeed cause the temperature to rise to 800 or 900 degrees F, then it should be possible to build an actual greenhouse here on Earth, fill it with a gaseous mixture identical to Venus's atmosphere, and sit back and watch the temperature rise. This would be a marvelously non-polluting energy source.
[...]
The runaway greenhouse concept was a baseless "what if" hypothesis. It was an excuse to paper over an unexpected and embarrassing new discovery. It was tossed out to the public despite experimental evidence that such a mechanism could not occur. No peer reviewer objected to the lack of experimental evidence for postulating this new hypothesis. This is a prime example of several of the honored members of the mainstream being given a free pass.


As I have stated in other posts, this (the Venus case) is the origin of the "impending greenhouse disaster for Earth" campaign, that is currently so fashionable and has become such a 'cause celebre.'

Nick
User avatar
nick c
Moderator
 
Posts: 2418
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

Re: Army: Sun, Not Man, Is Causing Climate Change

Unread postby plasmana » Thu Jul 03, 2008 9:13 pm

Excellent! Thanks Nick, for all the great info!!!
plasmana
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2008 4:21 am

Re: Army: Sun, Not Man, Is Causing Climate Change

Unread postby webolife » Fri Jul 04, 2008 2:26 pm

Regardless of the maxi- or minivariations of our understanding of global warming or the "greenhouse" climate, we mostly seem to agree at least that atmospheric warming is either:
1. naturally caused
2. cyclical
3. related to solar periodicity
4. not closely related to CO2 emissions
5. part of a "feedback" mechanism from the Ice Age, whatever caused that
6. a political ploy
7. Bambi's greatest fear: "Man has come to the forest..." :roll:
8. all of the above, or a combination of these and other non-"man" caused factors.
I tend to regard terrestrial factors as significant, while apparently many EU folks here are dismissive of that, but agree that the solar environment is much more the controlling factor.
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: 2526
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Heating as a parallel effect rather than a cause?

Unread postby Drethon » Wed Jul 23, 2008 5:18 am

With hurricane season upon us I got thinking about how hurricane predictions are based on ocean temperatures and how last year (two years ago?) one of the hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico just exploded out of nowhere from a single spot. What if heating is just another effect along with hurricanes, not the cause of hurricanes? (Much uneducated speculation below, feel free to comment any place where my ideas are already disproved)

What if heating is an effect of the focus of electric charge in certain areas. If this is occurring then the updrafts in storms, including hurricanes, could be caused by this charge being transferred up from the surface. If this occurs the warm air being moved to the upper atmosphere would be an effect of the current transfer as opposed to the cause of the updraft.

Another reason I wonder about this is when the hurricane travels over land it dies fairly quickly. This may be as simple as the current explanation that it looses its "fuel source" of the warm ocean but during the day land is warmer than the ocean (if less humid). Here in Michigan we get a few thunder storms a year with localized winds that exceed hurricane strength, one even produced measured winds of 128 MPH and winds exceeding hurricane strength along a fairly wide band http://www.spc.noaa.gov/misc/AbtDerechos/casepages/may30-311998page.htm. So why doesn't a hurricane simply shrink into a small, intense thunderstorm overland instead of dissipating?

Just some random musings for discussion.
Drethon
 
Posts: 152
Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2008 5:20 am

Re: Heating as a parallel effect rather than a cause?

Unread postby ElecGeekMom » Wed Jul 23, 2008 8:40 am

ElecGeekMom
 
Posts: 328
Joined: Tue May 27, 2008 9:01 am

Re: Army: Sun, Not Man, Is Causing Climate Change

Unread postby keeha » Wed Jul 23, 2008 7:40 pm

The Register UK: American physicists warned not to debate global warming
Bureaucrats at the American Physical Society (APS) have issued a curious warning to their members about an article in one of their own publications. Don't read this, they say - we don't agree with it. But what is it about the piece that is so terrible, that like Medusa, it could make men go blind?

It's an article that examines the calculation central to climate models.
keeha
 
Posts: 112
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 5:20 pm

Re: Army: Sun, Not Man, Is Causing Climate Change

Unread postby substance » Wed Jul 23, 2008 10:58 pm

Wow, they`re really acting like children :shock: What scientific work can anyone do today, when all the top positions are taken by such people...
I agree with the guy, we should mitigate CO2, not stop it. As some people noted on the previous page, CO2 might not be a pollutant, but still the air is unbreathable in some cities and I think this is enough reasoning to stop driving oil-fuel burning cars.
My personal blog about science, technology, society and politics. - Putredo Mundi
User avatar
substance
 
Posts: 160
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 12:07 am
Location: Germany

Re: Heating as a parallel effect rather than a cause?

Unread postby webolife » Thu Jul 24, 2008 9:34 pm

Drethon, you're getting only part of the hurricane heat engine picture...
a couple of points to remember/add:
1. The tropical oceanic heat drives evaporation of water, fueling the immense updraft occuring in the wall clouds of the hurricane. This fueling does stop once the hurricane gets over land. Humidity is an important piece of this mechanism.
2. Even before the hurricane eye makes landfall, the intense pressure differentials in the hurricane vortex stimulate thunderstorms and even tornadoes over land, these being moderated by other prevailing wind, temperature, and humidity factors in those areas.
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: 2526
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Heating as a parallel effect rather than a cause?

Unread postby junglelord » Fri Aug 29, 2008 10:23 am

I don't have proof, but I have no doubt that hurricanes are electrical in nature to a large extent. This primary circuit is kinda evident everywhere in smaller forms. Since we are dealing with a leaky capacitor, I fail to see how it could not be.
The vortex nature of hurricanes is evidence of its electrical nature. Double layers always make the vortex. There is a double charge layer involved no doubt.
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord
User avatar
junglelord
 
Posts: 3693
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am
Location: Canada

PreviousNext

Return to Electric Universe - Planetary Science

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron