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: Global warming is not due to the sun, confirms leaked re

Unread postby PersianPaladin » Wed Jan 30, 2013 4:43 pm

There is also a question of the plasmasphere of the Earth and whether there are lags in terms of storage of EM energy from the sun - i.e. being electrodynamic it can have capacitive qualities.
User avatar
PersianPaladin
 
Posts: 668
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2011 8:38 am
Location: Turkey

Re: Global warming is not due to the sun, confirms leaked re

Unread postby starbiter » Fri Feb 01, 2013 3:01 pm

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/02/ ... in-global/

“[Results] do suggest the possibility of a much larger impact of solar variations on the stratosphere than previously thought, and some studies have suggested that this may lead to significant regional impacts on climate,” reads a draft copy of a major, upcoming report from the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).



Sorry, this is from Fox news.
I Ching #49 The Image
Fire in the lake: the image of REVOLUTION
Thus the superior man
Sets the calender in order
And makes the seasons clear

www.EU-geology.com

http://www.michaelsteinbacher.com
User avatar
starbiter
 
Posts: 1445
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 9:11 am
Location: Antelope CA

Re: Global warming is not due to the sun, confirms leaked re

Unread postby viscount aero » Sun Feb 24, 2013 11:29 pm

To state the obvious: When the Sun goes down in the evening, the dark hemisphere cools. When the Sun comes up in the morning, the lit hemisphere warms up. This is global warming, at least hemispherical warming.

But more seriously, in my opinion, the oceans and the gaseous atmosphere are one entity. Climate change cannot be addressed properly without including the oceans, the air, as well as the currents within both (as well as the Earth's axial tilt in relation to the Sun). So we have: 1. the Sun 2. the oceans 3. the air. These each are massive systems and their synergy is yet more complex.

Moreover, CO2 is possibly a red herring. In my layperson's investigations over the years I have learned that CO2 is a poor heat insulator compared to CH4 (which is 25x more effective as a greenhouse gas) and water vapor. Therefore why is the discussion nearly constantly about CO2 when water and methanogens comprise the alleged culprits for climate change?

Given that, shouldn't we be looking for sources of these items and reasons for their overabundance, including oceanic currents, versus focusing on CO2?

Here is an article that discusses oceanic currents' influences on climate:
http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/climat ... ate-change

And an article about H20 vapor:
http://tucsoncitizen.com/wryheat/2012/0 ... or-player/

Also, why are record LOW temperatures this past winter being recorded everywhere? If the entire globe were warming would we not see record HIGH winter temperatures globally? Hence, this is another 800-pound gorilla in the climate changer's room. If anything we are seeing temperatures in the extremes--both hot and cold--versus only globally warmer. Global warming as a term should be thrown out as a legitimate scientific phrase. Anyone can see that isn't happening.
User avatar
viscount aero
 
Posts: 2381
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California

Re: Global warming is not due to the sun, confirms leaked re

Unread postby viscount aero » Mon Feb 25, 2013 12:11 am

Although mainstream, this is a very balanced view of the synergy between air and water:
http://www.dnr.mo.gov/energy/cc/cc4.htm

Of particular note is the idea of negative versus positive feedback in the interaction of airborne C02, water vapor, wind, and ocean currents.

For example, the flawed C02 issue assumes a positive 1:1 correlation between increased atmospheric C02 and warming. From the article:

"Some computer models predict that doubling atmospheric carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, would cause rising ocean temperatures, which will cause an increase in evaporation. The added water vapor, also a greenhouse gas, will enhance the greenhouse effect, which would further increase global warming. This is a positive feedback mechanism. However, there is a negative feedback theory. The increased evaporation would produce more clouds, which reflect and radiate away more energy than they retain. Thus increased clouds could have a cooling effect."

Do you see the red herring? How can C02 lead to increases in heat and thus H20 evaporation when C02 cannot really do this? Once the water vapor content increases in the atmosphere you immediately get cooling--not warming. With C02 being in the vast minority of particulate matter in the Earth's atmosphere (and a poor heat trapping molecule), how can its feeble presence lift megatons of water into the air in the first place?

Unless I'm missing something major (which I may be as I'm not a climatologist) then C02 is a non-agrument.

From the earlier article in my prior post:
http://tucsoncitizen.com/wryheat/2012/0 ... or-player/

"Water vapor is a powerful greenhouse gas, but its net effect in the atmosphere is to lower temperatures. Proponents of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) and most IPCC climate models assume the opposite:

AGW hypothesis: Carbon dioxide, a weak greenhouse gas, begins warming the planet. This warming evaporates water and so puts water vapor into the atmosphere which amplifies the warming effect. This is called a positive feedback.

At first look, this proposition seems logical and reasonable. But other properties of water vapor reduce temperatures and the net effect is a strong negative feedback. A positive feedback tends to destabilize a system, whereas, a negative feedback tends to keep a system in check. Just think for a minute, if water vapor had a net positive feedback effect, this planet would have had run-away global warming long ago. That alone should falsify the positive feedback hypothesis. But let’s look at some observational evidence for a negative feedback.

The graphic below (from Brehmer) compares four pairs of cities, each at about the same latitude so that each pair receives about the same amount of sunlight, and the cities are inland, away from possible tempering by sea breezes. The data is from the National Weather Service (the temperatures have been corrected for elevation differences). The difference between the pairs is that one city is in an arid climate, the other is in a humid climate. We see that the more humid city in each pair has a lower average annual temperature. The addition of water vapor to the atmosphere has a cooling effect in spite of water vapor being a greenhouse gas much more powerful than carbon dioxide..."
User avatar
viscount aero
 
Posts: 2381
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California

so-called Global warming ----> look to CH4

Unread postby viscount aero » Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:13 pm

To illustrate my reasoning behind C02 being the wrong area to emphasize in the climate change debate, please read the below articles:

from:
http://www.buffalonews.com/apps/pbcs.dl ... 19685/1074

"Methane a rising danger in global warming

By Frank J. Dinan
Published: 09/13/2012, 12:01 AM
There is a broad scientific consensus that human generated carbon dioxide plays a large role in global climate change, but a vocal minority rejects this view. From either perspective, our attention has been almost exclusively focused on carbon dioxide as a primary cause of global climate change. But today, another gas potentially causing global climate change must be considered: methane (natural) gas.

Methane has been in the news a great deal lately since it has become available in immense quantities due to the development of hydraulic fracturing. This controversial technology allows us to release vast quantities of methane gas stored within the earth's crust. It has led to methane being touted as the abundantly available clean fuel for the future. Some argue methane's abundant availability gives the United States the potential to become a net energy exporter.

As methane becomes increasingly abundant, its potential for causing environmental problems if it is handled improperly increases. The Environmental Protection Agency has determined that methane has a Global Warming Potential (GWP) 23 times greater than that of carbon dioxide. This means that methane is that many times as effective as carbon dioxide at blanketing the earth to prevent the escape of its heat.

But there is yet another enormous potential source of methane gas entering our atmosphere, one that is far more difficult to control: methane hydrates. These are ice-like crystals found in permafrost. These hydrates are stable at low temperatures but melt to release methane gas when they are allowed to warm. The permafrost regions of the Arctic stretch all around the globe and contain incalculably great amounts of methane hydrates. Satellite photos that document the rapid loss of sea ice leave no doubt that these Arctic regions are warming rapidly.

The GWP of methane gas combined with the rapid warming of the Arctic give rise to a potentially disastrous positive feedback loop. As the Arctic's permafrost regions warm, methane gas is released. Methane's high GWP assures that the Earth will warm even more rapidly as the gas enters our atmosphere. This increased warming will result in methane being released even more rapidly, thereby establishing a snowballing feedback cycle leading to increasingly rapid climate change. Research documents that 48 million tons of methane are entering our atmosphere from eastern Siberian permafrost alone each year. That amount is sure to grow.

Global warming, significant as it seems today, is in its early stages. The role of carbon dioxide as its cause is being studied and argued aggressively. In contrast the rapidly growing role that methane is sure to play in climate change receives little attention. It surely must be considered if we are to control our climate's future."

Frank J. Dinan is an emeritus professor of chemistry at Canisius College.
---------------------------------
Articles on fossil record mass-extinctions due to ancient methanogen releases:
https://pangea.stanford.edu/research/Oc ... eology.pdf
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007/10 ... ord-p.html

excerpt:
"Reason 3) The bulk of the mass extinction during the end Permian event was caused by a further temperature increases of 5 degrees Celsius bringing the total global warming to 10 degrees Celsius during the entire end Permian event. The consensus scientific explanation of the latter warming wave is that the oceans heated as a result of the first warming wave and this again caused the trapped methane at the ocean floors to bubble up and burn/oxidize in the atmosphere..."
User avatar
viscount aero
 
Posts: 2381
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California

Re: Global Ice Age--No, Wait! Global Warming

Unread postby Beata-at-home » Tue Mar 12, 2013 11:59 pm

This ought to clear the air if there is still any doubt!


During the 1970s the media promoted global cooling alarmism with dire threats of a new ice age. Extreme weather events were hyped as signs of the coming apocalypse and man-made pollution was blamed as the cause. Environmental extremists called for everything from outlawing the internal combustion engine to communist style population controls. This media hype was found in newspapers, magazines, books and on television;

http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/0 ... rmism.html
Beata-at-home
 
Posts: 28
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2013 4:10 pm

Re: Global Ice Age--No, Wait! Global Warming

Unread postby viscount aero » Wed Mar 13, 2013 11:13 am

Beata-at-home wrote:This ought to clear the air if there is still any doubt!


During the 1970s the media promoted global cooling alarmism with dire threats of a new ice age. Extreme weather events were hyped as signs of the coming apocalypse and man-made pollution was blamed as the cause. Environmental extremists called for everything from outlawing the internal combustion engine to communist style population controls. This media hype was found in newspapers, magazines, books and on television;

http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/0 ... rmism.html


That's well known particularly by people over about age of 40 or so. But the younger crowd has been raised in the global warming paradigm. So that is all there is to them.
User avatar
viscount aero
 
Posts: 2381
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California

Global Warming Research

Unread postby michael.suede » Mon Aug 05, 2013 9:00 pm

I found this researcher who seems to be covering a lot of topics that are relevant to EU theory.

He's pointed out that the climate oscillations we see are space based.

http://people.duke.edu/~ns2002/

He's published papers showing that the decadal oscillations can be tied to measurements of the auroras.

He also appears to be an anthropogenic warming skeptic now that he knows the climate is controlled by space weather.
michael.suede
 
Posts: 88
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2009 9:27 am

Re: Global Warming Research

Unread postby D_Archer » Tue Aug 06, 2013 5:30 am

His PDF > http://people.duke.edu/~ns2002/pdf/Scafetta_EE_2013.pdf

Important
-UNRESOLVED PHYSICAL UNCERTAINTY OF CURRENT GCMS (data can be wrong, good he acknowledges this)
-DECADAL AND MULTIDECADAL CLIMATIC OSCILLATIONS ARE SYNCHRONOUS TO MAJOR ASTRONOMICAL CYCLES (the general cycles in data are easy to spot, even if not completely accurate it would still show the cycles)
-SUN AS AMPLIFIER OF PLANETARY ORBITAL OSCILLATIONS (yes, but not via the proposed mainstream mechanisms)

Regards,
Daniel
- Shoot Forth Thunder -
User avatar
D_Archer
 
Posts: 1255
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:01 am
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Global Warming / Climategate

Unread postby GaryN » Tue Aug 13, 2013 3:49 pm

What Global Warming? 2012 Data Confirms Earth In Cooling Trend.
“If you think scientists just couldn’t get any more incompetent, then think again. NOAA scientists even appear to believe that cold events are now signs of warming,” Gosselin points out.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/wha ... ling-trend

Dang, I was hoping to not have to load up with firewood this year, but maybe I'll need much more if cooling continues. :(
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
GaryN
 
Posts: 2661
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:18 pm
Location: Sooke, BC, Canada

Re: Global Warming Research

Unread postby rkm » Mon Aug 19, 2013 12:47 pm

The galactic nature of climate becomes even more apparent on longer time scales. If we look back 400,000 years in Vostok, we see a pattern that could only be caused by oscillating discharges, on many different scales, whose energy reaches the heliosphere via interstellar Birkeland currents...

V-450K+1800-X.jpg
User avatar
rkm
Site Admin
 
Posts: 102
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 5:46 pm
Location: Wexford, Ireland

Climate Change

Unread postby John Starr » Fri May 30, 2014 5:07 pm

I am writting this post to gain insight into the EU position on climate change. As I gather, EU dispells with the mainstream view of weather prediction and temprerures rises being generated by CO2 emissions and opt for weather correalations to sun spot cycles. I base this on Ben Davidsons you tube vid on the topic. I was posed a question today as to why the ice (presumably at the poles) is melting. Does EU acknowledge that the ice is in fact melting and sea levels rising? If so, is tempreture the cause and does this rising temp correlate to sun spot cycles?
John Starr
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Fri May 02, 2014 7:55 am

Re: Climate Change

Unread postby nick c » Sat May 31, 2014 7:11 am

User avatar
nick c
Moderator
 
Posts: 2457
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

Re: Climate Change

Unread postby electrodogg1 » Mon Jun 02, 2014 3:55 pm

John Starr wrote:

Does EU acknowledge that the ice is in fact melting and sea levels rising?

I'm not sure of the official EU position, but while the ice at the Arctic Circle seems to be melting, the ice in Antarctica is increasing. Arctic sea ice (not responsible for sea level increase) appears to be on the increase, but that may be a temporary phenomenon. Some recent papers indicate that the ice melt at the Arctic may be from atmospheric black carbon depositing on the ice. The mean sea level has been rising since 1880 at a near constant rate. The rate of sea level rise has not increased as atmospheric CO2 has increased.

From an article on wattsupwiththat.com:
Quoting the five researchers, “the new reconstruction suggests a linear trend of 1.9 ± 0.3 mm/yr [7.5 inches per century] during the 20th century” and “1.8 ± 0.5 mm/yr [7 inches per century] for the period 1970-2008.”


My personal position is that climate scientists cannot accurately judge the effect of the sun on earth's climate when they assume the wrong paradigm for the mechanism of the sun. They assume the sun is a nuclear furnace with a near constant output. They calculate that the TSI (total solar irradiation) only varies by .01%, therefore the sun cannot cause the variation in earth's climate. They leave out the highly varialbe solar wind charging the ionosphere which results in lighting that adds energy to the earth's atmosphere. The more active the sun, the more lightning, the more earth atmospheric warming. Again this is my personal opinion. See Wal Thornhill's article at:

http://www.holoscience.com/wp/global-wa ... ignorance/
Best,

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

Re: Climate Change

Unread postby Aardwolf » Tue Jun 03, 2014 8:33 am

The temperature of the Earth is homeostatic and while we have 325 million cubic miles in liquid form it will remain so.
temp-kelvin.png
Temp v CO2
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1321
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

PreviousNext

Return to Electric Universe - Planetary Science

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest