The EU and Climate exchange

[nick c]

I could not agree more that the whole idea is to destroy our economies & get very rich at the same time.

UN official admits that the global warming agenda is to destroy capitalism

While we don't want to get deeply into political debates on the TB Forum, all participants should understand that the objectivity of the scientific debate is colored by political and economic agendas.

[Lloyd]

ANOTHER SPECIAL PROJECT

CNPS finished the Special Project on Earth Theories a couple months ago, in which EU was one of the models considered. Now we want to have another project to consider AGW and Limits to Growth. If anyone would like to participate in the project let me know by emailing me at LARK2 at protonmail . com.

You're welcome to take any side. I don't believe in AGW, but obviously there are limits to resources and some of those limits are getting close and it's surely best for civilization to be prepared and find alternatives. I think the biggest danger is from asteroid impacts, or volcanism caused by them. But this is speculation as long as hard data isn't presented. So I welcome everyone to find the data to be presented for any aspect of this project.

[fosborn_]

When I saw the term in the topic "Climate Exchange", I thought it might include Tarek Niazi's,( he uses this term in his lecture and book) Theory of how the planetary magnetic poles influence the location of polar ice caps, and planetary spin.
Hopefully the OP won't mind this inclusion...

More Than 60 Minutes: When Earth Stands Still
Tarek Niazi
It proves through cause-and-effect as well as basic physics what drives the planet to spin about its axis and what makes its spin speed to vary. The book explains the configuration of the magnetic fields that emanate from Earth's core and answers the true reasons behind the weakening of the magnetic field, global warming, climate exchange and reversal of the magnetic field force in Antarctica. Ancient texts and petroglyph enabled the establishment of a cycle of Earth changes of 3,562 years
https://books.google.com/books/about/Mo ... l8MAEACAAJ

Ted Talk..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9YZhWicqEcg

On of the things that caught my attention in his book, was how the Thermosphere contributes much more in the distribution of heat energy than the Sun's actual direct TSI. Also the exciting idea of planetary spin. The book starts out weird unrelated metaphysics IMO.. but he eventually gets to his theory.

[jimmcginn]

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.

CO2 caused global warming is such an absurd premise that the only way its adherents can deal with anybody that does not blindly accept it is to label them as a "denier." This is an attempt to politically alienate them by slyly drawing parallels between them and anybody that denies the holocaust.

Global warming (climate change) is really nothing but a science based religion. It’s an intellectual bait and switch scheme. If asked believers will supply you with a mountain of data. The data will do little more than vaguely suggest some alarming eventualities in the indeterminate future. If you then ask them to delineate the connection to carbon dioxide you can then expect to be called all kinds of derogatory names implying that you are self centered and don’t care about future generations.

The revelation that global warming is a religion based loosely on science is hardly front page news. What is less well known is that the same can be said for aspects of meteorology, specifically the convection model of storm theory.

My name is James McGinn. I am an atmospheric physicist and a science theorist laying the ground work for a brave new future of severe weather mitigation. I have an exciting new hypothesis on the cause of storms. Click the links below to see what all the excitement is about. Thank you for your support.

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
The ‘Missing Link’ of Meteorology’s Theory of Storms. http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... 10&t=16329
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... 15#p122567
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... 01#p122680
Have you ever wondered why liquid H2O is so fluid?
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... 40#p122435
Can hurricanes be stopped or steered?
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... 10#p122351

[DangerousDann]

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.

[Metryq]

Earth's atmosphere isn't a sealed bottle, DD.

[BeAChooser]

in fact earth will better off without us

That's exactly the sort of hyperbole that brought us AGWalarmism in the first place. Just saying ...

[DangerousDann]

Earth's atmosphere isn't a sealed bottle, DD.

LOL! Then why isn't our atmosphere flying out into space? Why isn't the radiation from the sun killing us quickly? Cmon, really, I get that response from people who believe the earth is flat, and the moon landing was faked. Climate tipping points are coming, jet streams are weakening, the ocean is acidifying and warming, weather is becoming more intense. As soon as the ocean comes into equilibrium with the "new norm" of over 400 ppm, not seen for over a million years (some cores point to dozens of millions), the planet will be at least 2 C warmer, probably hotter. What skeptics try to push as "normal" isolated weather events will become global events and cost far more in the global economy than any profit being made by insurance companies ( who BTW are changing policy in response to climate) and new clean energy technology might dream of making. This is happening now. I feel for the families who already lost their homes to drought near the equator. Desertification and flash flooding causing displacement. Millions of acres of forest lost each year to drought ridden forests, breaking all previous records. I can't ignore that. Doing nothing, hiding behind a new cosmology, denying pure data in real time , is shameful. I'm pretty sure the economic and social price for ignoring the people who invented the phones we are typing on, will become astronomical in my life time, and planetary instability will result from lack for food and water , in my life time. Maybe its harder to care and do something, but I intend to do what I can. Yes, I have changed my life, and given up lots of comforts in hopes of , in some way helping those less fortunate and suffering.

[Metryq]

Earth's atmosphere isn't a sealed bottle, DD.

LOL! Then why isn't our atmosphere flying out into space?

I think that pretty well sums up your stance as a "scientist." Earth has a glass ceiling that holds the atmosphere in. Okay.

[jacmac]

It seems to me that arguments about human activity causing climate changes should limit the arguments to
evidence that the human activity is responsible.
Lost in all the hand waving and doom saying about "climate change" is the harm that pollution in general and habitat degradation causes to the planet and its inhabitants.
I agree with the basic EU position that if the scientists do not take into consideration changing solar activities then they will always get it wrong.
Jack

[BeAChooser]

... snip ...

More hyperbole and you're such a saint!

[webolife]

Hey D Dan,
I hope you have persevered in reading the replies on this thread. As an Earth Science major and teacher for the past 41 years, I have spent much time researching and analyzing climate change and the various hypotheses set forth to explain it. Rather than repeat what so many others here have already well said, allow me to summarize a few important aspects of scientific thinking that I believe will serve you well in the future:
1. Science is tentative. Any article, author, or presenter's claims that appear conclusive [especially without an acknowledgment of the other possibilities or hypotheses] is at best incomplete. That goes for 99% of what you have learned so far from the mainstream, as well as most of what you will see in EU. Any claim to the contrary may be deemed ignorant, dishonest, or just worthless. This covers the majority of what you will read or hear in popular media.
Look for and cherish the indicators of good scientific thinking, word's like "may", "suppose", "some data...", etc. Don't spend a lot of time pondering material where you don't find this kind of language
2. This tentativity is science's strength, as it generates and propogates questions, debate, and ongoing research. To see this "strong" science in action, take the valuable time to dig into primary source material, and always search out opposing perspectives. I spend very little time dialoguing with folks who agree with me. What's the point?... neither of us learn anything, and we end up just reinforcing our own biases, kind of like the supposed AGW "consensus".
3. Recognize, as other previous thread posts have also indicated, that every scientific conclusion has its roots in a set of premises, which I refer to as a "faith base". Two different completely logical and valid studies will reach distinct conclusions as a result of this basic and irrepressible fact. It's not just that AGW is presented as a religion [which it is], it's that every one of us holds to a set of beliefs and presumptions which unavoidably guide our pursuit.
4. Disregard any claim made on the basis of an ad hominem. Claims must be built upon solid evidence and reasoning, and at best will acknowledge opposing views as a point of comparison, never of mockery.

[neilwilkes]

Earth's atmosphere isn't a sealed bottle, DD.

LOL! Then why isn't our atmosphere flying out into space? Why isn't the radiation from the sun killing us quickly? Cmon, really, I get that response from people who believe the earth is flat, and the moon landing was faked. Climate tipping points are coming, jet streams are weakening, the ocean is acidifying and warming, weather is becoming more intense. As soon as the ocean comes into equilibrium with the "new norm" of over 400 ppm, not seen for over a million years (some cores point to dozens of millions), the planet will be at least 2 C warmer, probably hotter. What skeptics try to push as "normal" isolated weather events will become global events and cost far more in the global economy than any profit being made by insurance companies ( who BTW are changing policy in response to climate) and new clean energy technology might dream of making. This is happening now. I feel for the families who already lost their homes to drought near the equator. Desertification and flash flooding causing displacement. Millions of acres of forest lost each year to drought ridden forests, breaking all previous records. I can't ignore that. Doing nothing, hiding behind a new cosmology, denying pure data in real time , is shameful. I'm pretty sure the economic and social price for ignoring the people who invented the phones we are typing on, will become astronomical in my life time, and planetary instability will result from lack for food and water , in my life time. Maybe its harder to care and do something, but I intend to do what I can. Yes, I have changed my life, and given up lots of comforts in hopes of , in some way helping those less fortunate and suffering.

Hey Dan.
First up, thank you for dropping by and giving your views - that is appreciated even if most of us think it is all a load of dingoes kidneys - and this is why I think that CO2 is not a forcing factor, although I will definitely grant you the pollution problem.
To begin with then, let's talk a little bit about what CO2 is, what it does and what it does not do. As you are doubtless well aware CO2 is basically Plant Food in conjunction with Photosynthesis and I distinctly recall my Physics master teaching us back in the 1970's that the planetary CO2 levels were actually on the dangerously low side. Even NASA & the ESA have put out articles stating that green plant coverage is well up in the last few decades. This cannot be anything but good news.
See these:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-36130346
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2436/co2- ... erfor-now/ (although admittedly they revert back to "Project Fear" again later in the article).

Next let us talk about what you mention - Storms, weather etc.
Now if this is all CO2 and anthropogenic in nature then why has every body in our solar system been heating up in the same way - must be all the SUV driving Aliens out there, or else their spaceships emit too much CO2 (sorry, could not resist that jab). ALL planets have had increases in storm energy, from Venus out all the way to Neptune/Uranus including Jupiter, Saturn, Mars, Venus, etc almost ad nauseam - all the way out to little old Pluto!!! Best still none of these could be considered as "fringe" sources either.
See these (and this took all of 30 seconds to find)
https://www.livescience.com/1349-sun-bl ... orlds.html
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/new ... rming.html
http://news.mit.edu/2002/pluto
https://www.nature.com/news/2007/070402 ... 402-7.html
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn ... rming-too/
So let's forget all about CO2 as it has little to do with it, and we find in reality that CO2 levels follow the temperature rises, not the other way around.

Storm energy gets hyped up considerably by the GCR flux - Galactic Cosmic Rays, and as oour star goes into what is almost certainly going to be a Maunder Minimum this will have the effect of a massive increase in GCR penetration as there are several factors combining here, none of them human caused, none of them are even remotely "fixable" as nothing is broken.
1 - The sun is going into a grand minimum. This means that the solar wind will no longer be as much protection as it used to be.
2 - Our planetary magnetic field is pole shifting, and it is happening now. In the 1800's the field was dropping by 5% per century, and this has now accelerated to 5% per decade and still accelerating. As the poles move places the field strength drops so we are even more susceptible to GCR influx - this was up by around 19% in the last article I read - see the following articles:
https://www.vencoreweather.com/blog/201 ... xt-minimum
https://www.skepticalscience.com/cosmic ... vanced.htm
https://arxiv.org/abs/1711.07427
The latter one says things are even worse:

We describe the monitor and present measurements which show a gradual 40% increase in count rate coinciding with the declining phase of the solar cycle.

This means increased levels of ionising radiation penetrating into the atmosphere, and this is not good at all.
3 - We are currently in uncharted territory in the Milky Way as well - the system is currently moving out of a protective dust cloud into a "bubble" region of clear space, so there goes yet another defence against GCR.

You say that "climate tipping points are coming" and I am sorry but I have been hearing this since the 1980's, shortly after all climate scientists were banging on about a new Ice Age coming. It's like Fusion power - something that is always just around the corner, kinda like "peak Oil" (which also never happened either - when I was in school we were being taught that Oil would run out by now and prices would be sky high - yeah, right.
Whilst we are on the subject of Oil, it is not a fossil fuel. That was an invention way back in the 1930's when it was called a fossil fuel by the new Oil companies purely to keep prices high - supply & demand, and if it was a fossil fuel than supply is limited but if it is Abiotic & created by the planet itself then there is no scarcity so it had to become a fossil fuel to keep prices high. It seems Oil is nowhere near running out, old field that had run dry are producing again in the USA, the Middle East - hell, everywhere you look. We are pumping more & more out of the ground than ever before - Saudi reserves must have been ten times higher than estimated ad we see this pattern all around the globe.

I also take great issue with the supposed "average temperatures" and the monthly NOAA graphs are so doctored it is just not even funny. Take a proper look at the data each month - it is a total scam.
Take a long, hard look at this article:
https://realclimatescience.com/noaa-us- ... ure-fraud/

Anthropogenic Global Warming is the ultimate con and a tax on the air you breathe, no more no less. Yes things are shifting but NOT because of CO2 levels - CO2 levels were ten times higher in the Jurassic and we did not burn up then any more than we will now.
Let's have a little think here - the statement is that we have to make sacrifices or else we will all burn up.
That is a religious statement - we are not burning up.
Even if I could accept it is actually possible to get a genuine planetary average, this would require thermometers & stations in many, many more places than exist now. Also remember that the biggest problem we face is not CO2 - it is overpopulation. We need to get rid of perhaps as much as 3/4 of the worlds population to get pollution under control (Asia & India are the biggest contributors in both counts and none of these so called climate agreements restricted China & India, and the Chinese are about to set up hunderds of thousands of cloud seeding stations to deliberately alter the rainfall patterns as they have too many people and not enough water. This is an extremely bad idea.

Finally for now, Trump did not pull out of the Paris agreement either - it was never ratified in the first place by the US senate & congress so how can Trump get the abuse for pulling out of something the government under Obama never even ratified in the first place!

Lastly, please - I urge you - go take a good look at this site and all it's sister sites.
This is proper science, not the pseudoscience of AGW
https://www.suspicious0bservers.org/
http://magneticreversal.org/
http://earthchanges.org/

The problem is too many people - not too much CO2.

[orrery]

This guy is closed minded and wrong and only wants to lecture. Don't waste your time, he is a troll and won't admit he is wrong even when all the evidence proves he is wrong. He wants to pump a bottle filled with Air at 1atm and another with Air + CO2 at 2atm of pressure and claim proof of global warming.

Yo DD, I notice you didn't bother responding to my previous comment. Any climate model must consist of a matrix set of multivariable differential equations accounting for many numerous contributing factors. What are the contributing factors? What are the relationship equations? What are the contributing factors of each? How were you able to solve for any of them, let alone any potential CO2 factor?

Does it not make more sense that the climate migrates as the magnetic poles fluctuates and migrate? Have you solved for this variable? You claim knowledge when you in fact have no knowledge.

[jimmcginn]

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

LOL. Do you have any idea how foolish you sound?

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.

It will be slightly warmer, and these results are meaningless in that CO2 is a heavier molecule than the average for air. Therefore it will have a slightly higher heat capacity (essentially, due to greater momentum).

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes