Report this

00

Report this

00

I encourage you to look at the newer post threads. There are several people that have touched on the electrical universe and you could copy this post into a newer posting thread.

The thunderbolts site is very interesting!

Report this

00

As an environmentalist I often get attacked over the AGW theory despite the fact I have never supported it as I am a cosmologist first and foremost and cosmology indicates cosmic factors in climate change, not man-made factors.

As someone who lives in a rural area any time I travel to a large city the pollution causes me to have trouble breathing and makes me feel ill, and if it affects me in this way it stands to reason it affects plants and animals similarly and thus pollution is not a good thing in my view and needs to be reduced.

But the theory that this pollution in the form of Co2 is causing climate change on Earth defies most of the observed evidence not just here on Earth but across most of the cosmical bodies of our solar system.

Pluto for example has increased by roughly 2 degrees Celsius over the past few decades despite getting further from the sun over that time period, and although there are a number of hypothetical theories of why this is occurring it is my personal understanding of the electrodynamic nature of our solar system that it is most likely caused by the “solar radiation”(aka ‘the solar wind’ – charged particles emitted from the sun). Such charged particles do not dissipate over distances(electrical charge doesn’t “die” it only transfers from one object to another) so Pluto’s distance from the sun is irrelevant, and unlike the Earth with it’s strong electromagnetic field which blocks most of those particles from reaching the Earth’s inner atmosphere Pluto’s much weaker electromagnetic field allows more of these particles in and causes this warming effect.

Pluto’s small size in theory limits the amount of particles impacting it’s atmosphere so the effects are relatively small as well even though it has a weaker electromagnetic field than Earth. To compare Pluto to Earth would be foolish but the effects that have been observed on Pluto are similar to effects observed here on Earth and as such the underlying causes of the climate change on both bodies seems to be the same in my view. Pluto is just one example of course, most of the cosmic bodies in our solar system are experiencing this climate change(including the moons of many planets, long thought to not have “climates”/atmosphere’s at all).

I doubt many people here are too concerned with cosmology and astrophysics but the reason I mention this is the fact that the AGW climate change model does not take into account any of the numerous cosmical effects on our climate that have now been documented over recent years(thanks to the rapid advancement of the ‘Space Age’ and cosmic exploration), most recently the connection between the 11 year solar cycle of increased and decreased output has been linked to the severity of weather events over more than a century as discovered by the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR).

The amplification of the solar energy’s influence on Earth’s climate could not be explained through existing theories so another solution was suggested – increased solar energy output during maximum sunspot production heats up the tropical stratosphere as sunlight impinges most directly on our planet close to the equator. Other factors are involved but the ultimate conclusion is that the atmosphere warms unevenly, becoming hotter near the equator and cooler in the higher latitudes. This uneven thermal distribution causes increased atmospheric convection, resulting in greater tropical precipitation. Combined with convection, the extra solar energy heats the waters of the Pacific Ocean, where it is said, more clouds form in an area where they are normally absent. The clouds then flow west along the more powerful convection currents, where they increase the effects of the stratospheric heating.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/090827-sun-climate.html

Any climate model must take into account these factors as the only way to get an accurate result from such a model is to make sure the equations that give birth to the model are also accurate. With that being said seeing as we continue to discover new factors that influence our climate any model at this point in time is guaranteed to be inaccurate as it obviously will not incorporate factors we haven’t discovered yet.

Though I do find it somewhat ironic that AGW “science” is essentially what has ultimately led researchers to discover these numerous other cosmical factors that influence our climate and as such the AGW alarmists actually deserve some credit – their BS has led us closer to the truth.

Note: a few parts of this post have been paraphrased or copied from an article by Stephen Smith entitled “Riding the Solar Cycle”, which can be found here: http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2010/arch10/100415cycle.htm

I’m still waiting for all these new discoveries of electrical phenomenon in the cosmos to lead to the mainstream scientific community acknowledging the role of electrical forces in the universe, but much like in the case of climate science the mainstream is anchored in dogma that prevents them from seeing the obvious. Or rather prevents them from stating the obvious as they have already observed the phenomena and thus have ‘seen the obvious’ and are just ignoring it or manipulating it within conventional(misleading) terminology to make it seem to conform to their existing gravitational based theories. In reality most of these recent observations destroy the existing theories completely, but adding epicycles is a favorite past time in conventional science.

Now I’m starting to ramble off topic here so I’ll end this post now. Comments or criticisms are both welcomed and encouraged, provided anyone is still viewing this article or checking comments.

Report this

10

Report this

00

A summary of the worst can be found here:

http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/11/20/climate-cuttings-33.html

Report this

00

The major party politicians appear oblivious to the lack of a factual basis for ETS/CPRS, preferring to see it as a purely political issue to be resolved by deals and negotiation. Perhaps they can negotiate a cure for cancer!The result can be only a set of measures that fail to do anything to assist the community to address climate change.Legislative failure!

How many other legislative failures has our party dogma driven style of democracy delivered?

Report this

00

Report this

10

You call me names and think I will go out of my way to do your homework and help you “understand” something you apparently don’t want to understand?

You think ad homs against people or institutions who summarize the peer reviewed research would convince anyone that you are really interested in scientific evidence or debate? I don’t jump through hoops for anyone.

Still waiting for that apology, and some sign you can reason.

Jo

PS: Note everyone, it’s always a mistake to honestly answer questions from bullies. The delusional arrogance has to stop before the conversation even starts.

Report this

20

You are willfully NOT getting the links. If you went to the pages I suggested you would get active versions of these points below. Yes the pages are written by me, or David, but they link to other sites. Do I have to write them out again personally for you? Isn’t that being a tad precious?

If you read those other links, you’d find the hot-spot called an upper tropospheric temperature trend or other catchy, easy to follow and search for, phrases. You can tell that the CCSP want us to understand this crucial point eh?

Read NIPCC 2008 – it’s full of diagrams and refs.

All my articles on the missing hot spot.

Report this

20