Laron
QHHT Hypnotherapist, Energy Healer, SpiritualCoach
Staff member
Administrator
Creator of transients.info & The Roundtable
What's Really Going on with Global Warming and Climate Change (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Laron
- Start date
Thanks for sharing your perspective and insights ... I really enjoyed this read
I 100 % agree that CO2 is not a driver of climate change.
These scare stories are indeed only about increasing the power over the sheeple and are NOT real science.
Climate has always changed (but not due to CO2) and there is at this moment nothing to be scared about.
Go with the flow and adapt.
These scare stories are indeed only about increasing the power over the sheeple and are NOT real science.
Climate has always changed (but not due to CO2) and there is at this moment nothing to be scared about.
Go with the flow and adapt.
Every time they speak of co2 i think and the volcanoes they are not counted in how strange they produce a big part of it and 100% natural thermic activity
I remember reading an article a couple of years ago somewhere indicating that the temperatures in other planets in the solar system were changing as well, suggesting that what was really happening was that our solar system had entered a zone that was causing such effects and encouraged scientist to look at that angle plus the solar cycles.
One big volcanic eruption will produce more CO2 than many years of human emissions.
I remember reading that in one of David Wilcock's books, many years ago now.
- Jul 28, 2016
- 4,710
- 10,040
Just wanted to add my sum of Ben Davidson's video (contained within the article) as I think his work is brilliant in a out of the box kind of way. He seems to have a knack for prying open the things that have been forgotten. He talked about the formula currently being used to determine the contribution of humans to global temperatures stated as:
Climate Change = Natural Variability + Human changes
His main point as I understood it was that this formula works when used correctly and that it is currently not being used correctly as the numbers traditionally plugged into the formula are missing a whole lots of pieces that should be added to the Natural Variability part of the equation. As he says, "If we don't get the Natural Variability portion of this equation down firm then by definition we can't get the Human Contribution portion correct." He goes on to state that because of this there need be no 'math errors' in the equations per se. It's just that there are lots of things (big chunks, important numbers) missing from the Natural Variability part of the equation; and that's what makes the conclusions completely inaccurate.
The rest of the video from about 3 min onward) goes into a lot of detail regarding how he's concluding that there are pieces missing from the equation and what they are.
Probably my favourite comment of the whole video comes toward the end when he shows a streak of compassionate humour, saying that because this formula has been used by so many in such a grossly inaccurate way with so much consensus for so long and with so much effort, $, belief etc being poured into it (e.g. whole careers being built on this perspective/belief) he can see how nobody wants to be the guy saying 'Umm, excuse me. I think we've been doing this wrong for so long.'
Climate Change = Natural Variability + Human changes
His main point as I understood it was that this formula works when used correctly and that it is currently not being used correctly as the numbers traditionally plugged into the formula are missing a whole lots of pieces that should be added to the Natural Variability part of the equation. As he says, "If we don't get the Natural Variability portion of this equation down firm then by definition we can't get the Human Contribution portion correct." He goes on to state that because of this there need be no 'math errors' in the equations per se. It's just that there are lots of things (big chunks, important numbers) missing from the Natural Variability part of the equation; and that's what makes the conclusions completely inaccurate.
The rest of the video from about 3 min onward) goes into a lot of detail regarding how he's concluding that there are pieces missing from the equation and what they are.
Probably my favourite comment of the whole video comes toward the end when he shows a streak of compassionate humour, saying that because this formula has been used by so many in such a grossly inaccurate way with so much consensus for so long and with so much effort, $, belief etc being poured into it (e.g. whole careers being built on this perspective/belief) he can see how nobody wants to be the guy saying 'Umm, excuse me. I think we've been doing this wrong for so long.'
I have to agree with Lila. While methane from cow farts is increasing I think the estimates on how that particular source of methane affects global warming are exaggerated. We just don't have the resources to hook a plastic bag to every cow, or even 1000 cows, to measure methane output, or how external factors interact with methane once it's in the air.
And I think the CO2 produced from volcanoes is also minimized, thus the results from the equation will always be wrong.
In the early 1990s 22 super computers around the world did some global warming calculations. Comparing those calculations to actual results, 21 of 22 computer results were way off. That tells me the core assumptions of the equation itself is very wrong.
Even the big wigs don't take global warming seriously as they all take their private jets to global warming meetings in Davos and contribute to the pollution.
Not only that but the earth is colder now than it was 10,000 years ago. Here's a graph of observed temperatures since 1997. Notice they left off most of the 1990s when there was more warming.
Here we go. 4500 years of net global cooling:
Look at the graph above. In the 1990s there was an increase in temperature, then it went back down by 2009.
Another graph starts in 1976:
The other issue which is exaggerated is how much global warming there is. The max warming reported is an increase of 1 degree Celsius for surface ocean temperature. Is that a lot of energy? Yes. Is that enough to kill off some species? Or course. It is enough to exterminate all of humanity? Nope. Mammals are one of the most flexible species on earth, and humans are mammals. But species going extinct is more likely caused by loss of habitat and pollution than by global warming. Corals are indicator species for the ocean. They are especially fragile. They need exact amounts of sunlight, salinity, and temperature. If one of those changes in the slightest, they die. Anyone who has grown coral in a fish tank knows how difficult they can be. So, coral being as difficult as it is to grow, is the holy grail of saltwater tank owners.
If I had the raw numbers I'd do a running average of 1, 2, or 5 years for you.
climate change #climatechange
And I think the CO2 produced from volcanoes is also minimized, thus the results from the equation will always be wrong.
In the early 1990s 22 super computers around the world did some global warming calculations. Comparing those calculations to actual results, 21 of 22 computer results were way off. That tells me the core assumptions of the equation itself is very wrong.
Even the big wigs don't take global warming seriously as they all take their private jets to global warming meetings in Davos and contribute to the pollution.
Not only that but the earth is colder now than it was 10,000 years ago. Here's a graph of observed temperatures since 1997. Notice they left off most of the 1990s when there was more warming.
Here we go. 4500 years of net global cooling:
Look at the graph above. In the 1990s there was an increase in temperature, then it went back down by 2009.
Another graph starts in 1976:
The other issue which is exaggerated is how much global warming there is. The max warming reported is an increase of 1 degree Celsius for surface ocean temperature. Is that a lot of energy? Yes. Is that enough to kill off some species? Or course. It is enough to exterminate all of humanity? Nope. Mammals are one of the most flexible species on earth, and humans are mammals. But species going extinct is more likely caused by loss of habitat and pollution than by global warming. Corals are indicator species for the ocean. They are especially fragile. They need exact amounts of sunlight, salinity, and temperature. If one of those changes in the slightest, they die. Anyone who has grown coral in a fish tank knows how difficult they can be. So, coral being as difficult as it is to grow, is the holy grail of saltwater tank owners.
If I had the raw numbers I'd do a running average of 1, 2, or 5 years for you.
climate change #climatechange
Last edited:
- Jul 20, 2016
- 6,510
- 20,062
Cows do not fart so much but do burp because they are ruminants, which have a 4 compartment stomach. Much of the digestion occurs in the stomach rather than in the intestines, so gas is released in the burps.
I guess the world ending because of cow burps does not have the same ring to it.
I guess the world ending because of cow burps does not have the same ring to it.
- Jul 28, 2016
- 4,710
- 10,040
This has the makings of a great B grade (C grade? D grade?) sci fi movie: "Cow burps from space end the world!"
The poster would feature a big open cow's mouth with some artist's interpretation of how a burp looks on 2D paper
On the most serious side, love this discussion.
Would love to see an atmosphere of more hubris of the "Nope, we don't know everything there is to know yet" type applied to climate science. In fact, maybe we should be calling it 'the art of climate prediction' in recognition that there simply isn't enough known to make the predictions accurate.
OP
Laron
QHHT Hypnotherapist, Energy Healer, SpiritualCoach
Staff member
Administrator
Creator of transients.info & The Roundtable
- Thread Starter
- #14
"The earth's climate has been significantly affected by the planet's magnetic field, according to a Danish study published Monday that could challenge the notion that human emissions are responsible for global warming." (...) "He and his colleague Peter Riisager, of the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland (GEUS), compared a reconstruction of the prehistoric magnetic field 5,000 years ago based on data drawn from stalagmites and stalactites found in China and Oman. The results of the study, which has also been published in US scientific journal Geology, lend support to a controversial theory published a decade ago by Danish astrophysicist Henrik Svensmark, who claimed the climate was highly influenced by galactic cosmic ray (GCR) particles penetrating the earth's atmosphere."
http://www.viewzone.com/magnetic.weather.html
http://www.viewzone.com/magnetic.weather.html
Last edited:
OP
Laron
QHHT Hypnotherapist, Energy Healer, SpiritualCoach
Staff member
Administrator
Creator of transients.info & The Roundtable
- Thread Starter
- #15
This one below is dated May, 2012 — it makes me wonder why it was ignored since it came from the seventh International Climate Change Conference.
"Climate change itself is already in the process of definitively rebutting climate alarmists who think human use of fossil fuels is causing ultimately catastrophic global warming. That is because natural climate cycles have already turned from warming to cooling, global temperatures have already been declining for more than 10 years, and global temperatures will continue to decline for another two decades or more. That is one of the most interesting conclusions to come out of the seventh International Climate Change Conference sponsored by the Heartland Institute, held last week in Chicago. I attended, and served as one of the speakers, talking about The Economic Implications of High Cost Energy."
www.forbes.com
"Climate change itself is already in the process of definitively rebutting climate alarmists who think human use of fossil fuels is causing ultimately catastrophic global warming. That is because natural climate cycles have already turned from warming to cooling, global temperatures have already been declining for more than 10 years, and global temperatures will continue to decline for another two decades or more. That is one of the most interesting conclusions to come out of the seventh International Climate Change Conference sponsored by the Heartland Institute, held last week in Chicago. I attended, and served as one of the speakers, talking about The Economic Implications of High Cost Energy."
Sorry Global Warming Alarmists, The Earth Is Cooling
Natural climate cycles point to a decline in global temperatures over the next 10 years.
www.forbes.com
Last edited:
here is another nice assay as there are a lot of on this website but this is also more my conclusion based on the facts.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/04/21/cooling-down-the-hysteria-about-global-warming/
Indeed a man made problem due to bad measurements, heat island effect, politics, bad science,...
I also 100 % agree with his conclusion that with the money that now goes to climate research we could do a whole lot more and more effective for the planet concerning pollution, biodiversity, better technologies,...
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/04/21/cooling-down-the-hysteria-about-global-warming/
Indeed a man made problem due to bad measurements, heat island effect, politics, bad science,...
I also 100 % agree with his conclusion that with the money that now goes to climate research we could do a whole lot more and more effective for the planet concerning pollution, biodiversity, better technologies,...
- Jul 20, 2016
- 6,510
- 20,062
I was going to post that website, too. They've been publishing the facts for some time. I think one of the people on the website got into a famous kerfuffle with one of the warming "experts". They are my "go to" people.
I have been reading on their website for the last ten year.
Mostly they are objective and have really good info but you need to keep your own critical view.
The only blind spot that I have noticed is on solar physics. They ban all stuff on planetary influence on solar activity (landscheidt theory on the influence of the barrycenter of the planets) and also the electric universe theory. Not saying that these theories are all explaining but they do not allow discussion on it.
Because it is not good for business. If you can track down any "issue" you will find out that at the core of many there is a business with their marketing, sales, legal, etc. departments and the purpose is to enrich a group of people. They create the issue (mostly unreal or not supported by true/tested science) in order to originate the market that will produce the vehicle (industry) that will generate the income/gains. One example is global warming, another one to a good degree is the pharmaceutical industry.
Last edited:
- Jul 28, 2016
- 4,710
- 10,040
Sounds like you're describing another case of 'Follow the money'
Indeed! I have said jokingly a couple of times that we are so good at creating new markets here in the US that would not be surprised if one day I read in the news that we just made a huge sale of sand to the Middle East.