The flies might have survived had your friend added in some plant life to balance the environment... In fact, your buddy could have input only vegetation and closed the lid; those plants would have died too
Climate Change report on Canada
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
The flies might have survived had your friend added in some plant life to balance the environment... In fact, your buddy could have input only vegetation and closed the lid; those plants would have died too
Climate scientist ridicules U.N. report as junk
A prominent environmental scientist has gone public with his scorn for the recently released fifth climate assessment of U.N.’s International Panel on Climate Change, which concluded that a continued rise in carbon dioxide levels in the Earth’s atmosphere could risk human extinction.
Leslie Woodcock, emeritus professor of chemical thermodynamics at the University of Manchester’s School of Chemical Engineering and Analytical Science, mocked the terms “climate change” and “global warming” in a scientific critique of the U.N.’s climate fears.
Woodcock, a former NASA researcher, said the theory of “man-made climate change” is an “unsubstantiated hypothesis.”
“Water is a much more powerful greenhouse gas, and there is 20 times more of it in our atmosphere, around one percent of the atmosphere, whereas CO2 is only 0.04 percent,” he said, according to the Yorkshire Evening Post in the U.K.
A prominent environmental scientist has gone public with his scorn for the recently released fifth climate assessment of U.N.’s International Panel on Climate Change, which concluded that a continued rise in carbon dioxide levels in the Earth’s atmosphere could risk human extinction.
Leslie Woodcock, emeritus professor of chemical thermodynamics at the University of Manchester’s School of Chemical Engineering and Analytical Science, mocked the terms “climate change” and “global warming” in a scientific critique of the U.N.’s climate fears.
Woodcock, a former NASA researcher, said the theory of “man-made climate change” is an “unsubstantiated hypothesis.”
“Water is a much more powerful greenhouse gas, and there is 20 times more of it in our atmosphere, around one percent of the atmosphere, whereas CO2 is only 0.04 percent,” he said, according to the Yorkshire Evening Post in the U.K.
Evidence of Space Weather Induced Natural Disasters
Posted on April 6, 2014 by Louis Hissink
Dr. Kongpop U-Yen has published a simplified explanation of his presentation at the recent Electric Universe Conference in Albuquerque.
Update: In case the penny has not dropped, weather on earth is dominated by the electrical forces at the earth’s surface and has nothing to do with the amount of CO2 in the earth’s atmosphere. As the UN IPCC has recently admitted, its reports are explicitly politically framed at the request of the member governments, and implicitly that the ‘science’ is cherry picked to support the political goals. This is quite interesting because this view means that the IPCC has basically absolved itself from any responsibility for producing specious scientific reports. This admission has basically removed all the wind from the sceptical camp’s sails.
Update 2: Some points made in the presentation -
1. Space weather drives earth weather
2. Solar flares or eruptions cause changes in wind velocity on earth, i.e. a solar flare will increase wind velocity. (Comment: This is because winds are not caused by thermal uplift, but from continual electric charge equilibration as electric charges surges pass through the earth-system. Low pressure areas are where protons leave the earth’s surface to the ionosphere and where the electrons enter the earth-system. The protons arrive at the poles and via a complex route leave the earth via the low pressure cells. High pressure cells don’t seem to be driven by anything, and so have to be interpreted as zones of essentially neutral charge).
3. Earthquakes seem to correlate with ionosphere compression (gets closer to earth) and causes may be in space or internally to the earth itself.
4. Earthquakes seem to be initiated by solar flares, sunspots and CME’s.
5. Hurricane/cyclone wind velocities are increased with appearances of CME’s – again these are simply electric charge surges along the sun-earth-solar system electrical circuit. (I am ignoring the presence of mercury and venus for the moment).
5. Water spouts can be modelled using the Thomson model, and are akin to the laboratory water bridge experiment, where the rotational motion is caused by the effect of Birkeland currents in the presence of a magnetic field. As long as the geomagnetic field has a vertical component, rotational atmospheric effects can occur and include hurricanes, cyclones, typhoons, water spouts etc.
The overriding conclusion from these facts is that weather has nothing to do with the chemical composition of the earth’s atmosphere, but with the passing of electrical charge, both positive and negative, through the earth-system. The primary motive force for wind generation are the protons which have the mass to affect adjacent neutral matter.
Posted on April 6, 2014 by Louis Hissink
Dr. Kongpop U-Yen has published a simplified explanation of his presentation at the recent Electric Universe Conference in Albuquerque.
Update: In case the penny has not dropped, weather on earth is dominated by the electrical forces at the earth’s surface and has nothing to do with the amount of CO2 in the earth’s atmosphere. As the UN IPCC has recently admitted, its reports are explicitly politically framed at the request of the member governments, and implicitly that the ‘science’ is cherry picked to support the political goals. This is quite interesting because this view means that the IPCC has basically absolved itself from any responsibility for producing specious scientific reports. This admission has basically removed all the wind from the sceptical camp’s sails.
Update 2: Some points made in the presentation -
1. Space weather drives earth weather
2. Solar flares or eruptions cause changes in wind velocity on earth, i.e. a solar flare will increase wind velocity. (Comment: This is because winds are not caused by thermal uplift, but from continual electric charge equilibration as electric charges surges pass through the earth-system. Low pressure areas are where protons leave the earth’s surface to the ionosphere and where the electrons enter the earth-system. The protons arrive at the poles and via a complex route leave the earth via the low pressure cells. High pressure cells don’t seem to be driven by anything, and so have to be interpreted as zones of essentially neutral charge).
3. Earthquakes seem to correlate with ionosphere compression (gets closer to earth) and causes may be in space or internally to the earth itself.
4. Earthquakes seem to be initiated by solar flares, sunspots and CME’s.
5. Hurricane/cyclone wind velocities are increased with appearances of CME’s – again these are simply electric charge surges along the sun-earth-solar system electrical circuit. (I am ignoring the presence of mercury and venus for the moment).
5. Water spouts can be modelled using the Thomson model, and are akin to the laboratory water bridge experiment, where the rotational motion is caused by the effect of Birkeland currents in the presence of a magnetic field. As long as the geomagnetic field has a vertical component, rotational atmospheric effects can occur and include hurricanes, cyclones, typhoons, water spouts etc.
The overriding conclusion from these facts is that weather has nothing to do with the chemical composition of the earth’s atmosphere, but with the passing of electrical charge, both positive and negative, through the earth-system. The primary motive force for wind generation are the protons which have the mass to affect adjacent neutral matter.
Last edited:
I watched it.
There was no indication that this means anything within the context of global warming.
There was no indication that this means anything within the context of global warming.
Do you suppose the subject matter could be beyond you? While I'm not certain of the validity of this suspicion you do seem to display indications of over taxation and compaction of the imagination as pertains to planetary electrical circuitry.
You gotta love the folks who post something and can't even be bothered to put it in their own words. Throwing spaghetti on the wall.
DB: Look!
MF: What am I supposed to see?
DB: Look!
MF: You still haven't explained what the first bit was...
DB: Look! More spaghetti!
:lol:
You can beat me with a stick all day it won't change the science. As for Mr Floss's convenient and coincidental blindness and subsequent request for clarification it could not be serviced any better or simpler than the video specifically patched together to enlighten the amateur scientist and general public alike.
Do you suppose the subject matter could be beyond you? While I'm not certain of the validity of this suspicion you do seem to display indications of over taxation and compaction of the imagination as pertains to planetary electrical circuitry.
If it's beyond me, then just explain it in regular terms.
What good is it to just post about something tangentially related that doesn't even affect the premise of climate change?
The earth is a homo-polar motor and a capacitor and a heat sink in the electrical circuit between the sun and the heliosphere and that circuit is the primary driver of this planet, there is no process on earth that is excluded from that circuit and not directly dependent on that circuit. You suggest this is tangential when in fact it is primary and cannot conceivably be ignored nor discounted in climate change. The sun rules CO2 has virtually no part in climate change it lags warming it does not lead.
As example of the poor educations we've all had, none of us knew that clouds, million of tons of water, levitate above our heads electrically. Electricity drives sea currents and drives the atmosphere, reduction in CO2 would do absolutely nothing to alter that.
Last edited:
The question that keeps me up at night is: if the fruit flies had have seen it coming, would they have been capable of changing?
I see why you bang your head.
Check out the "overpopulation problem".........start with google.
But in particular they will be amazed by the almost religious reverence accorded to that strange body, the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which by then will be recognised as having never really been a scientific body at all, but a political pressure group. It had been set up in the 1980s by a small band of politically persuasive scientists who had become fanatically committed to the belief that, because carbon dioxide levels were rising, global temperatures must inevitably follow; an assumption that the evidence would increasingly show was mistaken.
To your first part, the sun does influence climate, but the science has found temperatures still increase, even when solar cycles are at their lowest point. If global temperatures strictly followed solar cycles then temperatures would periodically go down to match them.
With respect to CO2 lagging:
To claim that the CO2 lag disproves the warming effect of CO2 displays a lack of understanding of the processes that drive Milankovitch cycles. A review of the peer reviewed research into past periods of deglaciation tells us several things:
Deglaciation is not initiated by CO2 but by orbital cycles
CO2 amplifies the warming which cannot be explained by orbital cycles alone
CO2 spreads warming throughout the planet
CO2 lags temperature - what does it mean?
That was a whole bunch of rhetoric just to say 'we hate executive summaries'.
A significant improvement in the mainstream understanding of weather – the existing paradigm is wrong.
Willis Eschenbach at WUWT has written an excellent summary of his latest research post:
Willis Eschenbach at WUWT has written an excellent summary of his latest research post:
The volcanoes pose a huge problem for the commonly held view that the changes in global average temperature are a linear function of the changes in forcing. The climate models are nothing but a mechanistic implementation of that circumscribed and simplistic hypothesis.
Now, we know for a fact that the solar forcing after Pinatubo underwent a large and fairly lengthy drop … but we don’t find either the amount or the pattern of cooling predicted by the models. Heck, not only that, but the predominate pattern after Pinatubo was warming, not cooling … once again, the only tenable conclusions are:
1) Whatever the volcanoes might be doing, they’re not doing what the model says or what conventional climate theory predicts, and
2) Whatever the volcanoes might be doing, they are not doing enough of it to even rise above the noise.
To me, this is simply more evidence that the underlying climate paradigm, the idea that changes in temperatures are a linear function of changes in forcing, is simply not correct. If it were correct, the eruptions would show it … but they simply don’t.
That’s why I describe myself as a climate heretic rather than a skeptic—I think that the most fundamental paradigm of how the climate works is wrong. The temperature changes are NOT a linear function of forcing changes as conventional climate theory holds.(My bolding)
Exactly – the current climate theory is wrong – it’s not based on thermal uplift and atmosphere chemistry (the CO2 effect) and solar radiation. Earth weather is driven by space weather that is modulated by the sun’s electromagnetic behaviour, of which sunlight is but a small visual effect much like the speedometer of an automobile. The real weather engine, like the automobile’s engine under its bonnet, is hidden from sight – and is the electrical connection as indicated by earlier posts.Now, we know for a fact that the solar forcing after Pinatubo underwent a large and fairly lengthy drop … but we don’t find either the amount or the pattern of cooling predicted by the models. Heck, not only that, but the predominate pattern after Pinatubo was warming, not cooling … once again, the only tenable conclusions are:
1) Whatever the volcanoes might be doing, they’re not doing what the model says or what conventional climate theory predicts, and
2) Whatever the volcanoes might be doing, they are not doing enough of it to even rise above the noise.
To me, this is simply more evidence that the underlying climate paradigm, the idea that changes in temperatures are a linear function of changes in forcing, is simply not correct. If it were correct, the eruptions would show it … but they simply don’t.
That’s why I describe myself as a climate heretic rather than a skeptic—I think that the most fundamental paradigm of how the climate works is wrong. The temperature changes are NOT a linear function of forcing changes as conventional climate theory holds.(My bolding)
The troposphere cooled by roughly 0.5°C after the Pinatubo eruption while the tropical stratosphere warmed by nearly 3°C. Willis is boldly, flat out lying. Hansen's model predicted the final outcome.