Global Warming ‘Greatest Scam in History’

Status
Not open for further replies.
darkbeaver

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
The Simple Electric Universe

The Electric Universe assumes that Nature is not wilfully hiding her secrets. The complexity we observe in the universe comes from very simple electrical principles, some of which can be tested with very simple apparatus. Science is open to everyone. The visible universe is an electrical phenomenon, from the structure of subatomic particles to the superclusters of galaxies in deep space.


>> Playing with a magnet and a plasma discharge tube, the "Aurora Borealis Tube Display," by Resonance Research Corporation.
 
EagleSmack

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
96
48
USA
petros said:
Wanna know why climate is changing?

The posted map show the position of the magnetic north pole from 1831 to 2001






12500 years ago the pole was at the bottom of James Bay. Anyone remember what the weather was like in Canada? The skiing must have been incredible with a 1.5km base.
Click to expand...

OK...you posted this. Is this why the climate is changing?
 
petros

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
114,169
13,092
113
Low Earth Orbit
EagleSmack said:
OK...you posted this. Is this why the climate is changing?
Click to expand...
Yes! As mentioned berfore during the last ice age the magnetic pole sat at the bottom of James Bay and Siberia was warm. We know the axial pole was stationary but magnet pole was way out of kilter.

If Siberia was warm but Canada under 1.5km of ice and there wasn't an axial shift it's quite obvious the atmoshphere and magnetosphere are deeply entwined. If one makes a radical move the other soon follows.

Every year the pole advances a little further north but recedes back a littleas well. Kinda of a two steps forward one step back scenario.

Compare the data between the years (include a +/- of a year or two for the system to react) with the largest advancement of the pole you 'll find those years to be the ones that stand out the most as overly warm and the recession in the one step back bring us a winter like last year.

The warming started the same time the pole started to move in larger jumps some 25 -30 years ago.

If you can find a more plausible "natural cycle" I'd love to hear it.
 
darkbeaver

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia


Fig. 4: Close correlation between surface land air temperature in the Northern Hemisphere (thick curve) and the changing length of the 11-year sunspot cycle (thin curve), indicating the varying intensity of the sun's eruptional activity (From Friis-Christensen and Lassen, 1991). Contrary to the curve in Fig. 3, representing the steadily increasing amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the thin solar curve covaries with the undulations of observed temperature.

 A closer look shows that nearly all Gleissberg minima back to 300 A.D., as for instance around 1670 (Maunder minimum), 1810 (Dalton minimum), and 1895, coincided with cool climate in the Northern Hemisphere, whereas Gleissberg maxima went along with warm climate as for instance around 1130 (Medieval climate optimum). The degree of temperature change was proportional to the respective amplitudes in the Gleissberg cycle. During the Maunder minimum solar activity was minimal and during the Medieval Climate Optimum very high, probably even higher than in the six decades of intense solar activity before 1996. Accordingly, Friis-Christensen and Lassen (1995) have shown that the connection between the Northern Hemisphere land air temperature and varying LSC extends back to the 16th century. Butler (1996) corroborated this result for the last two centuries in Northern Ireland.

 4. Predictable relationship between solar eruptions and global temperature
Fig. 5 from Adler and El�as (2000) presents an extended replication of the result in Fig. 4. LSC (filled circles), maximum ionospheric electron density in the respective 11-year cycle (plus signs), Northern Hemisphere temperature anomalies (empty triangles), and temperature anomalies measured in San Miguel de Tucuman, Argentina, (empty circles) show a statistically significant covariation. The last value i

New Little Ice Age Instead of Global Warming?
 
TenPenny

TenPenny

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 9, 2004
17,467
139
63
Location, Location
petros said:
Yes! As mentioned berfore during the last ice age the magnetic pole sat at the bottom of James Bay and Siberia was warm. We know the axial pole was stationary but magnet pole was way out of kilter.

If Siberia was warm but Canada under 1.5km of ice and there wasn't an axial shift it's quite obvious the atmoshphere and magnetosphere are deeply entwined. If one makes a radical move the other soon follows.

Every year the pole advances a little further north but recedes back a littleas well. Kinda of a two steps forward one step back scenario.

Compare the data between the years (include a +/- of a year or two for the system to react) with the largest advancement of the pole you 'll find those years to be the ones that stand out the most as overly warm and the recession in the one step back bring us a winter like last year.

The warming started the same time the pole started to move in larger jumps some 25 -30 years ago.

If you can find a more plausible "natural cycle" I'd love to hear it.
Click to expand...

Ah, I get it. So there has been no climate change anywhere except near the pole.
That explains a lot.
 
A

AnnaG

Hall of Fame Member
Jul 5, 2009
17,507
117
63
JLM said:
You have it exactly right, I don't know how many times it has to be said before people can get it through their thick heads, but here's one more time. This problem will be solved by ordinary people changing their habits in small ways one kw. or one litre at a time over many years. A few dozen goofs in Copenhagen are just adding to the problem. Turn the thermostat down two degrees, park your car on the lawn when you wash it, walk to the local grocery store. Simple concepts that people can't seem to grasp.
Click to expand...
Well, if they can't grasp that concept, then the problem won't be solved that way then, huh? ;)
 
JLM

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
547
113
Vernon, B.C.
AnnaG said:
Well, if they can't grasp that concept, then the problem won't be solved that way then, huh? ;)
Click to expand...

At first no, but I'll bet eventually when they find the alternatives more painful and more expensive- the sooner we get at it the easier and cheaper it's going to be. :lol::lol:
 
Tonington

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
darkbeaver said:


Fig. 4: Close correlation between surface land air temperature in the Northern Hemisphere (thick curve) and the changing length of the 11-year sunspot cycle (thin curve), indicating the varying intensity of the sun's eruptional activity (From Friis-Christensen and Lassen, 1991). Contrary to the curve in Fig. 3, representing the steadily increasing amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the thin solar curve covaries with the undulations of observed temperature.http://www.schulphysik.de/klima/landscheidt/iceage.htm
Click to expand...

Do you think it makes sense to plot a graph with two vertical axes out of phase like that? The left axis increases in magnitude as you move down, while the right axis increases in magnitude as you move up. Correlation? Yeah right.

It's not even clear what the varying length of the sun spot cycle means here with respect to what is plotted on the graph. Between 1880 and 1900 there are three points on the curve. How can you get three different cycle lengths, which average 11 years, in a twenty year period when the value plotted is above 11 for all three?

This graph is junk.
 
Dexter Sinister

Dexter Sinister

Unspecified Specialist
Oct 1, 2004
10,168
539
113
Regina, SK
darkbeaver said:
I'll give you a simple concept that people can't seem to grasp, the freakin sun is responsible for the temperature of the earth anyway you want to look at it.
Click to expand...
Right, that certainly explains why temperatures on the moon, which is essentially the same distance from the sun as the earth, are the same as on the earth.

That's a little too simple to usefully explain anything.
 
petros

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
114,169
13,092
113
Low Earth Orbit
Tonington said:
Do you think it makes sense to plot a graph with two vertical axes out of phase like that? The left axis increases in magnitude as you move down, while the right axis increases in magnitude as you move up. Correlation? Yeah right.

It's not even clear what the varying length of the sun spot cycle means here with respect to what is plotted on the graph. Between 1880 and 1900 there are three points on the curve. How can you get three different cycle lengths, which average 11 years, in a twenty year period when the value plotted is above 11 for all three?

This graph is junk.
Click to expand...
Not only is the graph junk but the data ends in 1982 completely missing the past 27 years.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom