How the GW myth is perpetuated
- Thread starter Walter
- Start date
Is this the Dr. Beaker to whom you refer?
Yes that's him, he's deceased now, an unfortunate accident with fissile material in the pursuit of science. I watched all his lectures when I was younger. Brilliant man, the world misses him.
I believe that the above photo was taken mere moments prior to the melt-down that lead to his untimely demise
A very sad day in science. It's rare these days to encounter such dedication to humanity.
I believe he worked with Dr Bunsen on the fluid properties of chocolate.
He of the Bunsen burner. What ever happened to Drs. Retort, Pipette, Graduated Cylinder?
https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2014/11/25/lightning-in-the-wind-2/
Electric fields freely accelerate charged particles, which move outward in opposite directions, activating an electric current that follows the Sun’s magnetic field. That field is carried into Earth’s electrical environment along gigantic Birkeland current filaments. It was reported elsewhere that in September 2002 a major premise of Electric Universe theory was confirmed: weather systems on Earth are electrically connected to a field of charged particles called the ionosphere. Dual bands of plasma shining in ultraviolet light were found by the IMAGE satellite. The plasma streams are circling the Earth in opposite directions along the equator, carrying positive and negative electric charges.
Along with that observation, the Time History of Events and Macroscale Interactions during Substorms (THEMIS) satellites found what were called “space tornadoes” (Birkeland currents), electrified plasma vortices rotating faster than 1,600,000 kilometers per hour, about 64,000 kilometers from Earth. The THEMIS satellites, together with Earth-based stations, verified that those charged plasma formations are connected to the ionosphere. This means that the Sun is directly coupled to lightning generators on Earth—otherwise called thunderstorms.
As previously written, the capacitor effect is probably what contributes to lightning discharges. Capacitors are usually made of two conductors separated by an insulating medium, or dielectric insulator. An electric charge on one conductor attracts an opposite charge to the other conductor, resulting in an electric field between them that acts as an electrical energy reserve. Thunderstorms are most likely behaving like capacitors: the clouds are one plate, the ground another, and the atmosphere is the dielectric insulator.
Since the clouds are connected to the ionosphere, electric charges carried into the ionosphere by the solar wind cause increases in the electrical energy in the clouds, which also increases the stored charge in the ground. That accumulated charge overcomes the atmosphere’s ability to keep the two separate, so they reach out to each other in the form of “leader strokes.” When the two lightning leaders meet, a circuit between the clouds and the ground (or between one cloud and another) is completed: lightning flashes.
Electric fields freely accelerate charged particles, which move outward in opposite directions, activating an electric current that follows the Sun’s magnetic field. That field is carried into Earth’s electrical environment along gigantic Birkeland current filaments. It was reported elsewhere that in September 2002 a major premise of Electric Universe theory was confirmed: weather systems on Earth are electrically connected to a field of charged particles called the ionosphere. Dual bands of plasma shining in ultraviolet light were found by the IMAGE satellite. The plasma streams are circling the Earth in opposite directions along the equator, carrying positive and negative electric charges.
Along with that observation, the Time History of Events and Macroscale Interactions during Substorms (THEMIS) satellites found what were called “space tornadoes” (Birkeland currents), electrified plasma vortices rotating faster than 1,600,000 kilometers per hour, about 64,000 kilometers from Earth. The THEMIS satellites, together with Earth-based stations, verified that those charged plasma formations are connected to the ionosphere. This means that the Sun is directly coupled to lightning generators on Earth—otherwise called thunderstorms.
As previously written, the capacitor effect is probably what contributes to lightning discharges. Capacitors are usually made of two conductors separated by an insulating medium, or dielectric insulator. An electric charge on one conductor attracts an opposite charge to the other conductor, resulting in an electric field between them that acts as an electrical energy reserve. Thunderstorms are most likely behaving like capacitors: the clouds are one plate, the ground another, and the atmosphere is the dielectric insulator.
Since the clouds are connected to the ionosphere, electric charges carried into the ionosphere by the solar wind cause increases in the electrical energy in the clouds, which also increases the stored charge in the ground. That accumulated charge overcomes the atmosphere’s ability to keep the two separate, so they reach out to each other in the form of “leader strokes.” When the two lightning leaders meet, a circuit between the clouds and the ground (or between one cloud and another) is completed: lightning flashes.
How were they not mainstream findings? They were broadcast globally as the pitfalls of the AGW model. The dire predictions or our not so glorious future.
And they never came to to fruition. True, convenient, in a thank gawd sorta way. But they were the face of the message, the blurtings of the bobbleheads on the nightly news and the fodder for forums for years.
The fact that they didn't come fruition is inconvenient for the pushers.
Neat, so in the mean time, what are you guys doing about it?
To you, a scientist, it's bullsh*t. To the those of us in trades, it's what we can read and understand.
It's inconvenient to the pushers.
they were/are not mainstream scientific positions/findings. Surely, media projection isn't your measure of "mainstream science"... is it? The sorry state of media coverage of science is a reflection of the ever-diminishing reliance on things like news agencies that simply host articles for broad distribution. Corporate right-sizing and the bottom-line has all but ended the positioning of dedicated and knowledgeable "science journalists"... those who knew enough to converse with actual scientists in order to bring information to the layperson. And, equally, in the past, scientists didn't recognize the importance of conveying their findings to a general populace. Today, we have significant outside influences working to push dubious scientific information up into the mainstream media outlets... and... we have no shortage of tabloid type sources simply attempting to sell stories to pad their bottom-line finances.
one could challenge you directly to make your case that those items mentioned in that graphic were mainstream science positions/findings... however, I doubt you'd take up that challenge. One could go through each and every one of those and show what little scientific standing they had... of course, that would take some effort to flush out... and even then, those with an agenda intending to perpetuate items within that graphic wouldn't accept what was presented anyway.
a case in point: from that graphic, "the 70's Global Cooling meme":
an assortment of meta-studies have actually looked at scientific publications during that period in question in an attempt to put to rest this meme. Example: the Peterson et al paper that most authoritatively speaks to what publications existed in the '65-to-79 year' period and what position/findings they held.
An enduring popular myth suggests that in the 1970s the climate science community was predicting “global cooling” and an “imminent” ice age, an observation frequently used by those who would undermine what climate scientists say today about the prospect of global warming.
A review of the literature suggests that, to the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists’ thinking about the most important forces shaping Earth’s climate on human time scales. More importantly than showing the falsehood of the myth, this review shows the important way scientists of the time built the foundation on which the cohesive enterprise of modern climate science now rests.
A review of the literature suggests that, to the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists’ thinking about the most important forces shaping Earth’s climate on human time scales. More importantly than showing the falsehood of the myth, this review shows the important way scientists of the time built the foundation on which the cohesive enterprise of modern climate science now rests.
you declaring it meaningless... is meaningless! Care to showcase your chops and state why you "declare it meaningless"?
it's a pretty basic graph... even you should be capable of understanding it! As a meta-study (of publications) in that relevant period, the graphic visualizes the number of respective papers that held cooling, neutral and warming positions..... it presents a visual to bust the "70s Global Cooling meme".
do you simply choose to ignore/negate, by your stated word only, any manner of information you feel messes with your preconceptions?
YOU can't patent that, even though YOU employ it at every instance of discomforting question.
Yabut, yabut - there was a study and everything!
Funny to watch buddy squirm, ain't it?
I respectively replied to your prior post... are you choosing to ignore my reply as an instance of your discomfort?
You employed the Gish Gallop fallacy, that's not really replying.
But whatever makes you feel more comfortable in your small world.
it's clear you, taxi and daBear have absolutely no interest in conversing on the GW/AGW/CC subject... because you can't; you haven't the basic wherewithal to do so. Instead, we get you chuckleheads forever dropping into threads and recycling your nothingness! Clearly, you don't like your lil' clubhouse ruffled! :lol:
Thanks for the laughs... Each and everytime you get your a s s handed to you and/or asked to provide any form of 'evidence' to prove your position, you revert to a pathetic display of labeling all dissenters as 'deniers'.
It's laughable
whaaa! "Gish Gallop"!!! I spoke a bit about the limitations of mainstream media and I singled out one of the items on the graphic in question. Ya baby, that there is some big-time "Gish Gallop" :mrgreen: I guess it's for you to play that silly-card then actually address my reply, hey!