Global Warming

[donald@newdirectionscs.com]

here is a study comparing the effects of solar, cosmic and how each correlate to the other in the whole picture, there are other interrelated articles on the subject above the article and also a list of others to the left side. be at peace with yourself and others donald

http://www.biocab.org/cosmic_rays_climate_change.html

the graph of the oscillations in the tropospheric temperature was reproduced from the daily reports of noaa/nasa. i have reproduced both graphs accurately, so you can see that the factual correlation between the interstellar cosmic rays and the "global warming" is based on facts.



each peak of energy released in the shock bow corresponds, with a high degree of accuracy, to an elevation in the variability of the terrestrial atmosphere temperature, and most of the decreases in the energy released in the shock bow correspond to a trough in the line representing the earth’s tropospheric temperature. there are some regions of the graph where apparently do not correspond with the variability of the terrestrial tropospheric temperature; this obeys to the interference produced by the solar activity, which propels gigantic regions of magnetism right through the sunspots maximums that protect the earth, so from the excesses of intergalactic cosmic radiation as from the local solar wind. however, we lack the whole protection by the periods of minimums in sunspots.



the solar system is moving in an orbit around the milky way at a speed of 217.22 km/s. the solar system completes one lap around the milky way each 226 million years. ther is another swinging movement of the solar system inward and outward the center of the galaxy; by this movement, the solar system advances 1,728,000 km per day through the cold space. this is the 8,593.75 fraction of the whole distance from the earth to the solar system’s bow shock. a cold particle of the intergalactic cosmic radiation would cross this distance in 1.2 hours.



the negative amplitudes are higher than the positive amplitudes from june 2003 to january 2006 -taken the standard line (red dashed line); the last means that, from june 2003 to date (february 2007), there has been a cooling rather than a warming.



the present variability in the tropospheric temperature of earth is directly attributable to the instability of the intensity of icr, which include he++ and h+ nucleons and electrons. the long and the short intervals match unexpectedly.

[LightEye]

dear friends,

somewhat old, but...

http://seoblackhat.com/2007/03/04/gl...n-and-jupiter/

be well, be love.

david

global warming on mars, pluto, triton and jupiter

global warming on mars, pluto, triton and jupiter strongly points towards the sun or some other cosmic force being the cause of the recent global warming on earth.

global warming on mars, pluto, triton and jupitermarch
4th

2007 comments below from national geographic:

“habibullo abdussamatov, head of the st. petersburg’s pulkovo astronomical observatory in russia, says the mars data is evidence that the current global warming on earth is being caused by changes in the sun.“

from mit on pluto

“the average surface temperature of the nitrogen ice on pluto has increased slightly less than 2 degrees celsius over the past 14 years.”

since pluto is moving further away from the sun and continuing to warm despite that fact, it indicates that something doesn’t fit into “solar constant” dismissal theories.

from space.com on jupiter:

“the latest images could provide evidence that jupiter is in the midst of a global change that can modify temperatures by as much as 10 degrees fahrenheit on different parts of the globe.”

from mit on triton:

“at least since 1989, triton has been undergoing a period of global warming. percentage-wise, it’s a very large increase,” said elliot, professor of earth, atmospheric and planetary sciences and director of the wallace astrophysical observatory. the 5 percent increase on the absolute temperature scale from about minus-392 degrees fahrenheit to about minus-389 degrees fahrenheit would be like the earth experiencing a jump of about 22 degrees fahrenheit.”

so there is global warming on at least 4 other bodies in our solar system that co-insides with the recent warming on earth. doesn’t this point strongly towards the sun or some other cosmic force as the cause?

on the origin of the runaway global warming theory of co2 feedback and venus (pdf):

“why is the albedo of venus important? when the albedo is at 0.80, the global warming theory falls apart. . .

the carbon dioxide levels on earth have risen from approximately 0.028% to 0.036% in the last few decades. it is a major stretch to compare this with venus at a 96.500% carbon dioxide level and promote an uncontrollable runaway condition. earth in its early history, 385 million years ago, had an atmosphere with 10 times the present carbon dioxide levels. those elevated levels did not produce runaway global warming then, so why should we theorize that it would today?”

pre-conceived agendas and a scorched earth policy of accusing any critics of complicity with big oil or the republican party impedes the scientific process. likening people who do not agree with doomsday anthropogenic global warming theories to holocaust deniers does not get us closer to the truth. in science, when did “skeptic” become such a bad word?

[theodorepong]

"likening people who do not agree with doomsday anthropogenic global warming theories to holocaust deniers does not get us closer to the truth. in science, when did “skeptic” become such a bad word?"

i thoroughly agree.

at the risk of appearing "conspiratorial", i think this global warming is just one more non-issue, among many non-issues, all of which are used deliberately by powerful factions, in order to keep us, the people, too busy fighting among ourselves to see what is really going on.

just to mention a few more of these major non-issues, we see abortion rights vs right to life, darwin vs creation, religion vs science, republican vs democrat, gun control vs second amendment, ama vs wholistic healing, and many others i can't think of at the moment.

as for al gore, and his inconvenient "truth" (quotes mine), i suspect he is being paid off big time by the very same faction that is funding arguments that deny any evidence of any global warming at all.

[LightEye]

dear friends,

doh!

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1726

be well, be love.

david

unprecedented warmth in sweden
by steve mcintyre

sweden has been reporting warmth in june that is unprecedented in a milllll-yun years

pictures from sweden’s newspapers show the extent to which continental glaciation has receded.

[LightEye]

dear friends,

http://rinf.com/alt-news/environment...te-change/528/

here's andrew's site;

http://www.checktheevidence.com/chemtrails/

be well, be love.

david

new report challenges basic assumptions about climate change

a new report has been published which challenges certain basic assumptions about climate change. the report has been written by an independent lay researcher, and is backed by over 20 signatories from diverse backgrounds. the report presents significant ground-based and space-based data which indicates that ongoing illegal and unacknowledged aerosol spraying from aircraft could be affecting our climate. copies of the report have been sent to greenpeace, the civil aviation authority, the royal air force and defra, challenging them to investigate the data themselves.

an independent lay researcher, with a background in software engineering, from derbyshire, uk, has published a new report which documents ongoing illegal aerosol spraying activities which could be affecting our climate, our health or both. this activity can be seen in multiple, repeated instances of persistent aircraft trails across our skies.

andrew johnson said that, like most other people, he assumed, for many years, that the trails were just ordinary vapour trails (called ‘contrails’).

“in 2004, i began to notice that these trails did not behave like contrails at all. then, on 10th june 2005, i witnessed a grid of aircraft trails right outside my window, just before sunset,” andrew has included copies of 2 photographs of this ‘grid’ in the report. “i sent the picture to the local paper and they published it. i also had it published on a popular website in the usa and i received quite a number of e-mail responses to the picture. most of the responses described my picture as being of a grid of ‘chemtrails’ and quite a few people sent me similar pictures they had taken.” andrew then decided to write an article about this ‘grid’ picture and what the background to it seemed to be. the article was published, online, in september 2005 on the website of phenomena magazine.

[LightEye]

dear friends,

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/f...c-f0ff43010278

be well, be love

david

forget warming - beware the new ice age
lawrence solomon, financial post
published: friday, june 15, 2007

in the 1970s, leading scientists claimed that the world was threatened by an era of global cooling.

based on what we've learned this decade, says george kukla, those scientists - and he was among them -- had it right. the world is about to enter another ice age.

dr. kukla, in 1972 a member of the czechoslovakian academy of sciences and a pioneer in the field of astronomical forcing, became a central figure in convincing the united states government to take the dangers of climate change seriously. in january of that year, he and another geologist, robert matthews of brown university, convened what would become a historic conference of top european and american investigators in providence, r.i. the working conference's theme: "the present interglacial: how and when will it end?"

[LightEye]

dear friends,

http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jul...nrik-svensmark

be well, be love.

david

sun's shifts may cause global warming
his studies show that natural variations in the sun plays a major role in global warming. so are humans off the hook? and if so, why does he use compact fluorescent lightbulbs?
by marion long

most leading climate experts don’t agree with henrik svensmark, the 49-year-old director of the center for sun-climate research at the danish national space center in copenhagen. in fact, he has taken a lot of blows for proposing that solar activity and cosmic rays are instrumental in determining the warming (and cooling) of earth. his studies show that cosmic rays trigger cloud formation, suggesting that a high level of solar activity—which suppresses the flow of cosmic rays striking the atmosphere—could result in fewer clouds and a warmer planet. this, svensmark contends, could account for most of the warming during the last century. does this mean that carbon dioxide is less important than we’ve been led to believe? yes, he says, but how much less is impossible to know because climate models are so limited.

there is probably no greater scientific heresy today than questioning the warming role of co2, especially in the wake of the report issued by the united nations intergovernmental panel on climate change (ipcc). that report warned that nations must cut back on greenhouse gas emissions, and insisted that “unless drastic action is taken . . . millions of poor people will suffer from hunger, thirst, floods, and disease.” as astrophysicist ?eugene parker, the discoverer of solar wind, writes in the foreword to svensmark’s new book, the chilling stars: a new theory of climate change, “global warming has become a political issue both in government and in the scientific community. the scientific lines have been drawn by ‘eminent’ scientists, and an important new idea is an unwelcome intruder. it upsets the established orthodoxy.”

we talked with the unexpectedly modest and soft-spoken henrik svensmark about his work, the criticism it has received, and truth versus hype in climate science.

[LightEye]

dear friends,

http://www.abc.net.au/westqld/storie...9.htm?backyard

be well, be love.

david

global warming: it's not caused by greenhouse gases says academic
last update: friday, july 6, 2007. 3:57pm aest
by julia harris

an australian academic has spoken out against the popular view that global warming is caused by greenhouse gas emissions. he believes that global warming and climate change are caused by cycles in the sun's electro-magnetic radiation. he says scientists are taking a narrow view and politicians are making policy with the wrong information.

emeritus professor lance endersbee ao is a former dean of engineering and pro-vice chancellor of monash university. he told tom harwood, abc western queensland's morning program producer that the world has been warming naturally due to increased magnetic radiation from the sun.

...people were able to travel from london up the river on sleighs - so it was a different climate

"one thousand years ago the vikings were in greenland, and they settled there and it was a warm period, known as the medieval warm period and europe was prosperous," he said. "and then from about 1300 on it got progressively colder and in the time of the 1600s it was terribly cold in europe. finland lost about one-third of their population and the thames froze over regularly every year and people were able to travel from london up the river on sleighs - so it was a different climate," explained professor endersbee.

he said since about 1700 the earth has been getting progressively warmer. "it's shown in what we call the sunspot records. the sun is also emitting a great deal of electro-magnetic radiation and nowadays with nasa we can see that more plainly on the surface of the sun."

the professor says that the incredible thing is that the electro-magnetic radiation from the sun varies up and down over an eleven year cycle. "and every eleven years there's a change in the electrical polarity of the sun."

[LightEye]

dear friends,

doh! really hate when his happens. ;-)

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles...losertosun.htm

i don't know if this should be something for the top numbskull awards, but considering it's coming from a rothschild it's worth posting. obviously all that money doesn't equal to an ounce of brainmass.

be well, be love.

david

top global warming advocate: jupiter & saturn closer to sun than earth
live earth kingpin dismantles his own credibility on national radio as propaganda bandwagon is massive flop

paul joseph watson
prison planet
monday, july 9, 2007


live earth's half empty stadiums and lackluster tv viewing figures were preceded by another embarrassment after one of the propaganda bandwagon's kingpins and a top global warming advocate responded to a question about solar-system wide climate change by claiming that jupiter, mars and saturn were closer to the sun than earth.

david mayer de rothschild is the youngest child (born 1978) of sir evelyn de rothschild, of the british wing of the rothschild banking family.

rothschild's recent book, 77 essential skills to stop climate changes, calls for ordinary people to limit outward behavior and even work at home and was used as part of the pr blitz to accompany the live earth project.

appearing on the alex jones show this past friday, rothschild reacted to a point about massive climate change at every point of the solar system and its relation to natural sun cycles by claiming mars, saturn and jupiter were closer to the sun than earth!

here's a brief transcript of the exchange.

alex jones: "the polar icecaps of mars are receding at several miles a year, much faster than ours and that the moons of saturn and jupiter are melting, in fact several of their moons were ice and are now liquid seas - how are suv's causing that david rothschild?

rothschild: "because those planets are closer to the sun, my friend."

alex jones: "no, jupiter and saturn are not closer to the sun and neither is mars."

[LightEye]

dear friends,

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/m.../15/do1508.xml

this is response to this article;

'no sun link' to climate change

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6290228.stm

be well, be love.

david

the truth is, we can't ignore the sun
by david whitehouse
last updated: 12:01am bst 15/07/2007

according to the headlines last week, the sun is not to blame for recent global warming: mankind and fossil fuels are. so al gore is correct when he said, "the scientific data is in. there is no more debate."

of that the evangelical bbc had no doubt. there was an air of triumphalism in its coverage of the report by the royal society.

it was perhaps a reaction to the bbc trust's recent criticism of the corporation's bias when reporting climate change: but sadly, it only proved the point made by the trust.

the bbc was enthusiastically one-sided, sloppy and confused on its website, using concepts such as the sun's power, output and magnetic field incorrectly and interchangeably, as well as not including any criticism of the research.

but there is a deeper and more worrying issue. last week's research is a simple piece of science and fundamentally flawed. nobody looked beyond the hype; if they had, they would have reached a different conclusion.

the report argues that while the sun had a significant effect on climate during most of the 20th century, its influence is currently dwarfed by human effects. it says that all known solar influences since about 1990 are downward and because global temperature has increased since then, the sun is not responsible.

no. the research could prove the contrary. using the global temperature data endorsed by the inter-national panel on climate change, one can reach a completely different conclusion.

recently the united states' national oceanographic and atmospheric administration said that 2006 was statistically indistinguishable from previous years.

looking at annual global temperatures, it is apparent that the last decade shows no warming trend and recent successive annual global temperatures are well within each year's measurement errors. statistically the world's temperature is flat.

the world certainly warmed between 1975 and 1998, but in the past 10 years it has not been increasing at the rate it did. no scientist could honestly look at global temperatures over the past decade and see a rising curve.