Global Warming

[LightEye]

Dear Friends,

You can download the book for free.

http://www.globalweathercycles.com/

Be Well, Be Love.

David



Truth about Global Warming

For a limited time download the Global Warming e-Book


New Research Indicates Climate Similar to the 1800s Within the Next 15 Years:

First Stage of Global Cooling Will Begin During 2008-2009

New research findings released in the peer reviewed book "Global Warming -- Global Cooling, Natural Cause Found," links seven different types of recurring gravitational cycles as the cause for all 2200 global warming events during the past half million years, including the earth's current warming cycle. It also links the cycles to a natural 50 percent increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide during the 10,000 year period leading up to the peak of all recurring 116,000 year mega global warming cycles. Meteorologist and climate researcher David Dilley of Global Weather Oscillations http://www.globalweathercycles.com, says the gravitational cycles act like a magnet by pulling the atmosphere's high pressure systems northward or southward by as much as 3 or 4 degrees of latitude from their normal seasonal positions. As the current gravitational cycle declines, global temperatures will begin cooling during 2008-09 with dramatic global cooling by 2023.

Ocala, FL (PRWEB) July 8, 2008 - New findings released in the peer reviewed book "Global Warming -- Global Cooling, Natural Cause Found", meteorologist and climate researcher David Dilley utilizes nearly a half million years of data linking long term gravitational cycles of the moon as the cause for the present global warming, rises in carbon dioxide levels, and for 2200 global warming cycles during the past half million years.

Mr. Dilley of Global Weather Oscillations has found seven different types of recurring gravitational cycles ranging from the very warm 460,000 year cycle down to a 230 year recurring global warming cycle. All of the gravitational cycles coincide nearly 100 percent with 2200 global warming events during the past half million years. This includes the earth's current warming cycle which began around the year 1900, and the first stage of global cooling that will begin during 2008 and 2009.

[weboy78]

Is Global Warming Part of Earth's Natural Cycle: MIT Team Says "Yes" -A Galaxy Insight

A team of MIT scientists recorded a nearly simultaneous world-wide increase in methane levels -the first increase in ten years. What baffles the team is that this data contradicts theories stating humans are the primary source of increase in greenhouse gas. It takes about one full year for gases generated in the highly industrial northern hemisphere to cycle through and reach the southern hemisphere. Since all worldwide levels rose simultaneously throughout the same year, however, it is probable that this may be part of a natural cycle - and not the direct result of man's contributions.
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog...-says-yes.html

[BJ ∞ Living in the Now]

Warming: Why the FRACTALITY Solution May Make More Sense- Than the Carbon Solution.

I understand that all planets are changing and it is not human-made (at least mostly, as DW shows in the research, and now MIT admitting to it).

However, I keep up with fractality science and its solutions to every aspect of these world/global changes in chaos. So, since we could conclude from all this global warming research, that we are, in fact, in a global chaotic moment. From weather, to politics. Now, fractality science is one in the same with Science of Peace, as you will see, the more you study. I am willing to bet many DC goers from this site have also seen this work done, or stumbled upon this website, goldenmean.info.

Well, if we take fractal science to an applicable level, we will create solutions on our own, in our own communities at laymen-level terms and HAVE FUN with it!

So here is the article about using fractality science in the midst of this chaotic moment in "time" on Earth with regards to global warming.

[please PM for link]

(If the moderator takes the link out above, please PM me for it)

Namaste~
BJ

[LightEye]

Dear Friends,

http://www.calgaryherald.com/busines...571/story.html

Be Well, Be Love.

David

Scientists pull an about face on global warming
By Lorne Gunter, For The Calgary HeraldSeptember 19, 2009

Imagine if Pope Benedict gave a speech saying the Catholic Church has had it wrong all these centuries; there is no reason priests shouldn't marry. That might generate the odd headline, no?

Or if Don Cherry claimed suddenly to like European hockey players who wear visors and float around the ice, never bodychecking opponents.

Or Jack Layton insisted that unions are ruining the economy by distorting wages and protecting unproductive workers.

Or Stephen Harper began arguing that it makes good economic sense for Ottawa to own a car company. (Oh, wait, that one happened.) But at least, the Tories-buy-GM aberration made all the papers and newscasts.

When a leading proponent for one point of view suddenly starts batting for the other side, it's usually newsworthy.

So why was a speech last week by Prof. Mojib Latif of Germany's Leibniz Institute not given more prominence?

[LightEye]

Dear Friends,

A concise summary of the current situation.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/cap...ve_on_glo.html

Be Well, Be Love.

David

A Skeptical Take on Global Warming

* Freedman: Response to Climate Depot Distortions -- New Comments *

This Capital Weather Gang blog entry is written with considerable trepidation given the politically-charged atmosphere surrounding human-induced global warming.

I am a meteorologist with a life-long weather fascination. As I'm sure you know, meteorology is an inexact science due to the large number of variables involved in predicting and understanding the weather. I frequently say that weather forecasting is a humbling endeavor, and I have learned to respect its challenges. From this perspective, you might be able to better understand why I wince when hearing pronouncements such as "the science is settled", "the debate is over", or even the "the temperature in the 2050s is projected to be..." I realize that forecasting climate and weather are different, but both involve a large number of moving parts.

There are numerous reasons why I question the consensus view on human-induced climate change covered extensively on this blog by Andrew Freedman. But for this entry, I scaled them down to ten:

[LightEye]

Dear Friends,

http://www.gao.spb.ru/english/astrom...s_nkj_2009.pdf

Be Well, Be Love.

David

THE SUN DEFINES THE CLIMATE
Habibullo Abdussamatov, Dr. Sc.
Head of Space research laboratory of the Pulkovo Observatory,
Head of the Russian/Ukrainian joint project Astrometria
(translated from Russian by Lucy Hancock)

Experts of the United Nations in regular reports publish data said to show that the Earth is approaching a catastrophic global warming, caused by increasing emissions of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. However, observations of the Sun show that as for the increase in temperature, carbon dioxide is "not guilty" and as for what lies ahead in the upcoming decades, it is not catastrophic warming, but a global, and very prolonged, temperature drop.

Life on earth completely depends on solar radiation, the ultimate source of energy for natural processes. For a long time it was thought that the luminosity of the Sun never changes, and for this reason the quantity of solar energy received per second over one square meter above the atmosphere at the distance of the Earth from the Sun (149 597 892 km), was named the solar constant.
Until 1978, precise measurements of the value of the total solar irradiance (TSI) were not available. But according to indirect data, namely the established major climate variations of the Earth in recent millennia, one must doubt the invariance of its value.

In the middle of the nineteenth century, German and Swiss astronomers Heinrich Schwabe and Rudolf Wolf established that the number of spots on the surface of the Sun periodically changes, diminishing from a maximum to a minimum, and then growing again, over a time frame on the order of 11 years. Wolf introduced an index (“W”) of the relative number of sunspots, computed as the sum of 10 times number of sunspot groups plus the total number of spots in all groups. This number has been regularly measured since 1849. Drawing on the work of professional astronomers and the observations of amateurs (which are of uncertain reliability) Wolf worked out a reconstruction of monthly values from 1749 as well as annual values from 1700. Today, the reconstruction of this time series stretches back to 1611. It has an eleven-year cycle of recurrence as well as other cycles related to onset and development of individual sunspot groups: changes in the fraction of the solar surface occupied by faculae, the frequency of prominences, and other phenomena in the solar chromosphere and corona.

Analyzing the long record of sunspot numbers, the English astronomer Walter Maunder in 1893 came to the conclusion that from 1645 to 1715 sunspots had been generally absent. Over the thirty-year period of the Maunder Minimum, astronomers of the time counted only about 50 spots. Usually, over that length of time, about 50,000 sunspots would appear. Today, it has been established that such minima have repeatedly occurred in the past. It is also known that the Maunder Minimum accompanied the coldest phase of a global temperature dip, physically measured in Europe and other regions, the most severe such dip for several millennia, which stretched from the fourteenth to the nineteenth centuries (now known as the Little Ice Age).

[LightEye]

Dear Friends,

Dr. Lindzen is probably the person who knows most about what's going on with climate change...

Power point presentation;

http://www.globalwarming.org/wp-cont...n-talk-pdf.pdf

Video presentation;

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_lis...D4DD5727161348

Be Well, Be Love.

David

[transiten]

Hello

How on earth/in the universe does this theory of Dr Lindzen resonate with the one of David Wilcock Just happened to watch the video from Davids latest blog and this one on the same day and David starts off with the fact he has repeated over and over again that Global warming is happening in our entire solar system, that ices are melting on mars, etc and that the cycle of 26 million years makes this happen due to the area of heitghtened energy/radiation in the universe our solar system and our whole galaxy have moved into. Have i got it totally wrong?

This man shows with his graphs that nothing extraordinairy is happening at all and that he is not even a climate change sceptic but denier. I didn't see any graph from 26 million years ago though. This just turns everything up and down for me so i would very much appreciate to have this clarified or my head will split into pieces.

Yours in confusion transiten

[billybobbutterball]

Dear Transiten... if it is not too later please glue your head back together.. its actually very simple..

The earth is merely experiencing Rotary Thermospastic Punctuated Equilibrium. (R.T.P.E.)One spot is cold whereas another spot is hot...it all depends upon where and when you place your thermometer at a given moment. See? Happy?

(Well, Punctuated Equilibrium works for the Neo Darwinians)

OK! Please stop taking my name in vain...I confess, I don't know the answer either.

billybobbaffled

Originally Posted by transiten

Hello

How on earth/in the universe does this theory of Dr Lindzen resonate with the one of David Wilcock Just happened to watch the video from Davids latest blog and this one on the same day and David starts off with the fact he has repeated over and over again that Global warming is happening in our entire solar system, that ices are melting on mars, etc and that the cycle of 26 million years makes this happen due to the area of heightened energy/radiation in the universe our solar system and our whole galaxy have moved into. Have i got it totally wrong?

This man shows with his graphs that nothing extraordinary is happening at all and that he is not even a climate change sceptic but denier. I didn't see any graph from 26 million years ago though. This just turns everything up and down for me so i would very much appreciate to have this clarified or my head will split into pieces.

Yours in confusion transiten

[LightEye]

Dear Friends,

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...662092,00.html

Be Well, Be Love.

David

Stagnating Temperatures
Climatologists Baffled by Global Warming Time-Out
By Gerald Traufetter

Global warming appears to have stalled. Climatologists are puzzled as to why average global temperatures have stopped rising over the last 10 years. Some attribute the trend to a lack of sunspots, while others explain it through ocean currents.

At least the weather in Copenhagen is likely to be cooperating. The Danish Meteorological Institute predicts that temperatures in December, when the city will host the United Nations Climate Change Conference, will be one degree above the long-term average.

Otherwise, however, not much is happening with global warming at the moment. The Earth's average temperatures have stopped climbing since the beginning of the millennium, and it even looks as though global warming could come to a standstill this year.