ZPE_Logo
  
Search        
  Create an account Home  ·  Topics  ·  Downloads  ·  Your Account  ·  Submit News  ·  Top 10  
Mission Statement

Modules
· Home
· Forum
· LATEST COMMENTS
· Special Sections
· SUPPORT ZPEnergy
· Advertising
· AvantGo
· Books
· Downloads
· Events
· Feedback
· Link to us
· Private Messages
· Search
· Stories Archive
· Submit News
· Surveys
· Top 10
· Topics
· Web Links
· Your Account

Who's Online
There are currently, 311 guest(s) and 0 member(s) that are online.

You are Anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here

Events
  • (August 7, 2024 - August 11, 2024) 2024 ExtraOrdinary Technology Conference

  • Hot Links
    Aetherometry

    American Antigravity

    Closeminded Science

    EarthTech

    ECW E-Cat World

    Innoplaza

    Integrity Research Institute

    New Energy Movement

    New Energy Times

    Panacea-BOCAF

    RexResearch

    Science Hobbyist

    T. Bearden Mirror Site

    USPTO

    Want to Know

    Other Info-Sources
    NE News Sites
    AER_Network
    E-Cat World
    NexusNewsfeed ZPE
    NE Discussion Groups
    Energetic Forum
    EMediaPress
    Energy Science Forum
    Free_Energy FB Group
    The KeelyNet Blog
    OverUnity Research
    Sarfatti_Physics
    Tesla Science Foundation (FB)
    Vortex (old Interact)
    Magazine Sites
    Electrifying Times (FB)
    ExtraOrdinary Technology
    IE Magazine
    New Energy Times

    Interesting Links

    Click Here for the DISCLOSURE PROJECT
    SciTech Daily Review
    NEXUS Magazine

    An Experiment Hints We Are WRONG re climate change
    Posted on Thursday, February 15, 2007 @ 20:41:42 GMT by vlad

    General Anonymous writes: As one of the FEW conservatives that frequent this site, I waited for days for someone to post this here...it never happened, (too many liberals here, I know, I know, been here long enought to know this is an ultra-lib site). Did you people just ignore this story??????

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1363818.ece

    When politicians and journalists declare that the science of global warming is settled, they show a regrettable ignorance about how science works. We were treated to another dose of it recently when the experts of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued the Summary for Policymakers that puts the political spin on an unfinished scientific dossier on climate change due for publication in a few months’ time. They declared that most of the rise in temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to man-made greenhouse gases.



    The small print explains “very likely” as meaning that the experts who made the judgment felt 90% sure about it. Older readers may recall a press conference at Harwell in 1958 when Sir John Cockcroft, Britain’s top nuclear physicist, said he was 90% certain that his lads had achieved controlled nuclear fusion. It turned out that he was wrong. More positively, a 10% uncertainty in any theory is a wide open breach for any latterday Galileo or Einstein to storm through with a better idea. That is how science really works.

    Twenty years ago, climate research became politicised in favour of one particular hypothesis, which redefined the subject as the study of the effect of greenhouse gases. As a result, the rebellious spirits essential for innovative and trustworthy science are greeted with impediments to their research careers. And while the media usually find mavericks at least entertaining, in this case they often imagine that anyone who doubts the hypothesis of man-made global warming must be in the pay of the oil companies. As a result, some key discoveries in climate research go almost unreported.

    Enthusiasm for the global-warming scare also ensures that heatwaves make headlines, while contrary symptoms, such as this winter’s billion-dollar loss of Californian crops to unusual frost, are relegated to the business pages. The early arrival of migrant birds in spring provides colourful evidence for a recent warming of the northern lands. But did anyone tell you that in east Antarctica the Adélie penguins and Cape petrels are turning up at their spring nesting sites around nine days later than they did 50 years ago? While sea-ice has diminished in the Arctic since 1978, it has grown by 8% in the Southern Ocean.


    So one awkward question you can ask, when you’re forking out those extra taxes for climate change, is “Why is east Antarctica getting colder?” It makes no sense at all if carbon dioxide is driving global warming. While you’re at it, you might inquire whether Gordon Brown will give you a refund if it’s confirmed that global warming has stopped. The best measurements of global air temperatures come from American weather satellites, and they show wobbles but no overall change since 1999.

    That levelling off is just what is expected by the chief rival hypothesis, which says that the sun drives climate changes more emphatically than greenhouse gases do. After becoming much more active during the 20th century, the sun now stands at a high but roughly level state of activity. Solar physicists warn of possible global cooling, should the sun revert to the lazier mood it was in during the Little Ice Age 300 years ago.

    Climate history and related archeology give solid support to the solar hypothesis. The 20th-century episode, or Modern Warming, was just the latest in a long string of similar events produced by a hyperactive sun, of which the last was the Medieval Warming.

    The Chinese population doubled then, while in Europe the Vikings and cathedral-builders prospered. Fascinating relics of earlier episodes come from the Swiss Alps, with the rediscovery in 2003 of a long-forgotten pass used intermittently whenever the world was warm.

    What does the Intergovernmental Panel do with such emphatic evidence for an alternation of warm and cold periods, linked to solar activity and going on long before human industry was a possible factor? Less than nothing. The 2007 Summary for Policymakers boasts of cutting in half a very small contribution by the sun to climate change conceded in a 2001 report.

    Disdain for the sun goes with a failure by the self-appointed greenhouse experts to keep up with inconvenient discoveries about how the solar variations control the climate. The sun’s brightness may change too little to account for the big swings in the climate. But more than 10 years have passed since Henrik Svensmark in Copenhagen first pointed out a much more powerful mechanism.

    He saw from compilations of weather satellite data that cloudiness varies according to how many atomic particles are coming in from exploded stars. More cosmic rays, more clouds. The sun’s magnetic field bats away many of the cosmic rays, and its intensification during the 20th century meant fewer cosmic rays, fewer clouds, and a warmer world. On the other hand the Little Ice Age was chilly because the lazy sun let in more cosmic rays, leaving the world cloudier and gloomier.

    The only trouble with Svensmark’s idea — apart from its being politically incorrect — was that meteorologists denied that cosmic rays could be involved in cloud formation. After long delays in scraping together the funds for an experiment, Svensmark and his small team at the Danish National Space Center hit the jackpot in the summer of 2005.

    In a box of air in the basement, they were able to show that electrons set free by cosmic rays coming through the ceiling stitched together droplets of sulphuric acid and water. These are the building blocks for cloud condensation. But journal after journal declined to publish their report; the discovery finally appeared in the Proceedings of the Royal Society late last year.

    Thanks to having written The Manic Sun, a book about Svensmark’s initial discovery published in 1997, I have been privileged to be on the inside track for reporting his struggles and successes since then. The outcome is a second book, The Chilling Stars, co-authored by the two of us and published next week by Icon books. We are not exaggerating, we believe, when we subtitle it “A new theory of climate change”.

    Where does all that leave the impact of greenhouse gases? Their effects are likely to be a good deal less than advertised, but nobody can really say until the implications of the new theory of climate change are more fully worked out.

    The reappraisal starts with Antarctica, where those contradictory temperature trends are directly predicted by Svensmark’s scenario, because the snow there is whiter than the cloud-tops. Meanwhile humility in face of Nature’s marvels seems more appropriate than arrogant assertions that we can forecast and even control a climate ruled by the sun and the stars.


     
    Login
    Nickname

    Password

    Security Code: Security Code
    Type Security Code

    Don't have an account yet? You can create one. As a registered user you have some advantages like theme manager, comments configuration and post comments with your name.

    Related Links
    · More about General
    · News by vlad


    Most read story about General:
    Z machine melts diamond to puddle


    Article Rating
    Average Score: 4
    Votes: 2


    Please take a second and vote for this article:

    Excellent
    Very Good
    Good
    Regular
    Bad


    Options

     Printer Friendly Printer Friendly


    "An Experiment Hints We Are WRONG re climate change" | Login/Create an Account | 8 comments | Search Discussion
    The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content.

    No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register

    Global Warming is the result of the Schumann Cavity Resonance (Score: 1)
    by Kadamose on Thursday, February 15, 2007 @ 20:56:40 GMT
    (User Info | Send a Message)
    <>

    The Earth's vibration has a name - it's called the Shuman Cavity Resonance (SCR). It literally is the 'heartbeat' of the planet, and for the past several thousand years, it has remained at a steady 7.8 HZ. However, the frequency began to increase in the early 80s and has been increasing ever since, and now resides somewhere in between 11.5 HZ and 12 HZ. It would appear that the strength of the Shuman Cavity Resonance is inversly proportional to the magnetic field around the Earth: the higher the frequency, the less powerful the magnetic field will be. It's speculated that once the Shumance Cavity Resonance reaches 13 HZ, the magnetic field around the planet will fail entirely. which will lead to a pole shift.


    The vibration of the Earth is increasing and, thus, the core of the planet is overheating. What these so-called 'experts' in the field of Global Warming WON'T tell you is that the glaciers from BOTH poles, are, in fact, melting from the BOTTOM UP. Also, there has been more solar flare and volcanic activity in the past 20 years than any point in recorded history. Makes you wonder what the hell is really going on, doesn't it?

    With that in mind, you're not going to get any real answers from modern science since it's almost completely closed-minded, and is almost 100% dogma. What this world really needs is open-minded science, and you're not going to find it in places where the laws of capitalism are present, since they restrict ideas that are way out of the thought processes and understanding of the average man: ideas which could destroy the very foundations of capitalism, itself. Thinking outside the box is generally looked down upon, and this is how the greatest men, such as Nikola Tesla and Wilhelm Reich, met their untimely demise.



    Re: An Experiment Hints We Are WRONG re climate change (Score: 1)
    by Joakim on Thursday, February 15, 2007 @ 22:07:05 GMT
    (User Info | Send a Message)
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/10/taking-cosmic-rays-for-a-spin/



    Re: An Experiment Hints We Are WRONG re climate change (Score: 1)
    by malc on Friday, February 16, 2007 @ 01:17:15 GMT
    (User Info | Send a Message) http://web.ukonline.co.uk/mripley
    The scientists who believed in global warming 3 decades ago were ridiculed.  Over the past 20 years the tide has changed since the amount of evidence has grown and grown.

    For the global warming skeptics to now bitch and complain comes as no suprise.  You are wrong , every year that goes by adds more evidence that you are wrong.

    The evidence presented by that panel was the tip of the iceberg. A very small tip of a very small iceberg and yet even that little bit is quite damning given the amount of agreement needed to publish it!  Go on I dare you, read the rest maybe then you would understand about the affect of solar activity on the earth and why there is water at the bottom of a glacier (DUH !).  The solar activity study is very important since the global warming skeptics have cherry picked bits out of it to justify their stance and yet if the whole study is taken into account the global warming skeptics are very wrong! Ironic really.




    Re: An Experiment Hints We Are WRONG re climate change (Score: 1)
    by modernsteam on Friday, February 16, 2007 @ 08:33:52 GMT
    (User Info | Send a Message)
    Have I got news for you! My B.A. major is in sociology, and we are taught to objectively examine group behaviour, and individual behaviour within groups as influenced by the group(s) to which they belong. A serious examination of the writer aggregate on this blog shows approximately 50%, perhaps more, consider themselves social and economic conservatives. They only differ from the majority of the overall conservative aggregate in their reasonable belief in the probability of over-unity energy, as difficult as it is to achieve, and that the "Laws" of science are not immutable. They have clearly indicated a belief in getting appropriate rewards for the work that they have achieved, and that the work of the mind, ie., intellectual property, belongs to the author, unless the author willingly, without threat, divests himself/herself of it, or is paid a wage, salary, or commission to do the work of the mind for an employer. Such ownership by the author of his/her intellectual work is most definitely a conservative value. Without doubt, they have indicated a belief in a fairly "liberal" market - some may fervently say a free market - , but even most folks who call themselves conservatives, feel that some regulation, such as anti-pollution legislation, is required for the public good.

    Many of those who consider themselves environmentalists, are traditional conservatives in other respects. These conservatives have examined the evidence - received on advisement - and through the conservative procedure of exercising due diligence, have concluded, based on the evidence they have received, that global warming is mostly caused by humankind, although solar activity is playing a major role.

    By the way, the vast majoroity of Free Energy proponents I've encountered exercise the very conservative value of discouraging government involvement in designing over-unity devices, figuring that private enterprise historically has handled device engineering best, at the lowest R&D cost , and in the shortest time. But even conservatives need funding to purchase equipment, pay specialists, get accomodation for labs etc., and it's just as hard for them to acquire it as so-called "liberals".


    Hal Ade



    ANTARCTIC TEMPERATURES DISAGREE WITH CLIMATE MODEL PREDICTIONS (Score: 1)
    by vlad on Friday, February 16, 2007 @ 23:02:11 GMT
    (User Info | Send a Message) http://www.zpenergy.com
    ANTARCTIC TEMPERATURES DISAGREE WITH CLIMATE MODEL PREDICTIONS, February 15
    A new report on climate over the world's southernmost continent shows that temperatures during the late 20th century did not climb as had been predicted by many global climate models.
    Full story at http://www.physorg.com/news90782778.html [www.physorg.com]

    VANISHING GLACIERS OFFER CLEAR EVIDENCE OF CLIMATE CHANGE: SCIENTISTS, February 16
    Climate change is likely to melt one of Peru's biggest glaciers within five years and is threatening ice packs on some of the world's most famous mountain ranges, scientists said.
    Full story at http://www.physorg.com/news90840844.html [www.physorg.com]

    RISING SEA LEVELS PRESENT CHINA WITH 'UNIMAGINABLE CHALLENGES', February 16
    Shanghai, Guangzhou and other large coastal cities in China could face "unimaginable challenges" if global warming continues and the oceans keep rising, state media said.
    Full story at http://www.physorg.com/news90853989.html [www.physorg.com]

    US NEEDS TO PLAN FOR CLIMATE CHANGE-INDUCED SUMMER DROUGHTS, February 16
    The western United States has experienced increasing drought conditions in recent years - and conditions may worsen if global climate change models are accurate - yet the country is doing little to prepare for potential catastrophe, a group of scientists said today.
    Full story at http://www.physorg.com/news90854393.html [www.physorg.com]





    'Global Warming Is Lies' Claims Documentary (Score: 1)
    by vlad on Monday, March 05, 2007 @ 00:01:35 GMT
    (User Info | Send a Message) http://www.zpenergy.com
    Accepted theories about man causing global warming are "lies" claims a controversial new TV documentary.

    ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’ - backed by eminent scientists - is set to rock the accepted consensus that climate change is being driven by humans.

    The programme, to be screened on Channel 4 on Thursday March 8, will see a series of respected scientists attack the "propaganda" that they claim is killing the world’s poor.

    Even the co-founder of Greenpeace, Patrick Moore, is shown, claiming African countries should be encouraged to burn more CO2.

    Nobody in the documentary defends the greenhouse effect theory, as it claims that climate change is natural, has been occurring for years, and ice falling from glaciers is just the spring break-up and as normal as leaves falling in autumn.

    A source at Channel 4 said: "It is essentially a polemic and we are expecting it to cause trouble, but this is the controversial programming that Channel 4 is renowned for."

    Controversial director Martin Durkin said: "You can see the problems with the science of global warming, but people just don’t believe you – it’s taken ten years to get this commissioned.

    "I think it will go down in history as the first chapter in a new era of the relationship between scientists and society. Legitimate scientists – people with qualifications – are the bad guys.

    "It is a big story that is going to cause controversy.

    Read the whole article Here [www.lse.co.uk]



     

    All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2002-2016 by ZPEnergy. Disclaimer: No content, on or affiliated with ZPEnergy should be construed as or relied upon as investment advice. While every effort is made to ensure that the information contained on ZPEnergy is correct, the operators of ZPEnergy make no warranties as to its accuracy. In all respects visitors should seek independent verification and investment advice.
    Keywords: ZPE, ZPF, Zero Point Energy, Zero Point Fluctuations, ZPEnergy, New Energy Technology, Small Scale Implementation, Energy Storage Technology, Space-Energy, Space Energy, Natural Potential, Investors, Investing, Vacuum Energy, Electromagnetic, Over Unity, Overunity, Over-Unity, Free Energy, Free-Energy, Ether, Aether, Cold Fusion, Cold-Fusion, Fuel Cell, Quantum Mechanics, Van der Waals, Casimir, Advanced Physics, Vibrations, Advanced Energy Conversion, Rotational Magnetics, Vortex Mechanics, Rotational Electromagnetics, Earth Electromagnetics, Gyroscopes, Gyroscopic Effects

    PHP-Nuke Copyright © 2005 by Francisco Burzi. This is free software, and you may redistribute it under the GPL. PHP-Nuke comes with absolutely no warranty, for details, see the license.