An experiment that hints we are wrong on climate change

[Richard]

From The Sunday Times

Nigel Calder, former editor of New Scientist, says the orthodoxy must be challenged.

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.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk...363818.ece

[crystalsun]

Very interesting Richard and I look forward to my signed copy of your book...

However, the point is, do we continue pumping filthy coal emissions into our atmosphere, do we leave future generations large areas of poisoned ground from nuclear waste dumps, do we keep pumping the oil out of the ground and burning it at a furious pace, or do we recognise that no matter whether our input into global warming is large or small, we should attempt to clean up our atmosphere and therefore our planet.

Your point on East Antarctica is one I wasn't aware of. However the West Antarctic ice shelf seems hell bent on leaving the continent altogether. We have seen ice shelfs the size of Rhode Island and Manhattan Island break off and float away. January saw icebergs float up to New Zealand!

Did you know that in the last six months, so much of the Greenland ice cap has melted that explorers have discovered new islands that were always assumed peninsulas of Greenland.

In parts of Canada and Alaska the permafrost is melting and houses and other buildings are crumbling or sinking into the once rock-solid ground.

My point is: you may be right in your theory, but we still have to do something to try and stem the flow. A planetary move to clean, renewable energy is, I believe, a step in the right direction.

Regards, Crystalsun

[Richard]

CS, I didn’t write that article. It’s a newspaper article that was in the Sunday Times. It goes along with the theory that there is no global warming and what’s really happening is weather modification by the Illuminati. Another theory I’ve been hearing is it isn’t just the earth that is warming up; it’s the whole universe that’s warming up. That theory would go along with Jupiter slowly becoming our second sun.

Whatever the reason is I agree with you that we should clean our environment. I think that we should do all that we can. A huge step in the right direction would be to quit using fossil fuels and start using alterative sources for power.

[crystalsun]

Yes Richard, I have also seen articles describing how the solar system is changing in light intensity, not just earth. Maybe a dimensional change?

Are we actually lifting our vibration and moving "up" as it were in dimension? Scientists say they have discovered polar ice caps on Mercury - I cannot imagine how this is possible on a planet with temperatures of 400 degrees, but they are there.

Yes, we live in interesting times.

[PurpleParrot]

Hey Guys, I briefly skimmed the article but I just wanted to stop by to ask if you all have seen An Inconvenient Truth---Al Gore's documentary on the global warming issue??

I thought of posting it here since its sort of relevant to the article. I'm not sure if anyone mentioned it here on the other posts. The way Al Gore presented it was that the situation seems dire but one can easily rectify it if everyone takes responsibility for their actions(well the first one is CO2 consumption but if all of us humans take responsibility for what goes on in our souls and what we create here, then this world can change for the better...in a positive way)

to positive manifestation!!
peace

[Richard]

CS, that’s interesting about ice caps on mercury. That does sound strange. Something weird is going on.

PP, I haven’t seen Gore’s movie but I’ve seen him in a lot of interviews talking about global warming. I tend to think there is a hidden agenda in the global warming movement since Gore is involved. If Gore was so concerned about the environment, I would think he would drive one of those hybrid vehicles instead of a huge gas guzzling Cadillac Escalade SUV.  

[crystalsun]

Found this on 2012.com.au in their updates section.

Russian scientist says
planets' atmospheres are changing

This is the Russian perspective on earth changes Hard facts that are going unreported in America The atmospheres of the planets are changing Dr. Dmitriev's work shows that the planets themselves are changing. They are undergoing changes in their atmospheres For example the Martian atmosphere is getting sizably thicker than it was before. The Mars observer probe in 1997 lost one of its mirrors, which caused it to crash, because the atmosphere was about twice as dense as they calculated, and basically the wind on that little mirror was so high that it blew it right off the device.

Earth's moon is growing an atmosphere Also, the moon is growing an atmosphere that's made up of a compound Dmitriev refers to as ''Natrium.'' Dmitriev says that, around the moon, there is this 6,000-kilometer-deep layer of Natrium that wasn't there before.

And we're having this kind of change in Earth's atmosphere in the upper levels, where HO gas is forming that wasn't there before; it simply did not exist in the quantity that it does now. It's not related to global warming and it's not related to CFCs or fluorocarbon emissions or any of that stuff. It's just showing up.

Magnetic fields and brightness of the planets are changing. The planets are experiencing sizable changes in their overall brightness. Venus, for example, is showing us marked increases in its overall brightness.

Jupiter has gotten to have such a high energetic charge that there is actually a visible tube of ionizing radiation that's formed between its moon, Io.

You can actually see the luminous energy tube in photographs that have been taken more recently.

And the planets are having a change in their fields. The magnetic fields are becoming stronger.

Jupiter's magnetic field has more than doubled. Uranus's magnetic field is changing. Neptune's magnetic field is increasing. These planets are becoming brighter. Their magnetic field strength is getting higher.

Their atmospheric qualities are changing.

Uranus and Neptune appear to have had recent pole shifts. When the Voyager 2 space probe flew past Uranus and Neptune, the apparent north and south magnetic poles were sizably offset from where the rotational pole was. In one case, it was 50 degrees off, and in the other case the difference was around 40 degrees, both of which are pretty big changes.

The overall changes could essentially be broken down into three categories: Energy field changes, luminosity changes, and atmospheric changes.

Overall volcanic activity has increased 500 percent since 1975 On the Earth, we're seeing the changes even more completely.

For example, Michael Mandeville has done research that has shown that the overall volcanic activity on the Earth since 1875 has increased by roughly 500 percent. The overall earthquake activity has increased by 400 percent just since 1973.

Natural disasters increased 410 percent between 1963 and 1993 Dr. Dmitriev did a very elaborate calculation of natural disasters. He showed that if you compare the years 1963 through 1993, the overall amount of natural disasters of all different kinds - whether you are talking hurricanes, typhoons, mud slides, tidal waves, you name it - have increased by 410 percent.

The Sun's magnetic field increased by 230 percent since 1901 There's a study by Dr. Mike Lockwood from Rutherford Appleton National Laboratories in California, who has been investigating the Sun. He has discovered that since 1901, the overall magnetic field of the Sun has become 230 percent stronger than it was before.

More than just Earth Changes So, all in all, what we're seeing is a lot more than just what they call Earth Changes. Some people get into the idea that there is an interaction between the Earth and the Sun that's going on here.

Very, very few people are aware of the work that is being done in the Russian National Academy of Sciences in Siberia, specifically in Novosibirsk, where they are doing this research. They've come to the conclusion that the only possible thing that could be causing this energetic change all throughout the Solar System is that we are moving into an area of energy that is different - that is higher.

The glowing plasma at the leading edge of our Solar System has recently increased 1000 percent Now, check this out. The Sun itself has a magnetic field, of course, and that magnetic field creates an egg around the Solar System, which is known as the heliosphere. The heliosphere is shaped like a teardrop, with the long and thin end of the drop pointing in the opposite direction from the direction that we're traveling. It's just like a comet, where the tail is always pointing away from the Sun.

The Russians have looked at the leading edge of this heliosphere, and they have observed glowing, excited plasma energy there. This plasma energy used to be 10 astronomical units deep (an astronomical unit is the distance from the Earth to the Sun, 93,000,000 miles). So ten astronomical units represents the normal thickness of this glowing energy that we used to see at the front end of the Solar System.

Today, that glowing plasma has gone to 100 astronomical units deep.

Although Dmitriev's paper does not give an exact timeline, we can assume that this increase happened in the same 1963 to 1993 period as the increase he found in natural disasters. Whenever it happened, that's a 1,000 percent increase in the overall brightness of the energy at the front end of the Solar System.

And this means that the Solar System itself is moving into an area where the energy is more highly charged.

That higher-charged energy is in turn exciting the plasma and causing more of it to form, so you see more luminosity, more brightness. This energy is then flowing into the Sun, which in turn emits the energy and spreads it out along its equatorial plane, which is called the Ecliptic.

This in turn is saturating interplanetary space, which causes the solar emissions to travel more quickly and charge up the energy on the planets.

And this is conscious energy that is changing how the planet works, how it functions, and what kind of life it supports. The harmonics of the DNA spiral itself are altering. That's the real, hidden cause of spontaneous mass evolutions in previous epochs of time.

All this is happening all at the same time, and it's all working up to a crescendo where there is going to be a sudden shift.

In other words, we will get to the point where we are so far into the new level of energy that there will be a sudden expansion of the basic harmonic wavelengths that the Sun emits as it radiates energy out of itself. This increase in energy emission will change the basic nature of all matter in the Solar System. The planets are pushed slightly farther away from the Sun and the atoms and molecules that make them up actually expand in terms of their physical size.

[Richard]

CS, this is an interesting article you posted. It goes along with what some people have been saying about 2012. That we’re moving to a higher frequency and the earth will experience many disasters during the transition.

I know right now I’d like to see some global warming in Michigan. We’re getting hammered with blizzards and freezing temperatures. Its growing old having to snow blow this place everyday. Although I’m happy that we’re not getting as bad as N.Y. is. They got around 13 feet of snow so far.  

[crystalsun]

Yep Richard, saw the New York snows on our news service. Unbelievable! Maybe our friend Astrojewels can send some sun over your way. She seems pretty good on weather manipulation.

 

[Astrojewels]

Funny Pugsley!  

Although the weather is manipulated by HAARP, it is also a reflection of the changes we are all feeling, we are going through big mind-pattern alterations. I personally have faith that the natural energy of the earths elements will again balance out, but to attain that balance, it first must balance the minority of ‘takers’, mother nature offers unconditionally, all she asks is that you respect and appreciate her wondrous cycles. Humans are the greedy consumers and for this reason, the weather will continue with extreme conditions, every action must have a reaction- universal law. So really the ones who control HAARP are not actually enforcing the changes, they are just taking advantage of the ‘upwind’ of nature, and increasing the negativity of that, thanks to all those who have destroyed in order to gain financially. They say the farmers are suffering the most, I have empathy for their struggles, but many of these farmers’ fathers/grandfathers were the first to rape the land in order to gain, tearing down forests for crops, now the majority of crops are produced with hydroponics. Erosion was never thought of two hundred years ago, hey!   
 

CS, in our part of the world, they have achieved all they set out to do, pipe lines through central Victoria, water saving systems in 50% of homes, increase in water charges, and the big one – recycled sewage!  Ah yes, this has been going on for many years but it requires the votes from all the people who think they are intelligent but are actually blindfolded. Just like when they disarmed Australia, it took the minority of ‘idiot votes’ to go along with the charade.

80% of bottled water is from recycled sewage, and all those people paying $2.50 per 600ml of this water actually came from their toilet! So who is laughing when they go to the bank? We will see much more rain this year down under; the agenda is just about achieved, and Australians are really beginning to respect nature and treat her with kindness.