Global Cooling

[merlincove]

i've just been reading the following link, the scientific community have been worried about the Sun's inactivity over the last few years as compared to its general activity between 200 and 2005. In comparative terms the sun has been pretty quiet.

Some of the guys have noted that despite the common concensus of Global warming, planet Earth has been cooling due the the suns inactivity.

Quote
He also noted that the world cooled quickly between January last year and January this year, by about 0.7C.

Sorokhtin believes that a lack of sunspots does indicate a coming cooling period based on certain past trends and early records. In fact, he calls manmade climate change "a drop in the bucket" compared to the fierce and abrupt cold that can potentially be brought on by inactive solar phases.


Link: http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2008/06/the-sunspot-mys.html

And then we see information, apparently hidden info, telling us that many of the planets in our system are warming, we are told that the ice caps on Mars are melting and that Venus is getting warmer - well with a drop in the earth's temperature , at almost a degree in a year, makes me wonder weather that info is missdirection / missinfo?

Polar bear population has doubled, redoubled and redoubled again in the last 20 years - back ther there were 5000 polar bears whereas today there are 25000. Ok, so we probably have a more reliable way to track and count them today but if their number is rising, their population will only be rising within a sustainable environment, for them. Nature doesn't generally overpopulate a species within a controlled environment. A higher number of bears on the arctic must be sustainable for the region, more ice = more bears.

i understand the importance of concearn re global warming, and the need to utilise a more sustainable efficiency in regard to energy. Pushing for a more sustainable energy sourse is the only way to combat the use of fossil fuels that are poisoning the environment. But then if we consider the wind farms that have sprung up all around the uk and the impact that each turbine has on the environment in regard to its construction, we see that it will take 25 years of continual use for each turbine to recoup its own carbon footprint. Ok, but these turbines have a life expectancy of 12 yeares! And then we have to make another one, which in turn creates its own carbon footprint.

And the turbines on the east coast are working at between 15 - 25% efficiency. Very rarely do we see them all working at once.

So what is going on? If warming is a folly, and creating the wind farms is actually a tax on natural resourses, why are we being fed these lines?

Where are the lies? In the global warming camp or in the global cooling camp?

[endlessvista]

The lies are in the Global Warming camp. No doubt about it.

[merlincove]

The lies are in the Global Warming camp. No doubt about it.

So i wonder to what end? Just to keep us under control, but what control?

Burning fossil fuel (coal, iol, petrol) poisons the atmosphere, well they poison us at least and from that i'd assume that they poison the atmosphere, and so we do need to look at an alternate form of fuel to create heat / energy.

But if the process of creating the modem for that alternate energy is damaging the environment in itself, where does that lead us? The wind mill farms are a collect of huge manufacturing; through drilling, fixing into the sea bed and the actual manufacture process needed to construct these turbines, move them from one place to another and their continued maintainance seems excessive.

Ok, they will supply us with energy from a sustainable sourse, but at what cost? There has been talk of placing solar panels into the Sahara desert, a great idea, but well they outweigh the production and instilation costs?

Are the energy providing corporations getting on track here, their hand forced by gvt and international presure to apply these new forms of energy? Is that then a knock on effect, just a smoke screen, a shot in the dark, to appease the environmemtalist movement?

The world is cooling down, we're told that its warming up. We're poisoning the ozone layer, we are told to use more environmentally friendly solutions to power because the world is warming up.

Yes i do think we need to address the issue of recycling and look for a more freindly energy / fuel system to heat homes and fuel industry / economy.

Why pump milions into off shore wind farms when the environmental impact of them is so costly?

maybe the west is looking for an alternate sourse of fuel / energy for a different reason than the one that we are being told? With a sustainable fuel sourse we wouldn't be so dependant on arab nations for oil?

i just wonder if we are being lied to, and it looks like we are, then why, for what gain and for what purpose?

[realfake]

i've just been reading the following link, the scientific community have been worried about the Sun's inactivity over the last few years as compared to its general activity between 200 and 2005. In comparative terms the sun has been pretty quiet.

Some of the guys have noted that despite the common concensus of Global warming, planet Earth has been cooling due the the suns inactivity.

Quote
He also noted that the world cooled quickly between January last year and January this year, by about 0.7C.

Sorokhtin believes that a lack of sunspots does indicate a coming cooling period based on certain past trends and early records. In fact, he calls manmade climate change "a drop in the bucket" compared to the fierce and abrupt cold that can potentially be brought on by inactive solar phases.


Link: http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2008/06/the-sunspot-mys.html

And then we see information, apparently hidden info, telling us that many of the planets in our system are warming, we are told that the ice caps on Mars are melting and that Venus is getting warmer - well with a drop in the earth's temperature , at almost a degree in a year, makes me wonder weather that info is missdirection / missinfo?

Polar bear population has doubled, redoubled and redoubled again in the last 20 years - back ther there were 5000 polar bears whereas today there are 25000. Ok, so we probably have a more reliable way to track and count them today but if their number is rising, their population will only be rising within a sustainable environment, for them. Nature doesn't generally overpopulate a species within a controlled environment. A higher number of bears on the arctic must be sustainable for the region, more ice = more bears.

i understand the importance of concearn re global warming, and the need to utilise a more sustainable efficiency in regard to energy. Pushing for a more sustainable energy sourse is the only way to combat the use of fossil fuels that are poisoning the environment. But then if we consider the wind farms that have sprung up all around the uk and the impact that each turbine has on the environment in regard to its construction, we see that it will take 25 years of continual use for each turbine to recoup its own carbon footprint. Ok, but these turbines have a life expectancy of 12 yeares! And then we have to make another one, which in turn creates its own carbon footprint.

And the turbines on the east coast are working at between 15 - 25% efficiency. Very rarely do we see them all working at once.

So what is going on? If warming is a folly, and creating the wind farms is actually a tax on natural resourses, why are we being fed these lines?

Where are the lies? In the global warming camp or in the global cooling camp?

The carbon theory behind the cause of warming/cooling is the deception.

The Sun itself along with cloud cover are the two major driving forces behind our climate.

It has long been known that periods of global cooling are associated with with reduced solar activity. But the role of cloud cover shouldn't be overlooked. Most climate models simply see clouds as a byproduct of climate changes, but the clouds themselves are a predominant factor in global cooling. Although they trap heat between the clouds and earth's surface, they also reflect radiant energy from the sun back into space. The net effect of low lying clouds is therefore a cooling one.

Antarctica is not experiencing global warming. This is part of a long term climate trend in which Antarctica has for thousands of years experienced cooling while the rest of the world warms, and warming as the rest of the world cools. It is part of the really troubling evidence that "skeptics" of man made global warming routinely bring to the table and which popular films like Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" conveniently ignore.

Advocates of GHG as the primary mover of climate change typically try to brush off this anomaly by explaining that they need "more data." But it's easily explained if you step over their "inconvenient truth". The Antarctic ice cap is the one place on Earth that is so reflective that it actually loses more radiant energy on cloudless days than on cloudy ones. So, while cloud cover cools the rest of the planet, it warms Antarctica, and as the rest of the planet warms with a decrease in cloud cover, Antarctica cools.

As for missdirection / missinfo?

Are you aware of the case of Michael Mann and his famous "hockey stick" graph? Mann, is an advocate of the man made global warming hypothesis. He knew that the medieval warming period and the little ice age of the last millenia contradicted the GHG theory. So he simply revised history by creating a chart that that showed a stable climate for a thousand years followed by a dramatic increase in the 20th century. He also hid his raw data and algorithms from public and scientific scrutiny for almost a decade, an act that should have immediately disqualified his work from serious consideration. Somehow his graph ended up gracing numerous IPCC publications.

Public funding of science inevitabely leads to the advancement of certain political agendas. Many scientists feed off of global warming fears and it would undermine the vast public funding currently available to them if they went against the chosen hypothesis.

The energy issue, shouldn't really be tied to global warming or cooling, but rather to our desire to live in a less poisoned environment..

I doubt this type of enviroment would sit too well with scheming parasites who are trying to run your show.

[cruise4]

It's about Profit, either from tax, monthly billing, carbon credit trading or manufacture. They will control all this and so remain in control. The technologies being supressed make all this total nonsense, as is the Greenhouse theory. Here is but one article about the latter...

Greenhouse Theory Disproved a Century Ago


The claim that carbon dioxide (CO2) can increase air temperatures by "trapping" infrared radiation (IR) ignores the fact that in 1909 physicist R.W. Wood disproved the popular 19th Century thesis that greenhouses stayed warm by trapping IR. Unfortunately, many people who claim to be scientists are unaware of Wood's experiment which was originally published in the Philosophical magazine , 1909, vol 17, p319-320. Wood was an expert on IR. His accomplishments included inventing both IR and UV (ultraviolet) photography. Wood constructed two identical small greenhouses. The description implies the type of structure a gardener would refer to as a "coldframe" rather than a building a person could walk into. He lined the interior with black cardboard which would absorb radiation and convert it to heat which would heat the air through conduction. The cardboard would also produce radiation. He covered one greenhouse with a sheet of transparent rock salt and the other with a sheet of glass. The glass would block IR and the rock salt would allow it to pass. During the first run of the experiment the rock salt greenhouse heated faster due to IR from the sun entering it but not the glass greenhouse. He then set up another pane of glass to filter the IR from the sun before the light reached the greenhouses. The result from this run was that the greenhouses both heated to about 50 C with less than a degree difference between the two. Wood didn't indicate which was warmer or whether there was any difference in the thermal conductivity between the glass sheet and the rock salt. A slight difference in the amount of heat transfered through the sheets by conduction could explain such a minor difference in temperature. The two sheets probably didn't conduct heat at the same rate. The experiment conclusively demonstrates that greenhouses heat up and stay warm by confining heated air rather than by trapping IR. If trapping IR in an enclosed space doesn't cause higher air temperature than CO2 in the atmosphere cannot cause higher air temperatures. The heated air in the greenhouses couldn't rise higher than the sheets that covered the tops of the greenhouses. Heated air outside is free to rise allowing colder air to fall to the ground. Atmospheric CO2 is even less likely to function as a barrier to IR or reflect it back to reheat the ground or water than the sheet of glass in Wood's greenhouse. The blackened cardboard in Wood's greenhouses was a very good radiator of IR as is typical of black substances. The water that covers 70% of earth's surface is a very poor radiator and produces only limited amounts of IR as is typical of transparent substances. Water releases heat through evaporation rather than radiation. The glass sheet provided a solid barrier to IR. Atmospheric CO2 is widely dispersed comprising less than 400 parts per million in the atmosphere. Trapping IR with CO2 would be like trying to confine mice with a chain link fence. Glass reflects a wider spectrum of IR than interacts with CO2. The glass sheets reflected IR back toward the floor of the greenhouse. CO2 doesn't reflect IR. At the time of Wood's experiment, it was believed that CO2 and other gas molecules became hotter after absorbing IR. Four years later Niels Bohr reported his discovery that the absorption of specific wavelengths of light didn't cause gas atoms/molecules to become hotter. Instead, the absorption of specific wavelengths of light caused the electrons in an atom/molecule to move to a higher energy state. After absorption of light of a specific wavelength an atom couldn't absorb additional radiation of that wavelength without first emitting light of that wavelength. (Philosophical Magazine Series 6, Volume 26 July 1913, p. 1-25) Unlike the glass which reflects IR back where it comes from, CO2 molecules emit IR up and sideways as well as down. In the time interval between absorbing and reemitting radiation, CO2 molecules allow IR to pass them by. Glass continuously reflects IR. Those who claim that CO2 molecules in the atmosphere can cause heating by trapping IR have yet to provide any empirical scientific evidence to prove such a physical process exists. The experiment by R.W. Wood demonstrates that even a highly reflective covering cannot cause heating by trapping IR in a confined space. There is no way CO2, which at best only affects a small portion of the IR produced by earth's surface, can heat the atmosphere by trapping IR. Contrary to the lie repeated in news stories about climate, science doesn't say that CO2 is causing higher temperatures by trapping IR. Empirical science indicates that no such process exists in this physical universe.

[ownoiz]

Some good points have been brought up in this thread.

I for one think it is important to separate renewable energy from climate change/carbon emissions.

Renewable energy means just that...renewable energy.

This term is often lumped together with with global warming and greenhouse gas emissions.

Renewable energy IS NOT climate change.

We should be using renewable energy regardless of what one thinks of the other topics of climate change...because it results in less toxins in the air...and also reduces the monopoly on energy production, therefore the stranglehold that TPTB have on us...

I have also done some research on wind generators and have come across information claiming that more energy goes into their production than we get back...would be interesting to hear more opinions on this...

Localised solar energy seems the way to go where the climate allows...sunny places...solar panels on homes and businesses..both for generating electricity and also for direct heating of water, and direct distillation of water without electricity for example Solar distiller (http://www.sunsurewater.com/)

We can also use electrolysis to create hydrogen from water and i hope to be looking into this myself soon. It then needs compressing to be a viable stand alone fuel option which requires more electricity.

Charcoal and other tree products are also renewable compared to fossil fuels...when done correctly...trees can be cut just above the ground allowing them to regenerate...or they can be purposely planted, then completely harvested stump and all and more planted in their place...

Putting a price on carbon emissions IMO is just another rothschild tax scam. Just like their usury and money printing scams. And i will say at the least that it is plausible that wind turbine farms could be another scam to convince us of climate change, for when you see them they have a powerful visual impact that sticks in the mind.
.