Electric Universe/Thunderbolts Project Convention

[psychegram]

Well, let's see how it goes. There might be some interesting talks nonetheless. I think for instance that Michael Clarage's talk was pretty good.

What I'm hoping to see is an update of the SAFIRE project (in-lab testing of the Electric Sun model) and also Gerald Pollack on electrically structured water.

Can't say I'm too eager to see Talbott's talk though. This guy creeps me out a bit. :/

The SAFIRE project is very interesting. It kind of annoys me that there's nothing online about it, aside from the EU2013 talk. I'm very eager to hear about any progress they've made.

Maybe intense storms and earthquakes for that matter are evidence of the earth rectifying the huge potential difference caused by the suns radiative output. From where I sit it sure looks that way. Really fascinating research.

Unfortunately most of those people, as of yet, seem to miss a big elephant in the room, that might have quite some significant consequences to what we experience on earth and in the solar system as a whole aka---> swarms of space rocks/fireballs

That and what about a greater influx of cosmic radiation in general. Can that be extrapolated to an increase in weather severity as well as strange phenomenon? There also seems to be observations over the decade that conclude that our magnetic shield is weakening which would amplify the effects they are describing. Osit.

It certainly makes sense to me that earthquakes are a consequence of charge differentials, potential drops, short circuits etc. in the electrical connection between the Earth and the Sun.

The EU people in general don't talk much about fireballs/comets, aside from their electrical nature. I feel sometimes like they get so wrapped up in their paradigm that they, too, fall prey to exactly what they accuse mainstream astronomers of, i.e. tunnel vision. Only where mainstream astronomy tries to solve every problem with gravity, in EU, it's electrodynamics.

Regarding the greater influx of cosmic radiation, yes indeed. A weakening terrestrial magnetic field, in conjunction with a weakening solar magnetic field, means that Earth is exposed to a greater cosmic ray flux. Perhaps this is part of what the C's meant by the Earth 'opening up'?

 

[Cosmos]

Ben Davidson aka. Suspicious0bservers presentation was just published:

http://<iframe width="560" height="...ME" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I have to say: Good job!

 

[SMM]

Thanks for sharing the video Pashalis!

 

[KJN]

I, as well, viewed the video and thought he did a nice job of delineation and presentation of the facts. Thanks for posting it.

 

[trendsetter37]

Ben Davidson aka. Suspicious0bservers presentation was just published:

http://<iframe width="560" height="...ME" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I have to say: Good job!

I would have to agree I too am pretty impressed with Davidson. He really seems to be on a role with trying to get information out there as concisely as possible.

 

[Mikey]

Ben Davidson aka. Suspicious0bservers presentation was just published:

I have to say: Good job!

Most excellent video!

 

[Deleted member 8431]

Ben Davidson aka. Suspicious0bservers presentation was just published:

I have to say: Good job!

Most excellent video!

Agreed. The evidence is compelling and it was clearly and brilliantly explained.

I also didn't know that Ben Davidson actually is Sispicious0bservers.

Great job!

 

[Niall]

I found this to be a good introduction to why the Sun clearly plays a significant role in the solar system's climate, but I'm confused about why he positions himself as skeptical of man-made global warming theory, but says CO2 is man-made? CO2 increase is probably from methane clathrate release aka 'outgassing', especially under the oceans, caused by increased seismic activity.

As he says at 6 mins, historical data for atmospheric CO2 levels is blurry past 1980, and only "our best guess" can make the Vostok ice core chart look remarkably like Mann's ice hockey chart with "pollution/industrial revolution-caused" CO2 levels extending off the chart!

"What caused CO2 to do that? [reach over 400 ppb]... we did. Human emissions broke that near-perfect hundreds of thousands of years of correlation..."

We did?! If you believe that, then you believe the fundamental argument for mankind physically altering Earth's climate in a linear cause-and effect way. As we've pointed out on SOTT a number of times, this misplaces man's role in so-called climate change. Climate change/earth changes cannot be looked at in isolation from social developments and the 'psychological states' of Earth's inhabitants, both today and down through history.

We do influence our environment, but not in the way CO2-ers and warmists think. The vast majority of our influence, like so much else, is the result of unconscious processes - unconscious suffering, believing official lies and then perceiving the world on wrong assumptions, repressed emotions manifesting as disease - within ourselves, and in a diseased planet in the form of pollution, totalitarian structures, wars, famine, etc.

At 17 mins, I'm glad to hear him say Tony Philips at NASA/spaceweather.com is single-handedly responsible for driving interest in space weather globally, but not for positive reasons! I've been thinking for years now that Philips is NASA's chief propagandist, misinforming people about what's really going on out there.

As usual, the elephant in the room is cometary activity.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

I found this to be a good introduction to why the Sun clearly plays a significant role in the solar system's climate, but I'm confused about why he positions himself as skeptical of man-made global warming theory, but says CO2 is man-made?

Pretty sure it's because he doesn't think CO2 (whether natural or man-made) is responsible for global warming. When he puts up the "best guess" graphic, he points out that temperature changes precede CO2 changes. He doesn't expand on the point there, but this suggests that temperature may drive CO2 levels, not the other way around. Just before, he cites the researchers who say that the earth probably has ways to mitigate any temperature increases due to increased CO2 levels. So his point, if I understand him correctly, is just high emissions don't cause warming; in fact, despite emissions, global warming has stopped and the planet is now cooling. Not sure how accurate his CO2 data is, though...

 

[psychegram]

As he says at 6 mins, historical data for atmospheric CO2 levels is blurry past 1980, and only "our best guess" can make the Vostok ice core chart look remarkably like Mann's ice hockey chart with "pollution/industrial revolution-caused" CO2 levels extending off the chart!

"What caused CO2 to do that? [reach over 400 ppb]... we did. Human emissions broke that near-perfect hundreds of thousands of years of correlation..."

As AI said, I think he's saying that there was a very close correlation (and it is a fact that this correlation exists), but that human emissions of CO2 unaccompanied by any systematic increase in global temperature shows that the cause/effect relationship is clearly that of temperature change causing CO2 change, not vice versa. Which makes pretty good sense even without methane clathrate, as warmer oceans are unable to dissolve as much CO2.

 

[Deleted member 8431]

I found this to be a good introduction to why the Sun clearly plays a significant role in the solar system's climate, but I'm confused about why he positions himself as skeptical of man-made global warming theory, but says CO2 is man-made?

Pretty sure it's because he doesn't think CO2 (whether natural or man-made) is responsible for global warming. When he puts up the "best guess" graphic, he points out that temperature changes precede CO2 changes. He doesn't expand on the point there, but this suggests that temperature may drive CO2 levels, not the other way around. Just before, he cites the researchers who say that the earth probably has ways to mitigate any temperature increases due to increased CO2 levels. So his point, if I understand him correctly, is just high emissions don't cause warming; in fact, despite emissions, global warming has stopped and the planet is now cooling. Not sure how accurate his CO2 data is, though...

That's kind of how I understood it as well.

Sure thing is that it's hard to really estimate how much ''excess'' CO2 we, humans, have released into the atmosphere since the carbon cycle, as far as I understand it, is influenced by many factors which don't seem to be taken into consideration.

CO2 increase is probably from methane clathrate release aka 'outgassing', especially under the oceans, caused by increased seismic activity.

Not too sure I see how both relate. Do you mean that the increase in methane concentration can be mistaken (or falsified) by mainstream scientist as being an increase of CO2 by whatever means they have to calculate it?

 

[Lilou]

CO2 increase is probably from methane clathrate release aka 'outgassing', especially under the oceans, caused by increased seismic activity.

Not too sure I see how both relate. Do you mean that the increase in methane concentration can be mistaken (or falsified) by mainstream scientist as being an increase of CO2 by whatever means they have to calculate it?

This link gives a pretty good explanation of how outgassing occurs (ie methane becomes more CO2 in the atmosphere). I'm not too well versed on this, but I can see how seismic activity on the ocean floor could significantly increase CO2, even without any interference from man!

[quote author= from linked article]
Methane is a potent carbon-based greenhouse gas that is emitted from decaying organic matter (i.e. landfills, cow digestion, and melting permafrost). The natural gas industry has been harvesting methane buried deep underground for decades to supply their product, despite persistent climate and safety concerns. Yet there’s an even more dangerous collection of methane hidden at the bottom of the sea. Though it’s somewhat easy to forget about it, a potentially enormous source of carbon pollution: methane hydrate.

Also known as methane clathrate, or “fire ice,” methane hydrate is created when decaying organic matter under the ocean floor emits methane. This seeps up and mixes with seawater at the bottom of the ocean. It forms a cement-like icy compound within and on top of the ocean sediment, which actually stops more methane from seeping into the ocean. If the water above it gets warmer , some of the methane hydrate melts as methane, which bubbles up through the water column. In shallow water, it bubbles straight to the atmosphere but in deeper waters, the methane bubbles bond with the dissolved oxygen and water, creating carbon dioxide which bubbles to the surface, or stays in the water and makes the already-acidifying ocean more acidic. [/quote]

So while the video was pretty good, he does fail to address the significant increase in CO2. He just blames it on man, when it is more likely caused by mother nature herself.

 

[Deleted member 8431]

This link gives a pretty good explanation of how outgassing occurs (ie methane becomes more CO2 in the atmosphere). I'm not too well versed on this, but I can see how seismic activity on the ocean floor could significantly increase CO2, even without any interference from man!

Thanks! I understand now. That actually can explain a lot! :)

 

[Niall]

As he says at 6 mins, historical data for atmospheric CO2 levels is blurry past 1980, and only "our best guess" can make the Vostok ice core chart look remarkably like Mann's ice hockey chart with "pollution/industrial revolution-caused" CO2 levels extending off the chart!

"What caused CO2 to do that? [reach over 400 ppb]... we did. Human emissions broke that near-perfect hundreds of thousands of years of correlation..."

As AI said, I think he's saying that there was a very close correlation (and it is a fact that this correlation exists), but that human emissions of CO2 unaccompanied by any systematic increase in global temperature shows that the cause/effect relationship is clearly that of temperature change causing CO2 change, not vice versa. Which makes pretty good sense even without methane clathrate, as warmer oceans are unable to dissolve as much CO2.

Yeh that makes sense. I'm missing the bigger point he's making, which is to use their own figures for 'runaway man-made carbon emissions' to show that planet-wide climate changes are not man-made.

I still think it's careless to feed the anthropocentric myth that 'we' altered what would 'otherwise' have been a "near-perfect correlation." Regarding CO2 levels and historical episodes of 'climate change', there's this from New Light on the Black Death:

In the 1980s a team including Hans Oeschger, were studying CO2 in the South Pole ice cores. They noticed that there appeared to be an increase in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere about 700 years ago. In a speculative paper they pointed out the possibility that a "cumulative input of about 45 GT C over the period AD 1200-1350" may have occurred. Forty-five GT C means 45 gigatons (or 45 thousand million tons) of carbon. That's an awful lot of carbon.. In fact the authors of the paper point out that it would represent "about 6 per cent of the global pre-industrial live land biomass, i.e. 6 per cent of everything living on the surface of the planet. Since it seemed unlikely that this amount could have been burned off, they opted for:

A possible net injection into the atmosphere of about 40 GT C of biospheric (perhaps oceanic) origin over the period AD 1250-1350.

[...]

This would encourage the view of a massive ocean turnover event of some kind taking place between 1130 and 1350. As soon as this statement about 'ocean turnover between 1330 and 1350' is made, it throws up a recurring theme. Several writers at the time of the Black Death mention masses of dead fish.

He later says that "it would pretty certainly have had to come from the oceans."

Just think of the mass animal deaths today, the 'dead zones', and 'ocean acidification' - increased CO2 levels in the oceans - which is blamed on man-made CO2 'falling into' the oceans!

New paper finds the oceans are a net source of CO2

RELEASE OF CARBON DIOXIDE FROM THE EQUATORIAL PACIFIC OCEAN INTENSIFIED DURING THE 1990S

 

[Voyageur]

I'm not well versed on this either, and some of this information above on oceans makes me consider these things further (especially historically). Prior to this, and it seems relevant, is that I asked someone with some experience in air sampling/quality. This issue of CO2 seems to be a difficult thing to pin down - especially the silly anthropomorphic aspect, although a slight factor in urban centers for i think obvious reasons. So this friend of mine looked at it from the basis of "standards" as a underwater diving specialist saying (with some simple chemistry):

The atmosphere is made up by volume (Approximately)
78.9 % - Nitrogen
20.86 % - Oxygen
0.24 % - All other gases, CO2 is but one of about a dozen or so measurable trace gases.

This = 100% by volume of the atmosphere

CO2 is 1 carbon molecule and 2 oxygen molecules there-fore as Nitrogen is an inert gas, the only way to maintain 100% by volume percentages of the atmosphere and raise C02 % is to REDUCE the oxygen %. Therefore if CO2 increases, O2 decreases by double that amount. As for C02, the simplest fact is within the oxygen dive standards (no one talks about this) that have not change and if C02 was such a factor, they would, the would right now, because if not, people would die. As example:

When discussing CO2 mass increases, the standards bear remembering as a factor of climate science. As above, atmosphere comprises 78.6% Nitrogen, 20.8% Oxygen and 1.4% other (for purposes of this table). The maximum allowable CO2 of dive air sample in Canada, USA, Britain, Australia and Japan (which is a good representation of global air samples; especially industrialized) says that the standard, such as the CSA, has a maximum of < 500 ppm of C02. Normal amounts of C02 in air is 200 – 400 ppm. The standard listed has been in effect since 1998. What this says is that if C02 was rising at such a massive rate, the dive air mixture standards would have to reflect this and compensate – they are unchanged. Detractors will say that that is because it is filtered air, however, filtered air is a process of “Hopkelite” and converts any CO to C02, which would add, not subtract to the output values.C02 is but a trace gas of 0.24 % (and C02 shares this percentage with 12 other gases).

When you consider CO2 in the past 20 years from a baseline average of 250-400 PPM, it's effectively an insignificant # of approximately 30-40 parts/million. Furthermore, those who rely on exact data because lives depend on it; subsurface compressed air breathing standards (1998) for the Navy/Coast Guard/RCMP etc. must have a purity of less than 500 PPM of C02. This is Standard (predating 1998) which has not changed today and this Standard is consistent in all of the commonwealth countries. The problem of air sampling (and this is know from the standards) is in the samples taken i.e., such as compressing air in urban centres, which is not indicative of rural areas and oceans. Thus, it is statistically important to consider where the CO2 Sampling data was taken from and they never cite that in studies do they? This issue is very well defined in standards (quantitative and qualitative), and very accurately so.

So am not sure if what he says is perfectly correct, yet it seems to me, if the chemistry and math are correct, if all this C02 increasing was going on, then as was said, the standards would change - there seems little concern of this for underwater divers who would be sure to act if required.