jopo
New Member
Posts: 30
|
Post by jopo on May 6, 2020 10:33:40 GMT
Been having a bit of fun with some die hard indoctrinated fools. Finally got the leader of the pack to acknowledge that Greenhouse Gases are what cool down our atmosphere. The IPCC also make that clear in their energy budget. Greenhouse gases is the majority medium to emit to our atmosphere. So one Photon going down and one going up. Net Neutral. One photons adds to the Blanket. The other photon puts a hole in the blanket. They kept banging on about this not real Blanket. Blah blah. Then it dawned on me that NATURE / EVOLUTION itself uses Greenhouse gases to cool down the environment and cool down our body. We perspire and ghg's take the heat away from our body and emits it out to our atmosphere to eventually be transported out to space.. Trees Transpire and they REMOVE heat everyday from the Environment by using Greenhouse Gases. Gases that DO NOT leave a ATMOSPHERIC blanket over your head. If they did we would not be planting trees in our Cities! Greenhouse Gases are a very effective coolant. ghg's Cool our atmosphere. ghg's cool our body! ghg's cool our trees and our houses. this study from Mexico City said it all. Finally, the presented transpiration rates (i.e greenhouse gasses) are capable to reduce up to 20% of net radiation in Mexico City.Trials showed that up to 20% of the heat could be removed. Not by shade but by Transpiration. Transpiration and stomatal conductance as potential mechanisms to mitigate the heat load in Mexico City
|
|
jopo
New Member
Posts: 30
|
Post by jopo on Jan 21, 2020 14:58:46 GMT
Edited. Not required. Sorted out in edit above
|
|
jopo
New Member
Posts: 30
|
Post by jopo on Jan 21, 2020 14:57:58 GMT
In my opinion the State of Climate science has to start looking the planetary effects on our climate. I am able to find really good correlations now just using Jupiters Orbital motions with respect to earth. Below is using the NINO3.4 zone. using the Correl Function in Excel. I chose the 28 Point sample because of the 28 month QBO cycle over the equator. I have tested the 1000Mb and 300Mb Zonal Wind. Which could be considered to be a Walker Circulation as it is over that zone. I then have compared that the absolute value of the Jupiter orbit with reference to Earth. Below that link is the correlation of TWP and OLR over Iceland to the same Jupiter data. Will put a video together showing how it was done later. The NINO 3.4 region. And the Total Precipatable Water and OLR correlation over Iceland. This uses a 60 Point Correl
|
|
jopo
New Member
Posts: 30
|
Post by jopo on Mar 26, 2019 10:35:21 GMT
Was not sure where to post this But a new paper out. www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364682618304541Fancy that a Global Network on how electricity interacts with our CLIMATE. No one would have guessed that! A global atmospheric electricity monitoring network for climate and geophysical research
Highlights
• We describe the first near global database (GloCAEM) for real time monitoring of atmospheric electric potential gradient (PG).
• The largest single analysis of PG data from multiple datasets at geographically distinct locations is presented.
• Approaches to selecting PG data for global electric circuit monitoring are discussed.
• Recommendations are provided on the most suitable GloCAEM sites for the study of various scientific phenomena.AbstractThe Global atmospheric Electric Circuit (GEC) is a fundamental coupling network of the climate system connecting electrically disturbed weather regions with fair weather regions across the planet. The GEC sustains the fair weather electric field (or potential gradient, PG) which is present globally and can be measured routinely at the surface using durable instrumentation such as modern electric field mills, which are now widely deployed internationally. In contrast to lightning or magnetic fields, fair weather PG cannot be measured remotely. Despite the existence of many PG datasets (both contemporary and historical), few attempts have been made to coordinate and integrate these fragmented surface measurements within a global framework. Such a synthesis is important in order to fully study major influences on the GEC such as climate variations and space weather effects, as well as more local atmospheric electrical processes such as cloud electrification, lightning initiation, and dust and aerosol charging.
The GloCAEM (Global Coordination of Atmospheric Electricity Measurements) project has brought together experts in atmospheric electricity to make the first steps towards an effective global network for atmospheric electricity monitoring, which will provide data in near real time. Data from all sites are available in identically-formatted files, at both 1 s and 1 min temporal resolution, along with meteorological data (wherever available) for ease of interpretation of electrical measurements. This work describes the details of the GloCAEM database and presents what is likely to be the largest single analysis of PG data performed from multiple datasets at geographically distinct locations. Analysis of the diurnal variation in PG from all 17 GloCAEM sites demonstrates that the majority of sites show two daily maxima, characteristic of local influences on the PG, such as the sunrise effect. Data analysis methods to minimise such effects are presented and recommendations provided on the most suitable GloCAEM sites for the study of various scientific phenomena. The use of the dataset for further understanding of the GEC is also demonstrated, in particular for more detailed characterization of day-to-day global circuit variability. Such coordinated effort enables deeper insight into PG phenomenology which goes beyond single-location PG measurements, providing a simple measurement of global thunderstorm variability on a day-to-day timescale. The creation of the GloCAEM database is likely to enable much more effective study of atmospheric electricity variables than has ever been possible before, which will improve our understanding of the role of atmospheric electricity in the complex processes underlying weather and climate.
|
|
jopo
New Member
Posts: 30
|
Post by jopo on Mar 14, 2019 12:06:09 GMT
I have to ask this!
Why is it that NASA believe Earth's Twin Planet is VENUS. The IPCC do not believe that.
If they did they would hear crystal clear that the electric force is PARAMOUNT in controlling CLIMATE on Venus as it SHOULD on Earth.
According to the IPCC and the sheeple followers of less than normal intuition who are not able to GRASP that the same forces on Earths Twin Planet apparently do not apply to EARTH?
From NASA's title comments on the video. My highight
Venus has an "electric wind" strong enough to remove the components of water from its upper atmosphere. This action may have played a significant role in stripping Earth's twin planet of its oceans, according to new research results from the European Space Agency's Venus Express mission authored by NASA-funded researchers. Lead author of the research paper, Glyn Collinson, explains that "electric wind" can strip Earth-like planets of oceans and atmospheres.
|
|
jopo
New Member
Posts: 30
|
Post by jopo on Mar 14, 2019 11:56:55 GMT
Hi guys,
My big gripe.
i just posted and lost composure a little on how everyone carry's on about NASA said this and NASA said that. Who are we to dispute NASA. blah blah blah.
So I have reversed the roles a bit now.
My message to you guys is that I let my emotions dictate my message. As I am right now. And that my message often get's lost in my emotional rant.
Yes I am annoyed right now.
So please i would appreciate a lesson in how to deliver a message effectively without emotion. As I am aware it will turn peeps off.
This is my spiel on NASA to others morons about what NASA have to say about other planets in our universe being affected by ELECTRIC FORCE but the IPCC dont even mention anything on the ELECTRIC FORCE on our planet!
.........................
Well there are plenty of papers on the electrical influence of planetary electric and magnetic influences on our atmosphere.
NASA Goddard Space put a great clip out awhile ago (posted here previously) explaining how Electrical activity massively affects climate.
It is funny how here on earth we without question accept NASA's work that electrical activity is to affect every OTHER planetary bodies climate in our UNIVERSE by altering their atmospheres contents.
But we on earth think that ONLY applies to other planets!
So the forces of the universe DO NOT APPLY to earth if you are to believe the IPCC.
And skeptics are called flat earthers! That is the really hilarious considering what NASA have to say (BOY oh BOY) about a FORCE OF NATURE that does not even exist according to the IPCC and to sheeple that do not have one iota on what SCIENCE is even supposed to mean.
We have Goddard Space Institute (NASA) telling us that in fact our universe is continually altering our atmospheres via electrical / magnetic activity.
Have a really good listen to this NASA chap on this VIDEO on Venus.
NASA acknowledge that ONLY two forces of NATURE that are capable of altering the PRESSURE or DENSITY of the atmosphere of any PLANET. And that is Gravity and to oppose gravity you have to have an ELECTRIC FORCE!
Electric Wind Leaving the surface of VENUS. Yes, electrical energy is leaving the planet. And along the way it is taking a part of the ATMOSPHERE with it. Yes that is what NASA have said!
So just like Venus what phenomenon is taking place on EARTH that keeps 10,000,000,000 swimming pools full of water aloft in the sky above your heads right NOW. Obviously it is not Gravity. Something that OPPOSES Gravity. And it is STRONG. Yes the ELECTRIC FORCE!
So take note of the whole video. The electric force component and animation is from the 1.13 mark to the 1.24 mark
NOW that is what NASA SURMISED. And low and behold after sending probes there guess what they found. Their surmising became FACT.
Boy oh BOY. fancy that.
"it turns out planets can lose heavy things like oxygen to space entirely through electrical forces in their ionospheres."
To re word that.
So it turns out that planets atmospheres / climate can change due to simple things like electric force..
"Only understanding how atmospheres evolve can we understand how we got here"
So the take home message from NASA.
Well BOY oh BOY.. Dont mess with Electric Forces. If they can keep 10,000,000,000 swimming pools full of water aloft above your head then we should sure as heck better start to understand Electricity and climate a sheet load better that what we the public currently do!
So enjoy the video
|
|
jopo
New Member
Posts: 30
|
Post by jopo on Mar 12, 2019 9:26:18 GMT
OK I have to think like a skeptic. Drop the sheeple hat. We are told in computer models that pressure is assumed to be constant in modeling. What would happen to clouds, albedo, ASR etc if it was not constant! Is this factored into models? ? Pressure and temperature. Only 2 minutes of your life
|
|
jopo
New Member
Posts: 30
|
Post by jopo on Dec 8, 2018 9:14:52 GMT
arxiv.org/pdf/1812.02692.pdfConclusion We have shown a strong correlation between solar and tropospheric variability, in that swings from El Ni˜no to La Ni˜na are related to the phase of the solar cycle’s “fiducial clock,” and that that clock does not run from the canonical solar minimum or maximum, but instead resets when all old cycle flux is gone from the solar disk. While the exact mechanism remains to be elucidated, changes in cosmic ray flux appear to the be the driver of these ENSO swings Finally, in the absence of sensitivity to solar-driven CRF variations in current coupled climate models, we have a year or so to wait to see if this indicator pans out. However, should the coming terminator be followed by such an ENSO swing then we must seriously consider the capability of coupled global terrestrial modeling efforts to capture “step-function” events, and assess how complex the Sun-Earth connection is, with particular attention to the relationship between incoming cosmic rays and clouds/ precipitation over our oceans.Using direct observation and proxies of solar activity going back six decades we can, with high statistical significance, demonstrate an apparent correlation between the solar cycle terminations and the largest swings of Earth’s oceanic indices—a previously overlooked correspondence I can see NASA eventually rinse their hands of CO2 to recapture their integrity!Using direct observation and proxies of solar activity going back six decades we can, with high statistical significance, demonstrate an apparent correlation between the solar cycle terminations and the largest swings of Earth’s oceanic indices—a previously overlooked correspondenceAs some one else mentioned, I can see NASA eventually rinse their hands of CO2 to recapture their integrity!
|
|
jopo
New Member
Posts: 30
|
Post by jopo on Dec 8, 2018 9:10:44 GMT
The extracts from this paper are mind blowing. Not that I dont believe them. I do. But there now seems to be two different factions within NASA and NCAR.
Of late we are seeing the mixed messages coming from NASA.
Interesting now that NASA and NCAR are using the influence from space to forecast ENSO events,
HIGH statistical significance of our SUN and OUR oceans MAJOR indices.
Something that has been mocked for so long by so many.
The egg on the face of many alarmist seems to be reaching farther out now. NASA and NCAR perhaps the FUNDING bucket is getting thin. Perhaps a new approach to entice funding??
From the 2.20 mark to 2.55
|
|
jopo
New Member
Posts: 30
|
Post by jopo on Oct 14, 2018 8:55:58 GMT
Hi Guys,
You guys are as bright as they come. SO I have come here
I have put this on you tube as I am seeking help in identifying the reason why for the correaltion. I am terrible at articulating my thoughts and even this you-tube clip is terrible. But I hope you have the patience to watch the 15 minute video and instruct me where I am going wrong and where or what I need to do to better get a message across that Jupiter and Mars do in fact influence the Earths QBO. I see the correlation but i see no mechanism.
looking forward to some ideas from you
|
|
jopo
New Member
Posts: 30
|
QBO
Oct 10, 2018 12:49:16 GMT
Post by jopo on Oct 10, 2018 12:49:16 GMT
Starting to find a few papers now where ozone is used in models to work out what the QBO has been doing. in other words the QBO influences OZONE. Now how on earth can OZONE be influenced by a wind 15 to 20 km up in the air determined by which direction it is travelling in? This is a question that needs to be answered. So of course doing what every good skeptic should we need to verify the comments I have seen in the various papers. And sure as heck it is true. EVEN down to the blip in 2016 where CAGW alarmist claimed we humans are now influencing the QBO where it had a sudden reversal in 2016. Ozone show that as well. So i have just superimposed the KNMI Ozone data for the equatorial region over the actual observed QBO and the oi66.tinypic.com/95wx9w.jpgQBO in Blue OZONE for the equatorial region is in Brown. It is simply scaled and overlayed onto the "measured QBO" put on a excel sheet So the QBO can modulate ozone. i am unsure how it does that but it is interesting that the anti - phase component of the QBO shown earlier in the thread where here on earth the jupiter / Mars angular momentum forcing got out of sync with the QBO. This only really become noticeable once in the QBO data for the 120 year period. This anti phase component started in the mid to late 60s and peaked in the late eighties and then a rapid movement to be back in phase by the early 90s. I wonder if there is a correlation with that and the OZONE scare of the Eighties?? I saw a chart like that somewhere ..... You got any peer review papers stating that correlation? lol I have for QBO and Ozone
|
|
jopo
New Member
Posts: 30
|
Post by jopo on Oct 10, 2018 8:26:31 GMT
Starting to find a few papers now where ozone is used in models to work out what the QBO has been doing. in other words the QBO influences OZONE. Now how on earth can OZONE be influenced by a wind 15 to 20 km up in the air determined by which direction it is travelling in? This is a question that needs to be answered. So of course doing what every good skeptic should we need to verify the comments I have seen in the various papers. And sure as heck it is true. EVEN down to the blip in 2016 where CAGW alarmist claimed we humans are now influencing the QBO where it had a sudden reversal in 2016. Ozone show that as well. So i have just superimposed the KNMI Ozone data for the equatorial region over the actual observed QBO and the oi66.tinypic.com/95wx9w.jpgQBO in Blue OZONE for the equatorial region is in Brown. It is simply scaled and overlayed onto the "measured QBO" put on a excel sheet So the QBO can modulate ozone. i am unsure how it does that but it is interesting that the anti - phase component of the QBO shown earlier in the thread where here on earth the jupiter / Mars angular momentum forcing got out of sync with the QBO. This only really become noticeable once in the QBO data for the 120 year period. This anti phase component started in the mid to late 60s and peaked in the late eighties and then a rapid movement to be back in phase by the early 90s. I wonder if there is a correlation with that and the OZONE scare of the Eighties??
|
|
jopo
New Member
Posts: 30
|
Post by jopo on Oct 9, 2018 2:28:19 GMT
|
|
jopo
New Member
Posts: 30
|
QBO
Oct 8, 2018 17:07:25 GMT
Post by jopo on Oct 8, 2018 17:07:25 GMT
Well guys, thanks to Nautonnier and his comments regarding barycentre it got me thinking and looking at angular velocity of the planets jupiter and mars. I finally have put it together. And the correlation to the earths Quasi-Biennial oscillation is spot on. There is still the anti correlation in between 1964 and 1989. mmm. interesting solar system layout in that time period when using solar system scope. Anyway, now I am just using Jupiter and Mars Cartesian coordinates and then getting cos theta. I then get the rate of change from month to month and the following chart is the result when compared to the QBO. I am using a reconstructed QBO by Stefan Brönnimann. His work uses SLP and ozone data to extract the data further back. It is on the KNMI site. his paper is agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2007GL031354Link to pic oi64.tinypic.com/jv3l11.jpgBlue is ROC and Orange is the QBO. I am pretty happy with the work. I am looking for a free screen recorder that has no water mark i could use so I can video the process of the data download and charting of. I would really appreciate some feedback from you guys. I am active on a local Australian site where my planetary discussions and climate are pretty well observed as whacky.
|
|
jopo
New Member
Posts: 30
|
Post by jopo on Sept 3, 2018 9:23:26 GMT
My apologies if this has been here before. it has come to my attention via another Aussie blogger on a paper that James Hansen wrote in 2000. Less the links and some general comments I was flabbergasted. Anyway I found the paper and post the following comments further below by James Hansen. Totally blown away by Hansens acknowledgement that his concerns for the 20th Century warming is due to NON CO2 ghgs. He is even more worried about emissions of industry Aerosols having a major warming effect on our climate. He does raise CO2 as an issue but he states " it will become the dominant forcing" clearly that it will become an issue in the next 50 years. ( made in 2000)Very interesting www.pnas.org/content/97/18/9875Non-CO2 GHGs. These gases are probably the main cause of observed global warming, with CH4 causing the largest net climate forcing. There are economic incentives to reduce or capture CH4 emissions, but global implementation of appropriate practices requires international cooperation. Definition of appropriate policies requires better understanding of the CH4 cycle, especially CH4 sources. Climate forcing by CFCs and related chemicals is still growing today, but if Montreal Protocol restrictions are adhered to, there should be no net growth in this forcing over the next 50 years. A small decrease from today's forcing level is possible, at least comparable in magnitude to the expected small rebound in stratospheric O3 forcing. Tropospheric O3 increases in business-as-usual scenarios, which assume that CH4 increases and that there is no global effort to control O3 precursors. Despite limited success in past efforts to reduce O3, the human health and ecological impacts of O3 are so great that it represents an opportunity for international cooperation. At least it should be possible to prevent tropospheric O3 forcing in 2050 from exceeding that of today.
Aerosols. Climate forcing due to aerosol changes is a wild card. Current trends, even the sign of the effect, are uncertain. Unless climate forcings by all aerosols are precisely monitored, it will be difficult to define optimum policies.
We argue that black carbon aerosols, by means of several effects, contribute significantly to global warming. This conclusion suggests one antidote to global warming, if it becomes a major problem. As electricity plays an increasing role in future energy systems, it should be relatively easy to strip black carbon emissions at fossil fuel power plants. Stripping and disposal of CO2, although more challenging, provide an effective backup strategy.
Carbon Dioxide. CO2 will become the dominant climate forcing, if its emissions continue to increase and aerosol effects level off. Business-as-usual scenarios understate the potential for CO2 emission reductions from improved energy efficiency and decarbonization of fuels. Based on this potential and current CO2 growth trends, we argue that limiting the CO2 forcing increase to 1 W/m2 in the next 50 years is plausible.
|
|