World's climate warming faster than feared, scientists say

[gmx2014]

The Earth’s magnetic field is produced by a spinning, molten ball of nickel-iron about the size of Mars that masses about 2x10^24kg. Despite what The Core showed, we don’t have the capability to even imagine affecting something of that size and mass. The strength of the field varies significantly throughout the planet’s history, sometimes reversing totally. As recently as ~40,000 years ago its strength dropped to less than 5% of what it is today. The current decline in magnetic field strength actually goes back about 2000 years, when it was 35% stronger than it is today.

I honestly don’t think you’re grasping the sheer scales involved. The ionosphere’s height is a result of the interaction between the Earth’s magnetic field and the solar wind. The 2008 “collapse” was caused by a solar minimum - something over which we have precisely zero control. There’s actually another collapse being predicted for the coming year, as solar activity levels have fallen far below previously observed values.

To put things in perspective, let’s say every single satellite ever launched was still up there and transmitting. That’s 1900 satellites, but we’ll bump it up to 2000 to make the math easier. Most communications satellites transmission power is about 3W, but we’ll bump them up to the most powerful transmitter ever launched: Voyager 1 and 2 have 23W transmitters. So, if every satellite ever launched and then some were all transmitting at the same time at the strength of the most powerful radio ever launched, we’re looking at a total of 46kW. An average auroral display dumps between 4 and 900 GW into the atmosphere. At a minimum, that’s more than ten thousand times greater than 2000 Voyager probes transmitting at maximum power.

The solar minimum had nothing whatsoever to do with the atmospheric collapse. There was *intense *magnetic activity that same year, and a planetary or galactic tilt. It has everything to do with electricity and all of the *uses *of electricity, but people won’t know anything about it if they’re convinced of what they *think *they know.

 

[gmx2014]

I don’t think you have any idea what you are talking about. There is no link to illness from power lines, unless you touch them. Then I think you can figure out what happens.

Yes, I certainly do know what I’m talking about. I didn’t say power lines, so don’t take what I said and twist it.

There was a small country (I forget where) that had a massive power outage. Hundreds of people fell ill and the diagnosis was electromagnetic toxicity. I’ll have to search for the article again.

If this is not an area that you or others take an interest, then your unknowing is yours, not mine.

 

[gmx2014]

Yes, I certainly do know what I’m talking about. I didn’t say power lines, so don’t take what I said and twist it.

There was a small country (I forget where) that had a massive power outage. Hundreds of people fell ill and the diagnosis was electromagnetic toxicity. I’ll have to search for the article again.

If this is not an area that you or others take an interest, then your unknowing is yours, not mine.

Here’s a PDF from people you may be more inclined to listen to, respectfully, since people would prefer to presume my ignorance (though, I’m far from ignorance on this matter). There is actually a good bit of information out there, from electromagnetic toxicity to heliobiology, that will waken people’s senses of this great unnatural monstrosity on Earth: electricity.

kennisplatformems.org/index.php/downloads?download=6lle-johansson-sergio-manzetti-emf-toxicity-2012

Earth is not *naturally *lit up like this:

google.com/search?hl=en&site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1280&bih=532&q=earth+at+night&oq=earth+at+night&gs_l=img.3…0l10.1239.2769.0.2997.14.9.0.5.5.0.173.791.5j4.9.0…0…1ac.1.34.img…2.12.613.Ilzh5Sny9Nw

Even though it is tempting to look at it for its “beauty”, and see only that, the fact is, electricity on Earth is at an extremely dangerous level. There are heavy, dense concentrated areas and areas that are extremely underdeveloped. This is terribly, terribly no good.

 

[Ender]

the fact is, electricity on Earth is at an extremely dangerous level. There are heavy, dense concentrated areas and areas that are extremely underdeveloped. This is terribly, terribly no good.

Hey, it makes as much sense as AGW and would be a great alternative if the Earth continues to um … not warm.

Ender

 

[gmx2014]

Hey, it makes as much sense as AGW and would be a great alternative if the Earth continues to um … not warm.

Ender

Climate change is the more appropriate term, for people who are aware of the coexisting phenomenon of heating *and *cooling. It makes sense, to me, that maybe somehow, the heating aspect is *triggering *the cooling aspect (nature’s natural response).

I’m quite happy today, as we’ve just had a traditional New England winter storm. Unlike most New Englanders, I happen to love snowy winters. I’m a life-long New Englander and I cannot stress enough, my terror, some years ago, when in Maine, we had 55 degrees and mud, on Christmas day, instead of cold and snow. For that, I didn’t need science. I didn’t need news or studies or reports. All I needed was to walk out the front door and step into mud, when I should have been stepping into a foot of snow! We have had many winters where snow is gone, melts away, only days after snowfall. In fact, there was mud just yesterday, before today’s snow. Mud, in February! If the snow we have now isn’t melted by next week, I will be amazed.

 

[vz71]

People tend to shy away from the term ‘climate change’.
It naturally leads people to question man’s involvement in a process that has gone on forever.

 

[gmx2014]

People tend to shy away from the term ‘climate change’.
It naturally leads people to question man’s involvement in a process that has gone on forever.

If people let their emotion get in the way of understanding, they don’t have understanding.

Human activity has changed the face of the Earth. There would be something amiss if people did not consider the impact and effect of the changes on the natural environment.

Consider Chernobyl:

“Contamination from the Chernobyl accident was scattered irregularly depending on weather conditions, much of it deposited on mountainous regions such as the Alps, the Welsh mountains and the Scottish Highlands, where adiabatic cooling caused radioactive rainfall. The resulting patches of contamination were often highly localised, and water-flows across the ground contributed further to large variations in radioactivity over small areas. Sweden and Norway also received heavy fallout when the contaminated air collided with a cold front, bringing rain.”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster#Effects

As you can see, toxins in the atmosphere effected weather. Now consider the effect on human beings:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster#Human_impact

That’s just one event.

Here’s smog:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smog

 

[Lapey]

If people let their emotion get in the way of understanding, they don’t have understanding.

Human activity has changed the face of the Earth. There would be something amiss if people did not consider the impact and effect of the changes on the natural environment.

Consider Chernobyl:

“Contamination from the Chernobyl accident was scattered irregularly depending on weather conditions, much of it deposited on mountainous regions such as the Alps, the Welsh mountains and the Scottish Highlands, where adiabatic cooling caused radioactive rainfall. The resulting patches of contamination were often highly localised, and water-flows across the ground contributed further to large variations in radioactivity over small areas. Sweden and Norway also received heavy fallout when the contaminated air collided with a cold front, bringing rain.”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster#Effects

As you can see, toxins in the atmosphere effected weather. Now consider the effect on human beings:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster#Human_impact

That’s just one event.

Here’s smog:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smog

I’m going to use every bit of my intellect and education and life experience to respond…all I hear is blah, blah, blah! (Ok, maybe I won’t)

It’s always the same thing from you folks. God must have been an idiot to create us because we are destroying everything He made good. Humans are so evil, wait He said, “this is VERY good” after man and woman were created.

Every bit of information you provide we can find the scientific counter to the argument or the life experience that tells us you are wrong.

Let me ask you, what is YOUR belief as to how many people actually died in the Chernobyl accident and/or from the after affects?

Is the earth warming, maybe. Is it caused by man? No, climate change was true long before man roamed the earth.

 

[Monkey1976]

If people let their emotion get in the way of understanding, they don’t have understanding.

Human activity has changed the face of the Earth. There would be something amiss if people did not consider the impact and effect of the changes on the natural environment.

Consider Chernobyl:

“Contamination from the Chernobyl accident was scattered irregularly depending on weather conditions, much of it deposited on mountainous regions such as the Alps, the Welsh mountains and the Scottish Highlands, where adiabatic cooling caused radioactive rainfall. The resulting patches of contamination were often highly localised, and water-flows across the ground contributed further to large variations in radioactivity over small areas. Sweden and Norway also received heavy fallout when the contaminated air collided with a cold front, bringing rain.”

Do you realize that the term “adiabatic cooling” is totally nonsensical? An adiabatic process is one which occurs without any gain or loss of heat. Talking about “adiabatic cooling” is like talking about static motion. Rainfall is an expected result when warmer air carrying small particles collides with colder air with sufficient humidity.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster#Effects

As you can see, toxins in the atmosphere effected weather. Now consider the effect on human beings:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster#Human_impact

That’s just one event.

Here’s smog:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smog

The radioactive dust and heavy metal particles from the Chernobyl accident didn’t cause the weather, they were spread more widely and concentrated by the weather.

Please, for your own sake, do some reading to try and grasp the sheer scale of the processes you blame on human activity before assuming we’re to blame. Right now, your claims are like saying that a child with a toy hammer is responsible for an earthquake.

 

[gmx2014]

I’m going to use every bit of my intellect and education and life experience to respond…all I hear is blah, blah, blah! (Ok, maybe I won’t)

It’s always the same thing from you folks. God must have been an idiot to create us because we are destroying everything He made good. Humans are so evil, wait He said, “this is VERY good” after man and woman were created.

Every bit of information you provide we can find the scientific counter to the argument or the life experience that tells us you are wrong.

Let me ask you, what is YOUR belief as to how many people actually died in the Chernobyl accident and/or from the after affects?

Is the earth warming, maybe. Is it caused by man? No, climate change was true long before man roamed the earth.

I’d appreciate if you refrain from insulting me, and refrain from presuming to know me.

If you consider, of all things, smog, anyone can see what causes it (human activity). It isn’t a guilt trip to say that human activity has negative impact on the environment. It isn’t correct to say that there is no effect whatsoever, on the environment, from human activity. To excuse human beings from responsibility is dishonest. I’m not sure why it’s all so emotional for some people, but it certainly isn’t for me.

Here’s water pollution (didn’t happen by itself)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_pollution#Causes_and_other_contaminants

Now let’s take a look at something, in comparison, and ask if human beings have the ability to contribute to, and cultivate, environmental HEALTH (instead of environmental detriment):

Here is Estonia. I absolutely adore this little country. They are a global leader for what they’ve done.

youtube.com/watch?v=A5GryIDl0qY

What if Estonia never bothered to do what they’ve done? In what they did, did they make a difference? Was it harmful and detrimental? Was it a waste of their time, energy and efforts? Could there be any benefit, to Earth itself, in what they’ve done?

 

[gmx2014]

Do you realize that the term “adiabatic cooling” is totally nonsensical? An adiabatic process is one which occurs without any gain or loss of heat. Talking about “adiabatic cooling” is like talking about static motion. Rainfall is an expected result when warmer air carrying small particles collides with colder air with sufficient humidity.

The radioactive dust and heavy metal particles from the Chernobyl accident didn’t cause the weather, they were spread more widely and concentrated by the weather.

Please, for your own sake, do some reading to try and grasp the sheer scale of the processes you blame on human activity before assuming we’re to blame. Right now, your claims are like saying that a child with a toy hammer is responsible for an earthquake.

I read plenty.

This is for you:

“Thermal pollution is the rise or fall in the temperature of a natural body of water caused by human influence. Thermal pollution, unlike chemical pollution, results in a change in the physical properties of water. A common cause of thermal pollution is the use of water as a coolant by power plants and industrial manufacturers. Elevated water temperatures decreases oxygen levels, which can kill fish, and can alter food chain composition, reduce species biodiversity, and foster invasion by new thermophilic species.[18][19][20] Urban runoff may also elevate temperature in surface waters.”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_pollution#Thermal_pollution

Humanity = guilty as charged (lol)

In seriousness though, yes, human activity has caused serious problems for Earth, atmosphere and the collective environment. Electromagnetic toxicity is the least known, and least understood, harm. But I suppose, if it isn’t taught in schools and universities, if great scientists haven’t published journals and books (yet), it has to be denied and dismissed? Try thinking outside the box…

 

[Lapey]

I’d appreciate if you refrain from insulting me, and refrain from presuming to know me. Sorry, but I did not insult you nor do I presume to know you. But we’ve heard it time and time again, earth good, man bad.

If you consider, of all things, smog, anyone can see what causes it (human activity). It isn’t a guilt trip to say that human activity has negative impact on the environment. It isn’t correct to say that there is no effect whatsoever, on the environment, from human activity. To excuse human beings from responsibility is dishonest. I’m not sure why it’s all so emotional for some people, but it certainly isn’t for me.

Here’s water pollution (didn’t happen by itself)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_pollution#Causes_and_other_contaminants

Now let’s take a look at something, in comparison, and ask if human beings have the ability to contribute to, and cultivate, environmental HEALTH (instead of environmental detriment):

Here is Estonia. I absolutely adore this little country. They are a global leader for what they’ve done.

youtube.com/watch?v=A5GryIDl0qY

What if Estonia never bothered to do what they’ve done? In what they did, did they make a difference? Was it harmful and detrimental? Was it a waste of their time, energy and efforts? Could there be any benefit, to Earth itself, in what they’ve done?

PS. No one, including me, is saying man does not affect his environment, that would be idiotic. Especially in the sense that we see now compared to 30 years ago. Look how much better air and water quality is now compared to then. Amazing, isn’t it!

PSS. Man does not cause global change, as in MMCC.

 

[gmx2014]

PS. No one, including me, is saying man does not affect his environment, that would be idiotic. Especially in the sense that we see now compared to 30 years ago. Look how much better air and water quality is now compared to then. Amazing, isn’t it!

PSS. Man does not cause global change, as in MMCC.

We disagree. I fully believe that Humanity has more power than is consciously understood.

Here, check out GCI and Heart Math

glcoherence.org/about-us/about.html
(the site appears to be currently down, so here is the Facebook page)
facebook.com/GlobalCoherenceInitiative

The Institute of HeartMath
heartmath.org/about-us/about-us-home/about-ihm.html

 

[Lapey]

We disagree. I fully believe that Humanity has more power than is consciously understood.

Here, check out GCI and Heart Math

glcoherence.org/about-us/about.html
(the site appears to be currently down, so here is the Facebook page)
facebook.com/GlobalCoherenceInitiative

The Institute of HeartMath
heartmath.org/about-us/about-us-home/about-ihm.html

My point made…I can produce just as many websites and statements showing the opposite. I do not believe yours and you won’t believe mine. So we’ll have to agree to disagree.

 

[gmx2014]

My point made…I can produce just as many websites and statements showing the opposite. I do not believe yours and you won’t believe mine. So we’ll have to agree to disagree.

I don’t know what point you think you have made. I offered two resources that have vital content for the state of Earth and Humanity. The intent is to foster a sense of hope, and understanding, that at least some people are *truly *trying to take care of our perilous, ailing reality.

What Humanity does *will *make a difference, for better or worse.

 

[Lochias]

There is no such thing as man-made “global warming.”

I will not buy into fear-mongering by those who would profit from it.

 

[Tony_Micelli]

There is no such thing as man-made “global warming.”

I will not buy into fear-mongering by those who would profit from it.

It’s a good idea to take seriously what the experts say in their fields of expertise: doctors about your health, a geologist about the age of a rock, a physicist about sub-atomic particles, the pope about faith and morals, and climate scientists about anthropogenic climate change.

97% of peer reviewed papers on climate change agree that the planet is warming and man is the cause.

 

[Lapey]

It’s a good idea to take seriously what the experts say in their fields of expertise: doctors about your health, a geologist about the age of a rock, a physicist about sub-atomic particles, the pope about faith and morals, and climate scientists about anthropogenic climate change.

97% of peer reviewed papers on climate change agree that the planet is warming and man is the cause.

97% are bought and paid for by left winged nuts. I do not believe in the hoax of MMCC

 

[Lapey]

I don’t know what point you think you have made. I offered two resources that have vital content for the state of Earth and Humanity. The intent is to foster a sense of hope, and understanding, that at least some people are *truly *trying to take care of our perilous, ailing reality.

What Humanity does *will *make a difference, for better or worse.

YOU Made point.

 

[Tony_Micelli]

97% are bought and paid for by left winged nuts. I do not believe in the hoax of MMCC

Luckily the church doesn’t believe in this conspiracy theory. The Pontifical Academy of Sciences has a paper addressing the seriousness of this complex phenomenon urging international action, and so did Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI.