Science of Global Warming

[spice]

Yes, and I coose to 'believe in' the worldview which says that we are active participants, NOT passive victims.

We're knowledgable, NOT ignorant.

We're able to evolve our thinking, past the point of percieving the ecosystem as a mystery, and realizing that in many instances,WE are the 'X factor', the unknown variable....the hinge upon the evolution of the planet turns.

Consciously taking part in our planet is what sets us apart from savages and animals. We have not lived up to the implied responsibility.

The forces of religion and right-wing politics have conspired ruthlessly to belittle and implant doubt as to the validity of global warming theories and to instill a distrust in science.

But when youur agenda is to keep people ignorant so you can 'lead' them, that shouldn't be surprising.

 

[WetStaples]

We had to watch An Inconvenient Truth in Physics class yesterday. -_-

 

[Forkbender]

Yes, and I coose to 'believe in' the worldview which says that we are active participants, NOT passive victims.

Dito.

 

[Forkbender]

We had to watch An Inconvenient Truth in Physics class yesterday. -_-

Poor guy!

 

[Caduceus Mercurius]

You are willing to grant astrology the status of 'influence', but not organic chemistry? Help me here....

Where did I not grant organic chemistry the status of influence? I do not doubt what you are saying about that. I'm just pointing out that there are other influences at work over which we have no influence.

the biosphere is a closed system

As you know there is a shield around the Earth which protects us from solar and other forms of radiation. But when there's a large solar flare (X-class) that shield will get perturbed, and that electromagnetic perturbation will influence the weather on Earth. Solar flares and even eclipses, because of their electromagnetic impact, usually trigger earthquakes, tsunamis (yes, that one too) and exacerbate hurricanes (Katrina etc.). If you keep track of the activity of the Sun you can actually see this happening. The Sun doesn't influence our global weather by becoming warmer or colder, but by its electromagnetic impact on the Earth's protective shield.

This is where you will loose me in discussion about validity of Astrology

The statement I made was to illustrate that there is an absolute correlation between the world of our experience and the entire cosmos around us. Which means that, in principle, astrology would be capable of determining such an insignificant thing as the color of one's hair. For if an astrologer could predict when a person gets married, and that the partner will be a foreigner who is much younger or much older than the native (all of which is relatively easy to predict), shouldn't he also be capable of going into infinite detail about that partner? You can't say that astrology can only predict the general and not the specific. In the West we've come to believe that astrology can only predict general trends, because thats's all western astrologers are capable of, but Vedic astrology actually does go into detail, and many Indian pundits pride themselves on predicting all kinds of details.

implant doubt as to the validity of global warming theories and to instill a distrust in science.

Well, to doubt (critical thinking) is a good thing, isn't it? The truth seems to be in the middle here, because climate change is indeed caused by us humans, but not solely. And that other cause, the Sun cycle, and the Sun's position in the larger scheme of things (its position in the cosmos, perhaps even relative to a binary partner), should be given attention too, for it's a very important matter. Not from a religious, monotheistic view, but certainly from a metaphysical point of view, a view which unifies spirituality, psychedelics and science.

Heartcore recently asked me on which sources of information my point of view is based. They are as follows (notice I do not worship or blindly believe any of the authors):

Divine Cosmos, one of three free online books, with heavily documented chapters on hyperdimensional physics, quantum physics, sacred geometry, harmonics, the Mayan calendar, yoga, Tesla, zero point energy, the platonic solids, the aether, awareness, and a scientific explanation for all kinds of unexplainable "paranormal" phenomena. I went through these three books in 2005, before I got to know Terence McKenna etc. Fascinating material.

http://earthchangesmedia.com/ About solar flares and their impact on our weather.

Referred to in Divine Cosmos and many other places: http://www.enterprisemission.com/

Again, I don't say everything you'll come across on these websites is what I agree with, but they've got a lot of good stuff you won't find anywhere else.

 

[Forkbender]

As you know there is a shield around the Earth which protects us from solar and other forms of radiation. But when there's a large solar flare (X-class) that shield will get perturbed, and that electromagnetic perturbation will influence the weather on Earth. Solar flares and even eclipses, because of their electromagnetic impact, usually trigger earthquakes, tsunamis (yes, that one too) and exacerbate hurricanes (Katrina etc.). If you keep track of the activity of the SUn you can actually see this happening. The Sun doesn't influence our global weather by becoming warmer or colder, but by its electromagnetic impact on the Earth's protective shield.

Like the superstorm predicted for the end of november 2007 in Western Europe? :wink:

 

[Caduceus Mercurius]

Like the superstorm predicted for the end of november 2007 in Western Europe?

By whom and on what basis? For all I know the Sun has been relatively calm this year, or I would certainly have received email notifications (from earthchangestv.com) of significant solar flares. Don't take this from me: keep an eye on the activity of the Sun (http://www.n3kl.org/sun/noaa.html) and see what happens after X-class or M-class flares pointed towards the Earth.

I'm not keeping track of these things anymore. Nowadays I'm mainly into researching psychedelics and history. But if you're into the science of global warming and climate change, I do think you should check this stuff out for yourself, with an open mind.

 

[Forkbender]

this one:
http://www.ad.nl/binnenland/article1798885.ece

There was a lot of fuss about in the media, and in the end it blew over.

I don't really care about the whole debate, since so much information in it is tainted by both sides of the argument that a person without a scientific background in climatology can't really decide which is true and which is not. There hasn't been any information available to the public that describes what's going on in simple terms. Probably because nobody can point to one specific cause/solution for the problem.

 

[spice]

" Probably because nobody can point to one specific cause/solution for the problem "...

I agree. Were I to say that we were the only cause, that would be easily exposed as ignorant, as it would be a thoughtless statement.

There ISN'T a single, specific cause. But the proponents of GW theory say we are aggravating a delicate balance, to put it quite simply. Since WE ae about the only thing that has come along in the history of the planet that can pump millions of METRIC TONS of CO2 into a closed system,
and that gas (CO2) functions as a regulator in said system, would SEEM to indicate to a curious, intelligent person that there may be a cause-and-effect phenomenon occurring here.


" ...that a person without a scientific background in climatology can't really decide which is true and which is not"

Good point, but there are tens of thousands of climatologists
out there shouting what I am saying from the rooftops.

They're making the distinctions.

 

[Forkbender]

Yes, I know. But I think that the current media-climate isn't really helping to put this message out there.

 

[ararat]

Yes, I know. But I think that the current media-climate isn't really helping to put this message out there.

it doesn't help at all if you ask me. it just makes people ignorant if it comes to that topic, because they "can't hear it anymore".
at least many people around here are acting like that.

 

[spice]

No, it doesn't, but you must consider the great influence exerted upon the media by the forces which have the most to lose by knowledge being spread. This coercive influence comes in the form of money, THAT'S how youu get people to say shit that they know isn't true.

and where that doesn't work, use religion, and all the tools it commands.

No, this is reminiscent to me of the entire 'evolution vs. religion ' arguments, and the uproar it caused, mainly due to the fact that some religious white guys couldn't stand the thought that they had evolved from 'monkeys'.

Which wasn't even the argument, but they TURNED IT INTO THE ARGUMENT by fixating on it. The theory espoused was that the DNA in chimpanzees and homo sapiens are 99% IDENTICAL, indicating that man and monkeys CO-EVOLVED from a simian-like ancestor.

Blurring the line in matters such as these is what those motherfuckers do best.

...and it is their technique of last resort, the kick in the nuts, the eye-gouge. It's a desperation tactic. Wisdom will win.

Preying on peoples dislike of change and abhorrence of uncomfortable truths.

Because if GW theory is right, what it means is that every thing we learned in the industrial revolution was crap, pretty much. Archaic technology, based on combustion, skewing the balance of the biosphere, and it all has to be unlearned.

Looked at in this light, it's easy to understand why the media sends mixed signals....the media isn't as independent as everyone would like to believe. That's a whole 'nother fairy tale.

 

[Forkbender]

I agree. But how would you go about it if you can't use the media to tell the true story?

 

[spice]

By any and all means necessary. What a kick-ass use for the internet, in my opinion.

Awareness is always spread, though. You can't uninvent knowledge, which is why so much time and energy is spent keeping people ignorant. It's easier than trying to re-convince them, once they've seen another side.

But it doesn't matter how any realizations are delivered to people, whether it's via psychedelics or some preachy internet phantom, if a person is not ready to hear, no amount of truth will penetrate the canopy of shade.

" you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink ".

 

[spice]

This is a great argument concerning global warming, which addresses the minimal influence of sun activity, etc...

http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/globalchange ... ng/03.html

 

[Caduceus Mercurius]

Terence McKenna in Plan, Plant, Planet:

Recycling.
Like plants, we need to recycle. On a cosmic scale we are no more mobile than plants. Until this point in history we have modeled our more successful economic systems on animal predation. Animals can potentially move on to another resource when they exhaust the one at hand. Since they can move to new food sources, they potentially have unlimited resources. Plants are fixed. They can not easily move to richer nutrients or leave an area if they foul or deplete it. They must recycle well. The fostering of a plant-based ethic that emulates the way in which the botanical world uses and replaces resources is a sine qua non for planetary survival. All capitalistic models models presuppose unlimited exploitable resources and labor pools, yet neither should now be assumed. I do not know the methods, but I suggest we start turning to the plant world to discover the right question to ask.

Photovoltaic power.
Appreciation of photovoltaic power is part of the shift toward an appreciation of the elegance of solid state that plants possess. Plants practice photosynthetic solutions to the problems of power acquisition. Compared to the water or animal-turned wheels, which are the Ur-methaphors for power production in the human world, the solid-state quantum-molecular miracle that involves dropping a photon of sunlight into a molecular device that will kick out an electron capable of energetically participating in the life of a cell seems like extravagant science fiction. Yet this is, in fact, the principle upon which photosynthesis operates. While the first solid-state devices arrived on the human cultural frontier in the late 1940's, solid-state engineering had been the preferred design approach of plants for some two thousand million years. High efficiency photovoltaics could today meet the daily needs of most people for electricity. It is the running of basic industries on solar energy that has proved difficult. Perhaps this is nature's way of telling us that we aspire to too much manufacturing.

A global atmosphere-based economy.
The approach of vegetational life to energy production is called photosynthesis. This process could be modeled by the creation of a global economy based on using solar energy to obtain hydrogen from seawater. Solar electricity could supply most electricity needs, but the smelting of aluminium and steel and other energy-intensive industrial processes make demands that photovoltaic electricity is unlikely to be able to meet. However, there is a solution; plants split atmospheric carbon dioxide to release energy and oxygen as by-products. A similar but different process could use solar electricity to split water to obtain hydrogen. This hydrogen could be collected and concentrated for later distribution. Plants have been very successful at finding elegant solutions based on materials present at hand; a hydrogen economy would emulate this same reliance on inexhaustible and recyclable materials.

 

[????????]

The most mind boggling method in the broad field of astrology, the dasha system, is based on the calculation of a fractal, the starting point of which is one's second of birth (no, not month or day or hour of birth: to be useful, the minute and preferably the second of birth should be known).

But how is the "starting point" of birth determined? when the baby goes out of the mom? but this can be delayed by such mundane things, like the doctor was a little late so the mom had to wait some time. Anyway there's not a definite start point to life, when the baby gets out he was already alive. So it could be argued that the start may be when the zygote forms. Or maybe 49 days into the development of the fetus, when the pineal gland becomes visible and sex can be determined.

I don't claim that the planets don't influence us in ways. They surely do, but to predict the future and hair color of people I haven't even met is very far-fetched, imho. How did you get involved with all this? Did you have an analysis by an expert on the subject that captivated you? If so, I would like to hear about it.

 

[Forkbender]

But how is the "starting point" of birth determined? when the baby goes out of the mom? but this can be delayed by such mundane things, like the doctor was a little late so the mom had to wait some time. Anyway there's not a definite start point to life, when the baby gets out he was already alive. So it could be argued that the start may be when the zygote forms. Or maybe 49 days into the development of the fetus, when the pineal gland becomes visible and sex can be determined.

If everything's a fractal, than nothing can change the moment of your birth, except by a total reconfiguration of the system, which would require an act of God, the eternal fractal-Creator.

 

[????????]

and when is this moment?

 

[Forkbender]

and when is this moment?

Now.