OP
haidut

haidut

Member
Forum Supporter
Joined
Mar 18, 2013
Messages
19,798
Location
USA / Europe
Edit: I guess it's still relevant to this thread, but I meant to post it here: https://raypeatforum.com/community/threads/05-bioenergetic-news-and-q-a-global-warming-serotonin-dopamine-nitric-oxide-depression-bpa.29602/

Another really great show. I feel like if anyone is gonna take Peat to the mainstream now, Danny and Georgi will be the ones to do it...

I particularly enjoyed the hairloss discussion around 1:58-2hr mark.

Also, the climate change discussion reminded me of this BBC documentary I last saw in 2003. Might be of interest to some people...

I have no idea if it ties in with what Georgi was talking about as I have yet to rewatch it, but I think it had s:???::???:omething to do with the Gulf stream.



Thanks, that's a great video! Isn't it amazing how there are alternative views that used to be discussed openly on mainstream media and then something happened over the last few years and now all we get on the news is the officially approved dogma. I bet BBC has not mentioned again "ice age" or "big chill" since that video. It would be a career-ender for any journalist to do a report on this "alternative" view nowadays.
 
OP
haidut

haidut

Member
Forum Supporter
Joined
Mar 18, 2013
Messages
19,798
Location
USA / Europe
I should probably move somewhere else, currently in Ireland. I guess Poland wouldn't be any better? My family lives on the canary islands, but that seems like a terrible location if volcanic activity is to increase. I can't just worry about finding a shitty job in the pharmaceutical industry to poison the masses anymore, time to worry about preparing for the ice age.

No need to move for now. Most people who believe a new Ice Age is coming describe a process that takes several thousand years to complete. Initially, there is a rise in temps, melting of the North Pole ice, storms, earthquakes, etc. This process could last up to 100 years and then the heavy snows on the northern hemisphere start. So, I think you are OK for now...unless you plan on living for several hundred years :):
 

Jem Oz

Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2016
Messages
405
I find "global warming" hysteria hilarious and troubling in equal measure. It's gotten to the point where seemingly bright people take EVERY slightly potent weather event as proof the world is doomed. There are many measured, learned people putting out content to counter the panic, but of course they are all dismissed as "deniers".

It seems a lot of people can't function without believing the apocalypse is imminent. I remember as a kid in the late 80s there was all this doomsday talk of the "hole in the ozone layer". We used to stare at the sky trying to find the hole, convinced we were all going to fry.

The troubling part is thinking about how many billions/trillions of taxpayer dollars are going to be wasted on this hysteria/religion.
 

meatbag

Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2016
Messages
1,771
New Insights on the Physical Nature of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect Deduced from an Empirical Planetary Temperature Model

Abstract

A recent study has revealed that the Earth’s natural atmospheric greenhouse effect is around 90 K or about 2.7 times stronger than assumed for the past 40 years. A thermal enhancement of such a magnitude cannot be explained with the observed amount of outgoing infrared long-wave radiation absorbed by the atmosphere (i.e. ≈ 158 W m-2), thus requiring a re-examination of the underlying Greenhouse theory. We present here a new investigation into the physical nature of the atmospheric thermal effect using a novel empirical approach toward predicting the Global Mean Annual near-surface equilibrium Temperature (GMAT) of rocky planets with diverse atmospheres. Our method utilizes Dimensional Analysis (DA) applied to a vetted set of observed data from six celestial bodies representing a broad range of physical environments in our Solar System, i.e. Venus, Earth, the Moon, Mars, Titan (a moon of Saturn), and Triton (a moon of Neptune). Twelve relationships (models) suggested by DA are explored via non-linear regression analyses that involve dimensionless products comprised of solar irradiance, greenhouse-gas partial pressure/density and total atmospheric pressure/density as forcing variables, and two temperature ratios as dependent variables. One non-linear regression model is found to statistically outperform the rest by a wide margin. Our analysis revealed that GMATs of rocky planets with tangible atmospheres and a negligible geothermal surface heating can accurately be predicted over a broad range of conditions using only two forcing variables: top-of-the-atmosphere solar irradiance and total surface atmospheric pressure. The hereto discovered interplanetary pressure-temperature relationship is shown to be statistically robust while describing a smooth physical continuum without climatic tipping points. This continuum fully explains the recently discovered 90 K thermal effect of Earth’s atmosphere. The new model displays characteristics of an emergent macro-level thermodynamic relationship heretofore unbeknown to science that has important theoretical implications. A key entailment from the model is that the atmospheric ‘greenhouse effect’ currently viewed as a radiative phenomenon is in fact an adiabatic (pressure-induced) thermal enhancement analogous to compression heating and independent of atmospheric composition. Consequently, the global down-welling long-wave flux presently assumed to drive Earth’s surface warming appears to be a product of the air temperature set by solar heating and atmospheric pressure. In other words, the so-called ‘greenhouse back radiation’ is globally a result of the atmospheric thermal effect rather than a cause for it. Our empirical model has also fundamental implications for the role of oceans, water vapour, and planetary albedo in global climate. Since produced by a rigorous attempt to describe planetary temperatures in the context of a cosmic continuum using an objective analysis of vetted observations from across the Solar System, these findings call for a paradigm shift in our understanding of the atmospheric ‘greenhouse effect’ as a fundamental property of climate.
 

Giraffe

Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2015
Messages
3,730
this is a very good documentary covering the global warming deception and includes a good summary of how the reduction in solar activity (sun spots) influences the temperature on earth.

This 2007 documentary has aged extremely well. A must-see.
 

GelatinGoblin

Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2020
Messages
798
Glad to see RP does not go along with the official narrative.

One thing I always wonder is how can we be sure what the "optimal" temperature for earth is. We haven't been able to record temperatures for very long, not in the grand scheme of things (200 yrs vs 6-10,000 (if you believe in creationism) or several million (if you believe in evolution etc)), either way not nearly long enough to determine just what is the "ideal" temperature. Therefore, we can't even be really sure we're in a "cooling" or a "warming" phase and even if it is warming that maybe the optimal temperature could be much higher than it is now, or at the very least its extremely likely the earth has seen phases much warmer than it is now, especially if you believe the model of a million+ year old earth, its highly unlikely that the last 200 years could have the warmest period of time, its almost a statistical impossibility. So I think whether the earth is cooling or warming is irrelevant and what really matters is, how do we compare to what the "ideal" temperature is. And how does one even define that? The earth is pretty robust, I'm honestly not that worried about it, there's not enough information to really be worried IMO. Just a lot of speculation and junk science. There are far bigger things to worry about IMO, such as the global deployment of 5G.

I think there are ways to measure the past temperatures, something similar to how deep ice bores allow us to see the CO2 amount (and type of CO2, appearently there is structural difference between CO2 produced via plants Vs fossil fuels). Beside... Sea level. I imagine one can measure global temperature via changes in Sea Level, by studying something geographic (layman).
 

meatbag

Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2016
Messages
1,771
Looks like this is the view Ray Peat has as well;

"
PT- Here’s an interesting question. Is Dr. Peat talking about the Schumann resonance affecting the magnetic frequencies of the Earth, doesn’t it also determine lightning strikes and disprove global warming as it’s being sold?

RP- I’ve only been concerned with its effects on the organisms, but yeah the whole electrical function of the Earth interaction with the solar wind streaming past the Earth it’s like a wind chime sort of effect, it’s activated by the streaming solar wind and the Earth resonates with that process. You get bog shifts of electricity that undoubtedly contribute to why there are more thunderstorms in some seasons and how those interact with the solar cycles.

PT- Mmhm. Here’s an email form-.. O go ahead

RP- Solar cycles are probably a better explanation for the data that they see and refer to as anthropogenic planetary warming.

PT- Yeah, yeah there’s more information, we like a website called suspicious observers with Ben Davidson, and he puts out these videos everyday about how the whole sun and the sun sports and everything and he’s been very accurate with predicting everything from Earthquakes to floods to all kinds of stuff.

RP (1:18:30) – Yeah, there’s partly kind of a superstition among scientists, they don’t want to recognize how powerful the sun’s influence is. And even the interactions of the heavy planets with the sun on the Earth. Those have influences. The traditional science people are made nervous by, it’s too complicated and they call it superstition

PT- Haha, yeah a lot of the sun spot people, suggest that we could be going into much more a cooling rather than a warming…

RP (1:19:12)- That...Until three mile island happened, all of the experts were predicting, for decades, a new coming ice age, but the pentagon put out some publications following the three mile island scare where people were turned against nuclear power because they saw the dangers, and the pentagon needed their nuclear power as a source of material for atomic bombs and they didn’t want people to turn against nuclear power which they needed an excuse for why we needed to give up petroleum and coal and shift to nuclear power. They invented the planetary warming thing and suddenly in just a period of just a few months the public media shifted form a coming ice to coming heat catastrophe.

PT- Interesting, and when was three mile island? Was that in the 70s or the 60s?

RP(1:20:27)- I forget the exact year, 76’ or 78’ or around there.

PT- So your research shows that this was the beginning of this whole man made global warming thing?

RP- (1:20:40) yeah, there’s I think it’s called Alethanews(not sure if name is correct), has a good article on the pentagons invention of global warming
One Radio Network - Feb 2021 Transcript (occurred on Mar 2 due to Texas storm)
 

Kram

Member
Joined
May 8, 2017
Messages
382

With Germany scouring the world for supplies of oil and gas and firing up dormant coal power stations, one of its most distinguished atmospheric scientists, Professor Hermann Harde, has castigated politicians for reacting to increasingly shrill climate horror stories and “believing they can save the world”. Many of the research studies and “horror scenarios” are not based on a secure physical foundation, he says, “but rather represent computer games that reflect what was fed in”. The idea that humans can control the climate with their CO2 emissions is said to be an “absolute delusion”.
In Professor Harde’s view, there exists considerable doubt about a “scientifically untenable thesis” of purely human-caused climate change, “and it is completely wrong to assume that 97% of climate scientists, or even more, would assume only anthropogenic warming”. In his view, climate and energy policy can only gain popular acceptance when they are based on reliable knowledge, “and not on speculations or belief”. Harde retired a few years ago from Helmut Schmidt University in Hamburg as Professor of Experimental Physics after a long career in science academia.
For many years, Germany’s politicians have been able to make virtuous green noises by closing nuclear power stations and banning exploration for fossil fuel. At the same time, the country started importing large quantities oil and gas from an unstable Russia. The war in Ukraine has suddenly brought home to Germany, and the EU, the sheer stupidity of this dangerous policy.
In Harde’s view, the move to impose ‘climate emergency’ policies was led by competition between different research groups to outdo each other predicting horror scenarios. Alarming predictions attracted media attention, “and our decision-makers felt obliged to quickly react”. But, noted Harde, it is absolutely clear that without a reliable and sufficient energy supply, “Germany and many other countries that take such a path will end in anarchy”.
Professor Harde’s research leads him to state that the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change overestimates by five times the thermal effect of doubling carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. He points to the “highly overlapping and saturated absorption bands” of CO2 and water vapour, and the significant reduced effect of greenhouses gases under cloud cover. He goes on to state that the recent increase in CO2 has caused warming of less than 0.3°C over the last century.
He continues:
Since only about 15% of the global CO2 increase is of anthropogenic origin, just 15% of 0.3°C, i.e., less than 0.05°C remains, which can be attributed to humans in the overall balance. In view of this vanishingly small contribution, of which the Germans are only involved with 2.1% [of emissions], it is absurd to assume that an exit from fossil fuels could even remotely have an impact on our climate. Changes of our climate can be traced back to natural interaction processes that exceed our human influence by orders of magnitude.
In Professor Hande’s opinion, modern climate science has developed more as an ideology and world view, rather than a serious science. Scientists who question or point to serious inconsistencies about human-caused or anthropogenic global warming, are “publicly discredited” and excluded from research funds. In addition, research contributions in journals are supressed, and in a reference to the recent Professor Peter Ridd case in Australia, placed on leave or dismissed from their university. After all, he notes, this is “settled climate science”, and doubts about the harmful effect of CO2 on the environment and the climate are not allowed, “because it is about nothing less than saving the planet”.
What we call truths, continues Harde, depends to a large extent on our state of knowledge. He suggests that climate science requires a fundamental review of the hypotheses and a shift away from the widely established climate industry. Science must not be misled by commerce, politics or ideology, he says. It is the genuine task of universities and state-funded research institutions “to investigate contradictory issues and to ensure independent, free research that gives us honest answers, even when these answers are often complex and do not fit into a desired political context”.
Harde concludes by warning politicians that it would be an irresponsible environmental and energy policy to continue to ignore serious peer-reviewed scientific publications that show a much smaller human impact on the climate than previously thought. It is also irresponsible to shut down a reliable, adequate and affordable energy supply, to be rep
 

Inaut

Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2017
Messages
3,620

View: https://youtu.be/XydLuFyUOCQ


Merry Christmas....??!!

I don’t know what’s coming but I think we all feel something doesn’t feel right currently. I’m beginning to think most of what we are experiencing these days is simply to distract us from what is approaching and cyclical- precise and timed. Some ancients knew about it and prepared but most were just unlucky. Much like if it happened now I’d say? This fellows channel is rather interesting at the very least.

Anyways i have a severe distrust for anything government affiliated, especially NASA so I question truth of what they are telling us about the poles and everything in general (because I can’t verify it myself). If we do experience a global solar event soon, is it our controllers (much of modern life is constructed IMO) or the natural process of resetting the face of the earth and life itself. If the degeneration of morals, human relation/society and our bodies is any indication of what’s to come in the future, I’m not afraid. What scares me most is what life will look like if we don’t stop the insanity (or if our creator doesn’t intervene. Food for thought is all.
 
Back
Top Bottom