START A PETITION 25,136,189 members: the world's largest community for good
START A PETITION
x
Group Discussions
label:  
  new ideas
| track thread
« Back to topics
climate change- global cooling
4 years ago
| new ideas

I thought I would move all of the stories about climate change into the own thread. So it makes it easier for virgin utopian members to find

IS THE STATEMENT "GREENHOUSE NEUTRAL TECHNOLOGY" SCIENTIFIC FRAUD
4 years ago

IS THE STATEMENT "GREENHOUSE NEUTRAL TECHNOLOGY" SCIENTIFIC FRAUD

If a mathematician made the statement that 1 plus 1 equals 3 And use that equation to make a living. That would be classified as mathematical fraud.

Weil scientist of the bio-fuel industry(bio-diesel and ethanol). Are guilt of the same mathematical fraud. With the scientific equation for the definition of a "greenhouse neutral technology".

Under the global scientific mathematics of "greenhouse neutral technology" definition. Fossil fuels are also classify as "greenhouse neutral technology".

Using correct scientific mathematics for the global definition of a "greenhouse neutral technology". Based on total eco-systems ability to absorb co2 per squared kilometre of land mass. And the total co2 emission from burning fuel(bio-fuel or fossil fuel). It is to prove under a correct scientific mathematical model. That if the bio-fuel industry is classified as a "greenhouse neutral technology". Then we will have too classify fossil fuels also as a "greenhouse neutral technology". Thereby uncovering the scientific fraud of the scientist in the bio-fuel's industries propaganda machine.

Under Fossil fuels we have the rainforest and crops to absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. At an average rate, example 10 metric tones per squared kilometre per day(this is just a guess, not correct scientific data, used only to illustrate the point)

And under fossil fuels we have carbon dioxide emissions from burning crude oil products. example 10 kilograms of carbon dioxide emissions per litre of diesel and unleaded(again this is just a guess, not correct scientific data-used only to illustrate the point)

So under the bio-fuel industry of bio-diesel and ethanol. We have the rainforest and crops(the bio-fuel industry just changes the crops from food production to plant-based fuel crops) to absorb carbon dioxide at the same rate as under fossil fuels at an illustrated guess of 10 metric tones of carbon dioxide per squared kilometre per day.

under the burning of bio-fuel(bio-diesel and ethanol) We have the same level of carbon dioxide emissions at an illustrated guess of 10 kilograms of carbon dioxide per litre of bio-diesel and ethanol burned.

The scientific mathematical model of global co2 absorption and emissions for the bio-fuel industry and the crude oil industry. Are based on the same mathematical equation of 1 plus 1 equals 3 created for the "greenhouse neutral ethnology" in the bio-fuel industries propaganda machine.

So either the scientist of the bio-fuel industry are guilt of scientific fraud. With the industry wide propaganda that bio-fuels are a "greenhouse neutral technology" or fossil fuels are also classified as a "greenhouse neutral technology".

For a technology to fit the correct scientific definition of a "greenhouse neutral technology. Based on a correct mathematical scientific model of 1 plus 1 equals 2. You have to either increase the eats' eco systems ability to absorb co2(which is impossible-and can only be achieved by creating more land mass). Or decrease the co2 emissions from burning fuel(the only fuel to achieve this is hydrogen)

Another negative in the propaganda machine of the bio-fuel industry is scientific research. There is a lack of hard scientific data. On the land requirements of the bio-fuel industry. Example hard scientific data that state the number of litres of bio-fuel per squared kilometre of plant based fuel crops.

The scientists of the bio-fuel sector are refusing to do this research. To give total product figures for world wide population of 9,000,000,000 souls by 2050. With a fuel market penetration of 5,000,000,000 vehicles by 2050. Which allows the improvement of living standards of the third world to match the developed world in living standards and energy usage.

The bio-fuels industry has the same business model as internet start up companies listed on the stock exchanges around the world. The internet technology bubble of the early 90's and the birth of the world wide web. Which is to gain investment capital first then worry about total supply and demand issues and profitability second. Well we all reminder the stock market crash of the late 90's in the internet startup technology sector. We start with over 1,000 internet startup companies listing on world stock exchanges. They all crash in bankruptcy an amazon.com was the only internet startup company listed on the stock exchange to survive. The technology bubble of the last 90's

The facts are based on co2 global absorption rates and co2 emission of the bio-fuel industry. And the global transfer from crude oil products(diesel and unleaded) to bio diesel and ethanol. We would still global co2 content in the atmosphere climb steady above the 350 parts per million. And a continuation of the climate change in the area of increasing global temperatures

thank you for sharing my dream
craig j clark
CEO of Craig Clark Corporation
craigclark.ceo@craigclarkfoundation.org
http://www.craigclarkfoundation.org

BATTERY POWERED ECONOMY IS IT ACHIEVABLE
4 years ago

BATTERY POWERED ECONOMY IS IT ACHIEVABLE

Will the are three types of battery powered economies. There is nuclear power, renewable power and fossil fuels(coal and natural gas fired power station.

Current battery technology is based on lithium battery technology. I haven't heard if lithium battery technology is a recyclable technology. We have the technology to build a lithium battery powered car range of between 250 km and 300 km. Between recharges with about a six hour recharge time. The lifespan of a lithium battery is between 5 & 10 years based on a daily round trip of 30km and with a weekly recharge cycle. There is a startup lithium battery company in Israeli work towards the world wide transfer to lithium battery technology.

Their idea to solve the short range and long recharge time of lithium battery technology. I sot replace the standard fossil fuel service stations. With lithium battery exchange service stations. The idea is to patent a standard lithium battery package. Than is used of all makes of lithium battery powered car. A common size battery used by all car manufactures. Then on long journeys you would pull into a lithium battery exchange service station. And change out the flat lithium battery for a full recharge lithium battery. Then your old flat lithium battery goes into a recharge dock and is recharged over the standard time of six hours. Then exchanged into then customers car.

Then main idea for the lithium battery market is that the own of the car. Does not the lithium battery that comes with car. It belongs to this israeli technology startup companies. And you pay rent on the lithium battery. With rental fee charge when you buy your lithium powered vehicle. Plus you pay an additional rent fee plus electricity fees. When you exchange your battery at a future lithium battery exchange service station

Some off the drawbacks of a battery powered economy come when you look at the different types of transport
1) battery powered motorcycle- yes it is achievable
2) battery powered car- yes it is achievable
3) battery powered 20 ton semi trailer for interstate transport- will the battery would weight about 5 tons, have range of 250 km to 300 km, take all night to recharge. This in a transport sector that does about 1,000 km a day over a12 hour shift. Well under a battery powered economy transport cost would increase by four hundred percentage. And every product has transport cost build into the retail price.
4) battery powered cargo ship- the battery would be so large to provide the electricity to power inter continental journey. That is required for international trade. The size of the lithium battery to power the trip would be so large than there would be no remove for cargo. And their wouldn't it a ship, their would call it a stone because it would be impossible for it to float. So a battery powered economy would see an end to world trade. Say good to the mining industry and wool and cotton and wheat exports from australian farmers and miners

now my favourite example of battery powered transport

4) battery powered 747 boeing jumbo jump- while the lithium battery wouldn't ever fit into the cabin space, It would have no remove for passengers and zero space for international air cargo. Their would also call this machine a stone. So the tourist industry and international mail services would return to the sailing era.The cost international travel and international mail would skyrocket by some were between 1,000% to 10,000% with the transfer of a london to sydney trip from 20 odd hour to journey of six months

Then there is the supply of lithium, like the supply of uranium for nuclear power. Both of these elements are classified as rare earth elements. With both having mine-able raw ore base in metric tons. To meet 100% usage and to meet current and projected energy consumption towards 2050. equals about a 25 year supply.A short life span than fossil fuels.

All of the world leaders are more to support nuclear power as the option of choice to meet the challenge of climate change and to stabilise co2 emission at 350 parts per million. Every the leaders of the poorest african nations at the G20 summit were asking develop world to open international access and funding for africa to go nuclear. Their case was that nuclear power more affordable at 4 cents per kilowatt. Verses solar and wind at 10 cents per kilowatt. India has just purchase 10 new russian made nuclear reactors in their latest arms deal with russia. So nuclear power is on the increase world and has the support of current world leaders. The labour and liberal parties quietly support nuclear powered future for australia. And are quite working to improve public popularity for nuclear power.

thank you for sharing my dream
craig j clark
CEO of Craig Clark Corporation
craigclark.ceo@craigclarkfoundation.org
http://www.craigclarkfoundation.org

THE HYDROGEN ECONOMY
4 years ago

THE HYDROGEN ECONOMY

There are three types of hydrogen powered economy. 1) renewable hydrogen, 2)nuclear hydrogen 3)fossil fuel hydrogen.

Renewable hydrogen can be broken down into types of renewable energy. Solar which is the type of hydrogen that I support and I have create a non-profit startup web site. To raise capital investment for Solar Hydrogen By 2050. So I would go into detail of solar hydrogen in this article. As you can visit my web site from more details and my business plan at http://www.craigclarkfoundation.org If I have sparked our interest with my past stories.

Why tyres of renewable hydrogen other an solar. Well their wind, geothermal, wave power. They as well as solar have about the same construction cost to meet full supply of the fuel market at about $1000,000,000,000,000 in contraction cost over a forty year period to meet the deadline of 2050. For the depletion of crude oil. I costed out solar hydrogen to meet a future population of 9,000,000,000 by 2050 and 5,000,000,000 hydrogen powered vehicle by 2100. The UN estimate for vehicle ownership in 2050 is at 2,000,000,000 vehicles an average hydrogen consummation over the entire transport(heavy transport plus personal transport).At 1,500 kilograms of hydrogen per vehicle. Or a total world demand in 2100 for 5,,000,000,000 hydrogen powered vehicles at 7,500,000,000 metric tons of hydrogen gas per year. The stable price of renewable hydrogen to cover maintain cost and achieve profitability. Is about $15.00 per kilograms.

Some important facts about hydrogen it has about three times the energy content. When compare the diesel and unleaded on a kilogram per kilogram bases. So you get three times the gas milage when compared to diesel and unleaded per kilogram. A bit of trivia the dude the invented the inter combustion engine, ran his prototype on hydrogen. So the standard inter combustion engine can be modify to run on hydrogen. Current car manufactures all have prototypes of hydrogen powered vehicle. Using fuel cell technology the same technology that NASA has used to provide electricity to the gemini, apollo and space shuttle space vehicles.
Fuel cell tune hydrogen and oxygen into electricity via chemical reaction. And produces a byproduct of water. Burning hydrogen in a inter combustion engine also produces a byproduct water.

Renewable Hydrogen has a lifecycle that start with splitting of the water molecule Via an electricity current. Example solar panels product electricity. Which is used to transform the water molecule into two gas of hydrogen and oxygen. The oxygen is released into the atmosphere. And the hydrogen place in store to use as fuel. When the hydrogen consume in a fuel cell or inter combustion engine. It is transform back into a water molecule. So it is 100% recyclable, 100% sustainable technology. With the uses of solar with is based on mining of silicon to an ultra pure level about 99.9% pure element. Silicon is list in the top ten element in the earth's crust based on molecular weight(weight of the atom).

Nuclear hydrogen has the same renewable lifecycle as renewable hydrogen. Starting as a water molecule, with being spilt by nuclear electricity. And return to the water molecule stage through useable fuel cycle. The problem the nuclear hydrogen is nuclear radioactive waste, the possibility on nuclear meltdown. And longer term supply issues for uranium. Uranium is a rare element in the earth's crust and has a total lifespan based on mine-able uranium ore reserves world wide. To translate into about 25 years supply of nuclear Hydrogen at 100% demand and usage for hydrogen gas.

Fossil fuel hydrogen is produce by chemically cracking natural gas hydrocarbon molecules. To remove the hydrogen atoms of the hydrocarbon molecule. Leaving a byproduct of co2. Fossil fuel hydrogen produce as much co2 prefer kilogram of cracked natural gas. But it isn't really an options as world natural gas supplies are due to reach a depleted state at the same timeframe as the depletion of crude oil in 2050.

World wide we have technology to use hydrogen at the level of vehicle manufactures. The crude oil giants have the technology to build the hydrogen gas refuelling station network. But have the only startup web site dedicated to the wholesale production of renewable hydrogen. And then wholesale production of solar hydrogen is the largest startup cost of the hydrogen economy. At $2,000,000,000,000 Too start the corporation size and skills to build the solar hydrogen infrastructure at the wholesale end of the hydrogen economy. At a total construction cost of $3,000,000,000,000,000 over a one hundred year period. But i'm current forty years old so in 2050 I'll be dead. So the depletion of crude oil and it's effects on living standards and the global economy will not effect my life. I have no child or grand child. So my offspring well not be affected by the end of the fossil fuel age(diesel and unleaded plus aviation fuel) but your offspring will be alive to feel the full impact of a society returning to human powered transport via the bicycle and the horse.

thank you for sharing my dream
craig j clark
CEO of Craig Clark Corporation
craigclark.ceo@craigclarkfoundation.org
http://www.craigclarkfoundation.org

The doom & gloom of the depletion of crude oil by 2050
4 years ago

The doom & gloom of the depletion of crude oil by 2050

I could write on personal opinion of the doom and gloom scenario of life in 2050 with the collapse of the crude oil fuel industry. And the impacts on life in the develop world. With the end of the transport industry and industrial farming. Plus the inability of cities above 100,000 people to transport food to meet food demands from surrounding family farms. That would return to manual labour farming practices to grow food. An example are the mega cities like Sydney which suck farm goods from out to a radius of about 2,000 kilometres from the centre point. There is no way the farming community and transport sector meet the challenge of grow harvesting and transporting enough food to meet the demands of Sydney's population without fossil fuel. if we do not start on building a replacement fuel supply now. House prices would drop to rock bottom price of zero dollars per house. As Sydney would have hyper inflated price in the the food from the reduction of food supplies by a 100 fold. People would be force to leave their homes in the mega cities of the world. To return to a hobby farm lifestyle to grow the own food via manual labour. The refugees of the cities would have zero assets. having to leave their city homes for zero cash out in a property market that has zero buyers. The Bank sector would go into total meltdown. From the bankruptcy city business and home owners. The number of homeless people walking into the rural society would be about one billion world wide in the developed world. But the third world would be under affected. Their lives would continue as normal they have no access to crude oil. Are all really live manual labour farming lifestyles.

But no one wants to hear unhappy stories about the future

thank you for sharing my dream
craig j clark
CEO of Craig Clark Corporation
craigclark.ceo@craigclarkfoundation.org
http://www.craigclarkfoundation.org

SECOND EXAMPLE OF SCIENTIFIC FRAUD
4 years ago

SECOND EXAMPLE OF SCIENTIFIC FRAUD

My fourth article in my series on the subject of climate change and the renewable fuels markets. Is about a second case of scientific fraud. This time commit by scientist in the research field of climate change research. It is fraud created by climate change scientist in the field of climate modelling. Which are base on complex mathematical formulas. With the goal of creating a mathematical theory for defining the world's weather patterns and global effects of co2 levels above 350 parts per million. Between present day and as far into the future as to 2100.

Now climate change scientist- the climate modellers claim that they can ask their climate models. That run on the latest super computers available in the world. Questions, like would will the average temperature of earth in 2035 with a doubling co2 content in the Atmosphere? And the climate model running on their super computer gives answer of two degree average temperature increase. This propaganda of climate modellers with their one billion dollar computer programs. Is If scientific fraud. To prove this case we have to look that fundamental laws the govern all computer programs regardless of programming language. Climate modeller have their own individual programming language. Just is Apple Unix has it's own programming language. But fundamental laws of computer programming are the same and universal.

The Fundamental of all computer programming languages. Is that computer program can only give program answers to program question. A computer program can not give answer to a question. When that answer has not been programmed in the computer software. The Classification of software that can invent answer and create new data that is not contain with the computer softwares database. If called Artificial Intelligence which is a software type that still belongs to the future(2100).

For example Bill Gates is good at writing word processor software. So for Microsoft Office software to give an answer to the question. Please copy & paste, Bill Gates must have the answer written on a piece of paper. Before he starts to writing his Microsoft Office word process The key to good software programming. Is a computer programmer that can guess all the questions that will be answer by computer users. That your new software will have all the answers. If a computer programer does not have an answer to your likely question, written on a piece of piece of paper before written your piece of software. That piece of software will fail to give an answer and most likely crash.

A little history in the area of climate change research. Well the new field of climate change research started back in the 60's. By the 70's the number of researchers in this new field numbered about 100 world wide. Today the number of researchers number 10,000 world wide. Back in the 60's there was about 10 researchers/genius in the field of climate change science. This first 10 researchers created all of the underlining data for theory of climate changes, new knowledge. The currently researchers are just rewriting the reports from the 60's and 70's. With the same sets of data and the same conclusions. And easy way to make money that 10,000 researchers spending 40 hours per week,52 weeks per year. Doing current climate change research, that is equal to rewriting the Harry Potter series.

In the 70's In USA there was and still to this day a group of highly classified scientists called - THE JASONS Which are a group of about 20 hand pick scientist. to Service the American president. Each year their meet for about a month. To write scientific reports for the president of the US. The president picks the area of research that the JASONS work on. Most of the time it is reports about new nuclear technology weapons and power generation were high on the agenda. During the cold war of 60's. But in the middle 70's the president of the USA asked for a report on climate change. The JASONS report on climate change, stated that by 2035 co2 levels in the world with have doubled. Temperature increases at equator will equal 2 degree celsius and a six degree increase at the poles

So the bases of the climate modellers mathematical models is the report written by the JASONS. So the climate modeller had the answer to the question "what will happen if we double the co2 content in the atmosphere?". And the climate model returns the JASONS answer two degrees.

So what is a climate model. Well a climate model. Is just a complex piece of computer graphics software. like the computer graphics software of the third Matrix movie. I is just a really expensive way of rewriting the data from the JASONS climate change report that was rewritten on a piece of paper at 20 cents per page.

So with have climate change scientist using billion dollar super computers and spend 10,000's of man hours on programming a two hour computer powered graphics movie(like Toy Story). Which uses and gives the same answers. just changing the type of paper from recycled paper to LED computer display

So is the worker of climate modellers scientific fraud. I think so it is the same as buying a hard copy of Harry Potter. And sitting down at your home computer(which are now classify as super computers, with one billion calculation per second) and typing out a pdf file of the book and turn it into and ebook. Then standing back and telling the world that you are a writer(scientist).

thank you for sharing my dream
craig j clark
CEO of Craig Clark Corporation
craigclark.ceo@craigclarkfoundation.org
http://www.craigclarkfoundation.org

Case study on the bio fuel industry
4 years ago

Case study on the bio fuel industry

The main focus of this study is the current canola crop and using peanut oil as bio-diesel. Key facts are peanut yields per squared kilometre. peanut oil yields per metric ton. And current fuel yields per barrel of crude oil-- diesel & unleaded & aviation fuel. With yearly production of crude oil at 36,500,000,000 barrels of crude oil


peanut oil yields per hectare= 1059 litres per hectare per year
current fuel yields per barrel of crude oil= 124.1 litres(diesel plus unleaded plus aviation fuel)
total yearly demand for bio-diesel(canola oil)= 2,200,000,000,000 litres
total farm land(under peanut) required to meet global fuel demands= 20,648, 177 squared kilometres
Total land mass of the earth= 149,000,000 squared kilometres
World wide total of farmland for food production= 55,130,000 squared kilometres
percentage of land surface(under peanuts) to meet bio-diesel demand in 2010= 13%
current number of vehicles world wide in 2010= 750,000,000 vehicles
farmland requires for the bio fuel industry in 2050 with an estimate 2,000,000,000 vehicles= 55,061,805squared kilometres or 36.9% of the earth's land surface

Conclusion
The transfer to bio diesel from crude oil equals 37% reduction in total food production to meet 100% of current fuel demands(diesel plus unleaded plus aviation fuel)

thank you for sharing my dream
craig j clark
CEO of Craig Clark Corporation
craigclark.ceo@craigclarkfoundation.org
http://www.craigclarkfoundation.org

the story of climate change under the unify laws of physics
4 years ago

the story of climate change under the unify laws of physics

We will view this story from the view point of an infinite number of photons per square metre with a power rating in space at 1,000 watts per squared metre.

Now as the percentage of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increases. This increases the amount of photon absorption in the up atmosphere which increases temperatures of the upper atmosphere. This increase in temperature in the upper atmosphere decreases the possible of rain. How the side affect of increase co2 in the atmosphere. Is a decrease in the number of photons strike the earth's surface as a global average on a sunny day.

The side affect of a decrease in the number of photons per squared metre. Is a decrease in water vaporisation. Now water vapour in the atmosphere is a climate warming gas. and water vapour is bi-polar molecule. So water vapour all over the world is attracted to the equator. The density of water at the equator remains the same. But a lower level of water vapour in the atmosphere means the warming affects of tropical storms narrow into a tighter band around the equator.

So in climate change of increase co2 in the atmosphere. The temperature at the equator has a slightly decrease at the surface by less than 0.1%.

the temperature change outside the tropical zone and the sub tropical zones. and into the poles. Increases as the percentage of water vapour in the atmosphere decreases this allows more photons to hit the earth surface. So the temperature of the land surface or ice sheets increases as the power rating increases as a measurement of photons per squared metre. This increase in temperature caused the ice sheets to meet and adds more water vapour to the atmosphere.

So the atmosphere reaches a point of stabilisation with each level of co2 part per million in the atmosphere. As co2 increases in the atmosphere the temperature a the equator decreases by 0.1 of a degree( which decreases rainfall) and the sub tropical zone widens and the temperature at the poles increase due to the shrink pole zones(or ice caps)With the increases in sub tropical zones increases. And the average temperature of the earth widens.

For example
say the average temperature of the earth is 20 degrees with a temperature at the equator of 40 degree and at temperature of minus 30 at the poles. The effects of climate change means the average temperature of earth may increase by 1 degree and as the average temperature increases. The temperature at the equator decreases by 2 degrees and the temperature at the poles increases by 2 degrees. the final stage of global warming is a temperature of 25 degrees for every part of earth. That is to say the temperature at the equator will be 25 degree and the temperature at he poles will be 25 degrees

Climate change is a story of one cooling gas & and one warming gas in the atmosphere

one c02 has a cooling effect that increases with concentration of co2 in the atmosphere. The cooling effect on the earth is at a 100% even cooling. As co2 is an insulator

two water vapour has a warming effect. But water vapour is concentrate around the equator with 90% humidity at the equator an 10% humidity at the poles. As water is an conductor

In the levels of the atmosphere co2 cooling is on top of the warming effect of water vapour

So in the short term in climate change we will see a decreases in temperature at the equator and an increases in temperature at the poles. In the long term as the concentration of co2 in the atmosphere increases the climate change effects will be a decrease in temperature a the equator plus a decrease in humidity to 10% and refreezing of the poles as the global temperature decreases

conclusion co2 levels increase cause a long term climate change event in the terms of an ice age

climate change story in parts per million (estimates or a educated guess)

350 parts per million
1 degree decrease in temperatures at the equator. 10% decrease in global total rainfall. 3 degree increase in temperatures at the poles

450 parts per million
3 degree decrease in temperature at the equator. 50% decrease in global total rainfall. 10 degree decrease in temperatures at the poles

550 parts per million
10 degree decrease in temperatures at the equator. 90% decrease in global total rainfall. 20 degree decrease in temperatures at the poles. This equals the start of an ice age. The pole zones increase in radius by 1,000 km. The tropical rains stop and the tropics become semi-deserts

now in the climate change debate there are three piece of evidence for global warming theory

one) a graph for the last 30 years showing co2 concentration in the atmosphere as parts per million

two) a simple experiment using a infra-red camera, a tube of increase co2 concentration and a light candle

three) the hockey stick a temperature graph for the average temperature of earth dating back 1,000 years

discussion of each of the three pieces of evidence

one) a graph for the last 30 years showing co2 concentration in the atmosphere as parts per million
this is a classic piece of science using correct scientific method with correct scientific conclusions. It is 100% correct

two) a simple experiment using a infra-red camera, a tube of increase co2 concentration and a light candle
this experience is used to prove the theory of global warming. It's scientific method is 100% incorrect and it's scientific conclusions are 100% fraud. Let me explain. In this experience scientists say the infra-red camera equals the view from space. the tube of increase co2 concentration equals the atmosphere of

next page in above story
4 years ago

two) a simple experiment using a infra-red camera, a tube of increase co2 concentration and a light candle
this experience is used to prove the theory of global warming. It's scientific method is 100% incorrect and it's scientific conclusions are 100% fraud. Let me explain. In this experience scientists say the infra-red camera equals the view from space. the tube of increase co2 concentration equals the atmosphere of earth for the last 30 years. The candle equals the earth surface as a source of reflected light
the correct scientific method for this experiment. one, the candle does not equal the earth's surface. because there is no fire on earth. the candle equals the source of light and heat of the sun. the tube of increasing concentration of co2 does equal the atmosphere on earth for the last 30 years.
The inferred camera does equal the view from space but equals the view from the earth's surface.
So this experiment when using 100% correct scientific method with 100% correct scientific conclusion. Supports the evidence that co2 is a cooling gas in the earth's atmosphere. In fact the entire atmosphere is a cooling system from the heat and light source of the sun


three) the hockey stick a temperature for the average temperature of earth dating back 1,000 years
the problem with this temperature graphic is that it is to broad with an average temperature for the whole earth. To get a clear temperature picture of climate change you would need five individual hockey sticks date back 100 years, 1 for the tropics, 2 for the sub tropics, 3 for the middle ground 4 for the sub pole zone and 5 for the pole regions. For these five hockey sticks, you only need the temperature record from one whether station per temperature zone

But the climate change debate is miss some key data. And That data is air density or the total molecular weight of the whole atmosphere. For global cooling theory to be correct the air density would need to increase. With an increase in air density or increased molecular weight of the atmosphere. You have more air molecules, that block the travel of photons to the earth surface. And this decrease in the number of photons to strike the earth's surface. leads to a decrease temperature and global cooling

Now if air density decreases and the molecular weight of the atmosphere decreases. Which means there are less air molecules to block the passage of photons striking the earth's surface. Then the number of photons strike the earth's surface increases. Then you have global warming

total air density data is the key to climate change debate. For example you can have a change in the percentages of air molecules concentrations. With zero change in air density. which would equal zero climate change.

For example if the average co2 concentrations increase to 350 parts per million for the normal 200 parts per million and at the same time average global humidity decreased from 90% to 75% and the air density over the change in atmosphere concentration stayed the same. Then you would have zero climate change

when you look at the increase in co2 as parts per million. With a per industrial age co2 level at about 200. and the current level of 350. 200 compare 350 looks like a massive jump But as percentages the increase does not look like much
200 = 0.02%
350 = 0.035%

But without the question of climate change-cooling or warming. We should move to a zero carbon society. As a choice between unlimited fuel supplies(solar hydrogen economy) and unlimited fuel supplies(fossil fuels)

In the world of science the 100% correct scientific method that leads to 100% correct scientific conclusions. Are the laws of science for all levels. Now scientist in the field of global warming are guilt of 100% scientific fraud. By breaking scientific law and using a scientific method that is 100% incorrect and is against all scientific current knowledge. In the field of global warming scientific community are guilt of committing 100% scientific fraud by defining their conclusion first and then changing the laws of the operation of the atmosphere to support their conclusion. This in it scientific community equals 100% scientific fraud

Major current evidence to support climate change
one- longer droughts in australia
two- droughts for the first time in record history in the amazon
three- shrinking glaciers world wide
four- at decrease in the pole ice sheet at the north pole by 30% over the last 30 years

So the above evidence supports a 1 degree cooling in the tropics. Which decreases water vapour production which decreases rainfall world wide. The shrinking of the worlds ice sheets can be explained by a decreasing rainfall or decreased snowfalls in winter months. From say an average snowfall on glaciers and pole ice sheets of 1 metre per year at co2 levels of 200 parts per million. To a 50 centimetre snowfall average at 350 parts per million.

Correct rainfall patterns from global warming. If the global temperature at the equator was to increase by 1 degree. This would increase water vapour production and increase humidity levels at the pole regions from 10% to say 30%. Which turn the 1 metre of snowfall per year. Into a two metre rainfall measurement per year. This would cause a complete collapse of all ice sheets in the world over a six month period

weather patterns under climate change- global cooling
4 years ago

weather patterns under climate change- global cooling

the changes in weather patterns are broken up into different latitudes.

Basically under climate change- global cooling. We get a decrease in photon impact with the earth surface world wide. So in the tropics and subtropics this equals a decrease in water vapour(humidity) which leads to a decrease in rainfall world wide as all the rain in the world is created in the tropics and sub tropics. Which transfers into decrease snowfalls in the polar regions and on glaciers so the building blocks of the polar ice sheets and glaciers decreases each year. So over the course of a year a glaciers will decrease by 2% and the polar ice sheets will decrease by about 1%.

Now weather patterns outside the polar and sub polar regions. Become less humid So the weather patterns on the coast become more like the weather pattens of the inland based on a latitudes by latitude comparison. For example in Australia we have Alice Spring which is an inland desert with a temperature range of 50 degrees celsius to minus 5 degrees celsius and on the same latitude we have Sydney with a temperature range of 40 degrees celsius to 5 degrees celsius. Now as global cooling worsens with an increase CO2 from 350 parts per million Sydney's weather patterns in temperature and rainfall with become more like the weather patterns for temperature and rainfall like Alice Springs. So as global cooling worsens Sydney's high temperature with move for 40 degree towards 50 degrees which cause our heat waves in summer and in winter Sydney's temperature will move from a low of 5 degrees to a low of minus 5 degree which is the cause of the world major snow storms

So in a nut shell global cooling in transforming the tropics in deserts. The ice sheets will degrade by 1% per year until they are unable to recover during the winter snowfall. The sub polar region move closer towards the equator. So in theory an ice age has almost no rainfall(snowfall) and very little ice and perm-a-frost covering the earth to the latitude level of the current sub tropics
edit post

ice sheets melt rates under climate change- global cooling
4 years ago

ice sheets melt rates under climate change- global cooling

I think you'll find that the melted rates for polar ice sheets and glaciers is about he same for the last 100 years in summer
But the growth rates in winter have decreased

example in the 1900's
in polar regions we have a winter snow fall of one metre and a summer melt of one metre
in glaciers we have a winter snow fall of two metres and a summer melt of two metres

example in 2010
in polar regions we have a winter snow fall of 90 centimetres and a summer melt of one metre so the polar ice sheets are thinning by 1% per year
in glaciers we have a winter snow fall of 1.5 metres and a summer melt of two metre os an average glaciers world wide are decreasing by 2%. But this different from glacier to glacier based on winter snowfalls which is under predictable

The decrease in ocean temperature is at the equator from decrease photon impact with the ocean. But oceans may have decease over the last one hundred years by only 0.1 degree celsius

The science of climate change- global cooling is infinite in it's complexity. Due to the interaction of so many air molecules and the interaction of electro magnetic and gravitational fields

The fundamental laws of climate change
4 years ago

The fundamental laws of climate change

The science of climate change- global warming is based on scientific fraud. The basic fundamentals of atmosphere science is one) all gases in the atmosphere are insulators which means they prevent the passage of electricity, heat or sound. The only conductor in the atmosphere is water vapor.

So for the science of global warming to be correct the current global warming scientist has change the facts that CO2 is a insulator. To the fundamental fraud of global warming science that CO2 is a conductor.

The science of global warming is based on 100% fraud

the science of global cooling is based on 100% correct scientific fundamental laws of gases and water vapor. The science of global cooling has the ability to explain record heat waves, record cold snaps and record droughts, global dimming , thinning ice sheets(both in polar regions and glaciers)

The science of global warming just falls apart in winter with record cold temperatures world wide

4 years ago

Hi I have read about how climate change is being used to introduce new green taxes and believe that to be so. However I do believe that what we do affects the earth in ways we are still unaware of. I also believe that the Earth is part of a bigger picture within our solar system.

Oil and other fossil fuels are in a way like the lifeblood of the planet - I see the big oil companys as vampires. Your ideas sound fascinating though I must admit I am familiar with what you are speaking of but I am prepared to listen with an open mind to your ideas



This post was modified from its original form on 14 Aug, 17:33
4 years ago

ps sorry I meant to say that I am not familiar with your ideas



This post was modified from its original form on 14 Aug, 17:33
hi michael
4 years ago

In the science of climate change. It is really unknown virgin ground. But the theory that supports 100% of the climate evidence. is the theory that is closer to the mark. I don't have the ability with my theory to predict the future. No theory has that ability. But the science of global cooling does support all of the current evidence
1) global dimming
2) record temperatures in summer
3) record temperatures in winter
4) thin of ice sheeting(polar and glaciers)
5) record drought

the other piece of evidence that I cannot explain is record tropical storms. But there is a history of record tropical storms. Perhaps this piece of evidence is just the climate repeating itself

the correct conclusion is that global cooling can explain 5 out of 6 pieces of the current evidence in climate research

global warming can explain
1) record temperature in summer
2) thinning of ice sheets( polar and glacier)
then in theory(or an educate guess)
1) record tropical storms

the correct conclusion is that global warming can explain 3 out of 6 pieces of the current evidence in climate research

the global warming theory collapses in winter with record lower temperatures, The record droughts don't fit in to a climate that is get warmer and creating more humidity( the source of rain), it can't explain global dimming

You will just have to do your own research on both theories via the six piece of evidence in the climate change debate and form your own conclusions

record tropical rains
4 years ago

one of the facts for the last 70 years on why tropical rains and summer flooding is getting worst and causing more deaths.

Is the fact that over the last 70 years we're have had the technology to drain marsh lands(the summer tropical flood zone) and build towns and housing estates. So more people are living in tropical flood zone. ever before.

A couple of examples is the florida marsh lands, has been decreasing in size for most of the 1900 to 2010 because marsh land is the cheapest land to buy in florida. So housing developers buy marsh land and turn it into housing estates at the highest profit margin.

So now when a tropical storm hits the coast of florida over one million people who are living in the tropical flood zone get wipeout and it is major damage and a headline news story. But in the per 1900s no-one in florida was living in the florida marshes. So when a tropical storm hit there was no damage. In the pre 1900s all american's knew that it was a mistake to live in the flood zone. But in todays over populated society more an more people are being required to live in areas that our elders class as unsafe

So is it a case that tropical storm are get worst or is it a case that more people are living in the tropical flood zone(marshes). In maybe the case that tropical storms are the same intensity but the number of living in an unsafe area is increasing so the property damage is increasing. So climate scientist are saying that storms are getting worst because the cost of damage from these tropical storms is increasing due to increasing population living on marshlands

4 years ago

You know it makes sense and I thought so myself.  Sounds intriguing what you say and I looke forward to reading more and I thank you.