posted November 25, 2020 04:12 AM            

However, they note that we could possibly gain more information from replication with larger models.

posted November 25, 2020 02:18 PM            

You may be interested to hear that all the major, most used climate models are severely lacking in data. This is because when they look at the Sun, they only look at irradiance/UV, which only varies by .1% from Solar Maximums to Solar Minimums.

The last iteration of the model was supposed to include ALL the other Solar energy that pours into and potentially warms the Earth. However, last minute, "for some reason", they retracted all that data.

So, for most of the second half or so of the 20th Century into some of the 21st, the Sun was in a grand Solar Maximum, where it had more CME's, Sun spots, and general Solar activity than it had for a long time. In short, dumping tons of energy into the Earth during this time.

Not surprisingly, this corresponded with a period of earth warming.

If scientists put all that Solar forcing data into the models and ran the new numbers, CO2 would go WAY down as a variable and cause of warming.

Now the good and not so good news. The Sun is calming down in recent times. The bad news is that we are likely coming up to a long term, grand Solar Minimum type cycle, which means in about 10 years or so after it starts (after all the stored heat energy in the oceans has dissipated), people will be complaining about the cold (and just wait until the Beaufort Gyre releases all that pent up cold, fresh water into the gulf stream...Northern Europe will be changed in a twinkle of an eye and become MUCH colder). Volcanoes also tend to off way more during these periods because cosmic rays are somewhat blocked by Solar activity, and cosmic rays penetrate into the silica rich magma and excite it. Think something like a microwave exciting (heating/adding energy) into water in food. This is why the worst volcanic activity often happens during grand Solar minimum cycles.

In short, the current science of Climate Change is about as crap science as one can get. If they ever introduce all that other/extra Solar energy into the equation, it will help to make the models much more accurate, however because Climate Change = humans and CO2 is such a fervent, almost religious like belief at this point, and this change would really mess with that theory--not likely to happen anytime soon.

As mentioned, they were supposed to put that data into the latest model, but ended up retracting it last minute.

Anyways, the above is a summarized, brief version of the talk below. I have been following Ben Davidson and his YT channel Suspicious Observers for a number of years now. Ben is one of the few people that I know of, that if I had to have a debate with that hinged on life or death consequence, I'd be mighty hesitant to partake in. In short, the guy's mind is sharp, very, very sharp:
http://youtu.be/NYoOcaqCzxo

If people are curious about his background, this video addresses this. Though not a classically trained research scientist, he has co authored a couple peer reviewed papers that have been well cited by other researchers, as well as wrote a textbook on the Sun in relation to space weather, terrestrial weather, health effects, etc.
http://youtu.be/OpImPL61R4s

And the below is a much shorter (than the first video), but also excellent piece dealing with Climate Change:
http://youtu.be/oe5jMwloJYc?t=74

As Ben says often, the Climate Change scientists math is flawlessly erroneous.

posted November 25, 2020 03:03 PM            

Back in the late 20's and early 30's, Edgar Cayce predicted a global warming trend to start to be noticed around 1958 and would become very overtly evident by 1998, especially in the polar regions of the earth.

Though this source perfectly predicted this trend decades ahead of time, it did not attribute these changes to humans and increased CO2, but due to a combo of internal earth changes (Earth core changes) and Solar changes.

This source ALSO predicted well ahead of time, the major change in the magnetic poles. In Reading 826-8, this source was asked, "What great change or the beginning of what change, if any, is to take place in the Earth in the year 2000 to 2001 A.D.?" Cayce answered: "When there is the shifting of the poles; or a new cycle begins."

If you look at the charts measuring the speed of movement of the magnetic south and especially north poles, you will note that it went from a gradually increasing trend upwards in speed of movement, then right at around the 2000 year mark--a skyrocket change in the speed of movement.

Hence, "a new cycle" in the change of the poles did very much begin around that point.

You might ask yourself, "How could all these allegedly brilliant, truth seeking, and well trained scientists so miss the mark on some of this stuff? Well, putting aside Rockefeller funding and initiatives, corruption, and all that--ask yourself, how many scientists do you know that take astrology seriously, or are even willing to examine it with an open mind before coming to a conclusion?

In my experience/observation, not too many. They can be a narrow and closed minded lot. One of the few who did, Michel Gauquelin, got LAMBASTED by the scientific community for openly and honestly sharing his research findings and conclusions. You would have thought that the poor guy had said something like, "It's proper/well to have sex with young children" rather than, "Hey, astrology might have some merit--here are my findings." Boy was the guy shamed, ridiculed, personally attacked, etc.

These are the bastions of "objective", accurate, truthful thought and thinking. Our new high priests with a special relationship to the gods and only they can divine what the gods say and mean...

posted November 25, 2020 04:58 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by GalacticCoreExplosion:
If Ben Davidson and his incisive, holistic logic isn't enough, then also consider the following:

Back in the late 20's and early 30's, Edgar Cayce predicted a global warming trend to start to be noticed around 1958 and would become very overtly evident by 1998, especially in the polar regions of the earth.

Though this source perfectly predicted this trend decades ahead of time, it did not attribute these changes to humans and increased CO2, but due to a combo of internal earth changes (Earth core changes) and Solar changes.

This source ALSO predicted well ahead of time, the major change in the magnetic poles. In Reading 826-8, this source was asked, "What great change or the beginning of what change, if any, is to take place in the Earth in the year 2000 to 2001 A.D.?" Cayce answered: "When there is the shifting of the poles; or a new cycle begins."

If you look at the charts measuring the speed of movement of the magnetic south and especially north poles, you will note that it went from a gradually increasing trend upwards in speed of movement, then right at around the 2000 year mark--a skyrocket change in the speed of movement.

Hence, "a new cycle" in the change of the poles did very much begin around that point.

You might ask yourself, "How could all these allegedly brilliant, truth seeking, and well trained scientists so miss the mark on some of this stuff? Well, putting aside Rockefeller funding and initiatives, corruption, and all that--ask yourself, [b]how many scientists do you know that take astrology seriously, or are even willing to examine it with an open mind before coming to a conclusion?

In my experience/observation, not too many. They can be a narrow and closed minded lot. One of the few who did, Michel Gauquelin, got LAMBASTED by the scientific community for openly and honestly sharing his research findings and conclusions. You would have thought that the poor guy had said something like, "It's proper/well to have sex with young children" rather than, "Hey, astrology might have some merit--here are my findings." Boy was the guy shamed, ridiculed, personally attacked, etc.

These are the bastions of "objective", accurate, truthful thought and thinking. Our new high priests with a special relationship to the gods and only they can divine what the gods say and mean...

Well, this homey don't play that b.s. game.[/B]

---

Interesting information. So many great minds have been bullied out of science because they were before their time. And then of course they get plagiarised. It's disgusting.

posted November 26, 2020 04:10 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Voix_de_la_Mer:
Interesting information. So many great minds have been bullied out of science because they were before their time. And then of course they get plagiarised. It's disgusting.

---

Very true. The majority of scientists in every generation are usually the predominant Mercurial and/or Saturian types, whom tend towards a conservative and very cautious approach and are very linear logical and analytical, but not good at holistic, systems, imaginative, out of the box, etc type thinking and perception.

We rarely get the more maverick and pioneering, more Jupitarian and/or Uranian attuned ones (who excel in the latter areas), but when we do, they tend to clash with the majority of the former.

posted December 24, 2020 10:28 AM            

The earth goes through cycles of cooling and warming back and forth. Drilling into the summit of the Greenland ice sheet has revealed that "in the past 250,000 years, the last 11,600 have been the longest prolonged period of relatively stable climate."
https://humanoriginproject.com/evidence-global-warming-end-of-last-ice-age/

Does that mean that our human activities have no impact at all in terms of accelerating whatever trend the earth is going through? That is the big question.

posted December 25, 2020 02:42 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Graham:

The Edgar Cayce prediction that has always caused the most anxiety for me is the tilting of the Earth on its axis (when "the Sun and Moon will appear to move backwards in the sky").

---

Hi Graham,

Are you referring to this infamous reading?

In Reading 826-8, this source was asked, "What great change or the beginning of what change, if any, is to take place in the Earth in the year 2000 to 2001 A.D.?" Cayce answered: "When there is the shifting of the poles; or a new cycle begins."

It seems that Cayce's guidance was referring to the magnetic poles in the above when one looks at the data. However, this source strongly hinted that both in a past and multiple sense, and in a future sense, that the earth would also experience a crustal shifting. However, the magnetic poles move first before the geological, physical poles move.

His guidance did NOT put a time line on the latter--just indicated that it would happen sometime after the 98 period.

Personally, I don't feel that it is so far away. Guidance has shown me that it will be a combo Solar and crustal event. First the Sun is going to release a tremendous amount of energy within a short time, and then shortly after the crust will shift also. I'm mighty hesitant to give a timing to the above, but from the various clues and messages we have gotten over the years (especially within the last few years or so), I expect it sometime within 2 to 6 years or so.