Notices
Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: New theory - Electromagnetic pollution causes global warming!

  1. #1 New theory - Electromagnetic pollution causes global warming! 
    New Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    3
    The basic premise of this article is that human generated electromagnetic radiation is contributing to global warming. It may do so by diverting an energy force termed KELEA (kinetic energy limiting electrostatic attraction) from its presumed association with cosmic rays. Cosmic ray delivered KELEA is viewed as normally participating in the formation of cloud condensation nuclei (CCN). It may do so by transforming electrostatically inert particles into electrostatic aerosols capable of acting as CCN. The resulting clouds act as a reflective barrier to some of the infrared radiation from the sun and, thereby, reduce the earth’s heat. This article proposes that increasing levels of electromagnetic radiation in the atmosphere is reducing the capacity of cosmic rays to deliver adequate KELEA to maintain climate stability through optimal cloud formation. Specifically, the fluctuating electrical fields accompanying electromagnetic radiation may do so by competitively withdrawing some of the KELEA from the incoming cosmic rays. Previously described studies by Dr. Wilhelm Reich attributed to an energy force termed orgone, are consistent with weather activity being inducible using a device that likely delivers KELEA to the atmosphere. In addition to the foregoing consideration, there are many agricultural and industrial applications of KELEA activated fluids that can reduce carbon emissions. It is important that the scope of climate science be broadened to include a detailed understanding of KELEA and of its many potential practical applications in addressing global warming.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Cooking Something Good MacGyver1968's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Dallas, Texas
    Posts
    2,040
    Paragraphs are your friends.


    Fixin' shit that ain't broke.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,413
    Quote Originally Posted by BorisBoris View Post
    The basic premise of this article is that human generated electromagnetic radiation is contributing to global warming.
    Evidence?

    It may do so by diverting an energy force termed KELEA (kinetic energy limiting electrostatic attraction) from its presumed association with cosmic rays.
    Evidence?

    Previously described studies by Dr. Wilhelm Reich attributed to an energy force termed orgone
    Reich was, to put it mildly, something of a nutcase. And "orgone" is a nonsense.

    ...are consistent with weather activity being inducible using a device that likely delivers KELEA to the atmosphere.
    So what you're saying is: a made up "energy force" (KELEA) with a presumed (but not shown) association with cosmic rays has "effects consistent" with a non-existent "force" invented by someone eminently unqualified to expound on the subject?

    there are many agricultural and industrial applications of KELEA activated fluids that can reduce carbon emissions.
    How can there be applications for something that - as yet - hasn't been shown to exist?

    It is important that the scope of climate science be broadened to include a detailed understanding of KELEA and of its many potential practical applications in addressing global warming.
    But it's far more important that "KELEA" be shown to exist1 so that science2 can take a look at it.

    1 "KELEA"is, apparently, the proposal of yet another person working outside the bounds of his qualifications (and, equally apparently, something of a crank within that remit).
    2 A discipline that works only on things that have evidence for them.

    Moved to Personal Theories.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    3
    Hi, i'm from Europe and i'm looking for some theories about this. There is a strong correlation between climate changes and radars, radio and TV transmitters... and especially with cell towers and satelites.

    Radiation has very important non-termal effects on water, so i think it can change reflectivity of clouds. 2% changed reflectivity of clouds is enough to comensate complete emission of CO2 in the atmosphere.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,413
    Quote Originally Posted by BorisBoris View Post
    There is a strong correlation between climate changes and radars, radio and TV transmitters... and especially with cell towers and satelites.

    Evidence?

    Radiation has very important non-termal effects on water
    Such as?

    so i think it can change reflectivity of clouds.

    Why do you think this?

    2% changed reflectivity of clouds is enough to comensate complete emission of CO2 in the atmosphere.
    Please show the maths behind this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by BorisBoris View Post
    There is a strong correlation between climate changes and radars, radio and TV transmitters... and especially with cell towers and satelites.
    Evidence?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Cooking Something Good MacGyver1968's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Dallas, Texas
    Posts
    2,040
    That only shows the change in temperature. How does that prove a correlation between EM and climate change? You know what else increased at about the same rate in the last 100 years? The number of puppies. Your graph proves that climate change was caused by puppies as much as it was caused by EM.
    Fixin' shit that ain't broke.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,413
    Where - EXACTLY - does that graph refer to "radars, radio and TV transmitters... and especially with cell towers and satelites"?
    So far as I can see all it does is plot temperature against time.
    And the top left-hand caption indicates that your claim is somewhat flawed in that the 1998-2014 rate is slightly less than the overall (1880-2014) rate yet surely there's more radars, radio & TV towers and cell towers, satellites as time advances...
    "
    Since the year 2000, the number of radars being used is rapidly increasing." - this isn't reflected at all by that figure.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,283
    Who gives a crap...it's very obvious that "radars, radio and TV transmitters... and especially with cell towers and satellites" are on the rise. Stop badgering the poster.

    Now Poster....why do you think that this correlation has anything to do with causation? Anything that's on the rise (e.g. amounts of the landfill, piracy, organic foods are grown, the number of lithium battery fires, Sear store closures etc are all correlated--it means nothing without some connecting causal argument.

    I'd also remind anyone that climate is typically defined in 30 years trends, though less than that should be viewed with deep skepticism.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Cooking Something Good MacGyver1968's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Dallas, Texas
    Posts
    2,040
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Stop badgering the poster.
    You know what else is on the rise? Badgers. Badgers cause climate change.

    Badgers? BADGERS? We don't need no stinking badgers!
    Fixin' shit that ain't broke.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,460

    (SORRY COULDN'T RESIST)
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    1,938
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Who gives a crap...it's very obvious that "radars, radio and TV transmitters... and especially with cell towers and satellites" are on the rise.
    While that is true, the overall EM POWER being transmitted by each is going down as receivers become more sensitive, more communications move to satellite and new standards (CDMA vs GSM/AMPS) are implemented. So it's not at all clear that even the magnitude of EM radiation has gone up.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,619
    Quote Originally Posted by BorisBoris View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by BorisBoris View Post
    There is a strong correlation between climate changes and radars, radio and TV transmitters... and especially with cell towers and satelites.
    Evidence?
    Don't confuse correlation with causation. Correlations are everywhere. See, for example, Pastafarian Sparrowism

    If we were to interpret that correlation as causation, then a simple solution to global warming would be to grow the number of pirates.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    Quote Originally Posted by BorisBoris View Post
    2% changed reflectivity of clouds is enough to comensate complete emission of CO2 in the atmosphere.
    So, to grasp your hypothesis we must believe small changes in albedo (Earth's reflectivity) significantly affect warming. That's difficult when our attention is fixated on greenhouse gasses.

    I share your point of view BorisBoris. Anecdotally I can tell you that a forecasted "deadly heatwave" for coastal BC was cancelled due to forest-fire smoke - the smoke apparently reflected much sunlight. Obviously normal clouds will do even more. Yet clouds are local and fickle so climatologists understandably rather discount them as "weather". Accepted climatology would rather focus on the CO2 produced by forest fire combustion, and conclude that fires cause warming.

    Unfortunately for you, historic data on cloud-cover & air clarity is sparse. Partial data comes from airports, and better: weather satellite photos. Therefore we can only guess speculative correlations to your graph, after about 1960.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,283
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong View Post
    I share your point of view BorisBoris. Anecdotally I can tell you that a forecasted "deadly heatwave" for coastal BC was cancelled due to forest-fire smoke - the smoke apparently reflected much sunlight. .
    In most cases, it's not so much reflection as absorption well above the surface instead of at the surface--this lowers the surface temperature. There's also a complex relationship between the decreased temperature lapse rate, clouds and the smoke.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    I agree fire smoke also absorbs solar energy...

    Hypothetically replace the smoke with a canopy of black plastic that reflects nothing. I guess we'd ultimately have increased heat at the surface?
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    ox
    ox is online now
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    813
    I blame Indian cooking fires.

    World
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Global Warming Impact: Global Starvation and Societal Collapse
    By seregate in forum Environmental Issues
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: April 5th, 2013, 09:27 PM
  2. Replies: 13
    Last Post: October 8th, 2012, 07:43 PM
  3. Global Pollution
    By pringle in forum Environmental Issues
    Replies: 64
    Last Post: September 3rd, 2012, 01:12 PM
  4. Another theory on global warming
    By dark explorer in forum Environmental Issues
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: November 26th, 2009, 09:34 AM
  5. Global Warming, Ice Ages??, Pollution...
    By Lee W in forum Earth Sciences
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: February 22nd, 2007, 05:48 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •