"we are already with any and all of you, connected physically such that we are with you and even accompany you in the location you occupy, as if in your space simultaneously. More on this at the end of our discussion on your human global warming."...
care to cater to my my curiosity, concerning the uncertainty of feeling comforted or creeped out by committee closeness around my crib :)
I did not follow up with that, good spot.
Says The Committee: "Location in the physical dimensions involves distance and displacement; no two dense things may occupy the same space, thus proximity enters the equation.
Where energetic existence is the nature and essence of your being, simultaneous and multiple connections are common and possible. This is why and how spirits, such as Earth bound souls, can move through what appear to humans to be solid, hard objects.
When we send our words, they draw our energetic existence into your physical presence, precisely because we do not share the same parameters. This not only connects as would a radio signal, but also physically connects us to the place of a reader.
We are literally next to any one of you when you ingest our thought energy; this also works in reverse when any one of you directs your thought energy in our direction and place, and to the location of us or other energetic essence. You do not perceive it to be happening, just as your body does not become subject to magnetism, which has been scientifically proven to exist, to the satisfaction of humans.
No similar tangible, physical evidence of our presence is offered while any of you read our words, in the same way no tangible, physical evidence of Earth's moon is present when it cannot be seen by a human, yet both very much exist."
You draw us all, to all of you, in a web & matrix of connections; we come and are together, as much as you are physically connected to a person whose hand you hold."
As the Beatles would say, "I want to hold your hand".
Much Love to Patrick and The Committee for the energetic boost of this post.
You guys are definitely "Hot Stuff" in my book.
So, so love these teachings! Could The Committee elaborate on the effects these geo-physical conditions has on us humans? I have frequently read about our bodies changing to a different 'substance' (DNA) for lack of a better word. I apologize for my limited vocabulary.
No general effect at all. Humans move from cooler to warmer climates and vice-versa all the time.
Excellent teaching, and may all those billions of cows now fart in peace!!😀
My initial "comedic a-musings 'n thoughts" on your amusing comment were (are, still is) ...
... It seems to me that the TC is giving the Human Race a Motherly Nature type of T(L)C (the grace of an embrace) or a vibe that states, "You're Not the Boss of Me",
However, I don't think she (explicitly) gave the Bovine race the same en-brace or similar latitude.
So I'm wondering if their gaseous action is more of a perceived infraction.
Kinda like ... "How Now? (Why now), you rude stinkin' Cow(s)".
Lo Siento for stinking up this post. Hot Stuff, turning into a Hot Mess.
Again, just an initial thought
On 2nd thought, she might just say to us ..."He who "Smelt it, must dealt with it".
Mother Nature can be such a Mother Otherer.
Hi Patrick and tc I was just reading apparently the USA is preparing to ban all Americans from traveling to north Korea with a 30 day grace period I was just wondering if these things will happen and will they lead to military action thanks again Patrick and tc p.s. not sure if the dates matter but apparently it will be announced on July 27
I read that US citizens will be told we cannot go to North Korea and also, any there now should leave.
The military action has already happened; US Air Force bombers dropped dummy bombs or duds to show North Korea how easily it could be done. Real munitions could have been used just as easily. North Korea has no ability to stop preemptive or retaliatory strikes and they know it.
No, there will not be real bombs or conflict. Everything going on with North Korea is internal political theater. Americans inside the country are at risk to be apprehended and used as political pawns, as happened recently and has also occurred several times in the past.
It makes sense but I tend to not get too involved on things and you have a good track record of being reliable
I see many faces on my carpet. Sometimes some are more noticable than others and one or two catch my eye and I even have been able to take pics of some of the faces. Can the Committee confirm this is a way they also get our attention?
Says The Committee, "That you have seen the faces is evidence your attention has 'been gotten' ".
Yep, they certanily have got my attention. It like a huge audience of faces. I'm going "OK guys...I'm not that interesting to observe ;-)
For a short while, when I would get into bed, I was seeing a variety of faces flash before my closed eyes. No one I recognized. It's not happening now though.
Thank you for once again debunking the hoax that is global warming.
When will all these so called "learned men," our modern day scientists accept this truth?
Answers The Committee, "There are purveyors and suppliers of hoaxes in the process, however the concept is not fraudulent. Observation of erratic weather has and does occur, however the evidence scientific observation would produce is not available and lies yet beyond human technology and ability. Thus we offer the explanation."
Dear Patrick & C.
CO2 is cobsidered to have a greenhouse effect because this gas is trasparent to visible incoming radiation from the sun, while it is opaque to the outgoing infrared radiation emitted by earth surface. In this way it affects the resulting mean equilibrium temperature ( that is, the temperature where incoming and outgoing radiating energy do balance).
Also, CO2 is constantly increasing in concentration (currently, the mean value has exceeded the 400 ppm measure). These are facts. We should have an explanation why inceeasing CO2 concentrations an the reflective properties described above should not produce an increased equilibrium temperature, that's all.
Have a nice day
Responds The Committee:
"No incoming infrared radiation exists?
Carbon dioxide is not increasing its concentration in a net & material way, this is not a fact and represents one of the hoaxes to which we referred.
As we have said above, all surface thus atmospheric heating dissipates. There is no net retention. If even a small amount of net retention occurred, and we suggest a fraction such as one one thousandth of a degree Celsius per week, this means over one and two thousand weeks, or twenty to forty years, there would be an overall average Earth temperature increase of one to two degrees Celsius. Consider the rate and pace of hydrocarbon combustion over the last four and five decades against total carbon dioxide to oxygen production, consumption and balance.
As we explained, increased heat from increased carbon dioxide stimulates growth of vegetation, from more evaporation and also lower temperatures from precipitation. Greater vegetation also increases output of oxygen The narrow range of equilibrium was long ago reached and is not affected by human activity."
It seems that a disagreement exists between my an your understanding of CO2 behavior, but the measurements of carbon dioxide concentration in the atmpsphere are a fact. Beside the historical measurements made at mahuna loa site (started more or less 40 years ago, as I am able to recall) there are several other sites in different places on this planet (If my memory don't fail me, about one hundred) with shorter time series, but the picture emerging is consistent: a steady increase of CO2 concentration with time. There is also an annual oscillation superimposed on the upward trend, that is linked to the seasonal cycle of earh vegetation.
I'm in this field and believe me, such measurement can be a lot of things, except an hoax. There are a lot of decent, honest competent and sensible people working on climate science, and calling the CO2 measurements as an hoax seems way too much to me.
I was to conclude saying that I'm sorry to say this, but, as You already know, I'm not sorry at all ;)
Have a nice timeless day
indeed incoming infrared radiation DO exists, as ultraviaolet and all the frequencies that are emitted by the sun ( an emission that covers a vast range of frequencies that are described by the so called black body curve of emission).
This incoming radiation is blocked, absorbed and bounced back into the outher space by the atmosphere, the same manner as the infrared radiation coming from landmasses and ocean masses is absorbed, blocked and bounced back to Earth.
it is precisely on account of this behavior that CO2 and other gases are called "greenhouse" gases.
Sure, a phisical greenhouse is able on the ground is able to dampen effectively also the convective and conductive thermal transfer, but also the radiative transfer is similarly dampened: sunlight enter the glass withoutproblem, the glass being transparent to visible frequencies of light. But the thermal radiation is blocked inside, because glass is OPAQUE to thermal radiation.
Considering the Earth system and its boundary with outer space, only radiative transfer can be considered. The greenhouse gases ampen the radiative transfer coming from below.
The net effect is that the equilibrium is still reached: no infinite build of energy is possible in nature: simply, the balance is reached at a higher temperature in the lower part of the atmosphere, because a higher temperature is associated (via the blackbody law of emission) to a higher flux of energy.
It is the same that happens when you cover with a blanket: for sure you will not end cooked by an infinite buildup of energy: simply the temerature inside the blanket goes higher, you feel warmer, the energy balance (you, your blanket, the outher system) still reached, but at a different equilibrium temperature.
Is as simple as that.
Have a nice day,
Dear Patrick and Esteemed Committee,
I am fully with Pierluigi regarding the physics of greenhouse gasses. Like him I do have to say that the research on this field is serious, there are many talented young scientists involved who have no financial gain from their research, and there is sound scientific discussion including challenge of hypotheses. No intention to spread hoaxes here, this I am sure of.
As to thermal equilibria and ability to compensate of the system we know as Earth, I do admit, however, that I am not finished with thinking and fact-finding.
Mentally going back to the Carboniferous... That was when the coal and hydrocarbons that we are turning into CO2 these days were young, that is when they still used to be plants. How much CO2 was in the atmosphere those days? How warm was it then? And where did the CO2 that was turned into biomass come from?
This is something that keeps me thinking and searching....
As far as the material evidences can tell us, the stratigraphic investigation tella that the sea level has changed as much as 150 meters above and below the current level: much lower during ice ages, much higher during warm ages.
It is supposed that carbon dioxide has run high in some eras even surpassing the 4000 ppm concentration.
have a nice day
4000 ppm, this is an oder of magnitude higher than now. At least there was no runaway effect making this planet like Venus where greenhouse seems to be one reason for the state as it is observed now.
Umm, on the other hand, it wouldn't be the first time the scientific community got something wrong.
I seem to recall, 3 or 4 years ago, The Committee said the number of test sites we are retrieving the data from are not statistically valid. It seems to me they said we would require data from somewhere in the thousands of test sites to get meaningful data. 100 sites doesn't sound like a lot to me when you consider the range of elevations and massive variety of sources as well as the dynamic nature of the processes involved.
gases have the property to mix together in short time, even globally.
The mauna loa site was chosen just because it is far away from anything (in the middle of the pacific ocean) able to exert a local influence on measurements.
The sites currently operational are the result of choices driven by scientific goals and logistic constraints, and all limitations/distortions/local effects/ and other possibile source of errors are carefully taken into account. To perform sound science and scientific measurements is not an easy task and the whole process undergoes a very strict protocol. Scientist want to know as best as possible two things: the measure AND the error associated. Without the former we cannot infer laws and behaviors/patterns in nature, but without the latter, nothing basically can be said about anything!
You two guys understand who your arguing with, right. Really think you can out science them? Wth?
Derek, at least the data get published and interpretation of the data is subject to scientific debate and scrutiny. If there is something wrong with the interpretation or if there are new and so far unrecognized facts and causes to be put into the equation, the scientific process will allow for that, sooner or later. This I am convinced of, and it reflects my personal experience . I am not saying that the process is perfect, but it is reasonably transparent and allows for external review.
To the Committee's statement about the influence of magnetic forces - such interactions do not play a role in current models of recent climate development. At least not that I know of.
We will see, sometimes it takes a long time to appreciate findings and learnings. The ancient Romans were short of developing steam engines. Too bad the Migration Period saw to a pause. That is, we may have to wait for the magnetic age of science to get into full gear…
I am also not saying that science is free of serving one or more political agendas. Also, some scientists (men and women, members of different social or racial backgrounds) have been and still are subject of segregation or other intended (or even unintended) disadvantages.
Nevertheless science will help us understand what's going on. But we have to keep in mind that any model, any explanation and any hypothesis is only valid temporarily, until it is proven inaccurate. It is then replaced with an improved version, until this one gets improved, and so on.
I essentially agree with what you say. However, we might get there a lot faster if the scientific community didn't trip over their collective ego when presented with a new idea. Science should be about openness but it's so often not. But I guess that's partly why we're here.
Still, it's nice to have a front row seat, isn't it?
SOME scientist is driven by Ego, but they don't make for the majority.
I consider myself part if the scientific community, bu still I'm here! Funny, isn't it?
The scientific method is the opposite of closed mind or dogmathic attitude: it is curiosity, open mind, think outside the box...but also is made of rigorous thinking, clearness, consistency.
A LOT of statements written here (on a wide number of subjects) get me scratching my head, but still I desire to hear and make sense of them, in some wider an comprehensive ststem of thougth. This us the way of science. At least, IMHO ;)
Well said, Pierluigi. Count me in.
I also have a science background and do not really have an alternative for the scientific method. However, it has always made me feel slightly uncomfortable. I sensed something was missing since high school but couldn't put it into words. Seemed rigid. Yet, it made sense.
The fact that Pierluigi and Suds are here suggests they are open minded, indeed. However, I suggest that if you point many of your colleagues to this blog in this "time", you will get blank stares, sideways glances or silence. But then, we all have different paths that lead us here. In my case, my daughter passed at an age that took my breath away. Since then she has made it abundantly loud and clear (in ways that cannot be explained with most current belief systems) that she is still going strong. For that, I am forever grateful.
Great discussion. The Committee weighs in: "Human analysis is not wrong, never have we suggested otherwise. There are however, a few purveyors of mistruths, to be revealed as upcoming weather events cause currently unexpected effects, as we have explained here previously.
Analysis of carbon dioxide concentrations must also include heat dissipation; as gases mix quickly and create a nearly homogeneous mix in Earth's atmosphere, as there is also a quick adjustment to heat dissipation.
Certainly localized effects occur, especially near population centers where carbon dioxide emissions from human activity are higher, however these are temporary.
They can affect local weather but do not alter climate. Increased thunderstorm activity and intensity is one effect, however these weather events cancel the heating which brings them about.
The greater trends occurring in climatic patterns are not caused by humans; increased heat from carbon dioxide causes increased consumption and emission of oxygen, and as vegetation is stimulated, increased precipitation lowers temperatures, much of it occurring over and to ocean waters. Water evaporation likewise cools seawater surfaces over vast areas, much larger than the small urbanized land areas humans inhabit.
When combined with changes to deep ocean currents, deep water temperatures and resulting surface current variations, caused by interior Earth heat generation and variation caused by solar magnetic effects acting upon Earth's magnetosphere, the erratic effects detected recently are noted. Increased concentrations of carbon dioxide detected are not causing material effect, as is believed.
The proportions of oxygen, nitrogen and carbon dioxide remain within the range of historical equilibrium and human activities are not sufficient to cause climate changes."
the effects of "greenhouse" gases are today the best answer that science is able to provide, this is not to say that it us necessarily the best, and even the right answer.
History of science is punctuated of revolutions that made previous explanations obsolete. But this is a merit, not a defect of the scientific method, to be able to change giving place to the soundness of new explanations an new arrangement of knowledge.
As humans, we rarely have full access to perfect knowledge: we have to build a common ground of accepted statements about nature, and the best way at present is the scientific method, made of guesses, tests, measures, proof/disproof and so on, that everyone can do for himself (at least in principle) to verify the statements made by others.
Sometimes I feel that people blame science exactly for what cannot provide, that is absolute certainity.
What science offer is the best humanely possible explanation currently available, nothing more, nothing less.
Over this, we have the bad service of pepole of science that betray this assumption using an attitude like having the God knowledge and also the right to say others how to behave.