BorisBoris Posted August 12, 2017 Posted August 12, 2017 http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=64084 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. -2
Area54 Posted August 12, 2017 Posted August 12, 2017 I am automatically suspicious of any research that invokes the orgone concept of Wilhelm Reich coupled with a hitherto unidentified "force", KELEA. If I wasn't already a skeptic I think this would convert me.
Strange Posted August 12, 2017 Posted August 12, 2017 1 hour ago, BorisBoris said: It may do so by diverting an energy force termed KELEA (kinetic energy limiting electrostatic attraction) from its presumed association with cosmic rays. There is no such thing. 1 hour ago, BorisBoris said: Cosmic ray delivered KELEA is viewed as normally participating in the formation of cloud condensation nuclei (CCN). Viewed by who? Based on what evidence? 1 hour ago, BorisBoris said: 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. There is no need for any branch of science to include "details" of non-existent things made up by an Internet crank. 1
iNow Posted August 12, 2017 Posted August 12, 2017 (edited) How do you explain all of the warming which took place before cell towers and wifi even existed? Edited August 12, 2017 by iNow 2
BorisBoris Posted August 12, 2017 Author Posted August 12, 2017 (edited) Hi, i'm from Europe and i'm looking for some theories about this. There is a strong correlation between climate changes and radio/TV transmitters (in the 70s it has been exploded all over the globe)... 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. Edited August 12, 2017 by BorisBoris -2
Strange Posted August 12, 2017 Posted August 12, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, BorisBoris said: Hi, i'm from Europe and i'm looking for some theories about this. There is a strong correlation between climate changes and radio/TV transmitters (in the 70s it has been exploded all over the globe)... 1. If there is a strong correlation then please present the data. 2. Correlation does not equal causation. It could be that global warming has caused increased use of cellphones. But, actually, in this case the two have a common cause: the rapidly increasing industrialisation of the world since the end of the 19th century. Quote 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. Please show your calculations that show that the energy from cellphone towers can change the reflectivity of clouds by 2%. Please also show your calculations that show a 2% change is enough to compensate for the extra CO2 in the atmosphere. Please also explain why you would need to "compensate for CO2" if that is not the cause of climate change? And, if this radiation compensates for CO2 levels, then it would be stabilising the climate not causing climate change as you claim. And, while you are at it, please explain why over 200 years of work on the physics of CO2-induced climate change is wrong. So far, I'm afraid, it sounds as if you have no idea what you are talking about. Please bring some science into the discussion. Edited August 12, 2017 by Strange
swansont Posted August 12, 2017 Posted August 12, 2017 ! Moderator Note Speculations requires some combination of model, evidence or tests that can falsify the conjecture. It can't be based on other speculation, which this has in spades. An untested effect based on crap science, and a paper where almost half of the references cite the author's work. This is an example of go home and try it again. 1
Recommended Posts