IEA Deputy Director Richard “6C by 2050″ Jones
- Image courtesy OECD/IEA -
Following up Andrew McKillop’s recent post on the IEA Deputy Director’s ludicrous assertion that there would “probably” be a 6C rise in global average temperature by 2050, I culled this from Wikipedia’s page on the IEA:
The IEA Photovoltaic Power Systems Programme (PVPS) is one of the collaborative R&D Agreements established within the IEA and, since its establishment in 1993, the PVPS participants have been conducting a variety of joint projects in the application of photovoltaic conversion of solar energy into electricity.
According to a 2011 projection by the International Energy Agency, solar power generators may produce most of the world’s electricity within 50 years, dramatically reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases that harm the environment. Cedric Philibert, senior analyst in the renewable energy division at the IEA said: “Photovoltaic and solar-thermal plants may meet most of the world’s demand for electricity by 2060 — and half of all energy needs — with wind, hydropower and biomass plants supplying much of the remaining generation”. “Photovoltaic and concentrated solar power together can become the major source of electricity,” Philibert said.[17]
In 2011, IEA chief economist Faith Birol said the current $409 billion equivalent of fossil fuel subsidies are encouraging a wasteful use of energy, and that the cuts in subsidies is the biggest policy item that would help renewable energies get more market share and reduce CO2 emissions.[18]
In November 2011, an IEA report entitled Deploying Renewables 2011 said “renewable energy technology is becoming increasingly cost competitive and growth rates are in line to meet levels required of a sustainable energy future”. The report also said “subsidies in green energy technologies that were not yet competitive are justified in order to give an incentive to investing into technologies with clear environmental and energy security benefits”. The renewable electricity sector has “grown rapidly in the past five years and now provides nearly 20 percent of the world’s power generation”, the IEA said.[12] The IEA’s report disagreed with claims that renewable energy technologies are only viable through costly subsidies and not able to produce energy reliably to meet demand. “A portfolio of renewable energy technologies is becoming cost-competitive in an increasingly broad range of circumstances, in some cases providing investment opportunities without the need for specific economic support,” the IEA said, and added that “cost reductions in critical technologies, such as wind and solar, are set to continue.”[12]
For the first time in 2012, an annual medium-term report which analyses the renewable energy sector will be published by the IEA. This publication on renewable energy – “which is now the fastest growing sector of the energy mix and accounts for almost a fifth of all electricity produced worldwide – will join annual medium-term reports on oil, gas and coal, which the IEA already produces”. With this report, “renewable energy takes its rightful seat at the table alongside the other major energy sources”.[19]
Ahead of the launch of the 2009 World Energy Outlook, the British daily newspaper The Guardian, referring to an unidentified senior IEA official, alleged that the agency was deliberately downplaying the risk of peak oil under pressures from the USA. According to a second unidentified former senior IEA official it was “imperative not to anger the Americans” and that the world has already entered the ‘peak oil’ zone.[20]
The Guardian also referred to a team of scientists from Uppsala University in Sweden who studied the 2008 World Energy Outlook and concluded the forecasts of the IEA were unattainable. According to their peer-reviewed report, oil production in 2030 would not exceed 75 million barrels per day (11.9×106 m3/d) while the IEA forecasts a production of 105 million barrels per day (16.7×106 m3/d). The lead author of the report, Dr. Kjell Aleklett, has claimed that IEA’s reports are “political documents”.[21]
_________________________________________________
So, the IEA is steering us towards a solar PV future. But how realistic is this? Is there a ‘fiddling while Rome burns’ syndrome at work here? Or will fracking prove successful and stave off ‘peak production’ of fossil derived fuels? Conflicting signals are seen on the solar front. Big western solar companies have been going under recently, yet a recent Deutsche Bank report paints a rosy picture for the future of the technology. Will the unemployed be conscripted to clean thousands of acres of solar panels instead of working illegally in car washes by 2020? Andrew McKillop gives us his personal take on the ‘sustainable energy’ question in a new article: What was Sustainable Energy?.
The energy question is supra-national, and looms large as many countries face acute bottlenecks in energy production. The IEA plans will be revealed in a report later this year. But where is the public consultation phase? Clearly the IEA is a big player in international realpolitik, yet the very existence of the organisation hardly hits the radar of the average man in the street. Deutsche Bank is also a big player in the renewables sector, and has produced some heavily biased reports on climate in the past to underpin it’s large green investments portfolio. Private capital with agendas for renewables, opaque power relations between supra-national entities such as the IEA and governments, revolving doors at energy ministries, looming energy production shortfalls in developed countries…
Time for more Talkshop debate on the energy issue.
The IEA is a fully paid-up member of the IPCC junk science club.
File it under the same ‘Fiction’ as the Stern Report.
Where does this man get the figure that twenty percent of the worlds power is now coming from renewables. This man is an idiot pure and simple or a propagandist well paid for his idiocy.
TB,
The billions in subsidies and government agreements are not sustainable.
It is the poor and middle class that have to pay for this in the end.
These companies are suppose to create jobs but not for the the country intended.
Still years and billions more before they are even come close to perfecting the problems involved as well as draining the resources of materials that are not renewable.
The current market system is still very fragile and our future governments and market system needs to change as massive debt and unfair markets is dragging down growth and jobs.
TB, you know the hypocricy I faced?
GE told me if their engineers did not already come up with it, the innovation would not be worth the time. Another large company stated they were totally satisfied with their current clients needs.
Agree with Mydog & Wayne. Energy density is the key and 50 years from now will see a big movement to nuclear energy particularly in the next twenty years with significant development of Thorium reactors.(with the first built in China if USA does not pull their fingers out) In the longer future it will be fusion of deuterium recovered from seawater.
Land is more valuable for growing crops & trees & other vegetation than being being covered by hundreds of square miles of ugly dishes or mirrors which are no use when the sun does not shine.
A good barometer of renewable energy is RENIXX:
http://www.renewable-energy-industry.com/stocks/
At the rate it is falling, RENIXX looks set to hit zero within a couple of years. Maybe this is an indication that the subsidy farming is coming to an end?
You have to watch the greens when they play the subsidy card. There are direct subsidies to fossil fuel producers, but the majority of the total subsidy is made up of tax breaks. Certain countries don’t charge VAT (or equivalent) to fuel prices (as it would just be passed on and harm their economy). So clever greens worked out what the tax would have been if the full rate had been charged, and then termed this a “subsidy”, when it should more accurately be called a tax break. As fossil fuel produces so much more energy than “renewable” power the “subsidy” seems so much larger for fossil fuel companies.
As Europe gets bankrupt it will need less energy……Cycles of nature help, don´t they?
@Wayne Job
“Where does this man get the figure that twenty percent of the worlds power is now coming from renewables.”
Twenty percent is actually about right. What the man isn’t telling you, however, is that almost all of this twenty percent is hydro power from dams. Only a small fraction of it is wind/solar etc.
@ Harriet Harridan:
The biggest tax break granted to the oil & gas industry in the US is the depletion allowance, which allows oil companies to deduct 15% of their gross wellhead revenues from taxable income. The idea is that the companies will then use the money saved to discover enough oil and gas to replace the oil and gas extracted, which by and large is what they do.
You can argue that this is indeed a subsidy, but proportionately it pales into total insignificance beside the subsidies granted to wind and solar, or for that matter agriculture.
And the environmental organizations that complain about it are of course non-profit organizations that pay no taxes at all.
But, btw, how is it going the source of all energy, the Sun?, hope our 5th Sun will keep on working.
Just in case:
Following this the conquistadors did for the Mayans and the major source of Amerindian astrology with their calendars and long tradition of astronomy. Finally, its watered down namesake appears in the amusement columns of lesser periodicals. Such a fate.
Which brings me to the long count, the 5125.257 year Mayan calendar, ending according to archaeologists around December 21st 2012, the culmination of the fifth period of a larger 25526.3 year calendar. Troubling is the Mayan assertion that this period coincides with a new Sun and the end of the world as we know it by earthquake.
http://www.jupitersdance.com/
[Reply] I’d like to know what Gray’s source is for the Earthquake.
With the recent success of getting CH4 from methane hydrates on a continuous basis by the Japanese and US we could have over a 1000 years of inexpensive energy. Inexpensive energy is the way to prosperity.
Also included in the 20% is all the firewood that the 3rd world is burning for their cooking stoves and campfires. It is renewable, but right now they aren’t replanting the trees.
BBC radio 4′s programme ‘Costing the Earth’ this evening took a look at the coal industry and the fact that it’s not going away anytime soon. China is still keeping up the new power station a fortnight pace, and ‘CCS’ (carbon Capture and Storage) was discussed. This ludicrously expensive technology is a ‘must do’ for the UK’s mainline power stations before they’ll get relicensed by Brussels Eurocrats to continue production beyond 2018.
Perhaps another invasion of Brussels might be in order.
You can’t hide non-economic projects when you are running deficit budgets. The economic downturn/recession/depression resulting from sovereign debt is a system-based reason that none of the energy technologies not yet commercially viable can become widespread. There is no money to prop them up.
Tax breaks are subsidies of a sort, but the oil and gas companies spend all of their money just keeping ahead of production declines. There is a revolving door in the bank vaults of energy companies. The tax breaks come right back into the nation (except that spent in other countries, unless that spent in other countries is being used to buy, for example, the services or products of Halliburton etc.). Increasing taxes by reducing the exemptions may or may not serve the nation’s interests depending on where the additional money was going. Providing welfare instead of subsidized work is counterproductive unless the subsidies are greater than the value of work done. The Soviets failed in providing guaranteed work and pay for everyone because they did not specify that what the work was had to be worth more than what was paid for it, i.e. the work had to generate more than it consumed. A social equivalent of solar panels: more “energy” created by the activity than eaten up in its production.
The IEA can say what they like as long as we are in an expanding economy or a profitable economy. The extra can go to additional superfluous highways or to renewable energy. Nobody will suffer. But when the fundamentals, like roads, can’t be done, then the renewables can only get token support when they are not self-justified.
Scary, but the worst thing the skeptics can have right now is a robust, booming economy in which money drips from trees.
I thought most of the fossil fuel “subsidies” were the actual cheap prices that consumers in the Middle East pay for their fuel. What is $409B equivalent when it’s at home? it is either $409B or not!
I followed the links back and it went from Wikipedia to a press release. Hardly an authoritive source or is this just another example of the grey literature becoming a decisive fact.
Oh dear, the IEA are a bunch of fools (or deliberate liars)! Peak oil, coal or gas (or anything else) sounds scary, but the reality is completely different. Governments, assisted by the MSM, are deliberately trying to scare the public to make them compliant to ever more taxation and the loss of individual freedoms.
The reality of commodity supply is completely different. The idea of fossil fuel “reserves” is essentially an economic concept and estimates just the amount of fossil fuel that could be produced at today’s prices using existing technology. This is not the same as total available “resources”, which is the estimated identified amount of fossil fuel that actually exists.
Seen in this light reserves undergo a process of constant replenishment. When a commodity shortage bites and prices rise uneconomic resources become economic once again and can be reclassified as reserves. As global resources are vastly greater than global reserves there can never be an imminent shortage and It becomes available again if the price is right.
In addition, when reserves are plentiful and easy to get to there is no incentive to explore for new less accessible deposits or develop the new technology needed to obtain them. This simple economic rule is deliberately hidden from most of the general public by governments and the MSM. They rely on the fact that most people can’t be bothered to take the time to do the research and keep us distracted with vapid entertainment, like the coming olympic games and royal jubilee events. Peak anything is a myth, as when prices get too high consumers switch to cheaper alternatives and demand goes down.
A better strategy to future large scale energy supply is to look for cheap alternatives to existing fuels. Current candidates are shale gas and methane clathrates, both of which are just starting to be exploited.
http://www.redicecreations.com/article.php?id=6958
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/04/17/uk-britain-shale-reserves-idUKBRE83G0KS20120417
Fusion (hot or cold) may happen, but needs to be excluded for planning purposes as they won’t be available any time soon, I think.
We also need to change our energy strategy from a one-size fits all, to finding suitable local solutions. For example in UK we are surrounded by the sea so tidal power could provide useful amounts of cheap energy, but this would not be a good solution for central Europe say. Geothermal good for Iceland, but not for here – and so on.
While solar and wind are unsuitable for large-scale baseline generation, they can be good for individual site power generation, where suitable locations can vary even over short distances, I live on a windy hill in a house with an east/west facing roof, so wind would be good for me, while solar PV would be useless. There are lots of other micro-scale systems out there (methane digesters, mill pond hydro, producer gas, ground source heat pumps e.t.c) just waiting for cheap and efficient small systems to be developed.
I’m a great believer in the idea of self sufficiency, rather than having to depend on central systems which are open to meddling by corrupt politicians. Small is beautiful.
Good research, TB. The IEA are now fully revealed as lying scumbags.
According to the US Dept of Energy database…
http://www.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/IEDIndex3.cfm?tid=2&pid=2&aid=12
…the world electricity energy figures for 2009 (the latest available year) in billion kWh are as follows:
Thermal 12,671.472 (66.69%)
Nuclear 2,568.723 (13.52%)
Hydro 3,145.172 (16.55%)
Renewable 615.417 (3.24%)
TOTAL 19,000.784 (100%)
So hydro provides 16.6% of world electricity. And renewables (excluding hydro) provide just 3.2% of world electricity, the latter apportioned as follows:
Biomass 271.080 (1.43%)
Wind 262.563 (1.38%)
Geothermal 62.985 (0.33%)
Solar, Tide, Wave 18.789 (0.10%)
You will see that at 0.1%, Solar (which is lumped in with no-existent Tide and Wave) is a mere pinprick. So take your choice whether you want statistics from the Unreconstructed Marxist Ideologues of the IEA or the Wicked Running Dogs of Western Capitalism.
Interestingly, the worldwide wind power contribution of 1.38% lines up very well with the UK’s real figures. Here’s a story:
In 2011, Chris Huhne, the UK’s (then) hapless Minister for Energy and Climate Change, told Parliament in great excitement that the UK’s electricity contribution from wind farms had “now reached 7%”. At the time I thought this was wildly optimistic so I downloaded and processed the official statistics from ELEXON (the UK electricity trading accounts agency). I found that from April 2010 to March 2011 the actual energy contribution from wind to the UK electricity grid was only 1.4%. See details at:
http://www.thetruthaboutclimatechange.org/UKElectricalEnergy.html
How was Huhne able to lie to Parliament? Because he used the aggregated nameplate capacity figure for all UK operational wind farms. This figure represents the energy contribution that would have been provided over the year if all the wind farms had operated all the time at 100% availablity and if the wind had blown everywhere at exactly optimal speed and continuously for the whole year!
Also, Huhne fantasized that by 2030 wind power would be contributing 30% of UK energy needs. If by some terrible mischance this were to come about, it would also require ruinously expensive additional investment in an exactly equal amount of backup capacity in the form of idle gas powered electricity generation plant, just to cover for when the wind is not blowing at all (which is often the case in the UK in mid-winter for many days on end.)
There is no end to the ignorance, stupidity and guile of green energy enthusiasts and we are certainly right to be ultra skeptical about all alternative energy statistics. Yes, as always, watch the pea.
Myths about world energy use today and in the near future continue. There is a lot of misinformation – there should instead be realist who state where we are at in energy use and how change will come about. Many oil companies have kept up with energy sources and uses for decades. An anual report from BP is at:
http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/globalbp/globalbp_uk_english/reports_and_publications/statistical_energy_review_2011/STAGING/local_assets/pdf/2030_energy_outlook_booklet.pdf
The figures show the breakdown of energy sources. Renewables have a long way to go. As others above have stated the problems are many in trying to utilize renewables.
Lots of issues are at play in the energy scene. I believe they can be broken down into 2 main themes; Politics and Economics.
Politically the leaders of Europe decided to control the supply of energy, much as they have sort to control everything we do, in the mistaken belief that energy and resources are finite. I say mistaken because they don’t understand that humans create resources out of what we find, and we don’t use resources to depletion, rather we move on according to economics. Because our leaders or more correctly the unelected political elite have very little understanding of the evolution of human life, they forever underestimate how ingenious we are in solving problems. Another major failing is their overestimation of the influence politics (their personal influence) has in economics.
The Politicians weapon of choice when it comes to forcing a change is a good scare story and this is where CO2 plays its part. So the political class appeal to authority, the scientists, to create a situation where they can justify implementing their will.
Now scientists and their political masters believe they are the ones that have driven human progress. So we have 2 groups who both believe that they drive human endeavour and progress colluding to change our behaviour. This is interesting because they are both wrong, and explains why we are in the mess we are.
It is trade and cooperation, and specialisation that has driven human progress. Economics is a word that could describe all the activity that surrounds trade and human activity. I hate to use the word market because these days the press use it to describe the stock exchanges of the world and traders as if this is the Market. It is not, and WE are the market. We don’t buy iPhone 4’s and galaxy III’s because Politians say so. We do it because we chose to do it. Politicians also use the words competition and choice interchangeably, when they have different meanings. The word choice is used with schools and hospitals to give the impression that we have competition, when often the choice is only about convenience, or the least worst choice, and never about quality.
Why do they do this? Well it just so happens that the best method so far “discovered” for want of a better word, for regulation our economic growth and human endeavour is Capitalism. Now far from being about stock markets and greed as the liberal left would have us believe, capitalism has at its core competition. Competition requires open and transparent regulation that protects the consumer, not the corporate entity. What we have today is not Capitalism but Corporatism, created by Politians in collusion with the unelected elite where regulation, (nationalisation without paying) favours the corporate at the expense of the individual or the small entity.
Now all that I have stated above could be expanded into several books, but in order to make sense of all the nonsense that organisations such as IEA have to say you need to understand this.
I contend that the Global Warming meme has NEVER been about science, but all about politics. This is why it’s coming off the rails. And it’s coming off the rails well before it has reached the station of “sustainable energy” What has blown the track up? Ingenuity and economics is what has done it. Ingenuity has given us shale gas and will give us much more besides. And notice there has been no government money or scientist involved. Economic takes its own path, as we see currently with the Euro, and economics will destroy the entire global warming / energy rationing mantra. The unfortunate thing is most people don’t understand the basics of politics, or perhaps just can’t be bothered. Until they do our “democracy” is in a broken state, and in drastic need of reform. The catalyst for re-engagement is going to be a lack of money, that economics thing again that marches to it own beat.
The same political class that have unleashed global warming on unsuspecting public, also unleashed easy money back in the late 90’s, to distract us from all the undemocratic changes they have made. This time they used the bankers as their sups to do their dirty work and greed was the perfect catalyst. And just as we bash the scientists over global warming that never was, we bash the bankers, when the real villain was the gross failure of regulation. At the heart of it are the same unelected elite.
And if we want to be very topical how laughable is it that we have hose pipe bans and water shortages, called just has we have the wettest April since records began, and the wrong type of rain. Roll on the wettest Olympics in history! I live in the west where it is always been a bit damper and yes it was a dry winter, but for a country with no shortage of water, we have the elites turning an unlimited resource (for the UK) into a shortage and a policy of limiting supply is behind the current shortage. This is all to reduce our Carbon footprint! Yes it is all there if you did deep enough. Of course the worst effect of limiting water use is that all our drains will block as has happened in Germany. Now that is a real problem. Let’s bring back the Victorians to fix it.
Lastly all the other arguments we have about energy are largely irrelevant until we sort out our politics. They are used to divert attention. It has been necessary to discredit climate science, but will not of itself undo the ruinous policy changes that have been made. It is necessary to demonstrate the peak oil is irrelevant and that the Uranium reactors are not the only nuclear game in town. Because this will help us gather support for what will be the only battle that counts, and that is to rest control back from the political classes to the people. It has started and will gather pace as the true extent of the political deceit become ever more apparent.
tempestnut says:
May 10, 2012 at 2:19 pm
“…Because this will help us gather support for what will be the only battle that counts, and that is to rest control back from the political classes to the people. It has started and will gather pace as the true extent of the political deceit become ever more apparent.”
Totally agree with your excellent post, Tnut, and hope when the time comes it will not get too bloody – perhaps mass civil disobedience is the way forward here?
Strangely, this morning I watched my neighbours sheep chase a large dog fox out of the lambing field. Thought this was unique until I found this…
My take on this event is that it is both a metaphor and an omen of what will inevitably happen here in the UK, although I expect Greece, Spain and France may be in the vanguard.
The ruling elite must always remember that we are many, but they are few. I think the time is nearly right for society to adopt Ayn Rand’s philosophy for ultra-minimalist local governance, rather than the ruling elites wish for a UN based global system.
“The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities.”
The Mayan Myth:
“The Maya worshipped time and identified five great cycles of time that measured the evolution of human life on earth. Jaguars represented the first world cycle that destructed the earth, the second cycle caused by air, the third by fire, and the fourth by a great flood. The fifth cycle, in which we are currently living in, is destined to end man’s reign in the world by a catastrophic earthquake. The Maya believed this present cycle began August 13, 3114 B.C. and would end December 22, 2012. This would complete the end of another solar cycle of almost 5,200 years which, together with the other four great cycles, total 26,000 years, a duration that approximates the known 25,920-year cycle of the precession of the equinoxes.”
http://www.rivieramaya.ws/mayanhistory/
We do not of course know whether the Maya were talking about the whole world or simply their local world and of course it’s all just myth…isn’t it?
Hi Gray,
Well, we hear various versions of myths, and I don’t dwell on apocalyse theory on the talkshop. But I am interested in astronomical cycles and find the Mayan’s ability to extrapolate relevant long cycles from a limited timespan of observation to be remarkable. They were able geometers and mathematicians, that much is obvious.
I read somewhere that as well as the end of this great cycle, they also calculated that the earth would be crossing the plane of the galaxy. I wonder if that might have anything to do with weakening of the geomagnetic and heliospheric magnetic fields at this time.
Hi Tallbloke,
I did see an article on how the Sun is a long way away from the Galactic plane in astronomical terms. So I think most of the Galactic plane and poleshift claims are a bit over dramatised. We do know that the Mayans had Venus’s orbit mapped out and knew it was both the mornng and the evening star. They also knew about the precession cycles. I don’t think anyone knows exactly how they formulated their long cycles from the planetary cycles.
In order to bring this somewhat back on topic I’d suggest having a greater belief in Mayan Myth than International Energy Agency Myth
OK, well I’m bored of the IEA for now, so lets have a bit of thread drift.
It occurred to me that we have a pretty good record of Geomagnetic reversals in the geological records, and that we might look at those to help validate Svensmark’s latest paper. I’ve emailed Ray tomes for an opinion. If geomagnetic reversals have anything to do with proximity to the zero-crossing of the galactic plane, or the closeness of other matter, we’d expect to see more frequent reversals when we are bunched up in a spiral arm with lots of other stars. So we might expect to see a ~120 – 130M year periodicity in frequency of reversals.
@Tenuc: An image worth of a thousand words!….so “they” did not learn the last lesson…Several of them, as told, now live in Shanghai, but will the chinese be more polite, to say the least…?
This mayan-like
TB´s regular says a lot about geo-magnetic instabilities:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/MF.htm
And we must notice that the “Atlantic magnetic anomaly” has drifter westwards as to become s South American west coast anomaly. And BTW: Massive deaths of dolphins- Fishermen said dolphins seemed disoriented…authorities do not have a clue. This phenomenon has reached 12ª south latitude…
http://news.yahoo.com/mysterious-mass-deaths-claim-dolphins-pelicans-194139862.html
TB: I read somewhere that as well as the end of this great cycle, they also calculated that the earth would be crossing the plane of the galaxy.
That won’t do TB it’s wildly adrift from the science. Cosmic blathering
Funny thing is, I actually think there is something in the notion of inner / outer correspondences, and I think the ancients saw more than we realize. For instance, the constellation Gemini, as someone at WUWT pointed out, contains the stars Castor and Pollux which not only make twins to each other with the four other main constellation stars, but Castor is a multiple binary: pairs of visual, spectroscopic and eclipsing binaries. Also the Gemini region has the highest density of binaries in the sky.
But you sure have to tread carefully here and get your facts right.
IMHO, most of the 2012 stuff is rubbish. At a guess, about 99%.
Of course, that does leave the interesting 1%. But you got to sweat to find it.
Thanks for the link Lucy, a nice clearly written article.
@TB: But Mayans did not say anything about the center of the galaxy. They just left us the most precise Calendar ever made, where they show the END of one Sun (the fifth) and its replacement for another (the sixth), that´s all. The last time it happened there were three days of darkness.
Immanuel Velikovsky refers to many other traditions telling the same. It´s just simple: Like putting off an energy saving plasma bulb and connecting the galaxy plasma current to another, which, supposedly it has already born though it is now in plasma´s “dark mode”.
(Note: My two married daughters, though being professionals, were impressed by what they called “the umbilical cord”- a Birkeland current of course-)
Btw. History tells, everywhere, that the former Sun was called KRONOS-Saturn and it shined (and our earth too, in a continuous daytime – during a golden age…we all miss
http://www.holoscience.com/views/view_other.htm
[Reply] Definitely in the ‘far out theory’ category Adolfo. Sounds like it could solve all the IEA’s energy worries though.
TB,
Does theories remind you of times when our explorers were terrified of falling off the edge of the planet? Seeing the horizon is flat as the EYES can see and giving the IMPRESSION of an edge of infinity.
One persons observations can open a whole new world of perspectives…IF and only IF you keep your mind open to other possibilities. Having a closed mind and belief that all of science has been discovered and settled is why were are in the current mess with science. Considering we have been brainwashed from an early age through our education and FAITH in our experts to be correct and knowledgeable.
@Adolfo – Perhaps the current quiet solar cycle 24 is a symptom that the sun is pregnant and calving small spheres of it’s inner material which then cool to form planetoids? Would not be good if Earth was in the line of fire. We still have much to learn about our sun.
[Reply] I’d like to know what Gray’s source is for the Earthquake.
Second line. Couldn’t resist.
tallbloke says:
May 10, 2012 at 8:43 pm
OK, well I’m bored of the IEA for now, so lets have a bit of thread drift.
It occurred to me that we have a pretty good record of Geomagnetic reversals in the geological records, and that we might look at those to help validate Svensmark’s latest paper. I’ve emailed Ray tomes for an opinion. If geomagnetic reversals have anything to do with proximity to the zero-crossing of the galactic plane, or the closeness of other matter, we’d expect to see more frequent reversals when we are bunched up in a spiral arm with lots of other stars. So we might expect to see a ~120 – 130M year periodicity in frequency of reversals.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The geometry of the galactic plane crossing is explained here:
http://www.sbnature.org/gladwin/690.html
It confirms that both the Sun and ecliptic plane will intersect the galactic plane on Dec 21, 2012. This is a rare coincidence, though the Sun and Earth will not be aligned with the galactic center.
Interestingly, however, “The closest alignment was calculated to be between 1986 and 2011.” Pretty recent.
@Tenuc. We have witnessed the “emission of a discrete amount of energy”, a QUANTA, from the Sun. As you have seen it has been emitted in the expected place. (If you draw an equilateral triangle inscribed in the sun´s circle, it is emitted through one of the vertices).
@Tenuc: The same Max Planck equation, generalized by me, having found that the Constant “h” it is really a variable, which is the hypothenuse of the square triangle formed by magnetism and electricity, or what is the same, the addition of the sine and cosine, which vary from 0 to 1 and from -1 to 0. The angle between electricity and magnetism it is always 90º, this is why in the eq. for power it is used the factor sq.2=1.414…
When such a triangle of forces moves it always follows those two functions: Frequencies of the octaves developing. Of course with all its interactions, increasing and decreasing frequencies. This is why, also, the highest energy level possible it is found, obviously in the smallest, in the higher frequencies.
A “quanta” it´s an almost equilibrated arrangement of fleeting existence (as ourselves fleeting existence), a “DO” which lasts as long as the interactions with the environment allows it.
As the Sun recently did, it is up to any singularity, any “discrete amount of energy” which starts living its own independent existence the chance of producing its own and smaller packets of energy. if of a higher energy level the better-, call it either their offspring, if to the outside or a “soul” if inwardly.
Way up is, as you may realize ,it is “against the wind”, so is ethics, which is really a physics of evolution and survival.
It is not, of course, a single circle or a single sphere, every singularity is composed of a 64 units, as other have found though they have not realized the working of this arrangement, which is the simplest: The pythagorean triangle, as the primeval triangle is formed between the two forces considered equal as ONE (each leg): magnetism and electricity. When it moves it plays the “music of the spheres”.
http://www.giurfa.com/unified_field.xlsx
BTW: The above is crucial to get all energy needed, outwardly and inwardly. For the world and for ourselves.
A little bit of finger walking on the internet will show the surprise result that the proven reserves of oil,gas and coal in America at present usage, could supply America for around one thousand years. The problem seems to be that they are not allowed to extract it. That sort of time frame with unlimited power supplies and the progress in science and development would see us as wayfarers in space, and a very unpolluted world. Real progress has a habit of making things better and cleaner.
Shortage of energy is a political construct to reinforce the CO2 scare, communism and nazi-ism failed but they both found a new home with the greens.
The propaganda,spin and lies as in times gone by, worked but the prophesies even long term failed. The failure was actually that their plans were not fully realised before the population started to awaken to the fraud. It was not the MSM via print,radio or television that failed them it was this god damned new fangled internet thingy.
The first real freedom for individuals over the entire world in real time to communicate thoughts and ideas and spread news. It is now impossible for information to disappear or be altered as some one will have a copy and re post it. The rest of this decade is going to be fun to watch as many long held beliefs trip over and fall. Popcorn anyone.