Skip to main content

How did the British win the Battle of Britain?

How did the British win the Battle of Britain? It was looking extremely tentative at first. The Luftwaffe was sending wave after wave of bombers that were focused on air fields and radar stations which really wore the British down. The air fields were caught unprepared taking heavy losses with one big issue being the advanced warning systems to allow for the pilots to get into the air to defend against the bombers. It was really tight for a while where the British had a hard time getting planes into the air fast enough and getting them assembled fast enough in order to be able to replace the losses that were taken in the beginning of the battle. Due to the Nazis having near air superiority over Britain it was decided that aircraft production would be splintered into pieces of industry that were scattered across Britian which would serve to lower losses when the factories were targeted. One of the costs of assembling in pieces scattered is that the logistics of moving the pieces so they...

Feeling Doubtful about Greenhouse Gas Effects

 Feeling Doubtful about Greenhouse Gas Effects




Introduction

Climate change has been at the forefront of concern around the world for quite a few years now. We've seen the steady increase in greenhouse gasses since industrialization began and have been able to measure the effect industry has had on the atmosphere in detail since 1970. As the decades have worn on and the world gets more technological with an increase in industrial activity. It is noticed that there has been an increase in average temperature in the last century of about a full degree. This paper asserts that greenhouse gasses are not the primary factor in global warming, but that the warming is from a shifting of the electromagnetic poles in conjunction with a prolonged increase in solar activity which has weakened the atmosphere's ability to repel solar winds and radiation.

A degree in temperature doesn't seem like it should be much to worry about as many skeptics have pointed out, the earth goes through cooling and heating cycles all the time. It is considered normal based on the history we know of the earth. What is remarkable about this time period however, is that the earth warmed up a degree in about a hundred years. Normal cycles of heating have shown that the cycles have taken up to a thousand years to heat up, where we've seen the change occur within the span of a human lifetime. The speed of the increase is the disconcerting factor in this heating cycle.




Atmosphere

The earths atmosphere is made primarily of nitrogen and oxygen. Below is a breakdown of the gasses that can be found in our atmosphere followed by the same gas categories from 1970:

Today's Content

  • Nitrogen (N2): 78.08%
  • Oxygen (O2): 20.95%
  • Argon (Ar): 0.93%
  • Carbon dioxide (CO2): 0.04% (increasing due to human activities)
  • Methane (CH4): 0.0002% (increasing due to human activities)

1970s Content

  • Nitrogen (N2): 78.08% (no significant change)
  • Oxygen (O2): 20.95% (no significant change)
  • Argon (Ar): 0.93% (no significant change)
  • Carbon dioxide (CO2): 0.032% (lower than current levels)
  • Methane (CH4): 0.0001% (lower than current levels)

You'll notice that the Oxygen, Argon and Nitrogen are largely the same but take a look at the two gasses that are believed to be causing global warming and look at the percentage of atmosphere of each. You'll notice that both of these numbers are negligible in comparison to the other gasses that are in the atmosphere. 0.004% Carbon and 0.0001% Methane. Yes, these two gasses have risen slightly since 1970 but the amount is so small it leads one to question, 'are we attributing the correct cause to climate change?'

Alternatively, if we take a look at our neighboring planets that have high carbon content we can get a rough gauge as to what a high carbon content will have for an effect on the temperature of the environment. When we look at Venus, we can see that Venus' atmosphere is made primarily of carbon dioxide with a concentration of about 96.5% and the average temperature of Venus is 462°C. This is an amazingly hot planet which seems to confirm the fears of a carbon rich atmosphere but, when you look at another planet such as Mars which has a concentration of carbon around 95.3%, it's average temperature is a balmy -67°C.

Both atmosphere's are made primarily of Carbon. So, when looking at our neighboring planets, one has to wonder how much the concentration of carbon actually affects the temperature as both concentrations are about the same yet the variances in temperature are extreme.

The largest factor in environment temperature is how thick the atmosphere is. Venus has an extremely thick atmosphere and mars has an extremely thin atmosphere. The atmospheric thickness has many variables including the density of the planet, the electromagnetic field around earth, solar winds, the rate that vapor escapes the atmosphere, are all aspects that determine the thickness of the atmosphere.

When you look at earth right now our magnetic poles are getting ready to reverse themselves. They are about 5% weaker than they were back in 1970 and this has caused some extreme weather patterns to create some havoc. The Atlantic current is slowing down and could be stopped as early as a year from now in which case we could see a cooling of the north putting France and England into a perma-frost zone eventually and flipping the rainy season and dry season in the Amazon.

Coincidentally, the atmosphere is 3 to 4% thinner than it was back in 1970 and being that the electromagnetic field is one of the determinants for the atmospheric thickness it stands to reason that the thinner atmosphere is at least partially due to the weakened magnetic field.






Conclusion

When looking at the past when we've had a global heating cycle take hold that occurred at the same time as a pole shift we find the data to be inconsistent where not all of the pole shifts corresponded with a heating of the earth. When we factor in an increase in sunspots, solar winds, and solar radiation from an increasingly active sun there is a positive correlation of the heating periods during the magnetic pole switch occurring at the same time as the increased sun activity had occurred.

There were indeed magnetic pole switches which occurred where there was no increase in temperature but those periods did not have an increase in the suns activity at the same time. So when incorporating the increased sun activity one can see a positive correlation in all of the periods where there was an increase in global temperature.

It is therefore reasonable to assume that when the electromagnetic poles switch positions, that the atmosphere becomes thinner as a result of that switch and when that thinner atmosphere is exposed to an increase in solar activity it causes a heating of the earth. The increased sun activity causes solar winds to strip away more atmosphere and the solar radiation is able to beat down on the earth harder making it warmer. So, in essence the increased sun activity at the same time as the magnetic pole switch is the culprit for the temperature changes that we have seen.

This heating assertion is concluded because the negligible amounts of carbon and methane that are in the earth's atmosphere, dull in comparison to our neighboring planets who both have 95% carbon dioxide atmospheres but strangely have a variance in temperature range from 460 C to -67 C respectively, thus showing earths .004% of Carbon and 0.0001 % of methane are not the culprits for the heating phenomenon because the thickness of the atmosphere is what captures the heat.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

What is the Most Dangerous Situation You Ever Willfully Put Yourself Into?

  What is the Most Dangerous Situation You Ever Willfully Put Yourself Into? Photo by  Vincentiu Solomon  on  Unsplash I parachuted in behind enemy lines for what would turn out to be a near suicide mission. As soon as I landed I could see that the enemy was everywhere. I immediately began to look for cover to assess the situation. At first I was greeted by an eerie silence but then suddenly out of the blue I heard this blood curdling battle cry, which I could tell instantly it was the enemy. If these people found me I feared it would mean certain death, little did I know what I had coming in my future. I quickly found myself some cover and slid up tight between this green gawdy plant thing and what I could only assume was a tree or something as it was extremely hard and immovable. I never took the time to analyze it. Instead, I pressed up against it as tight as I could and I depended on the shadows to conceal what the tree and the plant thing had left in the open. O...

Why do you think that the US could lose it’s top position as a world leader?

  Why do you think that the US could lose it’s top position as a world leader? Photo by Kenny Eliason on Unsplash Sadly, some of the things you have been saying are good assessments of the situation and I believe there is credibility there for why the US is on a down spiral. #1) The Russians figured something out quite a while ago and they ran an experiment in the US in 2016 to see if it was true. People go up in arms that it was to mess with the election and yes, it was partly but that wasn’t the point in itself. By getting that hacker team to focus on the US they were able to spread disinformation and sow seeds of discord that had incalculable effects moving forwards. That hacker group a) showed the world that the US was vulnerable b) it showed that democracy has some major weaknesses that can be exploited c) it showed the threat of total free speech and free speech of the press d) it made the American electoral system seem fraudulent, or at very least not a credible and fa...

What are the potential drawbacks of nationalizing an industry?

 What are the potential drawbacks of nationalizing an industry? It depends on what industry and what the purpose of nationalizing it is. The industries that it makes the most sense to nationalize have some criteria in my opinion: They should be static industries that do not change very much or very quickly in terms of the core of it’s business. It should be an industry that is key to public security, public safety, or the public’s interest. It should be something that is mammoth in size so that it doesn’t affect any small businesses by having it nationalized. It should add value by nationalizing it - such as continuity, consistency, stability etc. There should be a pain point that is needing to be addressed that centralizing that industry under the government addresses it. It should be specialized enough that there is not a lot of competition. It wouldn’t be small business or medium businesses getting put out of business - it should be an industry where it would be cost prohibitive...