F.O.G. FORECASTING CENTER

I found the below video fascinating! Have felt since a late teen that a previous civilization existed on Earth that was as advanced or more so than we are now, just did things different. There is a statement in the video that no tools were found at the site and they found this weird. Really? Do we leave our tools behind after building a new building? Any time an old site is dug it, many love to point out that the Bible is wrong in how old it was. Really? There were two creations, but you have to read it carefully in the first chapters to see this. The 2nd is Adam and Eve story.

Sorry, I got off topic there. The video is great!

I found the below video fascinating! Have felt since a late teen that a previous civilization existed on Earth that was as advanced or more so than we are now, just did things different. There is a statement in the video that no tools were found at the site and they found this weird. Really? Do we leave our tools behind after building a new building? Any time an old site is dug it, many love to point out that the Bible is wrong in how old it was. Really? There were two creations, but you have to read it carefully in the first chapters to see this. The 2nd is Adam and Eve story.

Sorry, I got off topic there. The video is great!

I found the below video fascinating! Have felt since a late teen that a previous civilization existed on Earth that was as advanced or more so than we are now, just did things different. There is a statement in the video that no tools were found at the site and they found this weird. Really? Do we leave our tools behind after building a new building? Any time an old site is dug it, many love to point out that the Bible is wrong in how old it was. Really? There were two creations, but you have to read it carefully in the first chapters to see this. The 2nd is Adam and Eve story.

Speaking of the weather and Galactic Cosmic Rays, the IPCC's (the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) 5th Assessment Report has been leaked worldwide on the internet. The leaker's evaluation of the data points to a bigger Solar/GCR influence on climate than man-made fuels or cow farts.

*The IPCC’s (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s) 5th Assessment Report due for release in September of 2013, has now been leaked publicly over 9 months in advance on an internet publication called “Stop Green Suicide“.
One of the reports 800 expert reviewers, a man by the name of Alex Rawls, apparently leaked the report and is backing it with written evidence that cosmic rays are actually the cause of climate change and warming patterns, thus possibly blowing the lid off the whole entire global warming fraud pushed by figureheads such as Al Gore and others.


This is from the Leaker's analysis:

**Lead story from the Second Order Draft: strong evidence for solar forcing beyond TSI now acknowledged by IPCC

Compared to the First Order Draft, the SOD now adds the following sentence, indicated in bold (page 7-43, lines 1-5, emphasis added):

Many empirical relationships have been reported between GCR or cosmogenic isotope archives and some aspects of the climate system (e.g., Bond et al., 2001; Dengel et al., 2009; Ram and Stolz, 1999). The forcing from changes in total solar irradiance alone does not seem to account for these observations, implying the existence of an amplifying mechanism such as the hypothesized GCR-cloud link. We focus here on observed relationships between GCR and aerosol and cloud properties.

The Chapter 7 authors are admitting strong evidence ("many empirical relationships") for enhanced solar forcing (forcing beyond total solar irradiance, or TSI), even if they don't know what the mechanism is. This directly undercuts the main premise of the report, as stated in Chapter 8 (page 8-4, lines 54-57):

There is very high confidence that natural forcing is a small fraction of the anthropogenic forcing. In particular, over the past three decades (since 1980), robust evidence from satellite observations of the TSI and volcanic aerosols demonstrate a near-zero (–0.04 W m–2) change in the natural forcing compared to the anthropogenic AF increase of ~1.0 ± 0.3 W m–2.

The Chapter 8 authors (a different group than the Chapter 7 authors) are explicit here that their claim about natural forcing being small compared to anthropogenic forcing is based on an analysis in which the only solar forcing that is taken into account is TSI. This can be verified from the radiative forcing table on page 8-39 where the only solar variable included in the IPCC's computer models is seen to be "solar irradiance."

This analysis, where post-1980 warming gets attributed to the human release of CO2 on the grounds that it cannot be attributed to solar irradiance, cannot stand in the face of the Chapter 7 admission of substantial evidence for solar forcing beyond solar irradiance. Once the evidence for enhanced solar forcing is taken into account we can have no confidence that natural forcing is small compared to anthropogenic forcing.

The Chapter 8 premise that natural forcing is relatively small leads directly to the main conclusion of the entire report, stated in the first sentence of the Executive Summary (the very first sentence of the entire report): that advances since AR4 "further strengthen the basis for human activities being the primary driver in climate change" (p.1-2, lines 3-5). This headline conclusion is a direct descendant of the assumption that the only solar forcing is TSI, a claim that their own report no longer accepts.

The report still barely hints at the mountain of evidence for enhanced solar forcing, or the magnitude of the evidenced effect. Dozens of studies (section two here) have found between a .4 and .7 degree of correlation between solar activity and various climate indices, suggesting that solar activity "explains" in the statistical sense something like half of all past temperature change, very little of which could be explained by the very slight variation in TSI. At least the Chapter 7 team is now being explicit about what this evidence means: that some mechanism of enhanced solar forcing must be at work.

Complete Leaked 5th Assessment Report w/ analysis:

[link to stopgreensuicide.com]

This is pretty huge! This should be a page one pinned thread. In brief, they're saying (on one hand) that Global Warming is still our fault; while (on the other hand) their evidence is proof that unknown solar and cosmic factors are a much bigger influence. Oh well, now the cover-up can begin, LOL.

[link to i.imgur.com]

Thats cool ,spiral cloud in Moscow

That is beautiful Shad, looks kind of like a strand of DNA!

Thanks for cross posting the leaked IPCC document, do you think chapter 7 is hinting at chem trailing or only natural sources when they reference aerosols? Sorry that may be a dumb question! :-)

[link to hainanwel.com]

Did anyone see the pillars of light in brazil thread, pretty cool and strange occurance? Notice its on the opposite horizon line of the sun,weird

Not dumb at all,and I believe its a reference for trails and many other upper atmospheric plans

From EL Q

Thread: A Gift, From ME, To You All On GLP and All Of Humanity.

Thank you Nika.

Namaste.

[link to hainanwel.com]

Did anyone see the pillars of light in brazil thread, pretty cool and strange occurance? Notice its on the opposite horizon line of the sun,weird

these have been seen in fla. Usually from the sky down. Sun in opposite part of sky. Part of technology that uses atmospheric metalic ion aerosols activated by frequencies. I have read the activated ions, depending on type, can either generate photons or refract the sunlight.

The edgea of the shafts I saw here ( north fla summer 2011) were hard straight lines- not like soft ephemeral light.

But clouds that were very hard and dense in appearance were also common then.

That same year, on a youtube site, the host was featuring a video shot by people off a hotel balcony in Naples Fla and it looked very similar to this video. Shafts coming up from horizon and not from the the sun side