• AgoraVox sur Twitter
  • RSS
  • Agoravox TV
  • Agoravox Mobile


Citoyen de France et d’ailleurs...

Tableau de bord

  • Premier article le 19/10/2009
Rédaction Depuis Articles publiés Commentaires postés Commentaires reçus
L'inscription 1 160 24
1 mois 0 3 0
5 jours 0 3 0

Ses articles classés par : nombre de réactions

Derniers commentaires

  • SysATI 10 décembre 16:49

    ...et fin...

    FYI what I was saying about the sun’s energy sent to the earth is not totally true…

    The amount of “heat” sent to us during increased solar activity isn’t that important and might not be the real cause that impacts temperatures.

    In fact what changes during solar/sunspot activity are the electromagnetic pulse levels which modify the trajectories of the cosmic rays traveling thru space (created by supernovae explosions) and hitting the earth. It is believed that those particles are the ones that induce the creation of the clouds. If the sun’s intense activity deviates them from earth’s lower atmosphere, then lesser clouds are formed and the earth’s temperature increases.

    The CLOUD experiment at the CERN is about proving that there is a direct relationship between solar/sunspot activity and the cloud cover. The experience is not over yet, but if the results are as expected, that would be yet again another nail into the Global Climate Warming theory… coffin or whatever...

    Brief summary of cloud formation :

    The ocean waters evaporate, turn into gas and rise. Once they attain higher altitudes, they get colder and colder and eventually turn into a “snowflake”. The water particles gather around a “condensation nuclei” and finally turn into water droplets to form a cloud.

    But for the water gas to turn into water droplets, there needs to be a “seed” to gather around.

    It was thought up to now that those seeds were particles lifted from the ground by the wind.

    The CLOUD experiment at the CERN is about proving that the cosmic rays/ionizing particles are in fact the main reason leading to the creation of the condensation nuclei and thus the clouds.

    Again, this is a very short/rough summary. For more info, you can watch this video.

    There is a great number of other researches showing a direct correlation between the levels of solar activity and earth’s temperature.

    But all of them are totally ignored by the media, the IPCC and its (completely wrong) mathematical climate prevision models.

    So, why should you just trust them and go press the panic button with everybody else ?

  • SysATI 10 décembre 16:49


    2 - The chicken or the egg ?

    In order to believe that we (humans) have anything to do with climate change, there is one hypothesis that needs to be accepted first :

    We burn fossil fuels, which releases CO² into the atmosphere, which in turn provokes a “greenhouse” effect that leads to the rise in global temperatures.

    Except that this is completely false…

    Simply because rising CO² levels do not make the temperature increase. Actually it is exactly THE OTHER WAY AROUND… Increasing temperatures make CO² levels rise…

    Proof : The Vostok ice cores experiment. (http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/vostok.html)

    Scientists dug into the ice cores in Siberia, took a 3 Km deep sample and examined the air bubbles trapped in the ice. From that, they deduced the temperatures at that time.

    If you want more detailed/precise information, you can always go dig it up yourself.

    This is just a short and rough summary…

    This is the resulting curve :

    We can see that there is a very close relationship between temperatures and CO² levels, but the rise in temperatures PRECEDES the rise of CO² levels (roughly by 800 years).

    Al Gore used those graphics to “prove” that “we humans” had a negative impact on earth’s temperature, which was a deliberate (and scientific) lie...

    Here’s another graphic :

    This is the (in)famous Michael Mann’s 1998 “Hockey Stick” that started the whole Global Climate Change bullshit…

    It was accepted by the UN as THE truth and caused the IPCC’s rise in popularity, Al Gore’s planetary success and all the hysteria about climate change since then...

    Except that again, it wasn’t true at all.

    You can read about the whole controversy everywhere, but the true “hockey stick”, or past temperatures curve, looks much more like this one.

    And you can easily see that :

    • It doesn’t look like a hockey stick at all, temperatures do vary over time and did not start to rise with the industrial revolution and the discovery of oil fields…

    • Today’s temperatures are not that high when compared to the past 1000 years.

    • During the Medieval Climate Optimum, temperatures were much higher than today and there were absolutely NO FOSSIL FUELS…

    Greenland was discovered around that time by the Viking Eric the Red was called Greenland… Not “cold and icy land” like it is today but GREENland. He was growing grapes there at that time. So even if the temperatures do rise, so what. Why do we need to press the panic button ?

    Again, temperatures do change over time and are currently rising (a little) but :

    • It’s not such a big deal,

    • Human activity has nothing to do with it !

    3 - Who do you think you are ? bis (i.e. men vs carbon)

    Still not convinced, ok… then let’s talk about CO² (http://www.oism.org/pproject/GWReview_OISM300.pdf)

    • The atmosphere contains 750 GtC (1 Giga ton of Carbon =/= 4 Gt of CO²)

    • Ocean’s surface waters contain 1.000 GtC

    • Earth surface, plants, etc contain 2.200 GtC

    • Oceans (deep waters) contain 38.000 GtC

    • So the total stock of carbon on earth is about 42.000 Gt

    This carbon moves around, and the yearly exchanges are as below :

    • Between ocean’s surface and the atmosphere is around 90 GtC

    • Between plants and atmosphere is around 60 GtC

    • Between marine life (planktons) and surface waters is around 50 GtC

    • Between surface and deep ocean waters is around 100 GtC

    So, roughly 300 GtC / 300 billions of tons of carbon are exchanged on a yearly basis for a total of 42.000 Gt…

    What about men’s role now ?

    Well, human activity produces on average 3 GtC per year and is rising sharply by 0.3% a year !

    That’s a hell of an impact and there is no doubt that we are the only cause of the enormous climate change that’ll flood NYC tomorrow !!!

    But what if we were not…

    What could be the factor important enough that could change the earth’s temperature but us ?

    But, of course, the obvious one, the sun ! How the hell didn’t I thought of that one by myself ??!!

    4 - The obvious explanation (but too simple and not sexy enough for the mainstream media)

    The sun is a gigantic hydrogen bomb burning about 600 billions tons of hydrogen per second…

    And it also have a life cycle. Sometimes it it hotter than others, sometimes it rests and sends us a little less light/energy. The amount of energy sent to the earth by the sun is closely related to the sunspots. There is an 11 years cycle where the activity of the sun increases, then decreases and it affects us. (cycles discovered by Schwabe in 1843)

    For the past decades, the sunspot activity has been pretty intense, resulting in more light/energy sent to us and thus in higher temperatures on earth.

    (FYI the same sunspot activity/planet temperature relationship has been detected on the other planets of our solar system where there is obviously no humans burning fossil fuels :)

    This is just common sense… But we don’t use common sense anymore, we read newspapers or even worse, share Facebook links :(

    In 1801 an english astronomer, Sir William Herschel noted a bizarre relationship between the sun’s activity and the wheat prices in England and wrote :

    “I am now much inclined to believe that openings with great shallows, ridges, nodules, and corrugations, instead of small indentations, may lead us to expect a copious emission of heat, and therefore mild seasons.”

    Of course he was right, but was mocked by all his fellow scientists of the Royal Society...

    The current cycle (N°24) is expected to be much less energetic than the past ones, actually resulting not in an increase but a DECREASE in earth temperatures… That could very well be the reason why temperatures have not changed for the past 20 years and why they might even decline in the coming decade… Or it is that we don’t burn fuel anymore like Eric the Red did :)))

    So much for the “Global Warming” theory… Again !

  • SysATI 10 décembre 16:48

    Mon Dieu, Malthus, sauve-nous ! (j’ai bon la ?)

    Désintox, vous oubliez un ou deux détails dans votre analyse...

    Premièrement personne ne fait un « déni » de changement climatique. Il est évident qu’il y a eu un réchauffement modéré des températures (qui s’est tassé depuis mais passons) pendant les quelques dernières années. Ce vous attribuez sans hésitation à l’action humaine... Ce qui est totalement débile pour nombre de personnes.

    Si les « scientifiques » du GIEC faisaient leur boulot proprement, si les Macrons et Cie n’utiliseaient pas le climat pour faire avancer leur agenda libéral alors peut être pourrait-on avoir un débat sain, ce qui n’est malheureusement pas le cas.

    La methode « j’ai raison ou je te casse la gueule » ne marche plus au temps d’internet. Tout au moins pour ceux qui sont curieux et ont 3 sous de jugeotte...

    La seconde chose que vous n’envisagez absolument pas c’est que, même si vous aviez raison, nous vivons dans un monde dynamique et non figé. Prolonger des courbes en climatilogie comme en finance ne trompe que celui qui veut bien y croire.

    Toffler citait un chiffre impressionnant il y des 10aines d’années de ça. 
    « Plus de 99% des scientifiques ayant jamais existés sur terre sont vivants aujourd »hui". Pour ceux qui ont du mal à comprendre, toute la connaissance et la technologies utilisée par l’humanité aujourd’hui a été crée par 1% des scientifiques ayant jamais vu le jour sur terre. A votre avis que vont faire les 99% vivants restant... et leurs enfants ? Se tourner les pouces bêtement ?

    Pour parler encore plus cruement : mon grand père a connu la naissance de l’aviation, sa première voiture avait une manivelle pour démarer. Aujourd’hui tout le monde a un ordinateur hyper puissant dans sa poche qui lui permet de communiquer en temps réel avec n’importe qui sur la planette... Pensez-vous sincèrement que cela ne va avoir aucun impact ?

    Je suis désolé si ce qui suit est un peu long et en anglais, mais je n’ai pas le courage de le réécrire en français...

    Google Translate devrait vous permettre de comprendre l’essentiel si vous en avez besoin...


    Texte écrit il y a quelques année, mais qui reste toujours parfaitement d’actualité...

    I’m sick and tired of defending the “voice of reason” against the mainstream media fueled “we’re all gonna die” hysteria/panic about climate change.

    So here are a few facts, not opinions, and although they are not widely known, they are true nonetheless and easily verifiable by anyone who’s willing to do so.

    It took me a couple of hours to gather them on the Internet, so I guess it’ll take you much less time to figure out by yourself if what I’m saying is total bullshit of if there is any truth in it. I did not want to write a full blown thesis, so there are dozens and dozens of facts that I left out, but those should be more than enough to get you started... and at least question what you read...

    And if by any chance you do feel that you were a little over reacting, then maybe the next time you read something about New York City going to be flooded in a couple of years or the soon to be extinct poor polar bears, you’ll simply laugh instead of panic :)

    Listen to/read the scientists not the journalists. They try to understand what is going on and are not there just to “sell paper”. Some are mistaken, others are not and we’ll only know for sure what the reality is in a few years (or much longer). That’s how science work…

    But do NOT let politicians tell you what is going on because it’s their job to lie !

    Loads of people and big money is made thanks to the Global Fear/Warming. Thousands of researchers do have a job just because they can get funded to prove that we’re all doomed.
    On the other hand, a lot of scientists cannot work/get funded simply because their opinion is not “politically correct”. If you were a climatologist, what would you honestly do ?

    So, what are the FACTS about Anthropogenic Global Warming ?

    (i.e. rising earth temperatures caused by human activity)

    1 - Who do you think you are ? (i.e. men vs the sun)

    http://www.sandia.gov/ jytsao/Solar%20FAQs.pdf chapter 12 page 10

    12. What is the theoretical potential of solar energy ?

    Sunlight has by far the highest theoretical potential of the earth’s renewable energy sources. The solar constant (the solar flux intercepted by the earth) is 1.37 kW/m2 . The cross-sectional area of the earth intercepting this flux at any instant is πr 2 (where r = 6,378 km is the earth’s radius), but the surface area of the earth over which this flux is averaged over time is 4πr 2 . Hence, the time-and-space-averaged solar flux striking the outer atmosphere of the earth is (1.37 kW/m2 ) / 4 = 342.5 W/m2 . In addition, enroute to the earth’s surface, about 30% of this flux is scattered, and about 19% is absorbed, by the atmosphere and clouds (Wallace 1977, pp. 320-321). Hence, the average flux striking the earth’s surface is 342.5 W/m2 · (1-0.49) = 174.7 W/m2 .

    The theoretical potential of solar power is the integral of this average flux over the earth’s surface area (4πr 2 ) :

    P = (174.7 W/m2 ) · (4πr 2 )

    = (174.7 W/m2 ) · 4π · (6,378 km) 2 · (106 m2 /km2 ) · (10-12 TW/W) = 89,300 TW.

    This theoretical potential represents more energy striking the earth’s surface in one and a half hours (480 EJ) than worldwide energy consumption in the year 2001 from all sources combined (430 EJ)

    In other words, 480 /1.5 * 24 / 430 = 14.88

    24 hours of sunlight roughly equals to 15 years of energy consumption by men…

    Which also means that : that single day in 2001, the sun sent the same amount of energy that we humans used since then…

    Since january first 2001, 365 * 15 = 5475 days have passed.

    ONE of those days’ energy was used by men, the rest was just used to heat the earth...

    And you still believe that men can have any impact on climate ???

    You’re still not convinced ? Ok, then keep on reading...

  • SysATI 24 septembre 02:06

    à propos de « 21 leçons pour le XXIème siècle »  

    Désolé mais je n’ai pas trop compris le sens/but de votre article ?
    Ou faut-il modifier le sous-titre en « une resucée de l’expérience de Milgram » ? :)

    Peu m’importe que l’auteur d’un livre soit juif, pédé et mondialiste ou fasciste, macho et négationniste tant que son bouquin m’apporte quelque chose, m’apprend quelque chose, me permet de découvrir/voir/comprendre quelque chose que je n’avais pas vu tout seul avec mes pauvres moyens intellectuels limités....

    J’ai adoré Sapiens et découverts des choses que je ne connaissais pas dedans.
    Homo Deus était peut être un peu moins intéressant car assez répétitif.
    Pour le 21eme siècle  j’avoue que j’ai un peu de mal à avancer mais j’irai jusqu’au bout, peu m’importe ce que les baveux du Point puissent en penser.

    Mais je n’aurais pas idée de conseiller à quelqu’un de le lire (ou pas) simplement par ce que son auteur a des préférences sexuelles et/ou politques que je réprouve ou qu’à l’inverse j’apprécie ???!!! 

    Si cet article est à propos de la sexualité ou de l’importance présumée ou non d’Hariri, désolé de ne pas l’avoir compris 
    (mais entre parenthèses qu’est_ce_qu’on_en_a_à F ?).... 
    S’il est à propos de son bouquin, pourquoi ne pas dire simplement et clairement : lisez le ou évitez le pour telles ou telles raisons ?
    PS : un autre auteur, gourou patenté celui-la, m’a également permis de découvrir quelque chose : John Michael Geer et la croissance/décroissance des sociétés humaines. 
    Sans lui,je n’aurai jamais entendu parler ou réfléchi sur « l’éffondrement catabolique » d’une société, alors que m’importe sa barbe et sa robe blanche ? 

  • SysATI 23 novembre 2016 15:06


    Un article comme celui-ci vous garantie la taule sans aucune circonstance atténuante dans la Turquie d’Erdogan. Alors que vous pourriez le péter les fesses à l’air à la figure du président français sans rien risquer d’autre que d’être mollement bousculé par le service d’ordre tant dans la France de Fillon que celle de Marine ou encore de Mélenchon.

    J’en conclu donc que vous ne connaissez vraiment pas Erdogan...
    Ou que vous n’aimez particulièrement pas ce Monsieur...
Voir tous ses commentaires (20 par page)


Tribune Libre