I saw this health aid today, it said this dish helped millions of people for thousands of years. Amazing. It must work well if they are so strong they all lived for thousands of years!

What is it when you have a watch in the vitamin store and it sails away? Time released!

Global Warming

Greenhouse theories of global warming are where the radiation comes in through the optical atmospheric window of the earth, and, once inside the heat is unable to re radiate through any window of higher bandwidth, like a greenhouse where the radiation of light goes through the window but can't reradiate out in heat once it's scattered inside by contact with surfaces like the plants and walls of a greenhouse. This belief that the heat can't re radiate may be untrue because the earth has just the two wavelengths of radiation (of light and heat) and radiant energy once inside the earth's atmosphere can reradiate at these wavelengths. Although the light realm is small, the heat wavelength is much more substantial in size so whatever would stop the reradiation out would have to be of much more bandwidth to stop the release of a lot of the heat as the wavelength of the scattered light is reduced once the light is in the atmosphere. If the heat wavelength was opaque to radiation, we would be unable to listen to the radio or receive radiant heat. Change in the ability to receive radio and other signals of this sort over time such as years may thus be important proof or disproof of the greenhouse theory.

FOLLOW THE CO2 WHERE YOU WANT TO BE

Another correlation of the ability to receive radiance like this may be that it transmits the radio and other waves better far out in the country away from the sources of CO2, As they change ability of the radiation to be absorbed may change. If the CO2 is causing the change in radiation, the change always may follow the CO2, not with the change first, then the CO2, if the greenhouse emmissions are actually the cause of global warming. And if the sun has always been radiating out at the same temperature, with the heat retained by the green house gasses the earth would be more and more heated, and we would be in more and more shade by clouds. The most important greenhouse gas other than nitrogen and CO2 is water. Water is active more than CO2 about the greenhouse effect. If hot weather moves more water into the air with more heat, more heat is retained, so over millions of years by the greenhouse theory alone the whole earth would be much hotter than it is.

GPS Has A Weather Map!

Forest fires are of import about the amount of CO2 in the air. In ancient ages many more forests were in the world and lightning and other sources of fire were about the same. There would have been more forest fires with more heat caused by the CO2. Over millions of years of this if the greenhouse effect was of import with more heat retained and more fires and more CO2, the world would have overheated like with atmospheric water, so either the greenhouse effect is not involved or there is something else keeping the world from overheating regarding greenhouse warmups. (I think this may just be that the world's ocean water is a giant heat sink, more about this in a moment.)

WHY I CAN AFFORD SWIMWEAR AT CHRISTMAS IN YAZOO

Data about the world's heat input and output may be of use for all global warming science. The heat lost from the earth by the pressure and friction from the moons tides would be a component of the total heat out, the total heat in would be subtracted from this. Obviously some heat must be lost or the world would continually overheat, so more than the greenhouse motif must be going on about the worlds heat levels. While some had said that Venus would be a good way to prove global warming theories they have actually seen with probes that the heat flowing out is actually more than the inflow! My theory has been that the actual global warming that's been observed has been caused by the boost of solar power. (Like in the 11 year Solar Heating Cycles, and over more historic and prehistoric time) Recent studies show that Neptune and Mars heat up when the earth heats, and this would be explained by the solar heating. The 11 solar cycle is at an all time high, rising higher with each successive peak. Another problem that's worth the math about the Co2 and global warming connection is about Mars which has an atmosphere that's almost all Co2, if global warming is caused by CO2 mars should be warmer than without a greenhouse effect, and the amount of the heat should exactly fit the greenhouse causology if it's true; thus the weather of Mars may be a real way to prove if greenhouse CO2 is about the rise in global temperatures on earth. The heat in is known, the CO2 is known, so it may exactly fit the causology if true, if partly true, other science may be of worth.

A Heat Wave Of The Woman Who Lives In The Village URL!

..The usual proof of global warming has been that when the world heats up a certain amount, for say a few months of the year, the CO2, a greenhouse gas that allows in light but is opaque to heat, increases proportionally for about the same number of months. The CO2, produced by such as automobiles and burning of oil is used to explain why just now the weather is too hot in summer; the burning of fossil fuels is up in the last 100 years so global warming is up. In general it's not out of the question that global warming can be caused by other motifs than this. Over geologic time the earth has warmed out of ice ages perhaps 20 times, including the archeozoic, when the ice age was so extensive it's named the snowball earth theory. There were no SUV's being started up at the start of the recent age of warm weather 10,000 years ago. (If your VW starts it starts!) Other greenhouse gasses are water and nitrogen, 600 times as greenhouse as CO2. The world is using much more nitrogen for fertilizer to have enough to eat, so if the greenhouse effect was the real source of global warming, heat would have risen in a much steeper and higher curve than it would with CO2, but this still wouldn't explain the revivified ice ages because if the warmup was enough to revive the world, why didn't the heat just continue to rise? A solar power boost may be of more worth. Another problem with a greenhouse theory is that volcanic eruptions cause greenhouse emissions.. If the greenhouse effect is real we would expect to see a short boost in global temperatures once most of the dust had settled down and the greenhouse emmisions were still in the air. While this may be used in proof or disproof of the greenhouse theory, it can never have overheated too much. Life has survived continually for 4 billion years, and the history of the ice ages and the giant volcanic eruptions in the Jurassic in Siberia would seem to imply that while cooling of the earth is allowed like in the times of our own evolution in the ice ages, general global overheating by greenhouse gasses is limited. I think this may be simply via the oceans; the water is a giant heat sink, only 1/100,000 of the worlds water is in the air. Greenhouse emmisions are trivial compared to the vastness, as wide as the ocean, as deep as the sea. Lower than a few hundred feet, the ocean is a sort of perpetual N pole where light is stopped. This as well as nutrients is why almost all marine life lives within just a few miles of the sea. Water also absorbs heat, and water's heat balance would be why the earth has never overheated much in geologic time. If there was some world heating by greenhouse gasses such as from the nitrogen or water from the Jurassic eruptions, this would cause more evaporation of the oceans water from the tropics, the air can hold just so much water, so it would move North perhaps in many cyclones. Tropical cyclones freshen the air like rain, and sooner or later the rain would wash out all the greenhouse gasses, cooling the earth so it would never overheat anytime in the history of the Earth.

SOLAR STORMS, BASIC AND HIGHER DEGREE

A distinction between the greenhouse explanation and a solar one of global warming may be that the solar theory has the upper air more warm with more heat from the sun and perhaps the air near us here on the land (wherever we go AirPeru we are!) is shielded by more dust with increased output by machines. So Solar Heat as Power has the upper air hot and the ground somewhat warmer than expectation, while the usual greenhouse explanation has the same amount of solar heat as in ages before, used better to heat up like a greenhouse. So the upper air is the same as always and the air near the earth is warmer, the opposite of what Solar Heat as Power predicts in general. Global warming via solar heat can explain the confluence of CO2 with the specific changes in weather. When the sun would heat up more, the plants would respire more and release more CO2 and water, not caused by the greenhouse effect but just associated with the heat. If global warming is caused by CO2 or other greenhouse gasses, the global changes in temperature from month to month would follow after a given rise in CO2 instead of before it if the sun is powering global warming. A greenhouse can heat up in the daytime, but if the heat is off it cools by the day after, so the distinction between a theory of the heat caused by the greenhouse and one caused by the sun is that the heat is general and radiant if by the sun, and just heat of efficiency if powered by the greenhouse effect. The air being of low thermal inertia can't store the heat well so it must be stored in the rocks and seas of the world. If a greenhouse has less heat it won't heat up, but if the solar heat is up it reaches more of the world. So global warming caused by solar power and not other causes has the regions of higher latitudes warmer where it's 80 degrees latitude of the heat. And Solar Heat as Power would predict that the global warming would show at least some correlation to the 11 year cycle of solar heat that has changes in such as the fields there. The solar cycle is of smaller amounts of energy than the general amount the sun radiates, but in a Solar Heat as Power theory of global warming some causal association would exist.

The main changes found in the weather where I live in VA are warm summers where steady wind is blowing, so it feels not much hot but no rain like before with no summer wind much of this sort in past years when the weather was more old time. The cloud formations they find are more unusual. The summer sky seems more hazy than in the days of youth, the edges of the clouds seem usually more fuzzy (this may be found with old photos). The storms that hit by Insurance Vendors are more substantial in power but less numerous, in winter there is reduced ice and the general world heat level is up. All this can be explained as I say by more solar power and this combined more dust in the air from agriculture in the summer mostly. Warm air holds more dust because it is more energised so the dust is lifted up higher. Both more dust and more heat to move the clouds may explain the unusual cloud formations. The whole sky seems more like one big fuzzy cloud in summer. This would shield the earth from more heat caused by the increase of radiation from above so there would be air of higher heat at the top of the air and the ground by global warming would just be somewhat hotter. Since the general temperature is higher, and more dust smooths the temperature, this would be why the wind now blows more constantly than before in summer when the dust is higher. In summer in the US there's naw a constant mild summer W wind at the surface not present in Europe. Each year a large amount of dust reaches the US from Africa. This may cause the wind by drawing the heat to the East and not above the Alps, the greenhouse emmision is more uniform and so wouldn't seem to be either the cause of the constant winds or the lack of them in Europe. With the wind and the large mist of summer on high the air wouldn't feel so hot generally in summer as many have said. It wouldn't rain as much in summer because rain needs more unlike temperature of the clouds and the air that surrounds the clouds. This is also why even with the overall temperature higher, the winters have been colder even with global warming. Global warming! Ha or Ho! Ho! Ho!, they say at christmas. The greenhouse can't explain this but if there's more dust, tilting the angle makes a longer path for the light to reach us in winter, so the winters would be better explained. Another example of reduction of weather power by the dust is about how lightning is found to be reduced in storms where the air has much dust like in storms near large cities. It wouldn't snow as much in summer (or winter no doubt) because the dust would have settled so the temperature would be constant of the whole atmosphere but the heat would be warmer from the sun with the sun more in power. Larger but fewer storms, seen in summer may be because of more dust making the large shield that rarely lets lots of heat reach the ground even with overall heat of the earth higher by more solar power. Once in a while just by luck some of the clouds may allow more of the heat to reach the earth and this would be via greater solar radiation and so would build up a storm of more power. The big storms would be around March and September just as they were before, except with more dust from agriculture and business in the spring and more heat to power the storms, the difference in temperature in the spring and fall, particularly around March would be more sharp, my explanation of storms like the blizzard of '93 that hit the east coast of the US. Because particles in suspension in the air settle more gradually than they rise, there would be more of these big storms around March. If greenhouse gasses were the main cause there is no explanation for either the cold winters or the more unpredictable weather and unusual clouds. a gas without dust is simple and tends to stabilize but like the quantum mechanics of solids being much more complex than of gasses or liquids air with dust is much more complex and tending to unpredictablity, especially if with more heat in general. Greenhouse gasses would have a simpler trend, after all the greenhouse would be the simple heating of gas. At the least all the unpredictability must have another cause, possibly the greenhouse to a less degree combined with the sun and dust, even so this seems improbable due to problems like the 600 times greenhouse curve of nitrogen unobserved and the other objections above. After all you can wash your car on the weekends more probably because of industrial output, on the weekdays it's being built up, the dust may cause rain and cooling but the CO2 would make the weekends hotter not cooler, ect..For my general site about Weather and the possibilities of weather or even earthquake control in the future being developed, click here.

Why The ROOM BETWEEN The STARS Is TRUE BLUE

If "god gave us the darkness so I can see Star Researchers with a heavenly goddess bodice" why is the room between the stars unilluminated? If there were an infinite number of stars the whole sky would be ablaze. We can see about 10,000 stars on a clear night at the beach with our eyes, about as many as sand grains in your hand. It's not because of dust because interstellar space is far emptier than the highest vacuum they can yet achieve in the lab. If the dust was so we couldn't see more of the Milky Way stars we would be unable to see farther also. Carl Sagan says the skys of planets near some stars are ablaze with stars, when you look up day or night where globular clusters, the giant spheres of stars that are perhaps 30 about the Milky Whey. "What a view life on these must worlds have" he sighs in Cosmos. The ancient Greek Democratus thought the reason we see just a few stars is there are many more, they are just too far away. So the space between distant galaxies isn't actually just black. This has been well proven because the mind of Democratus was more of a high resolution lense than even many generations of astronomers after him could build.

Another reason the sky is not lit up with an infinite number of stars so not in darkness is that the same idea about the dust between our near stars may hold but not so much of it, because research proves the room between the galaxies has vast magnetic fields. If the fields are present, they must be composed of particles, and the particles would act as a mist so the more distant a galaxy was, the more fuzzy it would be. Beyond a certain distance no more galaxies would be visible. The light from the many stars visible would light up this haze a bit just as the lights of a store make it fuzzy in the rain. Einstein thought the light from a distant source would change frequency in the field with friction to it's motion through the waves. So we would find light of a great distance would be of reduced power when we receive it. And either the distant light is disconnected by this or shearing of the light of ancient photons by the huge number of photons that could interact with them between there and here with just inelastic collision from the side, or other interaction of this sort.
.

I read about how "sheep herders in the plateau of Tibet stay warm by wearing stoves inside their coats." I think the reason it was in the book was because it's such a good idea, and why haven't almost all the other people in the world in history of the higher latitudes up to these times put heaters in their coats? I put socks filled with oats in my microwave and put them in my well insulated pockets when I go out. The heat rises up to my hands so this is better, how could they keep the fire going without going up in heat? Add more Fizz at Christmas!... and I have warm hands and stomach for hours because the insulation holds in the heat, and they go in pockets lower than my hand pockets so my hands won't have too many beams of the stove's heat when my hands are in the pockets. When I want to use hands out of the coat, I use the warm socks in the low pockets to heat my hands by a squeeze of the heat. Instead of sewing the sock to hold in the beads that store the heat like oats a fast method is just to use a piece of string of usual sort. This ties the sock off and if you decide you also want toasty warm socks in March-the heat will be in your celebration.

Another idea are time released packs you just heat in the oven, then the packs would fit in your pocket or warm your hands or feet wear in pockets.This would an application of the science of time release beads and embedded in a general orientation toward the hand, some of the beads would re radiate out fast and others with more hours. I put the heaters in in the AM and am comfy in a comparable number of hours as hand warmers that use compounds that cost and may be harmful to the environment.. Other types of pocket warmers may be ones that heat up when you squeeze or windup warmers for outdoors.

In the desert there are animals that actually take in more water from the air than they put in through their skin so they never dry out, some may wonder if there might not be the equivalent of a sort of chemical heat pump that also wouldn't just shield the heat but that would actually always keep you either cool in the heat or reversed around to keep you warm in the winter, a chemical heat pump that could always save you heat, and this would be good for insulation of houses and other insulation. They had shirts like this by the 1980's but they were just insulation for the heat and reversed in summer the heat would flow out, some say this wouldn't be the same as a permanent chemical heat pump, useful also to heat the house, saving huge amounts of power like for houses in the weather. This isn't like other chemical heat pumps lsited on this page http://www.freepatentsonline.com/4441484.html. that seem to be just better solar collectors. While the invention described on the link is good for solar heating, like houses, a more portable chemical heat pump has been invented that would collect the heat itself and make best use of it and also that would perhaps be in actually sprayed on lighter clothes that could then be used for comfort without heavy clothes or too much heat.

Why do we like sad songs? Asks musician/neurologist Charles J. Ling, who is using MRI to see what happens ot the brain during improvisation by musicians, this seems to be an unanswered question. As a musician/scientist myself I believe the answer is about why we like music so much in general. As I say on this page in evolution we couldn't close our ears to defend against predators at night and we may have sought magical control over sound, regularity is power, a unified sound is much more soothing than a random sound (defined in physics as "noise"). Some great musicians I've read the volumes of who would know say emotions are essentially add ons to the basic skill of the song, or at any rate other musicians I've known like owners of music stores who played drums with greats in earlier days say the general structure of music is real simple, sort of all or none about emotion, if you love a great song you love aloud, "emotion to add to a song" seems simple too. Architects and others like Phillip Morris say, "God is in the details." Both of these ideas seem true, that music is generally simple in outline, yet exact details are needed for a great song, even as simple as it may seem, I would argue more for the latter beyond the basic simplicity as a musician because this is like how they say life works out the best for those who make the most of how it works out, ect. Other research finds that the most great and classic songs have simplicity as the common union.

Thus achieving control by general technical skill seems to be the main drawing card of music, in this respect like many other kinds of achievements in life, like science, exercise like a computer, or dream learning. Why do we like sad songs? Mostly because they have more skill than most people can achieve if they are being sold, they must be good enough to have reached us, right. The orginization to do a good song is out of the reach of most people, so they have lots of admiration for the genuis of great music, understood by all, written nowhere in memory of how to for most people. The ancient greek dude was saying what is great is acheived by few but understood by most or all, this seems especially true for music.

We read of the research where music can change your emotions and put you in a good mood. Only by most optimally starting at your level and then changing the music to more positive to then feel good or great. We resonate to the level we're at and then higher. It seems more of a leap to extreme levels to resonate both with a song that's more with celebration and all the amazing skill too, than just an already amazing sad song. Thus sad songs with lots of skill are nearer most peoples level of energy. If we took sad songs without skill, songs of celebration without skill, celebration songs with skill, and sad songs with skill (no goofs) my prediction would be that they would be favored most in that order by the brain, with songs of celebration without much skill actually higher up the scale than the sad songs without skill even though we like the sad songs with skill more than the celebration songs with skill. Because the sad songs without skill have no skill (what else) they would have the lower rating, because the real advantage of the lower skill songs would be at least that the cheer songs with no skill are with celebration! I used to play a lot of sad songs I was sad because at first I couldn't learn them and my fingers hurt. The higher level of the sad songs with skill may be the usual even though the lower level songs without skill would have more advantage if they are in celebration, not sadness.

To hear some of my own folk music, I'm pretty good, I actually get more clicks hear than onsite here that has 400+ pages! Click Here. .

For how I taught myself folk music click here.

\\.