It has been a couple of overcast days in this area. Looking up at the sky, I realized that I would look at clouds differently from now on. My perspective about them has expanded to a view where much larger factors are at play, after watching a documentary explaining how cloud formation is influenced by cosmic rays and the solar system orbiting around the galaxy.
Danish scientist Henrik Svensmark has challenged mainstream opinion that climate change is caused by carbon dioxide emissions, with the discovery that it is the Galaxy and the Sun that interfere in our everyday weather. He has been faced with strong opposition for over a decade, but the scientific evidence presented in the beautiful documentary The Cloud Mystery leaves no doubt that there is energetic interaction between our Planet and the rest of the Galaxy. How could it not be?
In the post A spiritual approach to global warming, we looked at the idea that global warming is part of a larger natural cycle, and that man has not contributed dramatically to it. Still, that doesn’t mean that we should go around poisoning and polluting this beautiful Planet. But it should be for other reasons than the inevitable and natural climatic changes.
A globocentric view of natural phenomena, isolated from everything else around our Planet, not only denies that we are an integral part of this Universe, it is also a near-sighted way to conceive Earth’s place in it. As stars and planets dance around infinite space, they interact with each other through their energy fields. The Galaxy is a pulsing heart, where subatomic particles move at infinite speed. We need to open up to a cosmic view of all phenomena.
Climate change and cloud formation
The Danish National Space Center has published a brief summary on Cosmoclimatology. The fundamental concept is that clouds are not the result of anthropogenic (man made) global warming, but quite the opposite. They are the main driver of climate change. Their formation is influenced by the Sun’s activity, letting through variable amounts of cosmic rays. These rays are made of atomic particles coming from exploded stars, and are a factor in the creation of ordinary clouds.
Cosmic ray intensities – and therefore cloudiness – keep changing because the Sun’s magnetic field varies in its ability to repel cosmic rays coming from the Galaxy, before they can reach the Earth.
Astronomer Nir Shaviv and geologist Jan Veizer support this view, stating that long climatic cycles over our Planet’s history, are determined by the Sun and the Earth orbiting through the Milky Way Galaxy. Cosmic rays intensities have varied according to our position relative to the Galaxy’s spiral arms.
Bright spiral arms expose the Earth to more intense cosmic radiation, producing more clouds and a colder climate. Comparing the data of cosmic ray flux with the temperature on Earth over the past 550 million years by looking at isotopes fossils formed in tropical oceans, has revealed a startling correspondence in all the data gathered.
The documentary
A beautiful and inspiring documentary, The Cloud Mystery helps us realize that we are part of a much bigger picture. We are not existing statically on this Planet. We are a living part of an infinite organism called the Universe. All things are intricately connected.
The 52 min. video is available on YouTube, in the original version with English subtitles, when needed. It is presented in 6 parts. Below are links to each part. Enjoy.
The Cloud Mystery – 1 of 6
The Cloud Mystery – 2 of 6
The Cloud Mystery – 3 of 6
The Cloud Mystery – 4 of 6
The Cloud Mystery – 5 of 6
The Cloud Mystery – 6 of 6
reginaldc
Elizabeth Barrette
Marty
Kim Woodbridge
Hey Palma, It makes so much sense that earth would be affected by forces in the universe. The planet is IN the universe and not separate from it. I believe that one day science will realize that we humans have an effect on the weather. The ancients always understood that humans and the earth were intertwined in its well being and existence. Western science has tried to change that equation. western science has taken the position that man should have dominion over the earth. Before western science we tried to live in harmony with the earth. The global warming issue is a ruse.
reginaldc’s last blog post..What is reality and how does consciousness and dreams work in forming reality?
Hi Reginald, we are IN this Universe, indeed. We are all traveling around the Galaxy in this small spaceship called Earth. We cannot look at our internal ecosystem, without taking into account the external environment. An environment so infinite and powerful, that it affects our life on the Planet. Any dreams of dominion over the forces of nature, rather than living in harmony with it, are a recipe for disaster.
>>>>The ancients always understood that humans and the earth were intertwined in its well being and existence. Western science has tried to change that equation. western science has taken the position that man should have dominion over the earth. Before western science we tried to live in harmony with the earth.
I disagree. your idea of the “ancients” is romanticized. they were not “always” as you want to believe. If the “ancients” appeared to be more connected to nature, it could be, partially, because they had no other choice. even the ancients used technology of one type or another. At one point do you say this technology is natural and this is not?
furthermore, science has not taken the position that “man should have dominion of the earth.” that’s taken directly from Genesis. That’s a religious opinion.
Science is driven by the quest for knowledge and understanding. Power and control come about as a result of knowledge, but they are not the purpose of science. science has contributed to things like the atomic bomb and other attempts to control the natural world, true. but this is not a result of science, but a result of man, and what man does with power.
blaming science is like blaming cars for causing accidents. You are shifting responsibility away from mankind where it ought to be.
Soren Paris´s last blog ..Big Hollwood? Bad Hollywood! Bad Blog!
Hi Soren,
The ancients that I speak of are Egyptian, Chinese, Myan, and Australian aborigines just to name a few. The first three I mentioned have well documented histories and literature on their beliefs. They did believe that man and “mother earth” were connected. I don’t believe you have enough information to determine if my ideals of the ancients or romanticized or not. However, as I stated their beliefs in a connectedness is well documented.
I didn’t say the ancients did not use technology. You seem to be reading into my post your biases. Technology is simply modifying the natural world to suite a need. Chimpanzees use technology. they use it in concert with their environment. just as the ancients did.
They were connected to nature because they had no other choice? sounds to me you are saying that western science has taken the choice to not be connected because they have the power to choose and the ancients did not. Fact is any society has a choice. you make my point with the atomic bomb reference. when one explodes it kills every living thing in the area for thousands of years. What type of choice is that? Governments that talk about stopping global warming and are reading to kill the planet at the push of a button? hypocrites?
Western science is driven by different schools of thought as far as its purpose is concerned. But its basic ideology has been a separation of man from nature and the natural order.
shifting responsibility away from mankind? Are the scientist not part of the human race? They are mankind.
A religious opinion? I don’t think I have been accused of having a religious opinion in a long time.
My friend you have interesting concepts. But I enjoy the opportunity to think and debate.
reginaldc´s last blog ..In order to change your circumstance, mind your thoughts
first of all, you didn’t name any of them before. and you have to admit, that referring to them as “the ancients” does have a romantic ring to it. at least it does to me. and I will freely admit to being a romantic. there’s nothing wrong with that as long as you recognize you are doing it.
>>>They did believe that man and “mother earth” were connected.
from what I’ve read, I’d agree.
>>>You seem to be reading into my post your biases.
that a bit sharp, but then again, it’s true… for us all.
>>>Technology is simply modifying the natural world to suite a need.
and isn’t that what you accuse of science? how is “modifying the natural world to suit a need” different from trying to control the natural world with science?
>>>they had no other choice? sounds to me you are saying that western science has taken the choice to not be connected because they have the power to choose and the ancients did not.
hmmm. no. reread my statement. first of all, I’m not claiming that science has taken the choice to not be connected. That’s part of your claim. I’m disputing that position. My position is that man has taken that choice. At best you can call science a facilitator, but it is not the cause of man’s separation. (I would argue the cause is ego related.)
furthermore, I’m talking about how the ancients “appeared” to us from our modern perspective. all of those cultures developed technology and to do that, I(not an anthropologist) believe, requires something like science.
Also, it’s obvious by reading cultures’ myths (especially the ancients), that people sought explanations for the world and its various phenomena (which consequently, is what science does). While the ancients may appear very unscientific due to the religious and cultural language they used, it still seems very scientific to me. Many of the taboos of the Bible (I’m thinking Leviticus here) actually have a very practical side for a dessert dwelling nomadic society. Those taboos appear to be hokey and superstitious, but really this is folk wisdom, a kind of practical knowledge. IF you look at the history of alchemy, you can see that the spirit of science actually grew out from a mystical base.
also, Buddhism. if you look at something with strong traditional roots like Tibetan Buddhism, it sounds very hokey with all the talk of various demons, reincarnation and planes of existence and all that. but at the same time, Buddhism encourages an attitude of skeptical criticism. In other words, “see for yourself.” it’s very objective position, just like science. the cultural understanding of Tibet Buddhism doesn’t make it less scientific, it’s just a different language that to us appears non-scientific.
the ancients still had science, it was simply hidden within the mystical, religious trappings of their language and culture.
>>>I don’t think I have been accused of having a religious opinion in a long time.
I didn’t accuse you of that. You said that “western science has taken the position that man should have dominion over the earth.” I’m disputing that connection. The idea of “dominion over the earth” comes from the Bible. If society seems to have taken to this idea, then it’s Christianity’s fault, not science’s.
>>>Are the scientist not part of the human race? They are mankind.
but mankind on the whole are not scientists or even very scientific. a small percentage of the population are scientists. and they do not monopolize political power or will.
>>>Western science is driven by different schools of thought as far as its purpose is concerned. But its basic ideology has been a separation of man from nature and the natural order.
again, there’s nothing inherent about science that supports any ideology. ideology is man’s creation. In fact science and ideology are antithetical. ideology is man’s belief (true or otherwise). science as a social institution is driven by a desire for objective truth. an ideology may contain objective truth, but objective truth does not contain ideology.
Modern science depends upon the scientific method. The whole purpose is to weed out the biases of human perception to get at something that is true regardless of whatever your ego lays before your vision. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
I agree with you that there is an unfortunate separation between man and nature, but that is not science’s fault. Science is a tool. society as a whole and man’s ego is largely responsible for this separation (and other separations).
Soren Paris´s last blog ..Big Hollwood? Bad Hollywood! Bad Blog!
“first of all, you didn’t name any of them before. and you have to admit, that referring to them as “the ancients” does have a romantic ring to it.”
I don’t understand how naming a few of those societies makes a difference in my original comment. And why do I need to admit your bias?
I agree with you that there is an unfortunate separation between man and nature, but that is not science’s fault. Science is a tool. society as a whole and man’s ego is largely responsible for this separation (and other separations).
Soren, you appear to make many assumption about my knowlegde. I know very well the scientific method. Anyone that has been educated in western society knows scientic method. I can be summed up in these words. If you can not see it, touch it, smell it, hear it or taste it then IT does not exist.
It baffles me that you separate science and mankind. you say you can agree that mankind does separate itself from nature. Who are the educators of mankind? If there is a certain school of thought about nature, what is the basis of its mass appeal? You can not separate scientist from the whole of mankind. Science and scientist are human, men and women. Those men and women have a major influence over a societies views on many things. mankind on the whole are not scientist you are correct. But scientist on the whole are part of mankind.
reginaldc´s last blog ..In order to change your circumstance, mind your thoughts
@reginaldc
>>>I know very well the scientific method. Anyone that has been educated in western society knows scientic method. I can be summed up in these words. If you can not see it, touch it, smell it, hear it or taste it then IT does not exist.
not really. thats a gross oversimplification. there are plenty of things that exist which you cannot detect by your ordinary senses. atoms (and they’re individual parts) are an obvious example. wave-particle duality is another one that defies this, but for different reasons.
besides your summation overlooks the most important part, ie the method, the process.
If you took the time to think about the explanation of scientific method, you would see that it has nothing to do with ideology.
yes, scientists are a part of mankind. scientists do have opinions and beliefs, in short ideology. (many scientists are religious even.) but you’re obfuscating my real point.
science itself has no ideology and no agenda other than determining objective truth. (what man does with that objective truth is another matter.) I separate science from mankind, because the truths that science uncovers exists independently of man. that an atom of gold or carbon weighs so much is true independent of man. gravity is a fact independent of man. etc. etc. the law of conservation of energy does not have an opinion about this or that social norm. it does not feel or have pity when two cars collide.
I think its a mistake to lay the blame over humanity’s separation from nature at feet of science. humanity has done this to itself through humanity’s various beliefs. there are many ideas that man uses to support this position. (and as I pointed out previously, the bible is one source for that.) it may have used science to support this or that position, but that’s not the same as saying science is responsible for it. what science says and what society believes are two different things.
conversely, you can also argue that the knowledge science is producing shows that man is not separate from nature. (and of course, this irks many others who would prefer to believe we are above or superior to nature.) science has demonstrated that there are no uniquely human genes. that is, all our genes are contained in other species. what makes us develop into different species is that certain genes are turned on and off at different times and for different lengths of time. so, in this sense, science has shown that we aren’t separate from nature. we’re made from the same stuff, and planned from the same biological language.
Soren Paris´s last blog ..Big Hollwood? Bad Hollywood! Bad Blog!
Reginald and Soren – You both have very valid points. Thank you for this interesting discussion. I will create a forum topic for this, and will jump into the conversation myself. I’ll reply with a fresher mind in the morning.
Update, the new forum thread for this discussion is here. I have replied from within the forum.
I enjoy cloud watching, but I am still convinced that human actions are contributing greatly to global warming and we need to treat the Earth a lot better.
Elizabeth Barrette’s last blog post..Three Questions: Global Warming Causes Deaths
Hi Elizabeth – I agree with you that we do need to treat the Earth a lot better. Everything is interconnected and we cannot separate ourselves from our environment. Polluting and poisoning this Planet will have effects on our physical bodies, and the overall natural balance on Earth and every living being on it. However, even if we didn’t pollute, we would still experience the natural climatic changes that are occurring.
I practice green living myself, out of love and respect for our Planet. Each single person on this planet can make a difference. The astounding beauty of Mother Earth should be kept clean and pristine. We *are* our environment. We *are* the quality of our air, water, and soil. Climatic changes are part of that environment too. I do believe that global warming is a multi-million dollar business, which works best if the guilt is laid on us.
Weather here is getting more extreme. The winds are stronger and do more damage.
This year for Midsummer, my coven did a ritual to honor Yemaya, goddess of the ocean. We talked about what the ocean does for us and what we do for it, and how it’s involved in maintaining the climate.
Elizabeth Barrette´s last blog ..Three Questions: “Climate Change Already Affecting US”
Elizabeth – We do need to maintain balance in the oceans. A great threat to this balance is environmental noise pollution, caused by sonar detection devices implemented by the U.S. Marines and NATO. Really sad and total madness, hurting greatly whales, dolphins, and all other marine life.
- Climate Change made the typhoons in the south pacific very destructive. Typhoon Ketsana made a lot of mess in Philippines and Vietnam
Hi Dacnet – Sorry for the delay in replying. Yes, we can see the effects of climate change, however it looks like the entire solar system is in for a bumpy ride. Earth is affected along with other planets.
http://www.livescience.com/environment/070312_solarsys_warming.html
I’m very worried about our environment today..I hope it will not come to a point that we will all suffer with all the carelessness of the people.
I hope this post can open the minds of those insensitive people out there.
Hi Shirdi Baba – I am also sad about how we have treated this beautiful Planet, without realizing that it is a conscious Being.
While I believe that this issue is not directly related to a warming that is involving the entire solar system, we have no excuse for poisoning and polluting our “home”, without which we could not exist. In the beautiful words of Bob Dean, our real Holy Land…
Mankind must awaken to a higher level of consciousness – to the realization that all is interconnected – and reach the awareness that exploitation and abuse lead not only to self-destruction, but also to the alienation of the spirit.