Please support this Forum and Neven's Blog

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Thomas Barlow

Pages: [1] 2
1
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: Today at 03:27:42 PM »
It might be interesting if they didn't include the years from 2010 onwards in their "Mean Volume". Including those just makes the average descend down the chart each year, and gives a false impression, because the most recent years are lowest on record, and declining more as we speak. The average from 1979-2010 would be much higher up on the chart, and it would show we are in a precipitous decline in the last 5-7 years, at least compared to the average of modern records.

Does anyone have the data skills to create such a chart? ... with only 1979-2010 included for the average (black-dotted line).
It would be interesting to see the difference in the chart, caused by the last several low-volume years.

2
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: April 23, 2017, 01:33:13 PM »
I just added " >1.5m " ice to the bottom of my post on previous page (18), re. ice thickness in the Arctic Basin 2016 vs 2017.
Even more interesting.
Unfortunately, it's not looking very robust.

Click here, scroll down ---> https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1834.msg110856.html#msg110856

3
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: April 22, 2017, 11:28:51 PM »
This compares thickness, for certain thickness ranges only.
Between 2016 and 2017.
(I'm guessing most sources out there are just approximate, with a wide margin of error?)

4
Arctic Background / Re: Barneo 2017
« on: April 22, 2017, 03:52:02 PM »
Did these camps used to last longer into April/May?

5
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: April 22, 2017, 03:25:28 PM »
On the left 21 April 2012, and on the right 20 April 2017.

2012 was not particularly thin ice (compared to other recent years) in mid-april.  Yes, whatever weather condition cleared the ice out in 2012 re-occurs in 2017, the ice is going to have a big problem.  2011 and 2016 might be better comparisons for relatively thin ice in April and a low extent in September?
Here is the comparison for 2016 .
Are there any charts that try to gauge thickness or volume for just the main Arctic Basin?
All the charts take into account all the channels and east Greenland, and may not say much about state of main Arctic Basin icepack.
( I took out the thick ice that is pushed up against land masses, as I think some of that would be there anyway, even in a future meltdown, and doesn't tell us too much about the state of the overall icepack in the Arctic Basin. And I took out ice in channels and Fram export, as those are not really part of the main state of the Arctic basin icepack)
I'd say 2017 looks in worse shape than 2016?

6
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: April 21, 2017, 09:33:26 PM »
So much data saying Melt (DMI, Arctic anomaly, Fram export, destruction of  sea ice sheets integrity from multiple observations  etc. etc.). And yet jaxa sea ice decline remains at a glacial pace, and sea ice volume not declining yet.
And still at least 2 weeks before getting April PIOMAS  update. Am I the only one in confusion ?

I think the answer is dispersion, GC.  Less ice, spread more thinly.


AKA -- Winter Storms.

Does it make a difference if you just look at the main Arctic Basin?
Are there any charts that try to gauge thickness or volume for just the main Arctic Basin?

Here, below, I have taken out the thickest ice (4-5m) that clings, or is pushed against land mass. Some of that thick ice would probably still be there, even if the Arctic ever opens up in summer, as some say it will some day. And I also deleted most of the ice that forms in all the channels between islands.

A lot of that ice in channels, and the ice packed up against the land mass, could still be there even if the central Arctic Basin eventually starts to break up. So this may be a more realistic comparison, reguarding the major icepack, and reguarding what is essentially going on, that counts the most in assessing the state of the central icepack.

On the left 21 April 2012, and on the right 20 April 2017.

http://polarportal.dk/en/havisen-i-arktis/nbsp/sea-ice-extent/

7
Arctic Background / Re: Barneo 2017
« on: April 21, 2017, 02:53:26 AM »

8
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: April 18, 2017, 01:16:18 AM »

P.S. As visible from the forecast in the post just above, Scandinavia and much of North America landmasses are currently doing about the same thing, and will keep at it at even bigger negative anomaly than central Russia for the next few days: "stealing" cold from the Arctic, and warming all the air up extra fast whereever there is no snow cover already.

Same situation here in Tallinn, Estonia (900 km north-west from Moscow). By the way, this situation extends well into next week, latest temp anomalies Apr 18 - Apr 24 (GFS, Climate Reanalyzer).


Not good news.
Arctic seems completely overheated most of the time.
If the average temperature is still well below freezing, does it matter about winter anomaly in the short term? Obviously not a good indication for summer or long-term, but freezing is freezing, so does it make a big difference? Yet?

9
Greenland and Arctic Circle / Re: Meltwater & Run-off
« on: April 16, 2017, 05:42:06 PM »
Related study (from Greenland)

Molecular and biogeochemical evidence for methane cycling beneath the western margin of the Greenland Ice Sheet http://www.nature.com/ismej/journal/v8/n11/full/ismej201459a.html

And Antarctic permafrost highlights the history of biogeochemical activity in some Antarctic regions. Coastal Antarctic Permafrost Melting Faster Than Expected https://news.utexas.edu/2013/07/24/coastal-antarctic-permafrost-melting-faster-than-expected


Great !
I find this fascinating, and I think under-represented in the literature on ice-melt and the ecosystem it is unavoidably entangled with.

10
Greenland and Arctic Circle / Re: Meltwater & Run-off
« on: April 16, 2017, 04:39:31 PM »
An increase or decrease in algae will probably change the food chain in ways that might not be favorable to humans.

Maybe so.
I think a discussion of meltwater run-off and fresh-water on the ocean's surface is an interesting discussion at this point. Seems like scientists are looking at it more and more.

(If there is already a discussion specifically about meltwater and run-off, I can move this to that discussion.)

11
Greenland and Arctic Circle / Re: Meltwater & Run-off
« on: April 16, 2017, 04:01:01 PM »
Ok, this is where it gets tricky.
--> https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/04/170412105910.htm
.

Now there are microbes on surface and biological activity and minerals flowing into ocean. This creates photo-synthesis, absorbs carbon, also the bacteria and mineral-rich fresh water enriches ocean locally (a vast area actually). Increase in bioactivity and fauna, fish, whales. Increase in algae and plankton. All of that is good for the ocean (eg. N. Atlantic, Antarctic), nullifies acidity, and algae increases the ocean's ability to absorb CO2 and methane, as do bacteria which absorb methane.
All this is an unseen aspect, that scientists are just realizing (although they may be interpreting it in a limited way in this article), and may put the brakes on various abrupt climate-change scenarios going around.

More nutrients, algae, and plankton, in the ocean, as a result of fresh water, mineral rich run-off from glaciers, could improve ocean health, absorb carbon, nature could have surprises in store that can - as long as we stop polluting - stall, slow-down global warming. This article at the very least, proves that scientists are unaware of all processes. I think they have interpreted this as bad, but in fact, this could be good news.

But we have to stop polluting and mass factory livestock farming, slow population growth, etc.

12
Greenland and Arctic Circle / Meltwater & Run-off
« on: April 16, 2017, 03:55:21 PM »

13
Arctic sea ice / Re: Latest PIOMAS update (April)
« on: April 08, 2017, 05:14:05 AM »
Thomas,
I tried to answer part of your query on the "2017 melting season" thread yesterday. Click on the hyperlink associated with my name below...

Yes, thanks Bill, that's great info.


14
Arctic sea ice / Re: Latest PIOMAS update (April)
« on: April 07, 2017, 10:24:04 AM »
Neven asked me post this here instead:
____________________

Tried to post this to Neven's blog (didn't work). Any comments? :

What's really worrying is that they include recent years (mostly low volume years) in their 'mean volume 1979-2016'.
That means the black line will be getting lower each year, as recent years are added to the mean.
If they just used 1979-2000 (as Climate-Reanalyser does for temperatures), then the black line would be much higher up the chart (not that that period alone would be enough to show average though). What do the ice cores, taken from at least the 1970s, show, about the longer-term past of the Arctic?

http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2017/04/piomas-april-2017.html

15
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: April 06, 2017, 04:35:50 PM »
Tried to post this to Neven's blog (didn't work). Any comments? :

What's really worrying is that they include recent years (mostly low volume years) in their 'mean volume 1979-2016'.
That means the black line will be getting lower each year, as recent years are added to the mean.
If they just used 1979-2000 (as Climate-Reanalyser does for temperatures), then the black line would be much higher up the chart (not that that period alone would be enough to show average though). What do the ice cores, taken from at least the 1970s, show, about the longer-term past of the Arctic?

http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2017/04/piomas-april-2017.html
.

<Take it to the PIOMAS thread, Thomas,s'il vous plaît; N.>

16
Arctic Background / Re: Barneo 2017
« on: April 04, 2017, 03:38:01 PM »
More like towards the Barents since the direction towards 0 would be towards England and towards 90 would be to the Kara Sea I think.

Now I see it. Thanks

17
Arctic Background / Re: Barneo 2017
« on: April 04, 2017, 04:40:43 AM »

18
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: March 30, 2017, 11:59:55 PM »
@Thomas That graph doesn't line up with what I'd expect just based on the FDD anomaly delta between the two years.

The Arctic Penguin doesn't agree with DMI (at least as to the relation of 2016 ice volume to other years).

All these measures are within a large margin of error, and not precise. They are just fairly good indicators of a general trend, not precision analyses.

19
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: March 30, 2017, 07:51:09 PM »
Although JAXA is up a bit, it sure looks, to me, like the whole Arctic ice cap is amazingly thin; from Hudson's Bay, to Fram Strait, and especially to the whole north of Siberia area.
I hereby predict that large areas will start to drop below the 15% ice coverage level in these areas in the next couple of weeks and JAXA will dive.

If so, the followup question is, at what point will the mainstream media take notice?

Your thoughts?

I don't think thickness and volume are hugely worse of than the last few years according to this below. However, all these measures are within a margin of error, and not precise, that's why I like the big thick line on this one. More realistic assessment.
But still, among the lowest, and should be a warning sign. The media will report it, some will denounce it as hyperbole, others will overstate it, and make us all look silly. Fact is, it's not good, but not off the cliff quite yet (I say that as someone who was convinced we would head off a cliff this year... not sure yet. Won't know until July or August really. No-one will. It's a fun guessing game, but that's about all.)

http://polarportal.dk/en/havisen-i-arktis/nbsp/sea-ice-extent

21
Greenland and Arctic Circle / Re: Greenland ice sheet retreat
« on: March 23, 2017, 11:47:58 PM »
Jason Box and crew, readying their research season on the Greenland ice.

22
Arctic sea ice / Re: Arctic Image of the Day
« on: March 23, 2017, 02:16:16 PM »
I guess I found the creature who is eating all the ice near Svalbard - Worldview, Mar 12 - Mar 13.

Ha ha ha !
Good one.

23
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2016/2017 freezing season
« on: March 23, 2017, 04:01:55 AM »
Oren
It was surely discussed on the IJIS thread following the first century drop after the max.


Was it called as the lowest winter extent on record?
Yes.

Here is the thread. I recommend reading the whole page 81 starting at least at reply #4014
http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,230.4000.html#lastPost


Looks like people called it the lowest on record on that thread, after I pointed out on this freezing thread. Beginners luck I guess ;-)

24
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2016/2017 freezing season
« on: March 21, 2017, 10:50:04 AM »
Great, thanks.
Can't keep up with all the threads.
When do official research centers usually announce such a thing to the press?

25
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2016/2017 freezing season
« on: March 21, 2017, 03:37:25 AM »
Oren
It was surely discussed on the IJIS thread following the first century drop after the max.

Was it called as the lowest winter extent on record? 

26
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2016/2017 freezing season
« on: March 20, 2017, 11:01:35 PM »
magnamentis
the max was called with a tiny bit of caution but it was called.

Great!
Can someone point me to the post that called a date? I thought major events of the freezing season would be in this thread.
I'm interested in seeing the information given, and the logic for it.
Thanks.


27
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2016/2017 freezing season
« on: March 20, 2017, 10:47:59 PM »
jdallen
"we've pretty much declared max"?

You mean not yet?
It looks like it was March the 7th by this measure.  You can post some other measure with a date on it.
I wouldn't want to post this information in the melting season. It would not be relevant there, and I have not seen this specific information posted anywhere else.

28
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2016/2017 freezing season
« on: March 20, 2017, 09:53:46 PM »
Still not looking good for a recovery.
The trend is on the downward march I think.
Looks like March 7th was the record low maximum extent on record, at least by this measure.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/

29
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2016/2017 freezing season
« on: March 18, 2017, 02:52:55 AM »

30
Arctic Background / Re: Barneo 2017
« on: March 16, 2017, 07:29:01 PM »
They are negotiating arrangements with Norwegian Aviation, and will be on their way soon. From researcher Irina Orlova's post today:
Click translation.
---> https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1244217502314063&id=100001774757853

32
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: March 09, 2017, 11:40:34 AM »
Russian researcher, Irina Orlova's, FB post, setting up camp in at the N. Pole for 2017.
Click 'not now", if it asks you to sign up for FB, and click "See Translation" to get the general idea:
https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1237228086346338&id=100001774757853

33
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2016/2017 freezing season
« on: March 06, 2017, 03:15:29 PM »

Major drain for Arctic Sea ice is unplugged.
Er, is that the Nares Strait flowing free of ice about 3 months earlier than usual?  In fact, if you scroll back in time, it actually opened up almost that much between 29 January and 3 Feb. :o
Yup, I know. I posted about it back then as well. :o
Didn't think it was going to last this long. Looks bad.

34
Antarctica / Re: Sea Ice Extent around Antarctica
« on: March 05, 2017, 08:43:29 PM »
Thomas Barlow: No, there was an even later rebound in 1986 when the official minimum date was March 6. The second latest rebound was March 3 back in 2003...The most interesting question now is how quick the refreezing will be and if we are going to see any significant polar amplification given the very long period with open waters around Antarctica which has allowed heat to penetrate down into the sea.

Ok. Good.
Thanks.
I thought we were in uncharted territory for a minute there.


35
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2016/2017 freezing season
« on: March 05, 2017, 08:36:19 PM »
Major drain for Arctic Sea ice is unplugged.

Thanks for the heads up. I'd foolishly never tried that band before! Here's the view from Sentinel on March 4th:

----------------------

Whoa. Looks trashy to me?
Still got some months to plug it up that drain though???

36
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2016/2017 freezing season
« on: March 05, 2017, 04:29:41 PM »
Major drain for Arctic Sea ice is unplugged.

37
Antarctica / Re: Sea Ice Extent around Antarctica
« on: March 05, 2017, 04:19:19 PM »
Was Friday a double-whammy record for the Antarctic ?
Lowest sea-ice extent on record, and also the latest autumn rebound on record.
(black line = 1991 – previous record latest rebound. )

38
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2016/2017 freezing season
« on: February 17, 2017, 03:17:21 PM »
 
Oren: "For more details take a look at the Nares Strait thread discussion from the end of January and forward...


Thanks!

39
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2016/2017 freezing season
« on: February 16, 2017, 04:53:44 PM »
Is this unusual?
Nares Strait seems like a lot of open water?

40
Policy and solutions / Re: Evolutionary Leap
« on: January 14, 2017, 06:57:27 PM »
Posted by: budmantis
""There are few if any science deniers on this Forum. Calling people science deniers because they disagree with you is pretty weak. I could be wrong, but you sound like a troll. Prove us wrong by coming up with better responses.""

Thanks for your reply. It is pretty typical. But this is science, not kumbaya.
The world is at the precipice, and arguing over whether someone is just that bit nice-enough, just enough for you, but not enough for the next guy. Or is too nice, just enough for some, but too nicey-nicey, touchey-feely for you. Really a waste of time.

Use your logic brain to critique specific parts of the theories and science in the proposal and links above. That is how non-science-deniers operate. Not wide, dismissive generalizations and uninformed responses.  Be a man, and ask specific science questions, or refute specific scientific theory or studies. (do not throw the whole theory and 100s of peer-reviewed studies out, over one small thing you think smears it all. That is science-denial.)

You will need to set aside at least one hour (2 hours probably) to go through the proposal and links to understand what this is. That is normal, it is new information for most people, and already smeared and denounced in their minds, before they even start. That is typical, normal. Use logic and science, not emotion.

41
Policy and solutions / Re: Evolutionary Leap
« on: January 14, 2017, 06:54:12 PM »
Tony Mcleod
""I pretty well agree with everything you are saying about meditation. The problem is you're putting a brand name on it. I'm sure 'T' meditation is effective and beneficial but so are the dozens of other meditation and breathing techniques freely available. So, push meditation but stop pushing one type of it.""

It is not about meditation.
That is a misreading of the material. You would have to read the material and links much more slowly and in-depth to understand what it is about. Specific, scientific questions or criticisms are welcome. As long as they are specific and questioning science. That is normal. It is new science for most people. Again, this is not about meditation, individuals, or self-development. This method has over 350+ studies, published in strictly scrutinized peer-reveiwed journals worldwide over 4 decades, and dozens on the crucial field-effects described (the main topic of this proposal). Those methods you are talking about are nothing like this. Not related in any way, A  completely different topic.

You will need to set aside at least one hour (2 hours probably) to go through the proposal and links to understand what this is. That is normal, it is new information for most people, and already smeared and denounced in their minds, before they even start. That is typical, normal. Use logic and science, not emotion, to understand what this is. It is not about meditation. This is about a powerful force of nature. It is not invented by men.

42
Policy and solutions / Re: Evolutionary Leap
« on: January 14, 2017, 06:47:26 PM »
Posted by: MrVisible
""I prefer to get my spiritual guidance from someone who's less of a jerk.""

It is not spiritual advice. It is science. Please don't introduce strawmen here.

43
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2016/2017 freezing season
« on: December 23, 2016, 03:25:34 PM »

logicmanPatrick
What is the melting point for sea-ice in air?

Jim Hunt
Would it be at the yellow end of that movement path on the map, or the red end?

Thanks.

44
Policy and solutions / Re: Cars, cars and more cars. And trucks, and....
« on: December 06, 2016, 04:23:47 PM »
"John Deere unveils latest all-electric tractor prototype for zero-emission agriculture
Article and video:"

Thanks Sigmetnow

45
Great points Sigmetnow.
People dismiss this, trying to make Ivanka look like a ditsy fashionista, but she is not. She is very smart and very independent, and will be hugely influential. This is not going away. I know someone who is like a mentor to Ivanka Trump, and can contact her any time, and that person is a very advanced progressive and understands climate-change, fully. I also am aware of a few other details that make this real, and much more important than Donald Trump's cabinet picks. The train has left the station. President Trump will be hanging on to the rail at the back of the train, flailing around, like in a Charlie Chaplin movie, but deftly clambering aboard at the last minute, while his cabinet are left behind whining in the dust.

46
""Ivanka (Trump) wants to make climate change...one of her signature issues, a source close to her told Politico. The source said Ivanka is in the early stages of exploring how to use her spotlight to speak out on the issue.""
-- Politico.

See link --->
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/ivanka-trump-climate-czar-232031

Donald Trump once said Ivanka will be his closest adviser.

47
Policy and solutions / Re: Evolutionary Leap
« on: December 04, 2016, 07:23:57 PM »
The science-denial is not pretty.
Read the article, with an open mind, read the science, and start to understand it. You do not understand it yet, because you have not studied any of it. Ask me specific questions. Dismissing it without understanding it, or being able to ask specific questions about the science behind it, detailed in there. Eg. effects at a distance in physics, dozens of studies published in respected peer-reviewed journals showing that a group of people, trained in this method, do have effects at a distance, that were strongly demonstrated to be un-attributable to any other cause. In fact, these studies PROVE to a huge degree of significance that quantum effects, field effect in physics and consciousness, that are postulated and tested by many physicists, and in observed studies...are real.
This effect gives more credence to 100 year-old theories of field effects, action at a distance, existence of underlying fundamental fields), but dismissing it the way people do, shows you didn't read it, and do not understand the science. If you don't read the material, you do not understand it, and therefore cannot understand the connection to climate-change, and cannot ask specific questions or make specific, or meaningful criticism.

If you are asking "What does this have to do with climate-change?", you didn't read the article, study the science in there, nor understand the nature of what modern physics has clearly demonstrated.

To the minority here, who have no sense of logic or comprehension, calling someone 'schizophrenic' and a 'troll', 'on drugs', etc. is the method of science deniers who are afraid to open their minds to the new paradigm, and get back to me with specific questions on the well-established science, studies, and publicly demonstrated effects under strict scientific scrutiny. It is amazing that climate enthusiasts, cannot look at themselves, and see they are using the exact same vitriol as the climate-science deniers did for decades. If you read it, you would come back with specific questions or very specific criticisms, specific to one specific part or another. Not just the blanket "I don't believe this" of a science-denier.

---------------------------------
Which of the following are you in disagreement with?

1. Physics clearly shows quantum effects at a distance are real, not theoretical (Einstein's ‘spooky action at a distance’, also 'entanglement', others). It is well-established. Denying or ignoring it these days, is science-denial. How many of the top experts in the field of physics and cosmology do you deny? Be specific as to WHY you deny them, or as to WHY you think that is not what they are saying. Be specific. For example, when that one physicist from MIT that I cite, says "Consciousness is a state of matter", and I say, all matter is fundamentally made up of fields (as ALL physicisists agree), not points of sand floating in a vast vacuum. All scientists know that matter is ultimately... a field, and ultimate to that, all experts agree, must be a fundamental field that is non-localized and universal. Called the 'unified field' in physics (and don't bother with wikipedia please).
-- see my citations in the proposal. Or ask me to post them here.

2. Physics clearly shows our consciousness (brain) is intrinsically integrated with nature, at the subtlest levels of physics. It is well-established and the life's work of some of the top physicists and experts in the world.
-- see my citations in the proposal. Or ask me to post them here.

3. Published research, time and time again, in strict peer-reviewed journals, clearly show, through robust methodology, an effect that was demonstrably not due to any other known factors. The research indisputably shows:
Groups of people trained in the TM-Sidhis - a powerful subtle-sonic technique - demonstrate effects at a distance - a radiative effect throughout nature (society)  peace, co-operation, ingenuity, coherence, evolution of society. Also, symbiosis with the laws of physics that structure all life on Earth.
-- see refs and this link below to published research in respected peer-reviewed journals, which scrutinized the research much more than most other papers get scrutinized. These studies stand as some of the most robust ever conducted in the social sciences, and have p-value higher than most studies in the strictest physics research, studies in the hard sciences, and published studies in science. For example, there is not a climate-science, or global warming study, anywhere near the vigorous method, scrutiny, and p-values of these peer-reviewed studies and their strict scientific methodologies have.
How many of the journals and hundreds of expert peer-reviewers do you deny? Throwing out masses of peer-review expertise, as if your 'opinion' is more important. How many of the editors and board of experts in the journals do you denounce?
Journals are listed in the references.
These (and dozens of others) show field-effects in society at a distance. If you think humans or human society is in any way separate from nature (the fundamental, amorphous fields of physics, and the unified field), then you are verging on religion...not logic. There is nothing in humans or created by humans, that is separate from nature ... the unified field. It's all working together, as one fluid, interconnected,  entity.
But most importantly, humans need this to create the coherence necessary to implement the best solutions ASAP. Otherwise, incoherence in collective consciousness, will cause the best ideas to be lost in the chaos, and chaos and war will be the end result. And, as side effect, healthier, more creative, more co-operative human societies. Nature responds 1000-fold once humans start to integrate and act in conjunction with at the most fundamental fields of physics and consciousness. Right now, all humans are in a low-level brain-state. Dysfunctional. Broken. Including you.

Summary of 13 studies (over 50 published)
https://www.mum.edu/about-mum/consciousness-based-education/tm-research/maharishi-effect/Summary-of-13-Published-Studies

--- The human race is at risk because of science denial in the past ---

--- We don't have time for science-denial now ---

Therefore, the immediate testing of the theory that large groups of TM-Sidhas have a wide-spread effect, should be implemented by governments and influential individuals immediately.

----------------------------------------

4. One other point:
As climate-change accelerates, there will be more instability in societies, so the studies on crime rates and on war mandate immediate creation of super-radiance groups of 10,000 people on each continent, trained in Maharishi's TM-Sidhis, to mitigate the instability in society that could come. Such groups also have the side-effect of nature responding to heal itself (ie. ourselves), and that symbiosis between the human brain and nature can be easily tested. With the rising chaos that is coming from climate-change (climate-refugee exodus, water-wars, food-insecurity), the effect shown in these studies alone, is more than enough reason to implement this method, regardless of any connection with nature some illogical people may dispute.

5. For individuals, Transcendental Meditation has been shown many times to increase immune system, health, and resilience to disease on many aspects of health. In several hundred peer-reviewed studies around the world. Therefore, as a potential conduit for potential future epidemics that many climate-scientists and disease experts have stated will be one of the biggest problems in coming years (think ebola, zika, and the recent known failure of modern medicine's last line of defense - the last functioning anti-biotics - look it up if you don't know about it), that not only will people need this technique, but are at risk of spreading disease in the future more effectively than someone practicing this proven method.

One example of hundreds of studies on health:
This study was approved by the Hospital Research Ethics Committee and the procedures followed were in accordance with Helsinki Declaration.
""Conclusions: The technique of (Transcendental) meditation studied seems to have a significant effect on immune cells, manifesting in the different circulating levels of lymphocyte subsets analyzed. The significant effect of TM on the neuroendocrine axis and its relationship with the immune system may partly explain our results.""

Researchers:
Infante JR. - Nuclear Medicine Service, Infanta Cristina Hospital, Spain.
Peran F. - Biochemical Service, Virgen de las Nieves Hospital, Spain.
Rayo JI. - - Nuclear Medicine Service, Infanta Cristina Hospital, Spain.
Serrano J. - - Nuclear Medicine Service, Infanta Cristina Hospital, Spain.
Domínguez ML.- Nuclear Medicine Service, Infanta Cristina Hospital, Spain.
Garcia L. - Nuclear Medicine Service, Infanta Cristina Hospital, Spain.
Duran C. - Nuclear Medicine Service, Infanta Cristina Hospital, Spain.
Roldan A. - Area Health Service, Merida, Badajoz, Spain.

From -- US government, National Institutes of Health, webpage: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25035626

This above, is just a simple example as to why hundreds of other published studies show significant effects on an array of key health parameters, the research journals ar listed here. You can verify any of them for your self. Strict peer-review by experts in the field were applied.
http://www.tm.org/research-on-meditation

I predict someone will still ask, 'what does this have to do with climate?". Read the post again. It has everything to do with climate-change and the ramifications of it.
------------------------------------

To John
This technique IS free for those who need it. If you can afford it, you will have to pay to help others who cannot afford it, Give up your lattes for a year. Done.

To 'be-cause'
If I was all lovey-dovey and kumbaya, you would use that as an excuse to blast me for it. You and all the others would come down on me like a ton of bricks, hammering me for being so hippy-jippy. You would be the first to brutally attack such a person. You don't want that lovey-dovey person. Wanting someone to be all kind and peaceful, sublime smile, carrying flowers for you, loving-compassion oozing over you ... is naive, childish, and laughable. This is science, not kumbaya. Grow up. Don't ask the lovely Dalai Lama or some heebey-jeesus-saintly-sprite to suggest solutions to climate change.
Read the science.

------------------------------------

But I must emphasize this AGAIN.
This is not about individuals (although it will help with psychology and health during the coming Earth Changes, which many are now experiencing clinical PTSD, those who understand the feedback loops now in place. If you're not, you probably think you are an island, or you do not understand the feedbacks). This is about governments or an influential individual getting this project going. Individuals can learn it, help themselves, help others, but for the world, that is not enough.
This is going to happen. You might as well learn as much as you can about it now. If you have financial problems John, then they will give you the technique for free, and you can learn it in any country in the world. But AGAIN, this is not about individuals. This is about how, without the coherence in collective-consciousness (the quantum fields that exist and interact and directly affect collective mind - read the article before responding to this last statement), then all the solutions in the world are not going to get implemented. The human race is functioning at a sub-human mental state, and all the greatest ideas, and technological solutions will flounder and be dissipated to the wind. You are very naive and uneducated in climate-science, if you think there are a few ideas out there, that can come to fruition if everyone just gets behind it. They cannot get behind it - the governments, the corporations, the people living in giant mega-cities or the corporate-farms producing our food, or the people out in country. None of them can implement it, because they are scattered and dysfunctional in mind, oppressed by an incoherent collective field. Universal fields are the basis of all existence. It is illogical to think that consciousness is outside of that. Many physicists and neuroscientists do not think that. It is 100 year-old physics. Your high school or college was way behind. Luddites basically. This is old, established science now. Catch up.

So, take a step back, consider that you might be no different from the climate-science deniers, put your skepticism in a locked box in the basement, go through the article and the published science behind it, and get back with specific, scientific, questions or specific criticisms.  Be specific.

Thanks.

48
Policy and solutions / Re: Evolutionary Leap
« on: December 03, 2016, 11:43:44 PM »
John and Steve. Love to see you say that stuff to my face. Oh wait... you are anonymous.

You didn't read it. You are making the exact same smears, knee-jerk egocentric reactions and strawman arguments as the climate-science deniers did for decades. It is always stunning to see people using the same science-denial and extreme belittling of a person, without even having read or understood any of it. It is exactly the same phenomena as the climate-science deniers.
Get back to me with specific questions, or maybe you should just leave this forum and head over to Brietbart news. Your comments sound exactly like that place. You might be better suited over there.
Be specific in your questions, do not insult, and be specific about which part of the science and the studies you do not understand. Do not deny science you do not understand. Spend the next couple of weeks to start to understand it. Do not remain in ignorance like the science-deniers like to do. Which specific part are you questioning? Be very specific please.




49
Policy and solutions / Re: Evolutionary Leap
« on: December 02, 2016, 01:34:14 PM »
To be - cause

There is no large body of research, published in respected peer-reviewed journals around the world on the psychotropic ayahuasca . There are over 350 studies on Transcendental Meditation (TM) published in respected journals around the world --- > https://www.davidlynchfoundation.org/research.html 
All are non-profit organizations.
I get nothing from doing all of this, except wasting my precious time.

But my post is not about that. Please read the MIT proposal.

Tommy

50
Policy and solutions / Re: Evolutionary Leap
« on: December 02, 2016, 01:23:33 PM »
Avalonian.

Here is the link to my proposal. The most important part of the post above.
http://climatecolab.org/contests/2016/shifting-behavior-for-a-changing-climate/c/proposal/1331534

For the part about physics, bio-physics, and consciousness, there is a lot more new research since then, that bolster that section. Also, the space for proposal is limited to a word-count, so a lot of information is curtailed to some extent.

Here is my Facebook post in full:

Activism is failing, education is in a mess, the corporations rule the world, the ice is melting, the Earth is heating.
The media are understating the scale of the problem. It is solvable, but great ideas & technologies will flounder and drown in the incoherence of world consciousness today.

All pollution is nothing other than the outward expression of worldwide collective stress in the human  brain.

The information I give here is evidence-based, Over 50 scientific studies, using strict methodology, published  in respected scientific journals around the world, demonstrate that we can mitigate and balance the coming Earth changes, in ways that are not only effective, but a leap in evolution for the whole human race. Now is the time for that. Science-denial is not an option at this time.

This is not about individuals, individual action, or individual self-development. That is a misreading of this information. The science is very clear on this technology of consciousness. This is about a large-scale effect - from one or two specific places on the planet - created in global consciousness, that is clearly shown to remove societal stress, allowing for the natural communal  ingenuity (of government and people) to flourish exponentially.

And it is easy to implement, test, and develop.

A lot of people conflate this post with 'meditation'. It is important to understand it has nothing to do with what you call 'meditation'. That is a waste of time.

This is technology. Tried and tested many times in peer-reviewed scientific journals. Science-denial is not an option at this time.

We just need a tiny percentage of the world's population to do this specific technology., and it will change everything. This is 100 year-old physics. Most people are still living with a reductionist 19th century understanding of physics (and the brain).
We are in the 21st century.

It is too late to listen to the armchair uber-skeptics and all their waffling, or to the hopeless, who are just the unaware. Just do this method and change everything.

Read solution in my proposal here  ---> http://climatecolab.org/contests/2016/shifting-behavior-for-a-changing-climate/c/proposal/1331534

If you want to skip the reading in my proposal above, just click on this first link below, and get started in the most powerful method on the planet, to help yourself, your family, your community, and the world.
Other than the large-scale operation described in my proposal above (by governments or influential individuals) this below is a first step for individuals who do not want to wait for that larger event to unfold.
Very quickly, you will feel something you never thought possible. Put your skepticism in a locked box in the basement and just do this...for the sake of the world. Don't waste your life on small things, when the whole planet is going into discord.  You CAN help. This is real. This is much more powerful than anything you have imagined. You will feel it immediately. (all are non-profit organizations.)
Click here and start ---> https://www.tm.org

YOUNG PEOPLE -- Give up what you are doing, and go to Maharishi University of Management. It is the only way to calm the coming Earth changes you are already seeing.
Check the website ---- > https://www.mum.edu

This universal knowledge comes down from the ancients through the mists of time.
Jai Guru Dev - All gratitude to the tradition of Enlightened Teachers.

-- Tommy.

=============

And here is something to add to all that to think about. If you know what Vedanta is, then this is the modern version of it, just he doesn't know that's what it is.

The individual is cosmic.
A leap in human evolution is going to take place. How many of the 7.3 billion people make it, depends on how fast we implement large groups of TM-Sidhas.
The TM-Sidhis are not a meditation technique, but literally are a force of nature
At this rate, most of the world's population won't make it. Global warming, massive natural methane release from the Arctic and elsewhere puts us far beyond the range of human survival within 10 years, acidic oceans, loss of ecosystems, etc.
Act now. Forget the silly uber-skeptics and naysayers. They are old, archaic, calcified dead brains. Free yourself from that unenlightened, medieval nonsense (see my post above).
----
""While neuroscientists struggle to understand how there can be such a thing as a first-person reality (you appear to not exist in neuroscience - the brain), quantum physicists have to grapple with the mystery of how there can be anything but a first-person reality (you are everywhere - cosmic)""
(my additions in parentheses.)
--  Donald D. Hoffman, professor of cognitive science at the University of California, Irvine.
----
Interesting article:
http://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/04/the-illusion-of-reality/479559/


==================

Here is another of my additions to the main post:

Contagious disease is predicted to rise due to climate-change.
Survival of the fittest.
You'll need this:
Scientific studies:
""Conclusions: The technique of (Transcendental) meditation studied seems to have a significant effect on immune cells, manifesting in the different circulating levels of lymphocyte subsets analyzed. The significant effect of TM on the neuroendocrine axis and its relationship with the immune system may partly explain our results.""
This study was approved by the Hospital Research Ethics Committee and the procedures followed were in accordance with Helsinki Declaration.

Researchers:
Infante JR. - Nuclear Medicine Service, Infanta Cristina Hospital, Spain.
Peran F. - Biochemical Service, Virgen de las Nieves Hospital, Spain.
Rayo JI. - - Nuclear Medicine Service, Infanta Cristina Hospital, Spain.
Serrano J. - - Nuclear Medicine Service, Infanta Cristina Hospital, Spain.
Domínguez ML.- Nuclear Medicine Service, Infanta Cristina Hospital, Spain.
Garcia L. - Nuclear Medicine Service, Infanta Cristina Hospital, Spain.
Duran C. - Nuclear Medicine Service, Infanta Cristina Hospital, Spain.
Roldan A. - Area Health Service, Merida, Badajoz, Spain.

From -- US government, National Institutes of Health, webpage: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25035626
------------------------------------
More studies:
Orme-Johnson D. W., Herron R. E. An Innovative Approach to Reducing Medical Care Utilization and Expenditures. American Journal of Managed Care 1997; 3: 135–144.

More ---> https://www.davidlynchfoundation.org/research.html

Pages: [1] 2