Climate cycles (934 year and 60 year) as calculated from orbits of sun and 9 planets ...
Good night - it's 1.00am here in Sydney.
| EnviroLink Forum http://www.envirolink.org/forum/ |
|
| The "Missing" heat question.... http://www.envirolink.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=14709 |
Page 2 of 3 |
| Author: | Wayne Stollings [ Fri Aug 19, 2011 10:13 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The "Missing" heat question.... |
| Author: | DougCotton [ Fri Aug 19, 2011 11:45 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The "Missing" heat question.... |
Swinburn University discontinued their post graduate course in Natural Medicine in about 2005. As a result, I wasn't able to complete it but had done about half. I have also done extensive research of the research over the last 35 years or so. You are welcome to visit http://slower-aging.com Any snide remarks will be like water off a duck's back. Try http://lef.org and, while you're about it, check out the qualifications of all the doctors etc on their Medical Board http://www.lef.org/featured-articles/medadv.htm Go tell them what you think. Meanwhile, at 65, I'll get on with planning our next baby. |
|
| Author: | DougCotton [ Fri Aug 19, 2011 11:57 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The "Missing" heat question.... |
I am not saying anything has "overturned the laws of physics." The laws of physics simply cannot be applied correctly to come to a conclusion that the world must get warmer the more we pump CO2 into the atmosphere. It is human logic that is flawed in making such deductions, not the laws of physics. Such laws do not say that only 99.7% of all radiated heat energy will get to space. Faulty models say that. What I am saying is that there is statistical evidence that there has been no significant warming from January 2003 until August 2011. In fact, there appears to have been slight cooling. Based on such empirical data over what is a sufficiently long enough period to test the AGW theory, the fact that the AGW theory does not correlate with the real world data is sufficient to debunk it. This is reinforced by theoretical considerations of the possibility of indirect cooling by GH gases as discussed on my site and in other posts here. |
|
| Author: | Wayne Stollings [ Sat Aug 20, 2011 7:07 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The "Missing" heat question.... |
| Author: | Wayne Stollings [ Sat Aug 20, 2011 7:26 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The "Missing" heat question.... |
| Author: | DougCotton [ Sat Aug 20, 2011 10:14 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The "Missing" heat question.... |
Thanks for supplying yet another nice temperature plot showing the 59.6 year cycles with maxima in 1880, 1940 and 1999. Look forward to the next one in 2058, after a minimum in 2028. You prove my point perfectly. Now what's your reason for the cycles? (Hint: read http://earth-climate.com ) The very fact that you even talk about applying the laws of Physics to gases shows your complete misunderstanding of the greenhouse effect, which has nothing to do with physically "trapping" warm air in the atmosphere like a blanket. It is all about excess radiation into the oceans - not the physical movement of warmer air - go read what IPCC actually said as I really don't have time to keep re-writing the content of my site for people who are too lazy to read it directly, including the second page. |
|
| Author: | Wayne Stollings [ Sat Aug 20, 2011 4:37 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The "Missing" heat question.... |
| Author: | DougCotton [ Sun Aug 21, 2011 9:15 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The "Missing" heat question.... |
You are way off track. Cycles can be superimposed - eg 934 year cycle, 59.6 year cycle and 39 month cycle. See http://earth-climate.com/planetcycles.jpg where you can also read how carbon dioxide can also have a cooling effect - but that is based on quantum mechanics which you may not understand, like most climatologists. The heat in the outer crust and above is split ... 90% oceans and sea ice 6% land and other ice 4% atmosphere Since you agree there are cycles, why then did the IPCC base trends on a short period 1970-2000 when both the long-term 934 year cycle and the 60 year cycle were going up? Why didn't they take cycles into consideration in their forecasts to 2100 which will not happen. This is my forecast: cooling from 2014 to 2027, warming 2028 to 2058 which will be 1,000 year maximum (about 0.3 deg higher than present, then long term trend goes down about 3 degrees by year 2500. Hang around! continued: http://earth-climate.com |
|
| Author: | Wayne Stollings [ Sun Aug 21, 2011 9:49 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The "Missing" heat question.... |
| Author: | Wayne Stollings [ Sun Aug 21, 2011 9:53 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The "Missing" heat question.... |
cy·cle (skl) n. 1. An interval of time during which a characteristic, often regularly repeated event or sequence of events occurs: Sunspots increase and decrease in intensity in an 11-year cycle. Without the increase/decrease in the cycle there is no cycle, but just an increasing or decreasing trend. |
|
| Author: | DougCotton [ Sun Aug 21, 2011 10:58 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The "Missing" heat question.... |
Climate cycles (934 year and 60 year) as calculated from orbits of sun and 9 planets ... Good night - it's 1.00am here in Sydney. |
|
| Author: | Wayne Stollings [ Sun Aug 21, 2011 1:08 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The "Missing" heat question.... |
| Author: | Wayne Stollings [ Sun Aug 21, 2011 7:50 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The "Missing" heat question.... |
| Author: | Johhny Electriglide [ Mon Aug 22, 2011 12:26 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The "Missing" heat question.... |
I don't see why that deniglical Cotton is here. I think he should go here; http://www.realclimate.org/ read it all, then come back. Bye bye!!! (the argument was won by the vast majority of climate scientists long ago, but denigicals have prevented meaningful HGHG reduction when time is of the essence for the future generations people like him don't care about)    
|
|
| Author: | Iowanic [ Mon Aug 22, 2011 8:58 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The "Missing" heat question.... |
Actually, Johnnie, I invited doug here  I thought he had a agruement that was at least curious: I wanted to let others take a gander at his site and see what they thought. |
|
| Page 2 of 3 | All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|