Ward's look at cause of global warming

[Patred_Cow]

This whole thesis is a bit of a tangled mess of unsupported speculation as far as I can see. It just predicts the balance of competing forces and then looks for anything that might correlate with them, as has been said before all sorts of outlandish things correlate with one another...it doesn't mean anything.

[wardengineering]

The economy of Europe flourished as fisherman supplied cod to many nations as a food staple since Roman times (about 100AD). Cod could not survive in temperatures below 2 degrees centigrade. Cod was the main source of trade of Greenland, and the establishment of towns, as far north as 72 degrees latitude. That is, until most of the time between 1600 and 1830 when there became a scarcity of cod as far south as the Shetland Islands, at 60 degrees latitude, because of the Little Ice Age: an era of global cooling caused by the planets which began with increasingly cooler winters since 1444’45 and cooler summers since the summer of 1523, ending with peak cold in the winter of 1623’24 and cooler summers ending in the summer of 1831. During the 1933s, an era of global warming, cod was again caught as far north as 72 degrees latitude around the southern end of Greenland. An era of global warming had begun with increasingly warmer summers since the summer of 1831 and increasingly warmer winters since the peak of 1623.

There is evidence that the Chinese sailed around the island of Greenland. Given this fact, the water temperature in the northern ocean had to be above zero degrees centigrade. The northern latitude of Greenland is 84 degrees. Assuming 2 degrees temperature change causing the migration of cod across the 12 degrees of latitude between Greenland and Island, there would have been an additional 2 degrees warming across the 12 degrees north around the northern end of Greenland at 84 degrees latitude.

The lowest force recorded by my program was November of 394BC continuing through October of 393BC. A slightly higher low force occurred in October of 573BC. The entire millennium BC was lower than any millennium since. The next lowest force will occur in January of 2964. Between now and then we will experience global warming to 2179 and global cooling from 2179 to 2418 and then global warming similar to the 1st millennium AD.

The chart below shows the corresponding dates of the global warming with the occupation of Greenland and, perhaps, the fish economy of Greenland. The chart is a world wide view of changing temperatures, the lower the force the warmer the planets became. The winters became increasingly warmer after the fall and winter of 769. The warmest being the entire year of 1057 and most of 1058. Then global cooling began to set in that finally drove the people and the fish away from Greenland.

[imported_topaz1968]

Of course all of these theories were cleaverly planted by His Noodelyness. Quantitative data can be changed instantaneously by the Flying Spaghetti Monster in order to serve His purposes, or just to annoy us. The others are right, the truth that He has cleverly hidden from all but the Believers is that Pirates are absolute divine beings, and global warming is due to the decrease of Pirates over the ages. The charts don't lie (unless He wants them to).

[Patred_Cow]

I'm still waiting for him to post something that actually discounts anthropogenics GHG's as he claimed this theory did. So far it's all pretty run of the mill stuff.

[wardengineering]

The basis of the charts

I can understand the frustration of the many who view the charts. As already stated, the charts capture certain events in time with respect to the solar system.

The goal of these charts is to give viewers a basic representation of the correlation between significant events in recorded history and the calculated forces exerted on the Earth by planetary bodies.

The charts you see are a compilation of forces of all planets acting on Jupiter. I picked the chart of the Jupiter system as a visual representation because it has the most effect on the Sun. The Jupiter system represents 448 times the mass of Earth compared to the Sun with 330,000 times the mass of Earth. The theory is, what ever happens to Jupiter happens to the Sun and what ever happens to the Sun, happens to Earth and whatever happens to Earth happens to the rest of the Solar system. No consideration has been given to other happenings that intrude into the solar system from beyond

The rhythm of the solar system is captured in a program I adapted to a program written by David Eagle that provides ephemerides for the solar system. The program records the daily effect of all planets along certain lines of interest. The Jupiter system is the main player along the Jupiter-Sun axis, and then comes the Moon system along the Earth-Sun axis, then the Planets’ system along the Earth-Sun axis and finally the Sun system along the Earth-Sun axis.

Some viewers of the charts see three or four separate curves or rhythms. That is because the dots are misleading. Remove the dots and the remaining the lines fairly represent the system as the force moves from global warming to global cooling and back. The higher the magnitude of force, the colder the Earth gets and the lower the magnitude, the warmer it gets. The dots merely capture the summation of forces at a moment in time in a constantly moving and changing system.

The program was designed to show the rhythm of planetary forces on the cyclic events of earthquakes, volcanoes and weather with global warming and cooling as an added feature. These features represent symptoms as reactions to the rhythm of forces of the solar system. In order to see the effect of the rhythms, it was necessary to invent some new ideas regards the physics of Earth so that the events made sense to me. In the next essay on the Sun you will note some differences with Sun scientists.

The conclusions are my own and not seen anywhere else. This is the first time they have been exposed to peer review and I warmly invite whatever challenge may come. The data can be challenged as well, but to do so, I think one needs to come up with his own measuring devise.

[Solar]

I think you should read about Dr Henrik Svensmark of the Danish National Space Center who shows that climate change is not caused by the "greenhouse" effect but by events in the cosmos:
http://spacecenter.dk/research/sun-c...climate-change

[Patred_Cow]

The conclusions are my own and not seen anywhere else. This is the first time they have been exposed to peer review and I warmly invite whatever challenge may come. The data can be challenged as well, but to do so, I think one needs to come up with his own measuring devise.

Data can reasonably be challenged on the basis of inadequate methodology I feel, not having seen your methodology I have no such evidence but I thought it reasonable to point this out. Personally I find it hard to come to the same conclusions based upon what I am seeing as you do yourself, maybe they're reasonable but from what I've seen so far they aren't solidly supported.

[wardengineering]

Originally Posted by Patred_Cow

Data can reasonably be challenged on the basis of inadequate methodology I feel, not having seen your methodology I have no such evidence but I thought it reasonable to point this out. Personally I find it hard to come to the same conclusions based upon what I am seeing as you do yourself, maybe they're reasonable but from what I've seen so far they aren't solidly supported.

The program was the result of my work in flood studies for land development and building design for earthquake. I saw the coincidence of several planets and the Moon in several events I had the opportunity to be present during. The hugh Kern river flow of 1951, the 1952 earthquake in Bakersfield, Ca. and the Eruption of Mt St Helens in 1980. I was in Portland, Ore on March 27, 1980 because my sister had just died, another coincidence and Mt St Helens had first burpted some ash.

My research on the planets had begun on a trip to Guatemala in 1975 when I climbed a live volcano 25 miles from Guatemala City. From the top, I saw seven old vents within a mile of the active one and its current position was on the side of a huge caldera. I concluded then and there to find out what caused this apearance of a cyclic system.

The night of my arrival in Portland was clear and the configuration of the planets of Jupiter, Venus, Mars , Saturn and the Moon were all visible and seemed to be focused on Portland. That scene validated my research, to that point, that planets indeed had something to do with the eruption of Mt. St. Helens.

It has only been recently that I turned my attention to Global warming and cooling. The Methodology has only been to plot events against the printout of the program data shown in the chart with specific dates of events and study of the reconstructed forces being applied to the Earth at the time. The Danish research should help you see how puny is man's contribution to global warming and cooling.

[Patred_Cow]

My research on the planets had begun on a trip to Guatemala in 1975 when I climbed a live volcano 25 miles from Guatemala City. From the top, I saw seven old vents within a mile of the active one and its current position was on the side of a huge caldera. I concluded then and there to find out what caused this apearance of a cyclic system.

Such things tend to be the case, if you are referring to a linear path it could as easy be put down to the transit of tectonic plates over a magma pocket, a more traditional but no less valid explanation? If however they were simply scattered about a large caldera then I don't see why this would have suprised you? Is it not to be expected that there would be volcanic vents concentrated in a caldera? It being a volcanic feature associated with vents after all.

The Danish research should help you see how puny is man's contribution to global warming and cooling.

It doesn't really though, it's a lone, controversial and less than reputable voice. The weight of evidence is still with the anthropogenic forcing theory, a single piece of research saying differently is not going to convince many people that a theory well supported by evidence is wrong. It would take a lot of corroborating evidence and an explanation for results seemingly portraying anthropogenic GHG's as the primary cause of the current trend. Once more I will make the point that it is an enhanced global warming that is under debate. The warming we are seeing outside of the natural range of variability and we are certainly seeing such a thing is attributable to anthropogenic GHG's. Your theory pinpoints a further source of the natural variability it does little to discount GHG's as the source of the unatural variability we are now seeing.

[wardengineering]

Originally Posted by Patred_Cow

Such things tend to be the case, if you are referring to a linear path it could as easy be put down to the transit of tectonic plates over a magma pocket, a more traditional but no less valid explanation? If however they were simply scattered about a large caldera then I don't see why this would have suprised you? Is it not to be expected that there would be volcanic vents concentrated in a caldera? It being a volcanic feature associated with vents after all.

There were several in the caldera but most were outside and of various sizes. The questions to be answered are, why the difference in size or magnitude and what causes the rhythm? Obviuosly the Mt itself and the large crator, I referred to as caldera because of its size, at the summit were created by greater forces than the smaller vents. The one I was standing on, at the time, rose 1500 feet above the rim of the caldera, and was the considerably taller than all of the rest and still growing.

It doesn't really though, it's a lone, controversial and less than reputable voice. The weight of evidence is still with the anthropogenic forcing theory, a single piece of research saying differently is not going to convince many people that a theory well supported by evidence is wrong. It would take a lot of corroborating evidence and an explanation for results seemingly portraying anthropogenic GHG's as the primary cause of the current trend. Once more I will make the point that it is an enhanced global warming that is under debate. The warming we are seeing outside of the natural range of variability and we are certainly seeing such a thing is attributable to anthropogenic GHG's. Your theory pinpoints a further source of the natural variability it does little to discount GHG's as the source of the unatural variability we are now seeing.