Ward's look at cause of global warming

[Simple]

The problem with the anthropogenic GHG hypothesis is that one cannot use it to make consistent predictions about present or past climate events. Until the scientist can formulate the anthropogenic GHG hypothesis in a way that makes accurate predictions, it is impossible to make scientific statements about the effects of green house gases on the climate.

Funny how the world global temperature now is exactly where the IPCC predicted for CO2 emissions in 1991, 1997, 2001 and exactly what Hansen said in 1989 to the USA. That is GHG theory has been directly tested observations for the last 17 years and is proving accurate so far.

Maybe you want GHG theory to tell you its going rain next week.

This warming is uniquely fast and accelerating, this is statement is from observational evidence, models with GHG predict this remarkable warming event those without and don't. All the natural forcings which continuously cause our climate to swing from hot to cold have been present for a long time and there hasn't been an event like this before. As the climate is a chaotic system with positive feedback loops in both directions (hot and cold) changes in how much heat we receive from the sun led most of the climate changes the world has gone through this is clear and accepted by anyone with any knowledge of the climate and GHG theory, it is a mute point.

[Solar]

Originally Posted by Simple

Funny how the world global temperature now is exactly where the IPCC predicted for CO2 emissions in 1991, 1997, 2001 and exactly what Hansen said in 1989 to the USA. That is GHG theory has been directly tested observations for the last 17 years and is proving accurate so far.

The GHG model cannot acount for the cooling period between 1940 and 1970. In addition, a correlation for a 17 year period is hardly significant evidence given the entire earths climate history. A significant correlation would be if the GHG model could explain climate change thoughout the history of Earth.
The climate cosmologists do have a model for climate change that is simple and does have this level of correlation (and explains the cooling period between 1940 and 1970). In science, the model that is the best predictor is the most reliable. The GHG model is simply popular.

[Patred_Cow]

Solar,

Am I to understand that you will not accept anthropogenic GHG theory until it has been proven over geological time periods? The significant correlation you ask for would only be required if GHG theory attributed all past climate events to GHG's, it does no such thing. It attributes our current warming trend to GHG's and thus a correlation over a shorter time period where GHG's are believed to be the primary instigator of climate change is more than acceptable, we have a very close and significant correlation for this time.

Who has said that the cooling period you mention must be explicable through GHG's alone? As far as I can see it is only the ill-informed GHG sceptics which make this assertion, little bit suspect that isn't it? GHG theory does not require the absence of further affecting factors, factors involved in climatic forcing need not be mutually exclusive as you are claiming here, what GHG theory tells us is that our contributions of GHG's to the atmosphere are driving the current enhanced warming trend we are observing.

[Simple]

Solar from 1940-80's during the war industrialisation rockets to manufacture machines of destruction, the only aim was production and this causes the release of large amounts of sulphur dioxide so much in fact that the smogs from the late 50's and early 60's as industrialisation increased rapidly caused many deaths from respiratory diseases.

This same SO2 happens to also reflect sunlight back into space and cuases a strong negative forcing add in all the particulates and it was like a huge volcano going off continuously across the western world, this not surprisingly stopped the general warming trend, there wasn't really a cooling more of a plateau. However this air pollution wasn't a good thing so we did something about, people coughing up their lungs in front of you is a good persuader as are forrests destroyed by acid rain. This therefore effectively removed most of this cooling influence from the atmosphere.

At the same industrialisation was increasing ever more rapidly in the name of ecomonic growth pumping more and more GHG into the equation (1950 -~1000mtonnes a year 2000 -~7000mtonnes a year), this rapidly increased CO2ppm from ~320-380 over that time period, and hence the warming influence of the GHg which has a lag of about 10 years due sea absorption of heat, started to become transparent about the early 1980's and onwards. SO the cooling period really is easily explained especially as natural forcings at that time alsi tended to a cooling effect.

[wardengineering]

The California rainfall of 12/20/1861 and 1/18/1862.

Conviction and belief run the world. Men have fought wars over them and continue to fight wars over them even today. Priests of conviction and belief have burned their subjects, blew them up and killed millions to have their live hearts taken from their bodies and burned at an altar as a sacrifice to satisfy lights in the sky thought to be gods who wanted death and destruction. These priests, at least, knew certain configurations of planets were the cause of the weather, earthquakes and volcanic eruptions.

The weather forecasting of the past has depended on the change of surface atmospheric pressure, which accounts for wind velocities and direction of storm systems. Then it evolved into historical data from areas. It is still a guessing game from those criteria. The historical data is limited to the history of the area. There are other factors that are more reliable, but it does take a different model then the one being popularly used today. Both the pressure changes and the history of an area are the result of changes of the thermodynamics within the Earth which drive the thermal dynamics of the atmosphere.

My research and the model I use show that planets control the weather around the world. The major players are the larger outer planets acting on Jupiter. The inner planets and the Moon determine the, intensity, timing and the location of events. It is not an averaging system as expected in any empirical method of forecasting.. It has the precision of the ephemerides.

“Up and Down California in 1960-1864” is a book written by William H. Brewer from a journal Brewer kept as he rode up and down California. Josiah Dwight Whitney was appointed by the US government to travel to California and make a Geologic Survey to determine its metallic wealth. Professor Brewer was hired as his chief of staff and did most of the work, traveling over fourteen thousand miles up and down California by horseback and mule. Brewer was a witness to the California flood of the winter of 1861’62, recording his observation in his journal. From November 11, 1861 to January 14, 1862, 102 inches of rain had fallen at Sonora. Sacrament was under water and in the Sacrament Valley the tops of telegraph poles were under water. The San Joaquin Valley was flooded forming a lake 250- 300 miles long with an average width of 20 miles. Villages were destroyed and thousands of cattle drowned. The rainfall was state wide. Seventy years later, a flood control district along the Santa Ana River in Southern California, measured the flow of 320,000 cubic feet per second in the Santa Ana River from high water marks still visible,

At the time of the 1861’62 event, the Jupiter system was at 88 percent of its maximum force and equal to the Moon system, also at 88 percent of its maximum force. These two systems of force were working together to increase the magnetic field of Earth, the vortices of the which, depend a great deal on the surface relief of Earth.

On December 20, 1861, both the Earth and the Moon were moving toward the Sun, but the Moon would prove to be the most powerful. Its trajectory was at its maximum speed and its closet distance from Earth was arriving on December 29, just 8 days after the Earth’s closest distance to the Sun.

The final killer was the geodetic position of the Moon system of force centered over California for the next 28 days moving through the full cycle of the Moon orbiting around Earth.

The westerly movement of the Moon toward perigee on the 20th of December and the 18th of January, in my opinion, was the local change of the magnetic field that locally created the right polarity of the aerosol particle to become the nucleus of the water vapor to form water drops causing rain.

Venus passes Earth, with more or less precision, every 1.6 years with varying degrees of force, depending on its encounter with Mars about every eleven months. Earth catches and passes Mars about 2.135 years and has its closest encounters in August about 17 years apart. The closest encounter was less than 35 million miles August 27, 2003.

These two planets account for the two year return for rainfall return developed by engineers from averaging empirical methods.

The larger planets of Jupiter, Saturn and Uranus were moving closer to the Earth than usual with Jupiter and Saturn close to the same line of longitude, their most powerful alignment, From June 21, 1861 to March 20, 1862, Jupiter and Saturn moved 90,000,000 miles closer to Earth representing 68 percent increase of their gravitational force. During that same period of time, Venus had moved one million three hundred miles closer to Earth, over 6 times its gravitational force. This planetary force will not appear again until November, 2119 or 257 years after the event described here.

The moon was moving past last quarter toward new moon, with lunar perigee on December 29th. Perigee would again occur January 26, 1862. That movement toward the Sun, centered over California, created the most powerful magnetic force change from the Moon in 93 years.

The total system of forces of the winter of 1861’62 has not appear again in at least 600 years covered by my research, which is a testimony to the perturbation of planets..

[Richard]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jupiter_effect

[wardengineering]

When a friend of mine was listening to my ideas about Jupiter causing earthquakes and weather, he jumped up and brought me the book, "The Jupiter effect", shortly after it was published in 1974. He was aqauinted with the two authors. I read the book. It showed a lot of evidence on correlation of events with positions of Jupiter. The two men were on the right track but did not take it far enough. Jupiter alone is not sufficient to explain all of the rhythms of forces produced by the solar system.

[wardengineering]

Coincidence of data of Sun and planets
The July 2004 issue of National Geographic had an article on the Sun by Curt Suplee. One topic was “Why do sunspots fluctuate in 11-year cycles, and what effect does this have on terrestrial climate?” “Every 11 years, the sun reverses its overall magnetic polarity: Its north magnetic pole becomes a south pole and visa versa. So a complete magnetic solar cycle - returning to its initial orientation - actually lasts an average of 22 years.” “---there’s evidence that sunspot cycles have direct consequences for human life. Witness the sobering case of the Maunder Minimum, the eerie stretch from 1645 to 1715 in which records show that practically no sunspots appeared on the solar face,” Maunder Minimum was named after its discoverer, British astronomer E. Walter Maunder.
“In the 1970’s American solar physicist Jack Eddy noted the Minimum offered “a good test case for solar influence on climate.” “Eddy, like most solar scientists at the time, wasn’t convinced that variations in sunspot numbers - the most visible indicator of solar activity- had any link to terrestrial climate. He examined the growth rings of trees from the 70-year-long minimum. They contained significantly more carbon 14 than trees before and after the period. That meant that higher amounts of cosmic radiation had been reaching Earth during that time. (A magnetically active sun reduces cosmic radiation we receive.) so, Eddy concluded, there might be a connection after all.”
“Eddy’s investigation also drew attention to another dearth from 1460 to 1550, putting that episode next to the Maunder dates, scientists realized that these extended minimums coincided with the core of the famously frigid period in Europe and elsewhere known as the Little Ice Age (1400-1850), during which the Thames River in London and the Lagoon of Venus regularly froze.”
“it might seem as if fewer sunspots should mean a brighter sun. but the sun’s luminosity is actually greater when there are more sunspots, because their magnetism creates extra-bright area called faculae.”

This information is consistent with the theories I have developed from the study of the stress building and stress releasing calculations developed from my solar program.

The same Jupiter system of stresses of force that apply to Sun are the same forces that apply to the Earth with the same reactions and with the same global warming and cooling features as with earth.

There are numerous coincidences in the data scientist have found with the Sun and the data produced by the curves I have developed. For example, the 70 years minimum is close to the rhythm of Jupiter’s return of 71 years to perihelion at the same time of an Earth year.

Jupiter has a repeating cycle of 11.862 years and passes the star Kaus Borealis once during each 11 Earth years during each cycle. The reason for that is, it takes Earth one year and one month to catch the intersection with the Jupiter-Sun axis. Thus it takes 11 earth years for Jupiter and Sun to join each other in the same window of the sky with the star Kaus Borealis on December 27.

The planets Jupiter and Saturn pass each other on a 19.859-year rhythm, and would appear in the same window as mentioned and would account for the average of 22 years rather than the precise 11 years for Jupiter to be in the same window. The magnitude of the 22 years force is modulated by the Jupiter system with a 60 years rhythm. It requires nearly 120 years for these two planets to arrive at the same window mentioned.

The Sun has a solid core as does Earth. From the theories I have developed, the Earth solid core is still original rock from space. The implication is that the Sun core is the Same.

The motion of in and out travel of all solar bodies cause stress building and stress releasing forces on the interior of both the Earth and Sun.

What happens to the planets happens to the Sun and what happens to the Sun happens to Earth and what happens to Earth happens to all planets.

Summation of accumulated Sun and planet forces drag the molten liquid interior mass against the faster spinning surface continental plates and solid core, creating a magnetic field and moving the plates around the surface and slowing Earth‘s rotation. The movement of the surface plates change the polarity.

The differential movement between surface plates, solid core and liquid interior make Earth a storage battery with north and south poles. Poles change because the surface plates change.

Thermal dynamic changes between Earth’s interior from rock to molten rock and back to rock create heat exchanges within Earth that transfers heat into the surface rock, water regime and atmosphere.

Since the Sun is mostly liquid there would be more active specific heat generated than active Latent Heat.

The change of surface plates on the surface of Earth changes the polarity. This is brought about by two actions of the solar system. The Sun retards the spinning of the liquid core which drags the surface plates westerly moving back and forth across the equator. The most powerful is the rotation of the Moon. It also drags the surface plates mostly in a westerly direction through its 27.3 days orbit acting on the center of mass of the liquid core, but it also is giving the Earth’s surface plates a counter clockwise movement as it moves easterly along the Earth-moon orbital path. Both gravitational forces of the Sun and Moon act on Earth similar to a coin spinning on a flat surface. Each holds the liquid core in a powerful grip with a cone of force with a 3000 miles base and a lever arm the length of the distances from each body to Earth.

The planets are acting on the Sun with the gravitational forces as well. In this case, the cone of force has a base of 36,000 miles and lever arms the distance to each planet. Individually they may not amount to much, but the collective system of the Jupiter force along the Jupiter-Sun axis can not be dismissed. Jupiter mass is 314 times the mass of Earth. The Sun mass is only 750 times the mass of the Jupiter system.

The global warming period from 1460 through 1550 and 1630 through 1715 would have caused the same reaction in the Sun as it did in the Earth. 1631 was the year Vesuvius erupted burying Pompeii and Herculean. 1623 was the 8th highest Jupiter force system to be applied to the Sun in 4000 years of data I have computed.

[BillJ]

Originally Posted by wardengineering

Coincidence of data of Sun and planets


The Sun has a solid core as does Earth. From the theories I have developed, the Earth solid core is still original rock from space. The implication is that the Sun core is the Same.


Since the Sun is mostly liquid there would be more active specific heat generated than active Latent Heat.

Theories you have developed? I thought you were a civil engineer. Are you an astrophysicist too? Dedicated amateurs developed theories in the eighteenth century, but things have gotten a bit more complex since then.

The sun is a plasma. Some researchers suspect that it's a liquid plasma but the standard model for the sun is still that it's a gas.
http://solar.physics.montana.edu/YPO...Structure.html

I'm not sure what you mean by the generation of specific heat vs latent heat. Latent heat only comes into play with change of phase, so unless the sun is evaporating or condensing it means nothing. Specific heat refers to the energy involved in temperature change, so it has no bearing on solar energy except to the extent that the sun's temperature is changing. I suppose you could say that specific heat is "generated"' when an object cools, and latent heat is "generated" when a gas condenses, but it's not the normal terminology.

How you got the impression that the sun has a rocky core is beyond me. The core of the sun is a fusion furnace, too hot for atomic structure to exist, never mind mineral compounds.

This is why scientists go to university.

I don't want to minimize the excellent work done by the many amateur scientists of the world. They collect data from streams, search for young supernovae in other galaxies, count birds at the feeder - - they collect data and send it to real scientists for analysis. I just have no patience with the so-called self-taught scientists who have it reversed: the scientists collecting the data and the untrained amateur doing the analysis.

[Twig6]

Originally Posted by BillJ

Theories you have developed? I thought you were a civil engineer. Are you an astrophysicist too? Dedicated amateurs developed theories in the eighteenth century, but things have gotten a bit more complex since then...

This is why scientists go to university.

I don't want to minimize the excellent work done by the many amateur scientists of the world. They collect data from streams, search for young supernovae in other galaxies, count birds at the feeder - - they collect data and send it to real scientists for analysis. I just have no patience with the so-called self-taught scientists who have it reversed: the scientists collecting the data and the untrained amateur doing the analysis.

Sorry to jump in here, and personally, I don't agree with Ward's theories, but this isn't a valid argument against them.

Science is not an actual ivory tower, and everyone has a right to theorize and study. "Real" scientist is a misnomer, especially when there are so many holes in science that "real" scientists ignore, so many "real" scientists that are bought and paid for, so many "real" scientists that conduct horrifically bad science. There is so much vaccuum there that of course amateurs are going to rush into the void—there's a demand for knowledge that's not being met.