0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
I was pondering on could solar cycle be dominated by the barycenters of the Solar System, and thus did a case study research on it:
Without having read your paper, I am wondering how the 70 years of the Maunder minimum (where there were extremely few sunspots) could be explained by the motion of the gas giants around the Solar System barycenter. Did the planets stop orbiting, or were they fairly equally spaced so they all cancelled out?See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_Minimum
Did the planets stop orbiting, or were they fairly equally spaced so they all cancelled out?
But i dont think that any mentioned here involve electro-magnetic radiation or charge or charge radiation or any other kind of radiation (counting gravity as not being a radiation), either in a primary cause sense or in a secondary cause sense.
The atmospheric climate change on Earth as a result of its precession effect with widened polar vortex pair caused by the orbital forcing of the Solar System objects, could manifest discernable warm climate in the high pressure system of one hemisphere during its summer, and simultaneously manifest discernable cold climate in the lower pressure system of the other hemisphere during its antipodal winter.Seriously, the old school climate science needs to be overhauled.
Yes & we should reduce carbondioxide & methane emissions. And shrink population.
Quote from: mad aetherist on 23/03/2019 03:32:05Yes & we should reduce carbondioxide & methane emissions. And shrink population.I beg to differ; the anthropogenic global warming is a cult science.
Quote from: Paradigmer on 23/03/2019 03:37:44Quote from: mad aetherist on 23/03/2019 03:32:05Yes & we should reduce carbondioxide & methane emissions. And shrink population.I beg to differ; the anthropogenic global warming is a cult science.That is not the question, the question is whether the science might be correct, & the answer is that we must assume that it is correct. There is no planet B.
Quote from: mad aetherist on 23/03/2019 03:47:43Quote from: Paradigmer on 23/03/2019 03:37:44Quote from: mad aetherist on 23/03/2019 03:32:05Yes & we should reduce carbondioxide & methane emissions. And shrink population.I beg to differ; the anthropogenic global warming is a cult science.That is not the question, the question is whether the science might be correct, & the answer is that we must assume that it is correct. There is no planet B.It is a fact that human caused carbon dioxide, has miniscule effects on naturally caused climate change. And even the naturally caused carbon dioxide, which is much more than 100 times the human caused carbon dioxide, its climatic effect is as little as 10 times lesser than the more potent naturally occurring greenhouse gas, which is water vapor.When it is a fact that it is incorrect, we must not assume that it is correct with the preconceived consequences.
Rubbish. U dont seem to understand simple logic. It is a fact that it might be a fact. We cant take that chance.
Quote from: mad aetherist on 23/03/2019 05:37:35Rubbish. U dont seem to understand simple logic. It is a fact that it might be a fact. We cant take that chance.Climate change is a reality, and since time immemorial, it has had detrimental effects on humanity.Despite the concerns of anthropogenic global warming are very humane, and the intentions are absolutely good, they were fallaciously extrapolated from a cult science.Barking on the wrong tree won't really solve the real problem. Not to mention after embarking on the wrong course of actions, and thus bankrupted the trust and resources of the people, as a whole we would be left with little to be able deal with the real problems of climate change.
Every proposed action is worthy on its own merits, even if there is no ACC. And every proposed action is economic on its own merits, even if zero ACC.
Quote from: mad aetherist on 23/03/2019 07:45:29Every proposed action is worthy on its own merits, even if there is no ACC. And every proposed action is economic on its own merits, even if zero ACC.Natural climate change will recur, and thus there could be wide scale suffering, especially so after being misled by the ACC.As an example, the Great Leap Forward of the Chinese Communist despite has had all the good intentions with merits for everything it proposed, it was a large scale detriment for its populace, which caused the demise of tens of millions of its subjects who were misled.
Quote from: mad aetherist on 23/03/2019 05:37:35Rubbish. U dont seem to understand simple logic. It is a fact that it might be a fact. We cant take that chance.Face the fact on Anthropogenic Global Warming is a cult science:https://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htmhttps://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html
U keep missing the point. The point is that AGW might be true. We cant risk it. Immediate strong action is needed.