Sentences with phrase «ignores ocean cycles»

The old headlines were «IPCC ignores ocean cycles as partial cause for 1978 - 1998 warming».

Not exact matches

But as a cooling world is now much more likely than a warming one for the next half century in the light of the current sunspot cycles and the ocean oscillations it would seem absolutely negligent to ignore the possibility, however politically incorrect it might be to entertain the thought.

We need to be careful focussing upon «trends» — it can lead to serious errors of context — and this underlies the entire «global warming» thesis which relies upon computer models with entirely false (i.e. non-natural) notions of an equilibrium starting point and calculations of trend — this conveniently ignores cycles, and it has to because a) there are several non-orbital cycles in motion (8 - 10 yr, 11, 22, 60, 70, 80, 400 and 1000 - 1500) depending on ocean basic, hemisphere and global view — all interacting via «teleconnection» of those ocean basins, some clearly timed by solar cycles, some peaking together; b) because the cycles are not exact, you can not tell in any one decade where you are in the longer cycles.

The main omissions in current climatology are to ignore the oceanic role in setting and maintaining AND CHANGING the Earth's temperature and failing to recognise that the speed of the hydro cycle changes in response to those oceanic forcings.In 1988 when this all started no one acknowledged the significance of ENSO events globally or the existence of 30 year phase shifts let alone a 500 year ocean cycle.

Anyway, keep up the revelations, we can now add Greenpeace inspired polemic to WWF reports, misquoting of effects, glaciers melting not, sea rising fast not, warming, if any, not happening at present, bad data, bad models, poor physics and ignoring of main natural factors (Sun, orbital variations, cosmic rays via cloud cover, ocean heating and cooling cycles, volcanoes, soots, aerosols, etc)