Comments on: Why a Copernican Revolution Is Needed in Climate Change Research http://www.carlineconomics.com/archives/1456 Applications of economics and science for rational public policy by Alan Carlin Wed, 08 Feb 2012 00:33:08 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.1 hourly 1 By: Joachim Seifert http://www.carlineconomics.com/archives/1456/comment-page-1#comment-77356 Joachim Seifert Sat, 14 Jan 2012 19:37:14 +0000 http://www.carlineconomics.com/?p=1456#comment-77356 This comment hits the spot......the astronomical side was "neglected" by the IPCC..... Neglected? No, but on purpose kept under the table, in order that any resulting RF, which occurs due to astronomical (orbital and 3-body-planetary) movements is given to atmospheric physics, CO2 and AGW..... The LA-meeting of AR4-wg1 in 2006 agreed to "assume the orbital forcing to be 'invariant' " and great HAPPINESS broke out.... (Email of one participant)..... Invariant = neglectible on less than millenium scale... (AR4-wg1-chapt 2). They all knew there is substantial astronomical RF and agreed to collude.....to hide it.... The evidence/proof of this: See AR4-wg1-chapter 9 of Mrs.Hegerl: The astronomical side is referred to with "Goosse et al, 2005" in which the Earth's orbit is modelled by simplistic Keplerian parameters of Berger, A. 1978 !! , which, according to the NASA JPL is only good enough for high school standards but "not for professional use" (JPL Horizons) Goosse et al knew they hide orbital forcing..... Scafetta is on the right trail and others (including me) will lift the cover ... This comment hits the spot……the astronomical side was “neglected” by the IPCC…..
Neglected? No, but on purpose kept under the table, in order that any resulting RF, which
occurs due to astronomical (orbital and 3-body-planetary) movements is given
to atmospheric physics, CO2 and AGW….. The LA-meeting of AR4-wg1 in 2006 agreed to “assume the orbital forcing to be ‘invariant’ ” and great HAPPINESS broke out…. (Email of one participant)….. Invariant = neglectible on less than millenium scale… (AR4-wg1-chapt 2).
They all knew there is substantial astronomical RF and agreed to collude…..to hide it….
The evidence/proof of this: See AR4-wg1-chapter 9 of Mrs.Hegerl: The astronomical side
is referred to with “Goosse et al, 2005″ in which the Earth’s orbit is modelled by simplistic
Keplerian parameters of Berger, A. 1978 !! , which, according to the NASA JPL is only
good enough for high school standards but “not for professional use” (JPL Horizons)
Goosse et al knew they hide orbital forcing…..

Scafetta is on the right trail and others (including me) will lift the cover …

]]> By: Scaffeta on his latest paper: Harmonic climate model versus the IPCC general circulation climate models | TaJnB | TheAverageJoeNewsBlogg http://www.carlineconomics.com/archives/1456/comment-page-1#comment-76115 Scaffeta on his latest paper: Harmonic climate model versus the IPCC general circulation climate models | TaJnB | TheAverageJoeNewsBlogg Mon, 09 Jan 2012 16:01:43 +0000 http://www.carlineconomics.com/?p=1456#comment-76115 [...] So, is a kind of Copernican Revolution needed in climate change research, as Alan Carlin has also suggested? http://www.carlineconomics.com/archives/1456 [...] [...] So, is a kind of Copernican Revolution needed in climate change research, as Alan Carlin has also suggested? http://www.carlineconomics.com/archives/1456 [...]

]]> By: Scaffeta on his latest paper: Harmonic climate model versus the IPCC general circulation climate models | Watts Up With That? http://www.carlineconomics.com/archives/1456/comment-page-1#comment-76101 Scaffeta on his latest paper: Harmonic climate model versus the IPCC general circulation climate models | Watts Up With That? Mon, 09 Jan 2012 14:01:57 +0000 http://www.carlineconomics.com/?p=1456#comment-76101 [...] So, is a kind of Copernican Revolution needed in climate change research, as Alan Carlin has also suggested? http://www.carlineconomics.com/archives/1456 [...] [...] So, is a kind of Copernican Revolution needed in climate change research, as Alan Carlin has also suggested? http://www.carlineconomics.com/archives/1456 [...]

]]>