Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

CC3 -- Why I believe that a third option is needed for climate change

1101113151656

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,741 ✭✭✭✭M.T. Cranium


    Well it's all very interesting in the abstract and I can see how it would affect one's assessment of modelling accuracy in the current climate change situation, if the initial boost in temperature was on the order of 90 C deg instead of 33.

    (Some less scientifically literate readers might wish to note for their own edification that one needs to be careful about distinguishing "C deg" from "deg C" or equivalent with the symbol for deg. What's being noted here is a differential of 90 Celsius degrees or 33 of them, not a temperature of 90 C or 33 C.)

    Having said that, I think we have pretty much exhausted the possible relevance of this paper and the significance of ambient temperatures on Mars, Titan or anywhere else beyond the reach of the IPCC.

    Indeed, the entire discussion has been interesting but I don't think I have made any real case (yet) for thinking that natural warming will continue regardless of what interventions political bodies make on carbon dioxide generation in the next two decades. I could take up an easier position and just say what many are thinking, that the increases are inevitable now and such political action as any reasonable person could foresee will have next to no impact on that fact, possibly a 10 to 20 per cent reduction of the projected future amounts (not a reduction of today's amounts).

    Either way, we are probably stuck with a warming atmosphere. It suits some to find individuals or corporations to blame, even to seek reparations. This is probably also a dead end as those most likely to be culpable are those wealthy enough to be successful in court.

    My basic point is this. I would like to see governments actively planning for an inevitable outcome, or close to inevitable, if I'm wrong and we dodge this bullet, fine, the planning itself won't cost that much, it would be the execution of the planning which should begin in early stages of the sea level rises, perhaps in the 2030s or 2040s. That sounds far off but the way governments move, you wouldn't be ready to act then if you didn't start to plan now.

    So for whatever reason the atmosphere warms, and we might never agree on the distribution of causes between anthropogenic, circulation change, and natural variability, at least we would be ready for the consequences.

    I wasn't expecting such a detailed discussion to develop here and it has been interesting. My better evidence for the natural variability aspect comes out from analysis of that Toronto weather data, which some have criticized as being too isolated, but I maintain that what is true there is broadly speaking true in at least one large climate region (eastern/central North America) and probably will show parallels to western Europe although you're on the other side of an ocean whose thermal changes would affect your temperature signal a lot more -- despite its location, Toronto is more prone to be affected by changes in the Pacific Ocean. The influences of the Pacific circulation spread a long way east before being overwhelmed by Atlantic and Arctic oscillations.

    That study is in its final edit now, I would be ready to start downloading it except that we have had no end of outside difficulties here including some snowstorms that have taken up blocks of my time, power outages that in one case over-rode auto-save on my file wiping out three days of work, and just wanting to make sure all the numbers are as accurate as possible.

    The main argument that I will advance using that data will be that the rate of warming from 1890 to 1960 was greater than many have theorized, and that there is no logically consistent way to change the climate change theory now in favour to account for it, without expecting even greater warming rates since 1960. The changes have been out of phase with the increases in carbon dioxide which I believe has a role but is also somewhat along for the ride while the atmosphere goes through whatever natural variations it wishes. If we had better theories about those, we would know what to expect and be more easily able to subtract them from the overall warming to deduce the signal from AGW. But there is no way that 90% of the warming should have occurred in the first half of the past 130 years, if the current models are correct. I suspect another wave of strong warming could lie in the near future, especially if the solar downturn is not too deep or sustained. Some expect that it will be. I hope they are right because it may buy us decades of extra time to prepare, but eventually if we continue to load up on carbon dioxide and hit that next natural warming, then we could go through a step function to a different climate altogether.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,221 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir


    The Net-weather discussion thread is basically four or five IPCC loyalists debating me and very occasionally one or two other people who are willing to risk being flamed for their dissenting points of view.

    Ironically, somebody who may or may not be a still active Boards member showed up to complain that Boards is an echo chamber and there is a cult following where people are sheeple and don't question anything.

    That Donegal does seem to be a nasty piece of work alright. I haven't visited that forum for years, and I now remember why.

    Just on the Toronto station, has it remained in the exact same place all the time? I can't seem to find it on Google maps.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 462 ✭✭oriel36


    After telling his followers that the common man doesn't understand time, space and motion apart from their senses and relationship to objects, Newton does a brexity thing and then runs them in the opposite direction -

    "We no other way know the extension of bodies than by our senses, nor do
    these reach it in all bodies; but because we perceive extension in all that are sensible, therefore we ascribe it universally to all others also."

    http://strangebeautiful.com/other-texts/newton-principia-rules-reasoning.pdf

    The whole scientific method' agenda is behind some of the worst accesses humanity has ever propagated at the expense of genuine research, genuine astronomy and genuine Earth sciences.


    Some who try to escape the Royal Society doctrine discover they will be quickly isolated as defence of the 'scientific method' comes before opposition to any idiotic conclusion it manufactures. It is the worst kind of cowardice there is because people like that will always be forgiven by the academic community and they know it.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,913 ✭✭✭Danno


    ...That study is in its final edit now, I would be ready to start downloading it except that we have had no end of outside difficulties here including some snowstorms that have taken up blocks of my time, power outages that in one case over-rode auto-save on my file wiping out three days of work...

    Control & S is your friend! :P

    Forces the application to save the file.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,238 ✭✭✭Oneiric 3


    Throughout 2019, we were told by suit wearing establishment pundits and the establishment loving bourgeoisie, pseudo-liberal middle class that the 'climate extinction' protests were what a real revolution looked like.

    Nah, this is what real revolution looks like. And fair f**ks to the French, they don't take to being ****ed over by their banker/corporate controlled government who thought it would be a good idea to inflict more 'carbon taxes' on the poorest in society.

    https://twitter.com/BasedPoland/status/1216018459252928513

    The capitalist shrills that are the mainstream media curiously silent.. I wonder what they are afraid of? Because what ever that is, they, and their kind, have every reason to be...

    New Moon



  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 31,118 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    I have seen this chart pop up several times while skimming through the thread


    495449.png
    One thing that strikes me is that while most of the model projections have been proven to be alarmist in nature and do not match real historical data.


    Some DO provide a very good match, it seems to me that modellers should compare the models and find out why some were so wrong and why some were really close to reality, it should then be possible for they to produce a better model in the future.


    It will also be very interesting to see how the affects of weak solar cycles 24 and (expected) weak cycle 25 is factored into any of these models.


  • Posts: 31,118 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Oneiric 3 wrote: »
    Throughout 2019, we were told by suit wearing establishment pundits and the establishment loving bourgeoisie, pseudo-liberal middle class that the 'climate extinction' protests were what a real revolution looked like.

    Nah, this is what real revolution looks like. And fair f**ks to the French, they don't take to being ****ed over by their banker/corporate controlled government who thought it would be a good idea to inflict more 'carbon taxes' on the poorest in society.


    The capitalist shrills that are the mainstream media curiously silent.. I wonder what they are afraid of? Because what ever that is, they, and their kind, have every reason to be...
    Well, without drifting too far off topic, I think it is really down to the fact that the consumerism based economy that we live in is "non-negotiable", that is why Greta and others before her are allowed to speak up as they do not challenge the status quo, rather they provide a useful diversion for public opinion. No one is challenging the BAU that is so wasteful and polluting as well as the destructive extraction of resources.
    All of this plundering is destroying the local environments in so many areas of the planet, these actions will of course, permanently affect the local weather in those places, to incorporate these events as "global climate change" really diverts the general public's attention from the serious locally generated environmental damage that is being inflicted.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,238 ✭✭✭Oneiric 3


    Well, without drifting too far off topic, I think it is really down to the fact that the consumerism based economy that we live in is "non-negotiable", that is why Greta and others before her are allowed to speak up as they do not challenge the status quo, rather they provide a useful diversion for public opinion.

    Spot on. They do not in anyway challenge the 'status quo' because they are the status quo. What all this alarmist posturing is really about is increasing one's social or 'symbolic' capital. There is no real authentic or deep-rooted principle behind it; it's more just about the seeking of a nodding approval from their peers or social group.

    New Moon



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,799 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    They do distinguish between a tangible and tenuous atmosphere in their discussion, the latter meaning so thin as to have no effect on radiative or convective impact on outgoing radiation. The Moon would certainly count as tenuous, being around 0.3 trillion (3x10^-13) times thinner than that of Earth. Their reasoning is that without an atmosphere, convectional heat transfer between regolith particles, which is orders of magnitude more effective than pure radiative or contact conductive processes, leads to its heat retention coefficient and hence night time temperature being much higher. It is all hypothetical indeed, though they deal with an Earth devoid of surface ice, as that would require it to have an atmosphere in the first place.



    Appendix B of their 2017 paper deals specifically with their calculations of Mars. They cite a wide range of currently-accepted average Martian temperatures in the literature, from 200 to 240 K. In Table 2 they quote their airless temperatures of Earth and Mars as 197 K and 159.6 K, respectively.

    There’s a 40 K range in their analysis of accepted Martian average temperatures but they can still post press releases and describe their research as predicting the average temperature of all rocky planets’ to within 1c


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,799 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    I don't condone falsifications of any type, by these guys or anyone else. I believe in the doubl-blind peer review process, where neither the author nor the reviewer knows the identity of the other. That way, only the merit of the content of the paper is judged. You, Akrasia and a few others seem to believe in the opposite.

    I note that the Science Direct retraction specifically stated that it was not due to the scientific merit of the paper. Whether the content of the paper is ultimately right or wrong is a separate story.

    I believe that scientific consensus is decided by the overwhelming preponderance of evidence and individual papers that attract practically zero interest amongst the people best qualified to asses them do not overturn the preponderance of evidence

    I have looked for the opinion of suitably qualified experts with a good reputation and have not found a single one who doesn’t think the paper has fundamental flaws and that their conclusions are massively overstated and do nothing to overturn the established consensus.

    I do not have the training to asses this paper and nor do I have the hubris to read it and think I am qualified to declare on a public forum that this radical and contrarian thesis does not have any obvious flaws

    The flaws may not be obvious to you, but this is very likely due to a failing in your own ability to recognize these flaws rather than evidence that the paper is accurate


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,221 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir


    Akrasia wrote: »
    There’s a 40 K range in their analysis of accepted Martian average temperatures but they can still post press releases and describe their research as predicting the average temperature of all rocky planets’ to within 1c

    They're just another couple of authors with a theory accompanied by their calculations. Whether it's correct or not won't be known for a long time, it seems, until we can get a more accurate handle on the true temperature.

    Do you think it's OK to have such a wide range of temperature estimates for such a relatively widely measured body such as our nearest neighbour?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,221 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir


    Akrasia wrote: »
    I believe that scientific consensus is decided by the overwhelming preponderance of evidence and individual papers that attract practically zero interest amongst the people best qualified to asses them do not overturn the preponderance of evidence

    I have looked for the opinion of suitably qualified experts with a good reputation and have not found a single one who doesn’t think the paper has fundamental flaws and that their conclusions are massively overstated and do nothing to overturn the established consensus.

    I do not have the training to asses this paper and nor do I have the hubris to read it and think I am qualified to declare on a public forum that this radical and contrarian thesis does not have any obvious flaws

    The flaws may not be obvious to you, but this is very likely due to a failing in your own ability to recognize these flaws rather than evidence that the paper is accurate

    Hubris, eh? Is no one entitled to post an opinion on a public forum anymore? What are you afraid of? Me. MT. You and a few others are always more interested in our cv instead of what we're saying. I am qualified to comment on something of a physics and chemistry nature, as that is my background. Whether I'm right or wrong is another matter.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 462 ✭✭oriel36


    The rule of thumb for the general reader is that dull and dour people are inclined to make gloom and doom predictions in all aspects of life let alone the future conditions on the surface of the planet so how they fill the gap in between their dull demeanour and their conclusions is incidental to their overall outlook.

    A project for those who wish to research climate productively within a solar system framework is based on the relationship between axial inclination in respect to the orbital plane which determines the rate of change in atmospheric conditions across an orbital circuit with this rate split across hemispheres.

    https://calgary.rasc.ca/images/planet_inclinations.gif


    Of course researchers are required to affirm the cause of the polar day/night cycle and periodic expansion and contraction of a circle where the Sun is completely in view or out of sight from Equinox to Equinox with the maximum circumference on the Solstice corresponding to the Arctic and Antarctic circles. The North and South poles are at the centre of this expansion/contraction and are unique in that those locations experience a single day/night cycle each year.

    https://www.timeanddate.com/sun/antarctica/south-pole


    The circumference where the Sun is constantly out of sight is presently beginning to shrink with the North Pole at its centre hence habitable places like Hammerfest, Norway will see the Sun for the first time in a number of months in over a week and rapidly acquire daylight over the following months -

    https://www.timeanddate.com/sun/norway/hammerfest


    If the Earth had an inclination like Jupiter, there would really be no rate of change in surface conditions across the year (previously 'no seasons') as the Arctic/Antarctic circles would be very close to the North/South polar latitudes whereas an inclination of Uranus would create Arctic and Antarctic circles close to the Earth's rotational equator and life on Earth would be almost impossible due to the extreme swings in daylight/darkness and temperature fluctuations across the year.

    No point in waiting for academics to change their views, it is up to everyone else to make the effort as we can actually affirm the Earth, like other planets in the solar system, have two distinct surface rotations to the Sun acting in isolation and in combination (the seasons).

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=612gSZsplpE

    About 50 seconds into the time lapse where observations speed up, the two surface rotations are seen in isolation and in combination. It is for intuitive/perceptive people along with their ability to be reasonable rather than the 'greenhouse' people who have their own thing going, however, the ability to model climate using the productive view is still there along with all the familiar events like Arctic sea ice evolution and hurricane seasons.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,539 ✭✭✭SeaBreezes


    More from Dr. Nikolov on twitter:

    Our model predicting solar fluxes at TOA from observed changes in global surface temp. did well against CERES measurements (https://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/products-info.php?product=EBAF…). Model RMSE is 7 times smaller than CERES uncertainty, and predictions are identical to observations with a probability of 0.934.

    The success of our albedo model to reproduce observed dynamics of the reflected shortwave flux as measured by CERES (the best satellite-based energy budget platform at present) indicates that inter-annual and decadal Global Temp. changes of the past 20 years were forced by clouds.

    Our model uses no "#CO2 forcing". Hence, its success in simulating CERES-observed changes in reflected solar radiation implies no effect of "greenhouse gases" on Earth's climate for the past 20 yrs and, by logical extension of the mechanism, no effect of CO2 over the past 40 yrs!

    https://mobile.twitter.com/NikolovScience/status/1216177516852854785


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,799 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    They're just another couple of authors with a theory accompanied by their calculations. Whether it's correct or not won't be known for a long time, it seems, until we can get a more accurate handle on the true temperature.

    Do you think it's OK to have such a wide range of temperature estimates for such a relatively widely measured body such as our nearest neighbour?
    That’s a strange question. I think it’s better to honestly declare uncertainty than to pretend you can predict average surface temps on celestial bodies to within 1c


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,741 ✭✭✭✭M.T. Cranium


    GL, the Toronto station has always been located somewhere within 1 km of its current location, which is on some open grass-covered land east of the northeast corner of the Trinity College residence and south of Varsity Stadium. Before it was located there around 2003, it was for many years at 315 Bloor St West which is an old headquarters building of the weather service, located west of Varsity Stadium. While it was there from perhaps 1908 to 2003, the site was surrounded by increasingly tall high rise buildings and the population of Toronto went from about a quarter million to over four million, although the largest urban heat island increases take place in the jump from 10,000 to 500,000 population (I consider the u.h.i. about 75% complete by 1931).

    Before 1908 the station was near another building on the university campus located about 1 km south of its current and previous locations (which are themselves less than 0.25 km apart). Not that it means anything, but the new location could have been seen out my back window when I lived in residence at the university. The previous location was a five minute walk around the stadium and the original location about a fifteen minute walk across campus. So the obs have been taken at similar locations in a generally flat well-treed mid-town location. The core of Toronto's c.b.d. is between the university and the lakeshore but I would describe the area immediately east of the university as the northern extension of same, so in some ways this is a similar location to NYC's Central Park observation site. However it is not as distinctly parkland as that setting.

    If you googled Trinity College and Varsity Stadium then the current location is closer to the college and you can see the instruments in a grassy open area on google earth imagery. It appears that, as in my time at university, the space between the two is a soccer field, not sure if that's still true. The weather station is located about 50 paces southeast of where the corner flag, closer to the northeast corner of the residence, is placed for that soccer field. The residence is an older stone structure and has smallish windows, I doubt that it's radiating a lot of reflected solar heating towards the instruments. There are no other buildings near the observing site. The back of the Royal Ontario Museum can be seen in the google earth imagery off to the northeast. It's a little strip of tall trees in a slight valley between the buildings.

    Toronto airport (CYYZ) is about 20 kms west-northwest of this location and Toronto City Centre airport (used to be called Island Airport) is about 4 kms south-southwest. Another station with useful data is located at North York civic centre. North York is a northern borough of the city that would be "mid-town" in the same way that Bronx or Queens would be in relation to Manhattan. It's definitely fully within the large-scale urban heat island and when the Toronto site goes missing I use its data instead. That happened on perhaps 20-25 days in the past decade. Before 2013 the Toronto "City" weather station had a near-perfect observing record.

    As to that data saving business, I think what happened over-rode everything in place for some odd reason, the power did not go off, it just surged and maybe all the systems failed because one component thought it was a shutdown and another didn't (like the power was off for maybe 1 second). I've never had that happen before and I do routinely save my work.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,741 ✭✭✭✭M.T. Cranium


    So for anyone reading that and thinking, "it sounds like a mid-town heat trap" actually I think the reverse may be true, with that many trees and the 315 Bloor St site increasingly in the afternoon shade of high rises, it may have been a slight oasis setting. The new location on the college lawn is also not that much of a heat trap with a lot of mature trees around to the east, and good ventilation from a number of directions. It could be that an earlier phase of urban development around 1910-1940 might have been more concrete and less vegetation than is now the mix, and I would have to assess that in any role played in boosting max temps in summer in that era (which had some notable scorchers).

    This will all come out in greater detail, but the basic story told by this station is ever-increasing temperatures, decreasing diurnal ranges, and a greater tendency for nights to warm faster than days in the last half century. I don't think setting would have any influence on precip which tends to vary uniformly across the region and shows the usual random variations in summer thunderstorms.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,913 ✭✭✭Danno


    If you googled Trinity College and Varsity Stadium then the current location is pretty much between them although a bit east of the mid-point which in my time at university was a soccer field, not sure if that's still true. The weather station is located about where the corner flag, further away from the northeast corner of the residence, used to sit for that soccer field.

    https://goo.gl/maps/bqRaR2ixJBuSdw439


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,741 ✭✭✭✭M.T. Cranium


    Thanks but I edited my post after you quoted, as I realized what I had seen on my walk past the site in Sept 2013 was a case of slightly faulty memory, I saw the weather station then I noticed they had put some kind of other environmental sensors in that other location. Anyway, the weather station is close to Trinity College. It used to be a first-order station with timed observations before the weather agency moved their h.q. from the previous site to a suburban Toronto location that was much bigger (their staff in 1969 at the old location was about ten, now it's about three thousand).

    I think my faulty memory might have had something to do with a wave of nausea, either a flashback of college meals, or misadventures on that soccer field, such as the time well it doesn't matter now.

    Looking at the posted photo, that looks like a different part of the campus to the south of Trinity College, the location would be off to the northeast of the soccer field and the campus buildings in the background, if it matters. That looks to me like the back campus field between Hart House and University College. The soccer field in question is maybe 300 metres north of that one.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,799 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    Hubris, eh? Is no one entitled to post an opinion on a public forum anymore? What are you afraid of? Me. MT. You and a few others are always more interested in our cv instead of what we're saying. I am qualified to comment on something of a physics and chemistry nature, as that is my background. Whether I'm right or wrong is another matter.

    You can retain your entitlement to post and still suffer from hubris. As can anyone else.

    Hubris is the natural state of anyone who thinks that their personal qualifications are suitable to assess and overturn the combined knowledge and expertise of thousands of scientists representing hundreds of thousands of hours of research and collaboration.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,221 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir


    Thanks but I edited my post after you quoted, as I realized what I had seen on my walk past the site in Sept 2013 was a case of slightly faulty memory, I saw the weather station then I noticed they had put some kind of other environmental sensors in that other location. Anyway, the weather station is close to Trinity College. It used to be a first-order station with timed observations before the weather agency moved their h.q. from the previous site to a suburban Toronto location that was much bigger (their staff in 1969 at the old location was about ten, now it's about three thousand).

    I think my faulty memory might have had something to do with a wave of nausea, either a flashback of college meals, or misadventures on that soccer field, such as the time well it doesn't matter now.

    Looking at the posted photo, that looks like a different part of the campus to the south of Trinity College, the location would be off to the northeast of the soccer field and the campus buildings in the background, if it matters. That looks to me like the back campus field between Hart House and University College. The soccer field in question is maybe 300 metres north of that one.

    Thanks for that, I see it now.

    https://www.google.ie/maps/@43.6658102,-79.3954036,38m/data=!3m1!1e3


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,539 ✭✭✭SeaBreezes


    Akrasia wrote: »
    That’s a strange question. I think it’s better to honestly declare uncertainty than to pretend you can predict average surface temps on celestial bodies to within 1c

    Unless you can.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 462 ✭✭oriel36


    The general reader may not know that they and their kids are being drawn into the dreary world of empirical modeling, after all, the proponents and opponents argue over whether their pessimism is due to man-made causes or natural causes and use graphs or academic papers to argue over the issue.

    The first time the empirical modelers adopted the idea that experimental sciences scale up to astronomy and large scale Earth sciences was Newton's late 17th century universal attraction/gravity (minus magnetism) where the attraction of the Earth by the Sun was the same as the attraction of an apple by the planet -

    "Rule III. The qualities of bodies which are found to belong to all bodies within the reach of our experiments, are to be esteemed the universal qualities of all bodies whatsoever." Newton

    The idea extends to this recent bandwagon where conditions in a common greenhouse (experiment) scale up to the Earth's atmosphere (universal qualities) or 'climate change' as it is more generally known.

    In Newton's case, his followers have no idea how he bridged the gap between the fall of an apple and planetary orbital motion but only that it appeared to follow Johannes Kepler's description of orbital periods and their distance from the Sun.

    Because of this empirical 'breakthrough', astronomy was lost to humanity for 200+ years as it proposed that astronomical predictions were the same as experimental predictions. It surfaces today as the followers of Royal Society empiricism attempt to draw the population of the world into their dour and dull ideologies so what appears hypnotic to the wider public is very difficult to escape from.

    It isn't optimism that breaks the stranglehold of pessimistic academic purveyors, it is the inspirational works of the original astronomers and 21st century imaging which breaks through and shows what the links between the motions of the planet and Earth sciences actually are in terms of cause and effect.

    This is for the general reader as the 'greenhouse' people and their opponents have their own thing going.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,741 ✭✭✭✭M.T. Cranium


    So one might ask, what is the right answer to the question of future trends in global climate, if both sides have lost the plot? Or are you saying that while both are likely wrong, you have no basis for making a call? I am not trying to wind you up with this question, just curious since I think I understand what you're saying but I haven't read anything in past musings to say what will actually happen in your opinion (or perhaps to be more precise, in the opinion of the philosophers you are quoting).

    I would agree that we are not in any position to make definitive forecasts, and what the public may have heard from the experts is really their best estimate, not something as reliable as an eclipse forecast or even tomorrow's weather forecast. And in my own case, I have made no claims of a definitive forecast, I am merely saying that on balance of probabilities, we would be wise to assume a warmer future and therefore some significant sea level rises. But this is a bit like saying that Sweden would be wise to assume they might lose a big football match with Germany.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 462 ✭✭oriel36


    This is for the general reader and not the 'greenhouse' people and their opponents.

    What is called the 'scientific method' or what society knows as the dreary academic conclusions via modeling has a definite beginning in the late 17th century. The academics today have no more idea than their colleagues back then how Isaac managed to propose that the fall of an apple is the same as planetary orbital motions by using Kepler's correlation between orbital periods and distance from the Sun.

    Kepler doesn't explain the individual orbits of planets although this is cited for Newton's empirical crown jewel which is meant to connect astronomical predictions and experimental predictions. More plainly, Isaac's attempt to show that the motion of an apple at an experimental level and predictions matched the motions of planets and astronomical predictions. The jewel is called the 'inverse square law' in academic circles and supposed to give Isaac his iconic stature.

    What is called 'climate change' is basically a symptom of the original doctrine that experimental predictions scale up to Earth sciences or the Earth's atmosphere can be formatted and squeezed into conditions found in a common greenhouse.


    For the general reader who has the wits to recognise that Kepler doesn't describe the behaviour of individual planets as Sir Isaac and his followers would have it but expresses what is effectively a loose correlation between planets orbital periods and distance from the Sun. I am at a disadvantage as few, if anyone, has encountered the original astronomical methods and principles as the first heliocentric astronomers presented them in honesty and integrity but there is nothing difficult about it with a little effort -

    "The proportion existing between the periodic times of any two planets
    is exactly the sesquiplicate proportion of the mean distances of the
    orbits, or as generally given,the squares of the periodic times are
    proportional to the cubes of the mean distances." Kepler

    "But it is absolutely certain and exact that the ratio which exists
    between the periodic times of any two planets is precisely the ratio
    of the 3/2th power of the mean distances, i.e., of the spheres
    themselves; provided, however, that the arithmetic mean between both
    diameters of the elliptic orbit be slightly less than the longer
    diameter. And so if any one take the period, say, of the Earth, which
    is one year, and the period of Saturn, which is thirty years, and
    extract the cube roots of this ratio and then square the ensuing ratio
    by squaring the cube roots, he will have as his numerical products the
    most just ratio of the distances of the Earth and Saturn from the sun.
    1 For the cube root of 1 is 1, and the square of it is 1; and the cube
    root of 30 is greater than 3, and therefore the square of it is
    greater than 9. And Saturn, at its mean distance from the sun, is
    slightly higher than nine times the mean distance of the Earth from
    the sun." Kepler


    Isaac tried to railroad this fairly easy to understand planetary orbital description into the behaviour of individual orbits and from there into experimental predictions. It is fairly straightforward in terms of forensics how a mathematician's pretense hijacked astronomy and sent it in the direction of experimental sciences but such a description is a digression presently other than to point out this is the way academics go about their business in terms of speculative conclusions.

    All 'climate change' did was expose the overreaching and sloppy 'scientific method' which draws humanity into the world of dull and hysterical conclusions.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 216 ✭✭posidonia


    oriel36 wrote: »
    The general reader may not know that they and their kids are being drawn into the dreary world of empirical modeling, after all, the proponents and opponents argue over whether their pessimism is due to man-made causes or natural causes and use graphs or academic papers to argue over the issue.

    The first time the empirical modelers adopted the idea that experimental sciences scale up to astronomy and large scale Earth sciences was Newton's late 17th century universal attraction/gravity (minus magnetism) where the attraction of the Earth by the Sun was the same as the attraction of an apple by the planet -

    "Rule III. The qualities of bodies which are found to belong to all bodies within the reach of our experiments, are to be esteemed the universal qualities of all bodies whatsoever." Newton

    The idea extends to this recent bandwagon where conditions in a common greenhouse (experiment) scale up to the Earth's atmosphere (universal qualities) or 'climate change' as it is more generally known.

    In Newton's case, his followers have no idea how he bridged the gap between the fall of an apple and planetary orbital motion but only that it appeared to follow Johannes Kepler's description of orbital periods and their distance from the Sun.

    Because of this empirical 'breakthrough', astronomy was lost to humanity for 200+ years as it proposed that astronomical predictions were the same as experimental predictions. It surfaces today as the followers of Royal Society empiricism attempt to draw the population of the world into their dour and dull ideologies so what appears hypnotic to the wider public is very difficult to escape from.

    It isn't optimism that breaks the stranglehold of pessimistic academic purveyors, it is the inspirational works of the original astronomers and 21st century imaging which breaks through and shows what the links between the motions of the planet and Earth sciences actually are in terms of cause and effect.

    This is for the general reader as the 'greenhouse' people and their opponents have their own thing going.


    I've only been here a few days but that's several times you've, essentially, said exactly the same thing...


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 462 ✭✭oriel36


    posidonia wrote: »
    I've only been here a few days but that's several times you've essentially said exactly the same thing...

    For the general reader. It is impossible to have a discussion with the 'greenhouse' people and their opponents as they do not approach astronomy and Earth sciences as reasonable people.

    The emergence of computer modeling has brought a recent rotten facet to the links between the motions of the planet and Earth sciences in terms of cause and effect. The particular (RA/Dec) software is an extension of the late 17th century 'clockwork solar system' where the academics reference all external moving objects to the Earth's daily rotation.

    https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap170319.html

    It is why today the theorists 'model' the seasons using an Earth with a zero degree inclination and a pivoting circle of illumination off the Equator !!!.

    The human mind when it is reasonable is both powerful, creative and productive, however, certain addictions to pessimism or the rewards centres of the body throw up excuses for pursuing disruptive or destructive courses. Society is being drawn into that pessimistic world and taking the student population with them and therein the next generations becomes weaker as we have suffered from intellectual pretense inherited from previous generations of academics.

    I would say the NASA description above is rock bottom for imaging was manipulated to suit RA/Dec or celestial sphere modeling. I know it has no impact for when faced with it, it is met with silence.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,808 ✭✭✭✭Water John


    It's my intention to go back and fully read this thread with an open mind. Have been dipping in. I see that the ocean temp are rising. Is there an alt view as to why this is happening, other than fossil fuels?
    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jan/13/ocean-temperatures-hit-record-high-as-rate-of-heating-accelerates


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 462 ✭✭oriel36


    So one might ask, what is the right answer to the question of future trends in global climate, if both sides have lost the plot?

    If one understood global climate properly within the solar system framework, one would not ask such a question.

    I understood fairly quickly a few decades ago that the once the original basis of the 'scientific method' was exposed as fraudulent then there is no necessity to contend with the adherents of that method for much else including 'climate change'. It is possible to deem the originator of empirical modeling as a bluffer at the expense of genuine astronomy and Earth sciences while demonstrating that his followers are misguided but keeping the technical forensics of empirical indulgence apart from what the potential is for genuine productive and creative research has proven difficult.

    The celestial sphere modelers have exploded on to the scene lately and with it an Earth that loses it's inclination to suit the movement of the Sun 'moving' North and South of the celestial equator and the Earth's rotational equator -

    https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap170319.html

    They may as well model seasonal temperature fluctuations across the planet based on that cretinous assertion of a 'pivoting circle of illumination' as Arctic sea ice development and hurricane season is dependent on the temperature fluctuation North and South of the Equator.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTig9gKegQk&t=18s

    Finding researchers who can genuinely appreciate the dynamical cause in the observed annual fluctuation has again proved difficult.

    I deal with what is in front of me and the temperature fluctuations are dependent on two surface rotations acting in isolation and in combination (seasons) so extrapolating the surface rotation from the polar day/night cycle at the polar latitudes as a function of the planet's orbital motion is extended to lower latitudes in combination with daily rotation as the true explanation for the seasons with all the components accounted for.

    You can look at the NASA celestial sphere modeling and see absolutely nothing wrong with it while I see human deterioration beyond words. It is this deterioration which has drawn society into the dreadful world of modelers who lack the physical considerations to take the necessary wider perspectives. It may not necessarily be their fault but neither should our nation and humanity pay for these academic indulgences.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 216 ✭✭posidonia


    Water John wrote: »
    It's my intention to go back and fully read this thread with an open mind. Have been dipping in. I see that the ocean temp are rising. Is there an alt view as to why this is happening, other than fossil fuels?
    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jan/13/ocean-temperatures-hit-record-high-as-rate-of-heating-accelerates


    Undersea volcanoes or aliens :D


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,221 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir


    Water John wrote: »
    It's my intention to go back and fully read this thread with an open mind. Have been dipping in. I see that the ocean temp are rising. Is there an alt view as to why this is happening, other than fossil fuels?
    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jan/13/ocean-temperatures-hit-record-high-as-rate-of-heating-accelerates

    Other things to look at are solar-based, with possible ocean lag effects from the increased solar constant in the recent century over previous three.

    itsi_wls_ann.png

    itsi_wls_ann_a.png


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,799 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    SeaBreezes wrote: »
    Unless you can.

    They can’t,At least not without cooking the books


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,541 ✭✭✭PokeHerKing




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 216 ✭✭posidonia


    Other things to look at are solar-based, with possible ocean lag effects from the increased solar constant in the recent century over previous three.


    You can fit anything to anything using an undefined lag.


  • Posts: 31,118 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    posidonia wrote: »
    You can fit anything to anything using an undefined lag.
    A change of 1W/m2 over several years could make a noticeable difference to the sea surface temperature, which in turn will affect the global weather in coastal areas.
    After all, climate change is being attributed to changes of less than 1C in sea temperatures.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 921 ✭✭✭MiNdGaM3


    A change of 1W/m2 over several years could make a noticeable difference to the sea surface temperature, which in turn will affect the global weather in coastal areas.
    After all, climate change is being attributed to changes of less than 1C in sea temperatures.

    The article discusses ocean heat content rather than sea surface temperatures. It also states that the rate of heat accumulation increased by four and a half times for 1987 to 2018, relative to 1956 to 1986.

    During that time solar activity has declined, especially the last decade. So it appears highly unlikely that there's a solar based cause.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 462 ✭✭oriel36


    Other things to look at are solar-based, with possible ocean lag effects from the increased solar constant in the recent century over previous three.

    itsi_wls_ann_a.png

    Modelers have problems with anything cyclical so aided by a natural pessimism, they project or conclude future conditions as dire or desperate.

    How to attract researchers back towards what is in front of them in term of cyclical events shouldn't be as difficult as it is, after all, the annual fluctuations of ocean temperatures North and South of the Equator arises from the motions of the Earth -

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTig9gKegQk&t=21s

    The Earth doesn't tilt towards and away from the Sun to account for the fluctuations and I wouldn't even mention the new 'explanation' favoured by RA/Dec modelers.

    Give students something new to look at to counter the unnecessary anxiety and desperation dumped on them by those who operate in a dull and contentious atmosphere of empirical modeling.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,799 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    oriel36 wrote: »
    Modelers have problems with anything cyclical so aided by a natural pessimism, they project or conclude future conditions as dire or desperate.
    Well this is absolute nonsense
    Regular cyclical events are the easiest things in the world to model.

    There is a problem with identifying cycles if they are irregular or if they are contingent on triggering events or tipping points

    The problem is that if you are excessively pattern seeking, you can find patterns in random series. John Nash suffered from this. He was excellent at finding links in data, but it became his undoing when due to mental illness, he lost the ability to discern genuine patterns from random noise


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 462 ✭✭oriel36


    Akrasia wrote: »
    Well this is absolute nonsense
    Regular cyclical events are the easiest things in the world to model.

    There is a problem with identifying cycles if they are irregular or if they are contingent on triggering events or tipping points

    The problem is that if you are excessively pattern seeking, you can find patterns in random series. John Nash suffered from this. He was excellent at finding links in data, but it became his undoing when due to mental illness, he lost the ability to discern genuine patterns from random noise

    The easiest cyclical event to extrapolate is the rotation of the Earth via the temperature troughs and peaks over a 24 hour period -

    http://prairieecosystems.pbworks.com/f/1179343887/crerar%20temperature%20variation.jpg


    The modelers following a really silly late 17th century conclusion insist there are more rotations than temperature 'heartbeats' across a year ! -

    " It is a fact not generally known that,owing to the difference between solar and sidereal time,the Earth rotates upon its axis once more often than there are days in the year" NASA

    What they did was attempt to shift the Earth's rotation from its anchor in the noon cycle or day/night cycle and determine it using stellar circumpolar motion and the 24 hour clock where there is no cause and effect -

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwSlkJG8gTU


    If that is not an eff up I do not know what is on the exact issue being considered.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,539 ✭✭✭SeaBreezes


    MiNdGaM3 wrote: »
    The article discusses ocean heat content rather than sea surface temperatures. It also states that the rate of heat accumulation increased by four and a half times for 1987 to 2018, relative to 1956 to 1986.

    During that time solar activity has declined, especially the last decade. So it appears highly unlikely that there's a solar based cause.

    More from Dr. Nikolov:
    Though this paper has yet to be published. He says they are using satellite data so prob hard to argue with. But will have to wait and see.

    Interesting though

    Ned Nikolov, Ph.D.
    @NikolovScience
    The success of our albedo model to reproduce observed dynamics of the reflected shortwave flux as measured by CERES (the best satellite-based energy budget platform at present) indicates that inter-annual and decadal Global Temp. changes of the past 20 years were forced by clouds

    Satellite observations show a significant decrease of low-level cloud cover and global cloud albedo decline since 1979.
    Also, we were able do predict CERES-measured Earth SW reflection from observed changes in Global T since 2001.

    Wouldn't cloud cover have a LOT to do with solar warming/cooling of the seas?

    Regardless of his science there are surely other climate studies done on cloud cover using satellite data?
    It has to be a factor taken into consideration in climate already?
    He's announcing it like it's groundbreaking but surely not?

    Edit: Did a quick google. Paper published in Nature magazine: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.00165.pdf
    The paper, entitled “No Experimental Evidence for the Significant Anthropogenic Climate Change“ and published in Nature, is the work of a group Finnish scientists. It explains how the IPCC’s analysis of global temperatures suffers from at least one glaring error — namely, the failure to account for “influences of low cloud cover” on global temperature

    …the [IPCC] models fail to derive the influences of low cloud cover fraction on the global temperature. A too small natural component results in a too large portion for the contribution of the greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide. That is why J. KAUPPINEN AND P. MALMI IPCC represents the climate sensitivity more than one order of magnitude larger than our sensitivity 0.24°C. Because the anthropogenic portion in the increased CO2 is less than 10%, we have practically no anthropogenic climate change. The low clouds control mainly the global temperature.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 921 ✭✭✭MiNdGaM3


    SeaBreezes wrote: »
    More from Dr. Nikolov:
    Though this paper has yet to be published. He says they are using satellite data so prob hard to argue with. But will have to wait and see.

    Interesting though

    Ned Nikolov, Ph.D.
    @NikolovScience
    The success of our albedo model to reproduce observed dynamics of the reflected shortwave flux as measured by CERES (the best satellite-based energy budget platform at present) indicates that inter-annual and decadal Global Temp. changes of the past 20 years were forced by clouds

    Satellite observations show a significant decrease of low-level cloud cover and global cloud albedo decline since 1979.
    Also, we were able do predict CERES-measured Earth SW reflection from observed changes in Global T since 2001.

    Wouldn't cloud cover have a LOT to do with solar warming/cooling of the seas?

    Regardless of his science there are surely other climate studies done on cloud cover using satellite data?
    It has to be a factor taken into consideration in climate already?
    He's announcing it like it's groundbreaking but surely not?

    He doesn't provide enough info to really comment much.
    However, if cloud cover was the cause, then globally we'd see days warming faster than nights. Instead, the opposite is happening.
    We shouldn't see stratospheric cooling either.

    Anyway, until it's published it doesn't matter. Especially when other studies don't support it.

    Changes in Global Cloud Cover Based on Remote Sensing Data from 2003 to 2012

    global cloud cover increased over this recent decade...cloud cover over ocean areas (especially the Indian and Pacific Oceans) increased (slope = 0.0011, R2 = 0.4955).


    https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11769-019-1030-6


    @SeaBreezes: The paper you edited in was not published anywhere, and didn't undergo peer review. It was just uploaded to arxiv


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,741 ✭✭✭✭M.T. Cranium


    This stuff from Oriel36 has me stumped, I have no idea what he thinks is the fatal flaw in our understanding of seasons or basic principles of climate. But I do want readers of this thread to understand that his insertions have nothing to do with the subject matter being discussed here, and form no basis whatsoever for my objections to the orthodox climate science theories.

    I have always understood the difference between sidereal and synodic day length. We get one extra sidereal day per synodic year. There is no temperature cycle from any observation point that corresponds to the sidereal day (roughly 23 hours 56 min), or if so, it would have a very small amplitude compared with the synodic day (24 hours).

    I'm wondering if Oriel36 can provide any publications of articles to support his point of view, or if this is entirely his own personal theory.

    Anyway, I do hope the discussion can proceed without what I would consider to be irrelevant sidetracking to theories of persons not connected to the debate at hand. Somebody might have made a whopper of a mistake about the evolutionary details of the Turkish titmouse, and I could join in the finger pointing and ritual shaming for a bit of fun, but what progress do we then make to solving the climate change conundrum?

    ______________________

    On a separate issue, we are probing around the edges of a big philosophical question when it comes to established science and peer review. At some point, it becomes obvious to neutral onlookers (i.e., intelligent laypersons who have no personal involvement in the scientific community, just an interest in their research and announced findings) that a given science is suffering from some combination of tunnel vision and inappropriate oversight. It continues to function like the other sciences that are perhaps not suffering, but "by their fruits shall ye know them" applies.

    So I think I am not overstating it when I say that a disturbingly large number of intelligent laypersons have a deep skepticism about the health of climate science as compared to (let's say) astronomy or theoretical physics. There is a widespread perception that the reality is trending towards a science that excludes all dissidents, promotes one theory that is inadequately demonstrated to be either working or all-encompassing, and fails to recognize its own weaknesses and limitations. Peer review within such a failing enterprise will of course take the form of dissident ostracism. The notion that only "real science" is published and peer reviewed is an obvious example of circular reasoning (he is a scientist because scientists said he was a scientist, he lived in a scientist's house and drove a scientist's car). At some point, the clash between the orthodox and the inevitable alternate science turns into a fight to the death based on competing theoretical prediction (what else could separate the claims?).

    This happened in geomorphology in the 19th century. The current established view of glacial landforms replaced a very elaborate but (it turned out) very wrong set of ideas about how erratic boulders came to rest in their present locations. They had not been dropped off from floating ice rafts, but instead had been pushed there by moving glaciers. There were terrible and highly personal debates at conferences in the mid-19th century during which time the new theory gradually pushed out the old one.

    Other examples of things that the scientific consensus got wrong would be the non-existent ether, phlogiston (a non-existent compound to explain combustion), and unlimited general relativity (turned out to be capped by limits imposed by special relativity).

    It could well be that AGW is another of these false doctrines, although in this case, all we are saying is that its proportion has been overestimated. Dissidents of many different opinions have not really come together on any one alternate theory, but continue to examine various possibilities. In my case, I am saying that AGW accounts for perhaps one third of observed warming of climate over the period 1890 to 2020, while natural variability accounts for the other two thirds. Within that general postulate, there would be room to accept (a) the contribution of natural variability could be different from decade to decade, and (b) the proportion of AGW could increase over time -- in fact I think this is the case. I think AGW is perhaps 10% of the observed warming 1890 to 1950, 20% of what could be seen 1950 to 1980, and could be as much as 40% in the past decade (when some data sets indicate a slowdown in the overall warming trend).

    Some other dissident might claim other proportions, such as no AGW, all observed change is natural, or, data sets are compromised by faulty readings (not a claim I make or support), or, greenhouse gas is the driving factor but its increase is more due to warming climates than vice versa (a claim that I think resides within my own paradigm).

    There likely won't be an end game to this debate until dissidents unite around one competing theory. It is pretty easy for the consensus to repel the outsiders when they are scattered all over the spectrum and if they ever got together, would be arguing radically different points of view. If on the other hand, dissidents adopted one theory, made predictions, and those predictions started to verify with smaller errors than IPCC predictions (which to be fair keep changing decade to decade, but I'll accept that in an evolving new science, that is normal enough), then we might reach a point where outside scientific bodies started to give more credence to the rival theory, and proponents started to switch sides (which is how the geomorphology debate was resolved).

    The problem in our science is time scale. We make predictions for 20-50 years to illustrate our theories, but we are not (in some cases, notably mine) likely to be alive and working at the point where these predictions can be compared with outcomes. Meanwhile, the competing orthodox theory can continue to make new predictions and place a lot of emphasis on them (the "now we're really really screwed" paradigm). This is what leads to widespread public skepticism about the climate change lobby as it exists (and they get to run their show as they see fit, so they have made these choices, not had them imposed from any outside agency). Similar sounding predictions are made at longer intervals than the predictions reference. I have saved copies of newspaper articles published around 1990 claiming such things as disappearance of arctic sea ice, spread of tropical vegetation far to the north within a generation, end of winter, end of ski resort viability, great masses of people on the move in a desperate search for water ... yet reality produced a different outcome. Part of this will be explained away as a "new understanding" that climate change is more complex, blah blah, but then I am asked to believe things that are nonsensical, such as the arctic warming (which I acknowledge to be real) will displace the polar vortex to unusual southern locations creating cold waves in temperate climates. The reason this is both ridiculous and absurd is, (a) problem solved if you're saying the climate is too warm, (b) then what displaced these polar vortices in the cold 19th century when air mass frequency analysis shows that they must have been over lower latitudes more frequently than in the 20th century?

    I make entirely reasonable statements about natural warming (obvious sudden surges in temperatures between the 1890s and 1910s for example) which must have been based largely on changes in air mass frequency, and I ask, how does that square with the announced theory that recent warming is all of anthropogenic origins and not only that, the AGW is greater than the observed warming, which implies that at any given time in that period, the background climate should have been cooling? Is there any knowledgeable weather historian who would agree that in fact this is what you can see from temperature records (especially those in eastern North America where this fallacy is easiest to demonstrate) or would those observers be more likely to conclude that strong natural warming occurred then? Yet I am told this is not the accepted theory in the science, and that basic physics somehow contradict what I can see in plain sight. So I come away thinking, well perhaps these self-defined experts and their proven science are just another example of a faulty science about to be shoved into a heap by a better (more accurate) alternative.

    The only comeback they have is a power play -- we are the scientists, you aren't published (how could I be with the lockstep mind set of the faulty science?) so you're not a real scientist.

    I would submit that sufficiently educated and literate people will see through that card game and look for the truth wherever it resides. And that is what I intend to do, no amount of name calling will deter me from it (and there has been a considerable amount of it already, some of it rather desperate sounding, such as that I am running a cult and encouraging an echo chamber). Can anyone point to even one individual whose free will or ability to think for him or herself has been even marginally reduced by any activity of mine, here or elsewhere? Feel free to publish the results. I'm not in the censorship game.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 462 ✭✭oriel36


    I have always understood the difference between sidereal and synodic day length. We get one extra sidereal day per synodic year. There is no temperature cycle from any observation point that corresponds to the sidereal day (roughly 23 hours 56 min), or if so, it would have a very small amplitude compared with the synodic day (24 hours).

    I'm wondering if Oriel36 can provide any publications of articles to support his point of view, or if this is entirely his own personal theory.


    The idea that the Earth physically rotates once more often than 24 hour days perhaps equals or surpasses the recent notion that the Earth has a 'pivoting' circle of illumination off the equator and a zero degree inclination so these people caught in a modeling trance can justify RA/Dec modeling.

    The development of of 24 hour and Lat/Long systems go together based on using rotation anchored to the sunrise/noon/sunset cycle. It is also based on the observations that no two noon cycles are alike in their total length therefore a timekeeping facility is used to equalize the variations to a 24 hour average .

    "Here take notice, that the Sun or the Earth passes the 12 constellations, or makes an entire revolution of the orbital plane in 365 days, 5 hours 49 min. or there about, and that those days, reckoned from noon to noon, are of different lengths; as is known to all that are versed in Astronomy. Now between the longest and the shortest of those days, a day may be taken of such a length, as 365 such days, 5. hours &c. (the same numbers as before) make up, or are equal to that orbital cycle: And this is called the equal or mean day, according to which the Watches are to be set; and therefore the hour or minute showed by the Watches, though they be perfectly just and equal, must needs differ almost continually from those that are showed by the Sun, or are reckoned according to its Motion. But this Difference is regular, and is otherwise call'd the Aequation, and here you have a Table "

    https://adcs.home.xs4all.nl/Huygens/06/kort-E.html

    So no, the sprawling history of Longitude and the development of watches has been established for hundreds of years so let me fill you in with the details seeing you never heard of the timekeeping principle which keeps one 24 hour day anchored to the natural noon cycle and from there to the rotation of the Earth once in 24 hours or at a rate of 15 degrees per hour.

    A doctor who cannot read a heartbeat as one complete action of the heart is a fraud, no more or no less considering the importance of his work and study -

    https://cdn4.vectorstock.com/i/1000x1000/67/23/heart-rate-heartbeat-neon-line-blue-graphic-vector-22216723.jpg

    A meteorologist who can't manage to associate one rotation of the Earth with one temperature 'heartbeat' each 24 hours and a thousand rotations in a thousand 24 hour days is also a fraud -

    https://prairieecosystems.pbworks.com/f/1179343887/crerar%20temperature%20variation.jpg


    The 24 hour day is an 'average' by equalizing the variations in a noon cycle where noon always happens mid-way between sunrise and sunset and the observer registers as the Sun crossing his/her meridian. The Lat/Long system is structured around the Earth's geometry and rotation once the 'average' 24 hour day was established, where the 'average' could be substituted for 'constant' rotation at a rate of 4 minutes for each degree of rotation, 15 degrees per hour and once in 24 hours.

    Again, to stress its importance, the terms 'average' and 'constant' are alike so the former substitutes for the latter therefore it is possible to anchor rotation to noon and keep it anchored there so all you good folks can locate not only events during the day accurately but also the bigger picture of planetary geometry and rotation -

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b7yoXhbOQ3Y&t=278s

    The late 17th century Royal Society fools did something really silly, the average 24 hour day was already established so clocks could be used to determine location on the planet using the Lat/Long framework and it remains that way.

    What they did was shift rotation anchored to noon and appealed to stellar circumpolar motion instead. They then conjured up a solar vs sidereal fiction where the natural noon cycles are 'exactly' 24 hours (despite the fact they are not !) in order to justify the hideous notion that the Earth rotates once in 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds -

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d0/Sidereal_time.svg/337px-Sidereal_time.svg.png

    It is not just wrong, it is an act of vandalism on a scale not known so those effin jokers could have their 'clockwork solar system'.

    So here we are, a meteorologist who can't manage to extract the rotation of the Earth from a basic temperature graph reflecting the cycle where the Sun is in view as the temperatures rise and the stars are in view as temperatures decline and still they believe in one more rotation than 24 hour days.


    " It is a fact not generally known that,owing to the difference between solar and sidereal time,the Earth rotates upon its axis once more often than there are days in the year" NASA

    No wonder you all thrive off pessimistic conclusions for what could be more dismaying than that contrived nonsense conjured up in the late 17th century. Stumped indeed !, the fact that you haven't heard of the Lat/Long system and its links to the 24 hour day is enough much less the 17th century English who tried to put RA/Dec in competition with the Lat/Long system for the most basic fact imaginable - the planet turns once each day and a thousand times in a thousand days.

    At the very least, it demonstrates how poor empirical modelers are with cyclical events and the dynamical cause.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,808 ✭✭✭✭Water John


    So in short MT is saying the climate change is partially caused by natural phenomena about 2/3 and partially man made CHG 1/3.
    So the mainstream consensus is that it's 100% down to man made CHG emissions.
    Then we have a third branch, some on here, who are saying, the warming is totally 100% natural.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 462 ✭✭oriel36


    Water John wrote: »
    So in short MT is saying the climate change is partially caused by natural phenomena about 2/3 and partially man made CHG 1/3.
    So the mainstream consensus is that it's 100% down to man made CHG emissions.
    Then we have a third branch, some on here, who are saying, the warming is totally 100% natural.

    MT is the Jeremy Corbyn of 'climate change'. People should consider climate outside the doom and gloom predictions as to whether it is man-made or natural but at least be one or the other if following modelers into their dull world is your thing.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,808 ✭✭✭✭Water John


    Don't get what you are proposing Oriel? Could you please explain your stance in a simple form.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 462 ✭✭oriel36


    Water John wrote: »
    Don't get what you are proposing Oriel? Could you please explain your stance in a simple form.

    As to your question, take a tip from researchers who have a perceptive/intuitive balance as opposed to mathematical modeling which is narrow, undisciplined and reckless -

    " The reason, therefore, that some intuitive minds are not mathematical is that they cannot at all turn their attention to the principles of mathematics. But the reason that mathematicians are not intuitive is that they do not see what is before them, and that, accustomed to the exact and plain principles of mathematics, and not reasoning till they have well inspected and arranged their principles, they are lost in matters of intuition where the principles do not allow of such arrangement. They are scarcely seen; they are felt rather than seen; there is the greatest difficulty in making them felt by those who do not of themselves perceive them. These principles are so fine and so numerous that a very delicate and very clear sense is needed to perceive them, and to judge rightly and justly when they are perceived, without for the most part being able to demonstrate them in order as in mathematics; because the principles are not known to us in the same way, and because it would be an endless matter to undertake it. We must see the matter at once, at one glance, and not by a process of reasoning, at least to a certain degree. And thus it is rare that mathematicians are intuitive, and that men of intuition are mathematicians, because mathematicians wish to treat matters of intuition mathematically, and make themselves ridiculous, wishing to begin with definitions and then with axioms, which is not the way to proceed in this kind of reasoning. Not that the mind does not do so, but it does it tacitly, naturally, and without technical rules; for the expression of it is beyond all men, and only a few can feel it." Pascal

    MT says he 'understands' the solar vs sidereal day but observations don't affirm such a proposition as the Sun doesn't cross the meridian in exactly 24 hours even though it is required by RA/Dec modeling -

    http://stevekluge.com/geoscience/images/siderealdaysm.jpg

    The follow-on is that the 3 minutes 56 seconds difference between the solar vs sidereal day is accumulative over the year so eventually the Earth has one more physical rotation than 24 hour days so say goodbye to physical cause and effect including daily temperature fluctuations !.


    To know exactly what went wrong or more importantly, what is correct requires a full explanation for timekeeping from its roots in antiquity rather than the free-for-all the Brits took in the 17th century so Isaac could have his 'clockwork solar system'.

    All the same, a meteorologist who can't interpret nor affirm the temperature fluctuations each 24 hour day in response to one rotation is absolutely dismaying beyond words.

    https://prairieecosystems.pbworks.com/f/1179343887/crerar%20temperature%20variation.jpg


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,221 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir


    Jesus Christ oriel, can't you answer a simple question with a simple answer, without posting an essay of irrelevant waffle?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,808 ✭✭✭✭Water John


    So all statistical analysis is useless? We should go on intuition.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 462 ✭✭oriel36


    Water John wrote: »
    So all statistical analysis is useless? We should go on intuition.

    The only requirement of Pascal is that people act like gentlemen but I haven't seen anything reasonable from both opponents or proponents other than an attempt to draw the people of the planet into dull and dreary conclusions as is always the case of people who are neither mathematical nor intuitive -

    "But dull minds are never either intuitive or mathematical." Pascal

    https://www.bartleby.com/48/1/1.html

    The fuss as to whether 'climate change' is man-made or natural disguises the hideous conclusion that humans can control planetary temperatures so this is why I tend to address the general reader rather than the 'greenhouse' people and their opponents.


    Academics tend to elevate 'counter-intuitive' as a positive but for intuitive people such a notion means anti-inspirational and unproductive, after all, what could be closest to human experience than watching the Sun come into view at dawn as the planet turns once each day and a thousand times in a thousand 24 hour days. It is much a sense of knowing what is right and wrong as opposed to convictions such as the unreasonable/ungentlemanly belief in more rotations than sunrises each year because a few Brits screwed-up in the late 17th century and set empirical modeling in motion via the clockwork solar system. Even when explained how useful RA/Dec is for predicting the exact times of an astronomical event using a clock and the calendar system, these jokers can't identify why it can't be used to link planetary motions to Earth sciences. As far as I can tell, there is some hypnotic or trance-like adherence to the doctrines of mechanical thinking of Royal Society England.

    In some ways, mathematicians can 'define' intuition as guesswork in one instance and counter-intuitive as contrary to normal reasoning in another instance even though Pascal never meant the human faculty in those terms.

    Planetary climate within a solar system framework is the rate of change in surface conditions across latitudes over an orbital cycle and that rate is determined by the relationship of axial inclination to the orbital plane. Of course this is wasted on people who simply can't interpret the daily peaks and troughs of temperatures across a 24 hour period and their rotational cause -

    https://prairieecosystems.pbworks.com/f/1179343887/crerar%20temperature%20variation.jpg


  • Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement