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

Oneiric 3

oriel36 wrote: »

That is so sweet and that's the spirit !.

The opponents and proponents of 'climate change' are different sides of the same 'scientific method' coin yet they find it impossible to say that the Earth turns once each day. Think of them like brexit where the proponents are English Tories and English Labour are the opponents with the meteorologist fence sitting like Jeremy Corbyn. Think yourself as outside the modeling fuss and you will see where you stand like people outside England see a bigger picture.

Thing is about the 'English Tories' vs 'English Labour', both parties took the opposite stance regarding the idea of a 'European Union' in the not so distant past to that which they take today!

Anyway, back to Issac Newton and all of that...of which I'll leave to you and other sciencey types as my knowledge on such people or what they stood for is severely limited.:o

Gaoth Laidir

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

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.

posidonia wrote: »

You can fit anything to anything using an undefined lag.

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.

Getting back to this discussion, in 2003, NASA were pretty sure that increasing TSI over a prolonged period (a century) could have marked effects on global temperature. The charts above show that we've had more than a century of increased TSI compared to a few centuries ago. As I said, it's been at a sustained 400-year high over the past 50 years, therefore to say that this can not have a cumulative effect on ocean - and hence global air - temperatures is wrong.

Since the late 1970s, the amount of solar radiation the sun emits, during times of quiet sunspot activity, has increased by nearly .05 percent per decade, according to a NASA funded study.
advertisement


"This trend is important because, if sustained over many decades, it could cause significant climate change," said Richard Willson, a researcher affiliated with NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Columbia University's Earth Institute, New York. He is the lead author of the study recently published in Geophysical Research Letters.
"Historical records of solar activity indicate that solar radiation has been increasing since the late 19th century. If a trend, comparable to the one found in this study, persisted throughout the 20th century, it would have provided a significant component of the global warming the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports to have occurred over the past 100 years," he said.

Although the inferred increase of solar irradiance in 24 years, about 0.1 percent, is not enough to cause notable climate change, the trend would be important if maintained for a century or more. Satellite observations of total solar irradiance have obtained a long enough record (over 24 years) to begin looking for this effect.

Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) is the radiant energy received by the Earth from the sun, over all wavelengths, outside the atmosphere. TSI interaction with the Earth's atmosphere, oceans and landmasses is the biggest factor determining our climate. To put it into perspective, decreases in TSI of 0.2 percent occur during the weeklong passage of large sunspot groups across our side of the sun. These changes are relatively insignificant compared to the sun's total output of energy, yet equivalent to all the energy that mankind uses in a year. According to Willson, small variations, like the one found in this study, if sustained over many decades, could have significant climate effects.

oriel36

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

Thing is about the 'English Tories' vs 'English Labour', both parties took the opposite stance regarding the idea of a 'European Union' in the not so distant past to that which they take today!

A certain section in England always had eccentric views that escaped into the social and political arena so while brexit was a great slogan, they had no idea what they want even with the backing of their electorate. They created a bubble for themselves and for the past 3 years went through contortions which is great until they now meet the larger perspectives that exist as the European Union (despite all its failings). Aspirations, academic, political or otherwise have to survive definite inspection and considerations so what is left here shows the opponents/proponents of 'climate change' ,for all their aspirations, can't manage to affirm the most basic facts that can be known .

The opponents/proponents of 'climate change' are of the same species where aspirations by experimental theorists were projected into astronomy and large scale sciences without any consideration other than it satisfied the 'scientific method' -

"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


They heard the call of momma and ran with the notion that conditions in a greenhouse (experiment) are the same as the Earth's atmosphere (universal qualities) so they could saddle humanity with the absurd notion of human planetary temperature control. People who follow them into their dreary bubble are not doing themselves nor their student children any favours insofar as atmospheric, surface and ocean pollution is everyone's responsibility, the apocalyptic empiricism attached is not. Kill the 'scientific method' and astronomy along with Earth sciences come back to life again after centuries of misuse by these perpetual student modelers.

Good luck to you and those who genuinely care but leave these dull modelers to their own devices and their even duller conclusions.

MiNdGaM3

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Getting back to this discussion, in 2003, NASA were pretty sure than increasing TSI over a prolonged period (a century) could have marked effects on global temperature. The charts above show that we've had more than a century of increased TSI compared to a few centuries ago. As I said, it's been at a sustained 400-year high over the past 50 years, therefore to say that this can not have a cumulative effect on ocean - and hence global air - temperatures is wrong.

Another quote from the article:

"Although the inferred increase of solar irradiance in 24 years, about 0.1 percent, is not enough to cause notable climate change, the trend would be important if maintained for a century or more.t"

Absolute values and trends a important here.

First of all, that increase mentioned in your linked article hasn't continued over the last 17 years since it was published.

It also doesn't change the fact that solar activity, and TSI, has declined in recent decades while OHC growth has accelerated. That in itself rules out a solar cause.

Furthermore, if a 0.05% increase per decade was enough to cause the warming (it isn't), then the 0.1% change in solar output during the 11 year cycle would appear as a clear oscillations in the OHC measurements, and the recent low in solar output would also have a clear effect - but they don't.

Aside from that, there's no evidence that solar activity is causing warming in general. If this was the case, we'd see days warming faster than nights and a warming throughout the atmosphere. Neither of these are occurring. Instead, nights are warming faster than days and the stratosphere is cooling, both distinct signatures of an enhanced greenhouse effect.

Meteorite58

Mod Note: oriel36 Off topic post moved to https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058007595

Akrasia

SeaBreezes wrote: »

Climategate emails caught them adjusting data to fit the narrative.
[

No they didn’t.

Longing

Akrasia wrote: »

No they didn’t.

Yes the did.

Tony will tell you. Listen and watch.


No 1.

No2.

SeaBreezes

Akrasia wrote: »

No they didn’t.

Yes, they did.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/11/23/climategate-2-0-new-e-mails-rock-the-global-warming-debate/amp/

Gaoth Laidir

MiNdGaM3 wrote: »

Another quote from the article:

"Although the inferred increase of solar irradiance in 24 years, about 0.1 percent, is not enough to cause notable climate change, the trend would be important if maintained for a century or more.t"

Absolute values and trends a important here.

First of all, that increase mentioned in your linked article hasn't continued over the last 17 years since it was published.

It also doesn't change the fact that solar activity, and TSI, has declined in recent decades while OHC growth has accelerated. That in itself rules out a solar cause.

Furthermore, if a 0.05% increase per decade was enough to cause the warming (it isn't), then the 0.1% change in solar output during the 11 year cycle would appear as a clear oscillations in the OHC measurements, and the recent low in solar output would also have a clear effect - but they don't.

Aside from that, there's no evidence that solar activity is causing warming in general. If this was the case, we'd see days warming faster than nights and a warming throughout the atmosphere. Neither of these are occurring. Instead, nights are warming faster than days and the stratosphere is cooling, both distinct signatures of an enhanced greenhouse effect.

So they're totally wrong then? A century of increased TSI doesn't affect the temperature?

The increase in TSI since 1700 as had no effect? The Little Ice Age didn't occur? Volcanoes have no effect? The year without a summer (1816) wasn't related to the Tambora eruption in 1815? Solar irradiance isn't a factor in global temperatures?

Where's Oriel when you need him...:rolleyes:

Akrasia

SeaBreezes wrote: »

Yes, they did.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/11/23/climategate-2-0-new-e-mails-rock-the-global-warming-debate/amp/

No, they didn’t. There were 8 separate investigations that found zero evidence of scientific fraud or tampering with any of the data.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy

The article you posted was written by someone with a very outspoken agenda who works with the Heartland Institute.

SeaBreezes

Longing wrote: »

Yes the did.

Tony will tell you. Listen and watch.


No 1.

No2.

Wow, I knew they were bad I just didn't know how bad. Thanks for the videos Longing!

And see the Forbes article? Trying to remove an editor of a magazine because they published actual science that disagreed with the narrative?

Unreal.

SeaBreezes

Akrasia wrote: »

No, they didn’t. There were 8 separate investigations that found zero evidence of scientific fraud or tampering with any of the data.

Ah yes, wonder who ran the investigations?

It's in black and white. Read the emails yourself!

The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. :-)

Gaoth Laidir

I'd be interested in hearing Akrasia's and Mindgame's explanations on the claims made in those two videos (not on who made them, just if they're right or wrong). I especially am interested in this temperature adjustment by Karl Mears of RSS (second video), where he allegedly altered the observation curve (blue) by merely tracing along the top of the error interval to give the new curve (black).

MiNdGaM3

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

So they're totally wrong then? A century of increased TSI doesn't affect the temperature?

The increase in TSI since 1700 as had no effect? The Little Ice Age didn't occur? Volcanoes have no effect? The year without a summer (1816) wasn't related to the Tambora eruption in 1815? Solar irradiance isn't a factor in global temperatures?

Where's Oriel when you need him...:rolleyes:

Who's totally wrong?

LIA, 1700, Tambora, not a factor in global temperatures? I see you're skilled in building strawmen.

Instead of deflecting, how about you go back and explain how a multidecadal declline in solar activity has resulted in an acceleration of ocean heat accumulation from that same solar activity. Your Nobel prize awaits!

SeaBreezes wrote: »

Ah yes, wonder who ran the investigations?

It's in black and white. Read the emails yourself!

The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. :-)

It must have been the commies/illuminate/big green, in every investigation! Believe only the words of the bold oil funded hacks, paid to attack climate scientists. Just like James Taylor, in the Forbes article. He's a senior fellow of the Heartland Institute. The very organisation that provide this level of input to the scientific discourse

MiNdGaM3

You guys are posting videos from Tony Heller? The AGW denier/alt right/birther and general conspiracy nut, that even Anthony Watts and co have distanced themselves from? How about some Joe Bastardi too maybe? Or even Christopher Monckton? The clueless climate conspiracy trifecta!

In all seriousness though, support of such blatant anti-science activists like Heller is sure sign you have little knowledge of climate science beyond what handed down by the AGW denier blogs. You won't find a single climate scientists that has any respect for Hellers blogs or videos (including the slightly more "sceptical" climate scientists). You might as well be suggesting readings from the bible.

Gaoth Laidir

MiNdGaM3 wrote: »

Who's totally wrong?

LIA, 1700, Tambora, not a factor in global temperatures? I see you're skilled in building strawmen.

Instead of deflecting, how about you go back and explain how a multidecadal declline in solar activity has resulted in an acceleration of ocean heat accumulation from that same solar activity. Your Nobel prize awaits!

Not strawmen at all. You're claiming that solar irradiance can't have had an effect on recent temperatures, ergo it can't have affected before then either.

I've already explained the increase in global ocean temperatures by a cummulative effect of the increasing solar irradiance, lagged by thermal inertia. I've overlaid global SST with the TSI graph for the same period (1600-2008) below and it seems that the three periods support this theory. The warming in SST lags the increase in TSI by a decade or so.





But regarding actual OHC, I'm interested in where you're getting the idea that "OHC growth has accelerated in recent decades". That's not the case in either the 0-700 m or the 0-2000 m layers. It seems a pretty steady rate to me.

Gaoth Laidir

MiNdGaM3 wrote: »

You guys are posting videos from Tony Heller? The AGW denier/alt right/birther and general conspiracy nut, that even Anthony Watts and co have distanced themselves from? How about some Joe Bastardi too maybe? Or even Christopher Monckton? The clueless climate conspiracy trifecta!

In all seriousness though, support of such blatant anti-science activists like Heller is sure sign you have little knowledge of climate science beyond what handed down by the AGW denier blogs. You won't find a single climate scientists that has any respect for Hellers blogs or videos (including the slightly more "sceptical" climate scientists). You might as well be suggesting readings from the bible.

Yep, just as I thought. Ignore the content, attack the author. So predictable...:rolleyes:

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

I'd be interested in hearing Akrasia's and Mindgame's explanations on the claims made in those two videos (not on who made them, just if they're right or wrong). I especially am interested in this temperature adjustment by Karl Mears of RSS (second video), where he allegedly altered the observation curve (blue) by merely tracing along the top of the error interval to give the new curve (black).

M.T. Cranium

I hope people did take a look at the second graph I posted in "Tormax" because it contains the most difficult warming detail for the AGW crowd to explain.

It clearly shows that the warming of climate at Toronto has focussed on the two ends of the winter season. Warming otherwise has only been evenly distributed since the climate shift around 1890-1920. So how could a human signal gradually warming the entire global atmosphere accomplish this focussing of warmth on two intervals (Nov 20-Dec 28 and Feb 4-Mar 26 in terms of the actual details)?

I would say that is rather unlikely. But an easier explanation lies in natural variability. If the storm track is moving north, then it will place Toronto in warmer air masses more frequently at times of year when previously the frequency was low although not so low (most of January) that the new cases are that frequent.

So this is what we see from the data, that the two ends of winter are getting considerably more frequent visits from southern origin air masses, and these are easily breaking older records which tended to be the warm sectors of less powerful lows of Pacific origin. The typical record high in February at Toronto before 1980 would have been 10-12 C supplied by a low starting out in Colorado and moving to north-central Ontario. Nowadays, the typical record high is 15-17 and is supplied by low pressure from Oklahoma dragging in true mT air masses from the Gulf of Mexico.

The same shift has occurred in December and the old roster of records has been largely obliterated although the odd one survived the onslaught. The barrage begins to mute to occasional pickoffs of weak members of the herd in January. Then you get into the old "January thaw" period where all the records remain vintage (1906, 1909, 1933, 1949, 1953, 1967, 1916 figure prominently). The modern warmer climate has taken a pass on trying to dislodge any of those and actually went into February mode with nothing more than a few rather weak efforts during that second half of January. (Jan 31, 1988 started the reversal trend).

So in much greater detail than the AGW crowd have ever really applied to their own research, I think I have uncovered the most critical piece of evidence yet unearthed to show that we are seeing a real cause and effect mechanism, and it is not air mass modification at all, but air mass frequency change.

The same conclusion stems from my arctic research. The main reason why arctic Canada temperatures are rising in recent decades is that much milder air masses intrude once or twice a winter. Just do the math. If the year remains otherwise unchanged, but you replace a week of -30 with a week of -5, then the annual mean (N) will rise by

T inc = N + (25/52) = N + 0.5

Now if you also reduce the length of winter by two weeks and assume that at either end of winter, the temperature will increase 10 degrees, you find another increase as follows

T inc = N + 2*(10/52) = N + 0.4

So there is 0.9 deg of warming in just three weeks of the year. Add in the fact that in recent decades (in the Canadian arctic) some month like April or September at the far ends of winter will now feature much above normal temperatures unseen in previous decades, I think you probably find most of the rest of the (agreed upon) 2 to 3 C deg increases that show up in mean temperatures "up north."

Air mass temperatures remain similar as shown by the greater resilience of annual winter minima, and the rather small increase in summer warmest months. There might be a general increase of 0.5 C to air mass temperatures.

So I would restate my own hypothesis as follows:

Global temperatures are increasing by perhaps 1.5 C deg overall, 1.0 in temperate climates and 2-3 in arctic climates. This is partly due to AGW effects that bring up air mass temperatures by 0.5 C. It is otherwise due to changes in the circulation (poleward movement of storm tracks) that bring about changes to air mass frequency. This process began with an accelerated push around 1890, and it is clear from the rapid increase in record warm days 1890 to 1920 that air mass frequency changed considerably in that period. Afterwards, changes have been more cyclical than trending, and the frequency of extreme warmth has levelled off, not really increasing notably since the period 1916 to 1922 at any point since then (and sometimes falling back as in 1978-82, and 2013-15).

Changes in the circulation could take place because of effects of AGW, or they could be unrelated to AGW and occur due to any combination of

(a) shifts in the geomagnetic field working in tandem with the upper atmosphere to favour different options for storm track mean positioning

(b) long-term lags in feedback from previous episodes of high solar activity

(c) random chance (perhaps a factor if one tries to analyze why for example 1710 to 1739 was much warmer than 1740 to 1780)

(d) shifts in circulation of the Pacific and or Atlantic Oceans

(e) other factors perhaps not yet identified

So now more than ever, I am convinced that the modern warming (and while I have some sympathy with the tampered-fixed-data meme, it does not seem that large a factor to me) is perhaps as much as 2/3 natural in origin. If we had not seen the circulation shifts, we would only be seeing a slight warming from human activity. However, I do accept that a circulation shift may also be due to the AGW signal working its way through a rather complex mechanism of the global climate. I can't prove that this is not the case. However, I could speculate that it will be harder to fix that aspect of climate change than the air mass modification part, even if we do somehow reduce the greenhouse gas emission rate. That other part, circulation change, if not caused by unrelated factors, might have a longer life cycle than air mass modification.

I suspect that circulation shifts are not largely of human origin because they seemed to be well underway in the first third of the 20th century. We don't have much data from the Canadian arctic but some Greenland obs seem to confirm that a warming of rather large proportions took place there around 1920 and was noted by some climatologists at the time. Circulation change would perhaps have different forms in different climate zones. It would be interesting to study changes over the past century in eastern Siberia, for example, to see if there had been different patterns of change there. I would do that if somebody could point me to a source of reliable data.

oriel36

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

So they're totally wrong then? A century of increased TSI doesn't affect the temperature?

The increase in TSI since 1700 as had no effect? The Little Ice Age didn't occur? Volcanoes have no effect? The year without a summer (1816) wasn't related to the Tambora eruption in 1815? Solar irradiance isn't a factor in global temperatures?

Where's Oriel when you need him...:rolleyes:

All it affirms is that theorists ,due to their doctrine, have severe difficulties with cyclical events where the motions of the Earth are required to explain experiences across latitudes.

The expansion/contraction of surface area (with the North Pole at its centre) where the Sun is constantly in view or out of sight is coincident with Arctic sea ice development and disappearance with the planet's inclination determining the range of that development across latitudes. That is the first time such an easy to appreciate fact was presented yet some heavy-handed person moved it off the thread.

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

If the Earth had the inclination of Jupiter there would be no range of development and disappearance of Arctic sea ice, if the Earth had an inclination like Uranus the range of Arctic sea ice development would be considerable with Ireland falling within its range. This would be productive modeling but only when cause and effect are actually affirmed.

It is fine flinging graphs at each other or hoisting academic names like toy soldiers, however, the ability to strip things bare by cause and effect was how the first heliocentric astronomers resolved the highly complex contortions of their geocentric colleagues.

I am genuinely surprised I lasted this long in the forum but I see the greenhouse people and their opponents have received a second wind through moderation. I shrug as nothing I haven't seen before yet wider perspectives are required to move climate research back into a positive topic where it belongs.

SeaBreezes

Longing wrote: »

Yes the did.

Tony will tell you. Listen and watch.


No 1.

No2.

The American dust bowl was1930s.
(Warming period in pre-adjusted data from 1st video)

Also note adjusted max temps in Middle East where there are no temp collections, more adjusting?

Forbes has many articles on it. Quite depressing reading.

Meteorite58

Mod Note: off topic posts removed. Please read the forum charter.

Report posts that you find objectable and in breach of the forum charter rather then engaging and only dragging the thread off topic.

oriel36

Meteorite58 wrote: »

Mod Note: off topic posts removed. Please read the forum charter.

Report posts that you find objectable and in breach of the forum charter rather then engaging and only dragging the thread off topic.

All it takes is a silly moderator to act like a dunce which is why I dislike heavy handed forums with some self-appointed schoolmaster in charge of academic schoolboys.

So well and good.

Gaoth Laidir

M.T. Cranium wrote: »

I added another graph to the "Tormax" file which shows how two parts of the year (Feb-Mar and late Nov-Dec) have seen more recent warming compared to the rest of the year. Scroll down to find that graph below the first one that you might have already seen. There's a discussion below the graph.

I don't see that second graph in the Tormax file you posted.

Meteorite58

oriel36 wrote: »

All it takes is a silly moderator to act like a dunce which is why I dislike heavy handed forums with some self-appointed schoolmaster in charge of academic schoolboys.

So well and good.

Mod Note: oriel36 has received an infraction for this post. Stay on topic, adhere to the forum charter.

Oneiric 3

MiNdGaM3 wrote: »

The AGW denier/alt right/birther and general conspiracy nut.

This is quite the condemnation.

But before we burn him at the stake to appease the gnarling mob, could you expand on this assertion of yours that he is 'alt-right'? because this is quite a serious accusation.

oriel36

Meteorite58 wrote: »

Mod Note: oriel36 has received an infraction for this post. Stay on topic, adhere to the forum charter.

One of the major observations (not complaint) in this thread is that you can be an opponent or proponent of 'climate change' so long as nobody contravenes the 'rules of reasoning' Sir Isaac insisted his empirical modelers take -

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

What wider society hears as 'peer review' is really moderation to maintain the integrity of the narrow and flawed rut agenda of Royal Society empiricism. No wonder the whole thing amounts to exceptionally dull conclusions dumped into what is perhaps one of the most vibrant of Earth sciences that is climate.

Instead of inspecting the contraction/expansion of the surface areas with the North Poles at their centre introducing inclination as an input, we have what seems professional 'Caoiners' mourning over the Earth 'Ara why did ya die !'

http://wwwchristinesireland.blogspot.com/2013/08/irish-funerals-caoiners.html

Again, no complaints here but so well and good, people are so wound up that no reasonable discussion is possible.

Akrasia

Longing wrote: »

Yes the did.

Tony will tell you. Listen and watch.


No 1.

No2.

If you trust Tony Heller aka Stephen Goddard, above the 8 seperate investigations into this 'scandal' then you should really consider where you get your information from. Do you, like Heller/Goddard also think Obama wasn't born in the United States?


Tony Heller challenging other people for misrepresenting data is utterly laughable.

Cherrypicking and distorting and misrepresenting is his entire modus operandi as you can see from this snopes article on one of his false claims
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/global-warming-data-faked/

MiNdGaM3

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Not strawmen at all. You're claiming that solar irradiance can't have had an effect on recent temperatures, ergo it can't have affected before then either.

I've already explained the increase in global ocean temperatures by a cummulative effect of the increasing solar irradiance, lagged by thermal inertia. I've overlaid global SST with the TSI graph for the same period (1600-2008) below and it seems that the three periods support this theory. The warming in SST lags the increase in TSI by a decade or so.





But regarding actual OHC, I'm interested in where you're getting the idea that "OHC growth has accelerated in recent decades". That's not the case in either the 0-700 m or the 0-2000 m layers. It seems a pretty steady rate to me.

It's from the original article that sparked this whole thing, a few pages back. Yesterday, you literally quoted my post where I mentioned the four and a half times increase since 1987. You then posted a link to the 2003 NASA study as proof it's the sun (for some reason).

The article: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jan/13/ocean-temperatures-hit-record-high-as-rate-of-heating-accelerates
The paper it's based on: https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00376-020-9283-7.pdf



Sea surface temperatures are a different matter and requires much less energy than heating the upper 2,000m of water.
Lining up one squiggle with another, shifting them about and claiming some kind of lag isn't really the best way to go about things. For one, there are many processes that affect SSTs. Secondly, you need a plausible physical mechanism for why there's this quasi-10-50 year lag. Really, ignoring any physical mechanisms and using variable lags you can fit almost anything to anything.

Oneiric 3

oriel36 wrote: »

What wider society hears as 'peer review' is really moderation to maintain the integrity of the narrow and flawed rut agenda of Royal Society empiricism. No wonder the whole thing amounts to exceptionally dull conclusions dumped into what is perhaps one of the most vibrant of Earth sciences that is climate.

Known as 'occupational closure', which basically means that certain professional and/or academic bodies will appoint themselves to be only 'authority' on a specific and specialised topic.

Akrasia

SeaBreezes wrote: »

The American dust bowl was1930s.
(Warming period in pre-adjusted data from 1st video)

Also note adjusted max temps in Middle East where there are no temp collections, more adjusting?

Forbes has many articles on it. Quite depressing reading.

Adjusting data and calibrating records is a normal part of scientific advancement

Conspiracy theorists do something called 'Anomaly hunting' where they look for things that they can point at that seem to be at odds with their limited understanding and make claims about how it's evidence of a coverup.

Heller's claims that the data is being manipulated deliberately to fake climate change is no less ridiculous as the 9/11 claims that tower 7 was deliberately demolished or that there were thermite charges detonated in the twin towers. or moon landing conspiracies or claims that evolution can't happen because the its the 'equivilent of a tornado in a junkyard creating a 747 airliner by randomly dropping junk into place'

It's tiny nuggets of science and half baked understanding shoehorned into a grand global conspiracy involving millions of scientists and experts faking data

oriel36

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

Known as 'occupational closure', which basically means that certain professional and/or academic bodies will appoint themselves to be only 'authority' on a specific and specialised topic.

They are fine people within their own 'scientific method' realm but Irish society is not meant to suffer extended periods of pessimism based on a notion that humans can control planetary temperatures.

The answer is that people will become responsible with atmospheric, surface and oceanic pollution and with the right type of people will appreciate the links between the motions of the planets and terrestrial sciences like climate, biology and geology in much the same way the body responds to its environment.

The last part doesn't exist presently as demonstrated within this thread.

Meteorite58

Mod Note oriel36 has received an infraction for trolling and goading for a negative response.

Adhere to the forum charter. Stay on topic.

Oneiric 3

Akrasia wrote: »

Adjusting data and calibrating records is a normal part of scientific advancement

Conspiracy theorists do something called 'Anomaly hunting' where they look for things that they can point at that seem to be at odds with their limited understanding and make claims about how it's evidence of a coverup.

Heller's claims that the data is being manipulated deliberately to fake climate change is no less ridiculous as the 9/11 claims that tower 7 was deliberately demolished or that there were thermite charges detonated in the twin towers. or moon landing conspiracies or claims that evolution can't happen because the its the 'equivilent of a tornado in a junkyard creating a 747 airliner by randomly dropping junk into place'

It's tiny nuggets of science and half baked understanding shoehorned into a grand global conspiracy involving millions of scientists and experts faking data

There are many 'conspiracy nuts' out there, yet don't seem to get the attention or fury aimed at them that this 'Heller' (a funny name I have to admit) guy gets. Why would that be?

Oneiric 3

oriel36 wrote: »

They are fine people within their own realm

No one is saying otherwise. In my experience, scientists of any type are some of the nicest and most unassuming people you can meet. The same cannot be said many of their 'advocates' though.

SeaBreezes

Akrasia wrote: »

If you trust Tony Heller aka Stephen Goddard, above the 8 seperate investigations into this 'scandal' then you should really consider where you get your information from. Do you, like Heller/Goddard also think Obama wasn't born in the United States?


Tony Heller challenging other people for misrepresenting data is utterly laughable.

Cherrypicking and distorting and misrepresenting is his entire modus operandi as you can see from this snopes article on one of his false claims
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/global-warming-data-faked/

Cherry picking...

Climategate emails:
Phil Jones, who served as a lead author for one of the key chapters in IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (2007), leaves no doubt of intentions to keep embarrassing and conspiratorial disclosures under tight wraps:

"I've been told that IPCC is above national FOI Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working on AR5 would be to delete all e-mails at the end of the process. Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden. I’ve discussed this with the main funder (U.S. Department of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data"

Tom Wigley of the NCAR complained in still another exchange: “Mike, the Figure you sent is very deceptive … there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC …”



Jonathan Overpeck, a coordinating lead IPCC report author, stated: “The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] what’s included and what is left out.”

In regards the RSS manipulation of adding error range and choosing the high option always..
Writing to Jones, Peter Thorne of the U.K. Met Office also advised caution, saying: “Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these further if necessary…” In another e-mail he stated: “I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run.”


https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2011/11/29/climategate-ii-more-smoking-guns-from-the-global-warming-establishment/amp/

oriel36

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

No one is saying otherwise. In my experience, scientists of any type are some of the nicest and most unassuming people you can meet. The same cannot be said many of their 'advocates' though.

You are fine Oneiric 3 and thanks for the video yesterday.

Most of what you see here have their origins in the late 17th century 'scientific method' doctrine so while they may be fine people, they achieved their present status by wrecking the links between planetary motions and Earth sciences hence the unnecessary fuss of human temperature control.

People are desperate to get back to their doom and gloom predictions so genuine climate research is a distraction in this case.

Oneiric 3

oriel36 wrote: »

People are desperate to get back to their doom and gloom predictions so genuine climate research is a distraction in this case.

Looking at climate datasets etc, average global temps have risen by something between 0.5c and 1.0c in the last 40 years or so, which may seem like a small figure at face value, but is significant when considering the both the time span and geographical immensity. That said, is there any evidence that the climate now is any more detrimental to human and animal well being than it was when in a cooler state back in the 70s and 80s?

oriel36

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

Looking at climate datasets etc, average global temps have risen by something between 0.5c and 1.0c in the last 40 years or so, which may seem like a small figure at face value, but is significant when considering the both the time span and geographical immensity. That said, is there any evidence that the climate now is any more detrimental to human and animal well being than it was when in a cooler state back in the 70s and 80s?

I look at planetary climate differently with a point of departure using planetary motions and their traits within a solar system framework so the question doesn't arise. What you are seeing is an entirely different point of departure using conditions found in a common greenhouse (experiment) within the 'scientific method' umbrella -

"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

No need to explain further as the academics get upset when the method/opinion is inspected rather than one of its symptoms of which 'climate change' is one.

I think that covers it without complaints.

Water John

I'd sort of doubt if the US Dept of Energy is involved with scientists in promoting the theory of Climate change and allowing evidence to be falsified in favour of it.

Gaoth Laidir

Akrasia wrote: »

If you trust Tony Heller aka Stephen Goddard, above the 8 seperate investigations into this 'scandal' then you should really consider where you get your information from. Do you, like Heller/Goddard also think Obama wasn't born in the United States?


Tony Heller challenging other people for misrepresenting data is utterly laughable.

Cherrypicking and distorting and misrepresenting is his entire modus operandi as you can see from this snopes article on one of his false claims
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/global-warming-data-faked/

Akrasia wrote: »

Adjusting data and calibrating records is a normal part of scientific advancement

Conspiracy theorists do something called 'Anomaly hunting' where they look for things that they can point at that seem to be at odds with their limited understanding and make claims about how it's evidence of a coverup.

Heller's claims that the data is being manipulated deliberately to fake climate change is no less ridiculous as the 9/11 claims that tower 7 was deliberately demolished or that there were thermite charges detonated in the twin towers. or moon landing conspiracies or claims that evolution can't happen because the its the 'equivilent of a tornado in a junkyard creating a 747 airliner by randomly dropping junk into place'

It's tiny nuggets of science and half baked understanding shoehorned into a grand global conspiracy involving millions of scientists and experts faking data

And true to form, as I predicted, Akrasia followed Mindgame with the character assasination and sidestepped the question at hand.

So, Akrasia, here it is again for you. Just deal with the data below please. Doesn't matter who wrote it, if it's wrong it's wrong, if it's right it's right. It's got nothing to do with the link you provided above. This is the satellite dataset, which originally had the observational error in the blue shade, but afterwards the mean was taken to be the top of that error. If it's a valid adjstment to make, so be it, but it seems strange to me.

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

I'd be interested in hearing Akrasia's and Mindgame's explanations on the claims made in those two videos (not on who made them, just if they're right or wrong). I especially am interested in this temperature adjustment by Karl Mears of RSS (second video), where he allegedly altered the observation curve (blue) by merely tracing along the top of the error interval to give the new curve (black).

SeaBreezes

Water John wrote: »

I'd sort of doubt if the US Dept of Energy is involved with scientists in promoting the theory of Climate change and allowing evidence to be falsified in favour of it.

Yeah, and while he talks about the DOE, no one was identified it's just his 'word' that he had those reassurances. He could have just said that to add weight to his suggestion to delete emails and not publish data and hide info.

it's more to highlight the cherry picking and bias that was exposed in the IPCC at the time..

Akrasia

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

Known as 'occupational closure', which basically means that certain professional and/or academic bodies will appoint themselves to be only 'authority' on a specific and specialised topic.

Thats not what occupational closure is

Occupational closure is where an occupation or profession becomes a protected occupation by means of licensing or required levels of training and education before you can describe yourself as being of that profession

It refers to things like Doctors of Medicine, Lawyers, Transport Managers, Chartered Accountants etc

You are not legally allowed to describe yourself as a Barrister unless you have passed your exams and have a valid licence from the statutory body

Climatologist is not a protected term, anyone can call themselves a climate scientist, regardless of their expertise or lack thereof and frequently they do, especially when they're trying running blogs or attending contrarian conferences where they pretend that they have the knowledge or expertise to debunk an established scientific consensus.

Climate change skeptics want to pretend that anyone should be entitled to publish any of their pet theories to peer reviewed journals, and if their papers are refused, it's because there's a conspiracy to block access to the scientific literature

Meanwhile they expect that their gp has a valid license to practise medicine, their lawyer has passed his exams, the architect designing your house is a member of all the relevant professional bodies and is of good professional standing etc etc etc.

Oneiric 3

Did a short bit of googlely research on this Anthony Heller guy, and cannot find any evidence that he is what he is accused of being in this thread. Perhaps I have missed something, but I did come across this though on his 'Twitter' feed:



So, I will ask 'MindGame' once again: on what evidence are you basing your accusation that Heller is an 'Alt-Right conspiracy theorist'? As I said before, and which I am sure you can appreciate, this is quite a serious and damning accusation to make. But I am sure, since you are all about evidence yourself, that you have some of your own regarding this.

Akrasia

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

There are many 'conspiracy nuts' out there, yet don't seem to get the attention or fury aimed at them that this 'Heller' (a funny name I have to admit) guy gets. Why would that be?

Eh, If someone posted a flat earther as evidence that climate change isn't happening, i would be just as scathing towards him as I am towards Heller.

I didn't bring him onto this thread, one of the 'skeptics' did. The only reason I have ever heard of the guy is because he, and others like him, are a primary source fuelling climate change denial on the internet.
He makes up bullsh1t claims, which then get picked up by media commentators at the telegraph or Breitbart, and then repeated endlessly in forums and at dinner tables across the world.

Oneiric 3

Akrasia wrote: »

Thats not what occupational closure is

Occupational closure is where an occupation or profession becomes a protected occupation by means of licensing or required levels of training and education before you can describe yourself as being of that profession

It refers to things like Doctors of Medicine, Lawyers, Transport Managers, Chartered Accountants etc

You are not legally allowed to describe yourself as a Barrister unless you have passed your exams and have a valid licence from the statutory body

Climatologist is not a protected term, anyone can call themselves a climate scientist, regardless of their expertise or lack thereof and frequently they do, especially when they're trying running blogs or attending contrarian conferences where they pretend that they have the knowledge or expertise to debunk an established scientific consensus.

Climate change skeptics want to pretend that anyone should be entitled to publish any of their pet theories to peer reviewed journals, and if their papers are refused, it's because there's a conspiracy to block access to the scientific literature

Meanwhile they expect that their gp has a valid license to practise medicine, their lawyer has passed his exams, the architect designing your house is a member of all the relevant professional bodies and is of good professional standing etc etc etc.

There is nothing you say here that contradicts what I said.

Oneiric 3

Akrasia wrote: »

Eh, If someone posted a flat earther as evidence that climate change isn't happening, i would be just as scathing towards him as I am towards Heller.

I didn't bring him onto this thread, one of the 'skeptics' did. The only reason I have ever heard of the guy is because he, and others like him, are a primary source fuelling climate change denial on the internet.
He makes up bullsh1t claims, which then get picked up by media commentators at the telegraph or Breitbart, and then repeated endlessly in forums and at dinner tables across the world.

I know very little about him myself, but there must be something in what he says if there are credible people on this forum citing him.

posidonia

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

I know very little about him myself, but there must be something in what he says if there are credible people on this forum citing him.

Equally, there are other credible people here who point out there is nothing in what he ('Heller/Goddard') says.


Who's right?



Well, I don't think a geologist like Heller/Goddard is an atmosphere scientist - that's why my intuition tells me.



Luckily, like Heller/Goddard, I'm not an atmosphere scientist either and I too know a little about geology - so I'm as credible as Heller/Goddard :cool:.



So, by climate sceptic logic, I am as credible as him and when I categorically say Heller/Goddard has nothing to say I'm as right as he is :cool:

SeaBreezes

Longing wrote: »

No 1.

No2.

So, Arkasia I get that you don't like him.
And I understand anyone querying the narrative in your mind is a " attending contrarian conferences where they pretend that they have the knowledge or expertise to debunk an established scientific consensus"

Wow.

Zharakova - PhD in Astrophysics
Nikolov- PhD Physical Sciences
Zeller - PhD in Fluid Mechanics and Wind Engineering
Contrarions the lot of them!! Tsck. They'll give anyone a PhD in AstroPhysics these days... :-) :-)

But I will repeat Gaoth Laiders question for the third time in regards the RSS data discrepancies referred to both in the Climategate emails and illustrated in his video.

He's spot on about this.
And the NCAR graphs, and the newspapers at the time.

Your dislike of him does not change the facts.

Gaoth Laidir

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

I know very little about him myself, but there must be something in what he says if there are credible people on this forum citing him.

Don't you get it? Akrasia and Mindgame aren't out to discuss the theory, only the theorist. Akrasia's sidetepped my question twice now. If there's a valid reason for the correction of the data as shown then great, let's see it and put it to bed and expose Heller.

Gaoth Laidir

posidonia wrote: »

Equally, there are other credible people here who point out there is nothing in what he ('Heller/Goddard') says.


Who's right?



Well, I don't think a geologist like Heller/Goddard is an atmosphere scientist - that's why my intuition tells me.



Luckily, like Heller/Goddard, I'm not an atmosphere scientist either and I too know a little about geology - so I'm as credible as Heller/Goddard :cool:.



So, by climate sceptic logic, I am as credible as him and when I categorically say Heller/Goddard has nothing to say I'm as right as he is :cool:

Did you see that second video I've been talking about? I'm having trouble getting an answer on the adjusted data, so maybe you'd be good enough to provide one. That is, if you've watched them...which I'm willing to bet you haven't.