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

1141517192056

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,552 ✭✭✭SeaBreezes


    Leo Meyer He co-authored IPCC several reports during the Fourth Assessment (2005-2007) Climategate emails are from then... if he knew, he didn't speak up...
    PhD in energy conservation and economics..


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,730 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    SeaBreezes wrote:
    Leo Meyer He co-authored IPCC several reports during the Fourth Assessment (2005-2007) Climategate emails are from then... if he knew, he didn't speak up... PhD in energy conservation and economics..


    Please tell me, not neoclassically trained?


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


    It is clear that empirical followers can't speak the language of astronomy and especially where the links between planetary motions and Earth sciences are concerned. Like all languages it can be difficult initially but with time it becomes effortless and then people can judge not only the differences between geocentric and heliocentric language but where a lot of perspectives need expansion and modification and particularly Earth sciences like climate.

    The rise of celestial sphere software allied to theoretical empiricism (is there any other kind !) has created the most grotesque spectacle since humans set foot on the planet. Celestial sphere modelers which incorporate academic modeling of 'climate change' are sub-geocentric or more plainly, they are further removed from heliocentric language than the antecedent geocentric astronomers.

    Yes it is as bad as people can imagine for celestial sphere notions like 'big bang' are celebrated but for the geocentric astronomers they generated these absurd 'no centre/ no circumference' conclusions for the entire Universe -

    "And wherever anyone would be, he would believe himself to be at the centre. Therefore, merge these different imaginative pictures so that the centre is the zenith and vice versa. Thereupon you will see- through the intellect..that the world and its motion and shape cannot be apprehended. For [the Universe] will appear as a wheel in a wheel and a sphere in a sphere-- having its centre and circumference nowhere. . . " Nicolas of Cusa prior to the heliocentric system


    This is why they now model the seasons where the Earth is the centre of all motions. It is also why, after thousands of years of a noble astronomical heritage, the modelers have the Sun wander, the Earth stationary and all conclusions are based on a zero axial inclination -

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

    Astronomical language is gentle, never crude or beyond the ability of the observer with integrity and respect for its traditions. It inspires as well as presents so many facets to explore and appreciate yet the 'explanation' above represents something really wrong with our society presently so the incentive is to learn the genuine language of astronomy as a cultural pursuit first.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,888 ✭✭✭✭M.T. Cranium


    Yeah, we're tilted on our axis, we know. It does explain a lot -- seasons, climate zones, the whole she-bang.

    Where did you get the idea that nobody noticed this?


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


    SeaBreezes wrote: »
    1) NCAR data 'adjusted' to hide previous warming. Illustrated with overlaid charts.

    2) RSS data 'adjusted' to show warming (Met Office not happy not good science) also illustrated.

    3) Max temps listed in places there are NO sensors? Is it guesstimated? To the highest error margin again?


    He, Heller, posts no proof he's right. He's just says he's right. That is all.



    I'm still waiting for you, or anyone, to post any evidence Heller is right - other than you agree with Heller that Heller is right...


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


    Longing wrote: »
    You haven't giving any evidence to show the charts Heller showed were wrong. You tried to divert the true data you saw into something that was not relevant.

    By the way I can't wait for your reply to the last Heller video I posted.


    Is it worth my effort? I can't see you saying 'yes, you have a point' to anything I might write?


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


    It is not possible to have a reasonable discussion for it is all 'everybody knows this or we all know that' while descriptions shows a group of people lost when it comes to cause and effect where planetary motions are involved. Much like the founder of the 'scientific method', they simply rig an 'explanation' to suit whatever conclusion they draw yet astronomy doesn't operate like experimental sciences and never did.

    "When the ordinary man hears that the Church told Galileo that he might teach Copernicanism as a hypothesis which saved all the celestial phenomena satisfactorily, but "not as being the truth," he laughs. But this was really how Ptolemaic astronomy had been taught! In its actual place in history it was not a casuistical quibble; it was the refusal (unjustified it may be) to allow the introduction of a new and momentous doctrine. It was not simply a new theory of the nature of the celestial movements that was feared, but a new theory of the nature of theory; namely, that, if a hypothesis saves all the appearances. It is identical with truth." Barfield 1957

    The Royal Society empiricists, unknown to that author above although he came close, tried to insist that experimental predictions derived from observations could be proposed as universal truths or the 'universal theories'. This is where the fuss about conditions in a common greenhouse can be applied to the Earth's atmosphere as a 'universal truth' with all the dire predictions and societal anxiety attached.

    Had people any sense of astonishment, they would be immediately repulsed by the current 'explanation' for the seasons with an Earth with a zero degree axial inclination derived from celestial sphere software in much the same way 'big bang' is also from the same awful doctrine. The inability to discuss cause and effect like reasonable people is dismaying so political reactions like 'what's your point or everybody knows' are irritating in the absence of any common ground for discussion. What looks off-topic is really central to any discussion on climate and a move away from the murky world of empirical modeling and its excesses.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,261 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir


    Oriel, I'd be interested to know why the Big Bang is an awful idea, but please start your own thread so it doesn't derail this one. Off with you.


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


    Oriel, I'd be interested to know why the Big Ban is an awful idea, but please start your own thread so it doesn't derail this one. Off with you.

    Ah, celestial sphere modeling uses RA/Dec where the Earth is not only the centre of the solar system (in the case of 'big bang' the centre of the universe) but has a zero degree axial inclination as well so unlike the geocentric astronomers who at least recognised the direct motion of the Sun through the constellations, those Royal Society gob****es put the Sun in a wandering motion relative the Earth rotational equator -

    http://community.dur.ac.uk/john.lucey/users/solar_year.gif

    When that happens you get an 'explanation' for the seasons using an Earth with a non-existent zero degree axial inclination and without objections from the hapless followers like yourself and the meteorologist -

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


    Everyone else should be astonished but then again it is only a matter of learning basic astronomical language linking cause and effect. As for yourselves, it is more like schoolyard politics or perpetual empirical students and their exceptionally dull conclusion.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,261 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir


    Oriel, did you read what I said? I asked about the Big Bang but to be explained in a new thread. Don't reply to this. Please...


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,888 ✭✭✭✭M.T. Cranium


    Oriel36, I went through some of your posts and evidently, you think that recognition of the concept of sidereal day has caused mainstream meteorologists and astronomers to imagine that the earth rotates once per sidereal day and that this has some profound influence on their understanding of physical processes in the atmosphere.

    This belief is wrong on two levels.

    We do not imagine that there is a sidereal day (of approximately 23 hours 56 minutes). The earth rotates as you've said somewhere 1,461 times every four years in a frame of reference that is heliocentric. It rotates 1,465 times in that four years in a framework that is fixed-star based. You could say that it rotates 20 times a year in the frame of reference of a fast-moving westbound aircraft. Just because people can identify different frames of reference does not imply that they will give each one the same importance in meteorology. The sidereal day is just a construct, not the foundation of any sort of predictive systems in meteorology. For astronomy, it accurately predicts when fixed stars will appear to rise over the horizon (four minutes earlier than the previous day). In meteorology, as far as I know, it has never been proposed as any sort of forcing mechanism.

    You posted graphs showing that the solar heating cycle is diurnal and based on the 24 hour day. But everyone active in the atmospheric sciences has known this for the entire length of time there has been any form of meterology. So I am puzzled what you think we are doing, making forecasts based on sidereal day? Nobody is doing that.

    If you already knew the above, then why are you posting any of this? If you didn't know, be relieved and move on.


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


    Oriel36, I went through some of your posts and evidently, you think that recognition of the concept of sidereal day has caused mainstream meteorologists and astronomers to imagine that the earth rotates once per sidereal day and that this has some profound influence on their understanding of physical processes in the atmosphere.

    This belief is wrong on two levels.

    Astrophysics, not physics, has the same substance as a Nigerian internet scam or cold calling thieves exploiting vulnerable people. They make the unfortunate reader believe they speak from a position of authority and careful study but when shown exactly where they are getting their notions from they disappear only to return later to try again like you did with the 'analemma' yesterday and this crap today.

    https://hypertextbook.com/facts/1999/JennyChen.shtml

    Lately they even shifted away from that fiction and assigned one rotation in 24 hours back to the year 1882 -

    "At the time of the dinosaurs, Earth completed one rotation in about 23 hours," says MacMillan, who is a member of the VLBI team at NASA Goddard. "In the year 1820, a rotation took exactly 24 hours, or 86,400 standard seconds. Since 1820, the mean solar day has increased by about 2.5 milliseconds." NASA


    People are being played for fools by academics who have no respect for the evolution of astronomy or timekeeping. What should be conclusive only gives this meteorologist a chance to disappear and return with something equally vapid. I wish the meteorologist was a simple charlatan for at least then his behaviour could be excused but unfortunately it is behaviour gained through the education system influenced by the Royal Society empiricists of the late 17th century or the 'founding fathers' of the so-called scientific method.

    These people do not know the limitations of modeling but more importantly, have no respect, absolutely none for the links between planetary motions and Earth sciences.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,888 ✭✭✭✭M.T. Cranium


    GL, what we have here is a simple failure to recognize the concept of frame of reference. I am fed up with these pointless explanations of nothing of interest to nobody. Mods? Help us out here.

    Now as to that variable outcome for mean year of record max, I did the same analysis for the CET daily max records and found a similar looking graph but without the peaks at either end of the winter season. A cynic might say that there is no winter season so there's your explanation.

    The average of all CET record high dates is 1928 while the period (1772 to 2019) has an overall mean of 1895.5. This is a very similar forward shift to the Toronto mean of about 1953.4 vs data set average of 1930. The CET shift is about 33 years vs 248 total (13% shift) and the Toronto shift is 23 vs 180 (also 13%).

    I am working on getting the two curves into the same graph for a later posting. The most prominent "recent spike" in the CET appears to be late July into early August. The most prominent "most resilient old records" trough appears to be mid March.

    It would be an interesting topic for further research if these oscillating waves for the two climate zones had any sort of linked relationship, either varying in phase or alternately, but there is almost the opposite longer-wave signature through the calendar year (Toronto gets back to older records progressively until the stat reverses in November, the CET shows the opposite pattern, continuing to rise slowly to November).

    An Atlantic oscillation on a long time scale perhaps? What makes it a bit tricky is the different period studied, CET already had one-quarter of its data logged when Toronto signed on. No telling what records Toronto might have set in those years 1772 to 1839.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,888 ✭✭✭✭M.T. Cranium


    I apologize, that belief was wrong on three levels. I was unaware that you found fault with the long-term change in the length of day.


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



    We do not imagine that there is a sidereal day (of approximately 23 hours 56 minutes). The earth rotates as you've said somewhere 1,461 times every four years in a frame of reference that is heliocentric. It rotates 1,465 times in that four years in a framework that is fixed-star based. You could say that it rotates 20 times a year in the frame of reference of a fast-moving westbound aircraft.

    This is for reasonable adults.

    The anchor for daily rotation is the noon cycle with the Sun as a stationary reference, the cause and effect is the day/night cycle along with temperature fluctuations in response to that rotation -

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


    The people who were pushing the 'solar vs sidereal' fiction that the noon cycle and the day/night cycle could be bypassed and one rotation could be discerned using a clock by appealing directly to stellar circumpolar motion hence 200+ years of awful celestial sphere modeling -

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYy0EQBnqHI

    " 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 /Harvard


    People giving themselves an infinite amount of choices to suit whatever particular conclusion they desire are the actions of scam artists so although such a insidious ability may be useful for politics, it is lethal for Earth sciences.

    Spare me apologizes, if you have any sense of what you were doing you would be working towards recovering climate science to a positive topic that it is. I am sure you got a kick out of seeing all those 'analemma' posts wiped out yesterday..


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,855 ✭✭✭Nabber


    Oriel where is the point in all of this?

    Astronomy: Can accurately predict sunrise, motion of the planets, location of stars in the night sky, orbit of the moon ect. It seems unlikely that we stumbled upon a flawed ability to predict celestial objects accurately.


    Is your issue with the measurement of time? Which I agree is dated like imperial measurement, they are accurate but complicated. A metric measurement of time would be the dogs bollox ðŸ˜

    It seems the root of your argument is comparative to the motor industry using HP as an measurement. Where no horse shares the same power and thus all measurements of an engines abilities are flawed and to the be accepted.

    You haven’t provided an alternative, you have haven’t provided much of anything. You talk in riddles and then defend the riddles by ridiculing your audience as lacking the ability to understand.

    Do you lack the ability to talk in layman’s terms? When providing your age do you communicate it as “15,000 heliocentric orbits on a 0 degree axial tilt discounting the charlatans rule III”


    Your argument of the flaws in measurement of earths movement sharing the same inaccuracies as AGW is in itself flawed.

    One is a theory with numerous failed predictions using endless theories to support its base, on an agreed consensus that the planet is warming.

    The other has the ability to predict accurately 10s of years in advance.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,048 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    Nabber wrote: »
    IPPC Chairman (at the time) Rajendra K. Pachauri. Is he still battling sexual harassment charges?
    For that reason I can't read that document.


    Am I doing it right Akrasia? Or do I attack his character some more?

    I don’t attack people’s character, I bring up things that are relevant to their scientific reputation. If you have an accurate reputation for regularly misunderstanding basic science and for making up and distorting the findings of other scientists then you deservedly lose credibility

    I don’t care if someone is an altar boy in their personal life as long as they are honest and have scientific integrity.

    This doesn’t mean that all of their science is automatically invalid, it just means that they have a huge mountain to climb to regain the respect of their peers and for others to take them seriously

    It takes years to build up a reputation as a honest rigorous scientist with good scientific integrity. Why should attention seeking charlatans be allowed to monopolize our attention by making outlandish claims attacking the work and character of other scientists when their own track record full of inaccurate and dishonest conspiracy laden nonsense


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,048 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    SeaBreezes wrote: »
    Leo Meyer He co-authored IPCC several reports during the Fourth Assessment (2005-2007) Climategate emails are from then... if he knew, he didn't speak up...
    PhD in energy conservation and economics..

    What’s your opinion on the 8 independent investigations that cleared the ‘climategate’ scientists of any scientific misconduct. The worst that can be said was that they didn’t properly respond to the FOI requests, but those were clearly nuisance requests (as found by the investigations)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,261 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir


    Akrasia wrote: »
    I don’t attack people’s character, I bring up things that are relevant to their scientific reputation. If you have an accurate reputation for regularly misunderstanding basic science and for making up and distorting the findings of other scientists then you deservedly lose credibility

    I don’t care if someone is an altar boy in their personal life as long as they are honest and have scientific integrity.

    This doesn’t mean that all of their science is automatically invalid, it just means that they have a huge mountain to climb to regain the respect of their peers and for others to take them seriously

    It takes years to build up a reputation as a honest rigorous scientist with good scientific integrity. Why should attention seeking charlatans be allowed to monopolize our attention by making outlandish claims attacking the work and character of other scientists when their own track record full of inaccurate and dishonest conspiracy laden nonsense

    That's all well and good, but what about those qualified scientists who've held numerous high-ranking positions at various institutions around the world (IPCC, ECMWF, NASA Goddard Institute, Niels Bohr Institute, etc., such as Ray Bates (all of the above, and more)? You have a personal hatred for Bates and make no secret of it, being the reason for your outright condemnation of his last paper without even reading it. Surely you can't have it both ways.

    http://www.raybates.net/#


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,552 ✭✭✭SeaBreezes


    More contrarions with actual data:
    Irish father and son team.
    Published on Aug 16, 2019
    Dr. Ronan Connolly & Dr. Michael Connolly
    Center for Environmental Research and Earth Sciences
    https://www.ceres-science.com ..

    Like Nikolov they are working from observed data.

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XfRBr7PEawY&feature=emb_logo


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 12,523 Mod ✭✭✭✭Meteorite58


    Mod Note: oriel36 you need to follow the Moderator instructions to stay on topic and adhere to the forum charter.

    Your posts do not belong in this thread. They may be better suited in an Astronomy forum or such like.

    The repetitious nature of your posts need to stop as they are clogging up the thread and taking it off topic.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,048 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    SeaBreezes wrote: »
    More contrarions with actual data:
    Irish father and son team.
    Published on Aug 16, 2019
    Dr. Ronan Connolly & Dr. Michael Connolly
    Center for Environmental Research and Earth Sciences
    https://www.ceres-science.com ..

    Like Nikolov they are working from observed data.

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XfRBr7PEawY&feature=emb_logo
    Why on earth would you choose to believe these guys. You clearly can not assess their scientific findings yourself. What makes these chancers more believable than NASA?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,552 ✭✭✭SeaBreezes


    Akrasia wrote: »
    Why on earth would you choose to believe these guys. You clearly can not assess their scientific findings yourself. What makes these chancers more believable than NASA?

    Listen here they explain it all

    https://omny.fm/shows/danielle-smith/understanding-weather-and-climate


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,809 ✭✭✭✭Water John


    Haven't listened to that yet, but that Ceres site is largely a self publishing site as they are writers/cowriters of three of the five papers.

    One is always cautious that there is a lot of fossil fuel lobby money available to throw smoke in peoples eyes. Some may be unwitting recipients.

    It is evolving and I have an open mind. In my area, agriculture for example, in recent years ruminant animals have been vilified. Now it's emerged that if you're herd is static in numbers you're not increasing the GHG as the CH4 has only a 10 year life span. The vilification of animal agriculture was also hijacked by the vegan proponents for their agenda.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,855 ✭✭✭Nabber


    Akrasia wrote: »
    I don’t attack people’s character, I bring up things that are relevant to their scientific reputation.
    Akrasia wrote: »
    Why on earth would you choose to believe these guys. You clearly can not assess their scientific findings yourself. What makes these chancers more believable than NASA?


    As expected, no change, attack the authour not the data.

    Your posts are only 40mins apart :)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,552 ✭✭✭SeaBreezes


    Water John wrote: »
    Haven't listened to that yet, but that Ceres site is largely a self publishing site as they are writers/cowriters of three of the five papers.

    One is always cautious that there is a lot of fossil fuel lobby money available to throw smoke in peoples eyes. Some may be unwitting recipients.

    It is evolving and I have an open mind. In my area, agriculture for example, in recent years ruminant animals have been vilified. Now it's emerged that if you're herd is static in numbers you're not increasing the GHG as the CH4 has only a 10 year life span. The vilification of animal agriculture was also hijacked by the vegan proponents for their agenda.

    Agreed. Eat local, uses the least resources.

    https://ronanconnollyscience.com/
    Scroll down to the bottom there are links to the 5 peer reviewed papers.


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


    Messing around with some data here regarding the 'AMO' index, of which Heller's video last night sparked a little of my interest. The chart below shows the relationship between Arctic temperatures (as per the 'ERA 20C 1900-2010 reanalysis series via Climate Reanalyzer and the AMO index via KNMI)

    9ULHb9X.png

    Seems to be a reasonable amount of correlation between both, but what I found interesting is that rather than the 'AMO' state influencing the temperature profile in the Arctic, it would seem that it is temperature profile of the Arctic that would more have an influence on the state of the AMO. Perhaps this is common knowledge already, but I found it to be interesting.

    New Moon



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


    Water John wrote: »
    The vilification of animal agriculture was also hijacked by the vegan proponents for their agenda.

    And this is the thing. the issue of climate change' seems to have been hijacked by many 'sub-cultures', such as sub- intelligent 'feminist' types (of which I linked an article on this about a week or so ago), 'Vegans' as you say, and the more political types who fancy themselves as being 'communistic' or 'socialist', though with a little prodding it is easy enough to reveal that they really are neither of these beneath that shallow outer layer they like to portray.

    New Moon



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,261 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir


    Oneiric 3 wrote: »
    Messing around with some data here regarding the 'AMO' index, of which Heller's video last night sparked a little of my interest. The chart below shows the relationship between Arctic temperatures (as per the 'ERA 20C 1900-2010 reanalysis series via Climate Reanalyzer and the AMO index via KNMI)

    9ULHb9X.png

    Seems to be a reasonable amount of correlation between both, but what I found interesting is that rather than the 'AMO' state influencing the temperature profile in the Arctic, it would seem that it is temperature profile of the Arctic that would more have an influence on the state of the AMO. Perhaps this is common knowledge already, but I found it to be interesting.

    It's is well known that the AMO affects Arctic sea ice extent around Svalbard and the Barents Sea, with less ice during increasing AMO mode.

    Also, the AMO is responsible for 90% of Ireland's temperature variability (and also for western Europe to a lesser extent).

    https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/wea.2543


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,855 ✭✭✭Nabber


    Oneiric 3 wrote: »
    And this is the thing. the issue of climate change' seems to have been hijacked by many 'sub-cultures', such as sub- intelligent 'feminist' types (of which I linked an article on this about a week or so ago), 'Vegans' as you say, and the more political types who fancy themselves as being 'communistic' or 'socialist', though with a little prodding it is easy enough to reveal that they really are neither of these beneath that shallow outer layer they like to portray.

    I would say the majority of people who agree with the mainstream theory of AGW don’t understand the basic premise of climate and its variations.

    An ideology encompasses the theory now, where the message portrayed or at least allowed to manifest is that pre AGW climates where stable,.... dry arid lands didn’t burn, flood plains didn’t flood, tornadoes were dust devils, hurricanes were bad storms, ice never melted ect...

    Some recent example of this manifestation being encouraged:

    Wild fires in Australia - Not the worst fires, not even touching 1970. Never discussed

    Brazil Forests Fires- Also not the worst year. Not mentioned.

    Rainforests the lungs of the earth - also not true, but unchallenged.

    Hurricanes more frequent- not true, not challenged

    Hurricanes stronger - not true, not challenged

    No confirmed species on brink of extinction due directly to temperature change or to AGW Theory. Never challenged but Attenborough’s go to in every documentary.

    These are but a few.

    Climate science has been hijacked by MSM and politics, funding alarmist rhetoric fuelled by human impact of climate and weather. Listing weather disasters by $ cost or human lives.
    Very little progressive policies exist, the current policies are disproportionate to the classes. A family of 5 with an income €60,000 incurs a similar tax burden as a single adult earning €300,000.

    Those that do advocate stricter policies do very little to support their beliefs. They are merely populist mouth pieces, who live identically to ‘skeptics’ but claim a moral high ground because they ‘believe’.

    Never has science been ‘settled’ until now. Skeptics are not welcome, rather run out of town and a destroyed career added for good measure, a warning to those who dare.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,110 ✭✭✭✭Thargor


    SeaBreezes wrote: »
    Can you just try and make a point without posting links to irrelevant denier videos and podcasts? Its more irritating than Oriels Dynamics of the Celestial Spheres gibberish, and with less relevant content.


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


    Nabber wrote: »
    I would say the majority of people who agree with the mainstream theory of AGW don’t understand the basic premise of climate and its variations.

    An ideology encompasses the theory now, where the message portrayed or at least allowed to manifest is that pre AGW climates where stable,.... dry arid lands didn’t burn, flood plains didn’t flood, tornadoes were dust devils, hurricanes were bad storms, ice never melted ect...

    Some recent example of this manifestation being encouraged:

    Wild fires in Australia - Not the worst fires, not even touching 1970. Never discussed

    Brazil Forests Fires- Also not the worst year. Not mentioned.

    Rainforests the lungs of the earth - also not true, but unchallenged.

    Hurricanes more frequent- not true, not challenged

    Hurricanes stronger - not true, not challenged

    No confirmed species on brink of extinction due directly to temperature change or to AGW Theory. Never challenged but Attenborough’s go to in every documentary.

    These are but a few.

    Climate science has been hijacked by MSM and politics, funding alarmist rhetoric fuelled by human impact of climate and weather. Listing weather disasters by $ cost or human lives.
    Very little progressive policies exist, the current policies are disproportionate to the classes. A family of 5 with an income €60,000 incurs a similar tax burden as a single adult earning €300,000.

    Those that do advocate stricter policies do very little to support their beliefs. They are merely populist mouth pieces, who live identically to ‘skeptics’ but claim a moral high ground because they ‘believe’.

    Never has science been ‘settled’ until now. Skeptics are not welcome, rather run out of town and a destroyed career added for good measure, a warning to those who dare.

    An interesting observation here:
    https://www.spectator.co.uk/2019/06/the-end-is-nigh-the-rise-of-middle-class-apocalypticism/

    Abstract:
    "Every day we are told repeatedly that ‘catastrophe’ awaits. It will be ‘-catastrophic’ if we leave the EU without a deal, ‘catastrophic’ if America withdraws from the Paris Agreement on climate change, ‘catastrophic’ if we push ahead with fracking, ‘catastrophic’ if Jeremy Corbyn becomes prime minister and so on.

    The whingeing middle classes have convinced themselves that the game’s up to such an extent that it seems almost rude not to join them in their grumbling. It used to be only fogeyish Tories who thought the world was ‘going to the dogs’. Now everybody does.

    Whether it’s the end of democracy, the destruction of the environment, the rise of populism, impending famine in Africa, fears over nuclear warfare, the pollution of our oceans, the threat of terrorism, worries about how the young will become homeowners, the increase in the cost of private education, the lack of decent avocados in Waitrose, the endless roadworks on the M4 — whatever your gripe, the bourgeois apocalypse is upon us".

    New Moon



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


    It's is well known that the AMO affects Arctic sea ice extent around Svalbard and the Barents Sea, with less ice during increasing AMO mode.

    Also, the AMO is responsible for 90% of Ireland's temperature variability (and also for western Europe to a lesser extent).

    https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/wea.2543

    I have no doubt, and thanks for the link, I'll take a gander later tonight. My point was more about the long term trends in both the Arctic temperature profile and that of the AMO, as it would seem that the AMO state would more likely follow long term temperature trends in wider Arctic region, as you will notice something of a 'lag' response regarding the trend of the AMO in response to the fluctuating temps of the Arctic.

    Edit, looking back at what I wrote there, and it just comes across as wandering waffle.

    New Moon



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,048 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    Thargor wrote: »
    Can you just try and make a point without posting links to irrelevant denier videos and podcasts? Its more irritating than Oriels Dynamics of the Celestial Spheres gibberish, and with less relevant content.

    The gist of the interview was that this clown thinks that there has been no warming, it was all the urban heat island effect and disproven by weather balloons. Did you bother checking these claims?

    Why do you think this interview makes him more credible than the rest of the scientists
    (including people with actual climate science qualifications)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,048 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    Nabber wrote: »
    As expected, no change, attack the authour not the data.

    Your posts are only 40mins apart :)

    I think chancer is a fairly good term for someone who sets up their own journal so they can get their own articles ‘peer reviewed’


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


    Water John wrote: »
    Haven't listened to that yet, but that Ceres site is largely a self publishing site as they are writers/cowriters of three of the five papers.

    One is always cautious that there is a lot of fossil fuel lobby money available to throw smoke in peoples eyes. Some may be unwitting recipients.

    It is evolving and I have an open mind. In my area, agriculture for example, in recent years ruminant animals have been vilified. Now it's emerged that if you're herd is static in numbers you're not increasing the GHG as the CH4 has only a 10 year life span. The vilification of animal agriculture was also hijacked by the vegan proponents for their agenda.


    Doesn't CH4 break down into CO2?


    And shouldn't people be free to eat what they want and to say what they want about what they eat?


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


    Oneiric 3 wrote: »
    And this is the thing. the issue of climate change' seems to have been hijacked by many 'sub-cultures', such as sub- intelligent 'feminist' types (of which I linked an article on this about a week or so ago), 'Vegans' as you say, and the more political types who fancy themselves as being 'communistic' or 'socialist', though with a little prodding it is easy enough to reveal that they really are neither of these beneath that shallow outer layer they like to portray.


    'sub-intelligent feminists types? Would you be a intelligent man?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,048 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    Nabber wrote: »
    I would say the majority of people who agree with the mainstream theory of AGW don’t understand the basic premise of climate and its variations.
    .

    lol. Are you including the vast majority of actual climate scientists amongst the list of people who do not understand the basic premise of climate and it's variations?

    Or is it just the random internet bloggers and people with irrelevant qualifications and education who actually understand what climate is.


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


    Nabber wrote: »
    I would say the majority of people who agree with the mainstream theory of AGW don’t understand the basic premise of climate and its variations.


    But you do?


    An ideology encompasses the theory now, where the message portrayed or at least allowed to manifest is that pre AGW climates where stable,.... dry arid lands didn’t burn, flood plains didn’t flood, tornadoes were dust devils, hurricanes were bad storms, ice never melted ect...


    Clearly a ridiculous assertion. Its about magnitude, rate of occurrence - change.

    Some recent example of this manifestation being encouraged:

    Wild fires in Australia - Not the worst fires, not even touching 1970. Never discussed

    Brazil Forests Fires- Also not the worst year. Not mentioned.

    Rainforests the lungs of the earth - also not true, but unchallenged.

    Hurricanes more frequent- not true, not challenged

    Hurricanes stronger - not true, not challenged

    No confirmed species on brink of extinction due directly to temperature change or to AGW Theory. Never challenged but Attenborough’s go to in every documentary.

    These are but a few.

    Climate science has been hijacked by MSM and politics, funding alarmist rhetoric fuelled by human impact of climate and weather. Listing weather disasters by $ cost or human lives.
    Very little progressive policies exist, the current policies are disproportionate to the classes. A family of 5 with an income €60,000 incurs a similar tax burden as a single adult earning €300,000.

    Those that do advocate stricter policies do very little to support their beliefs. They are merely populist mouth pieces, who live identically to ‘skeptics’ but claim a moral high ground because they ‘believe’.

    Never has science been ‘settled’ until now. Skeptics are not welcome, rather run out of town and a destroyed career added for good measure, a warning to those who dare.


    Am I allowed to challenge you?



    Fires. Generally, as more is burnt or cleared (tropics) there is less left to burn? Wrt 1970 you are simply wrong - or at least you are comparing burning grasslands are the and burning forests that normally never burn? Apples V oranges.



    Why are there species on the brink of extinction?



    Can I challenge you to provides statistics to back up your claims about hurricanes please? You make the claims.


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


    It's is well known that the AMO affects Arctic sea ice extent around Svalbard and the Barents Sea, with less ice during increasing AMO mode.

    Also, the AMO is responsible for 90% of Ireland's temperature variability (and also for western Europe to a lesser extent).
    Is it possible temperature variation is, in some part, responsible for changes in the 'AMO' - if the 'AMO' actually exists? Am I allowed to wonder if that is possible?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,855 ✭✭✭Nabber


    Akrasia wrote: »
    lol. Are you including the vast majority of actual climate scientists amongst the list of people who do not understand the basic premise of climate and it's variations?

    Yeah, cause that’s exactly what I meant. :s


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,261 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir


    posidonia wrote: »
    Is it possible temperature variation is, in some part, responsible for changes in the 'AMO' - if the 'AMO' actually exists? Am I allowed to wonder if that is possible?

    It's ok if you've never heard of the AMO, it's only been studied since the 1980s. A quick Google will tell you all you need to know.

    You've only recently joined Boards (under that name) but I've previously given evidence several times of why I think it has a significant effect on both Arctic ice and Greenland melt.

    There has been no evidence that I've seen to suggest that temperature variation is what drives the AMO; it's the other way around. AMO signals are seen in a wide area of the northern hemisphere, including Europe (temperatures and Alpine glaciers) and north America (a strong driver of the 1930s dust bowl).


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


    posidonia wrote: »
    'sub-intelligent feminists types? Would you be a smart man?

    Not at all, just smarter.

    I have no time for any one, be they women or men, of ultra-privilege who constantly portray themselves to be worse off or more oppressed by society than they actually are.

    New Moon



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,855 ✭✭✭Nabber


    posidonia wrote: »
    But you do?






    Clearly a ridiculous assertion. Its about magnitude, rate of occurrence - change.





    Am I allowed to challenge you?



    Fires. Generally, as more is burnt or cleared (tropics) there is less left to burn? Wrt 1970 you are simply wrong - or at least you are comparing burning grasslands are the and burning forests that normally never burn? Apples V oranges.



    Why are there species on the brink of extinction?



    Can I challenge you to provides statistics to back up your claims about hurricanes please? You make the claims.

    You are right to challenge them. Sure can back them all up. I will when I’m not posting on a mobile.
    I would hazard a guess tho that none of the data will be accepted and some folks here will jump to character assassinations.

    I’ll follow up some stage this weekend.


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


    It's ok if you've never heard of the AMO, it's only been studied since the 1980s. A quick Google will tell you all you need to know.

    You've only recently joined Boards (under that name) but I've previously given evidence several times of why I think it has a significant effect on both Arctic ice and Greenland melt.

    There has been no evidence that I've seen to suggest that temperature variation is what drives the AMO; it's the other way around. AMO signals are seen in a wide area of the northern hemisphere, including Europe (temperatures and Alpine glaciers) and north America (a strong driver of the 1930s dust bowl).


    I didn't say I've not heard of the AMO...


    I do wonder if the AMO exists.



    Example. Do I think the NAO drives temperatures? No, I think the NAO is a constructed index and it no more drives temperature than a share index drives share prices*. I fell free to think something the same wrt the 'AMO'.


    *The parallel should be clear but of course people follow share indexes and that may have an effect on forward prices.


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


    I wonder does a colder Arctic have an influence on north Atlantic wind patterns? I don't know what 'drives' the AMO to osculate between pos and neg, but colder air masses crossing over the Atlantic do have an immediate impact on the Atlantic temp profile, so surely it would follow that a prolonged run of anomalous cold within the greater Arctic region would increase the frequency of colder air masses spilling out over the N. Atlantic, which in turn would lower SST anomalies and bring down the AMO index.

    New Moon



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


    posidonia wrote: »

    I do wonder if the AMO exists.

    Well scientists at NCAR seem to think so:

    https://climatedataguide.ucar.edu/climate-data/atlantic-multi-decadal-oscillation-amo

    So who are you to wonder otherwise?

    New Moon



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


    There has been no evidence that I've seen to suggest that temperature variation is what drives the AMO; it's the other way around. AMO signals are seen in a wide area of the northern hemisphere, including Europe (temperatures and Alpine glaciers) and north America (a strong driver of the 1930s dust bowl).


    The Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation without a role for ocean circulation

    These results suggest that the AMO is the response to stochastic forcing from the mid-latitude atmospheric circulation, with thermal coupling playing a role in the tropics.

    Absence of internal multidecadal and interdecadal oscillations in climate model simulations

    Here we use a combination of observational data and state-of-the-art forced and control climate model simulations to demonstrate the absence of consistent evidence for decadal or longer-term internal oscillatory signals that are distinguishable from climatic noise.

    A Limited Role for Unforced Internal Variability in Twentieth-Century Warming

    ....As a consequence, Atlantic multidecadal variability (AMV) is found to be primarily controlled by external forcing too.


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


    Thargor wrote: »
    Can you just try and make a point without posting links to irrelevant denier videos and podcasts? Its more irritating than Oriels Dynamics of the Celestial Spheres gibberish, and with less relevant content.

    You can't help ourselves but then again the sum total of your knowledge of planetary motions is a Royal Society celestial sphere framework -

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYy0EQBnqHI

    The world doesn't deserve being dragged into the world of empirical modeling but then again they hardly know the illness these 'scientific method' people suffer from due to a toxic education.

    It is bad form to throw stones after my contribution has ended but such is a lack of class and that can't be bought or taught.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,048 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    That's all well and good, but what about those qualified scientists who've held numerous high-ranking positions at various institutions around the world (IPCC, ECMWF, NASA Goddard Institute, Niels Bohr Institute, etc., such as Ray Bates (all of the above, and more)? You have a personal hatred for Bates and make no secret of it, being the reason for your outright condemnation of his last paper without even reading it. Surely you can't have it both ways.

    http://www.raybates.net/#

    I did read it and his conclusion that climate sensitivity is 1c is nonsense because we've already reached 1c of warming (more or less) and haven't reached the doubling of CO2 yet and we aren't yet at equilibrium so there is more warming built in even if not another additional molecule of CO2 is added to the atmosphere

    His continued insistence on referring to Lindzen's Iris effect as the negative feedback that will counteract the radiative forcing of additional greenhouse gasses was not supported by the evidence back in 2016, and even more wrong now following from YS Choi's (lindzen's long standing research partner) most recent paper that shows that the Iris effect could actually be strong positive feedback
    https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-18-0845.1?mobileUi=0


  • Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement