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

Oneiric 3

An interesting and thought provoking article I came across recently, and being the generous soul that I am, I thought I'd share.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-12-15/is-fragile-masculinity-the-biggest-obstacle-to-climate-action/11797210

Some of the more profound quotes contained in this profound article:

"Consuming fuel and producing smoke are a way to both signal hyper-masculinity and an open distain for environmental concerns. A smoky middle finger to environmentalists, if you will".

"Put simply, fragile masculinity might be the biggest obstacle to real climate action. Masculinity has been associated with fossil fuel consumption, extraction, and burning for decades"

"This researcher is united in the conclusion that white conservative men have been the ones with the most power in western countries and they have the most to lose by efforts to change long standing practices and structures, including those associated with the environment."

"Third, it would be easier to see through the ways that virility is linked to combustion and consumption (think "drill baby drill") and environmental protection is pitted against economic development and "real" jobs for (mostly white) men, like mining."

Fantastic points! And all the more relevant as they come not from some ordinary, everyday Joanna, but from a very educated person. So educated in fact, that she is professor of 'gender and war' at some Aussie institute.

Danno

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

An interesting and thought provoking article I came across recently, and being the generous soul that I am, I thought I'd share.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-12-15/is-fragile-masculinity-the-biggest-obstacle-to-climate-action/11797210

Some of the more profound quotes contained in this profound article:

"Consuming fuel and producing smoke are a way to both signal hyper-masculinity and an open distain for environmental concerns. A smoky middle finger to environmentalists, if you will".

"Put simply, fragile masculinity might be the biggest obstacle to real climate action. Masculinity has been associated with fossil fuel consumption, extraction, and burning for decades"

"This researcher is united in the conclusion that white conservative men have been the ones with the most power in western countries and they have the most to lose by efforts to change long standing practices and structures, including those associated with the environment."

"Third, it would be easier to see through the ways that virility is linked to combustion and consumption (think "drill baby drill") and environmental protection is pitted against economic development and "real" jobs for (mostly white) men, like mining."

Fantastic points! And all the more relevant as they come not from some ordinary, everyday Joanna, but from a very educated person. So educated in fact, that she is professor of 'gender and war' at some Aussie institute.

Her timeline is quite the read: https://twitter.com/meganhmackenzie?lang=en

It seems she has an axe to grind with mostly "white men" and her contempt for them is borderline racism. There seems to be a common theme amongst many AGW alarmists that include hatred for capitalism and white men whilst supporting a version of communism and a one world order. They usually think along the lines of "if everyone would only do X then my problems would be sorted".

posidonia

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

M.T has never been a 'climate denier', but he is what I call 'old school', in that he questions everything and does not take everything told to him at face-value without first researching the facts (or lack of them) himself.

I'm old school, I've also been observing the weather for fifty years and I don't take things at face value - I question everything, even MT's ideas...

Oneiric 3

Danno wrote: »

Her timeline is quite the read:
They usually think along the lines of "if everyone would only do X then my problems would be sorted".

My take is that climate alarmists are so precisely because they have no real problems in life. They need a nemesis to battle against.

posidonia

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

My take is that climate alarmists are so precisely because they have no real problems in life. They need a nemesis to battle against.

I'll just slightly change what Goath Laidir said on page three "...I'd suggest you and a few others first hear the people out before going on the personal attack."

oriel36

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

My take is that climate alarmists are so precisely because they have no real problems in life. They need a nemesis to battle against.

Empirical modelers have always behaved that way so it is the dull and dour 'scientific method' doctrine creating doom and gloom predictions for the same reason Von Humboldt recognised -


"This assemblage of imperfect dogmas bequeathed by one age to another-- this physical philosophy, which is composed of popular prejudices,--is not only injurious because it perpetuates error with the obstinacy engendered by the evidence of ill observed facts, but also because it hinders the mind from attaining to higher views of nature. Instead of seeking to discover the mean or medium point, around which oscillate, in apparent independence of forces, all the phenomena of the external world, this system delights in multiplying exceptions to the law, and seeks, amid phenomena and in organic forms, for something beyond the marvel of a regular succession, and an internal and progressive development. Ever inclined to believe that the order of nature is
disturbed, it refuses to recognise in the present any analogy with the past, and guided by its own varying hypotheses, seeks at hazard, either in the interior of the globe or in the regions of space, for the cause of these pretended perturbations. It is the special object of the present work to combat those errors which derive their source from a vicious empiricism and from imperfect inductions." Von Homboldt ,Cosmos

With computer modeling joining the empirical method, the whole thing has become overheated and taken society with it.

SeaBreezes

More from Dr. Neds twitter:
https://mobile.twitter.com/clairegcoleman/status/1214072272849268737

This will be in our next paper. We now have numerical proof that observed variations in global temperature are caused by changes in cloud cover/albedo rather than #CO2. Our model developed from "first principles" successfully reproduced observed changes in Earth's SW reflectance
These are the sources of observed GLOBAL shortwave reflectance data we used in our model verification:
1. Satellite-based CERES data: Loeb & Doelling (2018: https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0208.1…)
2. Ground-based Earthshine data: Palle et al. (2016: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2016GL068025…).

Our paper will actually present a modeling experiment using observed reflectance data and no hidden assumptions that demonstrates the validity of the concept that Earth's global temperature changes on inter-annual & decadal time scale are controlled by cloud-albedo variations.

He is of course, attacked constantly and goes on to say:
Ned Nikolov, Ph.D.
@NikolovScience
·

The main area, where climate models fail reality big time is the prediction of increasing atmospheric heat trapping with rising #CO2 and the simulation of a non-existing positive water-vapor feedback, which further raises the temp. These mechanisms violate Energy Conservation Law

The atmosphere cannot "build up" energy out of trace gases. It's an open system. The notion that a free convective atmosphere "traps" radiant heat as claimed by modern climate is simply ridiculous. Try this "trapping" by fumigating your backyard with CO2 and see if it gets warmer.

Will be interesting! What he says makes logical sense, but I am not a scientist. So from the CO2 supporters, he claims that CO2 cannot 'trap' heat like a greenhouse because there is no glass lid and convective exchange will always disperse the energy. That all warming calcs are based on an assumption from the 1800s.
For my own understanding, what acts as the lid to allow CO2 trap heat in the atmosphere?
And what papers/experiments have been done to prove it please?

Tuisceanch

https://skepticalscience.com/print.php?n=73

How do we know CO2 is causing warming?

• Satellite measurements of the change in outgoing longwave radiation; https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/ad77/baeca26c4f77a9d043a5b53e058ea959e495.pdf
• Measurements of downward longwave radiation http://asl.umbc.edu/pub/chepplew/journals/nature14240_v519_Feldman_CO2.pdf

https://scied.ucar.edu/carbon-dioxide-absorbs-and-re-emits-infrared-radiation

This ability to absorb and re-emit infrared energy is what makes CO2 an effective heat-trapping greenhouse gas. Not all gas molecules are able to absorb IR radiation. For example, nitrogen (N2) and oxygen (O2), which make up more than 90% of Earth's atmosphere, do not absorb infrared photons. CO2 molecules can vibrate in ways that simpler nitrogen and oxygen molecules cannot, which allows CO2 molecules to capture the IR photons.

http://butane.chem.uiuc.edu/pshapley/GenChem1/L15/web-L15.pdf

the mechanism by which molecules absorb heat energy and the effect that these molecules have on atmospheric temperature and climate change.

Carbon dioxide doesn't have a molecular dipole in its ground state. However, some CO2 vibrations produce a structure with a molecular dipole. Because of this, CO2 strongly absorbs infrared radiation.

Electronic spectroscopy uses visible or ultraviolet (UV) radiation to probe the absorption of energy by molecules between electronic energy levels. IR spectroscopy probes the absorption of energy by molecules between vibrational energy levels. The principle behind all forms of absorption spectroscopy is
the same.

Accurate measurements exist since 1850 for global temperature. It is clear that that temperature of the planet is increasing and the rate of increase is becoming greater. Land is heating faster than the oceans but both are warming. The increasing of night time temperatures is greater than day time temperatures. The troposphere is becoming warmer as the stratosphere cools.

https://blogs.iu.edu/sciu/2017/06/13/spectroscopy-astronomy-to-art/

spectroscopy refers to the study of the interaction between light and matter. Today, the field of spectroscopy is incredibly broad and advanced, with applications in not just astronomy but also chemistry, physics, biology, environmental science, and even art!

https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/there-is-overwhelming-evidence-that-climate-change-is-human-caused-townhall/

First, greenhouse gases are well studied, and their properties are nonnegotiable: They absorb and re-emit longwave radiation, whether they’re in a laboratory setting or in the real atmosphere. To back this up with historical evidence, scientists have known since the 1860s that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and since the 1890s that this will affect the heat budget of the Earth through warming. Even then, these claims were based on empirical evidence, and they’re supported by decades of laboratory research.

Global warming is measured fact. Working out the culprits has been like Crime Scene Investigation: Physics Edition.

Some evidence comes from a facility in Billings, Oklahoma. Parts of air like water vapour and carbon dioxide naturally glow with infrared heat at very specific frequencies. The Billings site has a device that measured an incredibly precise “fingerprint” of the sky’s heating.
Investigators reported in 2015[3] that they found fingerprints across the sky with a clear match on the heating trigger. Below the blue line is the file fingerprint for carbon dioxide (CO2) heating, which we release into the air when we do things like burn coal & oil. This file fingerprint comes from basic physics backed by precise lab readings.

The red line is the measured fingerprint in the sky over Billings and is a rock solid match. Each spike is extra heat coming down from the extra CO2 molecules that is heating us up. Measurements in Alaska and from satellites[4] confirm this.

This is just one slide in the huge folder of empirical evidence showing human activity to be the main cause of recent warming.

• 1 – Arrhenius (1896) On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground, Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science
• 2 – Hausfather et al (2017) Assessing recent warming using instrumentally homogeneous sea surface temperature records, Science Advances
• 3 – Feldman et al (2015) Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010, Nature
• 4 – Harries et al (2001) Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997, Nature

https://ams.confex.com/ams/Annual2006/techprogram/paper_100737.htm

Measurements of the Radiative Surface Forcing of Climate

The earth's climate system is warmed by 35 C due to the emission of downward infrared radiation by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (surface radiative forcing) or by the absorption of upward infrared radiation (radiative trapping). Increases in this emission/absorption are the driving force behind global warming. Climate models predict that the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere has altered the radiative energy balance at the earth's surface by several percent by increasing the greenhouse radiation from the atmosphere. With measurements at high spectral resolution, this increase can be quantitatively attributed to each of several anthropogenic gases. Radiance spectra of the greenhouse radiation from the atmosphere have been measured at ground level from several Canadian sites using FTIR spectroscopy at high resolution. The forcing radiative fluxes from CFC11, CFC12, CCl4, HNO3, O3, N2O, CH4, CO and CO2 have been quantitatively determined over a range of seasons. The contributions from stratospheric ozone and tropospheric ozone are separated by our measurement techniques. A comparison between our measurements of surface forcing emission and measurements of radiative trapping absorption from the IMG satellite instrument shows reasonable agreement. The experimental fluxes are simulated well by the FASCOD3 radiation code. This code has been used to calculate the model predicted increase in surface radiative forcing since 1850 to be 2.55 W/m2. In comparison, an ensemble summary of our measurements indicates that an energy flux imbalance of 3.5 W/m2 has been created by anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases since 1850. This experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming.

Oneiric 3

posidonia wrote: »

I'll just slightly change what Goath Laidir said on page three "...I'd suggest you and a few others first hear the people out before going on the personal attack."

I hear and absorb what other people say all the time, regardless of who they are. I don't distinguish between who is of 'an authority' and who isn't. I also listen to my own intuition regarding the intention behind what is being said much as what is being said in itself.

Tuisceanch

https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/climate-change-evidence-causes/basics-of-climate-change/

The Basics of Climate Change

• Greenhouse gases affect Earth’s energy balance and climate;
• Human activities have added greenhouse gases to the atmosphere;
• Climate records show a warming trend;
• Many complex processes shape our climate;
• Human activities are changing the climate;
• How will climate change in the future?

oriel36

Tuisceanch wrote: »

https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/climate-change-evidence-causes/basics-of-climate-change/

The Basics of Climate Change

• Greenhouse gases affect Earth’s energy balance and climate;
• Human activities have added greenhouse gases to the atmosphere;
• Climate records show a warming trend;
• Many complex processes shape our climate;
• Human activities are changing the climate;
• How will climate change in the future?

The Royal Society is 'scientific method' central so that opinion begins at the wrong point of departure for Earth sciences as it comes from experimental theorists who hijacked astronomy in the late 17th century. Pascal earlier had warned not to begin like mathematicians in areas which prohibit such an approach -

"These principles are so fine and so numerous that a very delicate and very clear sense is needed to perceive them, and to judge rightly and justly when they are perceived, without for the most part being able to demonstrate them in order as in mathematics; because the principles are not known to us in the same way, and because it would be an endless matter to undertake it. We must see the matter at once, at one glance, and not by a process of reasoning, at least to a certain degree. And thus it is rare that mathematicians are intuitive, and that men of intuition are mathematicians, because mathematicians wish to treat matters of intuition mathematically, and make themselves ridiculous, wishing to begin with definitions and then with axioms, which is not the way to proceed in this kind of reasoning. Not that the mind does not do so, but it does it tacitly, naturally, and without technical rules; for the expression of it is beyond all men, and only a few can feel it." Pascal

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

There is an old saying from an Irish short story -

"The capitalists pays the priests to tell you about the next world so as you wont notice what the bastards are up to in this"
Guests of the Nation, Frank O'Connor

The new twist includes Thatcher throwing money at the Climate Research Unit so the variation on that theme of O'Connor is that politicians pay the academic priests to tell you about the future condition of the world so as you won't notice what the bastards are up to presently.

https://jennifermarohasy.com/2013/04/thatcherism-and-the-climate-catastrophe/

There is something funny about an Irish electorate obedient and loyal to a retracted Thatcher ploy, after all, the whole thing took on a life of its own where the academics turned the tables on the politicians and the tail started wagging the dog.

posidonia

oriel36 wrote: »

The Royal Society is 'scientific method' central so that opinion begins at the wrong point of departure for Earth sciences as it comes from experimental theorists who hijacked astronomy in the late 17th century. Pascal earlier had warned not to begin like mathematicians in areas which prohibit such an approach -

"These principles are so fine and so numerous that a very delicate and very clear sense is needed to perceive them, and to judge rightly and justly when they are perceived, without for the most part being able to demonstrate them in order as in mathematics; because the principles are not known to us in the same way, and because it would be an endless matter to undertake it. We must see the matter at once, at one glance, and not by a process of reasoning, at least to a certain degree. And thus it is rare that mathematicians are intuitive, and that men of intuition are mathematicians, because mathematicians wish to treat matters of intuition mathematically, and make themselves ridiculous, wishing to begin with definitions and then with axioms, which is not the way to proceed in this kind of reasoning. Not that the mind does not do so, but it does it tacitly, naturally, and without technical rules; for the expression of it is beyond all men, and only a few can feel it." Pascal



There is an old saying from an Irish short story -

"The capitalists pays the priests to tell you about the next world so as you wont notice what the bastards are up to in this"
Guests of the Nation, Frank O'Connor

The new twist includes Thatcher throwing money at the Climate Research Unit so the variation on that theme of O'Connor is that politicians pay the academic priests to tell you about the future condition of the world so as you won't notice what the bastards are up to presently.



There is something funny about an Irish electorate obedient and loyal to a retracted Thatcher ploy, after all, the whole thing took on a life of its own where the academics turned the tables on the politicians and the tail started wagging the dog.

My intuition tell me you're wrong. Who's to say I'm not right? Will you do so? If so YOU will be trying to tell me what and how to think...

oriel36

posidonia wrote: »

My intuition tell me you're wrong. Who's to say I'm not right? Will you do so? If so YOU will be trying to tell me what and how to think...

I shrug, the originator of the 'scientific method' (originally began as Rule III) told his followers not only what to think but how to think and also why he never could be found wrong but only be improved on -

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

Akrasia

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

I hear and absorb what other people say all the time, regardless of who they are. I don't distinguish between who is of 'an authority' and who isn't. I also listen to my own intuition regarding the intention behind what is being said much as what is being said in itself.

You might think this is being open minded, but if one person you’re listening to is this guy


And the person he is disagreeing with is this guy

Then your intuition is nowhere near as useful as information about the qualifications and track record of these two people. Monkton will pretend to be an expert in climate science, he will pretend to know more than real climate scientists and he will throw out facts and refer to papers to support his claims, and so will Gavin Schmidt. These two people are not equally credible

Thargor

That nasty old "Scientific Method" eh, who needs it anyway? Sheeple thats who... Lets all use our intuition to measure the level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and their effects on the planets ecology instead. And dont even get me started on those NASA hippies forgetting about the Earths axial tilt!

posidonia

oriel36 wrote: »

I shrug, the originator of the 'scientific method' (originally began as Rule III) told his followers not only what to think but how to think and also why he never could be found wrong but only be improved on -

So the (shall we call it a conspiracy?) has been going on since the 1700s?

My intuition tells me you are wrong. My intuitions tells me it's you trying to wag the tail on the dog and that (your choice words these) the 'bas**rds' are the ones trying to rubbish quality controlled weather and climate data.

Mr Bumble

Akrasia wrote: »

The Australian widlfires are likely to have already caused a billion animal deaths including up to 40% of the Koala population

Ecologists in Australia say that this one wildfire season could cause the extinction of some of Australia's unique flora and fauna and dozens of species under threat of extinction have been badly affected by this fire
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jan/04/ecologists-warn-silent-death-australia-bushfires-endangered-species-extinction

It's not just the animals killed by the smoke and flames, whole ecosystems will be devastated leading to deaths from starvation and habitat loss


I'm sure the usual suspects will be on saying that 'you can't prove these wildfires are caused by climate change' and Gaoth Laidir probably has a graph showing that these fires are actually perfectly normal and it's only the increase in the number of helicopters with cameras on them thats making them look worse, or something like that

I'm fairly certain he'll talk about how Eucalyptus forests need fire to dispense the seeds and he'll probably say that it's the fault of the Australian government for changing something relating to land management that allowed the fires to spread....


Well, stronger wildfires are a prediction of climate change and if these aren't related to global warming, then god help the Australians when the real effects of Climate change start to kick in.

He might also quote the historical record and wonder about 1851 or 1939. Or even 1891 in South Gipsland (recognise that name - been in the news for two weeks)



Major Victorian bushfires occurred on Black Thursday in 1851, where an estimated 5 million hectares were burnt, followed by another blaze on Red Tuesday in February 1891 in South Gippsland when about 260,000 hectares were burnt, 12 people died and more than 2,000 buildings were destroyed. The deadly pattern continued with more major fires on Black Sunday on 14 February 1926 sees the tally rise to sixty lives being lost and widespread damage to farms, homes and forests.
Considered in terms of both loss of property and loss of life the 1939 fires were one of the worst disasters, and certainly the worst bushfire event, to have occurred in Australia up to that time. Only the subsequent Ash Wednesday in 1983 and the Black Saturday fires in 2009 have resulted in more deaths. In terms of the total area burnt the Black Friday fires are the second largest, burning 2 million hectares, with the Black Friday fires of 1851 having burnt an estimated 5 million hectares.

These fires killed huge numbers of animals and a lot more humans too.

All of these occured without the intensive agri business of the last four or five decades which has sucked the land dry or the 183 people facing charges for starting fires (police estimate half of the fires in this outbreak) or indeed the Oz Gov policies of reducing forest ranger staff and cutting back onfire prevention measures adopted following recommendations made by a royal commission after the 1939 fires.


There were 7000 fires in Angola/Congo last August, almost all of them started by farmers and the same in the Amazon.



Linking bushfires to climate change alone is ridiculous.

M.T. Cranium

SeaBreezes wrote: »

Just curious, what was the global average temp for 2019? Or is it too early for it to be calculated?

These global temperature trends are heavily influenced by increases in the arctic. Whatever significance you wish to place on that, here's some counterpoint. At Toronto which is a fixed location with a warming bias due to urban heat island development, 2019 was the 54th warmest year in the past 180. It was the coldest year since 2014 and colder than 1913, 1922 or 1932. If someone had been transported forward from those times into 2019, they would not have experienced the weather as being any different from what they found "normal."

M.T. Cranium

MiNdGaM3 wrote: »

So, you did some climatology modules in university in the 60s/70s. Could you describe them a little? You've never worked in climatology, published anything in climatology or have any experience studying climatology as anything other than a hobby?

Could you maybe describe the computer model you developed? Or what exactly your input was in creating forecasts for accuweather.

Before the "sceptics" have a go at me for asking some questions, I think it's important establish whether M.T. actually has any valid credentials or experience. None of what's been described counts as being a "climate scientist" or even "qualified in climate science", nor does the vast body of work people have attributed to him matter if they've never been published or tested.

These are important considerations, especially for those that wish to elevate M.T.'s ideas over the work of thousands of actual climate scientists, that have contributed our current understanding of the climate, with which the vast majority of modern experts are in agreement.

The only relevant answer I can give is that I am an educated and trained climatologist, dissident and blacklisted perhaps, but people here are intelligent enough to draw their own conclusions based on a fairly extensive set of clues as to how credible my point of view might be. However, because they are intelligent, they are also quite capable of forming their own opinions.

The whole point of a discussion forum is to discuss ideas, this is not a court of law or a university thesis examination. If it were, I would come prepared and respond in kind. But your tone is inappropriate for this forum.

Readers should be informed (to reach a fully informed conclusion) that the person asking these questions is a Net-weather moderator active in their climate change forum who has taken a personal dislike to me and makes no secret of it. So that may be a factor in these questions. I have nothing to hide. My concerns about orthodox climate change theory have been made abundantly clear and people are quite free to agree or disagree. I suspect that there is a fear that people might agree, and thus the position of the IPCC would be weakened, but I don't think I have anywhere near that sort of reach, as I've said elsewhere, mine is but one voice in ten thousand, and we get to the truth by considering all the voices and all the points of view. The IPCC say they have a "settled science" but I know we don't have a settled political response, and that is perhaps what is of more interest to me anyway, getting that part right.

M.T. Cranium

Beyond that, I am taking the unusual step (for me) of placing the poster on ignore, and appealing to your better judgement to do the same, so that he will not succeed in getting people riled up about unconnected, irrelevant things like what was in my 1976 computer program or what credits I gained at University in 1971, as if any of that had some major bearing on the issues being discussed here. This is a tactic that is called obfuscation, and once those questions are answered, there will be ten more, and then ten more, etc.

We're on to this and this is not my first rodeo.

oriel36

posidonia wrote: »

My intuition tells me you are wrong. My intuitions tells me it's you trying to wag the tail on the dog and that (your choice words these) the 'bas**rds' are the ones trying to rubbish quality controlled weather and climate data.

posidonia wrote: »

My intuition tell me you're wrong. Who's to say I'm not right? Will you do so? If so YOU will be trying to tell me what and how to think...

Newton 'defined' time, space and motion for his followers but did it in such a way that distorted and manipulated existing astronomical and timekeeping perspectives, methods and insights. If people need time, space and motion defined for them then that is the ultimate offence against the ability to reason yet such is the 'scientific method' or what is an opinion passed off as a 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


All it mattered for his followers is that appeared to make astronomical predictions look like experimental predictions using an opinion on universal attraction ( minus magnetic attraction). The same applies to empirical modeling where conditions in a common greenhouse (experiment) equate to the Earth's atmosphere (universal qualities).

I see the word 'intuition' thrown around but mathematicians are inclined to 'define' that term to suit themselves and it looks more like a gut feeling or a hypothesis in this format. In Pascal's presentation he doesn't talk about the perceptive/intuitive qualities at variance with mathematics but rather it is rare to find them both within the same person so astronomy and Earth sciences which require concentrated intuitive faculties find no room in the current mathematical modeling environment with the predictable awful mess.


"But the reason that mathematicians are not intuitive is that they do not see what is before them, and that, accustomed to the exact and plain principles of mathematics, and not reasoning till they have well inspected and arranged their principles, they are lost in matters of intuition where the principles do not allow of such arrangement. They are scarcely seen; they are felt rather than seen; there is the greatest difficulty in making them felt by those who do not of themselves perceive them. These principles are so fine and so numerous that a very delicate and very clear sense is needed to perceive them, and to judge rightly and justly when they are perceived, without for the most part being able to demonstrate them in order as in mathematics; because the principles are not known to us in the same way, and because it would be an endless matter to undertake it." Pascal

The planet and all its interactions is as complicated as the human body,after all, the planetary interactions make biological life possible. The point of departure for the Earth science of climate cannot begin by rigging the atmosphere to correspond to a common greenhouse and conclude that humans can control planetary temperatures by doing or not doing something. Perhaps I have the wrong crowd but such is the intuitive/perceptive faculties which restrict notions based on poor physical considerations.

It is therefore the 'scientific method' itself which has been exposed as the real issue and those who practice it. The politicians may have originally used academics to score socio-economic points (Thatcher and coal miner via the CRU) but that was begging trouble as the academics have turned it around and used politicians and the wider public to promote fear and anxiety.

I have said what I needed to say on this matter however, the expression of intuitive/perceptive faculties in a person was used by Galileo as a talent rather than acquired through education -

“You cannot teach a man anything, you can only help him find it within himself.” ― Galileo

M.T. Cranium

Apparently I have a "cult following" according to some disaffected person who decided to blurt out this revelation over on Net-weather (it really is becoming a repository of crank opinions just as they feared when they let me post).

If anyone here is offering animal sacrifices or chanting "MTC, I'm with thee" ... stop, give your head a shake, and seek out a deprogrammer. If anyone here is just a friend who likes me or respects some of the work I do, know this -- the world will ruthlessly hunt you down and punish you for not following The Master Plan.

(you're supposed to despise me -- like all right thinking people)

Seriously, I am the last person who would encourage a cult following. What a boring enterprise that would quickly become.

Anyway, I got a chuckle from the irony of even mentioning cult following this soon after Greta's outburst at the UN, but wait, that's not on us is it?

posidonia

M.T. Cranium wrote: »

Apparently I have a "cult following" according to some disaffected person who decided to blurt out this revelation over on Net-weather (it really is becoming a repository of crank opinions just as they feared when they let me post).

If anyone here is offering animal sacrifices or chanting "MTC, I'm with thee" ... stop, give your head a shake, and seek out a deprogrammer. If anyone here is just a friend who likes me or respects some of the work I do, know this -- the world will ruthlessly hunt you down and punish you for not following The Master Plan.

(you're supposed to despise me -- like all right thinking people)

Seriously, I am the last person who would encourage a cult following. What a boring enterprise that would quickly become.

Anyway, I got a chuckle from the irony of even mentioning cult following this soon after Greta's outburst at the UN, but wait, that's not on us is it?

Oh dear. No one has called YOU a cult but you feel able to call others cranks. Think about what you say, Roger...

Still, I guess its easy for you to despise cranks - that kind of despising is ok, isn't it?...

M.T. Cranium

Well I was being ironic, I think most readers will get what I mean.

I've heard this "cult following" accusation before, I think it insults you (Boards members) more than myself. You should get in the faces of people making that accusation because they are saying if you agree with me or show any sign of respect or (God help you) friendship for the Excluded One, then you must be mentally defective like people who join some cult. That's how they see you.

It doesn't explain very well why any given discussion attracts similar numbers of those in agreement and those not in agreement. Usually cults don't tolerate much expression of dissident thought. I am challenged to find an example that might relate to climate and weather, hmm let me see (irony alert).

Oneiric 3

oriel36 wrote: »

“You cannot teach a man anything, you can only help him find it within himself.” ― Galileo

Not sure if this is on the same level as what you discuss, but not everything can be 'logically' explained. Music, and the affect it can have on the human mind/soul for example, defies human, scientific reasoning, yet the sound of a certain chord, a harmony, a crescendo, and the way we are drawn into them, is the most instinctive, logical thing in the world.

As Beethoven beautifully put it: "Music is a higher revelation than all wisdom and philosophy".

Oneiric 3

Akrasia wrote: »

You might think this is being open minded

I think no such thing, but I like to think that I do have some sort of mind.

And thanks for those lovely pics. Not sure why you think those two men, neither of whom I have ever heard of, hold any relevance to me or to what I said.

nacho libre

posidonia wrote: »

Oh dear. No one has called YOU a cult but you feel able to call others cranks. Think about what you say, Roger...

Still, I guess its easy for you to despise cranks - that kind of despising is ok, isn't it?...

His name isn't Roger, that's just a nom de guerre he uses to encourage his cult to slay the dissenters, who don't worship at his feet, wherever they may be.

SeaBreezes

M.T. Cranium wrote: »

Well I was being ironic, I think most readers will get what I mean. .

:-) actually the post was so nasty and the username I thought it was just someone trolling. Was going to give them 1 out of 10 for such little effort.. :-)

Don't feed the trolls!

Back to the science. So thanks to Tuiseanach post I've been trying to wrap my head around how CO2 warms the atmosphere. If I understand it correctly, (and correct me if I'm wrong) it reflects down a type of radiative heat that has been absorbed by the planet and is reflecting it back out.

And they measured this when there were no clouds as clouds are WAY better at trapping and reflecting this heat.

Now I have another question. If clouds work both ways. A cloudy night is warmer than a clear night. But clouds in the day reflect heat and cool the planet.

Why does CO2 not work the same way? Why does it not reflect back out the same heat?

And CO2 is 0.04% of atmosphere and not ALL that CO2 is the frequency type that re-radiates the heat in all directions?

Also if I understand Ned Nikolovs paper. He's saying atmospheric pressure as a source of heat is not (or not properly) accounted for by climate models. That that function gives us a baseline temp. To approx 1 c And it's Cloud cover that allows for the warming and cooling variation.

Which ties in with Solar max/min as we already know solar min means more cosmic rays, mean more clouds and volcanic events.

Apparently Zeller and Nikolovs next paper is showing how after atmospheric temp, cloud coverage is the real global temp driver.

Fascinating stuff. Sorry if I'm getting it wrong. Not a scientist just interested observer.

P.S. The way the irish obsess about weather we are a cult, really. Maybe tribe would be a better word.

posidonia

SeaBreezes wrote: »

:-) actually the post was so nasty and the username I thought it was just someone trolling. Was going to give them 1 out of 10 for such little effort.. :-)

...
And CO2 is 0.04% of atmosphere and not ALL that CO2 is the frequency type that re-radiates the heat in all directions?

...

There is more than one sort of CO2 in the atmosphere? Tell me more!

Gaoth Laidir

The previus Nikolov/Zeller paper from 2014 does pose a valid point. They claim that the way the theoretical surface temperature of plantets without an atmosphere (e.g. the Moon) would be much colder than current calculations claim. For the Earth, they calculate it would be 90 degrees colder without its atmosphere instead of the currently accepted figure of 33 degrees. They refer to this as the "atmospheric thermal enhancement". The reason they claim is down to how the average area of the planet has been calculated up to now, treating it as a flat disc instead of a sphere. Due to a mathematical feature called Hölder's Inequality, they do their calculations by calculating for each point on the sphere and integrating it over the whole area. This seems like a sensible approach and seems to be well supported by numerous independent sources and measurements. It begs the question; if Earth would be 90 degrees, and not 33 degrees, colder without an atmosphere, where is the extra 57 degrees of heating coming from?

The second paper agains is well referenced and does seem to be backed up by independent measurements. The model that they came up with from their dimensional analysis does show good correlation. Overall, though, there is not a strong claim that the greenhouse effect (IR absorption and reemitting by ghgs) does not exist, or it's a bit ropey if there is. They admit that there is still a lot more work to validate some of their calculations with future measurement missions, but it is what it is.