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

Akrasia

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

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.

The point was that good scientific reputations are hard earned through decades of hard work, honesty and integrity, while charlatans can spoof and bluff and lie their way to the lectern. When all you have is two people arguing for two different positions and one of them is an expert with a impeccable reputation, and the other is a clown and a fraudster, it would be stupid to give both voices equal credibility

SeaBreezes

posidonia wrote: »

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

Welcome to boards posidonia. 3 days here and your posts so far are illuminating.

Though you are right. Bad choIce of words. My bad.

SeaBreezes

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

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.

Good to get your opinion Gaoith. Thank you.

I find his twitter feed very entertaining. I'm definitely a fan :-)

Another Ned quote:
Viewing atmospheric dynamics exclusively from the standpoint of radiative transfer is silly with respect to actual physical reality. In a fluid like the atmosphere, the dominant modes of heat exchange are convection, advection & pervection (pressure wave mode of energy transfer)

There is a NON-LINEAR interaction between radiative and other modes of heat transfer in the atmosphere, which climate models do not simulate, since they artificially decouple radiative transfer from the other modes. This results is a WRONG solution to the coupled heat exchange.

The concept of "runway greenhouse" is physically nonsensical anyway, because it assumes a huge increase of the atmospheric internal energy by simple absorption and re-emission of internal IR radiation without changing the input. This is a direct violation of the 1st Law of ThermoDynamics.

Gaoth Laidir

M.T. Cranium wrote: »

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.

He's not the only one at that by any means. It's the default response when they know they don't have anything else as backup. It's like the chemtrailers calling us shills...

fits

Interesting study I just came across.

“In a study accepted for publication in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, a research team led by Zeke Hausfather of the University of California, Berkeley, conducted a systematic evaluation of the performance of past climate models. The team compared 17 increasingly sophisticated model projections of global average temperature developed between 1970 and 2007, including some originally developed by NASA, with actual changes in global temperature observed through the end of 2017. The observational temperature data came from multiple sources, including NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP) time series, an estimate of global surface temperature change.

The results: 10 of the model projections closely matched observations. Moreover, after accounting for differences between modeled and actual changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide and other factors that drive climate, the number increased to 14. The authors found no evidence that the climate models evaluated either systematically overestimated or underestimated warming over the period of their projections.”

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confirms-climate-models-are-getting-future-warming-projections-right/?fbclid=IwAR0SgfpoXzYpg0a1o25TD6mbqM8iS6-i7hf6yQZOmU9lclBcv_pik_nkER0

posidonia

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

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.

Humm, so what N&Z are saying that that they have discovered a 57C atmosphere temperature error no one else has ever noticed, and for over more than a century. Not 1C, not a few C, 57C!



They must be kidding, or trolling...

pantomine2020

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

It's like the chemtrailers calling us shills...

Its funny you should say that, I would put the climate change denialists(skeptics) in the same category as anti vaxers and the chemtrailer tin foil hat brigade.

Look at your posting history for example, the vast majority of them on this thread are intentianal attempts to use trends, data and graphs from what appear to be reputable sources to make a point that has nothing to do with the actual data your posting.
Its clear you are using the skeptics handbook by hoping people dont actually know what they are looking at so take you comments at face value but in reality your posts for the most part are clearly that of a bluffer.

Oneiric 3

pantomine2020 wrote: »

Its funny you should say that, I would put the climate change denialists(skeptics) in the same category as anti vaxers and the chemtrailer tin foil hat brigade.

Funny you should say that, as I would place climate alarmists (colloquially referred to as 'climate barbies') in the exact same category.

oriel36

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

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.

There really isn't a different level unless intimacy arising from more perceptive human faculties can be called a different level. The perceptive faculties are more fully operational in astronomy and Earth sciences as they are in the normal cultural endeavours which are seen as inspirational whether music, art , literature or some other productive/creative human enterprise.

The geocentric and first heliocentric astronomers concerned themselves with 'saving the appearances' which amounts to dealing with the enigmatic behaviour of objects within an astronomical framework. Copernicus went a long way to accounting for the motions of the slower moving planets as seen from a faster moving Earth and made the first tentative steps in links between the motions of the planet and Earth sciences like the day/night cycle and the seasons.

The outstanding issue was mainly how to fit the new moving Earth in a Sun centred system with the antecedent geocentric astronomy and framework of Ptolemy which predicts astronomical events like solar eclipses, moon phases and planetary transits so well. Very few at the time could appreciate the quagmire which existed in an attempt to satisfy both the new heliocentric perspective on one side and predictive astronomy on the other and in all likelihood the same exists today -

"Better still, if someone wishes, he can assign to the sky those motions of the earth that [Copernicus] adds to the first two, and use the same calculation
procedures. But that highly learned and intelligent man considered it inadvisable, on account of these undisciplined minds,to invert the entire system of his hypotheses, and he contented himself with having established that which was sufficient for the true discovery of phenomena." Gemma Frisius

In a way, the 'scientific method' modelers today are approaching planetary climate in much the same way by inverting the importance in getting the links between the motions of the Earth and climate straight first but rather they focus too hard on experimental conditions in a common greenhouse and applying it wholesale to the Earth's atmosphere and from there into their conclusion that humanity can control planetary temperatures within a certain range.


The modelers are inclined to play on personalities and argue over inputs arising from an already determined conclusion but it is much more productive to look what is in front of researchers first before applying conclusions much less speculative conclusions. The extension of Galileo's judgment on those with less careful approaches pretty much sums up why it takes more than just data to put a picture or narrative together.

" I know; such men do not deduce their conclusion from its premises or
establish it by reason, but they accommodate (I should have said
discommode and distort) the premises and reasons to a conclusion which
for them is already established and nailed down. No good can come of
dealing with such people, especially to the extent that their company
may be not only unpleasant but dangerous." Galileo

It may be that dull and dour people make doom and gloom predictions. More reasonable people take a healthy view of atmospheric and oceanic pollution in respect to human responsibility and that is fine, however, the real struggle among researchers will be dealing with the indulgence of assigning human influence on planetary temperature controls and that means revisiting the roots of that 'scientific method' which forces through that overreaching conclusion.

M.T. Cranium

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

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

I don't know what alternate universe Boards this person has visited, but that's not my perception of this place at all. We've already had quite a full and frank exchange of views on this thread and many others over the years. There has never been a cult following, I want to make a public spectacle of the ridiculous aspects of this charge. I think what it really means is that one person took a negative view of my participation here, and just couldn't accept that it was a fact evident in plain sight that many other people did not share his or her point of view, which he or she likely thinks to be a natural reaction to an outsider coming into your weather forum and taking an active role.

I have said many times that I am always grateful to the boards membership, to the Irish people if that's in any way a different thing, for welcoming me in here and (this must really rankle some people) treating me like a human being.

We'll have none of that when Comrade Thunberg and the rest of them take full power.

I posted in there that I saw no useful purpose being served by continuing on, and that I would reduce my Net-weather activity to the bare minimum of contest duties that I happen to have there, otherwise I felt that the place has gone to the dogs since I first joined, and if they want to talk about cults and echo chambers, they need do no more than look around their own quiet little corner, which is being largely ignored by a forum membership unwilling to subject themselves to indoctrination that some poorly supported political party could not be doing equally well if not better.

So much of this turns political and the climate change movement doom their own objectives by making common cause with widely unpopular political coalitions which seek to advance all sorts of unpleasant and unwelcome agendas. My own approach is that there must be some common sense approach to reducing the effects of what people are calling climate change even though a good portion of that is actually societal change. For example, the increasing impact of wildfires has more of a societal cause than an environmental or climate-driven cause. All things being equal, if we were not here, wildfires would continue to start and burn through large areas, but some of them would not start because at least half if not two-thirds of the fire starts are acts of human carelessness or even deliberate sabotage. Also, if people had not found the exurban life style appealing (living near but out of towns and cities, in semi-wilderness parkland settings) then both the spread and impact of the fires would be different (lower in most cases).

This is in a way a relatedness of human activity and climate, but not in the sense that the IPCC theory would have us believe. And it is a set of conditions that can be regulated in such a way that improvements can come about. The amount of greenhouse gas present has almost no bearing on these dynamics whatsoever.

Gaoth Laidir

posidonia wrote: »

Humm, so what N&Z are saying that that they have discovered a 57C atmosphere temperature error no one else has ever noticed, and for over more than a century. Not 1C, not a few C, 57C!



They must be kidding, or trolling...

That seems to be what they're saying, yes. Is their method wrong? Please explain how.

Gaoth Laidir

pantomine2020 wrote: »

Its funny you should say that, I would put the climate change denialists(skeptics) in the same category as anti vaxers and the chemtrailer tin foil hat brigade.

Look at your posting history for example, the vast majority of them on this thread are intentianal attempts to use trends, data and graphs from what appear to be reputable sources to make a point that has nothing to do with the actual data your posting.
Its clear you are using the skeptics handbook by hoping people dont actually know what they are looking at so take you comments at face value but in reality your posts for the most part are clearly that of a bluffer.

Welcome to Boards. Are you a new user or a rereg, seeing as you know so much about my posting style having only registered 12 days ago.

Could you please give me a few examples (just links to my posts so as not to clutter the thread) of examples of the above? Deliberate attempts at misleading/bluffing. Thanks.

Thargor

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

That seems to be what they're saying, yes. Is their method wrong? Please explain how.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop

Even if he were to spend hours of his time disproving it you'll just be back copying and pasting some other gibberish argument from spurious sources after a quick Google that backs up your prejudices an hour later.

Do you have no sense of scale when it comes to evidence? There is no 57 deg C temperature error undiscovered all this time and missed by literally millions of researchers except these nobodies, its moronic.

SeaBreezes

fits wrote: »

Interesting study I just came across.

“In a study accepted for publication in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, a research team led by Zeke Hausfather of the University of California, Berkeley, conducted a systematic evaluation of the performance of past climate models. The team compared 17 increasingly sophisticated model projections of global average temperature developed between 1970 and 2007, including some originally developed by NASA, with actual changes in global temperature observed through the end of 2017. The observational temperature data came from multiple sources, including NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP) time series, an estimate of global surface temperature change.

The results: 10 of the model projections closely matched observations. Moreover, after accounting for differences between modeled and actual changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide and other factors that drive climate, the number increased to 14. The authors found no evidence that the climate models evaluated either systematically overestimated or underestimated warming over the period of their projections.”

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confirms-climate-models-are-getting-future-warming-projections-right/?fbclid=IwAR0SgfpoXzYpg0a1o25TD6mbqM8iS6-i7hf6yQZOmU9lclBcv_pik_nkER0

That's actually reassuring. Do they say how accurate? The graph gives a range of 2 degrees Fahrenheit (in the light grey) of possibilities which is what, about 1.5 degrees Celsius?

I thought this line was funny: after accounting for differences between modeled and actual changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide and other factors that drive climate.. so once they adjusted the climate models for, well, Climate, in hindsight, they performed well :-)

Gaoth Laidir

Thargor wrote: »

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop

Even if he were to spend hours of his time disproving it you'll just be back copying and pasting some other gibberish argument from spurious sources after a quick Google that backs up your prejudices an hour later.

Do you have no sense of scale when it comes to evidence? There is no 57 deg C temperature error undiscovered all this time and missed by literally millions of researchers except these nobodies, its moronic.

Are you pantomime2020? Posting irrelevenat wikipedia links would also count as gish gallop, no?

It seems a lot alright. I didn't believe it on my first reading, hence why I went back again. Personally I haven't seen any major flaw with their calculations and methods, which is why I would like if someone else shows me what I'm missing. It's called scientific debate, and this is the Science forum afterall. If your only contribution on this forum is personal attacks (look at your most recent 7 posts) then I'd suggest maybe backing down a bit or start posting some science of your own.

Thargor

Yeah its debate alright, an extremely low form of debate favoured by anti-vaxxers, flate-earthers and climate change deniers, my totally irrelevant Wikipedia link explains its purpose.

oriel36

Thargor wrote: »

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop
.

I am sometimes taken aback by this belief that an evolutionary narrative began with the empire building notions of Darwin/Wallace and from there into a phony 'war' between science vs religion or some variation on that theme.

It is important, for the story begins with Nicolas Steno and perhaps William 'Strata' Smith in putting together an Earth science that eventually passed on to Wegener in geology who concluded the Continents moved apart or collided. The fact that Wegener was a meteorologist and took a raft of nonsense from contemporary geologists for his perceptive conclusions is a poignant reminder of how things progress.

https://www.famousscientists.org/nicolas-steno/

https://www.britannica.com/biography/William-Smith-British-geologist

The geological and biological evolutionary narrative is written in rock strata like the pages of a book including events which severely altered the conditions on the surface like ice ages and their absence. This is cause and effect as it was originally practiced and sorely missing in climate studies.

What Darwin/Wallace tried to do was justify why white skin tone people were so much more ' biologically advanced' than savage races who were easily dominated, died from famine and disease or otherwise couldn't look after themselves as these academics thought. It formed the experimental side of the 'scientific method' and applied to all biology as a 'law of nature' (universal quality)

"One day something brought to my recollection Malthus's "Principles of
Population," which I had read about twelve years before. I thought of
his clear exposition of "the positive checks to increase"--disease,
accidents, war, and famine--which keep down the population of savage
races to so much lower an average than that of civilized peoples. It
then occurred to me that these causes or their equivalents are
continually acting in the case of animals also..... because in every
generation the inferior would inevitably be killed off and the
superior would remain--that is, the fittest would survive.... The more I
thought over it the more I became convinced that I had at length found
the long-sought-for law of nature that solved the problem of the
origin of species." Foundations of Darwin/Wallace notion via Malthus

The dangers of an empire building notion like that applied to all biology was as drastic as applying the conditions found in a common greenhouse and applying it to the Earth's atmosphere but what Darwin's notion did was satisfy 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

Who knows today about Steno and Smith and the enigmas they resolved that offered humanity a means to investigate the past history of the Earth ?. How to bring planetary climate back to a stable research topic is going to take some struggle to wrest control away from computer modeling and those who practice it without physical considerations beyond what suits their drastic conclusions.

Gaoth Laidir

oriel36 wrote: »

I am sometimes taken aback by this belief that an evolutionary narrative began with the empire building notions of Darwin/Wallace and from there into a phony 'war' between science vs religion or some variation on that theme.

It is important, for the story begins with Nicolas Steno and perhaps William 'Strata' Smith in putting together an Earth science that eventually passed on to Wegener in geology who concluded the Continents moved apart or collided. The fact that Wegener was a meteorologist and took a raft of nonsense from contemporary geologists for his perceptive conclusions is a poignant reminder of how things progress.

https://www.famousscientists.org/nicolas-steno/

https://www.britannica.com/biography/William-Smith-British-geologist

The geological and biological evolutionary narrative is written in rock strata like the pages of a book including events which severely altered the conditions on the surface like ice ages and their absence. This is cause and effect as it was originally practiced and sorely missing in climate studies.

What Darwin/Wallace tried to do was justify why white skin tone skin people were so much more advanced than savage races who were easily dominated, died from famine and disease or otherwise couldn't look after themselves as these academics thought. It formed the experimental side of the 'scientific method' and applied to all biology as a 'law of nature' (universal quality)

"One day something brought to my recollection Malthus's "Principles of
Population," which I had read about twelve years before. I thought of
his clear exposition of "the positive checks to increase"--disease,
accidents, war, and famine--which keep down the population of savage
races to so much lower an average than that of civilized peoples. It
then occurred to me that these causes or their equivalents are
continually acting in the case of animals also..... because in every
generation the inferior would inevitably be killed off and the
superior would remain--that is, the fittest would survive.... The more I
thought over it the more I became convinced that I had at length found
the long-sought-for law of nature that solved the problem of the
origin of species." Foundations of Darwin/Wallace notion via Malthus

The dangers of an empire building notion like that applied to all biology was as drastic as applying the conditions found in a common greenhouse and applying it to the Earth's atmosphere but what Darwin's notion did was satisfy 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

Who knows today about Steno and Smith and the enigmas they resolved that offered humanity a means to investigate the past history of the Earth ?. How to bring planetary climate back to a stable research topic is going to take some struggle to wrest control away from computer modeling and those who practice it without physical considerations beyond what suits their drastic conclusions.

I don't think even Wikipedia has a link for what your ramblings are about. Sorry, but they're impossible to follow and seem to be here more annoy people than anything else.

Gaoth Laidir

Thargor wrote: »

Yeah its debate alright, an extremely low form of debate favoured by anti-vaxxers, flate-earthers and climate change deniers, my totally irrelevant Wikipedia link explains its purpose.

Your contribution to the debate has been exemplary. :rolleyes:

oriel36

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

I don't think even Wikipedia has a link for what your ramblings are about. Sorry, but they're impossible to follow and seem to be here more annoy people than anything else.

I thought as much but the works of Steno and Smith went on to inspire Wegener and open up the research topic of plate tectonics whereas Darwin's empire building notion went on to incite Hitler and such is the difference between genuine evolutionary research as opposed to empirical modeling of evolution.

"Scientists still do not appear to understand sufficiently that all earth sciences must contribute evidence toward unveiling the state of our planet in earlier times, and that the truth of the matter can only be reached by combing all this evidence. . . It is only by combing the information furnished by all the earth sciences that we can hope to determine 'truth' here, that is to say, to find the picture that sets out all the known facts in the best arrangement and that therefore has the highest degree of probability. Further, we have to be prepared always for the possibility that each new discovery, no matter what science furnishes it, may modify the conclusions we draw." Alfred Wegener. The Origins of Continents and Oceans (4th edition)

It would add the motions of the Earth to this.

Tuisceanch

oriel36 wrote: »

as applying the conditions found in a common greenhouse and applying it to the Earth's atmosphere

I understand the points you are making but unfortunately it's completely undermined by the above statement.

https://berkeleysciencereview.com/2016/11/greenhouse-gases-versus-glass-greenhouses/

The way things are named in science can be confusing. In physics and physical chemistry, we have penguin diagrams and Proton-Enhanced Nuclear Induction Spectroscopy (PENIS)—names that were intended to be funny but are not particularly descriptive. We also have naming conventions that reflected the best thinking at the time they were developed, but now remain as vestiges even after the science is revised.

While the greenhouse effect is real and results in warming of the atmosphere (specifically the troposphere), glass greenhouses operate in a different manner than our dear Earth does.

The idea that gases in the atmosphere contribute to global warming has been around since 1824, but it was not until 1901 that Nils Ekholm coined the term “greenhouse” to describe the effect:

The important takeaway is that the greenhouse effect is a comparison of the atmosphere’s temperature with greenhouse gasses like CO2 compared to what the atmosphere’s temperature would be if there were no greenhouse gases. Unfortunately, using the term “greenhouse” is not the most apt analogy for atmospheric warming—and this choice of wording led to unintended confusion within a decade of Ekholm’s claim that persists to the current day.

Because of the confusion surrounding the naming convention, scientists felt that they had to work overtime to clarify that the now-ingrained term “greenhouse effect” was due to gases in the atmosphere like carbon dioxide and didn’t really have anything to do with physical greenhouses.

Unfortunately, Ekholm’s terminology, calling the mechanism of atmospheric warming the greenhouse effect, stuck. This led some who deny climate change to misinterpret Wood’s results to argue against global warming and climate change.

I'm surprised that you, and others, do not seem to understand what the GHE is, given that this is a science forum. This is basic stuff that you need to know and understand. It might interest you, and others, to know that there are free courses on climate science available online. I would suggest it might be a good idea to familiarize yourselves with the actual science before deciding to adopt the skeptic position as you might then be better equipped to discern the difference between true skepticism and bull****.

oriel36

Tuisceanch wrote: »

I understand the points you are making but unfortunately it's completely undermined by the above statement.

Naw, you really don't but I wouldn't stop to argue with that other than point out that dull and dour people tend to make doom and gloom predictions thereby robbing natural sciences of their inspirational qualities. It would amount to throwing good information after bad and therein is a challenge for those who wish to move climate research back into a productive area where people can appreciate the intricacies and subtleties of our home planet. Then and only then will they act responsibly with oceanic and atmospheric pollution but not by fear and anxiety based on a silly conclusion.

I can look at the chain of events that led Wegener to conclude that Continents and their features once fitted together like pieces of a jigsaw puzzle by utilising the earlier works of Steno in superposition and Smith as faunal succession but this is biological and geological evolution by a less aggressive route.

About 15 years ago I went to an open forum and demonstrated how to join crustal evolution/motion (plate tectonics) with the 26 mile spherical deviation between equatorial and polar diameters using a common mechanism, one familiar to meteorologists as meridional flow, but extended to all rotating objects with a gaseous, fluid or plasma state as differential rotation across latitudes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zonal_and_meridional_flow

http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/images/656474main_solar-rotation_full.jpg

The Earth's fluid interior in contact with the fractured surface crust can't really be exempt from this feature of all rotating objects with viscous compositions as atmosphere, plasma, whatever.

The response was that the usual empirical theorists threw the kitchen sink at rotation but because they lack careful considerations they basically suffocated the presentation in its infancy so when it showed up in Wikipedia it was a convoluted mess and remains that way to this day.


Being fixated on one conclusion using a minor atmospheric gas is not healthy and especially when that conclusion is human temperature control. It joins human population control (Darwin) and human time control (relativity) as a symptom of the original attempt to scale experimental sciences up to astronomy and Earth sciences that began with the fall of an apple (experiment) is the same as planetary orbital motions (universal qualities) -

"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 'climate change' did was expose the excesses of the 'scientific method' by being one symptom among a few notable others in inciting a society. That is where the battle really is and perhaps a few know it.

Tuisceanch

oriel36 wrote: »

Naw, you really don't but I wouldn't stop to argue with that other than point out that dull and dour people tend to make doom and gloom predictions thereby robbing natural sciences of their inspirational qualities.

I didn't make any predictions and you're obviously projecting your own internal state when attributing 'dull and dour' characteristics to others. I would suggest you also add presumptuous,arrogant and obnoxious.

posidonia

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

That seems to be what they're saying, yes. Is their method wrong? Please explain how.

You want me to explain how thousands of people, over a hundred years, have missed 57C (ten times what the change to an ice age is) and yet just two people (who say what you want to hear) have, apparently, noticed it?


You might as well ask me to explain why it is I think the Moon isn't made of cheese

oriel36

Tuisceanch wrote: »

I didn't make any predictions and you're obviously projecting your own internal state when attributing 'dull and dour' characteristics to others. I would suggest you also add obnoxious.

Are you not curious how Sir Isaac attempted to make astronomical predictions look like experimental predictions ?. That too would be throwing good information after bad so here we are !.

oriel36

posidonia wrote: »

You want me to explain how thousands of people, over a hundred years, have missed 57C (ten times what the change to an ice age is) and yet just two people (who say what you want to hear) have, apparently, noticed it? You might as well ask me to explain why it is I think the Moon isn't made of cheese

To be fair with that one, we share the moon's monthly circuit of the Earth with astronomers for many thousands of years and only one person ever suggested the moon rotates as well as orbits the Earth.

The fact that this same man was supposed to have extended Kepler's work fails to be noticed by his empirical followers -

"The Sun and the Earth rotate on their own axes...The purpose of this
motion is to confer motion on the planets located around them;on the
six primary planets in the case of the Sun,and on the moon in the case
of the Earth.On the other hand the moon does not rotate on the axis of
its own body,as its spots prove " Kepler


That was the first idea for orbital motion of the planets and moons but such information is lost to the notion of Isaac's spinning mooners and their voodoo chanting. Common sense hasn't visited astronomy for centuries where perceptive faculties are primary.

SeaBreezes

posidonia wrote: »

You want me to explain how thousands of people, over a hundred years, have missed 57C (ten times what the change to an ice age is) and yet just two people (who say what you want to hear) have, apparently, noticed it?


You might as well ask me to explain why it is I think the Moon isn't made of cheese

How many scientists thought the heavens revolved around the earth?

How many scientists believed fat was the dietary culprit and not sugar?

Consensus does not mean correct.
I wouldn't mind but Ned is not arguing that CO2 heats. He's just saying it's not heating as much as alarmists think.

Also he's saying the maths are wrong because they are calculated against a flat earth, not a round one :-D

Who are the flat earthers here? Anyone?

Gaoth Laidir

posidonia wrote: »

You want me to explain how thousands of people, over a hundred years, have missed 57C (ten times what the change to an ice age is) and yet just two people (who say what you want to hear) have, apparently, noticed it?


You might as well ask me to explain why it is I think the Moon isn't made of cheese

No, maybe you misunderstood me. I asked YOU to explain what is incorrect in that particular paper, seeing as you were in there with your instant dismissal. You must have spotted something in it that I missed. My brain is still in holiday mode...:cool:

SeaBreezes

Thargor wrote: »

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop

Even if he were to spend hours of his time disproving it you'll just be back copying and pasting some other gibberish argument from spurious sources after a quick Google that backs up your prejudices an hour later.

Do you have no sense of scale when it comes to evidence? There is no 57 deg C temperature error undiscovered all this time and missed by literally millions of researchers except these nobodies, its moronic.

Gaoith had the decency to spend hours reading the paper. Other posters quick to dismiss? Not so much.

So, as I understand it, you think the calculations are correct, based on a flat earth?

I see.

oriel36

SeaBreezes wrote: »

Who are the flat earthers here? Anyone?

Maybe there is too much damage and few can withdraw to where the larger perspectives exists.

In order for Newton to get his clockwork solar system to work he adopted Flamsteed's RA/Dec framework. The reason they chose this was that it appeared to give more accurate astronomical predictions using recently invented accurate 24 hour clocks but it was further removed from the links between planetary motions and Earth sciences than the antecedent framework of Ptolemy.

So, here in the 21st century and due to the dominance of clockwork solar system modelers, our society has sadly lost the basic facts of a round and rotating Earth -

Sidereal rotation period - 23h 56m 4.100s
Equatorial rotation velocity - 1674.4 km/h; 1040.4 mph

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth

The actual rate of rotation is 15 degrees per hour and once in 24 hours via the Lat/Long system therefore the Equatorial Rotation Velocity is 1037.5 mph or its KM equivalent.

I don't feel that people need to know the forensics as they have so many challenges ahead but all the same, when people can no longer read a basic temperature graph showing the daily temperature peaks and troughs in response to one rotation in 24 hours and a thousand rotations in a thousand 24 hour days then perhaps Earth sciences will be lost for decades if not centuries -

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

" 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

That is perhaps the worst example of a contrived conclusion and creating an awful mess to suit the RA/Dec conclusion despite the sprawling history of clocks and the longitude system.