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

M.T. Cranium

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gaoth Laidir

M.T. Cranium wrote: »

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

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

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

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

oriel36

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

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

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

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


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

Danno

M.T. Cranium wrote: »

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

Control & S is your friend! :P

Forces the application to save the file.

Oneiric 3

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

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

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

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

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



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


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


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

Oneiric 3

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

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

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


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

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

Oneiric 3

Deleted User wrote: »

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

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

Akrasia

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

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



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

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

Akrasia

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gaoth Laidir

Akrasia wrote: »

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

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

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

Gaoth Laidir

Akrasia wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

oriel36

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

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

SeaBreezes

More from Dr. Nikolov on twitter:

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

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

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

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

Akrasia

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

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

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

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

M.T. Cranium

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

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

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

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

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

M.T. Cranium

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

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

Danno

M.T. Cranium wrote: »

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

https://goo.gl/maps/bqRaR2ixJBuSdw439

M.T. Cranium

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

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

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

Akrasia

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

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

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

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

Gaoth Laidir

M.T. Cranium wrote: »

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

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

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

Thanks for that, I see it now.

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

SeaBreezes

Akrasia wrote: »

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

Unless you can.

oriel36

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

M.T. Cranium

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

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

oriel36

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

posidonia

oriel36 wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

oriel36

posidonia wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Water John

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

oriel36

M.T. Cranium wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

posidonia

Water John wrote: »

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

Undersea volcanoes or aliens