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

oriel36

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

There's that Rule III again.

It is the one and only one which you and your opponents live by.

"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

Kill that concept and 'climate change' is killed as both 'gravity/attraction' and 'climate change' are founded on the same experimental foundations with no regard or respect for the astronomical content

It morphed into 'laws of nature/physics/gravity/motion/whatever and morphed again recently into the 'scientific method' which appears to give you unfortunates the dull and dour conclusions you want the world drawn into. Whether you think 'climate change' is natural or man-made it is still mindnumbingly dull but basically building on the success of short term weather modeling and trying to recently re-define climate as long term weather. It is so crude that I consider it a digression from the actual problem humanity faces.

I learned astronomy and timekeeping from the original astronomers as their works started to surface across the internet and these people had their works vandalised by a pretentious bunch of academics who sought self-aggrandisement and so it remains.

Nabber

oriel36 your input is lost. A multiple of people have asked you to talk in lay terms.

I'm guessing-

"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

You are saying that it is flawed to use the findings of laboratory experiments on CO2 to atmospheric CO2? both sides are dull as they both require tests and observance on small scale then apply the findings of the micro to the macro?
That you have risen above Newtonian laws and have also learned that a day is not to be measured in minutes/hours in conjunction with the earth spinning on it's own axis?

Your posts are so poorly conveyed that it's difficult to challenge the points within. Your posts have become a point of ridicule.

Water John

I'd hope to give everyone with a reasonable hypotheses a good hearing. Some of the material here would make Finnegan's Wake, easy reading.

oriel36

This, once again, is for the general reader who perhaps is uncomfortable with the process and conclusions of the 'greenhouse' people and their opponents.

What people are seeing is a symptom of the 'scientific method' which surfaced with Newton who attempted to make astronomical predictions look like experimental predictions.

The geocentric astronomers took careful note of the positions of the planets and understood that each planet took a certain length of time to travel through the 12 constellations with the planets further from the Earth taking longer times to complete a circuit with the moon's circuit closest to the Earth. This approach was once known as the periodic times of planets -

" Of all things visible, the highest is the heaven of the fixed stars. This, I see, is doubted by nobody. But the ancient philosophers wanted to arrange the planets in accordance with the duration of the revolutions. Their principle assumes that of objects moving equally fast, those farther away seem to travel more slowly, as is proved in Euclid’s Optics. The moon revolves in the shortest period of time because, in their opinion, it runs on the smallest circle as the nearest to the earth. The highest planet, on the other hand, is Saturn, which completes the biggest circuit in the longest time. Below it is Jupiter, followed by Mars.

With regard to Venus and Mercury, however, differences of opinion are found. For, these planets do not pass through every elongation from the sun, as the other planets do. Hence Venus and Mercury are located above the sun by some authorities, like Plato’s Timaeus (38 D), but below the sun by others, like Ptolemy (Syntaxis, IX, 1) and many of the modems. Al-Bitruji places Venus above the sun, and Mercury below it." Copernicus

What distinguished the Sun from the planets was the planets wandered periodically while the Sun ran a direct course through the constellations. The original geocentric astronomers thought the Sun moved in a 365 day motion between the 687 day orbital period of Mars and the 225 day orbital period of Venus.

What Copernicus did was switch the position of the Sun with a moving Earth thereby accounting for the motions and positions of the slower moving planets and their 'wandering' motion .

https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/1811/Ma2018_tezelN.jpg

https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap011220.html


Kepler extended this by studying Mars over a 16 year period and sketching out how Mars moved through the 12 constellations (the symbols on the rim) in proportion to the Earth's orbital motion -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Kepler#/media/File:Kepler_Mars_retrograde.jpg

"Copernicus, by attributing a single annual motion to the earth,
entirely rids the planets of these extremely intricate coils ,
leading the individual planets into their respective orbits
,quite bare and very nearly circular. In the period of time
shown in the diagram, Mars traverses one and the same orbit as many
times as the 'garlands' you see looped towards the
centre,with one extra, making nine times, while at the same time the
Earth repeats its circle sixteen times " Kepler

That stupid mathematical dunce of the late 17th century and his followers today, think Kepler's diagram is geocentric (described by Wikipedia in that false terms) and that if the Sun is plonked in the centre of the diagram then retrogrades disappear -

"For to the earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct,
sometimes stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun
they are always seen direct.." Newton

Astronomy disappeared for 200+ years as Newton created the false notions of absolute/relative space and motion to describe his contrived framework, something his followers still can't follow such is their trance-like allegiance to his experimental programme.

It was this vandalism which put experimental theorists on their way to turn the celestial arena into a junkyard while making it impossible to refer Earth sciences to the motions of the Earth including the effects of daily rotation and orbital motion in isolation and in combination. The problem isn't 'climate change', it is the empirical doctrine which makes these hideous speculative conclusions possible and drag the world into that anxiety and desperation.

Thargor

So Newton and Copernicus were in on the whole scam all along...

oriel36

This is for the general reader as gentlemen are rare in the academic community so leave those who would not be capable or competent to know what is being presented and why the original works of the first heliocentric astronomers never survived the assault of empirical modelers who more or less vandalised their works and are currently drawing the world into their glum conclusions. Kill the 'scientific method' and 'climate changes' vanishes while the links between the motions of the planet and Earth sciences becomes vibrant research once more.

How Isaac exploited Kepler's use of periodic times to determine distance from the Sun is the next stage.

Kepler made use of the 'periodic times' it takes the planets to move through the constellations and compares them as a means to determine their distance to the Sun as a loose correlation. He doesn't describe individual orbits as Newton would have it but only how he arrived at his conclusion by comparing the times of two planets -

"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

In an expanded version, this is what it means -

"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

There is nothing there that a general reader could not appreciate if they had followed how Kepler and the first heliocentric astronomers had gauged the motions and positions of the planets using the background stars. It says nothing about individual orbits much less the awful notion that the Sun around the Earth is the same as the Earth around the Sun -

"That the fixed stars being at rest, the periodic times of the five
primary planets, and (whether of the sun about the earth, or) of the
earth about the sun, are in the sesquiplicate proportion of their mean
distances from the sun.This proportion, first observed by Kepler, is now
received by all astronomers; for the periodic times are the same,
and the dimensions of the orbits are the same, whether the sun
revolves about the earth, or the earth about the sun" Newton


This is like commentators here putting words in my mouth that I never said or would suggest like the last comment. Newton tries to suggest Kepler is describing individual orbits when he was not but a certain section in England never had problems with distortion and perversion to suit their agendas.

The only method the first heliocentric astronomers allowed was that the 365 day motion of the Sun through the constellations was switched for the Earth's 365 day motion through the constellations (and around the stationary Sun) so this idea of the Sun around the Earth is the same as the Earth around the Sun is awful in much the same way everything else empirical modelers do.

Nabber

Thanks oriel123, it's as clear as mud now.

You should probably move to the Astronomy forum.

M.T. Cranium

I continue to think that Oriel36 is derailing the discussion, and has a bee in his bonnet about differences between sidereal and synodic day that are understood by everyone here, and were understood by Isaac Newton (Kepler probably too). I have concluded that Oriel36 for some unknown reason thinks that astronomy and meteorology have failed to notice the sidereal day and this somehow invalidates all of their basic premises. I wish there would at least be a reference to some body of work in that area, I know of none such.

So all of those posts amount to a big so what?

As to the ongoing food fight between myself and Mindgame (whom I took off my ignore list since I am seeing most of his posts in quotes anyway), I can't really say much more that would change his mind, but just listing my controversial (in his mind) quotes as proof of anything is pointless, what if in each case or most cases, I'm right? Then he's just summing up my defence for me.

How would one go about proving that all recently observed warming was AGW or as some would say, natural? I've read the explanations of why orthodox IPCC scientists say this (all AGW, in fact, more than we see) but I find them unconvincing. Since the natural variability went into warming modes several times since the Maunder, I feel considerable doubt when asked to believe that Milankovitch factors are strong enough to lead a steady decline in natural temperature levels. I would argue they have almost flat-lined and are not that relevant to temperature variations on decade to decade or century to century time scales now. They may kick in again in a few thousand years and take on a more dominant role. But I don't think that part of the IPCC theory is credible, especially when I see clear evidence of rapid warming early in the 20th century. The only way that can be consistent with their theory would be if 75% of the AGW came in the first 25% of the period. Yet they often state that it's the other way around, that most of the AGW signal appears in data since 1980 or even since 1990.

Those are flaws that I did not "cherry pick" but are fundamental to the debate. If they are wrong about the warming 1890-1920 or 1890-1960, then their theory has a serious flaw (similar to how some skeptics view the MWP as a non-verifying counter-example). And if they were wrong about 1890-1960, why should we assume they are right about 1980-2020 or projections for 2020-2050?

OTOH, if it continues to warm at roughly the rate they predict, how do we know whether that's a continued blend of AGW and natural variabillity, or all AGW, or all natural? If people in all camps make the same predictions, we can't test on the basis of prediction success or failure. So given the fact that I am probably wasting my (limited) time arguing the science, I would rather argue the politics which seem daft to me, a chorus of doomsayers sitting around saying "wreck your economy or you all die."

What was that choice again?

M.T. Cranium

The practice of adding your own words to somebody's quotes is considered bad form in court, you'll get called up to the bar if you try that in a courtroom.\

So I would ask for a retraction of the obvious falsehood about me complaining about "hurt feelings" like I am some millennial snowflake. This is not about how I feel, but what I perceive. It hurts my head when I consider how close to obvious it must be even within the IPCC community that they are on thin ice with their theory and the politics that they encourage (has even one of them come out to say wait a second Greta, twelve years? really?). They are fine with their political wing scaring the bejeezus out of gullible progressives, schoolchildren, and left wing media types. They think their work won't be done until every trace of the fossil fuel industry is destroyed. How that can be sustainable within the present economy is just explained away with fairy tales about electric grids going entirely wind and solar driven (from the current 1% unreliable foundation), everyone driving a golf cart sorry electric vehicle (I'll stick to the golf course for that), and massive unemployment, at least their favourite beach won't be lost at high tide.

The epic disproportionality of their approach is routinely watered down by centrist political parties trying to remain in power, and opposed by the political right. That will continue long enough to guarantee that the warming, for whatever reason it exists, will reach a higher level and start to produce more actionable consequences. A realist would respond to that instead of seeking to bring about some utopian future that is far beyond our technological capacity at this time. And I don't feel apologetic about thinking this way, in any case, the political options should span the spectrum and let the people decide based on balance of probability what they want done and how they want the response to be handled.

M.T. Cranium

Nabber wrote: »

Thanks oriel123, it's as clear as mud now.

You should probably move to the Astronomy forum.

He will be punted back here, or maybe over to archaeology or mathematics, they could use a bit of excitement.

M.T. Cranium

I don't know what the general public consensus is over in Europe, but in North America, I think it's true to say that many people dismiss the warming theories as overblown hype because they know it has been equally warm if not warmer in the past. This is because on our TV weather segments, they routinely show you the daily records. After a while, it becomes obvious that most of them are quite old and aren't being broken. They pop up again year after year. Let's say you live in Toronto and watch TV for two weeks in early July. It's hot out (it usually is) and reaches the low to mid 30s. Then the weather comes on, and the presenter says "and today's record high was 39 in 1911," and a few days later, for days on end, "today's record was 41 in 1936." What would you make of endless reports of how this was the warmest year ever, and the one before was, etc etc.

You would think "this is some kind of a con game to take money out of my wallet." And it already has done so to some extent. Taxes are added to gasoline and home heating fuels to fight "climate change." Yet how do these taxes reduce the temperature by even .0001 degree? They don't. The money streams into general revenues and ends up paying for more climate science, better pensions for rich civil servants, and other things the governments would rather not state openly. They figure people will pay to save the earth, more readily than to enrich their patrons (which is where the tax revenues end up). And do the carbon taxes really modify behaviour? Or do they just impose burdens on middle class people trying to heat their homes and drive to work without other options available? It's mostly just a burden on people that takes away either discretionary spending (globalists don't mind this, their utopian vision is that we all stay home in our little warrens processing our vegetable gardens and recycling) or spending on health care perhaps (oh well, then the population burden on mother earth will be reduced, perhaps a way to speed that up comrades?). Well don't get them started on that (one prominent member of the movement recently stated that a 90% reduction in the earth's population would be ideal -- Stalin was said to be impressed, he never broke 10%).

I see things perhaps a bit differently, having seen a lot of weather data from the far north. Sure it's getting a bit warmer up there but is the climate really changing in some alarming way, or is it just shaving off the ends of the winter freeze? I find it's mostly the latter. The winters are ending in late May to early June instead of during mid-June, and they are kicking back in around mid-September instead of late August to early September. Is this worth wrecking the economy, to virtue signal a pretend solution that won't have any effect on it anyway?

You tell me. Or if you have to hike for fifteen minutes to get to the base of a glacier that your grandparents could park beside on the national park highway, is that the collapse of civilization? If a polar bear has to adapt to changing circumstances, do you think it will just sit around moping and die off out of sight, or will it seek out new prey (like climate scientists, they often get themselves stuck in polar bear territory when they miscalculate their escape from ice that was supposed to be gone forever)? I jest, but I would imagine a steady diet of climate scientist might be quite satisfying.

M.T. Cranium

Also when the poster says "no data" he is talking about a person who has posted four different threads on his main home forum, that I know that he knows about, full of data and analysis. For example, my study of weather data from the Canadian arctic which I continue to expand. There's extensive posts by me to analyze CET trends and I post them regularly in current discussions.

I can't think of a weather forum poster on either Boards or net-weather who has published more weather data with analysis than myself. Whether he might agree with my analysis is a separate question.

But to state "no data" is obviously ridiculous. And the Toronto data will be available within a few days. I am just at the stage of inspecting what I think is a complete file, and contemplating how to present the data.

The truth of the matter is, I am in that position where an established science recognizes me as a minor threat to their standing, and has unleashed the full range of personal destruction techniques that they have practiced on many occasions in the past, hitting on buzz words that they think will make that task easier, and not really dealing with a real person with a real life, but a straw man that they invented, a "Roger Smith" or MTC who has all these negative attributes that any critic of theirs must have to be a critic, or why would they criticize the Perfect Chosen Ideologues?

(quiet voice -- because they are wrong)

No comrades, we'll have none of that, start the denunciations.

Sorry I am not willing to play the role of silent stooge, as AS said in his novel, "but what if we had all resisted, instead of going quietly to the camps?"

So let's review that denunciation (I have the luxury of speaking back unlike those who might have been intimidated by guns pointed at heads).

FALSE (?) CHARGE ___ THEY SAY ______ ACTUAL SITUATION

runs a cult __________ runs a cult _____ no cult, no cult followers, no examples given

shuts down debate ___ won't debate ___ debating, winning most points, not acknowledged

echo chamber _______ Boards all agree _ lots of different opinions, no uniform agreement

no data ____________ posts no data ____ has numerous threads full of historical weather data

no qualifications _____ unqualified ______ blacklisted so any experience written out of history

disagrees with us ____ disagrees with us _ disagrees with them (fact adduced as evidence of ???)

So one true charge, I disagree with them. I thought that was obvious to anybody.

- - - - -

In other words, the distinction is simply that I hold one set of opinions, they hold another one, they wish to be regarded as infallible experts (which I do not wish to be), therefore I am some dangerous person with bad ideas.

If this were a well-established science with widespread support and very few questioners, then a stance like mine would be futile and rather like Oriel36's ramblings about spheres of illumination. He could be on to something. But almost nobody encountering that can see any actual basis for tossing out established paradigms. The burden is on him in that case.

In my case, I'm not alone by any means. Plenty of people familiar with historical weather data have profound doubts about the simplicity of the IPCC world view. They think it is unlikely that natural variability can play no role, but disagree on proportions.

Anyway, I have debunked the debunker (in my biased opinion) and have no wish to continue the debate. If he wants to keep hammering away at me mostly just quoting my statements with an unspoken "see, he says things I don't agree with, therefore he loses the debate, Q.E.D." then people will tire of it and ask him to retire to where that is acceptable. I don't see why it should be acceptable here. But whatever, I have a lot of work to do now to get these Toronto files ready for public sharing. That's my main focus and you'll see why I think natural variability is more important from some of those files, I hope -- if not, at least consider that it forms the foundation of what I am saying.

M.T. Cranium

Here is one key piece of evidence from the Toronto data to support natural warming as a leading player in the first half of the 20th century.

The graph shows actual vs expected (at random) numbers of daily maximum temperature records broken per year.

Here's an overview of what it shows.

First of all, the "starter record" is defined to be the highest value 1840 to 1870. With equal chances of setting those records (ties count fractionally) each year should hold close to 13 of them (1840 a bit fewer as two months of data are missing). You'll see that there were some variations during that 31-year starter period, but no real trends. Every year grabbed at least a handful of them, 1854 and 1867 did particularly well.

Then for each succeeding year, the expected number of new records (breaking either the starters, or whatever replaced them since) would be (1/n) x 366 where n is the number of years elapsed from 1840. So each year will have a slightly lower number of expected new records. By about 1900, the fraction is (1/61) x 366 or about 6. By about 1950 it's close to 4 and in recent years it is closer to 2.

The key statistic is to track achieved new records at the time, vs expected. The graph shows clearly that this value surged ahead of random expectation quite consistently from about 1890 to 1920, and again around the late 1940s into the 1950s. The performance since then has been closer to random.

The graph also shows how many records have been retained (the bottom or purple line shows that). Obviously the more recent the year, the more likely it is that most records will be retained. 1871 did fairly well at the time, and has since lost all but one of the many records that it set. A year like 1931 which still holds the highest number of retained records still lost a few that it did set back then, but kept most of them.

If as the IPCC says the background climate was slowly cooling and the AGW signal rapidly increasing to overwhelm natural cooling, do you think this graph would look at all like this? No, it would look like most years were managing to keep pace with random expectation with a surge towards the end. It doesn't look like that at all, not even remotely. So there's your smoking gun. The climate warmed naturally in a strong, sustained way after 1890. It's obvious from these statistics.

(switch argument to cherry picking, right?)

Well that won't work. Any analysis of records at other locations would show the same thing, because most places with long intervals of data have similar record highs on similar dates.

Oh, what about 100 F days at Toronto? Want the full list. Promise me you haven't eaten recently, warministas:

1936 had 4
1911, 1918, 1948 had 2 each
1854, 1916, 1953 and 2011 had 1 each

Same weather station in a growing city full of cars and people, and they can only break 100 F once since 1953, after breaking it 13 times before then.

How about August new maximum records since 1970? Want to guess? Five? Ten?

Try three. Same story in May, June and September. Recent months of July have at least matched random chance but all of the new records are replacements of the seven easiest to break older ones (those below 95 F). Only one older record in July was above 97 F. Same goes for August, and that one was only tied.

Want to know what years Toronto all-time monthly maxima were set? About half are fairly recent, mostly winter months. But March remains 1946 despite some close calls in 1998, April was in 1842, May in the 1960s (twice), June 1964, July 1936, August 1918, September 1953. The old October record from 1963 was edged out by 1 deg in 2007. November goes back to 1950.

(have to click on the attachment to see this, I have tried copying the graph but not working this time)

M.T. Cranium

For Toronto, this is what the temperature trend actually does after 1890 ( O_O_O), modified with an assumption of increasing urban heat island, without which the smaller o _ o _ o is the raw data unadjusted, vs what the IPCC theory says it should do (X_X_X):

1890 __ _ _0X
1900 __ _ _XO
1910 __ _X __ Oo
1920 __ __X ___ Oo
1930 __ __ X ____ O_o
1940 __ __ _X _____O _ o
1950 __ __ __X _____O _ o
1960 __ __ ___ X __O _ o
1970 __ __ ___ _OX_o
1980 __ __ ___ __O_ oX
1990 __ __ ___ __ _ O _ o_ X
2000 __ __ ___ __ ___ O __ o __ X
2010 __ __ ___ __ ___ ___ O __o__ _ X
2020 __ __ ___ __ ___ ___ O ___ o___ ___ X

Who to trust? It's a head scratcher, too bad there's "no data."

Once the urban heat island (1.5 C, half of which realized by 1931) is factored into the Toronto data, there really isn't much appreciable warming since around 1921, with a larger and perhaps justifiable urban heat island of 2.0 C there is a steady-state climate for the past century with oscillations. From all the weather data I have seen in North America (and it's a lot) this is probably applicable more generally, not just to this one location. But the way greenhouse gas warming is supposed to work, even one notable counter-example to theory should be troubling in itself.

M.T. Cranium

This is the same analysis of record lows at Toronto, the growing urban heat island really reduces the number of them after about 1890, together with the natural warming trend that followed. A better test would be record low maxima which tend to be more resistant to heat island suppression as they occur in the windier conditions of daytime. I will work up that graph for the eventual presentation.

oriel36

Fair enough, the perpetual students of Newton's 'scientific method' don't really factor into the discussion on genuine climate as they have their own thing going by entertaining themselves with data and computer generated hallucinations.

The general reader is not meant to deal with all the technical details where these academics organise Earth sciences to suit their experimental agenda but unfortunately they are being drawn into the miserable world of doom and gloom predictions. When shown how the late 17th century Royal Society academics arrived at their doctrine by destroying Western astronomical tradition including the eccentric inability to interpret a basic temperature graph showing daily temperature fluctuations each 24 hours in response to one rotation, they go into spasms of incomprehension.

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


The great English poet William Blake called the condition of contributors here 'Newton's sleep' where they are so focused on their inputs and blinkered in their views that they can't take in the wider surroundings of the Earth and space hence a wasteland surroundings and a starless sky -

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/f6/ff/16/f6ff1604b86f6c64d10c09056e0cd000.jpg


The general reader should sense that these men cannot reason as individuals as what can be worse than an idea that humans can control planetary temperatures by doing or not doing something as the actual destination of their conclusions. It comes from people who refuse to accept that the planet and its motions within a Sun centred system form a single whole every bit as complex as the interactions of the human body and just as enjoyable for genuine researchers.


I can see , for all the whining about suffocating discussion, that contributors are moving towards the idea that my contributions belong in astronomy but then again experimental theorists never cared for solar system structure or the motions of the planet which makes life on the surface possible including the reason our planetary climate is ideal for life with just the right inclination to create the seasonal fluctuations .

Gaoth Laidir

Thanks for all the data, MT. So much work gone into it, whether they like it or not. I wouldn't be batting an eyelid about what that poster says anymore as he's just out on the personal attack, without posting a shred of data himself. You know how these people are, we're all onto him.

oriel36

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Thanks for all the data, MT. So much work gone into it, whether they like it or not. I wouldn't be batting an eyelid about what that poster says anymore as he's just out on the personal attack, without posting a shred of data himself. You know how these people are, we're all onto him.

The opposition to the 'climate change' modeling is as weak as Labour's opposition to brexit in England with the same poor result. It demonstrates how important it is to have healthy perspectives in order to counter overreaching aspirations , in this case by empirical modelers, who found a drastic way to apply experimental sciences to Earth sciences.

Being weak is not a crime but intellectual nuisances tend to aid those declaring that the humble cow is public enemy number one or some other meaningless assertion. In this case the proponents and opponents of 'climate change' fail to look at the actual conclusion of human control over planetary temperatures and retreat to a weak view as to whether it is man-made or natural.

SeaBreezes

Thanks MT.

Personally, I think in years to come people will look back at this CO2 alarmist and wonder why we allowed it. Not saying CO2 doesn't warm, but I'm in the Zharakova and Nikolov camps, and think we will be schooled by 'climate drivers' like the sun and clouds.

There's too much repression of science by the IPCC for me to fully trust it.

Why would they try and stop Zharakovas papers being published?

Climategate emails caught them adjusting data to fit the narrative.

They are big business, and unfortunately seem threatened by any science that may challenge the narrative.

I find it suspect that the IPCC include solar forcing in models ONLY when the global temp starts dropping from 2016. And will be 'adjusting' models for the sun from 2020.

I find it suspect that temps are only compared against a period of time that suits the narrative. And earlier higher temps etc, are ignored. What was the American dust bowl but climate change?

Even the reporting annoys me. When temps started dropping they are being reported as 'the hottest in the last 4 years' even though it's actually dropping since 2016.

And why are ACTUAL global temps so hard to find? Why are temps shown in relation to a certain time frame? That annoys me also. :-)

I do feel sorry for Greta. While I applaud what she's doing (anyone who can stop us posioning the planet is praiseworthy) her dad runs her twitter account, and she is, a vulnerable child. It's hard enough to have aspergers without adding the pressure of being at the spearhead of a global movement. I fear it will not end well for her.

Another poster wrote about hubris. I was thinking, thank god for it! Otherwise science would never advance.

Your records, the hunger stones, medieval warming, even the Rok runes, all point to the fact we have been on this merry go round before. And yet there's no discussion around this.

I find it disheartening, from the climate studies are accurate study another poster linked to, of the 1000s of scientists and models the IPCC have, after the trillions spent on the science, cherry picking the 17 most accurate, they had to adjust 4 for CO2 and climate, (adjusting the CO2 and climate models for CO2 and climate!) and then the average performed well. Though the model ranges were within 1.8 C.
Seriously, all that time and money and effort and that's the best we can do?
We are only scrabbling at the edges of Climate Science.

But there's a lot of money being spent to discredit the IPCC as well.

I'm loving Dr. Ned Nikolovs twitter account. You want hubris? Read his tweets. Though in fairness anyone to discover an equation that can predict surface temp of any planet in our solar system to within 1 degree is pretty groundbreaking. And to get three peer reviewed papers published on it.
His paper on cloud cover being the real driver of global temp will be interesting. And now that we have satellite data, we are in an era where it is possible.

But I do think your middle ground approach MT is the most sensible. If we don't examine all inputs, then we are in danger of becoming a cult.

History has shown us time and time again, that consensus does not necessarily mean correct.

I enjoyed the debate thank you.

And don't mind the stalkers.

When people stalk you from forum to forum, and spew insults, it says nothing about you but an awful lot about them..

oriel36

SeaBreezes wrote: »

Climategate emails caught them adjusting data to fit the narrative.

Surprise, surprise !.

I lived through the rise of RA/Dec modelers and their offshoots like 'climate change' modeling as computers and celestial sphere software entered general circulation.

I have to laugh sometimes as certainly humanity will come to its senses and decide to look elsewhere for the links between planetary motion and Earth sciences such as what actually causes the seasons rather than some clownish celestial sphere 'explanation' -

"The equinoxes are the only times when the solar terminator (the "edge" between night and day) is perpendicular to the equator. As a result, the northern and southern hemispheres are equally illuminated."

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

At the North Pole next March, it will already have been polar dawn since February so when the Sun comes into view on the March Equinox, it will remain in view for 6 months and likewise at the South Pole the Sun will turn out of view for 6 months as polar twilight sets in until May at which time polar night becomes established.

On the September Equinox, the Earth's inclination runs Northwest to Southeast relative to the orbital plane and the central Sun -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Space_Climate_Observatory#/media/File:EpicEarth-Globespin-tilt-23.4.gif

On the March Equinox, the inclination runs Southwest to Northeast relative to the orbital plane while on the Solstices the surface runs parallel to the orbital plane -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-OgLCH7jYp8&t=30s


I haven't seen much in the comments other than schoolyard politics but then again most here haven't left that environment so it follows them into paid employment with all the dull bullying, intimidation and the cribbing about not being treated fairly.

At least I know there isn't one person I would like to meet to discuss the issues but such is life sometimes.

posidonia

SeaBreezes wrote: »

Thanks MT.

Personally, I think in years to come people will look back at this CO2 alarmist and wonder why we allowed it.



...

What do you mean 'why we allowed it'? Sounds like censorship to me, like you want to be able to tell people what to think...

Mr Bumble

posidonia wrote: »

What do you mean 'why we allowed it'? Sounds like censorship to me, like you want to be able to tell people what to think...

The irony of this ^^^
You've been telling people what to think and what not to think without offering anything else since this thread started.

riffmongous

Don't bother wasting your time replying to the nonsense from oriel36, the guy is almost certainly a re-reg of gkell and Orion36, who was already banned

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056427954

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=88872503

oriel36

riffmongous wrote: »

Don't bother wasting your time replying to the nonsense from oriel36, the guy is almost certainly a re-reg of gkell and Orion36, who was already banned

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056427954

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=88872503

Such a strange people in the way people are told who to listen to and who not to listen to as an extension of a group who are told what to think and how to think -

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

I think you all run home to mamma when anything interesting appears and although Newton's ability to dictate to his followers what time, space and motion are, such a dereliction of individual responsibilities to someone else is the epitome of slavery.

Basically Royal Society empiricism is a call not to bother with the man behind the curtain, in this case Sir Isaac -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RQxD4Ff7dY


It is not possible to take people seriously who can't affirm the most basic temperature 'heartbeat' of the planet as representative of one complete rotation of the planet and a thousand rotations in a thousand 24 hour days.

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

No need for future 'banning' , perpetual students in a schoolyard atmosphere is not my thing anyway and besides, what I once thought was indifference to the roots of the 'scientific method' just turns out to be boring and dull people in a trance-like subservience to it.

Water John

Isn't measuring warming about the mean temp rise not peaks? Isn't is often simply night time temp staying higher rather than much hotter days.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jan/15/climate-emergency-2019-was-second-hottest-year-on-record

M.T. Cranium

M.T. Cranium wrote: »

This is the same analysis of record lows at Toronto, the growing urban heat island really reduces the number of them after about 1890, together with the natural warming trend that followed. A better test would be record low maxima which tend to be more resistant to heat island suppression as they occur in the windier conditions of daytime. I will work up that graph for the eventual presentation.

Try to take a screenshot of the charts and post as an image, that should work.

oriel36

The topic within the umbrella of empirical modeling is one of the most gruesome periods in human history for humans cannot control planetary temperatures.

A bit of tidying up before I leave the forum for good.

Early last century there were a bunch of empirical dummies running around declaring that 'time is relative !' as an extension of Newton's idiosyncratic description of a timekeeping facility known as the addito/subtractive equation at one time, the Aequation at others or simply has come down to us as the 'Equation of Time'

It represents the conversion of the variations in the total length of the natural noon cycle to a 24 hour average and from there into the Lat/Long system where it serves the purpose of describing rotation at a constant rate of 15 degrees per hour and turning a full circumference of the Earth in 24 hours. What is implied is that there is no external reference for 24 hours but as daily rotation is anchored to natural noon and also 12 noon clock time, they never fall out of sync as Tuesday follows Monday as one rotation, Wednesday follows Tuesday as another rotation and so on without fail. Sadly , this forum full of experts can't manage to conclude this.

Newton, like so many theorists, never had a feel (intuition/perception) for the purpose of the equation but acted to make it appear that he did by imitating Huygens -

"Here take notice, that the Sun or the Earth moves through the 12 constellations,
or makes an entire revolution in the ecliptic in 365 days, 5 hours 49 min. or there about,
and that those days, reckoned from noon to noon, are of different
lenghts; as is known to all that are versed in Astronomy." Huygens

https://adcs.home.xs4all.nl/Huygens/06/kort-E.html

"Absolute time, in astronomy, is distinguished from relative, by the equation of time. For the natural days are truly unequal, though they are commonly considered as equal and used for a measure of time; astronomers correct this inequality for their more accurate deducing of the celestial motions." Newton

The theorists following Newton hadn't a clue what he was doing as they like, so many unfortunates here, assume the RA/Dec framework has priority as that provided the basis of astronomical predictions using a 24 hour clock as an addition to the calendar framework -

"This absolute time can be measured by comparison with no motion; it
has therefore neither a practical nor a scientific value; and no one
is justified in saying that he knows aught about it. It is an idle
metaphysical conception." Mach, Analyse der Empfindungen,


Mach was right in a way, theorists haven't the slightest idea what purpose the equation of time serves in itself, as it refers to the Lat/Long system and the 24 hour system, what motions create the variations in the natural cycle or the dozen other different facets which distinguish timekeeping from the astronomy which links the motions of the planets to Earth sciences.

The dunces early last century exploited the inability of previous theorists to work out how Newton operated so we have 100+ years of science fantasy passed off as 'fact' such as human control of 'time'. Every single bit of 'astrophysics' is contrived, every single bit of it from start to finish.

Dull people can continue to pretend they are at the service of humanity but unfortunately they have shown themselves to be perpetual students with all the politics of the schoolyard. It is therefore not the academics that will make the difference but fatigue from headlines constantly drumming anxiety and desperation like a river of dreariness from the people with the most severe form of intellectual pretense ever to set foot on the planet.

Danno

SeaBreezes wrote: »

Thanks MT.

Personally, I think in years to come people will look back at this CO2 alarmist and wonder why we allowed it. Not saying CO2 doesn't warm, but I'm in the Zharakova and Nikolov camps, and think we will be schooled by 'climate drivers' like the sun and clouds.

There's too much repression of science by the IPCC for me to fully trust it.

Why would they try and stop Zharakovas papers being published?

Climategate emails caught them adjusting data to fit the narrative.

They are big business, and unfortunately seem threatened by any science that may challenge the narrative.

I find it suspect that the IPCC include solar forcing in models ONLY when the global temp starts dropping from 2016. And will be 'adjusting' models for the sun from 2020.

I find it suspect that temps are only compared against a period of time that suits the narrative. And earlier higher temps etc, are ignored. What was the American dust bowl but climate change?

Even the reporting annoys me. When temps started dropping they are being reported as 'the hottest in the last 4 years' even though it's actually dropping since 2016.

And why are ACTUAL global temps so hard to find? Why are temps shown in relation to a certain time frame? That annoys me also. :-)

I do feel sorry for Greta. While I applaud what she's doing (anyone who can stop us posioning the planet is praiseworthy) her dad runs her twitter account, and she is, a vulnerable child. It's hard enough to have aspergers without adding the pressure of being at the spearhead of a global movement. I fear it will not end well for her.

Another poster wrote about hubris. I was thinking, thank god for it! Otherwise science would never advance.

Your records, the hunger stones, medieval warming, even the Rok runes, all point to the fact we have been on this merry go round before. And yet there's no discussion around this.

I find it disheartening, from the climate studies are accurate study another poster linked to, of the 1000s of scientists and models the IPCC have, after the trillions spent on the science, cherry picking the 17 most accurate, they had to adjust 4 for CO2 and climate, (adjusting the CO2 and climate models for CO2 and climate!) and then the average performed well. Though the model ranges were within 1.8 C.
Seriously, all that time and money and effort and that's the best we can do?
We are only scrabbling at the edges of Climate Science.

But there's a lot of money being spent to discredit the IPCC as well.

I'm loving Dr. Ned Nikolovs twitter account. You want hubris? Read his tweets. Though in fairness anyone to discover an equation that can predict surface temp of any planet in our solar system to within 1 degree is pretty groundbreaking. And to get three peer reviewed papers published on it.
His paper on cloud cover being the real driver of global temp will be interesting. And now that we have satellite data, we are in an era where it is possible.

But I do think your middle ground approach MT is the most sensible. If we don't examine all inputs, then we are in danger of becoming a cult.

History has shown us time and time again, that consensus does not necessarily mean correct.

I enjoyed the debate thank you.

And don't mind the stalkers.

When people stalk you from forum to forum, and spew insults, it says nothing about you but an awful lot about them..

Hear hear

posidonia

Mr Bumble wrote: »

The irony of this ^^^
You've been telling people what to think and what not to think without offering anything else since this thread started.

I have?


I see I've made 16 post to this forum, all in this thread and all since page 35. Feel free to quote where I've done more than offer a view. It shouldn't be a difficult task!

Oneiric 3

oriel36 wrote: »

It is therefore not the academics that will make the difference but fatigue from headlines constantly drumming anxiety and desperation like a river of dreariness from the people with the most severe form of intellectual pretense ever to set foot on the planet.

The mistake people often make is that 'academics' (and can scientists even be describe as 'academics' in the real sense of the word?) are, by virtue, 'intellectuals'. Nothing could be further from the truth.