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

oriel36

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

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.

It is perhaps impossible to discuss issues with people who follow a very narrow line of thinking defined for them back in the late 17th century so when words like 'science denier' shows up by an academic or one of their cheerleaders, it has all the traits of a mob or cult defence to the point of illness -

"I have heard such things put forth as I should blush to repeat--not so much to avoid discrediting their authors (whose names could always be withheld) as to refrain from detracting so greatly from the honor of the human race. In the long run my observations have convinced me that some men, reasoning preposterously, first establish some conclusion In their minds which, either because of its being their own or because of their having received it from some person who has their entire confidence, impresses them so deeply that one finds it impossible ever to get it out of their heads. Such arguments in support of their fixed idea as they hit upon themselves or hear set forth by others, no matter how simple and stupid these may be, gain their instant acceptance and applause. On the other hand whatever is brought forward against it, however ingenious and conclusive, they receive with disdain or with hot rage--if indeed it does not make them ill." Galileo

It is easier to move on and consider climate as a positive research area in a gruesome era where even cows have become enemies of the planet so rather than join the flow of dreariness or swim against the flow as the weak opponents of 'climate change' do, much better to inspect how we arrived at the nuisance idea of human control over planetary temperatures like some sort of intellectual fever that needs treating. If there is a crisis then it is indeed man-made but the issues are found within individuals and groups rather than in climate so , knowing how intransigent the mind can be, progress to remove doctrines that have been in force for 200+ years can be challenging.

Two things - retain atmospheric, surface and ocean pollution as a human responsibility and this we can control like a global version of 'tidy towns' so if people want to move away from oil and gas then people are already well on their way without the dire and dour warnings.


The other thing is to strip the whole thing bare using cause and effect linking the motions of the planet to Earth sciences and temperature fluctuations. It is not as simple and straightforward as it first seems but what it does is move away from speculative predictions and deal with what is in front of and surrounding people every single moment of their lives.

That is not idealistic - that is simply reasonable.

M.T. Cranium

I am actually genuinely curious if there is a point behind all these obtuse denunciations of modern science, because as people could easily guess, I am wide open to hearing things like that. (not the obtuse part, the rest of it)

But each time I read a post, I get a bit of an unfocused migraine. Surely the fellow does not believe that somehow all of us, from Newton to the present day, failed to notice the "analemma" phenomenon that any sundial designer would have to know about, where our tilted planetary orientation to our orbital plane in three dimensions comes into play.

But all this would really do to our "flawed understanding" of diurnal temperature curves would be that we might overlook the second order variation caused by an earlier solar transit in one half of the orbital year and a later one in the other half. It also accounts for differences in the path followed through the sky of the rising and setting sun in spring and autumn.

These no doubt have very subtle effects on diurnal temperature graphs for each season. Without doing more work than I feel like doing at this very moment, I can't off the top of my head say which of the two seasons the sun appears to rise faster and set slower but there's something like that going on (because if you were able to see the earth's tilt in the three dimensions, it's not just nodding away from and then towards the Sun, it's also tilted over on a diagonal and if memory serves, that is towards the autumn side of our orbit as seen from let's say the perspective of a ringside seat next to our n.h. summer position (June 21st). So if we could sit there, yes we would see the north pole tilting away from us as the earth approached, but we would also notice it was over to the right of what we perceived to be the highest point of the sphere.

But we knew that, so if Oriel36 thinks we didn't, here ya go, we did. Problem solved.

(we also see the moon tilted in the sky, if you look at it during a full moon crossing the transit (south direction) what you see is not quite what you might imagine, the north pole of the moon is over towards that little dot of a black crater in the upper right, and the equator of the moon is higher on its left side than on its right side, as we see it, I would say it's less than one twelfth of a rotation but close to "one o'clock and seven o'clock" for the polar positions. In more detail there is also a wobble called libration so that the poles alternately come into our field of view and recede to the back side in various cycles, the effects are rather subtle but what it adds up to is that we can at some point see a little more than half the Moon's surface from the earth, not just 50% but closer to 60%).

oriel36

M.T. Cranium wrote: »

But each time I read a post, I get a bit of an unfocused migraine. Surely the fellow does not believe that somehow all of us, from Newton to the present day, failed to notice the "analemma" phenomenon that any sundial designer would have to know about, where our tilted planetary orientation to our orbital plane in three dimensions comes into play.

Like 'solar vs sidereal time' , the so-called analemma is fiction for the idiocy of putting the Sun in a wandering 'sine wave' motion to suit Ra/Dec modeling is followed by putting the Sun in a 'figure 8' motion to suit the attempted dismantlement of relationship between variations in the natural noon and the average 24 hour noon cycle via the Equation of Time -

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

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8c/Analemma_fishburn.tif/lossy-page1-1200px-Analemma_fishburn.tif.jpg

The empirical modelers have the Sun process so many motions to suit whatever narrative they want to 'explain' that they can't manage to associate one rotation of the Earth with one 24 hour day/night cycle using a stationary Sun and the noon cycle as a reference. I already know from experience that when faced with the impossible task of trying to reconcile the idiosyncratic versions of the Sun's 'motions' above that silence is your lot but then again, demonstrating how modelers lack discipline in the area where the motions of the planet intersect with Earth sciences distracts from productive research and especially weather and climate research.

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

A meteorologist who can't affirm cause and effect or cannot attribute one complete rotation to one 24 hour day even though he gives daily forecasts with temperature highs and lows in response to each rotation is certainly an unusual creature. You will come across as lacking common sense but then again, the 'rules of reasoning' Newton left for his modeling followers doesn't permit common sense much less the intuitive/perceptive faculties -

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


It should be immediately clear that what the 17th century English academics were doing was trying to organise the celestial arena and motions using a 24 hour clock and the calendar system (clockwork solar system) without the slightest interest as to how timekeeping technically and historically evolved from specific cyclical references supplied by the daily and annual motions of the Earth. Their followers today are doing the same with celestial sphere software and out into 'climate modeling' by conveniently attempting to extend the success of short term weather modeling to planetary climate with the same dreary results.

M.T. Cranium

I added another graph to the "Tormax" file which shows how two parts of the year (Feb-Mar and late Nov-Dec) have seen more recent warming compared to the rest of the year. Scroll down to find that graph below the first one that you might have already seen. There's a discussion below the graph.

M.T. Cranium

It can't be the analemma that is fiction, it must be synchronized time. You're saying that the length of the second, minute, hour or day as defined by physics is somehow invalid. The analemma can easily be demonstrated by time lapse photography of where the solar illumination falls at the same time each day.

Prediction of max and min temperatures will almost always follow the diurnal cycle of the solar day but sometimes air mass considerations overcome that and impose a different schedule. That is more rare in Ireland than in parts of North America where air mass variations are greater. There is a tendency for winter record highs to occur around midnight in Toronto and that general area, and I think it might have something to do with timing line positions. A timing line ... well see another thread for all that.

I still have no clue what you're saying, perhaps you can give an example of an error in my temperature forecasting that you could ascribe to the undiagnosed rotation. Or are you just saying you don't need to look because in your experience all forecasters are routinely making that mistake? In which case, what's the mistake? What reference tables could we consult to know the timing of this rotation? Any less than specific answer, and I'm bowing out of this conversation. (fish or cut bait as we say)

oriel36

M.T. Cranium wrote: »

Prediction of max and min temperatures will almost always follow the diurnal cycle of the solar day but sometimes air mass considerations overcome that and impose a different schedule.

Your RA/Dec modeling along with the ridiculous 'analemma' insists on one more physical rotation of the Earth than there are 24 hour day/night cycles -

" It is a fact not generally known that,owing to the difference between solar and sidereal time,the Earth rotates upon its axis once more often than there are days in the year" NASA /Harvard

This cretinous allegiance to 17th century clockwork modeling was bound to surface in our era where they now 'explain' the seasons using an Earth with a zero degree axial inclination and a 'pivoting' circle of illumination -

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

I have seen this insanity before in another topic and left to its own devices, the proponents never change because they lack the great human attributes of self-discipline and common sense. It is why this meteorologist can agree that the Earth turns once each 24 hour day and a thousand rotations in a thousand days thereby accounting for temperature highs and lows but also choose to believe the Earth has one more physical rotation than 24 hours days in a year to suit clockwork solar system modeling.

There are people who operate like this in other facets of life and sometimes in politics where operators can switch between opposing views to the consternation of the electorate but unfortunately this trait has run through the education system for centuries and all 'climate change' did was expose the excesses of these people. It is a trance-like or hynoptic state which grip these academics and their cheerleaders in the public but make no mistake, it is both dangerous and unhealthy for any productive and creative society.

oriel36

M.T. Cranium wrote: »

It can't be the analemma that is fiction, it must be synchronized time. You're saying that the length of the second, minute, hour or day as defined by physics is somehow invalid. The analemma can easily be demonstrated by time lapse photography of where the solar illumination falls at the same time each day.

The problem most reasonable people should identify immediately is that accurate clocks didn't always exist no more than computers have, however, the English decided to organise and model motions using the 24 hour clock within the calendar framework.

The only framework the original heliocentric astronomers recognised was the Sun's 365 day trek directly through the background stars which they switched for the 365 day orbital motion of the Earth -

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

All these weird contortions of the Sun in a 'sine wave' and alternatively a 'figure 8' come from the late 17th century as they tried to justify RA/Dec predictions which Newton exploited in an attempt to link astronomical predictions with experimental predictions. This and this alone has destroyed the ability of genuine researchers to manage the links between the motions of the planet and Earth sciences.

Academics, like the meteorologist here, cannot conceive astronomy before the emergence of accurate clocks so the programme which they have been subjected to since their student days doesn't allow them to consider how timekeeping evolved from antiquity. Whether it is an illness they suffer is not my interest nor duty to comment on although Galileo thought it was.

Oneiric 3

Have to admit, that this conversation between Oriel36 and MT is just a little bit too high-brow for little old me.

Time for a tune I think!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Wljx0Cz9-c

Mr Bumble

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

Have to admit, that this conversation between Oriel36 and MT is just a little bit too high-brow for little old me.

Time for a tune I think!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Wljx0Cz9-c

I think everyone here ....even Oriel....can agree that this is woejious .....as Brian Kerr would say
If any Co2 was used in the making of this video, it was a crime against humanity. If none was released, it's still a crime against humanity


Apologies Oneiric if she's one of your faves.

oriel36

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

Have to admit, that this conversation between Oriel36 and MT is just a little bit too high-brow for little old me.

Time for a tune I think!

That is so sweet and that's the spirit !.

The opponents and proponents of 'climate change' are different sides of the same 'scientific method' coin yet they find it impossible to say that the Earth turns once each day. Think of them like brexit where the proponents are English Tories and English Labour are the opponents with the meteorologist fence sitting like Jeremy Corbyn. Think yourself as outside the modeling fuss and you will see where you stand like people outside England see a bigger picture.

As for giants, in a bit of self-promotion, Sir Isaac said he was standing on the shoulder of giants but that bluffer wasn't even the 'wren on the eagle' , he and his empirical followers have a parasitic relationship to astronomy and the links between the motions of the planet to Earth sciences.

So do something the meteorologist can't do - look at the sunrise/noon/sunset cycle where the Sun is in view and fill in the gap until the next cycle from sunset to sunrise the next day when the stars are in view. If you can fit in an extra physical rotation of the Earth into the 24 hour cycle across the year then good luck with that . -

https://www.timeanddate.com/sun/ireland/dublin

The academics have been getting away with blue murder for centuries so all 'climate change' was expose them for the perpetual students and followers of Royal Society English


That is one helluva chic in the video by the way and can belt out a positive tune but hard to beat Satchmo -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21LGv8Cf0us

Flood the place with appreciation of the Earth and its cycles.

Oneiric 3

oriel36 wrote: »

That is so sweet and that's the spirit !.

The opponents and proponents of 'climate change' are different sides of the same 'scientific method' coin yet they find it impossible to say that the Earth turns once each day. Think of them like brexit where the proponents are English Tories and English Labour are the opponents with the meteorologist fence sitting like Jeremy Corbyn. Think yourself as outside the modeling fuss and you will see where you stand like people outside England see a bigger picture.

Thing is about the 'English Tories' vs 'English Labour', both parties took the opposite stance regarding the idea of a 'European Union' in the not so distant past to that which they take today!

Anyway, back to Issac Newton and all of that...of which I'll leave to you and other sciencey types as my knowledge on such people or what they stood for is severely limited.:o

Gaoth Laidir

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Other things to look at are solar-based, with possible ocean lag effects from the increased solar constant in the recent century over previous three.

posidonia wrote: »

You can fit anything to anything using an undefined lag.

MiNdGaM3 wrote: »

The article discusses ocean heat content rather than sea surface temperatures. It also states that the rate of heat accumulation increased by four and a half times for 1987 to 2018, relative to 1956 to 1986.

During that time solar activity has declined, especially the last decade. So it appears highly unlikely that there's a solar based cause.

Getting back to this discussion, in 2003, NASA were pretty sure that increasing TSI over a prolonged period (a century) could have marked effects on global temperature. The charts above show that we've had more than a century of increased TSI compared to a few centuries ago. As I said, it's been at a sustained 400-year high over the past 50 years, therefore to say that this can not have a cumulative effect on ocean - and hence global air - temperatures is wrong.

Since the late 1970s, the amount of solar radiation the sun emits, during times of quiet sunspot activity, has increased by nearly .05 percent per decade, according to a NASA funded study.
advertisement


"This trend is important because, if sustained over many decades, it could cause significant climate change," said Richard Willson, a researcher affiliated with NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Columbia University's Earth Institute, New York. He is the lead author of the study recently published in Geophysical Research Letters.
"Historical records of solar activity indicate that solar radiation has been increasing since the late 19th century. If a trend, comparable to the one found in this study, persisted throughout the 20th century, it would have provided a significant component of the global warming the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports to have occurred over the past 100 years," he said.

Although the inferred increase of solar irradiance in 24 years, about 0.1 percent, is not enough to cause notable climate change, the trend would be important if maintained for a century or more. Satellite observations of total solar irradiance have obtained a long enough record (over 24 years) to begin looking for this effect.

Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) is the radiant energy received by the Earth from the sun, over all wavelengths, outside the atmosphere. TSI interaction with the Earth's atmosphere, oceans and landmasses is the biggest factor determining our climate. To put it into perspective, decreases in TSI of 0.2 percent occur during the weeklong passage of large sunspot groups across our side of the sun. These changes are relatively insignificant compared to the sun's total output of energy, yet equivalent to all the energy that mankind uses in a year. According to Willson, small variations, like the one found in this study, if sustained over many decades, could have significant climate effects.

oriel36

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

Thing is about the 'English Tories' vs 'English Labour', both parties took the opposite stance regarding the idea of a 'European Union' in the not so distant past to that which they take today!

A certain section in England always had eccentric views that escaped into the social and political arena so while brexit was a great slogan, they had no idea what they want even with the backing of their electorate. They created a bubble for themselves and for the past 3 years went through contortions which is great until they now meet the larger perspectives that exist as the European Union (despite all its failings). Aspirations, academic, political or otherwise have to survive definite inspection and considerations so what is left here shows the opponents/proponents of 'climate change' ,for all their aspirations, can't manage to affirm the most basic facts that can be known .

The opponents/proponents of 'climate change' are of the same species where aspirations by experimental theorists were projected into astronomy and large scale sciences without any consideration other than it satisfied 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


They heard the call of momma and ran with the notion that conditions in a greenhouse (experiment) are the same as the Earth's atmosphere (universal qualities) so they could saddle humanity with the absurd notion of human planetary temperature control. People who follow them into their dreary bubble are not doing themselves nor their student children any favours insofar as atmospheric, surface and ocean pollution is everyone's responsibility, the apocalyptic empiricism attached is not. Kill the 'scientific method' and astronomy along with Earth sciences come back to life again after centuries of misuse by these perpetual student modelers.

Good luck to you and those who genuinely care but leave these dull modelers to their own devices and their even duller conclusions.

MiNdGaM3

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Getting back to this discussion, in 2003, NASA were pretty sure than increasing TSI over a prolonged period (a century) could have marked effects on global temperature. The charts above show that we've had more than a century of increased TSI compared to a few centuries ago. As I said, it's been at a sustained 400-year high over the past 50 years, therefore to say that this can not have a cumulative effect on ocean - and hence global air - temperatures is wrong.

Another quote from the article:

"Although the inferred increase of solar irradiance in 24 years, about 0.1 percent, is not enough to cause notable climate change, the trend would be important if maintained for a century or more.t"

Absolute values and trends a important here.

First of all, that increase mentioned in your linked article hasn't continued over the last 17 years since it was published.

It also doesn't change the fact that solar activity, and TSI, has declined in recent decades while OHC growth has accelerated. That in itself rules out a solar cause.

Furthermore, if a 0.05% increase per decade was enough to cause the warming (it isn't), then the 0.1% change in solar output during the 11 year cycle would appear as a clear oscillations in the OHC measurements, and the recent low in solar output would also have a clear effect - but they don't.

Aside from that, there's no evidence that solar activity is causing warming in general. If this was the case, we'd see days warming faster than nights and a warming throughout the atmosphere. Neither of these are occurring. Instead, nights are warming faster than days and the stratosphere is cooling, both distinct signatures of an enhanced greenhouse effect.

Meteorite58

Mod Note: oriel36 Off topic post moved to https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058007595

Akrasia

SeaBreezes wrote: »

Climategate emails caught them adjusting data to fit the narrative.
[

No they didn’t.

Longing

Akrasia wrote: »

No they didn’t.

Yes the did.

Tony will tell you. Listen and watch.


No 1.

No2.

SeaBreezes

Akrasia wrote: »

No they didn’t.

Yes, they did.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/11/23/climategate-2-0-new-e-mails-rock-the-global-warming-debate/amp/

Gaoth Laidir

MiNdGaM3 wrote: »

Another quote from the article:

"Although the inferred increase of solar irradiance in 24 years, about 0.1 percent, is not enough to cause notable climate change, the trend would be important if maintained for a century or more.t"

Absolute values and trends a important here.

First of all, that increase mentioned in your linked article hasn't continued over the last 17 years since it was published.

It also doesn't change the fact that solar activity, and TSI, has declined in recent decades while OHC growth has accelerated. That in itself rules out a solar cause.

Furthermore, if a 0.05% increase per decade was enough to cause the warming (it isn't), then the 0.1% change in solar output during the 11 year cycle would appear as a clear oscillations in the OHC measurements, and the recent low in solar output would also have a clear effect - but they don't.

Aside from that, there's no evidence that solar activity is causing warming in general. If this was the case, we'd see days warming faster than nights and a warming throughout the atmosphere. Neither of these are occurring. Instead, nights are warming faster than days and the stratosphere is cooling, both distinct signatures of an enhanced greenhouse effect.

So they're totally wrong then? A century of increased TSI doesn't affect the temperature?

The increase in TSI since 1700 as had no effect? The Little Ice Age didn't occur? Volcanoes have no effect? The year without a summer (1816) wasn't related to the Tambora eruption in 1815? Solar irradiance isn't a factor in global temperatures?

Where's Oriel when you need him...:rolleyes:

Akrasia

SeaBreezes wrote: »

Yes, they did.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/11/23/climategate-2-0-new-e-mails-rock-the-global-warming-debate/amp/

No, they didn’t. There were 8 separate investigations that found zero evidence of scientific fraud or tampering with any of the data.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy

The article you posted was written by someone with a very outspoken agenda who works with the Heartland Institute.

SeaBreezes

Longing wrote: »

Yes the did.

Tony will tell you. Listen and watch.


No 1.

No2.

Wow, I knew they were bad I just didn't know how bad. Thanks for the videos Longing!

And see the Forbes article? Trying to remove an editor of a magazine because they published actual science that disagreed with the narrative?

Unreal.

SeaBreezes

Akrasia wrote: »

No, they didn’t. There were 8 separate investigations that found zero evidence of scientific fraud or tampering with any of the data.

Ah yes, wonder who ran the investigations?

It's in black and white. Read the emails yourself!

The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. :-)

Gaoth Laidir

I'd be interested in hearing Akrasia's and Mindgame's explanations on the claims made in those two videos (not on who made them, just if they're right or wrong). I especially am interested in this temperature adjustment by Karl Mears of RSS (second video), where he allegedly altered the observation curve (blue) by merely tracing along the top of the error interval to give the new curve (black).

MiNdGaM3

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

So they're totally wrong then? A century of increased TSI doesn't affect the temperature?

The increase in TSI since 1700 as had no effect? The Little Ice Age didn't occur? Volcanoes have no effect? The year without a summer (1816) wasn't related to the Tambora eruption in 1815? Solar irradiance isn't a factor in global temperatures?

Where's Oriel when you need him...:rolleyes:

Who's totally wrong?

LIA, 1700, Tambora, not a factor in global temperatures? I see you're skilled in building strawmen.

Instead of deflecting, how about you go back and explain how a multidecadal declline in solar activity has resulted in an acceleration of ocean heat accumulation from that same solar activity. Your Nobel prize awaits!

SeaBreezes wrote: »

Ah yes, wonder who ran the investigations?

It's in black and white. Read the emails yourself!

The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. :-)

It must have been the commies/illuminate/big green, in every investigation! Believe only the words of the bold oil funded hacks, paid to attack climate scientists. Just like James Taylor, in the Forbes article. He's a senior fellow of the Heartland Institute. The very organisation that provide this level of input to the scientific discourse

MiNdGaM3

You guys are posting videos from Tony Heller? The AGW denier/alt right/birther and general conspiracy nut, that even Anthony Watts and co have distanced themselves from? How about some Joe Bastardi too maybe? Or even Christopher Monckton? The clueless climate conspiracy trifecta!

In all seriousness though, support of such blatant anti-science activists like Heller is sure sign you have little knowledge of climate science beyond what handed down by the AGW denier blogs. You won't find a single climate scientists that has any respect for Hellers blogs or videos (including the slightly more "sceptical" climate scientists). You might as well be suggesting readings from the bible.

Gaoth Laidir

MiNdGaM3 wrote: »

Who's totally wrong?

LIA, 1700, Tambora, not a factor in global temperatures? I see you're skilled in building strawmen.

Instead of deflecting, how about you go back and explain how a multidecadal declline in solar activity has resulted in an acceleration of ocean heat accumulation from that same solar activity. Your Nobel prize awaits!

Not strawmen at all. You're claiming that solar irradiance can't have had an effect on recent temperatures, ergo it can't have affected before then either.

I've already explained the increase in global ocean temperatures by a cummulative effect of the increasing solar irradiance, lagged by thermal inertia. I've overlaid global SST with the TSI graph for the same period (1600-2008) below and it seems that the three periods support this theory. The warming in SST lags the increase in TSI by a decade or so.





But regarding actual OHC, I'm interested in where you're getting the idea that "OHC growth has accelerated in recent decades". That's not the case in either the 0-700 m or the 0-2000 m layers. It seems a pretty steady rate to me.

Gaoth Laidir

MiNdGaM3 wrote: »

You guys are posting videos from Tony Heller? The AGW denier/alt right/birther and general conspiracy nut, that even Anthony Watts and co have distanced themselves from? How about some Joe Bastardi too maybe? Or even Christopher Monckton? The clueless climate conspiracy trifecta!

In all seriousness though, support of such blatant anti-science activists like Heller is sure sign you have little knowledge of climate science beyond what handed down by the AGW denier blogs. You won't find a single climate scientists that has any respect for Hellers blogs or videos (including the slightly more "sceptical" climate scientists). You might as well be suggesting readings from the bible.

Yep, just as I thought. Ignore the content, attack the author. So predictable...:rolleyes:

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

I'd be interested in hearing Akrasia's and Mindgame's explanations on the claims made in those two videos (not on who made them, just if they're right or wrong). I especially am interested in this temperature adjustment by Karl Mears of RSS (second video), where he allegedly altered the observation curve (blue) by merely tracing along the top of the error interval to give the new curve (black).

M.T. Cranium

I hope people did take a look at the second graph I posted in "Tormax" because it contains the most difficult warming detail for the AGW crowd to explain.

It clearly shows that the warming of climate at Toronto has focussed on the two ends of the winter season. Warming otherwise has only been evenly distributed since the climate shift around 1890-1920. So how could a human signal gradually warming the entire global atmosphere accomplish this focussing of warmth on two intervals (Nov 20-Dec 28 and Feb 4-Mar 26 in terms of the actual details)?

I would say that is rather unlikely. But an easier explanation lies in natural variability. If the storm track is moving north, then it will place Toronto in warmer air masses more frequently at times of year when previously the frequency was low although not so low (most of January) that the new cases are that frequent.

So this is what we see from the data, that the two ends of winter are getting considerably more frequent visits from southern origin air masses, and these are easily breaking older records which tended to be the warm sectors of less powerful lows of Pacific origin. The typical record high in February at Toronto before 1980 would have been 10-12 C supplied by a low starting out in Colorado and moving to north-central Ontario. Nowadays, the typical record high is 15-17 and is supplied by low pressure from Oklahoma dragging in true mT air masses from the Gulf of Mexico.

The same shift has occurred in December and the old roster of records has been largely obliterated although the odd one survived the onslaught. The barrage begins to mute to occasional pickoffs of weak members of the herd in January. Then you get into the old "January thaw" period where all the records remain vintage (1906, 1909, 1933, 1949, 1953, 1967, 1916 figure prominently). The modern warmer climate has taken a pass on trying to dislodge any of those and actually went into February mode with nothing more than a few rather weak efforts during that second half of January. (Jan 31, 1988 started the reversal trend).

So in much greater detail than the AGW crowd have ever really applied to their own research, I think I have uncovered the most critical piece of evidence yet unearthed to show that we are seeing a real cause and effect mechanism, and it is not air mass modification at all, but air mass frequency change.

The same conclusion stems from my arctic research. The main reason why arctic Canada temperatures are rising in recent decades is that much milder air masses intrude once or twice a winter. Just do the math. If the year remains otherwise unchanged, but you replace a week of -30 with a week of -5, then the annual mean (N) will rise by

T inc = N + (25/52) = N + 0.5

Now if you also reduce the length of winter by two weeks and assume that at either end of winter, the temperature will increase 10 degrees, you find another increase as follows

T inc = N + 2*(10/52) = N + 0.4

So there is 0.9 deg of warming in just three weeks of the year. Add in the fact that in recent decades (in the Canadian arctic) some month like April or September at the far ends of winter will now feature much above normal temperatures unseen in previous decades, I think you probably find most of the rest of the (agreed upon) 2 to 3 C deg increases that show up in mean temperatures "up north."

Air mass temperatures remain similar as shown by the greater resilience of annual winter minima, and the rather small increase in summer warmest months. There might be a general increase of 0.5 C to air mass temperatures.

So I would restate my own hypothesis as follows:

Global temperatures are increasing by perhaps 1.5 C deg overall, 1.0 in temperate climates and 2-3 in arctic climates. This is partly due to AGW effects that bring up air mass temperatures by 0.5 C. It is otherwise due to changes in the circulation (poleward movement of storm tracks) that bring about changes to air mass frequency. This process began with an accelerated push around 1890, and it is clear from the rapid increase in record warm days 1890 to 1920 that air mass frequency changed considerably in that period. Afterwards, changes have been more cyclical than trending, and the frequency of extreme warmth has levelled off, not really increasing notably since the period 1916 to 1922 at any point since then (and sometimes falling back as in 1978-82, and 2013-15).

Changes in the circulation could take place because of effects of AGW, or they could be unrelated to AGW and occur due to any combination of

(a) shifts in the geomagnetic field working in tandem with the upper atmosphere to favour different options for storm track mean positioning

(b) long-term lags in feedback from previous episodes of high solar activity

(c) random chance (perhaps a factor if one tries to analyze why for example 1710 to 1739 was much warmer than 1740 to 1780)

(d) shifts in circulation of the Pacific and or Atlantic Oceans

(e) other factors perhaps not yet identified

So now more than ever, I am convinced that the modern warming (and while I have some sympathy with the tampered-fixed-data meme, it does not seem that large a factor to me) is perhaps as much as 2/3 natural in origin. If we had not seen the circulation shifts, we would only be seeing a slight warming from human activity. However, I do accept that a circulation shift may also be due to the AGW signal working its way through a rather complex mechanism of the global climate. I can't prove that this is not the case. However, I could speculate that it will be harder to fix that aspect of climate change than the air mass modification part, even if we do somehow reduce the greenhouse gas emission rate. That other part, circulation change, if not caused by unrelated factors, might have a longer life cycle than air mass modification.

I suspect that circulation shifts are not largely of human origin because they seemed to be well underway in the first third of the 20th century. We don't have much data from the Canadian arctic but some Greenland obs seem to confirm that a warming of rather large proportions took place there around 1920 and was noted by some climatologists at the time. Circulation change would perhaps have different forms in different climate zones. It would be interesting to study changes over the past century in eastern Siberia, for example, to see if there had been different patterns of change there. I would do that if somebody could point me to a source of reliable data.

oriel36

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

So they're totally wrong then? A century of increased TSI doesn't affect the temperature?

The increase in TSI since 1700 as had no effect? The Little Ice Age didn't occur? Volcanoes have no effect? The year without a summer (1816) wasn't related to the Tambora eruption in 1815? Solar irradiance isn't a factor in global temperatures?

Where's Oriel when you need him...:rolleyes:

All it affirms is that theorists ,due to their doctrine, have severe difficulties with cyclical events where the motions of the Earth are required to explain experiences across latitudes.

The expansion/contraction of surface area (with the North Pole at its centre) where the Sun is constantly in view or out of sight is coincident with Arctic sea ice development and disappearance with the planet's inclination determining the range of that development across latitudes. That is the first time such an easy to appreciate fact was presented yet some heavy-handed person moved it off the thread.

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

If the Earth had the inclination of Jupiter there would be no range of development and disappearance of Arctic sea ice, if the Earth had an inclination like Uranus the range of Arctic sea ice development would be considerable with Ireland falling within its range. This would be productive modeling but only when cause and effect are actually affirmed.

It is fine flinging graphs at each other or hoisting academic names like toy soldiers, however, the ability to strip things bare by cause and effect was how the first heliocentric astronomers resolved the highly complex contortions of their geocentric colleagues.

I am genuinely surprised I lasted this long in the forum but I see the greenhouse people and their opponents have received a second wind through moderation. I shrug as nothing I haven't seen before yet wider perspectives are required to move climate research back into a positive topic where it belongs.

SeaBreezes

Longing wrote: »

Yes the did.

Tony will tell you. Listen and watch.


No 1.

No2.

The American dust bowl was1930s.
(Warming period in pre-adjusted data from 1st video)

Also note adjusted max temps in Middle East where there are no temp collections, more adjusting?

Forbes has many articles on it. Quite depressing reading.