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

Meteorite58

Mod Note: off topic posts removed. Please read the forum charter.

Report posts that you find objectable and in breach of the forum charter rather then engaging and only dragging the thread off topic.

oriel36

Meteorite58 wrote: »

Mod Note: off topic posts removed. Please read the forum charter.

Report posts that you find objectable and in breach of the forum charter rather then engaging and only dragging the thread off topic.

All it takes is a silly moderator to act like a dunce which is why I dislike heavy handed forums with some self-appointed schoolmaster in charge of academic schoolboys.

So well and good.

Gaoth Laidir

M.T. Cranium wrote: »

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.

I don't see that second graph in the Tormax file you posted.

Meteorite58

oriel36 wrote: »

All it takes is a silly moderator to act like a dunce which is why I dislike heavy handed forums with some self-appointed schoolmaster in charge of academic schoolboys.

So well and good.

Mod Note: oriel36 has received an infraction for this post. Stay on topic, adhere to the forum charter.

Oneiric 3

MiNdGaM3 wrote: »

The AGW denier/alt right/birther and general conspiracy nut.

This is quite the condemnation.

But before we burn him at the stake to appease the gnarling mob, could you expand on this assertion of yours that he is 'alt-right'? because this is quite a serious accusation.

oriel36

Meteorite58 wrote: »

Mod Note: oriel36 has received an infraction for this post. Stay on topic, adhere to the forum charter.

One of the major observations (not complaint) in this thread is that you can be an opponent or proponent of 'climate change' so long as nobody contravenes the 'rules of reasoning' Sir Isaac insisted his empirical modelers take -

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

What wider society hears as 'peer review' is really moderation to maintain the integrity of the narrow and flawed rut agenda of Royal Society empiricism. No wonder the whole thing amounts to exceptionally dull conclusions dumped into what is perhaps one of the most vibrant of Earth sciences that is climate.

Instead of inspecting the contraction/expansion of the surface areas with the North Poles at their centre introducing inclination as an input, we have what seems professional 'Caoiners' mourning over the Earth 'Ara why did ya die !'

http://wwwchristinesireland.blogspot.com/2013/08/irish-funerals-caoiners.html

Again, no complaints here but so well and good, people are so wound up that no reasonable discussion is possible.

Akrasia

Longing wrote: »

Yes the did.

Tony will tell you. Listen and watch.


No 1.

No2.

If you trust Tony Heller aka Stephen Goddard, above the 8 seperate investigations into this 'scandal' then you should really consider where you get your information from. Do you, like Heller/Goddard also think Obama wasn't born in the United States?


Tony Heller challenging other people for misrepresenting data is utterly laughable.

Cherrypicking and distorting and misrepresenting is his entire modus operandi as you can see from this snopes article on one of his false claims
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/global-warming-data-faked/

MiNdGaM3

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

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.

It's from the original article that sparked this whole thing, a few pages back. Yesterday, you literally quoted my post where I mentioned the four and a half times increase since 1987. You then posted a link to the 2003 NASA study as proof it's the sun (for some reason).

The article: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jan/13/ocean-temperatures-hit-record-high-as-rate-of-heating-accelerates
The paper it's based on: https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00376-020-9283-7.pdf



Sea surface temperatures are a different matter and requires much less energy than heating the upper 2,000m of water.
Lining up one squiggle with another, shifting them about and claiming some kind of lag isn't really the best way to go about things. For one, there are many processes that affect SSTs. Secondly, you need a plausible physical mechanism for why there's this quasi-10-50 year lag. Really, ignoring any physical mechanisms and using variable lags you can fit almost anything to anything.

Oneiric 3

oriel36 wrote: »

What wider society hears as 'peer review' is really moderation to maintain the integrity of the narrow and flawed rut agenda of Royal Society empiricism. No wonder the whole thing amounts to exceptionally dull conclusions dumped into what is perhaps one of the most vibrant of Earth sciences that is climate.

Known as 'occupational closure', which basically means that certain professional and/or academic bodies will appoint themselves to be only 'authority' on a specific and specialised topic.

Akrasia

SeaBreezes wrote: »

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.

Adjusting data and calibrating records is a normal part of scientific advancement

Conspiracy theorists do something called 'Anomaly hunting' where they look for things that they can point at that seem to be at odds with their limited understanding and make claims about how it's evidence of a coverup.

Heller's claims that the data is being manipulated deliberately to fake climate change is no less ridiculous as the 9/11 claims that tower 7 was deliberately demolished or that there were thermite charges detonated in the twin towers. or moon landing conspiracies or claims that evolution can't happen because the its the 'equivilent of a tornado in a junkyard creating a 747 airliner by randomly dropping junk into place'

It's tiny nuggets of science and half baked understanding shoehorned into a grand global conspiracy involving millions of scientists and experts faking data

oriel36

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

Known as 'occupational closure', which basically means that certain professional and/or academic bodies will appoint themselves to be only 'authority' on a specific and specialised topic.

They are fine people within their own 'scientific method' realm but Irish society is not meant to suffer extended periods of pessimism based on a notion that humans can control planetary temperatures.

The answer is that people will become responsible with atmospheric, surface and oceanic pollution and with the right type of people will appreciate the links between the motions of the planets and terrestrial sciences like climate, biology and geology in much the same way the body responds to its environment.

The last part doesn't exist presently as demonstrated within this thread.

Meteorite58

Mod Note oriel36 has received an infraction for trolling and goading for a negative response.

Adhere to the forum charter. Stay on topic.

Oneiric 3

Akrasia wrote: »

Adjusting data and calibrating records is a normal part of scientific advancement

Conspiracy theorists do something called 'Anomaly hunting' where they look for things that they can point at that seem to be at odds with their limited understanding and make claims about how it's evidence of a coverup.

Heller's claims that the data is being manipulated deliberately to fake climate change is no less ridiculous as the 9/11 claims that tower 7 was deliberately demolished or that there were thermite charges detonated in the twin towers. or moon landing conspiracies or claims that evolution can't happen because the its the 'equivilent of a tornado in a junkyard creating a 747 airliner by randomly dropping junk into place'

It's tiny nuggets of science and half baked understanding shoehorned into a grand global conspiracy involving millions of scientists and experts faking data

There are many 'conspiracy nuts' out there, yet don't seem to get the attention or fury aimed at them that this 'Heller' (a funny name I have to admit) guy gets. Why would that be?

Oneiric 3

oriel36 wrote: »

They are fine people within their own realm

No one is saying otherwise. In my experience, scientists of any type are some of the nicest and most unassuming people you can meet. The same cannot be said many of their 'advocates' though.

SeaBreezes

Akrasia wrote: »

If you trust Tony Heller aka Stephen Goddard, above the 8 seperate investigations into this 'scandal' then you should really consider where you get your information from. Do you, like Heller/Goddard also think Obama wasn't born in the United States?


Tony Heller challenging other people for misrepresenting data is utterly laughable.

Cherrypicking and distorting and misrepresenting is his entire modus operandi as you can see from this snopes article on one of his false claims
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/global-warming-data-faked/

Cherry picking...

Climategate emails:
Phil Jones, who served as a lead author for one of the key chapters in IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (2007), leaves no doubt of intentions to keep embarrassing and conspiratorial disclosures under tight wraps:

"I've been told that IPCC is above national FOI Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working on AR5 would be to delete all e-mails at the end of the process. Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden. I’ve discussed this with the main funder (U.S. Department of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data"

Tom Wigley of the NCAR complained in still another exchange: “Mike, the Figure you sent is very deceptive … there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC …”



Jonathan Overpeck, a coordinating lead IPCC report author, stated: “The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] what’s included and what is left out.”

In regards the RSS manipulation of adding error range and choosing the high option always..
Writing to Jones, Peter Thorne of the U.K. Met Office also advised caution, saying: “Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these further if necessary…” In another e-mail he stated: “I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run.”


https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2011/11/29/climategate-ii-more-smoking-guns-from-the-global-warming-establishment/amp/

oriel36

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

No one is saying otherwise. In my experience, scientists of any type are some of the nicest and most unassuming people you can meet. The same cannot be said many of their 'advocates' though.

You are fine Oneiric 3 and thanks for the video yesterday.

Most of what you see here have their origins in the late 17th century 'scientific method' doctrine so while they may be fine people, they achieved their present status by wrecking the links between planetary motions and Earth sciences hence the unnecessary fuss of human temperature control.

People are desperate to get back to their doom and gloom predictions so genuine climate research is a distraction in this case.

Oneiric 3

oriel36 wrote: »

People are desperate to get back to their doom and gloom predictions so genuine climate research is a distraction in this case.

Looking at climate datasets etc, average global temps have risen by something between 0.5c and 1.0c in the last 40 years or so, which may seem like a small figure at face value, but is significant when considering the both the time span and geographical immensity. That said, is there any evidence that the climate now is any more detrimental to human and animal well being than it was when in a cooler state back in the 70s and 80s?

oriel36

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

Looking at climate datasets etc, average global temps have risen by something between 0.5c and 1.0c in the last 40 years or so, which may seem like a small figure at face value, but is significant when considering the both the time span and geographical immensity. That said, is there any evidence that the climate now is any more detrimental to human and animal well being than it was when in a cooler state back in the 70s and 80s?

I look at planetary climate differently with a point of departure using planetary motions and their traits within a solar system framework so the question doesn't arise. What you are seeing is an entirely different point of departure using conditions found in a common greenhouse (experiment) within the 'scientific method' umbrella -

"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

No need to explain further as the academics get upset when the method/opinion is inspected rather than one of its symptoms of which 'climate change' is one.

I think that covers it without complaints.

Water John

I'd sort of doubt if the US Dept of Energy is involved with scientists in promoting the theory of Climate change and allowing evidence to be falsified in favour of it.

Gaoth Laidir

Akrasia wrote: »

If you trust Tony Heller aka Stephen Goddard, above the 8 seperate investigations into this 'scandal' then you should really consider where you get your information from. Do you, like Heller/Goddard also think Obama wasn't born in the United States?


Tony Heller challenging other people for misrepresenting data is utterly laughable.

Cherrypicking and distorting and misrepresenting is his entire modus operandi as you can see from this snopes article on one of his false claims
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/global-warming-data-faked/

Akrasia wrote: »

Adjusting data and calibrating records is a normal part of scientific advancement

Conspiracy theorists do something called 'Anomaly hunting' where they look for things that they can point at that seem to be at odds with their limited understanding and make claims about how it's evidence of a coverup.

Heller's claims that the data is being manipulated deliberately to fake climate change is no less ridiculous as the 9/11 claims that tower 7 was deliberately demolished or that there were thermite charges detonated in the twin towers. or moon landing conspiracies or claims that evolution can't happen because the its the 'equivilent of a tornado in a junkyard creating a 747 airliner by randomly dropping junk into place'

It's tiny nuggets of science and half baked understanding shoehorned into a grand global conspiracy involving millions of scientists and experts faking data

And true to form, as I predicted, Akrasia followed Mindgame with the character assasination and sidestepped the question at hand.

So, Akrasia, here it is again for you. Just deal with the data below please. Doesn't matter who wrote it, if it's wrong it's wrong, if it's right it's right. It's got nothing to do with the link you provided above. This is the satellite dataset, which originally had the observational error in the blue shade, but afterwards the mean was taken to be the top of that error. If it's a valid adjstment to make, so be it, but it seems strange to me.

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).

SeaBreezes

Water John wrote: »

I'd sort of doubt if the US Dept of Energy is involved with scientists in promoting the theory of Climate change and allowing evidence to be falsified in favour of it.

Yeah, and while he talks about the DOE, no one was identified it's just his 'word' that he had those reassurances. He could have just said that to add weight to his suggestion to delete emails and not publish data and hide info.

it's more to highlight the cherry picking and bias that was exposed in the IPCC at the time..

Akrasia

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

Known as 'occupational closure', which basically means that certain professional and/or academic bodies will appoint themselves to be only 'authority' on a specific and specialised topic.

Thats not what occupational closure is

Occupational closure is where an occupation or profession becomes a protected occupation by means of licensing or required levels of training and education before you can describe yourself as being of that profession

It refers to things like Doctors of Medicine, Lawyers, Transport Managers, Chartered Accountants etc

You are not legally allowed to describe yourself as a Barrister unless you have passed your exams and have a valid licence from the statutory body

Climatologist is not a protected term, anyone can call themselves a climate scientist, regardless of their expertise or lack thereof and frequently they do, especially when they're trying running blogs or attending contrarian conferences where they pretend that they have the knowledge or expertise to debunk an established scientific consensus.

Climate change skeptics want to pretend that anyone should be entitled to publish any of their pet theories to peer reviewed journals, and if their papers are refused, it's because there's a conspiracy to block access to the scientific literature

Meanwhile they expect that their gp has a valid license to practise medicine, their lawyer has passed his exams, the architect designing your house is a member of all the relevant professional bodies and is of good professional standing etc etc etc.

Oneiric 3

Did a short bit of googlely research on this Anthony Heller guy, and cannot find any evidence that he is what he is accused of being in this thread. Perhaps I have missed something, but I did come across this though on his 'Twitter' feed:



So, I will ask 'MindGame' once again: on what evidence are you basing your accusation that Heller is an 'Alt-Right conspiracy theorist'? As I said before, and which I am sure you can appreciate, this is quite a serious and damning accusation to make. But I am sure, since you are all about evidence yourself, that you have some of your own regarding this.

Akrasia

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

There are many 'conspiracy nuts' out there, yet don't seem to get the attention or fury aimed at them that this 'Heller' (a funny name I have to admit) guy gets. Why would that be?

Eh, If someone posted a flat earther as evidence that climate change isn't happening, i would be just as scathing towards him as I am towards Heller.

I didn't bring him onto this thread, one of the 'skeptics' did. The only reason I have ever heard of the guy is because he, and others like him, are a primary source fuelling climate change denial on the internet.
He makes up bullsh1t claims, which then get picked up by media commentators at the telegraph or Breitbart, and then repeated endlessly in forums and at dinner tables across the world.

Oneiric 3

Akrasia wrote: »

Thats not what occupational closure is

Occupational closure is where an occupation or profession becomes a protected occupation by means of licensing or required levels of training and education before you can describe yourself as being of that profession

It refers to things like Doctors of Medicine, Lawyers, Transport Managers, Chartered Accountants etc

You are not legally allowed to describe yourself as a Barrister unless you have passed your exams and have a valid licence from the statutory body

Climatologist is not a protected term, anyone can call themselves a climate scientist, regardless of their expertise or lack thereof and frequently they do, especially when they're trying running blogs or attending contrarian conferences where they pretend that they have the knowledge or expertise to debunk an established scientific consensus.

Climate change skeptics want to pretend that anyone should be entitled to publish any of their pet theories to peer reviewed journals, and if their papers are refused, it's because there's a conspiracy to block access to the scientific literature

Meanwhile they expect that their gp has a valid license to practise medicine, their lawyer has passed his exams, the architect designing your house is a member of all the relevant professional bodies and is of good professional standing etc etc etc.

There is nothing you say here that contradicts what I said.

Oneiric 3

Akrasia wrote: »

Eh, If someone posted a flat earther as evidence that climate change isn't happening, i would be just as scathing towards him as I am towards Heller.

I didn't bring him onto this thread, one of the 'skeptics' did. The only reason I have ever heard of the guy is because he, and others like him, are a primary source fuelling climate change denial on the internet.
He makes up bullsh1t claims, which then get picked up by media commentators at the telegraph or Breitbart, and then repeated endlessly in forums and at dinner tables across the world.

I know very little about him myself, but there must be something in what he says if there are credible people on this forum citing him.

posidonia

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

I know very little about him myself, but there must be something in what he says if there are credible people on this forum citing him.

Equally, there are other credible people here who point out there is nothing in what he ('Heller/Goddard') says.


Who's right?



Well, I don't think a geologist like Heller/Goddard is an atmosphere scientist - that's why my intuition tells me.



Luckily, like Heller/Goddard, I'm not an atmosphere scientist either and I too know a little about geology - so I'm as credible as Heller/Goddard :cool:.



So, by climate sceptic logic, I am as credible as him and when I categorically say Heller/Goddard has nothing to say I'm as right as he is :cool:

SeaBreezes

Longing wrote: »

No 1.

No2.

So, Arkasia I get that you don't like him.
And I understand anyone querying the narrative in your mind is a " attending contrarian conferences where they pretend that they have the knowledge or expertise to debunk an established scientific consensus"

Wow.

Zharakova - PhD in Astrophysics
Nikolov- PhD Physical Sciences
Zeller - PhD in Fluid Mechanics and Wind Engineering
Contrarions the lot of them!! Tsck. They'll give anyone a PhD in AstroPhysics these days... :-) :-)

But I will repeat Gaoth Laiders question for the third time in regards the RSS data discrepancies referred to both in the Climategate emails and illustrated in his video.

He's spot on about this.
And the NCAR graphs, and the newspapers at the time.

Your dislike of him does not change the facts.

Gaoth Laidir

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

I know very little about him myself, but there must be something in what he says if there are credible people on this forum citing him.

Don't you get it? Akrasia and Mindgame aren't out to discuss the theory, only the theorist. Akrasia's sidetepped my question twice now. If there's a valid reason for the correction of the data as shown then great, let's see it and put it to bed and expose Heller.

Gaoth Laidir

posidonia wrote: »

Equally, there are other credible people here who point out there is nothing in what he ('Heller/Goddard') says.


Who's right?



Well, I don't think a geologist like Heller/Goddard is an atmosphere scientist - that's why my intuition tells me.



Luckily, like Heller/Goddard, I'm not an atmosphere scientist either and I too know a little about geology - so I'm as credible as Heller/Goddard :cool:.



So, by climate sceptic logic, I am as credible as him and when I categorically say Heller/Goddard has nothing to say I'm as right as he is :cool:

Did you see that second video I've been talking about? I'm having trouble getting an answer on the adjusted data, so maybe you'd be good enough to provide one. That is, if you've watched them...which I'm willing to bet you haven't.