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

posidonia

SeaBreezes wrote: »

Still waiting ....

So the question still remains regarding that second video and the Mears' alleged adjustment of the RSS data to better match the model projections. Doesn't matter if Heller brought it up. If it's true it's true, and vice versa.

Also the NCAR data 'adjustments' ...

Also the extreme temps in Middle East and Africa WHERE they have NO sensors...

Then let Heller take the evidence to the police (or are the police in on the scam?). As it is he, and you, are mud slinging.

SeaBreezes

posidonia wrote: »

Where is HIS graph of what HE THINKS global temperature really are over the last 150 years? Why is he making accusations all the time? Why doesn’t he just tell us what he thinks the true record of global temperature over the last 150 years is?

He shows you when he overlays the original (unadjusted) NCAR data against the new adjusted data?

And choosing the higher error margin every time? From only one model? The one that suits the narrative?
Who's cherry picking there? How on earth is that ANY kind of credible science?

Even the met office warned them against it as bad science.. and that was in 2007, and that was when they used the MEAN of the error margin.

How did you miss all that info?

posidonia

Longing wrote: »

Tony really slaps those alarmists with there fake predictions. I mean propaganda.

History can be a real pain is the ass.

Its late, but I guess I'll 'have' to go through this video too, at some point. Can you give me an idea how many I'll have to refute before you stop posting them?

Gaoth Laidir

posidonia wrote: »

I know, but you recycled what Heller said. But, it's never nice being accused (and wrongfully) is it......Heller knows if he throws enough mud he might be able to get some to stick.

What does recycled mean? You wrote out running commentaries on his two videos earlier. Does that constitute recycling too? Despite all the words, your summary was not based on facts but more on a sarcastic tone that I reckon you had decided to adopt before clicking Play. Pretty much exactly what you accuse Heller of doing himself.

posidonia

SeaBreezes wrote: »

He shows you when he overlays the original (unadjusted) NCAR data against the new adjusted data?

And choosing the higher error margin every time? From only one model? The one that suits the narrative?
Who's cherry picking there?

Heller.

How on earth is that ANY kind of credible science?

Even the met office warned them against it as bad science.. and that was in 2007, and that was when they used the MEAN of the error margin.

How did you miss all that info?

You asked people to look at the video and give their views, I did that.

M.T. Cranium

Not sure what happened to that amended version of "Tormax" but will try again, have a look below the original graph, around cells A48 and below, I have added a graph of the average dates of record highs through the year. It shows quite clearly that the only parts of the year really responding to the postulated recent warming are the early and late portions of winter. All other parts of the year have seen a more random distribution within the warmer phase since 1890.

(renamed file, hope it is visible now)

SeaBreezes

posidonia wrote: »

Heller.
You asked people to look at the video and give their views, I did that.

I didn't. I asked for anyone to show how those two examples of data adjustment that he illustrated was incorrect.

You can't because in this case, he's correct.

I don't know the man, and I don't have to agree with everything he says or does, it's not a cult, it's a critical analysis of these three points.

1) NCAR pre and post adjustment..

2) RSS values, also only using the one model... UK met disapproved,

3) Highest temps in Sept from a landmass where there ARE no sensors? Are these guesstimated? Where do they come from?

But your ok with this? You think it is credible science? That's fine.

I don't.

Longing

posidonia wrote: »

Its late, but I guess I'll 'have' to go through this video too, at some point. Can you give me an idea how many I'll have to refute before you stop posting them?

You haven't giving any evidence to show the charts Heller showed were wrong. You tried to divert the true data you saw into something that was not relevant.

By the way I can't wait for your reply to the last Heller video I posted.

Oneiric 3

Watched the first couple of vids in that series. My God, but he does drone on a bit, but he did make a good point the the 'AMO' and its relationship to the Reykjavik temp series. I think I posted a chart a few years back of Valentia data and its relationship to the AMO and while there was a clear correlation, I don't think it was as marked.. but my memory is pulp so I could be wrong there.

I see there is a 'Part 3' in the playlist waiting to be watched. It can feck off till tomorrow.

SeaBreezes

Longing wrote: »

Yes the did.

Tony will tell you. Listen and watch.


No 1.

No2.

By the way thanks for the videos Longing! Certainly sparked a lively debate.

Akrasia

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

What does recycled mean? You wrote out running commentaries on his two videos earlier. Does that constitute recycling too? Despite all the words, your summary was not based on facts but more on a sarcastic tone that I reckon you had decided to adopt before clicking Play. Pretty much exactly what you accuse Heller of doing himself.

Its hard to watch that video series without coming away with the impression that Heller is a total spoofer

You can say he just had a bad day, but those exchanges happened over 8 months and he had ample opportunity to prepare

Can you think of a single point he made that was properly insightful or demonstrated a good grasp of the subject matter beyond what you would expect from an undergraduate coasting through a climate change module in a general science degree?

Do you recognise that he made a number of fundamental errors in his interpretation of scientific papers as pointed out by Hadfield (potholer54)?

Akrasia

SeaBreezes wrote: »

By the way thanks for the videos Longing! Certainly sparked a lively debate.

Nobody has said anything in support of Heller yet except 'watch the video and tell us why this specific video is wrong'



I notice nobody has taken up the challenge of finding any flaws in the document I linked to...

SeaBreezes

"Akrasia wrote: »

Can you think of a single point he made that was properly insightful or demonstrated a good grasp of the subject?

1) NCAR data 'adjusted' to hide previous warming. Illustrated with overlaid charts.

2) RSS data 'adjusted' to show warming (Met Office not happy not good science) also illustrated.

3) Max temps listed in places there are NO sensors? Is it guesstimated? To the highest error margin again?

SeaBreezes

Akrasia wrote: »

Nobody has said anything in support of Heller yet except 'watch the video and tell us why this specific video is wrong'



I notice nobody has taken up the challenge of finding any flaws in the document I linked to...

You first :-)

Gaoth Laidir

M.T. Cranium wrote: »

Not sure what happened to that amended version of "Tormax" but will try again, have a look below the original graph, around cells A48 and below, I have added a graph of the average dates of record highs through the year. It shows quite clearly that the only parts of the year really responding to the postulated recent warming are the early and late portions of winter. All other parts of the year have seen a more random distribution within the warmer phase since 1890.

(renamed file, hope it is visible now)

Here's the chart you speak of, posted here for easier discussion. It certainly is an interesting way of looking at things and does pose some strong questions. It would be good to have it for more locations.

M.T. Cranium

Thanks for posting that version, so to cut out the step of clicking on the file to see the discussion --

(the posted version has the two colours reversed, if GL can edit his post, the blue and red should have each other's explanation above the graph)

the blue curve in the graph is elapsed average date of record high (in the period 1840 to 2019). Most of the records come from the warmer climate period that began around 1890. But I've found that the frequency of new records did not accelerate significantly, except in the two parts of the year where the red curves (running 10-d mean) get up around 1980, namely late Nov into Dec, and Feb into March. In other words, the start and end of the winter season -- that's when recent temperature increases have peaked. On a daily basis (graph will be available in a day or two) the peak increases occur Feb 19-21 and Nov 29-Dec 2.

Towards mid-winter, the modern warming fades out and January has not shown much warming at all, in fact Jan 19-20 have cooled since 1970, and several other parts of January have shown no real change. From April to mid-November, the red oscillating curves show that most of the record highs are well back in the data period. The number of new records set, as I mentioned in a previous post, is far from spectacular in May-June and August-September. July seems to be somewhat more evenly mixed but then I found that the only new July records have replaced the seven weakest records from the old set -- the stronger records in the upper 90s and low 100s F remain in place.

This is a very similar finding to the arctic studies that I have done -- except that up at those latitudes, the warming comes in May and September as those are the ends of the much longer winter season.

My conclusion is that this is all more easily explained by changes in the circulation bringing warm air masses north more frequently, than by air mass modification which is the implied mechanism of the AGW signal. I do think there has been subtle air mass modification but not enough to change the frequency of record highs. Possibly the increase in cloudiness that some research has mentioned is off-setting the air mass modification and making it more of a nocturnal phenomenon.

Gaoth Laidir

M.T. Cranium wrote: »

Thanks for posting that version, so to cut out the step of clicking on the file to see the discussion --

(the posted version has the two colours reversed, if GL can edit his post, the blue and red should have each other's explanation above the graph)

the blue curve in the graph is elapsed average date of record high (in the period 1840 to 2019). Most of the records come from the warmer climate period that began around 1890. But I've found that the frequency of new records did not accelerate significantly, except in the two parts of the year where the red curves (running 10-d mean) get up around 1980, namely late Nov into Dec, and Feb into March. In other words, the start and end of the winter season -- that's when recent temperature increases have peaked. On a daily basis (graph will be available in a day or two) the peak increases occur Feb 19-21 and Nov 29-Dec 2.

Towards mid-winter, the modern warming fades out and January has not shown much warming at all, in fact Jan 19-20 have cooled since 1970, and several other parts of January have shown no real change. From April to mid-November, the red oscillating curves show that most of the record highs are well back in the data period. The number of new records set, as I mentioned in a previous post, is far from spectacular in May-June and August-September. July seems to be somewhat more evenly mixed but then I found that the only new July records have replaced the seven weakest records from the old set -- the stronger records in the upper 90s and low 100s F remain in place.

This is a very similar finding to the arctic studies that I have done -- except that up at those latitudes, the warming comes in May and September as those are the ends of the much longer winter season.

My conclusion is that this is all more easily explained by changes in the circulation bringing warm air masses north more frequently, than by air mass modification which is the implied mechanism of the AGW signal. I do think there has been subtle air mass modification but not enough to change the frequency of record highs. Possibly the increase in cloudiness that some research has mentioned is off-setting the air mass modification and making it more of a nocturnal phenomenon.

Sorry, fixed my stupid mistake now. Here's the first chart in the file too.

Nabber

Akrasia wrote: »

While I'm doing this, can one of the skeptics on here take a look at this for me please?

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/05/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full_wcover.pdf

Now, you need to go through it and check every single claim you disagree with and provide evidence from a good authoritative source for why this claim is wrong.
It's a bit long so I'll be patient, you don't have to do it all at once. Who wants to start it off?

IPPC Chairman (at the time) Rajendra K. Pachauri. Is he still battling sexual harassment charges?
For that reason I can't read that document.


Am I doing it right Akrasia? Or do I attack his character some more?

M.T. Cranium

Thanks a lot, I should just add that the "random chance" line in the second graph posted only applies to the records set in each year not the retained records which all have the same probability of 2.03 per year after 180 years.

So it's only the orange-red / blue lines which relate to the descending curve of expected numbers of records. (these are more or less the same measure, the blue shows days with a record, the orange-red reduces that by ties to its statistical count, e.g., a year has ten records but one is a tie, so the true count is 9.5 for that year).

The orange-yellow line at the bottom of the graph refers to retained records and every year has the same chance of holding those, you can see where the climate really warmed up from the surge in retained records around 1900.

M.T. Cranium

As to the document we were asked to review, the obvious problem leaps off the page in the graph showing relative size of forcings. Natural variability is assigned a + or - 0.1 C deg input. This is far too small. So it shows that the entire premise of the IPCC is wrong, that the demonstrated increases in greenhouse gases are not the entire cause of the warming we have seen, and may not even be the main cause.

However, the main foundation of my unease with the IPCC approach is a false sense of security that they create with their concept of avoiding thermal catastrophe by going green. It won't work. There isn't enough variation in that factor to make our partial changes (full-scale changes just lead to another form of disaster) capable of making a large impact on what I would see as nearly inevitable warming anyway.

If the IPCC have that factor wrong then everything else they say is disproportionate to the reality of climate change. This is what they are tasked to work out, and I think they have failed.

SeaBreezes

Leo Meyer He co-authored IPCC several reports during the Fourth Assessment (2005-2007) Climategate emails are from then... if he knew, he didn't speak up...
PhD in energy conservation and economics..

Wanderer78

SeaBreezes wrote:

Leo Meyer He co-authored IPCC several reports during the Fourth Assessment (2005-2007) Climategate emails are from then... if he knew, he didn't speak up... PhD in energy conservation and economics..

Please tell me, not neoclassically trained?

oriel36

It is clear that empirical followers can't speak the language of astronomy and especially where the links between planetary motions and Earth sciences are concerned. Like all languages it can be difficult initially but with time it becomes effortless and then people can judge not only the differences between geocentric and heliocentric language but where a lot of perspectives need expansion and modification and particularly Earth sciences like climate.

The rise of celestial sphere software allied to theoretical empiricism (is there any other kind !) has created the most grotesque spectacle since humans set foot on the planet. Celestial sphere modelers which incorporate academic modeling of 'climate change' are sub-geocentric or more plainly, they are further removed from heliocentric language than the antecedent geocentric astronomers.

Yes it is as bad as people can imagine for celestial sphere notions like 'big bang' are celebrated but for the geocentric astronomers they generated these absurd 'no centre/ no circumference' conclusions for the entire Universe -

"And wherever anyone would be, he would believe himself to be at the centre. Therefore, merge these different imaginative pictures so that the centre is the zenith and vice versa. Thereupon you will see- through the intellect..that the world and its motion and shape cannot be apprehended. For [the Universe] will appear as a wheel in a wheel and a sphere in a sphere-- having its centre and circumference nowhere. . . " Nicolas of Cusa prior to the heliocentric system


This is why they now model the seasons where the Earth is the centre of all motions. It is also why, after thousands of years of a noble astronomical heritage, the modelers have the Sun wander, the Earth stationary and all conclusions are based on a zero axial inclination -

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

Astronomical language is gentle, never crude or beyond the ability of the observer with integrity and respect for its traditions. It inspires as well as presents so many facets to explore and appreciate yet the 'explanation' above represents something really wrong with our society presently so the incentive is to learn the genuine language of astronomy as a cultural pursuit first.

M.T. Cranium

Yeah, we're tilted on our axis, we know. It does explain a lot -- seasons, climate zones, the whole she-bang.

Where did you get the idea that nobody noticed this?

posidonia

SeaBreezes wrote: »

1) NCAR data 'adjusted' to hide previous warming. Illustrated with overlaid charts.

2) RSS data 'adjusted' to show warming (Met Office not happy not good science) also illustrated.

3) Max temps listed in places there are NO sensors? Is it guesstimated? To the highest error margin again?

He, Heller, posts no proof he's right. He's just says he's right. That is all.



I'm still waiting for you, or anyone, to post any evidence Heller is right - other than you agree with Heller that Heller is right...

posidonia

Longing wrote: »

You haven't giving any evidence to show the charts Heller showed were wrong. You tried to divert the true data you saw into something that was not relevant.

By the way I can't wait for your reply to the last Heller video I posted.

Is it worth my effort? I can't see you saying 'yes, you have a point' to anything I might write?

oriel36

It is not possible to have a reasonable discussion for it is all 'everybody knows this or we all know that' while descriptions shows a group of people lost when it comes to cause and effect where planetary motions are involved. Much like the founder of the 'scientific method', they simply rig an 'explanation' to suit whatever conclusion they draw yet astronomy doesn't operate like experimental sciences and never did.

"When the ordinary man hears that the Church told Galileo that he might teach Copernicanism as a hypothesis which saved all the celestial phenomena satisfactorily, but "not as being the truth," he laughs. But this was really how Ptolemaic astronomy had been taught! In its actual place in history it was not a casuistical quibble; it was the refusal (unjustified it may be) to allow the introduction of a new and momentous doctrine. It was not simply a new theory of the nature of the celestial movements that was feared, but a new theory of the nature of theory; namely, that, if a hypothesis saves all the appearances. It is identical with truth." Barfield 1957

The Royal Society empiricists, unknown to that author above although he came close, tried to insist that experimental predictions derived from observations could be proposed as universal truths or the 'universal theories'. This is where the fuss about conditions in a common greenhouse can be applied to the Earth's atmosphere as a 'universal truth' with all the dire predictions and societal anxiety attached.

Had people any sense of astonishment, they would be immediately repulsed by the current 'explanation' for the seasons with an Earth with a zero degree axial inclination derived from celestial sphere software in much the same way 'big bang' is also from the same awful doctrine. The inability to discuss cause and effect like reasonable people is dismaying so political reactions like 'what's your point or everybody knows' are irritating in the absence of any common ground for discussion. What looks off-topic is really central to any discussion on climate and a move away from the murky world of empirical modeling and its excesses.

Gaoth Laidir

Oriel, I'd be interested to know why the Big Bang is an awful idea, but please start your own thread so it doesn't derail this one. Off with you.

oriel36

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Oriel, I'd be interested to know why the Big Ban is an awful idea, but please start your own thread so it doesn't derail this one. Off with you.

Ah, celestial sphere modeling uses RA/Dec where the Earth is not only the centre of the solar system (in the case of 'big bang' the centre of the universe) but has a zero degree axial inclination as well so unlike the geocentric astronomers who at least recognised the direct motion of the Sun through the constellations, those Royal Society gob****es put the Sun in a wandering motion relative the Earth rotational equator -

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

When that happens you get an 'explanation' for the seasons using an Earth with a non-existent zero degree axial inclination and without objections from the hapless followers like yourself and the meteorologist -

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


Everyone else should be astonished but then again it is only a matter of learning basic astronomical language linking cause and effect. As for yourselves, it is more like schoolyard politics or perpetual empirical students and their exceptionally dull conclusion.

Gaoth Laidir

Oriel, did you read what I said? I asked about the Big Bang but to be explained in a new thread. Don't reply to this. Please...