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

M.T. Cranium

Oriel36, I went through some of your posts and evidently, you think that recognition of the concept of sidereal day has caused mainstream meteorologists and astronomers to imagine that the earth rotates once per sidereal day and that this has some profound influence on their understanding of physical processes in the atmosphere.

This belief is wrong on two levels.

We do not imagine that there is a sidereal day (of approximately 23 hours 56 minutes). The earth rotates as you've said somewhere 1,461 times every four years in a frame of reference that is heliocentric. It rotates 1,465 times in that four years in a framework that is fixed-star based. You could say that it rotates 20 times a year in the frame of reference of a fast-moving westbound aircraft. Just because people can identify different frames of reference does not imply that they will give each one the same importance in meteorology. The sidereal day is just a construct, not the foundation of any sort of predictive systems in meteorology. For astronomy, it accurately predicts when fixed stars will appear to rise over the horizon (four minutes earlier than the previous day). In meteorology, as far as I know, it has never been proposed as any sort of forcing mechanism.

You posted graphs showing that the solar heating cycle is diurnal and based on the 24 hour day. But everyone active in the atmospheric sciences has known this for the entire length of time there has been any form of meterology. So I am puzzled what you think we are doing, making forecasts based on sidereal day? Nobody is doing that.

If you already knew the above, then why are you posting any of this? If you didn't know, be relieved and move on.

oriel36

M.T. Cranium wrote: »

Oriel36, I went through some of your posts and evidently, you think that recognition of the concept of sidereal day has caused mainstream meteorologists and astronomers to imagine that the earth rotates once per sidereal day and that this has some profound influence on their understanding of physical processes in the atmosphere.

This belief is wrong on two levels.

Astrophysics, not physics, has the same substance as a Nigerian internet scam or cold calling thieves exploiting vulnerable people. They make the unfortunate reader believe they speak from a position of authority and careful study but when shown exactly where they are getting their notions from they disappear only to return later to try again like you did with the 'analemma' yesterday and this crap today.

https://hypertextbook.com/facts/1999/JennyChen.shtml

Lately they even shifted away from that fiction and assigned one rotation in 24 hours back to the year 1882 -

"At the time of the dinosaurs, Earth completed one rotation in about 23 hours," says MacMillan, who is a member of the VLBI team at NASA Goddard. "In the year 1820, a rotation took exactly 24 hours, or 86,400 standard seconds. Since 1820, the mean solar day has increased by about 2.5 milliseconds." NASA


People are being played for fools by academics who have no respect for the evolution of astronomy or timekeeping. What should be conclusive only gives this meteorologist a chance to disappear and return with something equally vapid. I wish the meteorologist was a simple charlatan for at least then his behaviour could be excused but unfortunately it is behaviour gained through the education system influenced by the Royal Society empiricists of the late 17th century or the 'founding fathers' of the so-called scientific method.

These people do not know the limitations of modeling but more importantly, have no respect, absolutely none for the links between planetary motions and Earth sciences.

M.T. Cranium

GL, what we have here is a simple failure to recognize the concept of frame of reference. I am fed up with these pointless explanations of nothing of interest to nobody. Mods? Help us out here.

Now as to that variable outcome for mean year of record max, I did the same analysis for the CET daily max records and found a similar looking graph but without the peaks at either end of the winter season. A cynic might say that there is no winter season so there's your explanation.

The average of all CET record high dates is 1928 while the period (1772 to 2019) has an overall mean of 1895.5. This is a very similar forward shift to the Toronto mean of about 1953.4 vs data set average of 1930. The CET shift is about 33 years vs 248 total (13% shift) and the Toronto shift is 23 vs 180 (also 13%).

I am working on getting the two curves into the same graph for a later posting. The most prominent "recent spike" in the CET appears to be late July into early August. The most prominent "most resilient old records" trough appears to be mid March.

It would be an interesting topic for further research if these oscillating waves for the two climate zones had any sort of linked relationship, either varying in phase or alternately, but there is almost the opposite longer-wave signature through the calendar year (Toronto gets back to older records progressively until the stat reverses in November, the CET shows the opposite pattern, continuing to rise slowly to November).

An Atlantic oscillation on a long time scale perhaps? What makes it a bit tricky is the different period studied, CET already had one-quarter of its data logged when Toronto signed on. No telling what records Toronto might have set in those years 1772 to 1839.

M.T. Cranium

I apologize, that belief was wrong on three levels. I was unaware that you found fault with the long-term change in the length of day.

oriel36

M.T. Cranium wrote: »

We do not imagine that there is a sidereal day (of approximately 23 hours 56 minutes). The earth rotates as you've said somewhere 1,461 times every four years in a frame of reference that is heliocentric. It rotates 1,465 times in that four years in a framework that is fixed-star based. You could say that it rotates 20 times a year in the frame of reference of a fast-moving westbound aircraft.

This is for reasonable adults.

The anchor for daily rotation is the noon cycle with the Sun as a stationary reference, the cause and effect is the day/night cycle along with temperature fluctuations in response to that rotation -

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


The people who were pushing the 'solar vs sidereal' fiction that the noon cycle and the day/night cycle could be bypassed and one rotation could be discerned using a clock by appealing directly to stellar circumpolar motion hence 200+ years of awful celestial sphere modeling -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYy0EQBnqHI

" 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


People giving themselves an infinite amount of choices to suit whatever particular conclusion they desire are the actions of scam artists so although such a insidious ability may be useful for politics, it is lethal for Earth sciences.

Spare me apologizes, if you have any sense of what you were doing you would be working towards recovering climate science to a positive topic that it is. I am sure you got a kick out of seeing all those 'analemma' posts wiped out yesterday..

Nabber

Oriel where is the point in all of this?

Astronomy: Can accurately predict sunrise, motion of the planets, location of stars in the night sky, orbit of the moon ect. It seems unlikely that we stumbled upon a flawed ability to predict celestial objects accurately.


Is your issue with the measurement of time? Which I agree is dated like imperial measurement, they are accurate but complicated. A metric measurement of time would be the dogs bollox ðŸ˜

It seems the root of your argument is comparative to the motor industry using HP as an measurement. Where no horse shares the same power and thus all measurements of an engines abilities are flawed and to the be accepted.

You haven’t provided an alternative, you have haven’t provided much of anything. You talk in riddles and then defend the riddles by ridiculing your audience as lacking the ability to understand.

Do you lack the ability to talk in layman’s terms? When providing your age do you communicate it as “15,000 heliocentric orbits on a 0 degree axial tilt discounting the charlatans rule III”


Your argument of the flaws in measurement of earths movement sharing the same inaccuracies as AGW is in itself flawed.

One is a theory with numerous failed predictions using endless theories to support its base, on an agreed consensus that the planet is warming.

The other has the ability to predict accurately 10s of years in advance.

Akrasia

Nabber wrote: »

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?

I don’t attack people’s character, I bring up things that are relevant to their scientific reputation. If you have an accurate reputation for regularly misunderstanding basic science and for making up and distorting the findings of other scientists then you deservedly lose credibility

I don’t care if someone is an altar boy in their personal life as long as they are honest and have scientific integrity.

This doesn’t mean that all of their science is automatically invalid, it just means that they have a huge mountain to climb to regain the respect of their peers and for others to take them seriously

It takes years to build up a reputation as a honest rigorous scientist with good scientific integrity. Why should attention seeking charlatans be allowed to monopolize our attention by making outlandish claims attacking the work and character of other scientists when their own track record full of inaccurate and dishonest conspiracy laden nonsense

Akrasia

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..

What’s your opinion on the 8 independent investigations that cleared the ‘climategate’ scientists of any scientific misconduct. The worst that can be said was that they didn’t properly respond to the FOI requests, but those were clearly nuisance requests (as found by the investigations)

Gaoth Laidir

Akrasia wrote: »

I don’t attack people’s character, I bring up things that are relevant to their scientific reputation. If you have an accurate reputation for regularly misunderstanding basic science and for making up and distorting the findings of other scientists then you deservedly lose credibility

I don’t care if someone is an altar boy in their personal life as long as they are honest and have scientific integrity.

This doesn’t mean that all of their science is automatically invalid, it just means that they have a huge mountain to climb to regain the respect of their peers and for others to take them seriously

It takes years to build up a reputation as a honest rigorous scientist with good scientific integrity. Why should attention seeking charlatans be allowed to monopolize our attention by making outlandish claims attacking the work and character of other scientists when their own track record full of inaccurate and dishonest conspiracy laden nonsense

That's all well and good, but what about those qualified scientists who've held numerous high-ranking positions at various institutions around the world (IPCC, ECMWF, NASA Goddard Institute, Niels Bohr Institute, etc., such as Ray Bates (all of the above, and more)? You have a personal hatred for Bates and make no secret of it, being the reason for your outright condemnation of his last paper without even reading it. Surely you can't have it both ways.

http://www.raybates.net/#

SeaBreezes

More contrarions with actual data:
Irish father and son team.
Published on Aug 16, 2019
Dr. Ronan Connolly & Dr. Michael Connolly
Center for Environmental Research and Earth Sciences
https://www.ceres-science.com ..

Like Nikolov they are working from observed data.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XfRBr7PEawY&feature=emb_logo

Meteorite58

Mod Note: oriel36 you need to follow the Moderator instructions to stay on topic and adhere to the forum charter.

Your posts do not belong in this thread. They may be better suited in an Astronomy forum or such like.

The repetitious nature of your posts need to stop as they are clogging up the thread and taking it off topic.

Akrasia

SeaBreezes wrote: »

More contrarions with actual data:
Irish father and son team.
Published on Aug 16, 2019
Dr. Ronan Connolly & Dr. Michael Connolly
Center for Environmental Research and Earth Sciences
https://www.ceres-science.com ..

Like Nikolov they are working from observed data.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XfRBr7PEawY&feature=emb_logo

Why on earth would you choose to believe these guys. You clearly can not assess their scientific findings yourself. What makes these chancers more believable than NASA?

SeaBreezes

Akrasia wrote: »

Why on earth would you choose to believe these guys. You clearly can not assess their scientific findings yourself. What makes these chancers more believable than NASA?

Listen here they explain it all

https://omny.fm/shows/danielle-smith/understanding-weather-and-climate

Water John

Haven't listened to that yet, but that Ceres site is largely a self publishing site as they are writers/cowriters of three of the five papers.

One is always cautious that there is a lot of fossil fuel lobby money available to throw smoke in peoples eyes. Some may be unwitting recipients.

It is evolving and I have an open mind. In my area, agriculture for example, in recent years ruminant animals have been vilified. Now it's emerged that if you're herd is static in numbers you're not increasing the GHG as the CH4 has only a 10 year life span. The vilification of animal agriculture was also hijacked by the vegan proponents for their agenda.

Nabber

Akrasia wrote: »

I don’t attack people’s character, I bring up things that are relevant to their scientific reputation.

Akrasia wrote: »

Why on earth would you choose to believe these guys. You clearly can not assess their scientific findings yourself. What makes these chancers more believable than NASA?

As expected, no change, attack the authour not the data.

Your posts are only 40mins apart

SeaBreezes

Water John wrote: »

Haven't listened to that yet, but that Ceres site is largely a self publishing site as they are writers/cowriters of three of the five papers.

One is always cautious that there is a lot of fossil fuel lobby money available to throw smoke in peoples eyes. Some may be unwitting recipients.

It is evolving and I have an open mind. In my area, agriculture for example, in recent years ruminant animals have been vilified. Now it's emerged that if you're herd is static in numbers you're not increasing the GHG as the CH4 has only a 10 year life span. The vilification of animal agriculture was also hijacked by the vegan proponents for their agenda.

Agreed. Eat local, uses the least resources.

https://ronanconnollyscience.com/
Scroll down to the bottom there are links to the 5 peer reviewed papers.

Oneiric 3

Messing around with some data here regarding the 'AMO' index, of which Heller's video last night sparked a little of my interest. The chart below shows the relationship between Arctic temperatures (as per the 'ERA 20C 1900-2010 reanalysis series via Climate Reanalyzer and the AMO index via KNMI)



Seems to be a reasonable amount of correlation between both, but what I found interesting is that rather than the 'AMO' state influencing the temperature profile in the Arctic, it would seem that it is temperature profile of the Arctic that would more have an influence on the state of the AMO. Perhaps this is common knowledge already, but I found it to be interesting.

Oneiric 3

Water John wrote: »

The vilification of animal agriculture was also hijacked by the vegan proponents for their agenda.

And this is the thing. the issue of climate change' seems to have been hijacked by many 'sub-cultures', such as sub- intelligent 'feminist' types (of which I linked an article on this about a week or so ago), 'Vegans' as you say, and the more political types who fancy themselves as being 'communistic' or 'socialist', though with a little prodding it is easy enough to reveal that they really are neither of these beneath that shallow outer layer they like to portray.

Gaoth Laidir

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

Messing around with some data here regarding the 'AMO' index, of which Heller's video last night sparked a little of my interest. The chart below shows the relationship between Arctic temperatures (as per the 'ERA 20C 1900-2010 reanalysis series via Climate Reanalyzer and the AMO index via KNMI)



Seems to be a reasonable amount of correlation between both, but what I found interesting is that rather than the 'AMO' state influencing the temperature profile in the Arctic, it would seem that it is temperature profile of the Arctic that would more have an influence on the state of the AMO. Perhaps this is common knowledge already, but I found it to be interesting.

It's is well known that the AMO affects Arctic sea ice extent around Svalbard and the Barents Sea, with less ice during increasing AMO mode.

Also, the AMO is responsible for 90% of Ireland's temperature variability (and also for western Europe to a lesser extent).

https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/wea.2543

Nabber

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

And this is the thing. the issue of climate change' seems to have been hijacked by many 'sub-cultures', such as sub- intelligent 'feminist' types (of which I linked an article on this about a week or so ago), 'Vegans' as you say, and the more political types who fancy themselves as being 'communistic' or 'socialist', though with a little prodding it is easy enough to reveal that they really are neither of these beneath that shallow outer layer they like to portray.

I would say the majority of people who agree with the mainstream theory of AGW don’t understand the basic premise of climate and its variations.

An ideology encompasses the theory now, where the message portrayed or at least allowed to manifest is that pre AGW climates where stable,.... dry arid lands didn’t burn, flood plains didn’t flood, tornadoes were dust devils, hurricanes were bad storms, ice never melted ect...

Some recent example of this manifestation being encouraged:

Wild fires in Australia - Not the worst fires, not even touching 1970. Never discussed

Brazil Forests Fires- Also not the worst year. Not mentioned.

Rainforests the lungs of the earth - also not true, but unchallenged.

Hurricanes more frequent- not true, not challenged

Hurricanes stronger - not true, not challenged

No confirmed species on brink of extinction due directly to temperature change or to AGW Theory. Never challenged but Attenborough’s go to in every documentary.

These are but a few.

Climate science has been hijacked by MSM and politics, funding alarmist rhetoric fuelled by human impact of climate and weather. Listing weather disasters by $ cost or human lives.
Very little progressive policies exist, the current policies are disproportionate to the classes. A family of 5 with an income €60,000 incurs a similar tax burden as a single adult earning €300,000.

Those that do advocate stricter policies do very little to support their beliefs. They are merely populist mouth pieces, who live identically to ‘skeptics’ but claim a moral high ground because they ‘believe’.

Never has science been ‘settled’ until now. Skeptics are not welcome, rather run out of town and a destroyed career added for good measure, a warning to those who dare.

Thargor

SeaBreezes wrote: »

Listen here they explain it all

https://omny.fm/shows/danielle-smith/understanding-weather-and-climate

Can you just try and make a point without posting links to irrelevant denier videos and podcasts? Its more irritating than Oriels Dynamics of the Celestial Spheres gibberish, and with less relevant content.

Oneiric 3

Nabber wrote: »

I would say the majority of people who agree with the mainstream theory of AGW don’t understand the basic premise of climate and its variations.

An ideology encompasses the theory now, where the message portrayed or at least allowed to manifest is that pre AGW climates where stable,.... dry arid lands didn’t burn, flood plains didn’t flood, tornadoes were dust devils, hurricanes were bad storms, ice never melted ect...

Some recent example of this manifestation being encouraged:

Wild fires in Australia - Not the worst fires, not even touching 1970. Never discussed

Brazil Forests Fires- Also not the worst year. Not mentioned.

Rainforests the lungs of the earth - also not true, but unchallenged.

Hurricanes more frequent- not true, not challenged

Hurricanes stronger - not true, not challenged

No confirmed species on brink of extinction due directly to temperature change or to AGW Theory. Never challenged but Attenborough’s go to in every documentary.

These are but a few.

Climate science has been hijacked by MSM and politics, funding alarmist rhetoric fuelled by human impact of climate and weather. Listing weather disasters by $ cost or human lives.
Very little progressive policies exist, the current policies are disproportionate to the classes. A family of 5 with an income €60,000 incurs a similar tax burden as a single adult earning €300,000.

Those that do advocate stricter policies do very little to support their beliefs. They are merely populist mouth pieces, who live identically to ‘skeptics’ but claim a moral high ground because they ‘believe’.

Never has science been ‘settled’ until now. Skeptics are not welcome, rather run out of town and a destroyed career added for good measure, a warning to those who dare.

An interesting observation here:
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2019/06/the-end-is-nigh-the-rise-of-middle-class-apocalypticism/

Abstract:
"Every day we are told repeatedly that ‘catastrophe’ awaits. It will be ‘-catastrophic’ if we leave the EU without a deal, ‘catastrophic’ if America withdraws from the Paris Agreement on climate change, ‘catastrophic’ if we push ahead with fracking, ‘catastrophic’ if Jeremy Corbyn becomes prime minister and so on.

The whingeing middle classes have convinced themselves that the game’s up to such an extent that it seems almost rude not to join them in their grumbling. It used to be only fogeyish Tories who thought the world was ‘going to the dogs’. Now everybody does.

Whether it’s the end of democracy, the destruction of the environment, the rise of populism, impending famine in Africa, fears over nuclear warfare, the pollution of our oceans, the threat of terrorism, worries about how the young will become homeowners, the increase in the cost of private education, the lack of decent avocados in Waitrose, the endless roadworks on the M4 — whatever your gripe, the bourgeois apocalypse is upon us".

Oneiric 3

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

It's is well known that the AMO affects Arctic sea ice extent around Svalbard and the Barents Sea, with less ice during increasing AMO mode.

Also, the AMO is responsible for 90% of Ireland's temperature variability (and also for western Europe to a lesser extent).

https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/wea.2543

I have no doubt, and thanks for the link, I'll take a gander later tonight. My point was more about the long term trends in both the Arctic temperature profile and that of the AMO, as it would seem that the AMO state would more likely follow long term temperature trends in wider Arctic region, as you will notice something of a 'lag' response regarding the trend of the AMO in response to the fluctuating temps of the Arctic.

Edit, looking back at what I wrote there, and it just comes across as wandering waffle.

Akrasia

Thargor wrote: »

Can you just try and make a point without posting links to irrelevant denier videos and podcasts? Its more irritating than Oriels Dynamics of the Celestial Spheres gibberish, and with less relevant content.

The gist of the interview was that this clown thinks that there has been no warming, it was all the urban heat island effect and disproven by weather balloons. Did you bother checking these claims?

Why do you think this interview makes him more credible than the rest of the scientists
(including people with actual climate science qualifications)

Akrasia

Nabber wrote: »

As expected, no change, attack the authour not the data.

Your posts are only 40mins apart

I think chancer is a fairly good term for someone who sets up their own journal so they can get their own articles ‘peer reviewed’

posidonia

Water John wrote: »

Haven't listened to that yet, but that Ceres site is largely a self publishing site as they are writers/cowriters of three of the five papers.

One is always cautious that there is a lot of fossil fuel lobby money available to throw smoke in peoples eyes. Some may be unwitting recipients.

It is evolving and I have an open mind. In my area, agriculture for example, in recent years ruminant animals have been vilified. Now it's emerged that if you're herd is static in numbers you're not increasing the GHG as the CH4 has only a 10 year life span. The vilification of animal agriculture was also hijacked by the vegan proponents for their agenda.

Doesn't CH4 break down into CO2?


And shouldn't people be free to eat what they want and to say what they want about what they eat?

posidonia

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

And this is the thing. the issue of climate change' seems to have been hijacked by many 'sub-cultures', such as sub- intelligent 'feminist' types (of which I linked an article on this about a week or so ago), 'Vegans' as you say, and the more political types who fancy themselves as being 'communistic' or 'socialist', though with a little prodding it is easy enough to reveal that they really are neither of these beneath that shallow outer layer they like to portray.

'sub-intelligent feminists types? Would you be a intelligent man?

Akrasia

Nabber wrote: »

I would say the majority of people who agree with the mainstream theory of AGW don’t understand the basic premise of climate and its variations.
.

lol. Are you including the vast majority of actual climate scientists amongst the list of people who do not understand the basic premise of climate and it's variations?

Or is it just the random internet bloggers and people with irrelevant qualifications and education who actually understand what climate is.

posidonia

Nabber wrote: »

I would say the majority of people who agree with the mainstream theory of AGW don’t understand the basic premise of climate and its variations.

But you do?

An ideology encompasses the theory now, where the message portrayed or at least allowed to manifest is that pre AGW climates where stable,.... dry arid lands didn’t burn, flood plains didn’t flood, tornadoes were dust devils, hurricanes were bad storms, ice never melted ect...

Clearly a ridiculous assertion. Its about magnitude, rate of occurrence - change.

Some recent example of this manifestation being encouraged:

Wild fires in Australia - Not the worst fires, not even touching 1970. Never discussed

Brazil Forests Fires- Also not the worst year. Not mentioned.

Rainforests the lungs of the earth - also not true, but unchallenged.

Hurricanes more frequent- not true, not challenged

Hurricanes stronger - not true, not challenged

No confirmed species on brink of extinction due directly to temperature change or to AGW Theory. Never challenged but Attenborough’s go to in every documentary.

These are but a few.

Climate science has been hijacked by MSM and politics, funding alarmist rhetoric fuelled by human impact of climate and weather. Listing weather disasters by $ cost or human lives.
Very little progressive policies exist, the current policies are disproportionate to the classes. A family of 5 with an income €60,000 incurs a similar tax burden as a single adult earning €300,000.

Those that do advocate stricter policies do very little to support their beliefs. They are merely populist mouth pieces, who live identically to ‘skeptics’ but claim a moral high ground because they ‘believe’.

Never has science been ‘settled’ until now. Skeptics are not welcome, rather run out of town and a destroyed career added for good measure, a warning to those who dare.

Am I allowed to challenge you?



Fires. Generally, as more is burnt or cleared (tropics) there is less left to burn? Wrt 1970 you are simply wrong - or at least you are comparing burning grasslands are the and burning forests that normally never burn? Apples V oranges.



Why are there species on the brink of extinction?



Can I challenge you to provides statistics to back up your claims about hurricanes please? You make the claims.

posidonia

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

It's is well known that the AMO affects Arctic sea ice extent around Svalbard and the Barents Sea, with less ice during increasing AMO mode.

Also, the AMO is responsible for 90% of Ireland's temperature variability (and also for western Europe to a lesser extent).

Is it possible temperature variation is, in some part, responsible for changes in the 'AMO' - if the 'AMO' actually exists? Am I allowed to wonder if that is possible?