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

Mr Bumble

oriel36 wrote: »

Challenge indeed !, more like a fly challenging a train.

Rotational inclination is determined by two traits - a maximum equatorial speed of 1037.5 mph diminishing to zero at the North and South poles and secondly the relationship of that inclination to the orbital plane (blue line).

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

To account for the single day/night cycle at the North and South Poles with a seasonal expansion and contraction of surface area (with the North/South Poles at the centre) where the Sun is constantly in view and out of sight with a maximum expansion coincident with the Arctic and Antarctic latitudes, a single fact must be recognised.

In the absence of daily rotation and all its effects, the entire surface of the planet turns once to the central Sun each orbit as a function of the orbital motion of the planet

I can do my own challenging but much prefer reasonable people who can work with why there is a single sunrise and sunset at the North and South polar latitudes each year unless people find words like North Pole, parallel to the orbital plane, Arctic circle to be obscure language.


If 'climate change' was brexit, the proponents would be conservatives while the opponents would be labour with the wider and correct perspectives existing on a different road where reasonable people exist. It is all about human temperature control of the planet's temperatures so couching the issue in terms of empirical modeling as to whether data shows a natural or human influence is a distraction from the main conclusion. I well understand the desperation in the reactions to get back to data and graph warfare with a plea for banning but then again this comes from a meteorologist who refuses to accept the conclusions derived from a basic temperature graph where fluctuations follow daily rotation once each day and a thousand times in a thousand days.

Ban me if that is what is desired but make no mistake, the perpetual student venture of 'climate change' comes from those who lack integrity, discipline, inspiration and all those other traits which make people responsible and accountable adults. That is not an insult, that is the human nature at its finest.

I've tried hard to understand what it is you're saying oriel. I have no scientific backround and have never made a model or a graph in my life. I would hope that I'm one of the good people of Ireland. CAn you explain in terms I can grasp what it is you're saying please.

Mr Bumble

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

I'm as much fascinated with the incredible length of Akrasia's image as I am the content!

I didn't get beyond 17500 at which time the planet started to warm(unexplained) and then the CO2 began to rise (unexplained) and then the warming got faster (unexplained).


Maybe the lost civilisation Randall Carlson has been talking about was pumping out Co2 to beat the band and we just can't find the chimneys.

Oneiric 3

Mr Bumble wrote: »

I've tried hard to understand what it is you're saying oriel. I have no scientific backround and have never made a model or a graph in my life. I would hope that I'm one of the good people of Ireland. CAn you explain in terms I can grasp what it is you're saying please.

I would advise that you don't engage Mr. Bumble. I made that mistake and ended up being accused of marvelling at the ingenuity of the Nazi death camps.

As M.T said, this guy is obviously just taking the piss.

Akrasia

Mr Bumble wrote: »

I didn't get beyond 17500 at which time the planet started to warm(unexplained) and then the CO2 began to rise (unexplained) and then the warming got faster (unexplained).


Maybe the lost civilisation Randall Carlson has been talking about was pumping out Co2 to beat the band and we just can't find the chimneys.

The planet began to warm because of changes to insolation. This caused the oceans to warm and release CO2 which was a positive feedback releasing more and more C02
Cold water can hold more CO2 than warm water. It’s the reason why warm coke goes flat faster than cold coke

Mr Bumble

Akrasia wrote: »

The planet began to warm because of changes to insolation. This caused the oceans to warm and release CO2 which was a positive feedback releasing more and more C02
Cold water can hold more CO2 than warm water. It’s the reason why warm coke goes flat faster than cold coke

What were the changes to insolation, how did they come about and why?

oriel36

Mr Bumble wrote: »

I've tried hard to understand what it is you're saying oriel. I have no scientific backround and have never made a model or a graph in my life. I would hope that I'm one of the good people of Ireland. CAn you explain in terms I can grasp what it is you're saying please.

Two facts you should be aware of. There is currently no explanation why a person who lives at the South Pole (where daily rotational velocity is zero) experiences a single day night cycle each year with sunrise on one equinox and sunset on its opposite and why the area surrounding both the North and South Pole where the Sun is in view or out of sight constantly expands and contracts depending on where the Earth is in its orbit. The maximum expansion of these areas across latitudes are known as the Arctic and Antarctic circles.

https://www.usap.gov/videoclipsandmaps/spwebcam.cfm


The second fact is that for all the fuss, the academics and their drones here don't have the slightest clue how the motions of the Earth give the planet its climate as their point of departure is a greenhouse. So don't concern yourself about imitating the academics as I don't, the road to appreciating an Earth science like climate takes a different route.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTig9gKegQk&t=8s


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

The Earth has a certain temperature range despite variations from year to year at all locations. We know Ireland's weather won't be like polar or equatorial regions yet we also know temperatures will fluctuate from January to July as a function of both daily rotation and orbital motion.


If the Earth had the axial inclination of Jupiter, Mercury or Venus, there would be no fluctuations in temperatures across the year using the planet's equator as a benchmark whereas if the planet had an inclination like Uranus, the fluctuations North and South of the Equator would be extreme.

Bringing new perspectives into the dull and stuffy atmosphere of the greenhouse people has the same effect as sunlight has on those who live in the dark as they see nothing clearly nor do they wish to.

P.S. I see you agree with another contributor about some attempt at ostracism, isolation or banning but unlike others who want to impress the hell out of each other, I do these things because I simply can hence I am untroubled in a life that does enjoy nature including our climate. People should try it for a change.

oriel36

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

I would advise that you don't engage Mr. Bumble. I made that mistake and ended up being accused of marvelling at the ingenuity of the Nazi death camps.

As M.T said, this guy is obviously just taking the piss.

Not true. I did say that the modeling of evolutionary sciences under the empirical umbrella by Darwin/Wallace led to the crematoria while genuine biological and geological evolutionary research led to plate tectonics. If I was to answer every false insinuation then it distracts from what actually matters so if people are looking for a medal or self-attention for discussing technical details then they belong with those academics who crave these things.

The thing about empirical drones and their academic icons is that they not only tell you what to think, how to think but who to talk to hence a subculture despite the objections of those who imagine they are impartial researchers.

Climate belongs to the people of the planet as they should come to know how temperatures respond to a moving Earth and with it the response of the body to our surroundings across the year. In this respect, Earth sciences are as intricate and fascinating in relation to our astronomical surroundings as the workings of the body are to terrestrial surroundings and all bound together in one book, so to speak. Turning the Earth's atmosphere into a greenhouse therefore is exceptionally crude.

I think you are a suitable candidate for being a follower of a hierarchy that owes its existence to a group in 17th century England, it may presently give you some superficial appearance of influence but, least you forget, it all boils down to the utterly silly belief in human control of the planetary temperatures. People who believe that crap are not reasonable adults even if the world does not know it.

posidonia

Mr Bumble wrote: »

I didn't get beyond 17500 at which time the planet started to warm(unexplained) and then the CO2 began to rise (unexplained) and then the warming got faster (unexplained).


...

Actually, it is explained within the cartoon, just read the commentary as time passes.


I think XKCD neatly illustrates the suddenness of what is happening (compared to the vastness of time) and the likely magnitude of the changes.

M.T. Cranium

As with a lot of climate science things, a lot of detailed understanding of past climates gets fudged into straight lines in that graph. This is part of the attempt to destroy natural variability as a possible cause of climate change (awkward because no political payoff available).

There is no way that the climate was as stable over long periods of time as shown in the graph. There is no real justification for downgrading the MWP except that once again it doesn't fit the narrative.

The subtle message is supposed to be that during long stable periods of climate, civilization flourished. Of course we don't see the holocaust, gulag, or other horror stories of human history, because it is not climate that is stressing people to commit awful crimes against humanity, it is human nature and free will, which operate over just as wide a range in warm times as in cold times. Hitler didn't ask for a weather forecast before each of his various atrocities, neither did Stalin.

We were just lucky that the Little Ice Age didn't go Big Ice Age on us, there would have been nothing that could be done about that and I sometimes think we must have come very close a few times to tipping the balance back at least as far as a Dryas style advance of glaciers. This is not really what human civilization wants or needs, and attempts to engineer our climate to turn colder are probably one of the dumbest ideas humanity has ever had collectively. If the globalists succeed in shutting down the modern economy and it is followed by a Maunder style solar downturn and another LIA, nobody is going to be all that pleased with the results, and what if this time we don't stay lucky? In 1816, for example, after a major (but far from unprecedented) dust veil episode, some key indicators were very close to summer flicker-out in temperate zones. That is the onset key for a glacial advance to have just one season without full melt in the subarctic.

Now personally I think we are going to be saved from any such outcomes by (a) the residual extra greenhouse gases and (b) the weakening and far-northern excursions of the NMP. These plus my assumption that we are only in a Dalton style solar downturn and a more regular active period lies ahead, form the main basis for believing that warming is inevitable and that the next round of it may move us to a new climate balance. Surely during that post-glacial optimum sea levels must have been rather high, it would depend on rates of isostatic rebound and I suppose that archaeological evidence is hard to find, but you would think with the ice-free arctic ocean (as reported elsewhere not on the graph) there must have been reduced land ice as well. Does it not seem inevitable to you also that we will face a warmer climate regardless of the political outcomes? This is why we need to plan for it. Planning won't cost a lot. Not planning will.

M.T. Cranium

I wonder if the confusion about sidereal day is just that Oriel36 doesn't realize that it is a "construct" rather than some process that has any greater significance than what we assign to it, namely, a frame of reference to explain the earlier rising times (relative to mean solar day) of the fixed stars each night. Beyond that, I am not aware of any great significance to it in our daily lives, and it certainly didn't lead directly to the holocaust as he seems to be suggesting, although maybe it's our failure to recognize axial tilt that got Hitler all worked up.

Is he saying that there is no such thing as frames of reference? I guess the last person who questioned them was Einstein and he had a valid reason, they only worked at the sorts of speeds that we are used to encountering, and they don't work at speeds closer to the speed of light. For that you have to change "general relativity" into special relativity and the limiting factor is something like (speed of light squared minus actual speed squared) divided by speed of light squared. When actual speed is down around .001 c or lower, then the result is more or less unity. When things start moving faster than about 0.1 c then you get significant reductions of relative speed of objects since their relative speed needs to remain less than c (and two trains travelling at 0.75c towards one another cannot have a relative speed of 1.5c, the actual value works out to about 0.9c).

It would be galaxies or black holes rather than trains in that instance.

Would still prefer to avoid it if possible.

Sidereal day is just a construct that was invented from frames of reference. Instead of the solar frame of reference (which is what we have for our "mean solar day" or just day in everyday language), there could be a fixed star frame of reference, and in that one, the earth does perform a complete rotation in 23h 56 min (approx). For an observer on Mars, we would have something like a 23h 58 min "day" because that's the time it would take for any given feature to rotate past the Martian observer who is also moving at roughly half our speed around the Sun. For an observer on Jupiter's moons (I think we can safely rule out on Jupiter) the earth day would look like 23h 56.3 min. For somebody on Mercury or Venus looking back at us, our day would appear to be undergoing odd variations but it would average out at 24 hours.

For somebody in a plane flying west at almost the same speed as the planet is rotating beneath, the day would seem to be very long. Let's say you could fly at that rate without ever landing. I've flown from London to Vancouver in eight hours and only lost four hours of daylight. So at that rate, if you left London at noon, you would encounter your next "noon" in 48 hours, so that the "plane-centric" day would be 48 hours long. A passenger going in the other direction might have a plane-centric day of 12 hours.

Everything is relative. But are these various frames of reference somehow meaningful in any way other than as an illustrative concept? Probably not. Very few people are aware of sidereal day unless they take an interest in astronomy. I number-crunched it to see if it imparted any signal to temperatures and found just random noise over hundreds of years of data. There might be related temperature signals in a sidereal year but be aware that a sidereal year is almost the same as a synodic year. The only difference is that the "fixed stars" are not quite fixed, they appear to be rotating around us once every 40,000 years or so due to gyrations of our polar axis. So there are a few seconds of difference between synodic year (when the Sun is at some fixed point relative to our axial tilt) and our sidereal year (when we pass "go" on the fixed star background, perhaps the vernal equinox for example).

Another variable in fixed stars is that they are not quite fixed relative to each other. Various closer stars are wandering about in our part of the galaxy to the extent that they will appear in a different orientation after a few thousand years, while further stars will not appear to move relative to each other (although given a long enough time frame and all will change). And there is another source of variation, our polar axis does not always point at the same location in three-dimensional space, hence the slow movement of the position of the apparent rotation and the need to select a new "north star" after a long interval. One day it will be Vega rather than Polaris.

oriel36

M.T. Cranium wrote: »

The subtle message is supposed to be that during long stable periods of climate, civilization flourished. Of course we don't see the holocaust, gulag, or other horror stories of human history, because it is not climate that is stressing people to commit awful crimes against humanity

A weather event in Ireland allied with a fungus/mold created conditions of disease and starvation - the response of the English ruling authorities was population control because this was the prevalent empirical doctrine.

A subscription to the NYT will give readers a real experience from those who wrote at the time -

https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1852/11/12/87845024.pdf


It wasn't the cruel English but a cruel section within their society that reacted rather than responded to a starving nation. The author of that 1852 article described the building of walls around the big landlord estates made from the demolished houses of evicted tenants that still can be seen today along the roads of this country.

Ten years after the famine, instead of self-inspection, the English academics elevated Malthus's proposal to a 'law of nature' and into the murky world of eugenics, invasion and extermination policies and aggression at the centre of life.

Like many statements yesterday, the holocaust didn't fall out of the sky - the extermination policies were a feature of empirical modeling after the Irish famine as though academics and politicians sought an excuse for their exceptionally detached behavior of an oppressor -

"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races. The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla." Darwin


https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/eugenics


The Irish couldn't prevent the deaths of so many people but neither did they take revenge on the landlords demonstrating just how decent our society was and in some ways remains. Only now, can our society revisit the behaviour of British politicians acting on academic doctrines with a clinical eye rather than a detached mind.

This meteorologist wants to isolate Hitler from the academic stamp of approval which created the atmosphere of human/subhuman but such dithering is for those who are weak.

oriel36

M.T. Cranium wrote: »

Sidereal day is just a construct that was invented from frames of reference. Instead of the solar frame of reference (which is what we have for our "mean solar day" or just day in everyday language), there could be a fixed star frame of reference, and in that one, the earth does perform a complete rotation in 23h 56 min (approx).

For reasonable people, the most immediate experience of cause and effect is the day/night cycle along with temperature fluctuations due to one rotation each day. People don't get to choose the anchor for this great cycle that governs the responses of the human body and they sure do not get to choose a solar vs sidereal fantasy to suit the idea that rotation to the Sun (day) is different to rotation to the stars (night).

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/30/Biological_clock_human.svg/1200px-Biological_clock_human.svg.png

As for 'frames of reference' and other theoretical buzzwords that surround doctrines where the proponents can't manage to interpret the relationship between the motions of the Earth and timekeeping much less Earth sciences, the phrase was born in pure ignorance and bluffing.

What today is called the 'Equation of Time' is a timekeeping facility which equalizes the variations in the natural noon cycle to a 24 hour average as both are locked together using determination of noon, which in turn is governed by the rotations of the Earth. As 'average' and 'constant' share roughly the same meaning, the 24 hour system was overlaid on the Earth's geometry and geography as the Lat/Long system where 1 degree of rotation equates to 4 minutes, a rotation rate of 15 degrees per hour and one 360 degree rotation in 24 hours. It is an exquisite and delicate system that admits only those who have the sense of how planetary cycles dictate timekeeping rather than the other way around.


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


Newton surrounded the Equation of Time with his own idiosyncratic voodoo of absolute/relative time -

"Absolute time, in astronomy, is distinguished from relative, by the equation of time. For the natural days are truly unequal, though they are commonly considered as equal and used for a measure of time; astronomers correct this inequality for their more accurate deducing of the celestial motions...The necessity of which equation, for determining the times of a phænomenon, is evinced as well from the experiments of the pendulum clock, as by eclipses of the satellites of Jupiter." Principia

( There is Sir Isaac alluding to Huygens in the last sentence and Roemer in respect to Io)


It takes a turn for the worse in the 19th century when the Victorian mathematicians , spurred on by the crap Newton dumped on astronomy, started to believe that timekeeping was time and constructed a 'dimension' out of this silly notion -

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20427391-600-alices-adventures-in-algebra-wonderland-solved/

People will learn more from that treatment of mathematicians then they will from a thousand books.

All these idiots running around declaring 'time is relative !' or some other meaningless phrase are simply people who ultimately can't reconcile their RA/Dec framework with actual timekeeping and the motions of the Earth which make timekeeping possible.

So you, that means you meteorologist, either recognise the Equation of Time and its anchor to the noon cycle or you don't, in which case you can wander off with your early 20th century 'frames of reference' and down the weird rabbit hole of controlling time or 'spacetime' as it was called in the late 19th century.

Hard to find reasonable people who can discuss the history of astronomy, Earth sciences and timekeeping as they actually exist rather than the conveniently packaged doctrine of voodoo chanting theorists.

Retr0gamer

M.T. Cranium wrote: »

There is no way that the climate was as stable over long periods of time as shown in the graph. There is no real justification for downgrading the MWP except that once again it doesn't fit the narrative.

And as a non-expert in the field how do you know this other than blind intuition?

Statistically speaking there will be fluctuations of course but given a long enough period of measurement with enough data points data tends to average out. And we have a pretty accurate view of global temperatures from isotopic measurements. So all the scientific evidence points towards very stable temperatures over very long periods of time which makes the current trend in the last 100 years or so so alarming.

Danno

Retr0gamer wrote: »

And we have a pretty accurate view of global temperatures from isotopic measurements. So all the scientific evidence points towards very stable temperatures over very long periods of time which makes the current trend in the last 100 years or so so alarming.

Pure lies...

https://www.pnas.org/content/97/4/1331

Ice-core records show that climate changes in the past have been large, rapid, and synchronous over broad areas extending into low latitudes, with less variability over historical times. These ice-core records come from high mountain glaciers and the polar regions, including small ice caps and the large ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica.

As the world slid into and out of the last ice age, the general cooling and warming trends were punctuated by abrupt changes.

...like much of what you bring to this discussion.

Akrasia

Mr Bumble wrote: »

What were the changes to insolation, how did they come about and why?

These are known as Milankovitch cycles


The earth does not orbit the sun in a perfectly eliptical orbit, there are eccentricities that oscillate in a 100 thousand year cycle that affects how close we are to the sun at our perihelion vs aphelion, and the earth does not rotate on it's axis in a perfect rotation. There are changes to our axial tilt in our rotation, these are on shorter cycles of about 41k years and they the length and relative temperature difference of our hemispheric seasons,
and then there is Precession, the 'wobble' in the earth's rotation which is caused by gravitational effects and changes over a cycle of about 26k years.

oriel36

Akrasia wrote: »

These are known as Milankovitch cycles


The earth does not orbit the sun in a perfectly eliptical orbit, there are eccentricities that oscillate in a 100 thousand year cycle that affects how close we are to the sun at our perihelion vs aphelion, and the earth does not rotate on it's axis in a perfect rotation. There are changes to our axial tilt in our rotation, these are on shorter cycles of about 41k years and they the length and relative temperature difference of our hemispheric seasons,
and then there is Precession, the 'wobble' in the earth's rotation which is caused by gravitational effects and changes over a cycle of about 26k years.

You are out of your depth but at least you tiptoe back in with the hope that nobody will notice and that is fair enough.

The relationship of the North and South Poles to the circle of illumination and to the Sun is the same today as it was back 5,200 years ago when Irish astronomers created the December Solstice alignment at Newgrange and the different type of March/September Equinox alignment at Knowth. For the slow of learning, axial precession as a 25,920 year cycle does not happen.

The flaw in the reasoning of Copernicus in respect to axial precession was he was obligated to use the framework of Ptolemy where the Sun moves directly through the constellations -

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


The older and more accurate framework in antiquity (pre-Ptolemy) contains the information where the slight drift in the positions of the stars known as the precession of the equinoxes can be accounted for using 21st century imaging -

https://sol24.net/data/html/SOHO/C3/96H/VIDEO/

The proof of the Earth's orbital motion is contained in the change of position of the stars from left to right of the central Sun and parallel to the orbital plane

It is not every day you all get a new demonstration for the Earth's orbital motion.


".. on account of the procession of the rising of Sirius by one day in the course of 4 years,.. therefore it shall be, that the year of 360 days and the 5 days added to their end, so one day shall be from this day after every 4 years added to the 5 epagomenae before the new year" Canopus Decree 238 BC


This exquisite system we use today with February 29th approaching in a month, in dynamical terms, means the proportion of rotations to orbital circuits is 1461 rotations for 4 annual circuits of the Sun which breaks down to 365 1/4 rotations per orbital circuit. It is not an exact proportion and this is where the older framework would account for the annual drift of 1 degree for every 72 years.

I know the miserable theorists can't keep up but mark this, anyone who appreciates what the builders and astronomers of Newgrange did will appreciate all this.

Eff Milankovitch and his cycles, a higher standard prevails today if the right people consider what is in front of them. Considering theorists have trouble with the day/night cycle and daily rotational cycle, the bar is set very,very low.

Akrasia

M.T. Cranium wrote: »

As with a lot of climate science things, a lot of detailed understanding of past climates gets fudged into straight lines in that graph. This is part of the attempt to destroy natural variability as a possible cause of climate change (awkward because no political payoff available).

There is no way that the climate was as stable over long periods of time as shown in the graph. There is no real justification for downgrading the MWP except that once again it doesn't fit the narrative.

You can postulate that the MWP is ignored because it is inconvenient, or you can look at the research that shows that the MWP was not a global event and that globally, the earth was cooler during this period than it is now

MWP temperature anomaly vs 1961– 1990 base


Current temperatures vs 1961– 1990 base

https://skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-period-intermediate.htm

Here is one of the better studies that reproduces global average temperature over the past 1400 years

https://epic.awi.de/id/eprint/32886/1/PAGES2k_NGEO_inpress.pdf

The subtle message is supposed to be that during long stable periods of climate, civilization flourished. Of course we don't see the holocaust, gulag, or other horror stories of human history, because it is not climate that is stressing people to commit awful crimes against humanity, it is human nature and free will, which operate over just as wide a range in warm times as in cold times. Hitler didn't ask for a weather forecast before each of his various atrocities, neither did Stalin.

We were just lucky that the Little Ice Age didn't go Big Ice Age on us, there would have been nothing that could be done about that and I sometimes think we must have come very close a few times to tipping the balance back at least as far as a Dryas style advance of glaciers. This is not really what human civilization wants or needs, and attempts to engineer our climate to turn colder are probably one of the dumbest ideas humanity has ever had collectively. If the globalists succeed in shutting down the modern economy and it is followed by a Maunder style solar downturn and another LIA, nobody is going to be all that pleased with the results, and what if this time we don't stay lucky? In 1816, for example, after a major (but far from unprecedented) dust veil episode, some key indicators were very close to summer flicker-out in temperate zones. That is the onset key for a glacial advance to have just one season without full melt in the subarctic.

Now personally I think we are going to be saved from any such outcomes by (a) the residual extra greenhouse gases and (b) the weakening and far-northern excursions of the NMP. These plus my assumption that we are only in a Dalton style solar downturn and a more regular active period lies ahead, form the main basis for believing that warming is inevitable and that the next round of it may move us to a new climate balance. Surely during that post-glacial optimum sea levels must have been rather high, it would depend on rates of isostatic rebound and I suppose that archaeological evidence is hard to find, but you would think with the ice-free arctic ocean (as reported elsewhere not on the graph) there must have been reduced land ice as well. Does it not seem inevitable to you also that we will face a warmer climate regardless of the political outcomes? This is why we need to plan for it. Planning won't cost a lot. Not planning will.

We are not trying to engineer the temperatures to be colder. We are trying to prevent ourselves from turning a stable holocene era climate into one that humans have never evolved to live in

The economic cost of climate change vastly outweighs the economic cost of acting now to limit its effects, and the social and cultural cost of terraforming our planet is immeasurable, along with the consequences for peace and security by adding more and more stresses and flash points to a geo political situation where we are already seeing tensions between many neighbouring countries due to disputes over water access and immigration..

Retr0gamer

Danno wrote: »

Pure lies...

https://www.pnas.org/content/97/4/1331



...like much of what you bring to this discussion.

You see it's all about context. Global temperatures tend to level out at a steady average. The data you are presenting there is for ice cores in Greenland. That's an isolated area. You'll get fluctuations there but also fluctuations across the globe that balance each other out. The paper even goes on to describe how these changes don't always correlate with other areas at the same time.

You see that's the difference between a rank amateur and a scientist using the scientific method. You have a biased agenda and take information and distort, misrepresent and bastardise that information to fit your agenda. While a scientific expert will analyse what that data actually means in context. So don't give up the day job. You're showing your ignorance and dealing with a subject far outside you level of expertise and intellect.

Also quite interesting how climate events are linked to carbon dioxide and Methane emissions. Who would have thought that green house gases could instigate abrupt changes in climate.

oriel36

Akrasia wrote: »

We are not trying to engineer the temperatures to be colder.

I really wish there was a sane person, much less a reasonable one, who understood just how much of a joke that the idea of human control of planetary temperatures is. Maybe you all could do something easier like engineer the jet stream to give us cold winters along with hot and dry summers but then again, people entertaining talk of trying to " engineer the temperatures" speaks for itself as an absurdity. Listen to yourselves for goodness sake !

Maybe the farmers would like sunshine in one field and rain in the other !

Retr0gamer

oriel36 wrote: »

I really wish there was a sane person, much less a reasonable one, who understood just how much of a joke that the idea of human control of planetary temperatures is. Maybe you all could do something easier like engineer the jet stream to give us cold winter and hot and dry summers but then again, people entertaining talk of trying to " engineer the temperatures" speaks for itself as an absurdity. Listen to yourselves for goodness sake !

He never said we were trying to engineer temperatures. He even said it where you quoted him. But sure, can't stop that confirmation bias.

oriel36

Retr0gamer wrote: »

He never said we were trying to engineer temperatures. He even said it where you quoted him. But sure, can't stop that confirmation bias.

So humans can't control planetary temperatures then !.

Maybe wider society like being taken on a merry dance by theorists and their 'scientific method' but such an effin waste of time and energy.

Oneiric 3

Akrasia wrote: »

MWP temperature anomaly vs 1961– 1990 base


.

Something seems to be amiss with that map, as it doesn't seem to correspond with documented accounts of the MWP, such as the warmer temperatures in Japan, Germany and Alaska etc:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/medieval-warm-period

Mr Bumble

P.S. I see you agree with another contributor about some attempt at ostracism, isolation or banning but unlike others who want to impress the hell out of each other, I do these things because I simply can hence I am untroubled in a life that does enjoy nature including our climate. People should try it for a change.[/QUOTE]


I have a great life, thanks. I stopped working and do as much fishing as I can. All good.



I agreed with the other contributor/s because like them, I've been trying to figure out what it is you're trying to say and without any success. Like them, I think you have failed to explain your point with any clarity. Lay person or scientist, impeneterable is impeneterable. Surely if everyone here, from what I can see, is struggling to understand your point, the obligation is on you to bring greater clarity to your contributions. They are everything but clear.



I 'like' many things in this forum and often with no consistency at all. That's my perogative. You should not be so sensitive or if you are, perhaps you should moderate your use of the English language.
You are very wordy and this does not help in your explanations which are convoluted and for me, obscure.
This is the reason I made an attempt to gain some understanding of your point by talking to you directly.
Your answer didn't clear the fog, I'm afraid.
SO before I avoid your posts, simply because I cannot understand them, perhaps you could, in a few short sentences, offer your central point.

Mr Bumble

Akrasia wrote: »

These are known as Milankovitch cycles


The earth does not orbit the sun in a perfectly eliptical orbit, there are eccentricities that oscillate in a 100 thousand year cycle that affects how close we are to the sun at our perihelion vs aphelion, and the earth does not rotate on it's axis in a perfect rotation. There are changes to our axial tilt in our rotation, these are on shorter cycles of about 41k years and they the length and relative temperature difference of our hemispheric seasons,
and then there is Precession, the 'wobble' in the earth's rotation which is caused by gravitational effects and changes over a cycle of about 26k years.

So from that, the planet began to warm as a function of an oscillation in our imperfect orbit/rotation/axial tilt/wobble. In your graphic, Co2 increases following the initial warming which then accelerated.


How do we know that the initial warming trend didn't accelerate for reasons other than Co2 and that rising levels of Co2 were not the cause of the acceleration but a consequence of it?

oriel36

Mr Bumble wrote: »

I agreed with the other contributor/s because like them, I've been trying to figure out what it is you're trying to say and without any success.

The best I can do for you is that you are following a late 17th century subculture which is rigged to suit experimental modelers so you never encountered the larger perspectives that existed through history in astronomy, Earth sciences, timekeeping and the different roads which make connections between the body and the Earth or the Earth and its astronomical surroundings enjoyable.

Copernicus understood there are people who act like drones or cheerleaders for those who make no effort or use physical considerations and thereby creating monstrosities with present human control of planetary temperatures being the latest. It was always present in astronomy but really all began with Newton and spread out like an intellectual virus from there.

". . although they have extracted from them the apparent motions, with
numerical agreement, nevertheless . . . . They are just like someone
including in a picture hands, feet, head, and other limbs from
different places, well painted indeed, but not modeled from the same
body, and not in the least matching each other, so that a monster
would be produced from them rather than a man. Thus in the process of
their demonstrations, which they call their system, they are found
either to have missed out something essential, or to have brought in
something inappropriate and wholly irrelevant, which would not have
happened to them if they had followed proper principles. For if the
hypotheses which they assumed had not been fallacies, everything which
follows from them could be independently verified." De revolutionibus,
1543 Copernicus


Far from being genuine researchers, most are perpetual students or followers of these students and only so much can be done so I wouldn't go out of my way to appeal to either, after all, what can be said to people on both sides who insist on human temperature control of planetary temperatures or when it is pointed out insist that humans can't engineer temperatures.

I think you are easy prey for the whole grotesque 'climate change' spectacle so if you can take that as a point then so well and good.

Gaoth Laidir

Mr Bumble

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

If I could like this twice I would

Mr Bumble

"I think you are easy prey for the whole grotesque 'climate change' spectacle so if you can take that as a point then so well and good.[/QUOTE]


Not really. It's actually an insult. You clearly believe that you are in some way intellectually superior to everyone else which is the height of narcissim. I have no evidence that you are brighter than anyone here, only that you have a command of the English language but refuse to communicate in a way which would explain exactly what it is you are trying to say. That shows scant intelligence, just stubborness and even stupidity. Perhaps you have nothing to say and dress that up in as many polysyallabic words as you can find.

All well and good if you want to burble away to yourself in a corner but this is a public forum and I now realise that I'll never get back the time I've wasted on you, so I won't be giving you any more of my time.

Oneiric 3

Mr Bumble wrote: »

Not really. It's actually an insult. You clearly believe that you are in some way intellectually superior to everyone else which is the height of narcissim. I have no evidence that you are brighter than anyone here, only that you have a command of the English language but refuse to communicate in a way which would explain exactly what it is you are trying to say. That shows scant intelligence, just stubborness and even stupidity. Perhaps you have nothing to say and dress that up in as many polysyallabic words as you can find.

All well and good if you want to burble away to yourself in a corner but this is a public forum and I now realise that I'll never get back the time I've wasted on you, so I won't be giving you any more of my time.

Numerous times others and I have politely pleaded with him to explain himself a bit better so as to help us get a better grasp of what he is trying to say, yet every single time he responded with something even more long-winded and indecipherable. This is not the mark of an intellectually strong person; indeed, what little can be deciphered from his posts is really nothing more than basic early secondary school stuff guised in a sort of psuedo-academic style so as to confuse the reader into thinking he is saying something much more profound than he actually is.

oriel36

Mr Bumble wrote: »

Not really. It's actually an insult. You clearly believe that you are in some way intellectually superior to everyone else which is the height of narcissim.

Anyone who can affirm that one rotation is the cause of the day/night cycle and a thousand rotations in a thousand 24 hour days is not only superior to people here , they are on the road to genuine climate research.

" 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

So what, you go to your grave as cannon fodder for theorists like so many before you and while everyone dies, not all people live to enjoy their terrestrial and celestial surroundings. That is not an insult, that is a fact but then again, people who have no respect for life will find company with the doom and gloom gravediggers of the 'scientific method' community.


As for intellectually superior, nothing more prescient or genuinely funny than the judgment of Allan Poe on empiricists and their hapless followers -

“than the persons thus suddenly elevated by the Hog-ian [Bacon] philosophy
into a station for which they were unfitted — thus transferred from
the sculleries into the parlors of Science — from its pantries into
its pulpits — than these individuals a more intolerant — a more
intolerable set of bigots and tyrants never existed on the face of the
earth. Their creed, their text and their sermon were, alike, the one
word ‘fact’ — but, for the most part, even of this one word, they knew
not even the meaning. On those who ventured to disturb their facts
with the view of putting them in order and to use, the disciples of
Hog [Bacon] had no mercy whatever. All attempts at generalization were met at
once by the words ‘theoretical,’ ‘theory,’ ‘theorist’ — all thought,
to be brief, was very properly resented as a personal affront to
themselves. Cultivating the natural sciences to the exclusion of
Metaphysics, the Mathematics, and Logic, many of these Bacon-
engendered philosophers — one-idead, one-sided and lame of a leg —
were more wretchedly helpless — more miserably ignorant, in view of
all the comprehensible objects of knowledge, than the veriest
unlettered hind who proves that he knows something at least, in
admitting that he knows absolutely nothing” Allan Poe

That last bit is actually true for what could be easier than the cause of the day/night cycle as one rotation yet beyond the efforts of all here.