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

Akrasia

M.T. Cranium wrote: »

There was a lot of creative fiction in some of the dismissals of examples of failed or abandoned sciences, good luck to anyone trying to sell some of those fictions. Newton had only an approximation of the actual situation and we can't just say that conditions closer to light speed are some minor exception, what is more true is that we live a day to day existence where flaws in Newtonian physics are irrelevant and can be safely ignored. But once you get moving at any speed that is closer to c, Newton goes from being approximately right to largely wrong and eventually totally wrong.

That does not diminish the importance of his discovery or work. It is just an honest reporting of the facts, however, that a better theory supplanted his theory. So if it can happen to him, what chance is there for a bunch of over-egged social scientists who are really in it for the political agenda that they wish to impose? I would say slim to none.

When people say there is a consensus around Newtonian physics, it’s not that Newton himself was some kind of messiah and everything he ever did was true and he had a single all encompassing explanation for everything. Newton changed the paradigm and the consensus emerged around his ideas and the work of the rest of the scientific community in exploring those ideas. It became apparent that Newton’s predictions were missing something and scientists hotly debated what could cause the larger than expected precessions of orbits over long timescales (for example)

Newton’s theory of gravity worked for all the practical applications it was intended. Newton himself knew he didn’t have all the answers, Relativity and quantum mechanics improved our understanding and filled in some of the gaps. Now there is a consensus that much of quantum physics are correct because their predictive power are undeniable, but there is no consensus about how to integrate quantum theory with newtonian physics, we have no consensus on the quantum theory of gravity or what the fundamental nature of space time really is.

Science iterates and consensus that is based on the preponderance of evidence is very very rarely overturned, which is not to say that once a consensus is reached that science stands still, where there is consensus on things that science can say are known to a very large degree of confidence, it doesn’t mean that every question is answered completely. There are always margins of error and more fine grained understanding to be worked out as each new discovery unlocks new methods and concepts and tools to use for better more accurate research.

Gaoth Laidir

Ah, so there's a Rule IV now as well.

Akrasia

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Ah, so there's a Rule IV now as well.

What are you on about?

Meteorite58

Mod Note: oriel36 is taking imposed time off for continuously ignoring Mod instructions .

Oneiric 3

'God is Dead' - Nietzsche.
'Nietzsche is Dead' - God.

Gaoth Laidir

Akrasia wrote: »

What are you on about?

Exactly what we've been asking Oriel, who mentioned a Rule IV in his post, hence my comment. He's moved on from his Rule III.

Akrasia

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Exactly what we've been asking Oriel, who mentioned a Rule IV in his post, hence my comment. He's moved on from his Rule III.

Ok. I haven’t read his posts in ages. Who’s got time for that?

Akrasia

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

'God is Dead' - Nietzsche.
'Nietzsche is Dead' - God.

Je n'avais pas besoin de cette hypothèse-là. ("I had no need of that hypothesis.")
Pierre-Simon Laplace

Nabber

Akrasia wrote: »

Ok. I haven’t read his posts in ages. Who’s got time for that?

Don’t get Oriel started on time....

M.T. Cranium

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

'God is Dead' - Nietzsche.
'Nietzsche is Dead' - God.

I will take God and the points spread on that one.

M.T. Cranium

posidonia wrote: »

What do 'sincere intentions to discuss or debate' look like? From you and from me?

Okay, I'll bite on this one.

Since the time where the small but vocal AGW apologist brigade entered the thread, it has gone from being a genuine discussion (boards style) to a ritual denunciation of the dreaded iconoclast Cranium and anyone who dares to show any small amount of interest (Netweather style), and this I think has discouraged those of us who were just hoping to have a civilized discussion of an option that as I said from day one is just my personal theory and not meant to be the make or break effort to start a new scientific revolution on the internet in my spare time sort of a thing.

I've given some details of my background, these were all run through some meat grinder and presented as something that apparently amounts to nothing, in a similar spirit to the blacklisting that some have claimed (without any shred of evidence) to be non-existent.

A few people wanted to discuss the differences between the orthodox theory about recent warming and my version, and have been driven out by the heavy barrages plus the incessant inanity from the Third Rail who is just turning a bad situation into a nightmare for readers who can't find the ignore function.

Personally, I think it was bad form for the net-weather people to come over here, I sort of signalled over there that it was their turf and if they wanted to be High Priests of Global Warming then so be it, nothing about it really surprised me that much given that England seems to be a country hell-bent on creating a voluntary form of communism. Thank God my parents chose to leave before I got too much of that into my own mind. Not that Canada turned out to be a very useful place for me to be once I found that I had tripped off about a hundred "free human target" buttons among any conceivable group of employers or collaborators. I don't regret it that much as I've had quite an interesting alternative experience and much that I could say would be pointless since I am rather expecting it all to become crystal clear at some point in the future.

For my own part, I could tone down the rhetoric a little as well. My libertarian views are probably outside the mainstream of what is generally experienced in Irish society or politics, but fairly typical over on this side of the pond where some concepts of individualism persist despite the constant drumbeat of conformity to mass standards (that are inevitably those of the left). I don't blame anyone present for my difficult situation, this was all done by people who are no doubt retired and quite possibly deceased as some of them were years older than myself at the time (forty odd years ago now).

I don't think we can possibly reach much of an agreement (the AGW folks and myself or anyone else who tends to agree with me) since the IPCC process is a rigorous one that does not invite shades of opinion (and that itself seems odd to me given that we are essentially talking about a 20-50 year long-range forecast). If it was not clear before today, I am only saying that I think it is more likely than not to keep getting warmer in temperate and arctic climate zones (at least in the n.h.) with possible exceptions in northeastern Asia if there is some connection to the magnetic pole. I don't claim to know with any precision how much warmer, and my estimate of the blend of human and natural variability remains in a rather wide zone of 1:1 to 1:3 with 1:2 being just a general compromise figure.

So if that is worth having a massive and epic outburst of Thou Shalt Not State Thy Opinions, so be it, to me it's rather like saying the steak is a bit overdone and maybe next time bring it out five minutes earlier.

It would be good to get back to just a relaxed (Irish-Boards culture) discussion without all these heavy overtones. It really sets off some cognitive dissonance when you have to go back and forth from weather forum situations where you're a servant (contest threads) to a contributors (various discussions) to a pariah (any appearance made in the climate forum on Netweather) as if you were three different people, and then you have to process that through a longer period where you know objectively what your own intelligence and abilities might be, and encounter people who don't necessarily seem like Einsteins asking you to divide all that by two or three because they can't follow along themselves. Not that this is by any means a new experience. I suppose it happens to a lot of people, the retribution of the betas who likely suffered all sorts of indignities in their formative years too (a scale model of what I might have had, which was the usual school-brain pile-on combined with the recent immigrant shakedown).

But as to what "that might look like," I think the Bible already holds the answer, between them is a great gulf fixed etc. Just part of life that people go in different directions according to their conscience and intellect. As you can see with myself and Oneiric3 though, it is possible for educated and thoughtful people to hold rather different views of some things yet not let that become a big point of contention. This is rather what I was used to in my youth (once I shook off the hometown for a larger city and university etc) and whatever you might have heard about the "60s and early 70s" era, there was a different standard of mutual tolerance of viewpoints from left and right than there is nowadays and I rather miss that. There were a few scrappy ideologues around too, but you could have a long discussion with somebody of entirely incompatible views without it getting very personal or nasty back then. Of course, no social media, so you had to do it in person. Perhaps that's the reason for the difference.

Danno

MTC, for one, I very much agree with your "stall" for want of a better word. You have presented your arguments very well throughout this discussion/debate and I can really understand where you are coming from. I'd wager that you could rock into a rural Irish bar on any given night, order a tipple or two and have a great conversation with the majority of the locals. I'm sure you could find that same experience in Dublin/bigger provincial towns/regional cities too but that would require a little more careful navigation (esp at weekends).

If one were to question where this is all headed, I'd place this canary in the mine as a warning - and I know there are MANY more examples:

M.T. Cranium

Thanks Danno, one of my few regrets is that I never spent much time travelling through Ireland in my younger travelling days and wasted weeks poking around London and (even worse) Paris. I've only been there once and it was far too short a visit (for me anyway, I think the locals had the opposite view).

Akrasia

M.T. Cranium wrote: »

Thanks Danno, one of my few regrets is that I never spent much time travelling through Ireland in my younger travelling days and wasted weeks poking around London and (even worse) Paris. I've only been there once and it was far too short a visit (for me anyway, I think the locals had the opposite view).

MTC, I’m not trying to be personal. I’m sure you would be great Craic down the pub for a chat as long as you didn’t get offended as soon as someone disagrees with you or calls you out on some bullsh1t (that happens all the time in Irish pubs)

You should see it from other people’s perspective without assuming there is some kind of person vandetta against you.

There is no blacklist, You may have a tarnished reputation due to your own personal record such that you find it difficult to get work on a small community. That’s can happen in any industry if someone gets a reputation as a liability. I still refuse to accept that there is any kind of politically motivated blacklist in peer reviewed journals to freeze out research that does not conform with scientific consensus. This refusal will be reviewed if you can provide me with evidence of the existence of such a blacklist.

I think your political views have warped your ability to properly assess the science. You can see that the planet is warming.

You’re even willing to accept that the warming will be in roughly line with IPCC estimates of climate sensitivity, but you do not like the implications of this warming being mostly caused by human activity because this would mean that human activity needs to be restricted to prevent the warming from spiraling out of control.

I put you in the same category as an anti vaxxer. You are entitled to your beliefs, but I am entitled to strenuously disagree with them because the implications of you successfully misinforming people on this topic will have profound consequences for me personally, and my children.

Vaccinations save lives. Anti vaccine conspiracy theories kill and maim children. And the same exact arguments that you use against the scientific consensus on climate change are used to convince parents not to vaccinate their children.

Humans are not a whole load of individuals living separate lives in a vacuum. What we do affects other people. We need to be responsible for the consequences of our actions. There is no socialist takeover happening, there is just a constant review of the balance between personal freedom and our responsibilities to our fellow citizens and future generations. in pandering to the most selfish of all political philosophies (libertarian ideology is fundamentally selfish and short sighted) We certainly are failing the latter

Danno

Akrasia wrote: »

...I put you in the same category as an anti vaxxer. You are entitled to your beliefs, but I am entitled to strenuously disagree with them because the implications of you successfully misinforming people on this topic will have profound consequences for me personally, and my children...

What you see here folks is a typical action right out of the left-wing playbook. Akrasia here is pigeon-holing MTC because he/she has no debate. Time and time again throughout this thread MTC, GL and others have demonstrated that the "science" brought forward as damning evidence of AGW is at best unreliable and altered, in order to achieve a desired outcome.

Unfortunately we live in a time in this country where the space that the Church used to occupy in the ear of politicians - this vacuum has now been filled with a new green-red coalition. Akrasia in his rather ironic assessment of this states:

there is just a constant review of the balance between personal freedom and our responsibilities to our fellow citizens and future generations. in pandering to the most selfish of all political philosophies (libertarian ideology is fundamentally selfish and short sighted) We certainly are failing the latter

which to me says that the new Church have arrived. Black cat, black kitten.

Gaoth Laidir

Akrasia wrote: »

.

I put you in the same category as an anti vaxxer. You are entitled to your beliefs, but I am entitled to strenuously disagree with them because the implications of you successfully misinforming people on this topic will have profound consequences for me personally, and my children.

Vaccinations save lives. Anti vaccine conspiracy theories kill and maim children. And the same exact arguments that you use against the scientific consensus on climate change are used to convince parents not to vaccinate their children.

Humans are not a whole load of individuals living separate lives in a vacuum. What we do affects other people. We need to be responsible for the consequences of our actions. There is no socialist takeover happening, there is just a constant review of the balance between personal freedom and our responsibilities to our fellow citizens and future generations. in pandering to the most selfish of all political philosophies (libertarian ideology is fundamentally selfish and short sighted) We certainly are failing the latter

So if MTC sussessfully "misinforms" people, exactly how would it affect you and your children? You've personally stated that you don't bother changing your lifestyle now because one person can't make a change and also that there are no laws being passed down to make you do so. Yet you go on to say that we need to be responsible as what we do affects other people. Which is it? You've gone all around the houses with your post, yet in the end you've said very little.

You're a merchant of doom, plain and simple. The words you use prove it.

Akrasia

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

So if MTC sussessfully "misinforms" people, exactly how would it affect you and your children? You've personally stated that you don't bother changing your lifestyle now because one person can't make a change and also that there are no laws being passed down to make you do so. Yet you go on to say that we need to be responsible as what we do affects other people. Which is it? You've gone all around the houses with your post, yet in the end you've said very little.

You're a merchant of doom, plain and simple. The words you use prove it.

You need to go back and read what I say about what needs to be done to tackle climate change because you’ve clearly misunderstood what my position is. I have explained myself multiple times and I’m getting a bit tired of repeating myself

The consequences of conspiratorial motivated anti science attitudes becoming pervasive are manifold, but most importantly It will delay political action on climate change so that when it is finally impossible to ignore the consequences will be much much worse and the course correction required to avoid disaster will be more severe

Akrasia

Danno wrote: »

What you see here folks is a typical action right out of the left-wing playbook. Akrasia here is pigeon-holing MTC because he/she has no debate. Time and time again throughout this thread MTC, GL and others have demonstrated that the "science" brought forward as damning evidence of AGW is at best unreliable and altered, in order to achieve a desired outcome.

Unfortunately we live in a time in this country where the space that the Church used to occupy in the ear of politicians - this vacuum has now been filled with a new green-red coalition. Akrasia in his rather ironic assessment of this states:



which to me says that the new Church have arrived. Black cat, black kitten.

I’m not pidgeon holing him, I am comparing what he is doing with something I am hoping that he agrees is wrong so he can see how I view his attitude to climate science from a shared perspective. although at this point, I would be saddened but not surprised to hear that he is also skeptical of vaccines.

Your second point about the church is just silly. Do you think society, through politics and social policy don’t have to balance freedom with responsibility then what kind of world do you think we should live in??

Meteorite58

Mod Note: SeaBreezes Your post has been removed for review . If you have a problem with other posters, as you state in your post, you need to use the report button and not discuss the matter in thread as this becomes off topic and can be viewed as an attempt to muster up support , becoming uncivil and dragging the thread off topic and you in turn could get carded.

Stay on topic and remain civil.

Meteorite58

Mod Note: Akrasia your post was removed and under review. Stop the bickering and stay on topic.

Meteorite58

This is a Mod warning : There are too many uncivil remarks being made on this thread . It needs to stop. Adhere to the forum charter. Use the report button if you are not happy with another poster , do not discuss other posters in thread . People can have different opinions and beliefs without getting personal with each other and it turning in to a slagging match to see who can best put down the other. Many posts on this thread are beneath the standard expected on this forum and need to improve.

Those who do not adhere to the forum charter and this Moderator instruction will be carded or receive bans.

Hooter23

BAD NEWS ALARMISTS — OFFICIAL DATA REVEALS ARCTIC SEA ICE IS ONCE AGAIN GROWING

According to official government data from the National Snow & Ice Data Center (NSIDC), Arctic Sea Ice is once again GROWING, with current 2020 levels exceeding 8 out of the previous 10 years.

Arctic sea ice extent in January 2020 is sitting ABOVE levels observed in the years 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016, 2015, 2012 (record low extent), 2011, AND 2010.

https://electroverse.net/official-data-reveals-arctic-sea-ice-is-growing-again/

Danno

Hooter23 wrote: »

BAD NEWS ALARMISTS — OFFICIAL DATA REVEALS ARCTIC SEA ICE IS ONCE AGAIN GROWING

https://electroverse.net/official-data-reveals-arctic-sea-ice-is-growing-again/

That article is not factually correct.

Arctic sea ice is better than all of the last ten years along with 2005 and 2006.

This puts this year as the 13th lowest on record.

The trends suggest that 2007 and 2009 will be overtaken in the next couple of days and 2020 drops to 15th lowest on record and in the process overtake the maximum extent for 2016/17 which was the lowest maximum on record.

With on average 5~6 weeks of the freezing season left this year's maximum extent could/likely will buck the trend of lower maxima seen in recent years.

Gaoth Laidir

Looking at the average monthly January extent over the past 10 years, it is above 2019, 2018, 2017 and 2011. Most recent decadal trend is -3.25 million km² (-2.1%) per decade. Overall trend from 1979 is -4.36 million / decade.

As far as I know, the maximum extent is usually achieved in mid March, so we still have a couple of months to go to see what the maximum will actually be.
But one thing is clear, the "death spiral" that was predicted to have an ice-free period in the Arctic ocean by now, were wrong.

It's evidence like this that backs up the theory that climate change is predominately natural and that the man-made element is not the prime driver, but it does have a significant affect.
Personally I think that it would be far better off if climate scientists concentrated efforts into investigating (& reporting on ) the direct environmental damage caused by human activity and the destruction of the local & regional flora & fauna which terraforms the local environment which in turn affects the local climates which can mostly be attributed to human activity.

Concentrating on CO2 levels is a bit like measuring the heat from a wildfire to evaluate its destructive force, and then saying that all wildfires are the same and must be eradicated while ignoring the root cause of what actually causes them to spread.

Danno

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Looking at the average monthly January extent over the past 10 years...

Correct!

The month as an average is up.

I seen the article dated January 29th and thought they were reporting on that day alone.

Either way, it's all good news!

posidonia

Deleted User wrote: »

As far as I know, the maximum extent is usually achieved in mid March, so we still have a couple of months to go to see what the maximum will actually be.
But one thing is clear, the "death spiral" that was predicted to have an ice-free period in the Arctic ocean by now, were wrong.

It's evidence like this that backs up the theory that climate change is predominately natural and that the man-made element is not the prime driver, but it does have a significant affect.

You could look at the temperature data for Helsinki in this winter so far (here) and concentrate on the first three days of December and the 27-29th of the same month and talk about how they were not very mild days, or you could look at all the data. For me all the data show it's been an incredibly mild winter (so far) across southern Scandinavia (and a broader area I think).



Single data points are simply that, you have to look at all the data and then the trend.



But, if the trend of Arctic sea ice changes, the long term trend, I'd be the first to show delight!

Personally I think that it would be far better off if climate scientists concentrated efforts into investigating (& reporting on ) the direct environmental damage caused by human activity and the destruction of the local & regional flora & fauna which terraforms the local environment which in turn affects the local climates which can mostly be attributed to human activity.

Concentrating on CO2 levels is a bit like measuring the heat from a wildfire to evaluate its destructive force, and then saying that all wildfires are the same and must be eradicated while ignoring the root cause of what actually causes them to spread.

I look at everything, everything you mention (and you sig is correct imo) and I look at greenhouse gasses - I know that's wrong of me but there we are...

Gaoth Laidir

There's a notable repeating cycle of max and min extents in the overall dataset, with a period of around 5 years (ranging from 4 to 8). Overlaying the January AO index (blue) shows what looks like a slight correlation with extent, but in other cases (and most recently) not. Hard to know exactly what is causing this recurring cyclicity.

M.T. Cranium

I don't really see any comparison between my position and that of the anti-vaxxers since I have actually taken up a position perhaps more extreme than the IPCC in saying that even if the political action they propose were to succeed, the outcome might still be problematic. I am not urging a lack of response. Perhaps some other kinds of skeptics could fairly be compared to anti-vaxxers, perhaps not, but I am not really trying to argue their different forms of skepticism.

Also, just repeating the opinion (and that's all it could possibly be) that I was not black-listed (here in my own country, not in some other country or recently) does not turn it into truth. You could post it every day or every hour but each time it amounts to an ill-informed opinion that I know is untrue. I was blacklisted in quite specific terms. A colleague who worked within the blacklisting agency reported to me that he heard a conversation in which it was specifically stated that I was blacklisted. The specific words were profanity-laced and involved an edict that I would never work in the field and that anyone interfering in that decision could expect the same outcome for themselves.

In any case, there is nothing to be gained from debating this. But one gets the sense that if a person could just blandly form an opinion about one thing without any evidence to rely upon, that might be a pattern in their thought processes.

If we were in court arguing this, I know that is exactly how legal counsel would proceed (because I have been there and had this point debated by lawyers with the judge looking on in disbelief since it is difficult for people who are raised up to high positions in a country with such a high opinion of itself to hear such unexpected reports about the reality behind the scenes within that same self-congratulatory society).

As to libertarian philosophy being selfish, there is a danger of that in a more extreme version than I hold, but when I say libertarian, I mean that more in the tradition of civil libertarian which is actually a leftist point of view also, and from my perspective, necessary as a balance against groupthink and dangerous conformity to unquestioned value systems. If we approach all questions as being both worthy of debate and capable of being debated, we remain healthy and free. I don't presume to know who will win any given open debate, but I know whenever powerful forces try to stifle debate, they are doing so to protect entrenched interests and not in the real interests of the society around them.

posidonia

M.T. Cranium wrote: »

As to libertarian philosophy being selfish, there is a danger of that in a more extreme version than I hold, but when I say libertarian, I mean that more in the tradition of civil libertarian which is actually a leftist point of view also, and from my perspective, necessary as a balance against groupthink and dangerous conformity to unquestioned value systems. If we approach all questions as being both worthy of debate and capable of being debated, we remain healthy and free. I don't presume to know who will win any given open debate, but I know whenever powerful forces try to stifle debate, they are doing so to protect entrenched interests and not in the real interests of the society around them.

Presumably the idea that's its libertarians with the group think problem would be an idea worthy of debate?