Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

2020 officially saw a record number of $1 billion weather and climate disasters.

Options
1717274767784

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 14,360 ✭✭✭✭M.T. Cranium


    No loss of nerve and no betrayal, changing a weather forecast on any time scale is nothing unique to me or something new and different, weather forecasts on all time scales are always changing as new guidance become available. We do not currently have (and may never develop) a really precise scientific model of atmospheric variation, that might rival the astronomer's ability to use the theories of gravitation to provide very precise predictions of eclipses and various other phenomena. The error component in those is remarkably small and within the time frame of a human life normally insignificant. You might run into situations where an astronomical almanac of a century ago would contain ten second or even up to one-minute errors because something as complex as the solar system introduces very small second and third order perturbations, but for all intents we have totally reliable astronomical predictions on any time scale useful to us, whereas we have no real idea what the weather will be doing thirty days from now and any models that have been developed to try to predict this have only very limited success (some might reduce error from random chaos by some measurable amount, perhaps giving right side of current normal predictions that are 60 or even 65 per cent accurate; this ability while modest fades out to random chaos over a longer time frame such as six months or a year). And this is well known to everyone here. The predictions made by the IPCC are more along the lines of "an atmosphere containing this or greater amounts of greenhouse gases will likely continue to warm by certain amounts" which is based on the science of the greenhouse gas effect rather than any modelling as we might understand that term otherwise.

    And I have no particular reason to disbelieve that science in its isolated form, all other factors being negligible, the atmosphere should have warmed up by amounts fairly similar to what we observe over the past 50-100 years, and it probably will continue to warm up at amounts similar to what the IPCC state, with the caveat that the amounts depend on future courses of action. However, there is nothing in their framework that explicitly predicts natural variability other than a disclaimer that whatever form that is now taking, it should be generally negative therefore the warming you see is actually greater from the AGW source than you think, because it is superimposed on an otherwise slowly decreasing background trend. I have taken exception to that since the early days of global warming concerns (let's say late 1980s to 1990s) and have always, without much variation, stated that I think the temperature trends we see are actually a blend of natural variability with some positive phases (in particular 1980-2010) and the AGW signal (which is therefore perhaps not quite as large as the IPCC have postulated).

    But nothing about that forces me to believe that no further natural warming can take place, or that the AGW signal is fixed (it could also increase and probably will because I don't see how the current proposed economic actions will reduce greenhouse gas loads since what is already there has a long residence time). The only change in my thinking is probably this -- I see the potential for a much larger total increase if we start to get back into more active solar cycles, and/or if there are large El Nino events, and/or if there is a linkage between climate and the geomagnetic field. If the AGW signal is now in the range of 0.8 to 1.2 C and natural variability has recently backed off from 1.0 to near neutral, then a resumption of the natural signal into the 1-1.5 range combined with the probable ongoing AGW signal possibly increasing to 1-1.5 also, mean that we face a 2-3 C global temperature increase and we can be fairly confident that if so, the subarctic and arctic will warm more than that (4-6 a likely scenario) because the tropics and some parts of the southern hemisphere remain much closer to current levels and some south polar regions could even cool further.

    So to get back to the previous poster's statements, I don't wish to revisit an exchange we already had elsewhere in the forum, but the bottom line would be this -- Milankovitch has been widely accepted as having at least some correlations with known recent geological glacial cycles, although many think the analysis is incomplete and that other factors may be important too. I am not particularly more or less supportive of Milankovitch than the mainstream of the modern climate and geomorphology sciences, so would back out of any proposed role as the man who forced Irish weather enthusiasts to accept Milankovitch or face the sword, it's up to each person to draw their own conclusions. The poster does leave it unclear whether they support axial precession cycles (that move the position of the north polar guide star over thousands of years) or not, he shows a diagram which clearly shows that this is ongoing then says it hasn't changed appreciably since the time of Newgrange five thousand years back. Both could be true, but I think his comments are a reference to what I said about the sunrise points changing over that time frame due to a change in the earth's axial inclination which had been above 24 degrees in the Neolithic (and is now 23.4 deg). These are two different aspects of both Milankovitch theory and our orbital dynamics.

    A change in obliquity (the axial tilt) is independent of precession of the equinoxes which accounts for the changing position of where the polar axis points in three-dimensional space. They take place over different long periods and obliquity is thought to be more variable in its period than precession.

    But all of this is part of a larger problem I find with the poster's material, there are implications and suggestions but also just a presentation of known facts that one cannot always relate to the questions at hand, for example, the material about the odd orbital dynamics of the planet Uranus. What does that have to do with proving or disproving Milankovitch, axial precession, etc? It is the entire system that gyrates, not a case where the orbital plane remains the same but the earth moves around. The solar system's orbital plane (a rough approximation being Jupiter's orbital plane to which all other planets are variably inclined but more precisely a weighted average of all of them which is almost the same thing) has the same general precession cycles as the earth which is taken along for the ride, so observers on other planets or satellites (if they existed) would find that their reference stars for north (and south) poles would be changing also. And even today, those are not the same as ours because those planets all have somewhat different extended rotational axes than the earth, with Uranus obviously much different, its poles are more or less pointed in the orbital plane so that their polar guide stars would be close to the celestial equator (which runs below Orion and above Sirius).

    Anyway, I have no problem with Orion 402 or anybody else believing whatever they wish to believe, but as Orion 402 is a bit vague about what they do believe, I find it hard to follow some of the arguments presented. For example, does Orion 402 believe that axial tilt of the earth changes over time, that it is not always 23.4 degrees? Does he think that there were in fact glacial periods (ice ages as most would say)? Does he believe in precession of the equinoxes, specifically, can the polar axis point anywhere other than Polaris in the past or the future? Is he aware of and does he then believe in the concept of proper motion of nearby stars? (prime example, Sirius is apparently moving south relative to more distant stars of Orion and therefore eventually will not be visible from our latitudes at all). Since I don't know the context of some of his assertions and have no way to conduct a rational discussion about any of them. There's no obligation of course to reveal answers to any of those, but in the absence of any such clarifications I would rule out any further discussions.



  • Registered Users Posts: 408 ✭✭Orion402


    MT Cranium wrote;  " If the AGW signal is now in the range of 0.8 to 1.2 C and natural variability has recently backed off from 1.0 to near neutral, then a resumption of the natural signal into the 1-1.5 range combined with the probable ongoing AGW signal possibly increasing to 1-1.5 also, mean that we face a 2-3 C global temperature increase"


    I think you and others realised fairly quickly that without a base planetary temperature against which the asserted 1.5°C rise is imagined, the data sets become almost worthless. I can't say I admire how carbon dioxide became a planetary thermostat under the control of humans at the emergence of the industrial era in order to promote anxiety among those prone to catastrophic tendencies, but a more balanced perspective is that the scheme is contrived and disruptive for actual climate research. It is good to have environmental concerns, but not at the expense of misusing the principles of short term weather modelling.

    Right now, the North pole is turning away from the Sun and into the dark hemisphere of the Earth. In doing so, the distance from the North pole to the light hemisphere is increasing thereby creating a circumference, with the North pole at its centre, where the Sun remains constantly out of view for observers. It reaches a maximum circumference on the December Solstice (Arctic circle) and thereafter decreases until the one and only sunrise at the North pole on the March Equinox whereas the opposite happens at the South pole-


    In short, it is not possible to discuss planetary climate as a comparative exercise in interpretation without first explaining the seasons properly and how two surface rotations in combination act to create the experience on the surface with varying effects across latitudes. The complicated stuff can wait as the issues were mainly due to the attempt to mesh the emergence of a moving Earth in a Sun-centred system with the antecedent predictive framework of Ptolemy.


    Good luck with your Milankovitch cycles, however, the moving Earth doesn't answer to one man and his conceptions, all we can do is enjoy the spectacle and its effects.

    Post edited by Orion402 on


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭Banana Republic 1


    MT Cranium said in the above post

    “warming you see is actually greater from the AGW source than you think”

    How long before the other cards on this house fall and or abandon the tread in disgust as Gaoth Laidir did ?



  • Registered Users Posts: 14,360 ✭✭✭✭M.T. Cranium


    Okay, I officially give up trying to communicate, there seems to be no point in the effort and I have lots to do.

    As to the larger discussion, I think I got my points across and thank anyone who made any sincere effort to evaluate them and respond in any form other than either sarcasm or mystifying mumbo-jumbo. Sincerely, I have no idea what one poster really believes or how they could possibly form the preposterous concept that they are the only person in this group who knows why summer days are long and winter days are short.

    Won't be back in for the duration, 2020 was a pretty average year for weather disasters, I'm sure 2021 has outdone it already and we'll be hearing all about that soon enough. If we ever get another year like 1888 then it's game over for sure.



  • Registered Users Posts: 14,360 ✭✭✭✭M.T. Cranium


    Your quote is out of context, I was stating the IPCC position which is that AGW warming is greater than it seems because it is being added onto an otherwise slowly falling "natural climate" baseline. I disagree with that and have explained my reasoning.

    GL did not abandon the thread because I said it might turn warm. In fact he didn't say he was abandoning the thread, he said we won't see him around much because he saw something and it made weather and climate seem insignificant. Maybe he will let us know what he saw, I have days where I don't think about the weather and climate much either, for example if I am on holiday and can spend a day hiking in the back country of Utah, then after checking the weather situation to make sure I won't die in a flash flood, that's the last I will think about weather for the day. Or on the golf course, but there again you have to know which way the wind is blowing and how it might affect your shot (if you actually manage to hit it properly anyway).

    This whole exchange I have had is a prime example of political b.s. where I say something that can be construed as a change of opinion about one thing when it's self evident that it's actually a change of opinion about something else. It would be like this, if I said I have changed my mind about same sex marriage or what is the best brand of beer, and somebody said well it's good that you finally admit that human beings are screwing up the climate.

    I continue to see flaws in the IPCC position and I don't think the political agenda can work, and obviously it is not working very well. Certain countries probably think they are further ahead to have a functioning economy than to prevent a one meter sea level rise. Do the math, you have a population of one billion like India, a fragile economy, and so do you (a) maintain that economic growth and hope to feed all those people, we can't even imagine it in our countries, India has about the same amount of habitable land as Canada and forty times as many people, China same thing, fifty times as many. And the habitable portions of Canada are not exactly an empty wilderness now. Or, (b) do you risk all that and do everything you possibly can to keep the sea from rising one meter? Perhaps the calculus is a lot different in the Maldives or the Netherlands.

    People in the green movement assure us that we'll have a wonderful economy if we go totally green but many people see this as entirely hyperbolic fantasy, this green economy cannot employ enough people or produce enough goods to do that, instead it will lead to mass starvation and complete social chaos. Is that worth preventing a one meter sea level rise? If we could vote on this, I would vote for a mitigation response while keeping some of the better parts of the green agenda but at a pace that can be sustained without destroying millions of jobs and replacing them with hundreds.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭Banana Republic 1


    On the 6th of September this year you said, in post number #1644.

    "I remain unconvinced that we are entering an era of accelerating weather extremes. The test for me is always the "back and forth" test from a given year, do you hit a stronger extreme going forward or going backwards?", a stances which you had for sometime.

    Then on the 3rd of November in your post numbered #2127, just in time for COP, yous said,

    "So while I have criticisms of the IPCC theories, my own analysis is probably more dire than theirs since I don't see how we would avoid significant northern land ice losses unless we catch a break with natural variability taking the curves down harder than AGW is pushing them up (which I acknowledge to be a component of the overall result, and here again, short term even spectacular gains in human intervention would fail to do much about the inertia of the already present greenhouse gas load)."

    there's the old saying "when the facts change I change my mind", but the facts haven't changed and they certainly didn't in the the two months between your posts, you simply done a U turn. Of coarse you curate the language you use in each post so as you can weasel your way out of things like a politician but anyone who speaks English can see straight through the obfuscation. Now the read top reading fanboys have abandoned this tread why because the chief has turned states evidence.



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭Banana Republic 1




  • Registered Users Posts: 408 ✭✭Orion402



    I don't know why you are so happy, all he did was introduce a wishy washy addition to the purported 1.5°C rise, which is relative to nothing meaningful unless dumping guilt on 'industrial' humanity is considered an achievement.

    The swindle is getting the unwary to use an undefined pre-industrial era as a reference while in the industrial era, carbon dioxide becomes a thermostat under the control of humanity and linked directly to temperature rise.

    Hopefully this chapter in an academic misadventure comes to an end soon and climate research can get started in earnest.



  • Registered Users Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir


    Just to correct the right honourable gentleman as he once again invents false facts, I have not abandoned the thread. If you read back you'll see I clearly stated my unaltered position on MT's unaltered theory but that other factors totally unrelated to, and much more important than, the climate "debate" have shifted my interest away from the topic. I don't have to share details with total strangers on here so I'll leave it at that.



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭Banana Republic 1


    MT made the suggestion about sharing the details not me so don’t try and lump that on me.

    MT Cranium said “Maybe he will let us know what he saw”

    I think you said before about witnessing something, it was around the time you said were in Sardinia, didn’t seem to stop you posting then.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir


    Wrong again. It wasn't close to that time. And all of this is off-topic.



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭Banana Republic 1


    Always with the dodge, dip, duck, dive and dodge.



  • Registered Users Posts: 6,235 ✭✭✭Oneiric 3


    You seem mightily concerned with the personal lives of others.

    M.T is right though; weather and climate are very trivial concerns that only hobbyists like those of us on this forum concern themselves with.

    New Moon



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,339 ✭✭✭The One Doctor


    You people are nuts. Except MT, that is.



  • Registered Users Posts: 14,360 ✭✭✭✭M.T. Cranium


    Hey I am nuts enough. This thread would drive anybody slightly bonkers.

    The point about what I said in September about increasing severe weather events had nothing to do with a temperature trend forecast, I stand by that observation and the method suggested for testing it. Also this future natural temperature increase to which I refer has not yet set in, I expect it to materialize around 2030-2050 whenever the Sun becomes more active again, and/or we happen to get into a series of stronger El Nino events. Until then, we still have the likelihood of rather steady state temperatures and yes at this point in time most of the observed increases over such baselines as 1951-80 (that is often held to be the last gasp of "normal" climate) could be attributed to AGW since we're in a slightly cooler background of natural cycles.

    My points are entirely based on conjecture about the future course of events. Those have nothing to do with any currently observed situations. If the natural warming trend fails to materialize, if I am still active by 2035-40 I will comment on it then, and if I think I am right about it, then I would say so but probably against a very strident chorus of "look at this runaway AGW, we tried to warn you" so I really don't know how we would ever untangle the two different sources of warming. Another unknown of course is how quickly we will be seeing a decline in new greenhouse gas emissions, but whatever happens in that regard, we're not going to lose any of the current load very quickly, from what I understand of the atmospheric chemistry, carbon dioxide has a residence half life of about 200 years.



  • Registered Users Posts: 8,913 ✭✭✭Danno


    Chair of expert ventilation group says Nolan's comment on HEPA filters 'defies laws of physics' (thejournal.ie)

    "Meanwhile, a People Before Profit Bill on workplace ventilation was passed by the Dáil today.

    The Bill defines clean air as having fewer than 900 ppm (parts per million) of Co2 – and puts the onus on employers to achieve this through ventilation or air filtration."

    Interesting revelation about the upper limits of C02 from Paul Murphy TD.



  • Registered Users Posts: 14,360 ✭✭✭✭M.T. Cranium


    I wasn't all that impressed with 2020 myself, figuring it got into first place on a combination of reporting and inflation. But 2021 needs no help from either of those, I figure it will blow 2020 away just counting British Columbia alone. Whatever you think the cause of these events, no doubt they were overdue and we got them in spades in this past year. Given what's known about the climate before we had all this infrastructure in place, I'm not as surprised as most people seem to be. Old weather records show that there were some very heavy rainfalls in the 19th century too, but there was almost none of the settlement we have now. Floods in 1894 and 1948 were about on a par with these recent floods but had a somewhat different origin, spring runoff rather than autumn rains. There were similar rains, mudslides and highway washouts in the winter of 1981-82. But we didn't have the Coquihalla Highway then, so it's hard to compare the outcome where that highway has been largely wiped out for a 20-km stretch. It is going to take months and probably nearly a billion dollars to replace that. Yes it's a weather related disaster, and also an overdue problem waiting for its opportunity, given where we are and the nature of the local terrain. Everyone now has 20-20 hindsight and claims that infrastructure should have been beefed up in recent years. Truth be known, the designs were probably overly optimistic. These fast-moving mountain rivers show you quite clearly what they have done in the past, which is as good a guide to the future as anything else. People are welcome to believe that things are changing, but in this part of the world, that seems ridiculous just when you look around and realize that the rugged terrain was carved out by events just like the ones we are seeing now. They have happened before and nothing we do or could do would prevent them from happening again.

    Everything is relative too. Timing is as big a detail as the actual events. In January 1965 an entire mountain collapsed on a highway in the same general area (highway 3 which is now the main transport route in the absence of the freeway link). But it happened at 0300h and only one vehicle was buried in the rockslide. If that had happened at mid-afternoon, a hundred people could quite easily have been along that stretch of road. But to compare events, we can't just take these vagaries in isolation, we have to assume that past events could have happened at slightly different times, just as current events might have done. We were very lucky not to run up a bigger death toll than five in this past episode, it could have easily been fifty or five hundred. Nobody closed the highways until they were gone, but because the problems developed gradually in daylight, people stopped and blocked the roads, in almost every case they managed to do that in safe spots although there was probably little or no planning involved in that. The few people who were killed in slides stopped in the wrong place, and then got hit by a second slide. This is why they put up signs saying "Avalanche zone, no stopping."



  • Registered Users Posts: 408 ✭✭Orion402



    What began as the laws of nature, laws of physics, laws of whatever is really the demands of Sir Isaac or more specifically Rules of Reasoning-



    [Just press cancel to see page]

    The laws of physics is just another way to describe the scientific method which dictates that experimental science scale up to solar system research and Earth sciences. If you wish to scale up the conditions in a garden greenhouse to the Earth's atmosphere as a law of physics then that is Rule III-


    " The qualities of bodies which are found to belong to all bodies within the reach of our experiments, are to be esteemed the universal qualities of all bodies whatsoever." Newton


    The vandalism to solar system research occurred here-

    https://gravitee.tripod.com/phaenomena.htm

    And here in the Scholium where he sets up his idiosyncratic definitions-


    It is a quite an undertaking to untangle experimental sciences from Earth sciences like climate notwithstanding the noise from the practitioners of the scientific method and those who make a living from it.



  • Registered Users Posts: 408 ✭✭Orion402



    Many of the questions are answered by taking into account what happens next week at the December Solstice as a major milestone in the annual cycle.

    As the North polar latitude turns into the dark hemisphere of the Earth and reaches its maximum distance to the light hemisphere of the Earth, towns existing close to the Arctic circle are experiencing the absence of the Sun like Kiruna in Sweden-


    https://www.timeanddate.com/sun/sweden/kiruna?month=12&year=2022


    The motion of the North pole relative to the orbital plane is parallel as a function of the orbital motion of the Earth, after all, daily rotation is absent at both polar latitudes. The historical reasons for axial precession can be set aside as an explanation for the precession of the equinoxes for that explanation relied on the Ptolemaic framework which the Sun moved through the constellations rather than the contemporary framework where the stars change position relative to the stationary/central Sun as a consequence of the Earth orbital motion, again, parallel to the orbital plane-


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

    It is a magical time like the ebbing of a tide where the circumference begins to shrink after the December Solstice until it disappears altogether at the March Equinox when the circumference where the Sun remains constantly in view begins to expand at the North pole while its counterpart at the South pole becomes the centre for an expanding circle of darkness.


    It is not possible to consider planetary climate as distinct from geographical climate without first considering the cause of the seasons before moving on to the rate of change across latitudes (planetary climate) as our planet runs a circuit of the Sun. In some ways it is far more difficult in this era to inspect the components of weather and climate than it was in the era of Copernicus 500 years ago due to the emergence of celestial sphere reasoning of the late 17th century.



  • Registered Users Posts: 14,360 ✭✭✭✭M.T. Cranium


    I think these two paradigms are not opposed to each other, just two different ways of stating the same facts. I would be happy to discuss this without any name calling or other diversions but you have to state more clearly what you don't accept about what most of us would call orthodox science, if we don't know that we are also in a dark spot when it comes to discussing anything. For example, do you believe that the earth's polar axis is always fixed relative to the stars, or does it describe a large circle over thousands of years, so that Polaris is only the north star for the current epoch, and other stars, for example, Vega, serve that function at other points in time? (leaving aside the fact that all the stars in our galaxy are drifting slowly out of their fixed positions but that process takes a lot longer with perhaps one or two nearby exceptions).

    If you don't believe this (the foundation of precession of the equinoxes) then fine, I really don't care whether anyone believes it or not. I have no reason to doubt it although I wasn't around 20,000 years ago to witness it for myself. It just seems that way.

    As to "explaining" that there is a period of darkness north of the arctic circle, I can assure you that everyone knows that and knows the reason for it. I've been up there in the summer when you get 24 hours of daylight. The full moon barely gets above the horizon when you get north of 60 deg N in the summer months. The summer sun just dips below the northern horizon at 64 deg N and it doesn't get any darker than twilight down south.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 408 ✭✭Orion402


    " If you don't believe this (the foundation of precession of the equinoxes) then fine, I really don't care whether anyone believes it or not. I have no reason to doubt it although I wasn't around 20,000 years ago to witness it for myself. It just seems that way."

    This has to be treated in a 21st century way as though contemporary observations do matter rather than having to surmount the difficulties and observational limitations faced by researchers in other eras. The short version is that the precession of the Equinoxes works seamlessly with the framework which creates the calendar system, in this case the first annual appearance of a star at dawn (heliacal rising) rather than the Ptolemaic framework based on the Sun's direct motion through the stars that Copernicus was forced to work with.

    The calendar system is based on the number of rotations for 4 orbital circuits by utilising the observed fact that the star Sirius skips a first annual appearance by one day after every fourth 365 day cycle. It is much older than the Canopus decree, but only there is it stated explicitly-

    ".. 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

    In terms of timekeeping, this became the familiar 365/366 day calendar while in terms of the daily and orbital motions of the Earth it represents roughly 365 1/4 rotations per orbital circuit but not exactly and this is where the precession of the Equinoxes comes in. The 1 degree drift every 72 years is the mismatch between the rotational/orbital components because the proportion is not exactly 1461 rotations for 4 orbital circuits. It is impossible to account for within the Ptolemaic framework which is why Copernicus was forced to drop the annual motion of the North/South polar latitudes relative to the Sun which he expressed in his 1509 Commentariolus-

    "The third is the motion in declination. For, the axis of the daily rotation is not parallel to the Grand Orb's axis, but is inclined [to it at an angle that intercepts] a portion of a circumference, in our time about 23 1/2°. Therefore, while the earth's center always remains in the plane of the ecliptic, that is, in the circumference of a circle of the Grand Orb, the earth's poles rotate, both of them describing small circles about centers [lying on a line that moves] parallel to the Grand Orb's axis. The period of this motion also is a year, but not quite, being nearly equal to the Grand Orb's [revolution]." Copernicus, Commentariolus


    These are necessary historical and technical points of view in order to break a deadlock between cause and effect, in terms of the seasons and on to proper planetary climate research.

     

    Post edited by Orion402 on


  • Registered Users Posts: 408 ✭✭Orion402


    "As to "explaining" that there is a period of darkness north of the arctic circle, I can assure you that everyone knows that and knows the reason for it. I've been up there in the summer when you get 24 hours of daylight."


    I neither give nor take assurances so everyone is on an equal footing at this point.

    The cycle where the circumference of an area, with the North pole at its centre, expands and contracts over the course of a year is new to readers as it treats the process differently than the normal and deficient explanation using a tilting/tilted Earth. Presently the area where the Sun remains constantly out of sight, is reaching its maximum circumference with Arctic sea ice evolution roughly following that expanse of darkness known as the Arctic circle at its greatest circumference. Physically, the North pole has turned parallel to the Sun and orbital plane mid way to the light hemisphere of the Earth, so after the December Solstice, the distance to the light hemisphere closes and with it the area where the Sun remains constantly out of sight begins to shrink. That area of darkness shrinks altogether on the March Equinox when the Sun comes into view for the first time in 6 months and then the opposite expansion happens where the Sun remains constantly in view with the maximum circumference on the June Solstice.


    In effect, the North/South poles in relation to the Sun and orbital plane behave this way annually as described by Copernicus originally, but dropped in De Revolutionibus to satisfy the deficient Ptolemaic framework-



    [The direction of the North/South poles is opposite to that shown in the graphic above as the graphic was borrowed from Wikipedia]


    Readers can safely say that the North pole will turn roughly 7 degrees into the dark hemisphere of the Earth from today up to the December Solstice thereby reaching the maximum expanse of darkness distant from the radius with the North pole at its centre-


    So, the more productive approach is to consider how the North/South poles relate to the light and dark hemispheres of the Earth with the dividing line at right angles to the orbital plane. The next step is rather difficult yet there is imaging available which aids the observer in dropping axial precession as a 25,920 year cycle and shifting it to cause and effect between the motions of the planet and the seasons and from there to genuine climate research.



  • Registered Users Posts: 408 ✭✭Orion402


    The following headline in the Washington Post has to be the most unintentionally funny one I have seen on the topic-


    'Climate change has destabilized the Earth’s poles'



    The relationship of the North/South poles to the orbital plane determines the rate of change in conditions across latitudes as the Earth travels through space. Were the North Pole to be positioned closer to the orbital plane then so would the equivalent of the Arctic circle increase and create wild swings in weather, the further away (to a maximum 90 degrees) the more benign the conditions.


    It is a step by step approach to deal with the seasons first and then on to planetary climate. It is not that headlines above are an occasion for dismay and based on hysteria, the dismaying part is that few find planetary climate as it actually exists to be interesting.

    Post edited by Orion402 on


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,360 ✭✭✭✭M.T. Cranium


    I think that was more a case of awkward prose, they didn't mean to suggest that climate change is shifting the poles, just the weather experienced at the poles (their take on it, not necessarily mine).

    As to all the other stuff you've posted, I can't really see where it's really different from anything most people believe under a somewhat different set of definitions. It's what lawyers call a difference without a distinction.

    It seems like you accept the existence of precession of the equinoxes over a roughly 26k year cycle, so there really isn't anything to debate here.

    It's rather like a Christian-Muslim debate about God and Allah, perhaps they are entirely different paradigms (and God is not Allah), or perhaps it's just all in names and two rather different cultures apprehending the same phenomenon with much different ways of describing what they perceive (and God is Allah).



  • Registered Users Posts: 408 ✭✭Orion402


    "It seems like you accept the existence of precession of the equinoxes over a roughly 26k year cycle, so there really isn't anything to debate here."

    Don't be careless with the work of the first Sun-centred researcher who was forced to change his correct 1509 perspective on the annual circular motion of the North/South poles in order to satisfy the Ptolemaic framework and the precession of the Equinoxes. That limitation has now been removed by the presence of a tracking satellite which allows observers to see the annual change in position of the stars parallel to the orbital plane of the Earth-


    The precession of the Equinoxes fits perfectly with the older framework which creates the 365/366 calendar framework where there are not exactly 365 days for each orbital circuit nor are there exactly 1461 rotations for 4 orbital circuits. The precession of the Equinoxes amounts to a more accurate proportion between the number of rotations for each orbital circuit and is for those who are more careful with historical and technical data. It is entirely new because the satellite data is entirely a product of this era and how we see the stars change from left to right of the Sun, or in ancient times, how they marked it as the first annual dawn appearance of a star as per the Canopus decree.


    The annual motion of the North South poles through the light and dark hemispheres of the Earth replaces the flawed use of it to account for the precession of the Equinoxes in the Ptolemaic framework with its annual motion leading to the only conclusion possible- when daily rotation and all its influences are subtracted, the entire surface of the Earth rotates once to the central Sun each year/orbit as a function of the orbital motion of the Earth. It is why at the North/South poles (where daily rotation is absent), they experience a single day/night cycle each year with a single sunrise on one Equinox, one sunset on the opposite Equinox and the Sun either constantly in view or out of sight for 6 months.


    I am doing this more for the other readers who probably would prefer to consider the dynamics behind the seasons using the expanding and contracting circumferences with the poles at their centre where the Sun is constantly in view or out of sight. The idea is that the observer enjoys the spectacle where the December Solstice means that the circumference where the Sun remains out of view is about to reach its maximum (Arctic circle) whereas we experience it at our latitudes as the longest period of darkness.



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭Banana Republic 1




  • Registered Users Posts: 22,242 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    "People in the green movement assure us that we'll have a wonderful economy if we go totally green but many people see this as entirely hyperbolic fantasy, this green economy cannot employ enough people or produce enough goods to do that, instead it will lead to mass starvation and complete social chaos. Is that worth preventing a one meter sea level rise? If we could vote on this, I would vote for a mitigation response while keeping some of the better parts of the green agenda but at a pace that can be sustained without destroying millions of jobs and replacing them with hundreds."

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    This is pure unadulterated bullsh1t. There is absolutely no basis to say that an environmentally sustainable economy would lead to mass job losses or mass starvation and social chaos. You're clearly so politically opposed to 'the green movement' that its completely clouded your judgement

    And there are vastly more impacts from climate change than 'just' a 1 metre sea level rise. If we don't minimise climate change, we're looking at incredible levels of economic political and social disruption and we will see genuine food shortages and famine as crops we see multiple concurrent natural disasters affecting multiple regions all at the same time.

    You try to come across as 'reasonable' and 'thoughtful' by carefully attributing some warming to humans, and others to 'natural variability' using a ratio that you basically pull out of your own ass depending on what mood you're in, but then you say stuff like 'the green movement' will lead to mass unemployment, mass starvation and complete social unrest'

    There are thousands of research papers that support the conclusion that unmitigated climate change will cause massive disruption to agriculture, mass displacement of populations, more extreme droughts and heatwaves, changes in the migration of pest species, reductions in ground water supplies from melting glaciers and changing rainfall patterns and increased evaporation, heavier flash floods, bigger storm surges, more powerful hurricanes tracking further north and overall increases in the most extreme weather events to the point where they will exceed any weather events ever experienced by any human since we evolved to live on this planet. And you're so worried about 'the green movement' that you think we should just take a little bit of action, maybe, and see what happens

    Post edited by Akrasia on


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,855 ✭✭✭Nabber


    The death and gloom s back... Just in time for Christmas.


    What are the positives of global warming?



  • Registered Users Posts: 22,242 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    If we manage to decarbonise our transport and home heating systems, people in cities will be able to go outside in winter and breath air that isn't full of soot and smoke



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 14,360 ✭✭✭✭M.T. Cranium


    Dramatic condemnations of my opinions really have no "real world" impact at all, I am not involved in setting government policy and I do not hold elected office. So why all the fuss?

    A departed friend of my former acquaintance used to say, "if you're drawing flak, you're over the target."

    So maybe it's that. Just little old MTC vs the thousand-paper academic juggernaut of proven green economic miracles, why Lenin and Stalin would have killed for people this useful. Has even one of those papers ever been tested by actual economists? Or is it just a circle jerk of uber-leftists talking to each other in goodspeak acceptable around universities? What does that prove? Nothing. It's like people reading papers at some gathering of the politburo in the former USSR or the present-day China, everyone nods in agreement and claps politely; to do otherwise is to risk being sent to the camps.

    In the academic world nowadays, if you don't follow the herd and accept every new preposterous position of political correctness, you are shown the door and you won't have a future in the academic world. The days of actual reasoned debate are long, long behind us. We had a golden age of intellectual accomplishment; it ended about the time most of us were born. And many are too stunned to notice that.

    It's no wonder that governments can get away with the things they do nowadays, not to mention social censors of all kinds. There is not enough resistance left to stop them. And I think any sensible person can guess where it will end.



Advertisement