Spain and Portugal are at their driest for 1,200 years

Orion402

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119375811#Comment_119375811

The imaging is the only attention seeking so I don't fault those who cannot interpret what is in front of them in terms of cyclical weather and the dynamics behind seasonal weather events, everything from large scale events like the Atlantic hurricane season or Arctic sea ice evolution down to why it will be colder in 6 months at your location.

Pleading that a weather forum doesn't include cyclical weather and the underlying dynamics is also the reason why the awful modelling indulgence called climate change modelling exists. There is nobody to rein in the meteorologists who have given themselves unwarranted stature as planetary climate is impossible without planetary dynamics.

The dreary attempt to draw me into reactions distracts from the principles which go into looking at climate as a component of the Earth just as different organs make up the human body and especially the relationship of the planet to its Sun-centred surroundings just as the body reacts to its terrestrial surroundings.

The lack of self-awareness is a productive thing as information sharing using visible affirmations is front and centre. I suggest people try it for a change.

Akrasia

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119367754#Comment_119367754

One of the very few posters I have set to ignore

Akrasia

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119369594#Comment_119369594

We have multiple climate models that are shown to be accurate at hindcasting. To see what a future without humans would have been all they need to do is run the model starting at the beginning of the industrial revolution and not include the human forcings.

Scientists have done this and they have run the models thousands of times with different natural scenarios and concluded that with human forcings the heatwaves in India and Pakistan were 30 times more likely to happen.

These models are the best tools we have ever had to analyse and identify the causes and interactions in weather and climate.

There is no natural process that could be driving this heating as you have already alluded to. No climate scientist has put forward any rational alternative hypothesis that has lived up to scrutiny and it's not for want of trying.

Orion402

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119376595#Comment_119376595

Planetary climate is a gorgeous Earth science linked directly to planetary dynamics through cyclical weather which includes the day/night and seasonal cycles.

Short term weather modelling has its share of good news and bad news, however, climate change modelling is just dreary predictions with nothing positive to inspire the observer. Contributors to this forum may feel they can contribute to climate research as a positive endeavour instead of being caught in hysterics/denialist camps that make up a disruptive group who dislike each other.

PokeHerKing

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119376672#Comment_119376672

What caused warming in earth's past or indeed cooling? I mean the problem as I see it about the current circus around climate change is that nothing that we are currently seeing is even outside of mankind's history, let alone the earth itself.

There's been droughts there's been floods, ad infinitum. Until there's evidence of things that have never happened before I'm afraid climate science will live in the modelling world and not the real one.

M.T. Cranium

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119376672#Comment_119376672

These multiple climate models are all based on the assumption that recent warming is AGW, so what other conclusion could they possibly demonstrate? And as to the second point, "there is no natural process that could be driving warming" that is on the face of it a belief not a scientific theory. Of course there are natural processes that could be driving warming. It is this climate change belief structure that shows the "science" is not fully developed. Mind you I agree that a good part of the observed warming is human caused. As to heat waves being 30 times more likely, that seems considerably inflated.

The problem is not a lack of trying so much as an automatic exclusion process for non-believers. It is much like an agnostic setting out to become Pope for a climate skeptic to convince climate change believers that they are wrong. "We can't be wrong but show us your ideas." Why bother?

With an event like the recent heat wave, you have to ask whether the event could have happened without human activity. I see no constraint on it happening within 0.5 C of the outcome, that is the only differential produced, not the event itself. Living in North America perhaps I am more familiar with the severity of heat waves that happened earlier in the recent or modern era, that have not been duplicated since, such as the 1936 heat wave. When you say "there is no natural process etc" such knowledge makes your assertions almost as annoying as the current champion in that regard (who is really not going to be challenged for the gold medal no matter what). But annoyance turns to concern when one realizes that the science is under the direction of people with very similar views, impervious to any logical challenge to their orthodoxy. "We can't be wrong and don't show us your ideas" is actually closer to the truth.

If people expect severe weather to go away if everyone drives an electric car, they are going to be very disappointed.

Orion402

It is clear that the believer/sceptic, hysteric/denier or whatever else they call their opponent are comfortable in each other's company for how else to explain the return of the same individuals who were trying to outdo each other in terms of dire predictions in another previous thread. It is all based on making weather open-ended while ignoring planetary dynamics and that weather is cyclical before planetary climate can even be considered.

https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/earth/in-depth/

The misadventure with timekeeping contained in the NASA website as an insistence that the planet doesn't turn once every sunrise/noon/sunset cycle and the reasoning employed is just as contrived as the crude thinking that humanity can control the weather otherwise known as climate change modelling.

The new insight that the planet turns in two separate ways to the Sun is directed in opposite directions. It explains seasonal variations in weather as geographical climate, whereas compared to other planets in the solar system, this represents planetary climate proper with a spectrum attached.

Akrasia

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119377816#Comment_119377816

Short answer, previous warming and heating cycles were dominated by 3 things, the 'wobble' on the earth's rotation that completes in 41k year cycles. Solar output which seems to operate in 11/22k year cycles and the presence of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere

These are the forcings that drive things like the earth's albedo which is a feedback

We understand these sufficiently to know that it's not the milankovitch cycle or the Sun that is driving the current change but we do know that the concentration of ghgs in the atmosphere have been going up and that this is entirely because mankind's influence

No other credible hypothesis has been suggested to explain the observed warming and the IPCC describe the evidence to support AGW as unequivocal. And this a view shared by every single reputable scientific body on earth

Akrasia

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119377856#Comment_119377856

No they're not. At least not the ones used by credible scientists publishing in the best quality journals. They were developed to explore the link between GHGs and climate change and they found that link and it has been validated scientifically. And the fact that the models run decades ago accurately predicted the current warming means that their assumptions are valid.

There are plenty of very well resourced interest groups who have tried to develop models that show otherwise but they have all failed because only the addition of GHGs explains the current and observed warming

Dr Roy Spencer has forged a career trying to poke holes in the models, and even tried to construct his own model but it was woefully inadequate https://skepticalscience.com/link_to_us.php?Blog0=910

Every time he published new reasons to show the models overstate the risk, there are errors in his calculations that, when corrected, actually end up validating the models. Even the UAH dataset has had to be revised upwards multiple times due to errors in the data (satellite measurements that introduced bias due to decaying orbits for example)

Your final comment about people expecting the extremes to stop if we can stop emitting carbon being disappointed. This is true. People shouldn't expect a return to the old normal. We are already committed to more extremes. We need to limit the damage to prevent even more severe harm. The longer we fail to do this, the more damage we are doing to future generations

PokeHerKing

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119378116#Comment_119378116

So we can predict the ice ages yet struggle with the weather? I'm sorry but we can't.

There's plenty of time between your theories unaccounted for. Great theories by exceptional minds but not the absolutes youre holding them up to be.

Thargor

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119375811#Comment_119375811

Ive seen him in the comments section of the Irish Times and other places around the internet aswell going back years, its absolutely bizarre, a human spambot.

Akrasia

https://youtu.be/f4zul0BuO8A

This fellah, Simon Clark is a working atmospheric physicist so he is an expert and he's also good at communicating so well worth a watch if anyone wants to get a crash course on the subject

Gaoth Laidir

Getting back to the topic at hand, Akrasia, I posted a comment with a link to the Spanish Met's drought resource and showed a graph for the driest part I could find on the map. Contrary to what many say, since the early 1960s at least there has been no real trend in the drought index, and absolutely no evidence whatsoever to back up the claim that manmade climate change is already causing catastrophic drought in Iberia and elsewhere. My post remained quietly ignored.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119343295/#Comment_119343295

Orion402

The issue of climate and cyclical weather began in the early 16th century when Copernicus first described the behaviour of the North and South poles *. In order to satisfy his contemporaries who used the Ptolemaic framework for predictive purposes like eclipses, he was forced to modify his explanation in order to account for the 1 degree drift every 72 years known as the Precession of the Equinoxes. The later researcher, Galileo in this case, remarked that even when observers could affirm a moving Earth in a Sun-centred system through indirect observations, they simply refused much like today when readers refuse to look at what is in front of them-

" My dear Kepler, I wish that we might laugh at the remarkable stupidity of the common herd. What do you have to say about the principal philosophers of this academy who are filled with the stubbornness of an asp and do not want to look at either the planets, the moon or the telescope, even though I have freely and deliberately offered them the opportunity a thousand times? Truly, just as the asp stops its ears, so do these philosophers shut their eyes to the light of truth." Galileo

I don't believe in a common herd, there are always those who can interpret observations with integrity rather than pretending to understand the cyclical motions which make weather and climate possible. The modelling subculture which gives rise to those who think planetary dynamics is an affront to their climate change modelling convictions, whether opponent or proponent, will always avoid looking at immediate cyclical weather and its true causes.

http://copernicus.torun.pl/en/archives/astronomical/1/?view=transkrypcja& *

Gaoth Laidir

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119378533#Comment_119378533

Shut up. Just shut up. Please. Enough's enough.

Orion402

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119378561#Comment_119378561

I know all to well that none of you can presently handle the technical details which faced Copernicus in being the first to account for cyclical weather and especially the seasons within the limits of the framework he was forced to operate with-

" 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]. The Grand Orb's axis, however, being invariant with regard to the firmament, is directed toward what are called the poles of the ecliptic. The poles of the daily rotation would always be fixed in like manner at the same points of the heavens by the motion in declination combined with the Orb's motion, if their periods were exactly equal. Now with the long passage of time it has become clear that this alignment of the earth changes with regard to the configuration of the firmament. Hence it is the common opinion that the firmament itself has several motions. But even though the principle involved is not yet sufficiently understood, it is less surprising that all these phenomena can occur on account of the earth's motion. I am not prepared to state to what its poles are attached. I am of course aware that in more mundane matters a magnetized iron needle always points toward a single spot in the universe. It has nevertheless seemed a better view to ascribe the phenomena to a sphere, whose turning governs the movements of the poles. This sphere must doubtless be sublunar." Copernicus

It takes two surface rotations to explain what Copernicus could not and that fact that these rotations are visible makes a mockery of the subculture which creates the monstrosity of climate change modelling with its opponents and proponents.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=612gSZsplpE

M.T. Cranium

Don't they still teach logic and reasoning in university?

"The models predicted warming due to human causes, it warmed up, therefore the human causes are proven to be valid."

No. Sorry. Logic -- all that proves is that it warmed up. It does not prove cause.

In cause and effect, effect never proves cause.

Parallel if you don't understand. Police find a dead body. Autopsy reveals gunshot wounds. Fred Bloggs has a gun. Therefore Fred Bloggs is a murderer.

Luckily Bloggs had a lawyer and the judge studied logic. Although the police are not that daft. No judge would ever hear such a case. The media however are daft enough to fall for this elementary mistake in logic.

Let's face it, with a natural cycle of warming obviously under way, it was the money bet to say there would be warming. Climate change would be in a heap of trouble if they had chosen the other direction.

fits

Old white guys against climate change wha?

Oneiric 3

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119357184#Comment_119357184

Amazing how this vile lump of excrement fell under the radar. But then, this isn't the only post I had the misfortune to read through on this forum yesterday that was more than sympathetic to explicit Nazism, which, once again, went totally unnoticed.

I am beginning to suspect that 'Orion402' is a pseudonym of a more regular poster on this forum; a poster whom I was warned about a few years back, who holds some very sinister ideological views, and a poster whom will find any means necessary to promote those views, if even just on a small Irish weather forum where people just want to talk about snow and sun.

2 + 2 = 4.... and winter is coming.

NedsNotDead

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119380792#Comment_119380792

I reported that post about Nazism but nothing was done about it. I frankly find it bizarre how OP has not been thread banned

Orion402

The three big Earth sciences of biology, geology and climate are interconnected so that any genuine researcher can try to put together a narrative by using as much observations as possible to arrive at conclusions or, at the very least, be put on the road to genuine riches.

Evolutionary sciences began with the fossil record written in rock strata with a slowly emerging picture of the history of life on Earth through faunal succession, an avenue of research that was in existence long before the races/racism doctrine of natural selection-

Natural selection sabotaged genuine biological and geological research by insisting that skull shape, cultural differences and superficial distinctions like that were a basis to divide the human race biologically into sub-races or less favoured 'races'.

" In the brain of the lowest savages, and, as far as we yet know, of the pre-historic races, we have an organ so little inferior in size and complexity to that of the highest types (such as the average European), that we must believe it capable, under a similar process of gradual development during the space of two or three thousand years, of producing equal average results. But the mental requirements of the lowest savages, such as the Australians or the Andaman islanders, are very little above those of many animals. The higher moral faculties and those of pure intellect and refined emotion are useless to them, are rarely if ever manifested, and have no relation to their wants, desires, or well-being. How, then, was an organ developed so far beyond the needs of its possessor? Natural selection could only have endowed the savage with a brain a little superior to that of an ape, whereas he actually possesses one but very little inferior to that of the average members of our learned societies" Wallace

Climate research is involved in that emerging narrative as atmospheric events shaped the presence of biology and remade geological formations through ice ages and so on. Climate change modelling did to the Earth science of climate what natural selection did to the Earth sciences of biology and geology.

[As an aside, no human is less than vermin, they may be misguided or facile in their considerations but that is it.]

Akrasia

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119378264#Comment_119378264

Yes, Guess what, I can make a prediction right now. the average temperature in Dublin on December 25th 2027 will be colder than the average temperature in Dublin on July 1st 2027.

Want to bet against my prediction? It's 5 years in the future but weather predictions aren't reliable 2 weeks in advance....

Hopefully you've realised that climate is different to weather. In December in the Northern Hemisphere, it's almost always colder than July. In the Southern hemisphere it's the opposite. (outside the tropics at least)

The reason we can know that its colder in winter than summer, is because these are powerful forcings, the solar radiation that reaches the surface is significantly lower in winter compared with summer. The same significant differences can be plotted a thousand years into the future where we can accurately predict the orbital precession of the planet

We can predict the natural forcings because they are in a relatively stable pattern (unless something mad happens like a super volcano or an asteroid striking the earth)

Humans have become that 'something mad' that happened to disrupt the natural cycle. We have deliberately dug up and released CO2 that had taken millions of years to sequester deep underground within only a century

Akrasia

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119378447#Comment_119378447

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-022-00971-w.epdf?sharing_token=5-Ns89ExXQ2E07XK0EzZNtRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0Njf2MQj3gnNP2gk0LvGHSjzk_A57JGsx9EWNLvHndsl2HAId99h5I16IYohBvkK1f7MBLtLYvlbVQo3kf5Jcacsprch0QhBOdbsF9RIyO2IQk2_RO-VW5o-KiFy4jU5oGt2Y1NslqgyW8t139R-3_hHDJdMeoiNdt6T11PPYiNUBUY6__IWA-FnsritZaGpsg%3D&tracking_referrer=www.theguardian.com

This is the story from the OP

The story relates to the anomalies in the winter Azores High that has blocked winter rainfall in Iberia and linking this to climate change

The fact that most rainfall happens in winter in these countries means anything that reduces winter rainfall can have a bigger effect on the Iberian climate

I can't get the link to work from your original post, it keeps timing out, but I would question the methodology of picking one precise location out of a region that spans millions of square kilometres....

Places that have a lot of summer drought may well not have changed at all over the past 50-60 years, the study related to winter rainfall, which could affect totally different regions, but lacking that winter rainfall could contribute greatly to water shortages in the summer (which tend to be dry anyway)

PokeHerKing

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119381962#Comment_119381962

Ah why waste your powers simply predicting the seasons. Why not predict the start of the next ice age for me?

If you're out by a few hundred thousand years sure what's that between annoynamous Internet posters. Sure we'll both be long gone anyway.

Akrasia

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119379119#Comment_119379119

They do in Ireland, not so much in Canada it seems

Science is about proposing hypothesis that make testable predictions

Science is also about creating models of reality and using those models to test your hypothesis.

If a scientist makes a testable hypothesis, and then a model is created to test that hypothesis, and then we wait for decades to see if those results were verified by observations, then that hypothesis is very close to being fully validated, Especially if those predictions are rigourously tested by thousands of experts independently working on different models and different datasets and all coming up with the same general conclusion.

If this isn't science, then what is?

Climate models were configured with the parameters that if we keep increasing CO2 in our atmosphere, temperatures will keep going up. Models that were run in 1970s with these simple assumptions, on average, turned out to be accurate.

While any models that assumed CO2 concentrations didn't matter, or that climate sensitivity was lower than the physical experiments showed were all wrong and didn't follow observed warming over the past 50 years

Note, Svante Arrhenius predicted climate sensitivity of 3 - 4c 150 years ago based purely on the physics. He predicted what we are seeing now 150 years ago using a mathematical model that ran on a pen and paper.

Orion402

" The reason we can know that its colder in winter than summer, is because these are powerful forcings, the solar radiation that reaches the surface is significantly lower in winter compared with summer. The same significant differences can be plotted a thousand years into the future where we can accurately predict the orbital precession of the planet"

There is only axial precession which Copernicus assigned as the reason for the 1 degree drift every 72 years, however, he used the Ptolemaic framework which is deficient in resolving that drift.

You get into trouble because if you assign axial precession thousands of years into the past, you arrive at the Solstice alignment of Newgrange which occurs on the same day in December today as it did 5,200 years ago when the magnificent monument was first built. The North pole is in the exact same position to the dark hemisphere of the Earth and to the central Sun today as it was 5,200 years ago so no axial precession.

If people in the 17th century showed up at Newgrange on December 21st local date, they would not witness the Sun lighting up the chamber because the English refused to accept the calendar correction instituted by the Church in 1582. It represents the fact that there are not exactly 1461 rotations for 4 orbital circuits so the 1 degree drift as representative of the Precession of the Equinoxes is based on the same drift that makes up the calendar framework known in remote antiquity-

".. 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

It is not so much that climate change modellers are out of their depth, after all, what this person calls solar forcings is the unmentioned moving Earth in a Sun-centred system.

Akrasia

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119382043#Comment_119382043

The cause of the ice ages are very similar to the cause of the seasons, just extended out over 41 thousand years

Gaoth Laidir

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119382042#Comment_119382042

I showed the result from just one point but the trend is the same no matter where you choose to click. It doesn't matter.

I showed it because the talk is invariably about summer wildfires and desertification of the region and how agw has made the conditions for these so much worse. You yourself have made this statement too, if I'm not mistaken. Winter rainfall has little effect on summer conditions, except to maybe cause there to be slightly more or slightly less tinder available to burn in different years.

Here's the link again. Maybe it will work from here

https://monitordesequia.csic.es/monitor/?lang=en

Orion402

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119382154#Comment_119382154

In a way I am delighted that this person has me set to ignore.

The cause of the seasons are not 'solar forcings', they are a result of two surface rotations acting in combination with special attention given to the relationship between the North/South poles and the expanding/contracting circles as those poles turn parallel to the orbital plane as a function of the orbital motion of the Earth.

Climate change modellers, including their cheerleaders, abhor planetary dynamics even though a moving Earth in a Sun-centred system is central to planetary climate.

Oneiric 3

Changes in European rainfall patterns during the 91-20 period from the 61-90 period (ERA 5)

Winter:

Summer: