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
CC3 -- Why I believe that a third option is needed for climate change
Options
Comments
-
What is your point with this gibberish? Climate change isnt real because NASA and the rest haven't calculated the Earths axial tilt properly? They need to use your equations instead?
Theorists are a cold bunch, they feel no horror when shown how they now model the seasons using a non-existent Earth with a zero degree axial inclination and an awful pivoting circle of illumination off the Equator -
https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap170319.html
The person hanging his hat on 'Milankovitch cycles' has no feeling for the links between the motions of the Earth and experiences of the seasons much less longer term cycles because he has no perceptive/intuitive faculty which affirm or restrict physical considerations and so it goes with all empirical modeling.
On a related variation of this.
When Darwin considered the aborigines subhuman and evolutionary props back to gorillas and further back to baboons, he was modeling the rise of white 'civilised' society as a basis for all biology -
"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races.The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla." Darwin
I take a lot of satisfaction just how absurd those academics were as the aborigines can remind Westerners why they developed culturally the way they did on a bone dry Continent susceptible to fire therefore who is savage and who is civilised !. I bet the academic minded here will look for ways to excuse Darwin but the whole issue is the overreaching 17th century English aspirations run amok -
"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." Newton0 -
There are dozens of people out there with pet theories about climate change using over simplified models, mathematical tricks to fit their theory to the data, cherrypicked parameters, ignoring data that does not suit their theory. These guys have been promoting this hypothesis for about a decade and it has not gained any traction amongst serious climate scientists.SeaBreezes wrote: »Are you going to dismiss it again Arkasia without actually listening to what they say?
Dr. Nikolov points out that the greenhouse gas theory violates the Energy-Conservation Law in trying to explain the atmospheric thermal effect exclusively through radiation. Specifically, the total amount of short wave solar radiation absorbed by the Earth is about 240 watts per square meter. The measured long wave radiation coming down from our atmosphere is about 343 watts per square meter. This downward long wave radiation has been falsely assumed to be due to greenhouse gases absorbing long wave radiation emitted by the Earth’s surface as it heats up through short wave radiation bombardment from the Sun. We thus have 43% more energy coming down from the atmosphere than all the energy received from the Sun in total. The most likely cause of this excess energy is gas compression heating, not the greenhouse effect, which by definition can only help contain energy created by the Sun.
"Interpreting atmospheric IR (infrared) back radiation as an external heating energy flux to the surface is like viewing the observed apparent rotation of celestial bodies "around" Earth as a "proof" that Earth was at the center of the Universe, a mistake made for 1000 years!" — Dr. Ned Nikolov
Why do you trust this theory to be accurate above any of the others?0 -
There are dozens of people out there with pet theories about climate change using over simplified models, mathematical tricks to fit their theory to the data, cherrypicked parameters, ignoring data that does not suit their theory.
Von Humboldt distinguished such people by their frantic declarations that nature is disturbed and disaster is about to happen -
"This assemblage of imperfect dogmas bequeathed by one age to another-- this physical philosophy, which is composed of popular prejudices,--is not only injurious because it perpetuates error with the obstinacy engendered by the evidence of ill observed facts, but also because it hinders the mind from attaining to higher views of nature. Instead of seeking to discover the mean or medium point, around which oscillate, in apparent independence of forces, all the phenomena of the external world, this system delights in multiplying exceptions to the law, and seeks, amid phenomena and in organic forms, for something beyond the marvel of a regular succession, and an internal and progressive development. Ever inclined to believe that the order of nature is disturbed, it refuses to recognise in the present any analogy with the past, and guided by its own varying hypotheses, seeks at hazard, either in the interior of the globe or in the regions of space, for the cause of these pretended perturbations. It is the special object of the present work to combat those errors which derive their source from a vicious empiricism and from imperfect inductions." Von Humboldt ,Cosmos
Everything in that summation is correct but the ability to contend with the roots of apocalyptic empiricism can be difficult due to the grip that 17th century subculture has on society and the education system.0 -
There are dozens of people out there with pet theories about climate change using over simplified models, mathematical tricks to fit their theory to the data, cherrypicked parameters, ignoring data that does not suit their theory. These guys have been promoting this hypothesis for about a decade and it has not gained any traction amongst serious climate scientists.
Why do you trust this theory to be accurate above any of the others?
You know they were both AGW climatologists, total believers, until Climategate when they realised IPCC had an agenda and wasn't being entirely honest? That's when they started looking with skeptical (you would call it denier) eyes, right?
You know until then they BELIEVED that CO2 was the culprit (like many other scientists) because they had been told this is the way it was? Until
They investigated WHY and realised it was based on bad science?
Their science is elegant, and yet again, like Zharakova fits historical warming as well as predictive warming. It also dovetails with Zharakova perfectly.
Why do you accept that previous ice ages and rapid warming's were due to Milankovitch cycles but THiS time it's humans only...(???)
Its an amazing discovery that SHOULD be welcomed and investigated enthusiastically. Imagine the odds of the exact SAME equation working on any rocky planet on our solar system. Imagine how it will change how climate is studied.
And yet the IPCC try and block the science...
My question for you is, after ALL the info in this thread, how can you NOT question 'consensus'?
KNOWING about Climategate, knowing these scientists had to publish under pseudonyms because their science is valid but the system doesn't like the narrative. Knowing their science is beating NASA, beating any modelling we have so far on climate. Knowing the IPCC has tried to block the publication of this discovery and Zharakovas solar discovery.
Why are you still using words like 'denier' and 'contrarian'?
Why are you not excited by these amazing discoveries?0 -
In the meantime, have a read of this. Following on from the 2004 apocalyptic report above, it seems that this type of political corruption of the science is still ongoing, funded by billionaires including the ex mayor of NYC, Bloomberg.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerpielke/2020/01/02/how-billionaires-tom-steyer-and-michael-bloomberg-corrupted-climate-science/#2da05e4c702c
Their misrepresentation of the IPCC's RCP8.5 has even made its way into...yes, the IPCC's own 2019 special report on the cryosphere that I linked to a fee pages ago.Further, not only has the USNCA adopted the flawed methodology of the Risky Business projects, but so too has the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, most notably in its 2019 Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate. There can bee little doubt that climate science has been profoundly influenced by this campaign.
Of course, the Steyer-Bloomberg-Paulson investments are not solely responsible for the misuse of scenarios in the scientific literature, but they are clearly a significant part of the story.
The corruption of climate science has occurred because some of our most important institutions have let us down. The scientific peer review process has failed to catch obvious methodological errors in research papers. Leading scientific assessments have ignored conflicts of interest and adopted flawed methods. The media has been selectively incurious as to the impact of big money on climate advocacy.
This is a story of how wealth and power have corrupted science in pursuit of political goals. Climate change is important, there is no doubt. But the importance of climate change does not mean that we should abandon high standards of scientific integrity. We are going to need good science in the future — so it is best to keep it that way, no matter what cause it is enlisted to support.0 -
Advertisement
-
You come across as very passionate but I have many reservations about your motives and your arguments.
Either way I do admire you for putting it all on the line in the face of what will be a pretty staunch defense of anthropogenic climate change science (only if your argument/hypothesis is good if no one will bite).M.T. Cranium wrote: »
I will be releasing a massive study of the past 180 years of weather data at Toronto, comparing that to the CET records which are twice as long (and 247 years of daily data). What this will show is that natural warming was almost certainly the main cause of warming from about 1890 to 1960 (in North America more certainly than in Europe).
One person acting alone can probably have very little impact on the global conversation.
I will soon be publishing a website and associated excel file to be entitled "Toronto-180" which documents all of the data collected at this one location (downtown Toronto) for the longest known period in North America (March 1, 1840 to end of Feb 2020). There is also a daily climate record for the years 1831 to 1860 partially overlapping, from Providence RI southwest of Boston.
This Toronto-180 study will show the associated rises in temperature at that location relative to the CET. That helps to identify how much of the warming at Toronto is due to the urban heat island (another human influence, but separate from the AGW climate change sort of warming although I've often wondered, if all urban heat islands are summed up, what's their net contribution to the overall warming since when it gets windy, those heat island effects are spread out into the larger circulation). The size of the urban heat island at Toronto is evidently about 2 C deg since the large city now has brought temperatures up to very similar levels to the CET whereas in the mid-19th century when Toronto was only a small town the size of perhaps Athlone or Mullingar today, and the station at the edge of that town, the average temperature was running closer to 2 degrees lower than the CET.
This data set will be a treasure trove for researchers in general. I have shown in graphical format the changes in all aspects of the climate at Toronto, and compared them to the CET.
When will you launch the site?
My initial interest would be in what methods or model was used(will be used) to calculate the heat island effect and how it impacted the measurements (population density, surrounding infrastructure and timelines for changes, activities that could impact measurements other than heat island .....) over time, also what instruments the data was logged from and the measure of uncertainty of the system? I assume there is a record of the instruments used by the station and when they changed, upgrades, to what standard the instruments were calibrated, by who and how often. Were there any failures and if so was this build into the measurements.
I presume this is also applied to any comparative data, CET, etc
very interesting indeed.0 -
For anyone interested Dr Ned Nikolov has a twitter account. Boy is he P*SSED at the IPCC..
https://mobile.twitter.com/i/events/11361126957556940800 -
marathon19 wrote: »You come across as very passionate but I have many reservations about your motives and your arguments.
Either way I do admire you for putting it all on the line in the face of what will be a pretty staunch defense of anthropogenic climate change science (only if your argument/hypothesis is good if no one will bite).
When will you launch the site?
My initial interest would be in what methods or model was used(will be used) to calculate the heat island effect and how it impacted the measurements (population density, surrounding infrastructure and timelines for changes, activities that could impact measurements other than heat island .....) over time, also what instruments the data was logged from and the measure of uncertainty of the system? I assume there is a record of the instruments used by the station and when they changed, upgrades, to what standard the instruments were calibrated, by who and how often. Were there any failures and if so was this build into the measurements.
I presume this is also applied to any comparative data, CET, etc
very interesting indeed.
From MT's Excel file:Issues to be resolved -- how much of the warming trend 1890 to 1921 in Toronto was urban heat island? The frequency of very high temperatures suggests that it was largely a climate phase shift. Urban heat islands usually affect night-time readings more than day-time. But 1911, 1916, 1918, 1919 and 1921 were all very hot summers that cannot be attributed to either heat island or anthropogenic influences (which were in a very early stage then). Also the 1948-55 peak of warmth at both locations suggests a solar influence given that it occurred between the two strongest solar cycle peaks of 1947 and 1957-58.0 -
Ned Nikolov also says this in TallBloke Blog comments:
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2017/06/01/foundations-of-greenhouse-theory-challenged-by-new-analysis-of-solar-system-observations/comment-page-1/#comments
"We believe in the independence of science from politics! Unfortunately, a purely physical problem such as Earth’s climate has inappropriately been converted into a ‘moral’ and ‘political’ issue by politicians and extreme environmentalists with tragic consequences as can be seen from the Billions of Dollars spent thus far to ‘save’ the planet based on a nothing more than a misconstrued science hypothesis from the 19th Century!
To understand the roots of physical misconception in the current Greenhouse theory I highly recommend reading these 3 classical papers (now available in PDF format):
1. Arrhenius S (1896) On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground (http://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf)
2. Callendar GS (1938) THE ARTIFICIAL PRODUCTION OF CARBON DIOXIDE AND ITS INFLUENCE ON TEMPERATURE (http://www.met.reading.ac.uk/~ed/callendar_1938.pdf)
3. Fourier JBJ (1827) On the Temperatures of the Terrestrial Sphere and Interplanetary Space. A translation of Jean-Baptiste Joseph Fourier’s ”M´emoire sur les Temp´eratures du Globe Terrestre et des Espaces Plan´etaires,” , which originally appeared in M´emoires d l’Acad´emie Royale des Sciences de l’Institute de France VII 570-604 1827.
(https://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/Fourier1827Trans.pdf)
None of these papers would have passed the modern standards of peer review and scientific rigor if they were to be submitted as new manuscripts today. Yet, these publications are being cited as the foundation of the current GH concept and the supposed human impact on global climate"
He goes on to say: these (1938 is the most recent) papers are what we are basing CO2 warming on, and it has never been proved.
Also in comments: Per Ice Age Glacials:
It’s the water….
End stage glacials are verydry dusty times. Less water vapor means less pressur from less mass. Similarly, end stage glacial has surface of glaciers a couple of miles higher and surface of ocean 100s of meters lower. Both the pressures and surfaces changed.
It might be an interesting proof of sorts if the new theory predicted the recorded temps under those conditions… might not be enough data to calculate all the surface values, though…
Ned Nikolov says:
June 2, 2017 at 7:48 pm To E.M.Smith:
We are already moving in this direction. We have developed a new numerical hypothesis for the cause of the Ice Ages, and yes, it does appear that periodic changes in total atmospheric mass and pressure have been the actual drivers of glacial-interglacial cycles. These results will be presented in one of our follow-up papers … Stay tuned!
Also in comments
Ned Nikolov says:
June 3, 2017 at 4:57 pm
richard verney said: ““I wonder whether the difficulties encountered with publication of the paper is because the paper in someway undermines the CO2 AGW mantra, or whether it is an example of science advancing one death at a time.”
The main reason for having such a difficult time publishing this paper over the past 4 years is, in my opinion, that our empirical results disprove the very foundation of the Greenhouse concept, i.e. the hypothesis that the thermal effect of Earth’s atmosphere is due to the observed down-welling LW radiation. Our findings indicate that this ‘greenhouse back radiation’, as some call it, is actually a consequence of the atmospheric thermal effect rather than a cause for it. This all implies that the atmospheric composition, and thus human carbon emissions, do not have any impact on climate. In other words, the Greenhouse climate theory is being falsified using vetted NASA observations!0 -
Their biography says they worked for the forestry service before they got sucked into the WUWT echo chamberSeaBreezes wrote: »You know they were both AGW climatologists, total believers, until Climategate when they realised IPCC had an agenda and wasn't being entirely honest? That's when they started looking with skeptical (you would call it denier) eyes, right?0 -
Advertisement
-
Their biography says they worked for the forestry service before they got sucked into the WUWT echo chamber
So have you read their paper? I'm reading through it but first had to read the Volokin paper on which their theory is based. I recommend reading this first, then the Nikolov one.0 -
I see the usual suspects have moved on to just copying and pasting pages of gibberish from people nobody ever heard of as usually happens in these threads. Im sure the endless 2 hour STUNNING PROOF! Youtube videos are being queued up as we speak...
If you only skimmed that block of text up there^ you might have missed the hilarious claim that 3 scientific papers from the 1800's form the basis of all modern climate science and therefore the whole climate crisis is invalid.0 -
Im sure the endless 2 hour STUNNING PROOF! Youtube videos are being queued up as we speak...
It takes only two simple graphs to demonstrate how far mathematical modelers will go to defy common sense.
The first graph is an ECG where a doctor interprets one heartbeat as one complete action of the heart -
https://cdn4.vectorstock.com/i/1000x1000/67/23/heart-rate-heartbeat-neon-line-blue-graphic-vector-22216723.jpg
A doctor who assigns more actions of the heart than heartbeats is incompetent or worse.
The second graph is an extended daily temperature 'heartbeat' in response to one complete rotation of the Earth each 24 hour day and a thousand rotations in a thousand 24 hour days -
http://prairieecosystems.pbworks.com/f/1179343887/crerar%20temperature%20variation.jpg
The mathematical theorists can't manage to interpret that temperature graph across a week properly as they assign more rotations than 24 hour days a year and conjure up a phony reason to suit the 17th century mistake -
" It is a fact not generally known that,owing to the difference between solar and sidereal time,the Earth rotates upon its axis once more often than there are days in the year" NASA
The spectators of graph warfare among opposing sides in 'climate change' are probably worse than the academics themselves as they cheer or jeer them on. When people can manage to associate one 24 hour day/night cycle with one complete rotation someday then climate research can begin but not before then.
Theorists are dull, boring and cold so they can't feel the response of the Sun coming into view followed by the stars as the planet turns once each day but boy ! can they turn out a meaningless graph.0 -
From 'New Insights on the Physical Nature of the Atmospheric Greenhouse
Effect Deduced from an Empirical Planetary Temperature Model' -Ned Nikolov*A recent study has revealed that the Earth’s natural atmospheric greenhouse effect is around 90 K or about 2.7 times stronger
than assumed for the past 40 years.
The study referred to: 'On the average temperature of airless spherical bodies and the magnitude of Earth’s atmospheric thermal effect' - Den Volokin (Ned Nikolov)
ErratumAs authors of this article (Volokin and ReLlez 2014) we would like to clarify that our real names are Ned Nikolov and Karl Zeller. We created the pseudonyms Den Volokin and Lark ReLlez by spelling our names backward. Ned Nikolov is a physical scientist with the USDA Forest Service; he had been instructed by his employer not to engage in climate research during government work hours, nor to reveal his government affiliation when presenting results from his climate studies. Karl Zeller is a retired USDA Forest Service research scientist with no restrictions. Ned Nikolov worked on this manuscript outside of his assigned official work duty hours. Because of the controversial subject matter and the novel findings previously associated with Nikolov and Zeller, we felt that the use of pseudonyms was necessary to guarantee a double-blind peer review of our manuscript and to assure a fair and unbiased assessment.
In case it's not obvious. They are citing their own work.0 -
Tuisceanch wrote: »From 'New Insights on the Physical Nature of the Atmospheric Greenhouse
Effect Deduced from an Empirical Planetary Temperature Model' -Ned Nikolov*
The study referred to: 'On the average temperature of airless spherical bodies and the magnitude of Earth’s atmospheric thermal effect' - Ned Nikolov
Erratum
In case it's not obvious. They are citing their own work.
I
Wow, I never spotted that! It's obvious now. :rolleyes:
But this doesn't change one bit the scientific content of either papers, and that alone is what a theory should be based on. Too often here it comes down to who wrote what instead of what was written. People don't bother actually reading the content after they see the name on top. I hope this bias doesn't exist in the peer-review process...
The Volokin Nikolov first paper has a lot of stuff that on the face of it seems acceptable but I need to read it again. In short, the difference between bodies with and without an atmosphere (without ghg) is down to the difference in the heat retention coefficient of the surface material. Without an atmosphere, radiative loss is the main mechanism for heat loss, whereas with an atmosphere, conduction and convection take over and cause the surface temperature to be higher than without.The immense difference in the ability to conduct heat between Moon and Earth can be explained by analyzing the components of the apparent thermal conductivity, i.e. solid, radiative, and convective (the latter component includes sensible and latent heat transport).
Solid conduction results from the vibrational transfer of energy between atoms comprising the material lattice of regolith particles. This type of conduction increases with particle size and bulk density of the substrate. The radiative component arises from radiant heat exchange between regolith grains and is proportional to the third power of the grains’ absolute temperature (Vasavada et al. 2012).
At relatively low bulk densities and high temperatures found near the surface, radiant heat exchange typically dominates the regolith thermal conductivity in airless environments. The convective component of heat conduction is due to collision of gas molecules residing in the space between soil particles and requires the presence of an atmosphere to operate. Since sensible and latent heat fluxes are several orders of magnitude more effective in transporting energy compared to radiation or solid conduction, the interstitial micro-convection becomes the predominant mechanism of thermal conduction in porous media immersed in an atmosphere. Indeed, laboratory experiments by Presley and Christensen (1997) have shown that the apparent thermal conductivity of dry regolith increases with the 2/3-power of atmospheric pressure between 0 Pa and 1,000 Pa. These results have recently been confirmed by in-situ measurements of Martian soil made by the Thermal and Electrical Conductivity Probe (TECP) aboard the Phoenix Lander (Zent et al. 2010). The observed surface thermal conductivity in the northern polar region of the Red Planet (~0.085 W m−1 K−1) is consistent with measurements made by Presley and Christensen (1997) in a simulated Martian atmosphere on Earth. In other words, thanks to the presence of a tangible atmosphere, Mars has a nearly 50-time higher thermal conductivity than the Moon. Hence, it is the presence of an effective vacuum and the related lack of gaseous micro-convection within the lunar regolith that makes the Moon such a poor heat conductor. This implies that regolith-covered ASCOs can be expected to have similarly low surface thermal conductivities.
The current Earth surface is vastly more conductive to heat than either lunar regolith or Martian soil because of the sizable atmospheric pressure present on our planet. Earth’s thermal conductivity is further boosted by moisture (liquid water), which cannot exist without ATE. In the absence of atmosphere, there would be no interstitial convection to boost η e . Therefore, an airless Earth would have a surface of similar thermo-physical properties as the present lunar regolith. The strong dependence of surface thermal conductivity and η e on atmospheric pressure and soil moisture lends additional physical support to the notion that Earth’s overall ATE ought to be evaluated with respect to an equivalent airless environment rather than a hypothetical atmosphere devoid of greenhouse gases.
From <https://springerplus.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/2193-1801-3-723>0 -
Tuisceanch wrote: »From 'New Insights on the Physical Nature of the Atmospheric Greenhouse
Effect Deduced from an Empirical Planetary Temperature Model' -Ned Nikolov*
The study referred to: 'On the average temperature of airless spherical bodies and the magnitude of Earth’s atmospheric thermal effect' - Den Volokin (Ned Nikolov)
Erratum
In case it's not obvious. They are citing their own work.
Yes, they published three papers two under pseudonyms the last under their own names. Each one a further expansion on the previous. All peer reviewed, all scientifically correct, 2 critiques both rebutted and no further response from the critiques even though invited by Dr. Nikolov to continue the debate.0 -
For the neutral in all this, what you are witnessing are perpetual students who lack the adult faculties to discern what planetary climate actually is. They practice graph warfare but planetary climate on a solar system scale represents the rate of change in surface conditions across latitudes and that is dependent on planetary inclination .
https://calgary.rasc.ca/images/planet_inclinations.gif
It is fairly straightforward to discern (not model) how the surface area across latitudes responds to benign or extreme conditions. Easy to compare the conditions were the Earth to have an inclination of Jupiter or Uranus as benign or extreme ends of the climate spectrum.
Cretins who cannot account for the polar day/night cycle at the North and South Poles don't belong anywhere near climate research for all their apocalyptic empiricism.0 -
For the neutral in all this, what you are witnessing are perpetual students who lack the adult faculties to discern what planetary climate actually is. They practice graph warfare but planetary climate on a solar system scale represents the rate of change in surface conditions across latitudes and that is dependent on planetary inclination .
https://calgary.rasc.ca/images/planet_inclinations.gif
It is fairly straightforward to discern (not model) how the surface area across latitudes responds to benign or extreme conditions. Easy to compare the conditions were the Earth to have an inclination of Jupiter or Uranus as benign or extreme ends of the climate spectrum.
Cretins who cannot account for the polar day/night cycle at the North and South Poles don't belong anywhere near climate research for all their apocalyptic empiricism.
Could you please give some input on actual points being made and how they're wrong instead of repeatedly copying and pasting planetary essays and the same links over and over?0 -
SeaBreezes wrote: »Yes, they published three papers two under pseudonyms the last under their own names. Each one a further expansion on the previous. All peer reviewed, all scientifically correct, 2 critiques both rebutted and no further response from the critiques even though invited by Dr. Nikolov to continue the debate.
Can you link to the critiques?0 -
Gaoth Laidir wrote: »Could you please give some input on actual points being made and how they're wrong instead of repeatedly copying and pasting planetary essays and the same links over and over?
It is for neutral observers who can manage to associate one 24 hour day with one rotation of the Earth while academics can't manage to interpret that graph where temperatures respond to a turning planet -
https://prairieecosystems.pbworks.com/f/1179343887/crerar%20temperature%20variation.jpg
Theorists are stone cold and I have known this for over 30 years as they play things out in their imagination whether it is astronomy or Earth sciences. They lack the intuitive faculties needed to research what is in front of them while conjuring up definitions and axioms to suit whatever conclusion they desire -
"We must see the matter at once, at one glance, and not by a process of reasoning, at least to a certain degree. And thus it is rare that mathematicians are intuitive, and that men of intuition are mathematicians, because mathematicians wish to treat matters of intuition mathematically, and make themselves ridiculous, wishing to begin with definitions and then with axioms, which is not the way to proceed in this kind of reasoning. Not that the mind does not do so, but it does it tacitly, naturally, and without technical rules; for the expression of it is beyond all men, and only a few can feel it." Pascal
The 'what is your point' is the refuge of those who bury themselves in rut methods and thinking hence you haven't a clue how the motions and traits of the planets determine what kind of climate each planet has within a spectrum.
The danger of 'climate change' is that it is the latest assault on the perceptive/intuitive faculties of humanity that are needed for a creative and productive society. The modeling monstrosity may entertain perpetual students and their hapless followers but it robs society of the ability to actually appreciate climate and what makes life possible on this planet.
You and your opponents are the epitome of the description Von Humboldt used with the exact source of that plague on humanity -
"This assemblage of imperfect dogmas bequeathed by one age to another-- this physical philosophy, which is composed of popular prejudices,--is not only injurious because it perpetuates error with the obstinacy engendered by the evidence of ill observed facts, but also because it hinders the mind from attaining to higher views of nature. Instead of seeking to discover the mean or medium point, around which oscillate, in apparent independence of forces, all the phenomena of the external world, this system delights in multiplying exceptions to the law, and seeks, amid phenomena and in organic forms, for something beyond the marvel of a regular succession, and an internal and progressive development. Ever inclined to believe that the order of nature is disturbed, it refuses to recognise in the present any analogy with the past, and guided by its own varying hypotheses, seeks at hazard, either in the interior of the globe or in the regions of space, for the cause of these pretended perturbations. It is the special object of the present work to combat those errors which derive their source from a vicious empiricism and from imperfect inductions." Von Humboldt ,Cosmos0 -
Advertisement
-
Tuisceanch wrote: »Can you link to the critiques?
You unfortunates don't even know your are doing wrong nor even the roots of empirical modeling -
"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
It takes adults to know why that is overreaching beyond reason but no such people exist presently with the perceptive ability to challenge that awful notion designed to suit experimental theorists.
I thought once that people should be ashamed of themselves but such a sentiment has been literally beaten out of them by the education system leaving a small group of perpetual students (academics) wrecking havoc on humanity.0 -
Gaoth Laidir wrote: »So have you read their paper? I'm reading through it but first had to read the Volokin paper on which their theory is based. I recommend reading this first, then the Nikolov one.
I’m not a physicist. I would not be qualified to correct a leaving cert physics paper never mind assess the veracity of a so called revolutionary breakthrough in astrophysics.
Where are the throngs of qualified physicists rushing to follow on their research and make a name for themselves as leaders in the movement that overturns climate change?
All I can see are a couple of papers published under false pretenses or in dodgy pay for play journals that have received barely any scientific attention despite the generous media attention they got while promoting their theory0 -
I’m not a physicist. I would not be qualified to correct a leaving cert physics paper never mind assess the veracity of a so called revolutionary breakthrough in astrophysics.
Where are the throngs of qualified physicists rushing to follow on their research and make a name for themselves as leaders in the movement that overturns climate change?
All I can see are a couple of papers published under false pretenses or in dodgy pay for play journals that have received barely any scientific attention despite the generous media attention they got while promoting their theory
Fine, you're not a physicist and are therefore not in a position to rubbish it straightaway. You just see a couple of papers and immediately set about the ritual of attacking who wrote them and not what's in them.
I never heard of them before yesterday so have no idea of their history. It's another theory that I'm going to give attention to until I find whether it's rubbish or not. If it is rubbish, fair enough. On first read, though, I don't see a glaring error, but it needs a second read.0 -
You unfortunates don't even know your are doing wrong nor even the roots of empirical modeling -
"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
It takes adults to know why that is overreaching beyond reason but no such people exist presently with the perceptive ability to challenge that awful notion designed to suit experimental theorists.
I thought once that people should be ashamed of themselves but such a sentiment has been literally beaten out of them by the education system leaving a small group of perpetual students (academics) wrecking havoc on humanity.
OK read your posts..found a book 'The Invention of Nature: The Adventures of Alexander von Humboldt, the Lost Hero of Science: .. ordered some LSD and will get back to you when I've finished talking to a tree I know.0 -
Gaoth Laidir wrote: »Fine, you're not a physicist and are therefore not in a position to rubbish it straightaway. You just see a couple of papers and immediately set about the ritual of attacking who wrote them and not what's in them.
I never heard of them before yesterday so have no idea of their history. It's another theory that I'm going to give attention to until I find whether it's rubbish or not. If it is rubbish, fair enough. On first read, though, I don't see a glaring error, but it needs a second read.
You’re taking their assumptions and their equations at face value. Until their papers are validated by other physicists trying to independently replicate their findings then they are just yet another pet theory crying out for attention amongst the dozens of others0 -
You’re taking their assumptions and their equations at face value. Until their papers are validated by other physicists trying to independently replicate their findings then they are just yet another pet theory crying out for attention amongst the dozens of others
No I'm not, I'm taking them on their scientific merits, just as I try to do with all theories. I don't just look at the author's name.0 -
nonsense. There are papers that talk about record wildfires linked to climate change but you’ll spend your time looking for reasons to not believe those studies, meanwhile you read a study that contradicts (or at least grossly oversimplifies) known physics and you take their analysis at face value. You cannot possibly have enough acquired knowledge to validate their claim that their model predicts all rocky planets average temp to within 1c accuracy yet when someone says the x is amplified by climate change you’ll go digging for some records showing a flat trend decades ago that casts doubt on that analysisGaoth Laidir wrote: »No I'm not, I'm taking them on their scientific merits, just as I try to do with all theories. I don't just look at the author's name.
It’s totally inconsistent ’skepticism’ and that is why I often put ‘skeptic’ inside inverted commas0 -
nonsense. There are papers that talk about record wildfires linked to climate change but you’ll spend your time looking for reasons to not believe those studies, meanwhile you read a study that contradicts (or at least grossly oversimplifies) known physics and you take their analysis at face value.
How do you know it does?You cannot possibly have enough acquired knowledge to validate their claim that their model predicts all rocky planets average temp to within 1c accuracy yet when someone says the x is amplified by climate change you’ll go digging for some records showing a flat trend decades ago that casts doubt on that analysis
It’s totally inconsistent ’skepticism’ and that is why I often put ‘skeptic’ inside inverted commas
You have no idea of my or anyone eles's qualifications on this forum. I studied similar topics (temperatures of celestial bodies) in statistical physics in my degree years ago, so although it may be rusty I have seen it before.
You say flat trends decades ago. More lies. I go on about he most RECENT decade in the ice record, but go ahead and twist the facts if it pleases you.0 -
because I listened to them talking about their research and they say that it makes the greenhouse effect redundant. Either their research says this, or they are misrepresenting their own research, I’ll let you decide which of these is worse for your positionGaoth Laidir wrote: »How do you know it does?
If you think you are qualified to assess such a fantastic claim (all rocky planets surface temps within 1c) based on ‘I studied similar topics years ago in undergraduate college’ then this justifies everything I have saidYou have no idea of my or anyone eles's qualifications on this forum. I studied similar topics (temperatures of celestial bodies) in statistical physics in my degree years ago, so although it may be rusty I have seen it before.
You say flat trends decades ago. More lies. I go on about he most RECENT decade in the ice record, but go ahead and twist the facts if it pleases you.
I have studied climate change in modules at degree level scientific courses but I would never dream of claiming this qualifies me to assess Such claims off the top of my head.
And you don’t only choose the latest data. In the ice extent graph you discounted both a flat trend from 40 years ago and the flat trend from the recent period in order to reject the average decades trend of 12.8% ice loss over the full series0 -
Advertisement
-
You’re taking their assumptions and their equations at face value. Until their papers are validated by other physicists trying to independently replicate their findings then they are just yet another pet theory crying out for attention amongst the dozens of others
But they HAVE been validated?
Peer reviewed and published 3 times?
Not a single physicist has found an issue with the science?0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement