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

PokeHerKing · 24-01-2020 12:51am

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

If you say so.

"The Western nations of Europe . . . now so immeasurably surpass their former savage progenitors [that they] stand at the summit of civilisation. . . . The civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races through the world".

--Darwin.

And to quote you from earlier:

"To invert the entire system where white tone skin people back to gorillas using Africans and aborigines formed the empirical narrative for evolution was the same principle which slaughtered the European Jewish culture by creating a human/subhuman division whereas genuine evolutionary research begins and ends with rock strata and the fossil record from remote antiquity up to the present".

This is very true, but the philosophy of National Socialists wasn't really anything to do with 'white tone skin'. They actively hated the Slavs, the French, and pretty much all Mediterranean peoples as much as they did the Jewish community. National Socialism was exclusively about the 'superiority' of the German race, and no doubt there was more than a little 'Social Darwinism' applied in that agenda.

PS, and I apologise in advance if I am misinterpreting what you are trying to say, but you have a sort of 'flowing' style of writing that can be hard to follow and digest for dumbells like me.

:eek:

Darwin like Einstein was a man of his time. You can't label them racist by today's standards. And even what's consider racism in today's world is being distorted.

Don't want unfettered immigration into your country? Racist.

Like most things nowadays, the words lost all meaning.

Mr Bumble · 24-01-2020 1:21am

Akrasia wrote: »

There is nowhere in that Wikipedia article that says it was anywhere near the 25 million acres have been burnt in this (continuing) set of wildfires

The wildfires in 2009 in Australia were described as amongst the worst in Australian history and they burned 1 million acres. This is year is already 25 times worse. Although thankfully fewer people have died, there has been devastating loss of life amongst non human animals and a huge loss of habitat that will take years to recover

But yeah, nothing to see here
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-australia-50951043

And the same Wiki article is about Victoria, not Australia. Wiki not reliable but when the reader can't actually read what the link is about, what's the point of even living? I hope you paid the same attention to detail to all of those settled science books you've read.

You'll notice now, maybe, that I said Victoria. Not Australia. You're comparing the total for Australia with the state of Victoria. I wouldn't want you fact checking my thesis.

So have another go at that. You'll find estimates of 1851 vary from 2.5m hectares to 5m hectares depending where you look. 5m comparable to current events.

Danno · 24-01-2020 1:38am

The absolute state of this.

Doomsday Clock moves closer to midnight than ever before https://jrnl.ie/4977580

mandrake04 · 24-01-2020 1:41am

Mr Bumble wrote: »

And the same Wiki article is about Victoria, not Australia. Wiki not reliable but when the reader can't actually read what the link is about, what's the point of even living?

That Wiki contained details about the size of the fire a month ago as the topic was discussed on another thread.

For what ever reason someone has removed details about the size of the Black Thursday bushfires from wiki.

But it’s here

https://guides.slv.vic.gov.au/bushfires/1851

posidonia · 24-01-2020 8:22am

Nabber wrote: »

Excellent, so the temps have raised by 1c?
So you can show me the snow stats that support Ireland now receiving less snow?

I'm content in the fact that you are unlikely to do any research and continue to throw out your usual claims with no data.

Is this you and 'rope' again? Or are you being genuine?

Nabber · 24-01-2020 9:23am

posidonia wrote: »

Is this you and 'rope' again? Or are you being genuine?

As expected. You really are just a time waster.

oriel36 · 24-01-2020 9:45am

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

If you say so.

"The Western nations of Europe . . . now so immeasurably surpass their former savage progenitors [that they] stand at the summit of civilisation. . . . The civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races through the world".

--Darwin.

And to quote you from earlier:

"To invert the entire system where white tone skin people back to gorillas using Africans and aborigines formed the empirical narrative for evolution was the same principle which slaughtered the European Jewish culture by creating a human/subhuman division whereas genuine evolutionary research begins and ends with rock strata and the fossil record from remote antiquity up to the present".

This is very true, but the philosophy of National Socialists wasn't really anything to do with 'white tone skin'.

The dubious achievement of academics after WWII was to preface Darwinism with 'social' , however, the original basis for an evolutionary narrative was inspecting the human race as it existed in his time and why aborigines didn't pursue Western lifestyles while Europeans lived in grand houses and enjoyed technological achievements. I am sure the aborigines now are feeling justified as they adapted their culture to a bone dry Continent prone to fire. Get rid of Darwin as an icon and you can judge just how silly and dangerous the extermination wish was, not just in itself but as a basis for an evolutionary narrative -

"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, Descent of Man

Darwin wasn't racist as he looked at humans from cultures other than Caucasians (white tone skin) as he would a gorillas or an insect so there was no malice, just the stupid pretense of a person from an empire building nation.

Why it rapidly emerged was that it satisfied the 'scientific method' which requires an experimental point of departure for large scale sciences in much the same way as a common greenhouse is required for climate in that modeling realm.

So, I go my own way and the road with biological and geological evolution which led to plate tectonics, the eras where different animals like the dinosaurs lived, events like volcanic eruptions, meteoroid strikes that changed conditions on the surface and all the wonderful other stories the wider population can enjoy. The interaction between biology, geology and meteorology is being stunted by an ideology that injects the idea of human control of planetary temperatures into an Earth science that doesn't permit it.

There are a few in the thread like yourself, albeit very few, who stand a chance of escaping the rut ideologies you picked up in your student days so I wish you well in this account. For myself, I would not wish to be part of this horrifying spectacle that will go on interminably as long as the Earth science of climate is defined by experimental theorists.

Mr Bumble · 24-01-2020 10:15am

posidonia wrote: »

Yes, but the 1974/75 fires wore mostly in the NT and grass/scrub. This time is forest, and some forest that have 'never' burnt.

I also wonder how much apples v oranges is going on. Has the area of forest remained constant? Is there more grassland? What effect has aquaier abstraction had? Would more area have burnt without modern firefighting?

Or would less have burned in these fires if state govs had not significantly reduced funding to firefighters or if farmers hadn';t sucked every aquifer dry meaning that back burdning was simply too dangerous?
As I said above, it's not as simple as some here want to be.

So the accuracy of this is not settled, as is the case with a great deal of this debate, despite all the noise here.
What I find most irritating about all of this is that when, for example, the historic cold recorded across extensive parts of North America for the last two fall and spring growing seasons was loudly proclaimed to be just a regional meteorogical thing despite it's scale, these regional wildfires burning in places where fires have burned for perhaps thousands of years and the odd strong hurricane last year can only be about climate change.

Akrasia, posidonia and Greta's other footsoldiers in this discussion pick and chose the events which are about climate change and those that are not.

Akrasia · 24-01-2020 10:20am

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

What is your idea of a 'climate optimum' Arkrasia? as you seem to have some rosy delusions about past climate and weather events.

And you may have missed that link I posted to a documentary made back in the late 70s, where pretty much the exact same predictions of global catastrophe were being made by scientists who proclaimed that we were headed for an new ice era. I can't believe that someone who is as obviously smart as yourself would buy into every little scare story and believe them without question.

Why have you started calling me Arkrasia now?

There is no 'climate optimum' but there is a relatively stable holocene climate that all of human civilisation has developed under and moving to a new 'hothouse earth' climate will be extremely disruptive to both human and animal welfare.

Showing some dodgy documentaty from the 70s proves absolutely nothing.

I could show you the 'loose change' documentary. It features some 'scientists' talking about how 9/11 must have been an inside job. Does that mean that all scientists are 9/11 truthers?
Does it prove that even 1% of scientists are 9/11 truthers?

There was never a scientific consensus that we were entering a new ice age in the 1970s.

Nabber · 24-01-2020 10:48am

Back to the Valentia topic and not as a tool to bash AGW theorists, I'm rather interested in the implications of adjusting (right or wrong) what has to be our (Ireland's) best source of weather data.

I'm trying to catch up on UHI and how their forcings are adjusted in the models. To compile UHI data over +100 years in 1000s of locations would require a survey of each site over the 100 years, accounting for +50 cuases of UHI over the stations life. Buildings as far away as 50m can impact the readings, it's fascinating the types of variables that can lower or increase a stations readings.

As sample set of the best American stations:
https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2015/04/26/temperature-data-review-project-my-submission/

Danno or GL, if we take the Valentia data at face value, does it also reflect the findings in the link above, that

Most remarkable about these records is the extensive local climate diversity that appears when station sites are relatively free of urban heat sources.

SeaBreezes · 24-01-2020 11:40am

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Firstly that's not a legit scientific publication. It's peer review is biased and it's shunned by the community for that reason.

Secondly the science is deeply flawed. They selectively leave out Mercury which would put a spanner in the works and don't explain how Titan with a supposedly similar atmospheric pressure to earth has such extremely low surface temperatures.

And to add to that the maths doesn't make sense.

The author also has a bias against climate change as laid out in the article.

Bad, bad science over all and I'd be more inclined to call it propaganda because it barely qualifies as science.

What community would that be? IPCC community? Ahhh...

Science is NOT flawed.. many have tried to debunk them and been corrected by Nikolov, it was THEIR error, they didnt understand the maths correctly.
Hes making enemies on both side of the camps with his abrasive manner..

They leave out Mercury because there is no valid data for the surface temp.
He makes this point in his paper. They started with solid data and worked back from there to arrive at this equation. And Titan is included in the paper?

Mars atmophere is 95% CO2. Mars is an extremely cold planet with an average temperature around minus-80 degrees. Temperatures can dip to minus-225 degrees around the poles. Periods of warmth are brief — highs can reach 70 degrees for a brief time around Noon at the equator in the summer.
Why isnt CO2 WARMING it? .... Cause PRESSURE .. the atmosphere is thinner.. thats Dr, Nikolovs paper.

Hes not saying carbon doesnt have some warming, hes saying its insignificent. That we didnt HAVE an explanation for temp before so we assumed CO2 was trapping heat, but correlation does not equal causation.
Why isnt CO2 trapping heat on Mars?

He points out:

1) CO2 cannot act as a trap as it will convect heat up. There is no 'lid' on our atmosphere, he suggests fumigating your back yard with CO2 and see how 'warm' it gets. Same with atmosphere, its an open system.

2) CO2 warming is based on the premise, we know it can reflect radiant heat in a certain state, and we know we are warming, so it must be the CO2.. hes given an alternative explanation for the heat that makes sense. It explains why it gets cooler the higher you go.

But still, they are 1 degree celsius out. He is also suggesting they have a paper in review which shows a cloud cover decrease of 40% over the last century, which has allowed the warming by the sun. They used the same method again, used CERES data, from the last 20 years.. though this is what he is saying, nothing in published format yet.

I think its incredibly exciting time to be a climate scientist. This discovery (and yes, its incredibly new but how exciting!!)

It ties in with Zharakovas Solar work perfectly and I note any experiments 'proving' CO2 warming were done in cloudless skies..

Of course he has a bias against Climate Change he was once a BELIEVER but hes also kindof a genius (he once built a mathematical model of a tree inspiration and expiration.. for fun) and the science didnt add up.

So, he started investigating. .. and like Zharakova, he went against 'consensus'
IPCC tried to stop Zharakova being published too, she only found out because the Editor of Nature emailed her the objection so she could rebutt it.
And everyone laughed at her 10 years ago, she said, we only have to wait and see. She was one of TWO people world wide who correctly predicted the last solar cycle. Consensus was wrong, IPCC was wrong.

I keep thinking of the CO2 analogy of the bath, when people point out how LITTLE of our atmosphere is CO2 (is it 0.04%?) and BELIEVERS saying CO2 is the drip drip that makes a difference in 'warming' but people forget the REAL drivers of the bath are the tap and plug. And thats the Sun and Cloud Cover..

Edit: For anyone interested TallBloke breaks it down and argues the science with Skeptical scientists in the comments. Fiercely interesting..

nacho libre · 24-01-2020 11:43am

Retr0gamer wrote: »

It's very obvious why the fossil fuel industry would want to bury the results of the research and muddy the waters with their own propaganda but it amazes me that there's normal joe soaps that falling for it and don't recognize climate change denial for what it is, propaganda from large corporations.[/quote

Well if you have right wing views you will tend to see all climate change advocates as left-wingers who welcome big government and are generally anti capitalists. So to them these scientists could not be guided by the science alone, they must have an anti capitalist agenda and be in cahoots with governments who just want to increase taxes on the common man. I could buy this argument to an extent, but it is disingenous or plain naive to not also consider that big corporoations have a vested interest in skewing data in order to deny the contribution of man to climate change, particularly if denying it can help extend the time limit of finite resources and make these companies billions in the process. The line of argument that if you are concerned about the impact of climate change you must be a communist or socialist is truly idiotic, just as saying all sceptics must be right wingers who are paid off by big corporations to muddy the water.

nacho libre · 24-01-2020 11:47am

oriel36 wrote: »

The notion of 'climate change' comes from a subculture which attached itself to astronomy and Earth sciences in late 17th century England where Newton attempted to make astronomical predictions look like experimental predictions. hence experimental analogies could be swapped with planetary orbital dynamics in a parasitic relationship.

Given the day that it is in it with the commemoration of Auschwitz and the attempted extermination of an entire European culture, how a nation convinced itself of the need for extermination owed itself to an empirical doctrine based on the same notion that some humans were closer to gorillas therefore could be considered subhuman -

"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

Six million people, yes, six million people walked into the crematoria because the people who built those death factories had convinced themselves that their empire building justifications had a formal academic stamp of approval and that aggression and exploitation is at the centre of biology along with a human/subhuman element -

” A lopsided education has helped to encourage that illusion. Man must realize that a fundamental law of necessity reigns throughout the whole realm of Nature and that his existence is subject to the law of eternal struggle and strife. He will then feel that there cannot be a separate law for mankind in a world in which planets and suns follow their orbits, where moons and planets trace their destined paths, where the strong are always the masters of the weak and where those subject to such laws must obey them or be destroyed.” Hitler

For those who still manage to demand that the Darwin/Wallace notion remains the pinnacle of human reasoning never have taken the other road of biological and geological evolution where Steno's superposition was passed on to William Smith with faunal succession and from there into plate tectonics of Wegener of the early 20th century -

https://www.geolsoc.org.uk/~/media/shared/images/education%20careers/KS4/Chapter%201/chapter%201%20slide%2018.jpg?la=en

The theorists who used an empire building analogy based on superficial notions of civilised/savage by using native Australians and negroes as evolutionary props back to gorillas simply whitewashed the subhuman ideology out and replaced them with neanderthals while retaining the aggressive instincts of population control as a 'law of nature'. Unlike biological and evolutionary geology which led to plate tectonics, there is an open road for further advancement but the Darwin/Wallace notion ended with white tone skin people with nowhere left to go.

This is our turn, 'climate change' is our era's national socialist doctrine based on an academic-political alliance where a large scale Earth science turns from a fountain of exploration into a cistern of human behaviour based on a nuisance belief of human control over planetary temperatures. Nobody can bring those people back who died in the Irish famine or the holocaust based on Malthus via Darwin/Wallace, however, their deaths have an insidious academic component attached with the coldness and detachment of the same academics today who would suck the people of the planet into their dire and dull cistern. After WWII, what existed as a social and political phenomena shrunk back into the academic world where it re-invented itself for the same self-promoting and self-protecting agendas of peer review science that now have hijacked climate research.

There is another road to climate research where it joins other large scale sciences with the same freedom of consideration they have. Time to snap out of the subculture.

Echo chamber.

oriel36 · 24-01-2020 12:31pm

nacho libre wrote: »

Echo chamber.

For all your seemingly political astuteness in terms of the proponents and opponents of 'climate change' modeling, you are out of your depth when taking a wider perspective.

The Southern rednecks didn't object to Africans being portrayed as yard apes or monkey-children as they eagerly accepted that, they objected to Darwin's inclusion of Caucasians into an evolutionary narrative where white tone skin humans descended from gorillas with Africans and native Australians acting as evolutionary props within the narrative.

So today we have the spectacle of the so-called left which accepts Darwin and the right which applies superficial differences between humans as facts hence the muddle and unfinished business left behind since the European holocaust and further back to the Irish famine when the academic principle of population control was in effect on this island.

I wouldn't lean too heavily on 'echo chamber' as some people in this thread may get the slightly uneasy feeling that the mid 19th century empirical hijacking of evolutionary sciences may also be linked to the other Earth science of climate through the overreaching 'scientific method' agenda.

Akrasia · 24-01-2020 12:39pm

PokeHerKing wrote: »

Sure the NOAA/NASA can't even covert Celsius into Fahrenheit correctly based on the Valentia data.

Of course they can do the conversion, it's a mathematical formula

But there are differences in how they are read and rounded by humans reading an analogue thermometer. Changing scales, changing instruments, changing the staff members operating the observatory, changing the time of day the measurements are taken, changing the guidelines for rounding or error correcting, moving the station from it's location, even by a few metres, damage to a stephenson screen or repairing damage to an old screen....
All of these can introduce bias to the record.

Sometimes these biases are random and cancel each other out over a big enough sample, other times they are systemic bias (like changing instruments or methodology) and these need to be accounted for in the data through adjustments every time they are identified or else you are reporting out data that you know to be inconsistent or inaccurate.

I am not a climatologist so I do not have experience in reading mercury thermometers for a living, but I have some experience in cell counting in a biopharmaceutical setting and you can put the exact same sample in front of 10 different people and give them the exact same instructions and the exact same *equipment, and you will get different answers from everyone because of ambiguity in the sample.

You can put that same sample into an automatic cell counting machine (a haemocytometer) and run the sample through it a couple of times, it will give more consistent results (but still varying within a smaller range) but if you put that sample into two or 3 different types if haemocytometers, you'll see the uncertainty range increase again as each type of measurement will be biased in favour of either reporting higher or lower viable cells in the sample.

(*as far as possible)

Oneiric 3 · 24-01-2020 12:49pm

Danno wrote: »

The absolute state of this.

Doomsday Clock moves closer to midnight than ever before https://jrnl.ie/4977580

There are no words.

oriel36 · 24-01-2020 1:04pm

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

There are no words.

These people live in permanent apocalyptic mindsets and impossible to have a meaningful discussion in that toxic atmosphere. I am sure it appeals to a certain type of individual as 'climate change' does but humanity is not supposed to live in a pessimistic world designed for them by those who are not creative or productive.

The 24 hour clock is anchored to noon or rather the sunrise/noon/sunset cycle as there is no comparable reference point (midnight) between sunset and dawn as a physical consideration . The effin empirical freaks decided to bypass the relationship of a clock to the noon and day/night cycle by putting everything into the dark and the stellar circumpolar motion of the stars thereby losing cause and effect -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYy0EQBnqHI

Who wants to compete with doom mongers for goodness sake !!!.

Oneiric 3 · 24-01-2020 1:09pm

Akrasia wrote: »

Why have you started calling me Arkrasia now?

There is no 'climate optimum' but there is a relatively stable holocene climate that all of human civilisation has developed under and moving to a new 'hothouse earth' climate will be extremely disruptive to both human and animal welfare.

Showing some dodgy documentaty from the 70s proves absolutely nothing.

I could show you the 'loose change' documentary. It features some 'scientists' talking about how 9/11 must have been an inside job. Does that mean that all scientists are 9/11 truthers?
Does it prove that even 1% of scientists are 9/11 truthers?

There was never a scientific consensus that we were entering a new ice age in the 1970s.

'Dodgy documentary'.

Science is science, not a political system where the 'majority' or 'consensus' rules.

Worth looking into Mill's concept of the 'tyranny of the majority' though if you are going to view science through this particular lens.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/9781118474396.wbept1014

Retr0gamer · 24-01-2020 1:12pm

SeaBreezes wrote: »

What community would that be? IPCC community? Ahhh...

Shunned by every Scientific institute. And by shunned I mean laughed at and ignored. They just plain and simple aren't a scientific publication

SeaBreezes wrote: »

Science is NOT flawed.. many have tried to debunk them and been corrected by Nikolov, it was THEIR error, they didnt understand the maths correctly.
Hes making enemies on both side of the camps with his abrasive manner..

No actually, his maths and science are all wrong and anyone with basic levels of knowledge in it can see it to be true. It's totally flawed and maybe the reason that he has been debunked by so many is because it's all wrong. I can tell you myself as a someone with science knowledge that there is so much wrong in his maths and theory that it's utter nonsense

SeaBreezes wrote: »

Science is NOT flawed.. many have tried to They leave out Mercury because there is no valid data for the surface temp.
He makes this point in his paper. They started with solid data and worked back from there to arrive at this equation. And Titan is included in the paper?

There's lots of valid data on mercury. Loads published and out there for anyone to consume. They omit it because it's convenient and if they did include it it would completely in validate their so called research. I have a hard time calling it research because ignoring data to massage results isn't scientific.

SeaBreezes wrote: »

Mars atmophere is 95% CO2. Mars is an extremely cold planet with an average temperature around minus-80 degrees. Temperatures can dip to minus-225 degrees around the poles. Periods of warmth are brief — highs can reach 70 degrees for a brief time around Noon at the equator in the summer.
Why isnt CO2 WARMING it? .... Cause PRESSURE .. the atmosphere is thinner.. thats Dr, Nikolovs paper.

Mars' atmosphere being 95% CO2 is the first true thing you've said so far. However 95% of a tiny amount is still a tiny amount of CO2 compared to earth. Mars' atmosphere is exponentially thinner than earths so there's much less CO2. But again this is a fantastic example of the terrible science carried out by these hacks

Hes not saying carbon doesnt have some warming, hes saying its insignificent. That we didnt HAVE an explanation for temp before so we assumed CO2 was trapping heat, but correlation does not equal causation.
Why isnt CO2 trapping heat on Mars?

He points out:

SeaBreezes wrote: »

1) CO2 cannot act as a trap as it will convect heat up. There is no 'lid' on our atmosphere, he suggests fumigating your back yard with CO2 and see how 'warm' it gets. Same with atmosphere, its an open system.

Absolute nonsense. There is a lid on our atmosphere. CO2 can't escape the earths atmosphere, it's too heavy. If it could you wouldn't be able to breath right now as the even lighter molecule, Oxygen would be pissed out into space. Now if it was a lighter gas like Helium that would be true but the fact you are still living and breathing shows how wrong this is.

SeaBreezes wrote: »

2) CO2 warming is based on the premise, we know it can reflect radiant heat in a certain state, and we know we are warming, so it must be the CO2.. hes given an alternative explanation for the heat that makes sense. It explains why it gets cooler the higher you go.

There's a state that it reflects heat. In gaseous form. There's no other state of CO2 in the atmosphere. What other state is he talking about?

The pressure explanation also makes no sense. The earths mass and properties means there's an atmospheric pressure it supports and any fluctuations are miniscule. There's a reason that atmospheric pressure (ATM) is a unit and a constant. Because it's constant!

SeaBreezes wrote: »

But still, they are 1 degree celsius out. He is also suggesting they have a paper in review which shows a cloud cover decrease of 40% over the last century, which has allowed the warming by the sun. They used the same method again, used CERES data, from the last 20 years.. though this is what he is saying, nothing in published format yet.!

Published in another non journal no doubt

SeaBreezes wrote: »

I think its incredibly exciting time to be a climate scientist. This discovery (and yes, its incredibly new but how exciting!!)

It's a scary time and no, this isn't a discovery. It's garbage.

SeaBreezes wrote: »

IPCC tried to stop Zharakova being published too, she only found out because the Editor of Nature emailed her the objection so she could rebutt it.
And everyone laughed at her 10 years ago, she said, we only have to wait and see. She was one of TWO people world wide who correctly predicted the last solar cycle. Consensus was wrong, IPCC was wrong.

We are still laughing. Also the Editor of Nature emailed that to her to give her the opportunity to defend her work, with science. She couldn't. So the paper got rejected by the greater community for the garbage it is.

Oneiric 3 · 24-01-2020 1:12pm

oriel36 wrote: »

These people live in permanent apocalyptic mindsets and impossible to have a meaningful discussion in that toxic atmosphere. I am sure it appeals to a certain type of individual as 'climate change' does but humanity is not supposed to live in a pessimistic world designed for them by those who are not creative or productive.

The 24 hour clock is anchored to noon or rather the sunrise/noon/sunset cycle as there is no comparable reference point (midnight) between sunset and dawn as a physical consideration . The effin empirical freaks decided to bypass the relationship of a clock to the noon and day/night cycle by putting everything into the dark and the stellar circumpolar motion of the stars thereby losing cause and effect -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYy0EQBnqHI

Who wants to compete with doom mongers for goodness sake !!!.

Or, they could have set the clock to 8.59am, which is the end of the Meteorological day.

Retr0gamer · 24-01-2020 1:29pm

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

'Dodgy documentary'.

Science is science, not a political system where the 'majority' or 'consensus' rules.

Worth looking into Mill's concept of the 'tyranny of the majority' though if you are going to view science through this particular lens.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/9781118474396.wbept1014

Science isn't science when a political agenda is dressed up and presented as valid science. Then you can call it dodgy. Just like the climate change denial papers previously linked to.

oriel36 · 24-01-2020 1:32pm

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

Or, they could have set the clock to 8.59am, which is the end of the Meteorological day.

There was only ever one day as a benchmark to work off daily temperatures and one annual benchmark for the same purpose. The fact that the 17th century British conjured up two types of days, rotation to the Sun and another to the stars (solar day vs sidereal day) was an attempt to create a wedge between the day/night cycle in response to one rotation of the Earth so they could have fun with clockwork modeling just as their colleagues today create computer generated hallucinations.

https://prairieecosystems.pbworks.com/f/1179343887/crerar%20temperature%20variation.jpg

Temperatures rise past noon as the Sun turns into view and decline as the Sun turns out of sight with a peak around 3 PM. It is also why noon is called midday as your location is midway between the circle of illumination at that point where a number of hours earlier you exited the circle of illumination at sunrise and will pass through the circle of illumination at sunset, once each day and a thousand times in a thousand days. There is no astronomical noon vs meteorological noon.

https://weather-and-climate.com/uploads/average-temperature-ireland-cavan-cavan-county-ie.png

When it comes to the annual temperature fluctuation, temperatures rise passed the June Solstice in Ireland while at the North Pole that location is centred midway to the circle of illumination. If people were in possession of their senses and minds, they would consider the annual fluctuation like the daily fluctuation as temperatures rise into July but instead they have conjured up the astronomical seasons vs meteorological seasons for the same reasons as the solar vs sidereal day.

Our Irish ancestors started the year on November 1st or roughly the time polar twilight ends at the North Pole with polar dawn starting around February 1st with midwinter in between, this is not centuries but thousands of years ago -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Listoghil

With our meteorologists falling in line with their Royal Society colleagues in respect to the phony astronomical vs meteorological seasons, the whole thing looks grotesque.

M.T. Cranium · 24-01-2020 1:39pm

One question that might be worth asking proponents of AGW is this -- what should today's weather be, if it isn't what it is supposed to be?

Is it just a degree too warm, or is there something else wrong with it?

If you can't answer this, then how can you claim to have developed a proven science of climate change?

I am not in a hurry for an answer, do some calculations or whatever.

Retr0gamer · 24-01-2020 1:53pm

M.T. Cranium wrote: »

One question that might be worth asking proponents of AGW is this -- what should today's weather be, if it isn't what it is supposed to be?

Is it just a degree too warm, or is there something else wrong with it?

If you can't answer this, then how can you claim to have developed a proven science of climate change?

I am not in a hurry for an answer, do some calculations or whatever.

It's not worth asking. Because it doesn't prove or disprove climate change. And predicting weather, global weather, that has been massively influenced by unnatural man made influence is impossible when it's very tough to predict even daily weather. Also any attempt to predict what the weather could be would be, and should be, debunked as there is no baseline to measure it against.

So I could say we would all be sipping pina colada's on howth pier in 22 degree heat and it means nothing.

What you are asking is unscientific. Which shows how much you and other climate change deniers actually know about actual science. It's like disproving climate change because it's snowing outside.

Mount Vesuvius · 24-01-2020 2:01pm

Natural is all it is. The few on here spouting propaganda have been brainwashed too, that's ok, it happens. Been used as a war tactic for awhile now.

It's all about the money money money.

The Global Warming, Climate Change, Climate Crisis, or what ever these good people of planet earth choose to call it, are wasting their time. Chill, take a holiday, the planet has always looked after itself.
It's survived thousands of years of bellowing volcanic activity and a time to flourish when even more CO2 was in the atmosphere.
People spending time on this is so wasteful as human life is so short, enjoy it. Your time is at a premium. You will be long gone and will not or ever see any results from the so called doomsday scenarios.
This is my only comment on this.
Have a lovely day &#55357;&#56898;

SeaBreezes · 24-01-2020 2:02pm

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Shunned by every Scientific institute. And by shunned I mean laughed at and ignored. They just plain and simple aren't a scientific publication

No actually, his maths and science are all wrong and anyone with basic levels of knowledge in it can see it to be true. It's totally flawed and maybe the reason that he has been debunked by so many is because it's all wrong. I can tell you myself as a someone with science knowledge that there is so much wrong in his maths and theory that it's utter nonsense

There's lots of valid data on mercury. Loads published and out there for anyone to consume. They omit it because it's convenient and if they did include it it would completely in validate their so called research. I have a hard time calling it research because ignoring data to massage results isn't scientific.

Mars' atmosphere being 95% CO2 is the first true thing you've said so far. However 95% of a tiny amount is still a tiny amount of CO2 compared to earth. Mars' atmosphere is exponentially thinner than earths so there's much less CO2. But again this is a fantastic example of the terrible science carried out by these hacks

Hes not saying carbon doesnt have some warming, hes saying its insignificent. That we didnt HAVE an explanation for temp before so we assumed CO2 was trapping heat, but correlation does not equal causation.
Why isnt CO2 trapping heat on Mars?

He points out:

Absolute nonsense. There is a lid on our atmosphere. CO2 can't escape the earths atmosphere, it's too heavy. If it could you wouldn't be able to breath right now as the even lighter molecule, Oxygen would be pissed out into space. Now if it was a lighter gas like Helium that would be true but the fact you are still living and breathing shows how wrong this is.

There's a state that it reflects heat. In gaseous form. There's no other state of CO2 in the atmosphere. What other state is he talking about?

The pressure explanation also makes no sense. The earths mass and properties means there's an atmospheric pressure it supports and any fluctuations are miniscule. There's a reason that atmospheric pressure (ATM) is a unit and a constant. Because it's constant!

Published in another non journal no doubt

It's a scary time and no, this isn't a discovery. It's garbage.

We are still laughing. Also the Editor of Nature emailed that to her to give her the opportunity to defend her work, with science. She couldn't. So the paper got rejected by the greater community for the garbage it is.

Zharakova has been published by nature. And proved right. The paper was published in 2010. With two follow up papers.

Your entire post is complete fantasy.

Have a read through TallBloke and the comments. Every single point you made above is discussed and invalidated.

But you won't do that will you, because you BELIEVE. And your too busy being scared and still laughing., got it.

oriel36 · 24-01-2020 2:02pm

Retr0gamer wrote: »

What you are asking is unscientific. Which shows how much you and other climate change deniers actually know about actual science. It's like disproving climate change because it's snowing outside.

When experimental theorists get to 'define' climate to suit their modeling, it all becomes 'roadrunner' politics where the opponents play the role of Wily Coyote in a cartoon environment not fit for human consumption.

Kill the 'scientific method' and all this vanishes and replaced by productive and creative climate research and so much else besides.

SeaBreezes · 24-01-2020 2:11pm

Mount Vesuvius wrote: »

Natural is all it is. The few on here spouting propaganda have been brainwashed too, that's ok, it happens. Been used as a war tactic for awhile now.

It's all about the money money money.

The Global Warming, Climate Change, Climate Crisis, or what ever these good people of planet earth choose to call it, are wasting their time. Chill, take a holiday, the planet has always looked after itself.
It's survived thousands of years of bellowing volcanic activity and a time to flourish when even more CO2 was in the atmosphere.
People spending time on this is so wasteful as human life is so short, enjoy it. Your time is at a premium. You will be long gone and will not or ever see any results from the so called doomsday scenarios.
This is my only comment on this.
Have a lovely day ��

You know the same thing was running through my head.
There's no arguing with a religion.
And I've spent too much time here. Have a great day and thanks for the thread MT!! I'm signing out too.

Longing · 24-01-2020 2:20pm

AIR TEMPERATURES AT ARMAGH OBSERVATORY, NORTHERN IRELAND,
FROM 1796 TO 2002

Good Info and graphs especially what was discussed earlier in the week about Valentia.

https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/joc.1148

Retr0gamer · 24-01-2020 2:38pm

All trending upwards by at least 1 degree.

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

Comments