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

1356794

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 9,601 ✭✭✭Birdnuts


    My view from working in the area in the past(Environmental science) is that humans are altering regional climates for the worse via deforestation,drainage, urbanisation ie. CO2 levels are only a minor part of that story. A prime example of this is what is currently happening in the Amazon - as the rainforest is removed the cooling and transpiration function of the trees is lost leading to higher temps and less rainfall, nothing to do with CO2!! Similar things have occurred in other parts of the world in the distant pass eg, historical deforestation and overgrazing in the Middle East lead to the spread of manmade deserts and lower rainfall in the Levant. Australia's bush fires are made all the worst due to intensive farming sucking the land dry via irrigation etc - same in California, the list goes on and on. Faffing about with CO2 levels will do FA to address any of these problems which are indeed a major threat to the planet!!


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


    Coles wrote: »
    ...and no, we don't really need an alternative theory about it. The IPCC has the best minds in the World working on it.

    I've read this thread with interest, and it didn't take long for the globalists to stick their oar in with one-line pot shots to discredit MTC. :rolleyes:
    Coles wrote: »
    AGW is not "augmenting natural warming". Over the last 25-30 years the World should have been naturally cooling. That's an important point, and yes, we do need to do more to reverse the process, and no...

    I ask, in great anticipation of your answer, of what "we" need to do more of?


  • Registered Users Posts: 735 ✭✭✭Tuisceanch


    SeaBreezes wrote: »
    Google Valentina zharkova. It was her science (and she was only one of 2 people world wide who predicted the last solar cycle being half the strength of previous ones, even NASA got it wrong, now they are following her lead)

    Then check if the IPCC takes solar forcing into account in their models.

    Then google the medieval and roman warming phases.

    That's what got me interested in natural warming/cooling cycles. Valentina had been spot on so far.

    Also, if we are the only culprit, and CO2 levels are at record highs. Why have global temps been dropping since 2016?
    Unless something else is influencing temps? Like the sun?

    But I'm with MT on this. Why does it have to be either/or? Why not both?

    And his reasoning is sound. What if we can't stop it? What are we doing to mitigate it?

    Valentina is warning of food shortages by 2028 due to shorter growing seasons.
    It's happening already. The hunger stones were seen in Central Europe in 2018. They are inscribed with dates as far back as the 12th century. What caused the warming/weather pattern
    Change then?

    We are grasping at the edge of it all. But I do feel zharkova has forced the IPCC to include solar forcing in their models from 2020. Incidentally, they tried to stop the publishing of her work in Nature magazine with a sly email to the publishers. She found out when she was cc'ed on the magazines reply.

    That's just nasty. What are they afraid of?

    https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2019/07/07/nature-scientific-reports/
    Michael Brown made me aware of a new paper in Scientific Reports by Valentina Zharkova called Oscillations of the baseline of solar magnetic field and solar irradiance on a millennial timescale.

    This is the report he is referring to:

    https://researchportal.northumbria.ac.uk/files/20325253/Zharkova_et_al_Oscillations_of_the_baseline_of_solar_magnetic_field_and_solar_irradiance_on_a_millennial_timescale_AAM.pdf
    What this paper focusses on is the motion of the Sun around the barycentre of the Solar System, commonly referred to as the Solar Inertial Motion (SIM).

    Here is a link which elaborates on SIM

    http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/pdf/1987SoPh..110..191F

    In the rather scathing article I linked the author summarizes
    So, Scientific Reports appears to have published a paper that makes a claim about the Earth’s orbit around the Sun that violates some pretty basic orbital dynamics and that then uses this to suggest that most of our warming is natural.

    Here is a thread where Valentina Zharkova attempts to defend her findings with other scientists.

    https://pubpeer.com/publications/3418816F1BA55AFB7A2E6A44847C24#72

    It begins
    This is a rather confusing paper, that seems to be suggesting that most of the recent warming is natural and that we will see continued warming due to the motion of the Sun around the Solar System's barycentre leading to increased Solar irradiation at the Earth. This seems to be implying that the motion of the Sun around the barycentre can substantially influence the distance from the Sun to the Earth. This, however, seems to violate basic orbital dynamics.

    It is well known that the other planets in the Solar System can perturb the orbit of the earth leading to changes in the Earth's eccentricity, axial tilt, and precession. This is known as Milankovitch cycles and they have periods of 10s of thousands of years and are associated with the glacial cycles. However, the semimajor axis of the Earth's orbit remains essentially constant, and so these cycles do not substantially change the average solar irradiation received by the Earth; they do change where it is deposited and it is thought that large changes in solar irradiation at high Northern Latitudes can trigger the switch from a glacial, to an inter-glacial. Even in this scenario, albedo changes due to ice sheet retreat/advance and changes in atmospheric CO2 due to ocean outgassing and vegetation changes, play a key role in moving the system from a glacial to an inter-glacial, or from an inter-glacial to a glacial.

    She repeatedly states:
    The facts we found in the paper (and I repeat them) :
    1. The summary curve showed us the regular oscillations of the baseline of magnetic field with a period of 2000-2100 years.
    2. In the past 120 000 years there were about 60 full period of these oscillations.
    3. To understand a nature of these oscillations we tested the current cycle of 2000 years and discovered that its minimum was during a Maunder Minimum and it is growing now until 2600.
    4. The current 2000 year cycle correlate very closely with Solanki curve (which in our plot we simply divided by factor 5 to separate it from our curve as they are virtually inseparable.
    5. Furthermore, this 2000 current curve correlate very closely with Akasofu's baseline temperature increase.
    6. Only after we established the items 1-5 above we started looking what can cause them. This is when our attention came to SIM and the numerous papers on it from80s till recently. we did not calculate SIM, we used their calculations.
    7. And we discovered from the papers who did SIM calculations that the Sun moves within a circle of 4.3 solar radius (695 000 km), that results in the magnitude of about 0.02 AU. Again we used what people calculated decades before us.
    8. The only thing we did is evaluation how would change the solar irradiance if the Sun moves closer or further from different parts of the Earth orbit. This is also valid for orbits of other planets, though they seasons are different.
    9. Given the correlation between irradiance curve and temperature increase on the Earth this links all 5 items with 7 and 8.

    and is repeatedly asked
    Do you claim that the position of the Sun with respect to the solar system barycentre results in a commensurate change in the Sun-Earth distance?

    498109.JPG

    The discussion gets rather heated and is not helped by her poor command of english. however I find her to be quite evasive and unconvincing. Since you probably have read all of her papers, you probably have a better angle on her viewpoint which I would be greatly interested to hear.

    Actually could you link to where she makes claims about food shortages as that would be interesting.

    Also in terms of 'solar forcing' not being included in models I refer you to the following paper from 2010
    https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/7b85/83f883e764e0c74ea6ce6ebf5cd3c27e0efd.pdf?_ga=2.181358375.1422331769.1576869979-1611661333.1574660104
    To investigate the influence of a new grand minimum of solar activity during the 21st century on future climate,scenarios for the evolution of the various climate forcings until 2100 are required. These future forcings were set up as follows: Anthropogenic forcing follows emission paths corresponding to the A1B and A2 scenarios from the IPCC SRES (Bern‐CC model (reference) output from Appendix II of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [2001]),
    and volcanic forcing is constructed by randomly distributing the forcings of 20th‐century eruptions over the 21st to avoid artificial drift of the model resulting from an unnatural lack of volcanic forcing. Three simulation experiments with different solar forcing have been performed: One with the last 11‐year solar activity cycle repeated until 2100, and two with the Sun entering a new grand minimum

    It concludes
    Results for the evolution of the global mean temperature until the year 2100 show only a small temperature decrease of a future grand minimum of solar activity compared to standard scenarios

    498110.JPG


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,524 ✭✭✭SeaBreezes


    Tuisceanch wrote: »
    https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2019/07/07/nature-scientific-reports/



    This is the report he is referring to:

    https://researchportal.northumbria.ac.uk/files/20325253/Zharkova_et_al_Oscillations_of_the_baseline_of_solar_magnetic_field_and_solar_irradiance_on_a_millennial_timescale_AAM.pdf



    Here is a link which elaborates on SIM

    http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/pdf/1987SoPh..110..191F

    In the rather scathing article I linked the author summarizes


    Here is a thread where Valentina Zharkova attempts to defend her findings with other scientists.

    https://pubpeer.com/publications/3418816F1BA55AFB7A2E6A44847C24#72

    It begins



    She repeatedly states:



    and is repeatedly asked



    498109.JPG

    The discussion gets rather heated and is not helped by her poor command of english. however I find her to be quite evasive and unconvincing. Since you probably have read all of her papers, you probably have a better angle on her viewpoint which I would be greatly interested to hear.

    Actually could you link to where she makes claims about food shortages as that would be interesting.

    Also in terms of 'solar forcing' not being included in models I refer you to the following paper from 2010
    https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/7b85/83f883e764e0c74ea6ce6ebf5cd3c27e0efd.pdf?_ga=2.181358375.1422331769.1576869979-1611661333.1574660104



    It concludes



    498110.JPG

    Loads of info there thank you!

    It's going to take me some time to get through it all.
    Do you work in the field that you understood and read it all yourself in such time? Or is it natural talent?

    She mentions food shortages in this presentation: https://youtu.be/M_yqIj38UmY

    Now I agree with you all science should be queried. And robust enough to withstand such query.

    So, do you think she got lucky with her equation and solar cycle prediction when everyone else failed? She has been predicting it since before 2010. When NASA got it wrong?

    I will need time to go through the queries and rebuttals though, not having your natural talents :-)


  • Registered Users Posts: 735 ✭✭✭Tuisceanch


    SeaBreezes wrote: »
    Loads of info there thank you!

    It's going to take me some time to get through it all.
    Do you work in the field that you understood and read it all yourself in such time? Or is it natural talent?

    She mentions food shortages in this presentation: https://youtu.be/M_yqIj38UmY

    Now I agree with you all science should be queried. And robust enough to withstand such query.

    So, do you think she got lucky with her equation and solar cycle prediction when everyone else failed? She has been predicting it since before 2010. When NASA got it wrong?

    I will need time to go through the queries and rebuttals though, not having your natural talents :-)

    No I'm just working my way through exploring different angles. My initial post was just my first impressions. I was aware of the media reports on her modelling of the Grand Minimum and Maximum cycle but I don't think I have the actual report. If you could provide a link to that then that would be appreciated. In terms of the current paper I found this comment in the linked article which further elaborates on the major bone of contention:
    The Earth orbits the Sun-Earth two-body barycentre, which is close to the centre of the Sun because of the enormous mass ratio. The Sun-Earth system orbits the SS barycentre, mostly affected by Jupiter with a period of 12 years – effectively a three-body system. The Sun-Earth system has an orbital period of 1 year, the (Sun-Earth) – Jupiter system has an orbital period of 12 years, and since the Sun-Jupiter mass ratio is about 1000 it is only a perturbation on the Sun-Earth two-body system. So the Earth’s distance from the Sun does not change with an orbital period of 12 years, as your Mercury6 calculation showed correctly. It is incorrect for that paper to claim that since the Earth orbits the SS barycentre, whilst the Sun also does so, and then claim that because the Sun’s motion exhibits changes in position of up to 0.02 AU relative to the SS barycentre, this must lead to changes in solar radiation received at Earth. The Earth travels around the SS barycentre with the Sun, not independently of the Sun.

    I'm currently going through the material in more detail so as to get a better grasp of the subject matter as I would imagine that the OP assertions have some correlation to her findings.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,020 ✭✭✭Coles


    Danno wrote: »
    I've read this thread with interest, and it didn't take long for the globalists to stick their oar in with one-line pot shots to discredit MTC. :rolleyes:



    I ask, in great anticipation of your answer, of what "we" need to do more of?

    Globalists! Communists! Grrrr!

    We need to restructure our economies so that our way of life is sustainable and no longer dependent on resource extraction for economic growth.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,020 ✭✭✭Coles


    @GaothLaidir, you don't appear to understand your own charts?


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


    Coles wrote: »
    @GaothLaidir, you don't appear to understand your own charts?

    Really? Care to elaborate?


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,524 ✭✭✭SeaBreezes


    Tuisceanch wrote: »
    No I'm just working my way through exploring different angles. My initial post was just my first impressions. I was aware of the media reports on her modelling of the Grand Minimum and Maximum cycle but I don't think I have the actual report. If you could provide a link to that then that would be appreciated. In terms of the current paper I found this comment in the linked article which further elaborates on the major bone of contention:



    I'm currently going through the material in more detail so as to get a better grasp of the subject matter as I would imagine that the OP assertions have some correlation to her findings.

    jeepers don't be assuming anything.

    Read MTs article and then you will know what he based his assertions on.

    I was only trying to help, you asked for scientific papers on why people were interested in natural warming/cooling cycles and I gave you the path that got my attention.
    Including the historic warming, the hunger stones in the Elbe, we've been on this cycle before..

    MT is WAY out of my league scientifically. Why you would conflate us is beyond me.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,020 ✭✭✭Coles


    Birdnuts wrote: »
    The 99% aspire to reach that level of lifestyle so population growth is indeed the key - especially as it already is the main driver of habitat destruction etc. across the planet
    So there's the choice:

    Reduce the population by 5 billion people (how? who?), or...
    Change our culture so that people no longer aspire to live unsustainable lifestyles (this is happening slowly).


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 735 ✭✭✭Tuisceanch


    SeaBreezes wrote: »
    jeepers don't be assuming anything.

    Read MTs article and then you will know what he based his assertions on.

    I was only trying to help, you asked for scientific papers on why people were interested in natural warming/cooling cycles and I gave you the path that got my attention.
    Including the historic warming, the hunger stones in the Elbe, we've been on this cycle before..

    MT is WAY out of my league scientifically. Why you would conflate us is beyond me.

    Well it was an assumption but apparently not baseless as he is quoted as stating:
    The current warming seems to indicate a change in air mass frequency more than a warming up of air masses. This is the conclusion drawn when comparing temperatures in each air mass — these have shown much less upward shift than the average temperature. X remains skeptical of claims that human modification is causing a change in the circulation patterns. He feels that as-yet-undocumented external drivers such as solar system magnetic field variations are driving changes in the circulation, combined with shifts in the earth’s magnetic field.
    X says that his money is on natural variability rather than human influence, although he assumes that it’s a blend, perhaps on the order of three parts natural, one part human.

    This is not a quote from boards.ie so I won't use his name as it's not appropriate.

    So there does seem some correlation between the two viewpoints. It also is in line with my query regarding the dissidents mentioned in the OP. Anyway I'm hoping that this thread will throw some more light on the subject.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,020 ✭✭✭Coles


    Really? Care to elaborate?
    The Arctic sea ice volume has decreased by 75% since the 1980's. It is melting rapidly.

    Greenland melt has increased by 20% in the same period and over the last 20 years has lost 4 trillion tonnes of ice. This is happening. Greenland is melting faster. It is not stable. The rate of melting in Antarctica has tripled. Posting selective charts about sea ice extent, melt area or terminal morraines suggests that you don't fully understand what they mean.

    Sea ice extent says nothing about multi year ice volume. Sea ice forms every year. Melt area also doesn't tell anything about melt volume.

    From the portions of charts you have posted it's clear that you either don't understand them or you are being deliberately misleading.

    Check out what NASA and the IPCC has to say about melt rates.


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


    If you raise valid concerns about the IPCC theories, you just get a torrent of abuse and hostility (how dare you squared).

    Boy were you right.


  • Registered Users Posts: 735 ✭✭✭Tuisceanch


    Coles wrote: »
    The Arctic sea ice volume has decreased by 75% since the 1980's. It is melting rapidly.

    Greenland melt has increased by 20% in the same period and over the last 20 years has lost 4 trillion tonnes of ice. This is happening. Greenland is melting faster. It is not stable. The rate of melting in Antarctica has tripled. Posting selective charts about sea ice extent, melt area or terminal morraines suggests that you don't fully understand what they mean.

    Sea ice extent says nothing about multi year ice volume. Sea ice forms every year. Melt area also doesn't tell anything about melt volume.

    From the portions of charts you have posted it's clear that you either don't understand them or you are being deliberately misleading.

    Check out what NASA and the IPCC has to say about melt rates.

    Yes I have to agree. That is what I understood too so I'm finding assertions to the contrary troubling.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,601 ✭✭✭Birdnuts


    Coles wrote: »
    So there's the choice:

    Reduce the population by 5 billion people (how? who?), or...
    Change our culture so that people no longer aspire to live unsustainable lifestyles (this is happening slowly).

    Yes - I can see that going down well with folks living on a dollar a day " you life is sh*t but at least your Carbon footprint is modest":rolleyes: How about us in the West actually do something usefull for third world countries and help them with family planning, female education and natural resource protection.??


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,020 ✭✭✭Coles


    Tuisceanch wrote: »
    Yes I have to agree. That is what I understood too so I'm finding assertions to the contrary troubling.
    Very often "climate change skeptics" will select temperature data that commences in 1998 because that year was an extreme El Nino event with very high global temperatures. By selecting data with 1998 as a start point it is possible to create a chart that appears to show a "pause" or "global warming hiatus". Google "global warming hiatus" and you'll see what I mean. It is completely discredited.

    Another one is the chart with 2010-2018 arctic ses ice volume. The longer chart from the 1980's shows the trend, but 2010 were extreme and undershot that trend line, so by selecting 2010-2018 it appears that arctic ice volume is decreasing slowly. It's not. This kind of presentation of information is disingenuous.

    Really this isn't skepticism. It's outright deliberate denial.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,020 ✭✭✭Coles


    Here are two charts that illustrate it clearly.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,020 ✭✭✭Coles


    Birdnuts wrote: »
    Yes - I can see that going down well with folks living on a dollar a day " you life is sh*t but at least your Carbon footprint is modest":rolleyes: How about us in the West actually do something usefull for third world countries and help them with family planning, female education and natural resource protection.??
    Absolutely. And stop exporting unobtainable aspirations.

    We don't have time to turn around the population trend.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,279 ✭✭✭✭M.T. Cranium


    Well, I was out for the day here (eight times away as Oneiric points out) and was surprised to find this much chat already posted. Two questions arose that I think I could answer now.

    One was about my background. Well today there is "climate science" but when I attended university (1967-71 yikes) there was climatology and meteorology and they were the atmospheric sciences. So I had started into a heavy math and physics program thinking I might become an astronomer actually, not a weather forecaster. But I got very interested in climate and found that I had to switch out of the heavy math-science stream to something more hybrid, further science, math and statistics, but also a lot of geography and specific climatology courses.

    Then when I graduated I eventually got interested in the climatology and forecasting of precipitation patterns in the Great Lakes region (which is where I lived in the 1970s and 1980s to 1995) and that took me into a private forecasting company that specialized in air quality forecasting (advising large industries when their emissions might create a health hazard). We already knew that governments were going to lean hard on these industries to reduce their overall pollution so our role was basically to keep them out of trouble in the two or three years they had left to comply. People here in Ireland might have had a different experience of air pollution, but Toronto was getting to be a very dirty and smoggy city around 1970-75 with numerous air quality alerts (and so were other places where some of these clients operated). So this gave me a lot of insight into how the stability parameters of the atmosphere work, which wasn't that irrelevant to my other research into precipitation.

    Eventually I developed a computer model for predicting thunderstorm rainfalls and lake effect snow amounts, and the company sold some of that to the government agency in Canada. Then I left that company and worked for Accuweather briefly, helping them develop markets in Canadian media, and participating in their general forecasting day. This is where I got interested in global climate and long range forecasting. Off topic, but a rather senior person there just happened to say casually one day, "it seems to me that every winter full or new moon, there's a big storm on the east coast." So people can see where that led me (I don't think it led him or Accuweather anywhere).

    By about 1982 or so, I had reached a sort of dissident scientist status relative to the Canadian government agency and therefore with the weather world in general, but as luck would have it, most of my employment from then on switched out of climate and weather into other computer work and I became a weather enthusiast (that term probably covers a very broad spectrum of individuals from amateur observers to scientists in other professional fields taking a recreational interest in our field, to students and various intelligent laypersons with an interest in weather.

    So I can function more or less at the level of a meteorologist, and I am by training a climatologist, I would feel uncomfortable being called a climate scientist because of its political overtones which don't fit me very well. As I've said to numerous bored or about to become bored people, a scientist is a person who drives a scientist's car and lives in a scientist's house.

    I maintain a broad interest in all topics within the atmospheric sciences and astronomy, and I see overlaps that are controversial and certainly not accepted (yet) anywhere in the mainstream. I've never claimed otherwise and have told friends (the same bored ones) that the over/under date for when this sort of astronomical connection will be accepted (having to do with solar system magnetic fields, mainly) is 2700 AD. Or 700 AG (After Greta) as I suppose it will then be known.

    The other question, where did I come up with a 3:1 ratio? For many years I was saying perhaps 2:1 or even 3:1 perhaps, but applied to a weaker signal than I thought we were going to be seeing and with much more likelihood of the natural portion of it reversing (as I think the data show that it did for a while around 1960s and again 1978-82). So I haven't changed much in that regard, that was always my take on it as soon as the AGW bandwagon rolled out in the 1980s. A little history on that, the 1982-83 winter temperature records set during that strong El Nino got the global warming movement revitalized. I think there was a weaker version of it in the 1920s and that was in the background of the old climatology, but if you read Lamb's work (a pre-eminent climatologist active around 1950-75) you can see that the main emphasis in the discipline was natural variability in both (or several regarding temp-precip) directions, not any bias towards expecting cooling or warming as an outcome. Some places were breaking monthly records by 10-15 deg in that event. Then another set of rather unprecedented temperature records happened in the spring of 1990. From my recollection, this was the watershed event for North American climate researchers and the global warming topic quickly became a hot issue from then on. Almost from the start, I was in the camp saying "wait a minute, we've seen these freakish warm records before at other times of year, e.g. the 1911 and 1936 heat waves, so maybe this is just nature doing its thing and not entirely of human origin."

    It was never my perception that the first round of AGW concern went immediately to the position now taken that the natural climate would be cooling if we were not present, and would instead be waiting for a Milankovitch go-ahead for another glacial episode. It was my perception that the debate was mainly about the ratio, with people near the top of the heap back then making claims of 50-50 or a 1:2 ratio. This newer idea has developed, in my opinion anyway, because of studies done to establish changes in upper atmosphere dynamics over time, but I am never too sure how they have reconstructed upper air dynamics for any periods before observations became available up there in the mid to late 1940s. For example, wetterzentrale publishes maps of the 1851-1900 period showing presumed 500 mb heights and 850 mb temperature but clearly those are modelled and not observed. So I am leery of any science that presumes to model effects that it then turns around and claims it has analyzed. How can you analyze conjectural observations?

    Anyway, the 3:1 ratio is certainly a very uncertain estimate, it could be 1.5:1 to 5:1. Our future course of action will likely depend on what that specific number is, and whether we get lucky (natural cooling cycle of some duration) or not (even sharper warming signals similar to 1990s).

    So that's where I'm coming from. I am only one voice among thousands although the IPCC certainly have created a large chant in unison with many other solitary voices in opposition (to some extent). I don't know if you could say that I am that much in opposition, if the only difference is that they think we can forestall consequences by intervention, and I suspect we cannot and must rely on luck of the draw to escape coastal flooding and whatever other consequences are going to be bad (desertification, heat stress, lack of habitat).

    Of course, warming would not be all bad news. There are some things that would change for the better, my heating bills for example. I look forward to sharing more of the climate studies -- there is also a study on line over on Net-weather showing trends in the Canadian arctic. I will link to that in a day or two after I've updated that one. It is entirely non-political in tone and I hope to keep it that way.

    As to cults of personality, that isn't going to happen because of my particular personality. I have ways of short circuiting that kind of outcome, trust me.


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


    Coles wrote: »
    The Arctic sea ice volume has decreased by 75% since the 1980's. It is melting rapidly.

    Greenland melt has increased by 20% in the same period and over the last 20 years has lost 4 trillion tonnes of ice. This is happening. Greenland is melting faster. It is not stable. The rate of melting in Antarctica has tripled. Posting selective charts about sea ice extent, melt area or terminal morraines suggests that you don't fully understand what they mean.

    Sea ice extent says nothing about multi year ice volume. Sea ice forms every year. Melt area also doesn't tell anything about melt volume.

    From the portions of charts you have posted it's clear that you either don't understand them or you are being deliberately misleading.

    Check out what NASA and the IPCC has to say about melt rates.

    I made those volume charts in another thread and were chosen purely based on decadal trends over the whole satellite era. I made three others too for the 1980_89, 1990_99 and 2000-09 periods, so before you accuse me of cherrypicking make sure you have your facts right. It is true that there has been no net loss in over a decade.

    I didn't make the Greenland charts. They're taken from the official 2018 NSIDC report. They show a recent levelling off in the rate of melting, a fact that doesn't ever get mentioned. If you have some data to show differently by all means share it.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,524 ✭✭✭SeaBreezes


    Tuisceanch wrote: »
    Well it was an assumption but apparently not baseless as he is quoted as stating:





    This is not a quote from boards.ie so I won't use his name as it's not appropriate.

    So there does seem some correlation between the two viewpoints. It also is in line with my query regarding the dissidents mentioned in the OP. Anyway I'm hoping that this thread will throw some more light on the subject.

    I had time to go through the comments on the article you sent me about SIM and it's really funny.

    Zharkova starts off polite but then starts to get irate with the people questioning her paper because they do not understand SIM.

    She's a solar physicist, are they really suggesting she doesn't understand how the sun orbits? In fact, go down through the comments and she repeatedly nails them on the science. Questioning if they understand it at all.

    When nailed in the science, the 'whatabouery' starts and they start telling the solar physicist how we get seasons. Hilarious.

    Her English is very clear to me, I love it when she loses patience with the repeated harassment.


  • Registered Users Posts: 735 ✭✭✭Tuisceanch


    SeaBreezes wrote: »
    I had time to go through the comments on the article you sent me about SIM and it's really funny.

    Zharkova starts off polite but then starts to get irate with the people questioning her paper because they do not understand SIM.

    She's a solar physicist, are they really suggesting she doesn't understand how the sun orbits? In fact, go down through the comments and she repeatedly nails them on the science. Questioning if they understand it at all.

    When nailed in the science, the 'whatabouery' starts and they start telling the solar physicist how we get seasons. Hilarious.

    Her English is very clear to me, I love it when she loses patience with the repeated harassment.

    OK but this is a science forum and since you cited her as someone supporting a position that deviates from the IPCC consensus you must necessarily have reasons based on the underlying physics for you to have become skeptical of the numerous scientific reports which support the view of AGW. How,for instance,were you convinced that she 'nailed them on the science'. That is an extremely vague comment so could you be more specific.

    Did you feel that she adequately answered the question
    Do you claim that the position of the Sun with respect to the solar system barycentre results in a commensurate change in the Sun-Earth distance?

    For instance
    Gavin Schmidt of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies says the paper contains egregious errors. “The sun-Earth distance does not vary with the motion of the sun-Earth system around the barycentre of the sun-Jupiter system, nor the sun-galactic centre system or any other purely mathematical reference point,” he says.
    Following criticism of the paper, lead author Valentina Zharkova, of Northumbria University, described Rice as a “climate alarmist” in an online discussion.

    “The close links between oscillations of solar baseline magnetic field, solar irradiance and temperature are established in our paper without any involvement of solar inertial motion,” Zharkova told New Scientist.

    Are you aware of how the link between oscillations of solar baseline magnetic field, solar irradiance and temperature was established? and is she then saying that the position of the Sun with respect to the solar system barycentre does not result in a commensurate change in the Sun-Earth distance and is in fact irrelevant?

    How does that statement tally with the model she produced which was based on SIM

    498138.JPG

    Her paper actually states that:
    These oscillations of the baseline solar magnetic field are found associated with a long-term solar inertial motion about the barycenter of the solar system and closely linked to an increase of solar irradiance and terrestrial temperature in the past two centuries.

    It goes on to say
    Kuklin32 first suggested that solar activity on a longer timescale can be affected by the motion of large planets of the solar system. This suggestion was later developed by Fairbridge31, Charvatova33 and Palus34 who found that the Sun, as a central star of the solar system, is a subject to the inertial motion around the barycenter of the solar system induced by the motions of the other planets (mostly large planets, e.g. Neptune, Jupiter and Saturn).
    Since the Sun moves around the solar system barycenter, it implies that it also shifts around the main focus of the Earth orbit being either closer to its perihelion or to its aphelion. If the Earth rotates around the Sun undisturbed by inertial motion, then the distances to its perihelion will be 1.47 × 108 km and to it aphelion 1.52 × 108 km. The solar inertial motion means for the Earth that the distance between the Sun and the Earth has to significantly change (up to 0.02 of a.u) at the extreme positions of SIM, and so does the average solar irradiance, which is inversely proportional to the squared distance between the Sun and Earth.

    This was a serious bone of contention for other scientists ,one of whom stated
    Such large changes would have presented problems for Keplerian models of the Solar System, since Kepler's laws have the Sun at one of the focii of the Earth's elliptical orbit. While Kepler's laws are only an approximation, large changes in the Earth-Sun distance at perihelion (i.e. 0.01-0.02 au) over the past few centuries would produce large errors in the Keplerian predictions that are not observed

    In conclusion the paper states:
    The oscillations of the baseline of solar magnetic field are likely to be caused by the solar inertial motion about the barycentre of the solar system caused by large planets. This, in turn, is closely linked to an increase of solar irradiance caused by the positions of the Sun either closer to aphelion and autumn equinox or perihelion and spring equinox. Therefore, the oscillations of the baseline define the global trend of solar magnetic field and solar irradiance over a period of about 2100 years. In the current millennium since Maunder minimum we have the increase of the baseline magnetic field and solar irradiance for another 580 years. This increase leads to the terrestrial temperature increase as noted by Akasofu26 during the past two hundred years. Based on the growth
    rate of 0.5 C per 100 years26 for the terrestrial temperature since Maunder minimum, one can anticipate that the increase of the solar baseline magnetic field expected to occure up to 2600 because of SIM will lead, in turn, to the increase of the terrestrial baseline temperature since MM by 1.3 °C (in 2100) and, at least, by 2.5–3.0 °C (in 2600).

    In the chat I posted and you referred to in reply she was asked
    Yes, these calculations show that the Sun moves around the Solar System barycentre. They do not show that this motion changes the average distance from the Sun to the Earth. You continue to claim that it does, but you have not presented any evidence to support this assertion. Your own sources don't support your claim. This is very basic Celestial/orbital dynamics. Your claim would overthrow centuries of basic physics/astrophysics. Can you at least acknowledge that your suggestion is at odds with the basics of orbital dynamics?

    To which she replied
    You suggest that the Earth like a pet wonder around the space of the solar system instead of moving orderly on the same orbit?
    The orbit of the Earth is well protocolled, I assume, and can be tested with the view from outside system. Milankovich spoke about the precession detected this way. If the Earth wondering following the Sun in its SIM it would be detected ages ago. It did not.
    You desperate attempt is failed I am afraid.

    So here she does seem to suggest that the supports the claim that the position of the Sun with respect to the solar system barycentre results in a commensurate change in the Sun-Earth distance.

    The following suggestion was then put to her
    What I suggest to include this source of terrestrial temperature heating and see what your models will show. Can you do it?

    to which she replied
    You did not do it correctly, because you use the assumption that the Earth follows the Sun in its SIM. This is impossible otherwise we would have very funny seasons. The more you do incorrect simulations the more it looks desperate.

    I appreciate this might not be your field of expertise so it would be appreciated if scientists on the forum might help in elucidating her findings.


  • Registered Users Posts: 24,214 ✭✭✭✭lawred2


    What underpins this 25% chance of a natural cooling? And in what timeframe?


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


    Coles wrote: »
    Globalists! Communists! Grrrr!

    We need to restructure our economies so that our way of life is sustainable and no longer dependent on resource extraction for economic growth.

    What economic system to you suggest gets imposed?

    Please expand on this.


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


    Danno wrote: »
    What economic system to you suggest gets imposed?

    Please expand on this.

    Probably a system where the vacuous opinions of the over appreciated and basically useless sedentary class are valued far more than those who actually do something.

    EMREO9yWkAIJwwe.jpg

    Oh, wait...

    New Moon



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,601 ✭✭✭thecomedian


    Coles wrote: »
    It's a start, but it doesn't qualify you to propose a serious alternative to the IPCC.


    As MT gave us his qualifications and experience (which to me were very impressive) would you mind sharing your qualifications in the area.


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


    Coles wrote: »

    We don't have time to turn around the population trend.
    Fret not! Only a matter of time now until the UK/US & Germany/EU go to war once again which should help this 'over-population' problem a little. I'm sure, when we are all in the trenches, watching our fallen buddies being eaten by rats, that we can console ourselves that this is all for the greater good of the climate.

    New Moon



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,524 ✭✭✭SeaBreezes


    Tuisceanch wrote: »
    OK but this is a science forum and since you cited her as someone supporting a position that deviates from the IPCC consensus you must necessarily have reasons based on the underlying physics for you to have become skeptical of the numerous scientific reports which support the view of AGW. How,for instance,were you convinced that she 'nailed them on the science'. That is an extremely vague comment so could you be more specific.

    Did you feel that she adequately answered the question



    For instance





    Are you aware of how the link between oscillations of solar baseline magnetic field, solar irradiance and temperature was established? and is she then saying that the position of the Sun with respect to the solar system barycentre does not result in a commensurate change in the Sun-Earth distance and is in fact irrelevant?

    How does that statement tally with the model she produced which was based on SIM

    498138.JPG

    Her paper actually states that:



    It goes on to say





    In conclusion the paper states:



    I appreciate this might not be your field of expertise so it would be appreciated if scientists on the forum might help in elucidating her findings.

    Well Tuisesch, I'm well impressed. It took me months to examine this and figure it out with no scientific background, and you seem to be an authority in less than 12 hours. Impressive!

    What is your background in it did you say?

    Forgive me, and I am open to correction here, but isn't that what SIM is? That the position of the planets determine the barycentre, which affects the suns orbit. So technically the sun is affected by the barycentre which is determined by the position of the planets?

    And isn't that what other commentators and herself are explaining to people in the comments?

    And NASA have only started copying her science in the last couple of years, and only then when she was proved right, and they wrong.

    To my understanding, her paper is based on the magnetic oscillations of the sun, it's an extension of her previous work. Her first paper explained the oscillations and correctly predicted the last sun cycle. NASA got it wrong.

    Her second paper expanded that with an equation with 97% accuracy going backwards, with what we can expect in the future. She called it before anyone including NASA.

    Her third paper then looked at the magnetic oscillations and tried to figure out what caused them, and noticed the SIM calculations matched exactly.
    If I understand the paper she is suggesting correlation with the probability of causation. But it's only a theory.

    For me, she's the modern day Galileo. Suggesting theories that go against accepted norms. And so far, she is being proved right and the dissenters wrong.

    But she is only one part of a very complex system. Tuiseach, these scientists you identify with,

    Who are they and do they take the sun into consideration in their models?
    (And how can they NOT if climate scientists?)

    How do they explain the roman and Medieval warming periods?
    (This current warming period is STILL cooler than both those warming periods)

    If it IS CO2 is the demon, why has the earth been cooling since 2016?

    Why have the Greenland glaciers grown last year?

    Why did North America call it nogrow19 the winter was so long and harsh last year?

    Why did Russia have its coldest summer ever last summer?

    Looking forward to your science. Isn't learning fun :-)


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,020 ✭✭✭Coles


    "If climate change is real why did we have a wet November?"


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 735 ✭✭✭Tuisceanch


    SeaBreezes wrote: »
    Forgive me, and I am open to correction here, but isn't that what SIM is? That the position of the planets determine the barycentre, which affects the suns orbit. So technically the sun is affected by the barycentre which is determined by the position of the planets?

    Kind of. It's more to do with the mass of the planets and the mass of the solar system in particular.
    SeaBreezes wrote: »
    And isn't that what other commentators and herself are explaining to people in the comments?

    Her interrogators are trying to establish whether she is stating that:
    SeaBreezes wrote: »
    Do you claim that the position of the Sun with respect to the solar system barycentre results in a commensurate change in the Sun-Earth distance?

    Do you think she isn't? If she is isn't what exactly is she then claiming? Yes she has established a better understanding of the mechanisms of magnetic oscillations and their correlation with the sun's orbit around the barycentre,if i understand correctly,but that doesn't support an assertion that the current climate change can be attributed to the natural forcing mechanism of the variability of the sun's irradiance. Does it?
    SeaBreezes wrote: »
    Who are they and do they take the sun into consideration in their models?
    (And how can they NOT if climate scientists?)

    Of course they do, as I and another poster already mentioned, so why do you think they don't? How could they not? That would be absurd.
    SeaBreezes wrote: »
    How do they explain the roman and Medieval warming periods?

    They have and there are many sources on the internet that demonstrate that. Have you not come across them?
    SeaBreezes wrote: »
    Looking forward to your science. Isn't learning fun :-)

    It's no more my science than it is yours. This is a scientific forum so it's an opportunity to learn by applying your own critical faculties without adopting an entrenched position the minute you are challenged. People reason then question and elicit answers which they consider and test with reference to other sources.

    Finally why do you think I've only been studying this subject for 12 hours. What difference does it make anyway since I'm only quoting her paper and her defense of its findings and then posing my own questions. Is this considered unethical behaviour in a science forum?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement