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

M.T. Cranium · 05-01-2020 10:55pm

I agree, the political rhetoric has gotten away from reality into a fantasy world.

As you know I live in Canada. I was just reading an opinion from the mayor of the small city where I live, that Canada will be taking in more and more immigrants fleeing the ravages of climate change. People on the progressive side of politics have adopted this point of view entirely without any evidence. I can't see how even one immigrant to Canada came here to escape problems of climate. But we are told that somehow the messes in Syria and Libya (which lead to some of this immigration through refugee acceptance programs) are caused by climate change.

While the reasons are fairly obvious for those situations, climate has nothing to do with them whatsoever. Libya was always a hot, dry country. Syria has a mediterranean climate that hasn't shifted very much in recent times. But what do they have in common? Right, the factors we are not allowed to mention.

So in this situation, climate change does a useful service to its political managers, it creates an illusion of cause and effect for something that they don't want to tackle (the reasons why those countries are unstable and cannot govern themselves and create massive waves of migrants).

Another country sending us plenty of immigrants in recent years is China. Now would that be because the weather in China went nuts, or something to do with not wanting to live under communism? Well we aren't allowed to think the latter since the apparent end goal of globalists is a form of communism. So we are allowed to imagine they left because of climate change.

"We can expect more of this due to climate change" is really a misreading of the actual cause of most of the effects so described, namely, there are more and more of us in the way, more media of various kinds to record the interactions, more awareness of climate issues than in the past. But as noted above, fires in Australia (for example) have always been a problem in some hot and dry years. The first Europeans to sail around the coast of the land down under noticed that fires were burning and smoke was coming out over the ocean.

We hear the same stuff about wildfires in North America but people have not been informed (whether due to ignorance or suppression) that wildfires caused terrible destruction many decades back, and have always been part of the environment. What has changed is the number of people choosing to live in fire-prone regions, and it doesn't help much that in California the green movement interfered in the practice of clear-cutting electricity rights of way, leading to much faster fire spread in windy weather (once any fire got into the brush under power lines, they would short out and spread much stronger fires towards vulnerable urban areas). This was shown to be a major cause of the 2018 Paradise disaster.

Most of the people who lie awake nights worrying about climate change would be astounded to learn that more people died from hurricane strikes in 1780, 1900, and 1928, than in all the years since 2000.

SeaBreezes · 05-01-2020 11:43pm

M.T. Cranium wrote: »

I agree, the political rhetoric has gotten away from reality into a fantasy world.

As you know I live in Canada. I was just reading an opinion from the mayor of the small city where I live, that Canada will be taking in more and more immigrants fleeing the ravages of climate change. People on the progressive side of politics have adopted this point of view entirely without any evidence. I can't see how even one immigrant to Canada came here to escape problems of climate. But we are told that somehow the messes in Syria and Libya (which lead to some of this immigration through refugee acceptance programs) are caused by climate change.

While the reasons are fairly obvious for those situations, climate has nothing to do with them whatsoever. Libya was always a hot, dry country. Syria has a mediterranean climate that hasn't shifted very much in recent times. But what do they have in common? Right, the factors we are not allowed to mention.

So in this situation, climate change does a useful service to its political managers, it creates an illusion of cause and effect for something that they don't want to tackle (the reasons why those countries are unstable and cannot govern themselves and create massive waves of migrants).

Another country sending us plenty of immigrants in recent years is China. Now would that be because the weather in China went nuts, or something to do with not wanting to live under communism? Well we aren't allowed to think the latter since the apparent end goal of globalists is a form of communism. So we are allowed to imagine they left because of climate change.

"We can expect more of this due to climate change" is really a misreading of the actual cause of most of the effects so described, namely, there are more and more of us in the way, more media of various kinds to record the interactions, more awareness of climate issues than in the past. But as noted above, fires in Australia (for example) have always been a problem in some hot and dry years. The first Europeans to sail around the coast of the land down under noticed that fires were burning and smoke was coming out over the ocean.

We hear the same stuff about wildfires in North America but people have not been informed (whether due to ignorance or suppression) that wildfires caused terrible destruction many decades back, and have always been part of the environment. What has changed is the number of people choosing to live in fire-prone regions, and it doesn't help much that in California the green movement interfered in the practice of clear-cutting electricity rights of way, leading to much faster fire spread in windy weather (once any fire got into the brush under power lines, they would short out and spread much stronger fires towards vulnerable urban areas). This was shown to be a major cause of the 2018 Paradise disaster.

Most of the people who lie awake nights worrying about climate change would be astounded to learn that more people died from hurricane strikes in 1780, 1900, and 1928, than in all the years since 2000.

Actually MT that's something I wanted to ask, I noticed the last year or so there seems to be many more articles of animals/houses/people being struck by lightening.
I was wondering if it has anythIng to do with solar min or just more access to media?

Gaoth Laidir · 05-01-2020 11:49pm

Akrasia wrote: »

This was a report based on a pentagon analysis of what the plausible worst case scenario for abrupt climate change would be.

If you're designing a disaster plan, this is the scenario you should use. If youre designing a sky scraper, upu need to put in fire prevention measures and fire escape routes even if less than 1 in a thousand sky scrapers will ever catch fire

With climate change there are uncertainties in what can trigger abrupt climate change, the gulf stream is already weakening and nobody knows for sure what the threshold is for a complete shutdown of the Gulf stream, or what the exact consequences would be for our climate if this was to happen suddenly

Then there are the predictions that actually have come true, flooding droughts heatwaves and wildfires have all occured and as more evidence comes in, it is becoming more and more attributable to clmate change, and tgere have been conflicts st least partially attributable to climate change and food shortages may not have been the sole cause of the Syrian Civil war in 2006 but it absolutely did inflame an already tense situation...

1) If that report is indeed what you say it is, why did the Guardian - which seems to be the go-to source of all climate hyperbole nowadays - not state that, or post a clarification article at a later date. Did they?

2) I can't believe that you're even trying to defend any of the claims made in it. Absolutely baseless.

Gaoth Laidir · 05-01-2020 11:54pm

Akrasia wrote: »

Have you finished reading the Nikolov papers yet? Are you converted to his 'Greenhouse effect is disproven' thesis yet?

I've almost finished.

Akrasia wrote: »

Not just Spencer
Ken Rice, a professor of computational astrophysics at Edinburg university https://www.roe.ac.uk/~wkmr/
has written blogs about Nikolov and his ideas over the years (like this one https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2017/08/08/no-pressure-alone-does-not-define-surface-temperatures/ ) but to be honest, he has so little credibility and his papers have had such little impact, there isn't a whole lot to go on out there in the time I have to look

The papers are barely getting cited anywhere despite getting thousands of downloads. There is one paper that cites his latest paper while parrotting the hypothesis but it's by Robert Ian Holmes otherwise known as 1000Frolly, a youtuber and blogger who has disproven the greenhouse effect by comparing a car with its windows closed, with a car with it's windows open on a hot day.

For a 'groundbreaking' theory that overturns probably the most important scientific debate since the 1970s, the fact that it's difficult to find any critiques or positive appraisals of his theory in the literature is most likely because it's so obviously wrong, that anyone who has the expertise knows that its not worth their time to write a paper showing why it is wrong and an hour or two writing a blog is as much attention as it's worth.

I'm talking about the 2017 paper.

Akrasia wrote: »

The Australian widlfires are likely to have already caused a billion animal deaths including up to 40% of the Koala population

Ecologists in Australia say that this one wildfire season could cause the extinction of some of Australia's unique flora and fauna and dozens of species under threat of extinction have been badly affected by this fire
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jan/04/ecologists-warn-silent-death-australia-bushfires-endangered-species-extinction

It's not just the animals killed by the smoke and flames, whole ecosystems will be devastated leading to deaths from starvation and habitat loss

I'm sure the usual suspects will be on saying that 'you can't prove these wildfires are caused by climate change' and Gaoth Laidir probably has a graph showing that these fires are actually perfectly normal and it's only the increase in the number of helicopters with cameras on them thats making them look worse, or something like that

I'm fairly certain he'll talk about how Eucalyptus forests need fire to dispense the seeds and he'll probably say that it's the fault of the Australian government for changing something relating to land management that allowed the fires to spread....

Well, stronger wildfires are a prediction of climate change and if these aren't related to global warming, then god help the Australians when the real effects of Climate change start to kick in.

Intelligent post there.

Gaoth Laidir · 06-01-2020 12:02am

Akrasia wrote: »

There are a lot of psychopaths out there who think the world is there as a toy for them to play with and some of them start fires when they think they can get away with it. Others, like Mr Gosselin (no tricks zone) see an opportunity to make himself rich by making up lies and spreading misinformation to a market of people looking for reasons to not believe the evidence before their own eyes

You need to learn to stop letting google do your thinking for you.
It's the easiest thing in the world to type something into google and then just click on the first link that looks like it says what you want it to say.

All of these studies you talk about are in a broader context which are very often misrepresented by bloggers like 'Notrickszone' and then repeated by the very worst 'journalists' like James Delingpole

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/400-papers-published-in-2017-prove-that-global-warming-is-myth/

Tell others not to Google stuff, then you go and post a link that you probably found through Google.

Akrasia wrote: »

I'm actually familiar with those papers already so I don't need to read them again.

Have you ever heard of the 'Gish Gallop' as a debating strategy. Basically, you just throw out as many claims as you can in a short period of time knowing that it takes much longer to discredit a claim than it does to make one.

You keep your opponent constantly dealing with your false claims, and when they discredit one claim, it doesn't matter because you've already moved on to 20 other false claims

When someone is using this strategy, it's easier to just point it out and show that they are not an honest or credible source because to play them at their own game is falling into their trap.

Every single year Gosselin puts out the same post claiming he has found x hundred papers that dispute climate change. I spent hours last year reading through them and the amount of lies and misrepresentations i found mean i can now safely discount anything Gosselin says as utterly untrustworthy

Did you watch the video or read the snopes link I posted? How many times does Gosselin have to be caught lying before you stop believing him?

I have also caught him not only misrepresenting data, but actively falsifying graphs which is a line even beyond what most climate change skeptics are prepared to cross.

Wait a minute, yesterday you said you're not qualified to read these papers. How can you really be satisifed that 100% (your figure) of what he posts is innacurate bull if you don't understand it? Have you gone through 100% of his posts to come up with that number? Again, you're looking at the name rather than the content. :rolleyes:

MiNdGaM3 · 06-01-2020 3:49am

M.T. Cranium wrote: »

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.

So, you did some climatology modules in university in the 60s/70s. Could you describe them a little? You've never worked in climatology, published anything in climatology or have any experience studying climatology as anything other than a hobby?

Could you maybe describe the computer model you developed? Or what exactly your input was in creating forecasts for accuweather.

Before the "sceptics" have a go at me for asking some questions, I think it's important establish whether M.T. actually has any valid credentials or experience. None of what's been described counts as being a "climate scientist" or even "qualified in climate science", nor does the vast body of work people have attributed to him matter if they've never been published or tested.

These are important considerations, especially for those that wish to elevate M.T.'s ideas over the work of thousands of actual climate scientists, that have contributed our current understanding of the climate, with which the vast majority of modern experts are in agreement.

Nabber · 06-01-2020 3:55am

Akrasia your responses and reasoning are deteriorating.

I think your letting yourself down by trying to defend the exaggerated failed predictions of AGW. Your argument now is to discredit the person and not the data, when presented with examples of poorly formed alarmist predictions you defend them with what can only be described as stubborn confirmation bias.

I think your overall posting has been solid and enjoyable to read.

If your are a serious supporter of AGW and making a difference, distant yourself from the AGW alarmists they are no better than ‘whackos’ you claim are on the ‘skeptic’ side. They feed the fire (no pun intended) of AGW exhausting and diminish the work of reasoned sensible scientists.

M.T. Cranium · 06-01-2020 4:01am

There is so much arson involved in wildfire starts that I find it difficult to compare recent stats to historical trends. The big fire that destroyed parts of Fort Mac in Alberta appeared to have either a careless human campfire or deliberate remote location ignition. The only role played by climate was that it happened to be a dry spring (the fire started in late April which is rather early for damaging forest fires in Alberta, June tends to be a peak month).

Not surprisingly there has been chatter on Canadian discussion forums about who might be responsible for starting that fire. I don't have any information so I won't repeat the various scenarios, but the starting point was traced back later to be near a forestry access road about an hour outside the city. It may have been a case of careless campers or off-road enthusiasts tossing a butt or letting a campfire get out of control. Or it could have been something a little more sinister.

As to the Australian situation, catastrophic as it appears, I believe similar widespread damaging fires have happened in other years in the past, even as far back as the 1890s. Obviously the numbers of people affected will increase over time, that's nothing to do with climate but human population growth and changing lifestyle choices. People in Australia, North America and other areas are drawn to the attractive features of living in parkland settings and those of course are naturally prime risk areas for wildfire damage.

Nabber · 06-01-2020 4:01am

MiNdGaM3 wrote: »

So, you did some climatology modules in university in the 60s/70s. Could you describe them a little? You've never worked in climatology, published anything in climatology or have any experience studying climatology as anything other than a hobby?

Could you maybe describe the computer model you developed? Or what exactly your input was in creating forecasts for accuweather.

Before the "sceptics" have a go at me for asking some questions, I think it's important establish whether M.T. actually has any valid credentials or experience. None of what's been described counts as being a "climate scientist" or even "qualified in climate science", nor does the vast body of work people have attributed to him matter if they've never been published or tested.

These are important considerations, especially for those that wish to elevate M.T.'s ideas over the work of thousands of actual climate scientists, that have contributed our current understanding of the climate, with which the vast majority of modern experts are in agreement.

Go back through MTs posts. He made a large post with all his credentials, previous work, current work and general life story of his involvement in all things weather.

When you say ‘skeptics’, do you mean skeptics of natural climate variability with reduced emphasis on GHGs factor or do you mean skeptic of GHGs solely driving higher climate temps?

oriel36 · 06-01-2020 10:57am

The demand for academic qualifications to speak on Earth sciences or astronomy is often the refuge of followers rather than innovators. The best response to such queries is a fairly old one as it only distinguishes between who has a rough mind and who is a gentleman, the only true distinction that exists.

Pascal said it best as far as I can remember in academic affairs -

"We should not be able to say of a man, “He is a mathematician,” or a “preacher,” or “eloquent”; but that he is “a gentleman.” That universal quality alone pleases me. It is a bad sign when, on seeing a person, you remember his book. I would prefer you to see no quality till you meet it and have occasion to use it for fear some one quality prevail and designate the man. Let none think him a fine speaker, unless oratory be in question, and then let them think it.

Man is full of wants: he loves only those who can satisfy them all. “This one is a good mathematician,” one will say. But I have nothing to do with mathematics; he would take me for a proposition. “That one is a good soldier.” He would take me for a besieged town. I need then an upright man who can accommodate himself generally to all my wants." Pascal

https://www.bartleby.com/48/1/1.html

Empirical modeling is so narrow that the conclusion is incidental to the inputs among the proponents or opponents of 'climate change' . It may entertain the academics and spectators within the 'scientific method' umbrella but such a dour and dull people will always generate doom and gloom predictions in almost everything.

Oneiric 3 · 06-01-2020 1:02pm

An interesting and thought provoking article I came across recently, and being the generous soul that I am, I thought I'd share.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-12-15/is-fragile-masculinity-the-biggest-obstacle-to-climate-action/11797210

Some of the more profound quotes contained in this profound article:

"Consuming fuel and producing smoke are a way to both signal hyper-masculinity and an open distain for environmental concerns. A smoky middle finger to environmentalists, if you will".

"Put simply, fragile masculinity might be the biggest obstacle to real climate action. Masculinity has been associated with fossil fuel consumption, extraction, and burning for decades"

"This researcher is united in the conclusion that white conservative men have been the ones with the most power in western countries and they have the most to lose by efforts to change long standing practices and structures, including those associated with the environment."

"Third, it would be easier to see through the ways that virility is linked to combustion and consumption (think "drill baby drill") and environmental protection is pitted against economic development and "real" jobs for (mostly white) men, like mining."

Fantastic points! And all the more relevant as they come not from some ordinary, everyday Joanna, but from a very educated person. So educated in fact, that she is professor of 'gender and war' at some Aussie institute.

Danno · 06-01-2020 1:44pm

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

An interesting and thought provoking article I came across recently, and being the generous soul that I am, I thought I'd share.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-12-15/is-fragile-masculinity-the-biggest-obstacle-to-climate-action/11797210

Some of the more profound quotes contained in this profound article:

"Consuming fuel and producing smoke are a way to both signal hyper-masculinity and an open distain for environmental concerns. A smoky middle finger to environmentalists, if you will".

"Put simply, fragile masculinity might be the biggest obstacle to real climate action. Masculinity has been associated with fossil fuel consumption, extraction, and burning for decades"

"This researcher is united in the conclusion that white conservative men have been the ones with the most power in western countries and they have the most to lose by efforts to change long standing practices and structures, including those associated with the environment."

"Third, it would be easier to see through the ways that virility is linked to combustion and consumption (think "drill baby drill") and environmental protection is pitted against economic development and "real" jobs for (mostly white) men, like mining."

Fantastic points! And all the more relevant as they come not from some ordinary, everyday Joanna, but from a very educated person. So educated in fact, that she is professor of 'gender and war' at some Aussie institute.

Her timeline is quite the read: https://twitter.com/meganhmackenzie?lang=en

It seems she has an axe to grind with mostly "white men" and her contempt for them is borderline racism. There seems to be a common theme amongst many AGW alarmists that include hatred for capitalism and white men whilst supporting a version of communism and a one world order. They usually think along the lines of "if everyone would only do X then my problems would be sorted".

posidonia · 06-01-2020 6:45pm

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

M.T has never been a 'climate denier', but he is what I call 'old school', in that he questions everything and does not take everything told to him at face-value without first researching the facts (or lack of them) himself.

I'm old school, I've also been observing the weather for fifty years and I don't take things at face value - I question everything, even MT's ideas...

Oneiric 3 · 06-01-2020 11:55pm

Danno wrote: »

Her timeline is quite the read:
They usually think along the lines of "if everyone would only do X then my problems would be sorted".

My take is that climate alarmists are so precisely because they have no real problems in life. They need a nemesis to battle against.

posidonia · 07-01-2020 8:59am

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

My take is that climate alarmists are so precisely because they have no real problems in life. They need a nemesis to battle against.

I'll just slightly change what Goath Laidir said on page three "...I'd suggest you and a few others first hear the people out before going on the personal attack."

oriel36 · 07-01-2020 9:26am

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

My take is that climate alarmists are so precisely because they have no real problems in life. They need a nemesis to battle against.

Empirical modelers have always behaved that way so it is the dull and dour 'scientific method' doctrine creating doom and gloom predictions for the same reason Von Humboldt recognised -

"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 Homboldt ,Cosmos

With computer modeling joining the empirical method, the whole thing has become overheated and taken society with it.

SeaBreezes · 07-01-2020 9:35am

More from Dr. Neds twitter:
https://mobile.twitter.com/clairegcoleman/status/1214072272849268737

This will be in our next paper. We now have numerical proof that observed variations in global temperature are caused by changes in cloud cover/albedo rather than #CO2. Our model developed from "first principles" successfully reproduced observed changes in Earth's SW reflectance
These are the sources of observed GLOBAL shortwave reflectance data we used in our model verification:
1. Satellite-based CERES data: Loeb & Doelling (2018: https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0208.1…)
2. Ground-based Earthshine data: Palle et al. (2016: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2016GL068025…).

Our paper will actually present a modeling experiment using observed reflectance data and no hidden assumptions that demonstrates the validity of the concept that Earth's global temperature changes on inter-annual & decadal time scale are controlled by cloud-albedo variations.

He is of course, attacked constantly and goes on to say:
Ned Nikolov, Ph.D.
@NikolovScience
·

The main area, where climate models fail reality big time is the prediction of increasing atmospheric heat trapping with rising #CO2 and the simulation of a non-existing positive water-vapor feedback, which further raises the temp. These mechanisms violate Energy Conservation Law

The atmosphere cannot "build up" energy out of trace gases. It's an open system. The notion that a free convective atmosphere "traps" radiant heat as claimed by modern climate is simply ridiculous. Try this "trapping" by fumigating your backyard with CO2 and see if it gets warmer.

Will be interesting! What he says makes logical sense, but I am not a scientist. So from the CO2 supporters, he claims that CO2 cannot 'trap' heat like a greenhouse because there is no glass lid and convective exchange will always disperse the energy. That all warming calcs are based on an assumption from the 1800s.
For my own understanding, what acts as the lid to allow CO2 trap heat in the atmosphere?
And what papers/experiments have been done to prove it please?

Tuisceanch · 07-01-2020 12:39pm

https://skepticalscience.com/print.php?n=73

How do we know CO2 is causing warming?

Satellite measurements of the change in outgoing longwave radiation; https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/ad77/baeca26c4f77a9d043a5b53e058ea959e495.pdf
Measurements of downward longwave radiation http://asl.umbc.edu/pub/chepplew/journals/nature14240_v519_Feldman_CO2.pdf

https://scied.ucar.edu/carbon-dioxide-absorbs-and-re-emits-infrared-radiation

This ability to absorb and re-emit infrared energy is what makes CO2 an effective heat-trapping greenhouse gas. Not all gas molecules are able to absorb IR radiation. For example, nitrogen (N2) and oxygen (O2), which make up more than 90% of Earth's atmosphere, do not absorb infrared photons. CO2 molecules can vibrate in ways that simpler nitrogen and oxygen molecules cannot, which allows CO2 molecules to capture the IR photons.

http://butane.chem.uiuc.edu/pshapley/GenChem1/L15/web-L15.pdf

the mechanism by which molecules absorb heat energy and the effect that these molecules have on atmospheric temperature and climate change.

Carbon dioxide doesn't have a molecular dipole in its ground state. However, some CO2 vibrations produce a structure with a molecular dipole. Because of this, CO2 strongly absorbs infrared radiation.

Electronic spectroscopy uses visible or ultraviolet (UV) radiation to probe the absorption of energy by molecules between electronic energy levels. IR spectroscopy probes the absorption of energy by molecules between vibrational energy levels. The principle behind all forms of absorption spectroscopy is
the same.

Accurate measurements exist since 1850 for global temperature. It is clear that that temperature of the planet is increasing and the rate of increase is becoming greater. Land is heating faster than the oceans but both are warming. The increasing of night time temperatures is greater than day time temperatures. The troposphere is becoming warmer as the stratosphere cools.

https://blogs.iu.edu/sciu/2017/06/13/spectroscopy-astronomy-to-art/

spectroscopy refers to the study of the interaction between light and matter. Today, the field of spectroscopy is incredibly broad and advanced, with applications in not just astronomy but also chemistry, physics, biology, environmental science, and even art!

https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/there-is-overwhelming-evidence-that-climate-change-is-human-caused-townhall/

First, greenhouse gases are well studied, and their properties are nonnegotiable: They absorb and re-emit longwave radiation, whether they’re in a laboratory setting or in the real atmosphere. To back this up with historical evidence, scientists have known since the 1860s that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and since the 1890s that this will affect the heat budget of the Earth through warming. Even then, these claims were based on empirical evidence, and they’re supported by decades of laboratory research.

Global warming is measured fact. Working out the culprits has been like Crime Scene Investigation: Physics Edition.

Some evidence comes from a facility in Billings, Oklahoma. Parts of air like water vapour and carbon dioxide naturally glow with infrared heat at very specific frequencies. The Billings site has a device that measured an incredibly precise “fingerprint” of the sky’s heating.
Investigators reported in 2015[3] that they found fingerprints across the sky with a clear match on the heating trigger. Below the blue line is the file fingerprint for carbon dioxide (CO2) heating, which we release into the air when we do things like burn coal & oil. This file fingerprint comes from basic physics backed by precise lab readings.

The red line is the measured fingerprint in the sky over Billings and is a rock solid match. Each spike is extra heat coming down from the extra CO2 molecules that is heating us up. Measurements in Alaska and from satellites[4] confirm this.

This is just one slide in the huge folder of empirical evidence showing human activity to be the main cause of recent warming.
1 – Arrhenius (1896) On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground, Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science

2 – Hausfather et al (2017) Assessing recent warming using instrumentally homogeneous sea surface temperature records, Science Advances

3 – Feldman et al (2015) Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010, Nature

4 – Harries et al (2001) Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997, Nature

https://ams.confex.com/ams/Annual2006/techprogram/paper_100737.htm

Measurements of the Radiative Surface Forcing of Climate

The earth's climate system is warmed by 35 C due to the emission of downward infrared radiation by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (surface radiative forcing) or by the absorption of upward infrared radiation (radiative trapping). Increases in this emission/absorption are the driving force behind global warming. Climate models predict that the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere has altered the radiative energy balance at the earth's surface by several percent by increasing the greenhouse radiation from the atmosphere. With measurements at high spectral resolution, this increase can be quantitatively attributed to each of several anthropogenic gases. Radiance spectra of the greenhouse radiation from the atmosphere have been measured at ground level from several Canadian sites using FTIR spectroscopy at high resolution. The forcing radiative fluxes from CFC11, CFC12, CCl4, HNO3, O3, N2O, CH4, CO and CO2 have been quantitatively determined over a range of seasons. The contributions from stratospheric ozone and tropospheric ozone are separated by our measurement techniques. A comparison between our measurements of surface forcing emission and measurements of radiative trapping absorption from the IMG satellite instrument shows reasonable agreement. The experimental fluxes are simulated well by the FASCOD3 radiation code. This code has been used to calculate the model predicted increase in surface radiative forcing since 1850 to be 2.55 W/m2. In comparison, an ensemble summary of our measurements indicates that an energy flux imbalance of 3.5 W/m2 has been created by anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases since 1850. This experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming.

Oneiric 3 · 07-01-2020 12:50pm

posidonia wrote: »

I'll just slightly change what Goath Laidir said on page three "...I'd suggest you and a few others first hear the people out before going on the personal attack."

I hear and absorb what other people say all the time, regardless of who they are. I don't distinguish between who is of 'an authority' and who isn't. I also listen to my own intuition regarding the intention behind what is being said much as what is being said in itself.

Tuisceanch · 07-01-2020 12:57pm

https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/climate-change-evidence-causes/basics-of-climate-change/

The Basics of Climate Change

Greenhouse gases affect Earth’s energy balance and climate;
Human activities have added greenhouse gases to the atmosphere;
Climate records show a warming trend;
Many complex processes shape our climate;
Human activities are changing the climate;
How will climate change in the future?

oriel36 · 08-01-2020 1:07pm

Tuisceanch wrote: »

https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/climate-change-evidence-causes/basics-of-climate-change/

The Basics of Climate Change
Greenhouse gases affect Earth’s energy balance and climate;

Human activities have added greenhouse gases to the atmosphere;

Climate records show a warming trend;

Many complex processes shape our climate;

Human activities are changing the climate;

How will climate change in the future?

The Royal Society is 'scientific method' central so that opinion begins at the wrong point of departure for Earth sciences as it comes from experimental theorists who hijacked astronomy in the late 17th century. Pascal earlier had warned not to begin like mathematicians in areas which prohibit such an approach -

"These principles are so fine and so numerous that a very delicate and very clear sense is needed to perceive them, and to judge rightly and justly when they are perceived, without for the most part being able to demonstrate them in order as in mathematics; because the principles are not known to us in the same way, and because it would be an endless matter to undertake it. 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

https://www.bartleby.com/48/1/1.html

There is an old saying from an Irish short story -

"The capitalists pays the priests to tell you about the next world so as you wont notice what the bastards are up to in this"
Guests of the Nation, Frank O'Connor

The new twist includes Thatcher throwing money at the Climate Research Unit so the variation on that theme of O'Connor is that politicians pay the academic priests to tell you about the future condition of the world so as you won't notice what the bastards are up to presently.

https://jennifermarohasy.com/2013/04/thatcherism-and-the-climate-catastrophe/

There is something funny about an Irish electorate obedient and loyal to a retracted Thatcher ploy, after all, the whole thing took on a life of its own where the academics turned the tables on the politicians and the tail started wagging the dog.

posidonia · 08-01-2020 3:11pm

oriel36 wrote: »

The Royal Society is 'scientific method' central so that opinion begins at the wrong point of departure for Earth sciences as it comes from experimental theorists who hijacked astronomy in the late 17th century. Pascal earlier had warned not to begin like mathematicians in areas which prohibit such an approach -

"These principles are so fine and so numerous that a very delicate and very clear sense is needed to perceive them, and to judge rightly and justly when they are perceived, without for the most part being able to demonstrate them in order as in mathematics; because the principles are not known to us in the same way, and because it would be an endless matter to undertake it. 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

There is an old saying from an Irish short story -

"The capitalists pays the priests to tell you about the next world so as you wont notice what the bastards are up to in this"
Guests of the Nation, Frank O'Connor

The new twist includes Thatcher throwing money at the Climate Research Unit so the variation on that theme of O'Connor is that politicians pay the academic priests to tell you about the future condition of the world so as you won't notice what the bastards are up to presently.

There is something funny about an Irish electorate obedient and loyal to a retracted Thatcher ploy, after all, the whole thing took on a life of its own where the academics turned the tables on the politicians and the tail started wagging the dog.

My intuition tell me you're wrong. Who's to say I'm not right? Will you do so? If so YOU will be trying to tell me what and how to think...

oriel36 · 08-01-2020 8:32pm

posidonia wrote: »

My intuition tell me you're wrong. Who's to say I'm not right? Will you do so? If so YOU will be trying to tell me what and how to think...

I shrug, the originator of the 'scientific method' (originally began as Rule III) told his followers not only what to think but how to think and also why he never could be found wrong but only be improved on -

http://strangebeautiful.com/other-texts/newton-principia-rules-reasoning.pdf

Akrasia · 08-01-2020 10:06pm

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

I hear and absorb what other people say all the time, regardless of who they are. I don't distinguish between who is of 'an authority' and who isn't. I also listen to my own intuition regarding the intention behind what is being said much as what is being said in itself.

You might think this is being open minded, but if one person you’re listening to is this guy

And the person he is disagreeing with is this guy

Then your intuition is nowhere near as useful as information about the qualifications and track record of these two people. Monkton will pretend to be an expert in climate science, he will pretend to know more than real climate scientists and he will throw out facts and refer to papers to support his claims, and so will Gavin Schmidt. These two people are not equally credible

Thargor · 08-01-2020 10:26pm

That nasty old "Scientific Method" eh, who needs it anyway? Sheeple thats who... Lets all use our intuition to measure the level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and their effects on the planets ecology instead. And dont even get me started on those NASA hippies forgetting about the Earths axial tilt!

posidonia · 08-01-2020 11:51pm

oriel36 wrote: »

I shrug, the originator of the 'scientific method' (originally began as Rule III) told his followers not only what to think but how to think and also why he never could be found wrong but only be improved on -

So the (shall we call it a conspiracy?) has been going on since the 1700s?

My intuition tells me you are wrong. My intuitions tells me it's you trying to wag the tail on the dog and that (your choice words these) the 'bas**rds' are the ones trying to rubbish quality controlled weather and climate data.

Mr Bumble · 09-01-2020 3:29am

Akrasia wrote: »

The Australian widlfires are likely to have already caused a billion animal deaths including up to 40% of the Koala population

Ecologists in Australia say that this one wildfire season could cause the extinction of some of Australia's unique flora and fauna and dozens of species under threat of extinction have been badly affected by this fire
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jan/04/ecologists-warn-silent-death-australia-bushfires-endangered-species-extinction

It's not just the animals killed by the smoke and flames, whole ecosystems will be devastated leading to deaths from starvation and habitat loss

I'm sure the usual suspects will be on saying that 'you can't prove these wildfires are caused by climate change' and Gaoth Laidir probably has a graph showing that these fires are actually perfectly normal and it's only the increase in the number of helicopters with cameras on them thats making them look worse, or something like that

I'm fairly certain he'll talk about how Eucalyptus forests need fire to dispense the seeds and he'll probably say that it's the fault of the Australian government for changing something relating to land management that allowed the fires to spread....

Well, stronger wildfires are a prediction of climate change and if these aren't related to global warming, then god help the Australians when the real effects of Climate change start to kick in.

He might also quote the historical record and wonder about 1851 or 1939. Or even 1891 in South Gipsland (recognise that name - been in the news for two weeks)

Major Victorian bushfires occurred on Black Thursday in 1851, where an estimated 5 million hectares were burnt, followed by another blaze on Red Tuesday in February 1891 in South Gippsland when about 260,000 hectares were burnt, 12 people died and more than 2,000 buildings were destroyed. The deadly pattern continued with more major fires on Black Sunday on 14 February 1926 sees the tally rise to sixty lives being lost and widespread damage to farms, homes and forests.
Considered in terms of both loss of property and loss of life the 1939 fires were one of the worst disasters, and certainly the worst bushfire event, to have occurred in Australia up to that time. Only the subsequent Ash Wednesday in 1983 and the Black Saturday fires in 2009 have resulted in more deaths. In terms of the total area burnt the Black Friday fires are the second largest, burning 2 million hectares, with the Black Friday fires of 1851 having burnt an estimated 5 million hectares.

These fires killed huge numbers of animals and a lot more humans too.

All of these occured without the intensive agri business of the last four or five decades which has sucked the land dry or the 183 people facing charges for starting fires (police estimate half of the fires in this outbreak) or indeed the Oz Gov policies of reducing forest ranger staff and cutting back onfire prevention measures adopted following recommendations made by a royal commission after the 1939 fires.

There were 7000 fires in Angola/Congo last August, almost all of them started by farmers and the same in the Amazon.

Linking bushfires to climate change alone is ridiculous.

M.T. Cranium · 09-01-2020 4:16am

SeaBreezes wrote: »

Just curious, what was the global average temp for 2019? Or is it too early for it to be calculated?

These global temperature trends are heavily influenced by increases in the arctic. Whatever significance you wish to place on that, here's some counterpoint. At Toronto which is a fixed location with a warming bias due to urban heat island development, 2019 was the 54th warmest year in the past 180. It was the coldest year since 2014 and colder than 1913, 1922 or 1932. If someone had been transported forward from those times into 2019, they would not have experienced the weather as being any different from what they found "normal."

M.T. Cranium · 09-01-2020 5:05am

MiNdGaM3 wrote: »

So, you did some climatology modules in university in the 60s/70s. Could you describe them a little? You've never worked in climatology, published anything in climatology or have any experience studying climatology as anything other than a hobby?

Could you maybe describe the computer model you developed? Or what exactly your input was in creating forecasts for accuweather.

Before the "sceptics" have a go at me for asking some questions, I think it's important establish whether M.T. actually has any valid credentials or experience. None of what's been described counts as being a "climate scientist" or even "qualified in climate science", nor does the vast body of work people have attributed to him matter if they've never been published or tested.

These are important considerations, especially for those that wish to elevate M.T.'s ideas over the work of thousands of actual climate scientists, that have contributed our current understanding of the climate, with which the vast majority of modern experts are in agreement.

The only relevant answer I can give is that I am an educated and trained climatologist, dissident and blacklisted perhaps, but people here are intelligent enough to draw their own conclusions based on a fairly extensive set of clues as to how credible my point of view might be. However, because they are intelligent, they are also quite capable of forming their own opinions.

The whole point of a discussion forum is to discuss ideas, this is not a court of law or a university thesis examination. If it were, I would come prepared and respond in kind. But your tone is inappropriate for this forum.

Readers should be informed (to reach a fully informed conclusion) that the person asking these questions is a Net-weather moderator active in their climate change forum who has taken a personal dislike to me and makes no secret of it. So that may be a factor in these questions. I have nothing to hide. My concerns about orthodox climate change theory have been made abundantly clear and people are quite free to agree or disagree. I suspect that there is a fear that people might agree, and thus the position of the IPCC would be weakened, but I don't think I have anywhere near that sort of reach, as I've said elsewhere, mine is but one voice in ten thousand, and we get to the truth by considering all the voices and all the points of view. The IPCC say they have a "settled science" but I know we don't have a settled political response, and that is perhaps what is of more interest to me anyway, getting that part right.

M.T. Cranium · 09-01-2020 7:21am

Beyond that, I am taking the unusual step (for me) of placing the poster on ignore, and appealing to your better judgement to do the same, so that he will not succeed in getting people riled up about unconnected, irrelevant things like what was in my 1976 computer program or what credits I gained at University in 1971, as if any of that had some major bearing on the issues being discussed here. This is a tactic that is called obfuscation, and once those questions are answered, there will be ten more, and then ten more, etc.

We're on to this and this is not my first rodeo.

oriel36 · 09-01-2020 7:23am

posidonia wrote: »

My intuition tells me you are wrong. My intuitions tells me it's you trying to wag the tail on the dog and that (your choice words these) the 'bas**rds' are the ones trying to rubbish quality controlled weather and climate data.

posidonia wrote: »

My intuition tell me you're wrong. Who's to say I'm not right? Will you do so? If so YOU will be trying to tell me what and how to think...

Newton 'defined' time, space and motion for his followers but did it in such a way that distorted and manipulated existing astronomical and timekeeping perspectives, methods and insights. If people need time, space and motion defined for them then that is the ultimate offence against the ability to reason yet such is the 'scientific method' or what is an opinion passed off as a method.

"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

All it mattered for his followers is that appeared to make astronomical predictions look like experimental predictions using an opinion on universal attraction ( minus magnetic attraction). The same applies to empirical modeling where conditions in a common greenhouse (experiment) equate to the Earth's atmosphere (universal qualities).

I see the word 'intuition' thrown around but mathematicians are inclined to 'define' that term to suit themselves and it looks more like a gut feeling or a hypothesis in this format. In Pascal's presentation he doesn't talk about the perceptive/intuitive qualities at variance with mathematics but rather it is rare to find them both within the same person so astronomy and Earth sciences which require concentrated intuitive faculties find no room in the current mathematical modeling environment with the predictable awful mess.

"But the reason that mathematicians are not intuitive is that they do not see what is before them, and that, accustomed to the exact and plain principles of mathematics, and not reasoning till they have well inspected and arranged their principles, they are lost in matters of intuition where the principles do not allow of such arrangement. They are scarcely seen; they are felt rather than seen; there is the greatest difficulty in making them felt by those who do not of themselves perceive them. These principles are so fine and so numerous that a very delicate and very clear sense is needed to perceive them, and to judge rightly and justly when they are perceived, without for the most part being able to demonstrate them in order as in mathematics; because the principles are not known to us in the same way, and because it would be an endless matter to undertake it." Pascal

The planet and all its interactions is as complicated as the human body,after all, the planetary interactions make biological life possible. The point of departure for the Earth science of climate cannot begin by rigging the atmosphere to correspond to a common greenhouse and conclude that humans can control planetary temperatures by doing or not doing something. Perhaps I have the wrong crowd but such is the intuitive/perceptive faculties which restrict notions based on poor physical considerations.

It is therefore the 'scientific method' itself which has been exposed as the real issue and those who practice it. The politicians may have originally used academics to score socio-economic points (Thatcher and coal miner via the CRU) but that was begging trouble as the academics have turned it around and used politicians and the wider public to promote fear and anxiety.

I have said what I needed to say on this matter however, the expression of intuitive/perceptive faculties in a person was used by Galileo as a talent rather than acquired through education -

“You cannot teach a man anything, you can only help him find it within himself.” ― Galileo

M.T. Cranium · 09-01-2020 8:40am

Apparently I have a "cult following" according to some disaffected person who decided to blurt out this revelation over on Net-weather (it really is becoming a repository of crank opinions just as they feared when they let me post).

If anyone here is offering animal sacrifices or chanting "MTC, I'm with thee" ... stop, give your head a shake, and seek out a deprogrammer. If anyone here is just a friend who likes me or respects some of the work I do, know this -- the world will ruthlessly hunt you down and punish you for not following The Master Plan.

(you're supposed to despise me -- like all right thinking people)

Seriously, I am the last person who would encourage a cult following. What a boring enterprise that would quickly become.

Anyway, I got a chuckle from the irony of even mentioning cult following this soon after Greta's outburst at the UN, but wait, that's not on us is it?

posidonia · 09-01-2020 8:56am

M.T. Cranium wrote: »

Apparently I have a "cult following" according to some disaffected person who decided to blurt out this revelation over on Net-weather (it really is becoming a repository of crank opinions just as they feared when they let me post).

If anyone here is offering animal sacrifices or chanting "MTC, I'm with thee" ... stop, give your head a shake, and seek out a deprogrammer. If anyone here is just a friend who likes me or respects some of the work I do, know this -- the world will ruthlessly hunt you down and punish you for not following The Master Plan.

(you're supposed to despise me -- like all right thinking people)

Seriously, I am the last person who would encourage a cult following. What a boring enterprise that would quickly become.

Anyway, I got a chuckle from the irony of even mentioning cult following this soon after Greta's outburst at the UN, but wait, that's not on us is it?

Oh dear. No one has called YOU a cult but you feel able to call others cranks. Think about what you say, Roger...

Still, I guess its easy for you to despise cranks - that kind of despising is ok, isn't it?...

M.T. Cranium · 09-01-2020 12:18pm

Well I was being ironic, I think most readers will get what I mean.

I've heard this "cult following" accusation before, I think it insults you (Boards members) more than myself. You should get in the faces of people making that accusation because they are saying if you agree with me or show any sign of respect or (God help you) friendship for the Excluded One, then you must be mentally defective like people who join some cult. That's how they see you.

It doesn't explain very well why any given discussion attracts similar numbers of those in agreement and those not in agreement. Usually cults don't tolerate much expression of dissident thought. I am challenged to find an example that might relate to climate and weather, hmm let me see (irony alert).

Oneiric 3 · 09-01-2020 2:49pm

oriel36 wrote: »

“You cannot teach a man anything, you can only help him find it within himself.” ― Galileo

Not sure if this is on the same level as what you discuss, but not everything can be 'logically' explained. Music, and the affect it can have on the human mind/soul for example, defies human, scientific reasoning, yet the sound of a certain chord, a harmony, a crescendo, and the way we are drawn into them, is the most instinctive, logical thing in the world.

As Beethoven beautifully put it: "Music is a higher revelation than all wisdom and philosophy".

Oneiric 3 · 09-01-2020 2:55pm

Akrasia wrote: »

You might think this is being open minded

I think no such thing, but I like to think that I do have some sort of mind.

And thanks for those lovely pics. Not sure why you think those two men, neither of whom I have ever heard of, hold any relevance to me or to what I said.

nacho libre · 09-01-2020 3:06pm

posidonia wrote: »

Oh dear. No one has called YOU a cult but you feel able to call others cranks. Think about what you say, Roger...

Still, I guess its easy for you to despise cranks - that kind of despising is ok, isn't it?...

His name isn't Roger, that's just a nom de guerre he uses to encourage his cult to slay the dissenters, who don't worship at his feet, wherever they may be.

SeaBreezes · 09-01-2020 3:15pm

M.T. Cranium wrote: »

Well I was being ironic, I think most readers will get what I mean. .

:-) actually the post was so nasty and the username I thought it was just someone trolling. Was going to give them 1 out of 10 for such little effort.. :-)

Don't feed the trolls!

Back to the science. So thanks to Tuiseanach post I've been trying to wrap my head around how CO2 warms the atmosphere. If I understand it correctly, (and correct me if I'm wrong) it reflects down a type of radiative heat that has been absorbed by the planet and is reflecting it back out.

And they measured this when there were no clouds as clouds are WAY better at trapping and reflecting this heat.

Now I have another question. If clouds work both ways. A cloudy night is warmer than a clear night. But clouds in the day reflect heat and cool the planet.

Why does CO2 not work the same way? Why does it not reflect back out the same heat?

And CO2 is 0.04% of atmosphere and not ALL that CO2 is the frequency type that re-radiates the heat in all directions?

Also if I understand Ned Nikolovs paper. He's saying atmospheric pressure as a source of heat is not (or not properly) accounted for by climate models. That that function gives us a baseline temp. To approx 1 c And it's Cloud cover that allows for the warming and cooling variation.

Which ties in with Solar max/min as we already know solar min means more cosmic rays, mean more clouds and volcanic events.

Apparently Zeller and Nikolovs next paper is showing how after atmospheric temp, cloud coverage is the real global temp driver.

Fascinating stuff. Sorry if I'm getting it wrong. Not a scientist just interested observer.

P.S. The way the irish obsess about weather we are a cult, really. Maybe tribe would be a better word.

posidonia · 09-01-2020 8:53pm

SeaBreezes wrote: »

:-) actually the post was so nasty and the username I thought it was just someone trolling. Was going to give them 1 out of 10 for such little effort.. :-)

...
And CO2 is 0.04% of atmosphere and not ALL that CO2 is the frequency type that re-radiates the heat in all directions?

...

There is more than one sort of CO2 in the atmosphere? Tell me more!

Gaoth Laidir · 09-01-2020 8:57pm

The previus Nikolov/Zeller paper from 2014 does pose a valid point. They claim that the way the theoretical surface temperature of plantets without an atmosphere (e.g. the Moon) would be much colder than current calculations claim. For the Earth, they calculate it would be 90 degrees colder without its atmosphere instead of the currently accepted figure of 33 degrees. They refer to this as the "atmospheric thermal enhancement". The reason they claim is down to how the average area of the planet has been calculated up to now, treating it as a flat disc instead of a sphere. Due to a mathematical feature called Hölder's Inequality, they do their calculations by calculating for each point on the sphere and integrating it over the whole area. This seems like a sensible approach and seems to be well supported by numerous independent sources and measurements. It begs the question; if Earth would be 90 degrees, and not 33 degrees, colder without an atmosphere, where is the extra 57 degrees of heating coming from?

The second paper agains is well referenced and does seem to be backed up by independent measurements. The model that they came up with from their dimensional analysis does show good correlation. Overall, though, there is not a strong claim that the greenhouse effect (IR absorption and reemitting by ghgs) does not exist, or it's a bit ropey if there is. They admit that there is still a lot more work to validate some of their calculations with future measurement missions, but it is what it is.

Akrasia · 09-01-2020 11:38pm

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

I think no such thing, but I like to think that I do have some sort of mind.

And thanks for those lovely pics. Not sure why you think those two men, neither of whom I have ever heard of, hold any relevance to me or to what I said.

The point was that good scientific reputations are hard earned through decades of hard work, honesty and integrity, while charlatans can spoof and bluff and lie their way to the lectern. When all you have is two people arguing for two different positions and one of them is an expert with a impeccable reputation, and the other is a clown and a fraudster, it would be stupid to give both voices equal credibility

SeaBreezes · 10-01-2020 12:16am

posidonia wrote: »

There is more than one sort of CO2 in the atmosphere? Tell me more!

Welcome to boards posidonia. 3 days here and your posts so far are illuminating.

Though you are right. Bad choIce of words. My bad.

SeaBreezes · 10-01-2020 12:28am

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

The previus Nikolov/Zeller paper from 2014 does pose a valid point. They claim that the way the theoretical surface temperature of plantets without an atmosphere (e.g. the Moon) would be much colder than current calculations claim. For the Earth, they calculate it would be 90 degrees colder without its atmosphere instead of the currently accepted figure of 33 degrees. They refer to this as the "atmospheric thermal enhancement". The reason they claim is down to how the average area of the planet has been calculated up to now, treating it as a flat disc instead of a sphere. Due to a mathematical feature called Hölder's Inequality, they do their calculations by calculating for each point on the sphere and integrating it over the whole area. This seems like a sensible approach and seems to be well supported by numerous independent sources and measurements. It begs the question; if Earth would be 90 degrees, and not 33 degrees, colder without an atmosphere, where is the extra 57 degrees of heating coming from?

The second paper agains is well referenced and does seem to be backed up by independent measurements. The model that they came up with from their dimensional analysis does show good correlation. Overall, though, there is not a strong claim that the greenhouse effect (IR absorption and reemitting by ghgs) does not exist, or it's a bit ropey if there is. They admit that there is still a lot more work to validate some of their calculations with future measurement missions, but it is what it is.

Good to get your opinion Gaoith. Thank you.

I find his twitter feed very entertaining. I'm definitely a fan :-)

Another Ned quote:
Viewing atmospheric dynamics exclusively from the standpoint of radiative transfer is silly with respect to actual physical reality. In a fluid like the atmosphere, the dominant modes of heat exchange are convection, advection & pervection (pressure wave mode of energy transfer)

There is a NON-LINEAR interaction between radiative and other modes of heat transfer in the atmosphere, which climate models do not simulate, since they artificially decouple radiative transfer from the other modes. This results is a WRONG solution to the coupled heat exchange.

The concept of "runway greenhouse" is physically nonsensical anyway, because it assumes a huge increase of the atmospheric internal energy by simple absorption and re-emission of internal IR radiation without changing the input. This is a direct violation of the 1st Law of ThermoDynamics.

Gaoth Laidir · 10-01-2020 1:35am

M.T. Cranium wrote: »

Beyond that, I am taking the unusual step (for me) of placing the poster on ignore, and appealing to your better judgement to do the same, so that he will not succeed in getting people riled up about unconnected, irrelevant things like what was in my 1976 computer program or what credits I gained at University in 1971, as if any of that had some major bearing on the issues being discussed here. This is a tactic that is called obfuscation, and once those questions are answered, there will be ten more, and then ten more, etc.

We're on to this and this is not my first rodeo.

He's not the only one at that by any means. It's the default response when they know they don't have anything else as backup. It's like the chemtrailers calling us shills...

fits · 10-01-2020 7:29am

Interesting study I just came across.

“In a study accepted for publication in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, a research team led by Zeke Hausfather of the University of California, Berkeley, conducted a systematic evaluation of the performance of past climate models. The team compared 17 increasingly sophisticated model projections of global average temperature developed between 1970 and 2007, including some originally developed by NASA, with actual changes in global temperature observed through the end of 2017. The observational temperature data came from multiple sources, including NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP) time series, an estimate of global surface temperature change.

The results: 10 of the model projections closely matched observations. Moreover, after accounting for differences between modeled and actual changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide and other factors that drive climate, the number increased to 14. The authors found no evidence that the climate models evaluated either systematically overestimated or underestimated warming over the period of their projections.”

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confirms-climate-models-are-getting-future-warming-projections-right/?fbclid=IwAR0SgfpoXzYpg0a1o25TD6mbqM8iS6-i7hf6yQZOmU9lclBcv_pik_nkER0

posidonia · 10-01-2020 8:11am

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

The previus Nikolov/Zeller paper from 2014 does pose a valid point. They claim that the way the theoretical surface temperature of plantets without an atmosphere (e.g. the Moon) would be much colder than current calculations claim. For the Earth, they calculate it would be 90 degrees colder without its atmosphere instead of the currently accepted figure of 33 degrees. They refer to this as the "atmospheric thermal enhancement". The reason they claim is down to how the average area of the planet has been calculated up to now, treating it as a flat disc instead of a sphere. Due to a mathematical feature called Hölder's Inequality, they do their calculations by calculating for each point on the sphere and integrating it over the whole area. This seems like a sensible approach and seems to be well supported by numerous independent sources and measurements. It begs the question; if Earth would be 90 degrees, and not 33 degrees, colder without an atmosphere, where is the extra 57 degrees of heating coming from?

The second paper agains is well referenced and does seem to be backed up by independent measurements. The model that they came up with from their dimensional analysis does show good correlation. Overall, though, there is not a strong claim that the greenhouse effect (IR absorption and reemitting by ghgs) does not exist, or it's a bit ropey if there is. They admit that there is still a lot more work to validate some of their calculations with future measurement missions, but it is what it is.

Humm, so what N&Z are saying that that they have discovered a 57C atmosphere temperature error no one else has ever noticed, and for over more than a century. Not 1C, not a few C, 57C!

They must be kidding, or trolling...

pantomine2020 · 10-01-2020 10:27am

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

It's like the chemtrailers calling us shills...

Its funny you should say that, I would put the climate change denialists(skeptics) in the same category as anti vaxers and the chemtrailer tin foil hat brigade.

Look at your posting history for example, the vast majority of them on this thread are intentianal attempts to use trends, data and graphs from what appear to be reputable sources to make a point that has nothing to do with the actual data your posting.
Its clear you are using the skeptics handbook by hoping people dont actually know what they are looking at so take you comments at face value but in reality your posts for the most part are clearly that of a bluffer.

Oneiric 3 · 10-01-2020 10:46am

pantomine2020 wrote: »

Its funny you should say that, I would put the climate change denialists(skeptics) in the same category as anti vaxers and the chemtrailer tin foil hat brigade.

Funny you should say that, as I would place climate alarmists (colloquially referred to as 'climate barbies') in the exact same category.

oriel36 · 10-01-2020 1:17pm

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

Not sure if this is on the same level as what you discuss, but not everything can be 'logically' explained. Music, and the affect it can have on the human mind/soul for example, defies human, scientific reasoning, yet the sound of a certain chord, a harmony, a crescendo, and the way we are drawn into them, is the most instinctive, logical thing in the world.

There really isn't a different level unless intimacy arising from more perceptive human faculties can be called a different level. The perceptive faculties are more fully operational in astronomy and Earth sciences as they are in the normal cultural endeavours which are seen as inspirational whether music, art , literature or some other productive/creative human enterprise.

The geocentric and first heliocentric astronomers concerned themselves with 'saving the appearances' which amounts to dealing with the enigmatic behaviour of objects within an astronomical framework. Copernicus went a long way to accounting for the motions of the slower moving planets as seen from a faster moving Earth and made the first tentative steps in links between the motions of the planet and Earth sciences like the day/night cycle and the seasons.

The outstanding issue was mainly how to fit the new moving Earth in a Sun centred system with the antecedent geocentric astronomy and framework of Ptolemy which predicts astronomical events like solar eclipses, moon phases and planetary transits so well. Very few at the time could appreciate the quagmire which existed in an attempt to satisfy both the new heliocentric perspective on one side and predictive astronomy on the other and in all likelihood the same exists today -

"Better still, if someone wishes, he can assign to the sky those motions of the earth that [Copernicus] adds to the first two, and use the same calculation
procedures. But that highly learned and intelligent man considered it inadvisable, on account of these undisciplined minds,to invert the entire system of his hypotheses, and he contented himself with having established that which was sufficient for the true discovery of phenomena." Gemma Frisius

In a way, the 'scientific method' modelers today are approaching planetary climate in much the same way by inverting the importance in getting the links between the motions of the Earth and climate straight first but rather they focus too hard on experimental conditions in a common greenhouse and applying it wholesale to the Earth's atmosphere and from there into their conclusion that humanity can control planetary temperatures within a certain range.

The modelers are inclined to play on personalities and argue over inputs arising from an already determined conclusion but it is much more productive to look what is in front of researchers first before applying conclusions much less speculative conclusions. The extension of Galileo's judgment on those with less careful approaches pretty much sums up why it takes more than just data to put a picture or narrative together.

" I know; such men do not deduce their conclusion from its premises or
establish it by reason, but they accommodate (I should have said
discommode and distort) the premises and reasons to a conclusion which
for them is already established and nailed down. No good can come of
dealing with such people, especially to the extent that their company
may be not only unpleasant but dangerous." Galileo

It may be that dull and dour people make doom and gloom predictions. More reasonable people take a healthy view of atmospheric and oceanic pollution in respect to human responsibility and that is fine, however, the real struggle among researchers will be dealing with the indulgence of assigning human influence on planetary temperature controls and that means revisiting the roots of that 'scientific method' which forces through that overreaching conclusion.

M.T. Cranium · 10-01-2020 5:05pm

The Net-weather discussion thread is basically four or five IPCC loyalists debating me and very occasionally one or two other people who are willing to risk being flamed for their dissenting points of view.

Ironically, somebody who may or may not be a still active Boards member showed up to complain that Boards is an echo chamber and there is a cult following where people are sheeple and don't question anything.

I don't know what alternate universe Boards this person has visited, but that's not my perception of this place at all. We've already had quite a full and frank exchange of views on this thread and many others over the years. There has never been a cult following, I want to make a public spectacle of the ridiculous aspects of this charge. I think what it really means is that one person took a negative view of my participation here, and just couldn't accept that it was a fact evident in plain sight that many other people did not share his or her point of view, which he or she likely thinks to be a natural reaction to an outsider coming into your weather forum and taking an active role.

I have said many times that I am always grateful to the boards membership, to the Irish people if that's in any way a different thing, for welcoming me in here and (this must really rankle some people) treating me like a human being.

We'll have none of that when Comrade Thunberg and the rest of them take full power.

I posted in there that I saw no useful purpose being served by continuing on, and that I would reduce my Net-weather activity to the bare minimum of contest duties that I happen to have there, otherwise I felt that the place has gone to the dogs since I first joined, and if they want to talk about cults and echo chambers, they need do no more than look around their own quiet little corner, which is being largely ignored by a forum membership unwilling to subject themselves to indoctrination that some poorly supported political party could not be doing equally well if not better.

So much of this turns political and the climate change movement doom their own objectives by making common cause with widely unpopular political coalitions which seek to advance all sorts of unpleasant and unwelcome agendas. My own approach is that there must be some common sense approach to reducing the effects of what people are calling climate change even though a good portion of that is actually societal change. For example, the increasing impact of wildfires has more of a societal cause than an environmental or climate-driven cause. All things being equal, if we were not here, wildfires would continue to start and burn through large areas, but some of them would not start because at least half if not two-thirds of the fire starts are acts of human carelessness or even deliberate sabotage. Also, if people had not found the exurban life style appealing (living near but out of towns and cities, in semi-wilderness parkland settings) then both the spread and impact of the fires would be different (lower in most cases).

This is in a way a relatedness of human activity and climate, but not in the sense that the IPCC theory would have us believe. And it is a set of conditions that can be regulated in such a way that improvements can come about. The amount of greenhouse gas present has almost no bearing on these dynamics whatsoever.

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

Comments