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
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
CC3 -- Why I believe that a third option is needed for climate change
Comments
-
Water John wrote: »So all statistical analysis is useless? We should go on intuition.
The level of reasoning and analysis here isn't really all that surprising, especially when you consider the premise of the whole thread is:
"I feel I know more than all the experts, so my ideas must be right and the experts wrong. Even my internet friends think I'm right. The only logical reason the so-called experts wont accept my theory is because they're evil secret communists trying to brainwash the children. Also, they say mean things that hurt my feelings. I'm basically a modern day Galileo"0 -
I don't even know if Oriel is saying climate change is happening or not, not to mind what might be causing it.
As Piorot says, the little grey cells aren't up to it.0 -
Water John wrote: »I don't even know if Oriel is saying climate change is happening or not, not to mind what might be causing it.
As Piorot says, the little grey cells aren't up to it.
I think oriel is saying it's all natural and we don't know how the earth spins.. but I'm afraid this is how I feel reading his/her posts:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Skwgk9duVaU0 -
The level of reasoning and analysis here isn't really all that surprising, especially when you consider the premise of the whole thread is:
"I feel I know more than all the experts, so my ideas must be right and the experts wrong. Even my internet friends think I'm right. The only logical reason the so-called experts wont accept my theory is because they're evil secret communists trying to brainwash the children. Also, they say mean things that hurt my feelings. I'm basically a modern day Galileo"
That's not a fair assessment of the thread so far, but not a surprising response none the less.0 -
The level of reasoning and analysis here isn't really all that surprising, especially when you consider the premise of the whole thread is:
"I feel I know more than all the experts, so my ideas must be right and the experts wrong. Even my internet friends think I'm right. The only logical reason the so-called experts wont accept my theory is because they're evil secret communists trying to brainwash the children. Also, they say mean things that hurt my feelings. I'm basically a modern day Galileo"
You ARE pretty good at saying mean things, in fairness.0 -
10 minutes of pulling out a few quotes, but there's so much more and worse than even this.
Here's a few snippets on the IPCC, climate science and corrupting the childrenM.T. Cranium wrote:I can't accept the IPCC arguments and I don't think they have a true "proven science."M.T. Cranium wrote:how did they really come up with their "99%" consensus that we hear about? I think it's maybe closer to 70% and then you have to factor in that many of those 70% have done no real investigation of the material themselvesM.T. Cranium wrote:This is the old communist approachM.T. Cranium wrote:If you raise valid concerns about the IPCC theories, you just get a torrent of abuse and hostility (how dare you squared)M.T. Cranium wrote:And the use of psychological manipulation on vulnerable school-aged children to sell this half-baked unproven theory is a major scandal and an egregious case of child abuse
On his own "theory" and why he can't get publishedM.T. Cranium wrote:I make entirely reasonable statements about natural warmingM.T. Cranium wrote:I've been told this is a belief structure and not science, but I counter that by saying it is closer to real science than its alternative competing version.M.T. Cranium wrote:Yet I am told this is not the accepted theory in the science, and that basic physics somehow contradict what I can see in plain sight. So I come away thinking, well perhaps these self-defined experts and their proven science are just another example of a faulty science about to be shoved into a heap by a better (more accurate) alternative.M.T. Cranium wrote:The notion that only "real science" is published and peer reviewed is an obvious example of circular reasoningM.T. Cranium wrote:I have faith in the general public to choose the right path and I don't think 99% of the people who read weather forums are stupid and need to be educated or lectured. So I value your opinionM.T. Cranium wrote:To me, it's a sign of weakness when a scientific body quickly resorts to options like censorship, blacklisting, ostracism, ad hominem arguments, I don't recall Albert Einstein using any of those to gain acceptance for his ideas.
But don't ask M.T any real questions or else...M.T. Cranium wrote:placing the poster on ignore, and appealing to your better judgement to do the same
Some rare honestyM.T. Cranium wrote:since the political aspects of the climate change movement trouble me more than the raw science.
No data, no analysis, no proof, no nothing. Just rhetoric, conspiracies and hurt feelings (oh and occasional digs at Greta).
But of course, backing it all up with quotes is still just being a meanie:(0 -
SeaBreezes wrote: »I think oriel is saying it's all natural and we don't know how the earth spins.. but I'm afraid this is how I feel reading his/her posts:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Skwgk9duVaU
You are all victims (willing or not) of the 'scientific method' which amounts to an opinion passed off as a method. As Dianetics is to scientologists then so is the Principia to empirical modelers in what to think, how to think and a sort of infallibility clause attached (Rule IV) -
"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
http://strangebeautiful.com/other-texts/newton-principia-rules-reasoning.pdf
Both incredibly dull and equally dangerous for a healthy and productive society, it is how mathematicians can turn the fall of an apple (experiment) into planetary orbital motion (universal qualities) or indeed the conditions in a common greenhouse ( experiment) into the Earth's atmosphere (universal qualities). Newton's attempt was unique as it set in motion the 'scientific method/Rule III who's follower never understood how he managed to make astronomical predictions look like experimental predictions even though I do.
It is clear that when faced with a simple temperature graph linking cause and effect within a 24 hour cycle and the conclusion of a meteorologist is that one complete rotation is not the cause then nothing more dismaying.
The only way proponents and opponents of 'climate change' know they have taken a bad road is that it leads to dull conclusions at the expense of genuine research into Earth sciences, including what should be a vibrant and exciting topic of the Earth's climate within a solar system framework.0 -
There's that Rule III again.0
-
No data, no analysis, no proof, no nothing. Just rhetoric, conspiracies and hurt feelings (oh and occasional digs at Greta).
But of course, backing it all up with quotes is still just being a meanie:(
A truly inspirational response to the excesses of mathematicians came from a mathematician himself -
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20427391-600-alices-adventures-in-algebra-wonderland-solved/
Dodgson didn't really fail, however, mathematicians did go on to create the idea of human control of time and the universe by moving faster through an early 20th century formal expression of a late 19th century science fiction novel. Today is our turn with the idea of human control over planetary temperatures thereby making ourselves bigger than the topic itself.
People who whine and moan about how they didn't get their due or were bullied or intimidated don't belong in the fight. All that matters is people who can deal with the scourge of the 'scientific method' and the bluffers who use it as a high end welfare scam.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
Gaoth Laidir wrote: »There's that Rule III again.
It is the one and only one which you and your opponents live by.
"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
Kill that concept and 'climate change' is killed as both 'gravity/attraction' and 'climate change' are founded on the same experimental foundations with no regard or respect for the astronomical content
It morphed into 'laws of nature/physics/gravity/motion/whatever and morphed again recently into the 'scientific method' which appears to give you unfortunates the dull and dour conclusions you want the world drawn into. Whether you think 'climate change' is natural or man-made it is still mindnumbingly dull but basically building on the success of short term weather modeling and trying to recently re-define climate as long term weather. It is so crude that I consider it a digression from the actual problem humanity faces.
I learned astronomy and timekeeping from the original astronomers as their works started to surface across the internet and these people had their works vandalised by a pretentious bunch of academics who sought self-aggrandisement and so it remains.0 -
oriel36 your input is lost. A multiple of people have asked you to talk in lay terms.
I'm guessing-
"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
You are saying that it is flawed to use the findings of laboratory experiments on CO2 to atmospheric CO2? both sides are dull as they both require tests and observance on small scale then apply the findings of the micro to the macro?
That you have risen above Newtonian laws and have also learned that a day is not to be measured in minutes/hours in conjunction with the earth spinning on it's own axis?
Your posts are so poorly conveyed that it's difficult to challenge the points within. Your posts have become a point of ridicule.0 -
I'd hope to give everyone with a reasonable hypotheses a good hearing. Some of the material here would make Finnegan's Wake, easy reading.0
-
This, once again, is for the general reader who perhaps is uncomfortable with the process and conclusions of the 'greenhouse' people and their opponents.
What people are seeing is a symptom of the 'scientific method' which surfaced with Newton who attempted to make astronomical predictions look like experimental predictions.
The geocentric astronomers took careful note of the positions of the planets and understood that each planet took a certain length of time to travel through the 12 constellations with the planets further from the Earth taking longer times to complete a circuit with the moon's circuit closest to the Earth. This approach was once known as the periodic times of planets -
" Of all things visible, the highest is the heaven of the fixed stars. This, I see, is doubted by nobody. But the ancient philosophers wanted to arrange the planets in accordance with the duration of the revolutions. Their principle assumes that of objects moving equally fast, those farther away seem to travel more slowly, as is proved in Euclid’s Optics. The moon revolves in the shortest period of time because, in their opinion, it runs on the smallest circle as the nearest to the earth. The highest planet, on the other hand, is Saturn, which completes the biggest circuit in the longest time. Below it is Jupiter, followed by Mars.
With regard to Venus and Mercury, however, differences of opinion are found. For, these planets do not pass through every elongation from the sun, as the other planets do. Hence Venus and Mercury are located above the sun by some authorities, like Plato’s Timaeus (38 D), but below the sun by others, like Ptolemy (Syntaxis, IX, 1) and many of the modems. Al-Bitruji places Venus above the sun, and Mercury below it." Copernicus
What distinguished the Sun from the planets was the planets wandered periodically while the Sun ran a direct course through the constellations. The original geocentric astronomers thought the Sun moved in a 365 day motion between the 687 day orbital period of Mars and the 225 day orbital period of Venus.
What Copernicus did was switch the position of the Sun with a moving Earth thereby accounting for the motions and positions of the slower moving planets and their 'wandering' motion .
https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/1811/Ma2018_tezelN.jpg
https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap011220.html
Kepler extended this by studying Mars over a 16 year period and sketching out how Mars moved through the 12 constellations (the symbols on the rim) in proportion to the Earth's orbital motion -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Kepler#/media/File:Kepler_Mars_retrograde.jpg
"Copernicus, by attributing a single annual motion to the earth,
entirely rids the planets of these extremely intricate coils ,
leading the individual planets into their respective orbits
,quite bare and very nearly circular. In the period of time
shown in the diagram, Mars traverses one and the same orbit as many
times as the 'garlands' you see looped towards the
centre,with one extra, making nine times, while at the same time the
Earth repeats its circle sixteen times " Kepler
That stupid mathematical dunce of the late 17th century and his followers today, think Kepler's diagram is geocentric (described by Wikipedia in that false terms) and that if the Sun is plonked in the centre of the diagram then retrogrades disappear -
"For to the earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct,
sometimes stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun
they are always seen direct.." Newton
Astronomy disappeared for 200+ years as Newton created the false notions of absolute/relative space and motion to describe his contrived framework, something his followers still can't follow such is their trance-like allegiance to his experimental programme.
It was this vandalism which put experimental theorists on their way to turn the celestial arena into a junkyard while making it impossible to refer Earth sciences to the motions of the Earth including the effects of daily rotation and orbital motion in isolation and in combination. The problem isn't 'climate change', it is the empirical doctrine which makes these hideous speculative conclusions possible and drag the world into that anxiety and desperation.0 -
So Newton and Copernicus were in on the whole scam all along...
0 -
Advertisement
-
This is for the general reader as gentlemen are rare in the academic community so leave those who would not be capable or competent to know what is being presented and why the original works of the first heliocentric astronomers never survived the assault of empirical modelers who more or less vandalised their works and are currently drawing the world into their glum conclusions. Kill the 'scientific method' and 'climate changes' vanishes while the links between the motions of the planet and Earth sciences becomes vibrant research once more.
How Isaac exploited Kepler's use of periodic times to determine distance from the Sun is the next stage.
Kepler made use of the 'periodic times' it takes the planets to move through the constellations and compares them as a means to determine their distance to the Sun as a loose correlation. He doesn't describe individual orbits as Newton would have it but only how he arrived at his conclusion by comparing the times of two planets -
"The proportion existing between the periodic times of any two planets
is exactly the sesquiplicate proportion of the mean distances of the
orbits, or as generally given,the squares of the periodic times are
proportional to the cubes of the mean distances." Kepler
In an expanded version, this is what it means -
"But it is absolutely certain and exact that the ratio which exists
between the periodic times of any two planets is precisely the ratio
of the 3/2th power of the mean distances, i.e., of the spheres
themselves; provided, however, that the arithmetic mean between both
diameters of the elliptic orbit be slightly less than the longer
diameter. And so if any one take the period, say, of the Earth, which
is one year, and the period of Saturn, which is thirty years, and
extract the cube roots of this ratio and then square the ensuing ratio
by squaring the cube roots, he will have as his numerical products the
most just ratio of the distances of the Earth and Saturn from the sun.
1 For the cube root of 1 is 1, and the square of it is 1; and the cube
root of 30 is greater than 3, and therefore the square of it is
greater than 9. And Saturn, at its mean distance from the sun, is
slightly higher than nine times the mean distance of the Earth from
the sun." Kepler
There is nothing there that a general reader could not appreciate if they had followed how Kepler and the first heliocentric astronomers had gauged the motions and positions of the planets using the background stars. It says nothing about individual orbits much less the awful notion that the Sun around the Earth is the same as the Earth around the Sun -
"That the fixed stars being at rest, the periodic times of the five
primary planets, and (whether of the sun about the earth, or) of the
earth about the sun, are in the sesquiplicate proportion of their mean
distances from the sun.This proportion, first observed by Kepler, is now
received by all astronomers; for the periodic times are the same,
and the dimensions of the orbits are the same, whether the sun
revolves about the earth, or the earth about the sun" Newton
This is like commentators here putting words in my mouth that I never said or would suggest like the last comment. Newton tries to suggest Kepler is describing individual orbits when he was not but a certain section in England never had problems with distortion and perversion to suit their agendas.
The only method the first heliocentric astronomers allowed was that the 365 day motion of the Sun through the constellations was switched for the Earth's 365 day motion through the constellations (and around the stationary Sun) so this idea of the Sun around the Earth is the same as the Earth around the Sun is awful in much the same way everything else empirical modelers do.0 -
Thanks oriel123, it's as clear as mud now.
You should probably move to the Astronomy forum.0 -
I continue to think that Oriel36 is derailing the discussion, and has a bee in his bonnet about differences between sidereal and synodic day that are understood by everyone here, and were understood by Isaac Newton (Kepler probably too). I have concluded that Oriel36 for some unknown reason thinks that astronomy and meteorology have failed to notice the sidereal day and this somehow invalidates all of their basic premises. I wish there would at least be a reference to some body of work in that area, I know of none such.
So all of those posts amount to a big so what?
As to the ongoing food fight between myself and Mindgame (whom I took off my ignore list since I am seeing most of his posts in quotes anyway), I can't really say much more that would change his mind, but just listing my controversial (in his mind) quotes as proof of anything is pointless, what if in each case or most cases, I'm right? Then he's just summing up my defence for me.
How would one go about proving that all recently observed warming was AGW or as some would say, natural? I've read the explanations of why orthodox IPCC scientists say this (all AGW, in fact, more than we see) but I find them unconvincing. Since the natural variability went into warming modes several times since the Maunder, I feel considerable doubt when asked to believe that Milankovitch factors are strong enough to lead a steady decline in natural temperature levels. I would argue they have almost flat-lined and are not that relevant to temperature variations on decade to decade or century to century time scales now. They may kick in again in a few thousand years and take on a more dominant role. But I don't think that part of the IPCC theory is credible, especially when I see clear evidence of rapid warming early in the 20th century. The only way that can be consistent with their theory would be if 75% of the AGW came in the first 25% of the period. Yet they often state that it's the other way around, that most of the AGW signal appears in data since 1980 or even since 1990.
Those are flaws that I did not "cherry pick" but are fundamental to the debate. If they are wrong about the warming 1890-1920 or 1890-1960, then their theory has a serious flaw (similar to how some skeptics view the MWP as a non-verifying counter-example). And if they were wrong about 1890-1960, why should we assume they are right about 1980-2020 or projections for 2020-2050?
OTOH, if it continues to warm at roughly the rate they predict, how do we know whether that's a continued blend of AGW and natural variabillity, or all AGW, or all natural? If people in all camps make the same predictions, we can't test on the basis of prediction success or failure. So given the fact that I am probably wasting my (limited) time arguing the science, I would rather argue the politics which seem daft to me, a chorus of doomsayers sitting around saying "wreck your economy or you all die."
What was that choice again?0 -
The practice of adding your own words to somebody's quotes is considered bad form in court, you'll get called up to the bar if you try that in a courtroom.\
So I would ask for a retraction of the obvious falsehood about me complaining about "hurt feelings" like I am some millennial snowflake. This is not about how I feel, but what I perceive. It hurts my head when I consider how close to obvious it must be even within the IPCC community that they are on thin ice with their theory and the politics that they encourage (has even one of them come out to say wait a second Greta, twelve years? really?). They are fine with their political wing scaring the bejeezus out of gullible progressives, schoolchildren, and left wing media types. They think their work won't be done until every trace of the fossil fuel industry is destroyed. How that can be sustainable within the present economy is just explained away with fairy tales about electric grids going entirely wind and solar driven (from the current 1% unreliable foundation), everyone driving a golf cart sorry electric vehicle (I'll stick to the golf course for that), and massive unemployment, at least their favourite beach won't be lost at high tide.
The epic disproportionality of their approach is routinely watered down by centrist political parties trying to remain in power, and opposed by the political right. That will continue long enough to guarantee that the warming, for whatever reason it exists, will reach a higher level and start to produce more actionable consequences. A realist would respond to that instead of seeking to bring about some utopian future that is far beyond our technological capacity at this time. And I don't feel apologetic about thinking this way, in any case, the political options should span the spectrum and let the people decide based on balance of probability what they want done and how they want the response to be handled.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
I don't know what the general public consensus is over in Europe, but in North America, I think it's true to say that many people dismiss the warming theories as overblown hype because they know it has been equally warm if not warmer in the past. This is because on our TV weather segments, they routinely show you the daily records. After a while, it becomes obvious that most of them are quite old and aren't being broken. They pop up again year after year. Let's say you live in Toronto and watch TV for two weeks in early July. It's hot out (it usually is) and reaches the low to mid 30s. Then the weather comes on, and the presenter says "and today's record high was 39 in 1911," and a few days later, for days on end, "today's record was 41 in 1936." What would you make of endless reports of how this was the warmest year ever, and the one before was, etc etc.
You would think "this is some kind of a con game to take money out of my wallet." And it already has done so to some extent. Taxes are added to gasoline and home heating fuels to fight "climate change." Yet how do these taxes reduce the temperature by even .0001 degree? They don't. The money streams into general revenues and ends up paying for more climate science, better pensions for rich civil servants, and other things the governments would rather not state openly. They figure people will pay to save the earth, more readily than to enrich their patrons (which is where the tax revenues end up). And do the carbon taxes really modify behaviour? Or do they just impose burdens on middle class people trying to heat their homes and drive to work without other options available? It's mostly just a burden on people that takes away either discretionary spending (globalists don't mind this, their utopian vision is that we all stay home in our little warrens processing our vegetable gardens and recycling) or spending on health care perhaps (oh well, then the population burden on mother earth will be reduced, perhaps a way to speed that up comrades?). Well don't get them started on that (one prominent member of the movement recently stated that a 90% reduction in the earth's population would be ideal -- Stalin was said to be impressed, he never broke 10%).
I see things perhaps a bit differently, having seen a lot of weather data from the far north. Sure it's getting a bit warmer up there but is the climate really changing in some alarming way, or is it just shaving off the ends of the winter freeze? I find it's mostly the latter. The winters are ending in late May to early June instead of during mid-June, and they are kicking back in around mid-September instead of late August to early September. Is this worth wrecking the economy, to virtue signal a pretend solution that won't have any effect on it anyway?
You tell me. Or if you have to hike for fifteen minutes to get to the base of a glacier that your grandparents could park beside on the national park highway, is that the collapse of civilization? If a polar bear has to adapt to changing circumstances, do you think it will just sit around moping and die off out of sight, or will it seek out new prey (like climate scientists, they often get themselves stuck in polar bear territory when they miscalculate their escape from ice that was supposed to be gone forever)? I jest, but I would imagine a steady diet of climate scientist might be quite satisfying.0 -
Also when the poster says "no data" he is talking about a person who has posted four different threads on his main home forum, that I know that he knows about, full of data and analysis. For example, my study of weather data from the Canadian arctic which I continue to expand. There's extensive posts by me to analyze CET trends and I post them regularly in current discussions.
I can't think of a weather forum poster on either Boards or net-weather who has published more weather data with analysis than myself. Whether he might agree with my analysis is a separate question.
But to state "no data" is obviously ridiculous. And the Toronto data will be available within a few days. I am just at the stage of inspecting what I think is a complete file, and contemplating how to present the data.
The truth of the matter is, I am in that position where an established science recognizes me as a minor threat to their standing, and has unleashed the full range of personal destruction techniques that they have practiced on many occasions in the past, hitting on buzz words that they think will make that task easier, and not really dealing with a real person with a real life, but a straw man that they invented, a "Roger Smith" or MTC who has all these negative attributes that any critic of theirs must have to be a critic, or why would they criticize the Perfect Chosen Ideologues?
(quiet voice -- because they are wrong)
No comrades, we'll have none of that, start the denunciations.
Sorry I am not willing to play the role of silent stooge, as AS said in his novel, "but what if we had all resisted, instead of going quietly to the camps?"
So let's review that denunciation (I have the luxury of speaking back unlike those who might have been intimidated by guns pointed at heads).
FALSE (?) CHARGE ___ THEY SAY ______ ACTUAL SITUATION
runs a cult __________ runs a cult _____ no cult, no cult followers, no examples given
shuts down debate ___ won't debate ___ debating, winning most points, not acknowledged
echo chamber _______ Boards all agree _ lots of different opinions, no uniform agreement
no data ____________ posts no data ____ has numerous threads full of historical weather data
no qualifications _____ unqualified ______ blacklisted so any experience written out of history
disagrees with us ____ disagrees with us _ disagrees with them (fact adduced as evidence of ???)
So one true charge, I disagree with them. I thought that was obvious to anybody.
- - - - -
In other words, the distinction is simply that I hold one set of opinions, they hold another one, they wish to be regarded as infallible experts (which I do not wish to be), therefore I am some dangerous person with bad ideas.
If this were a well-established science with widespread support and very few questioners, then a stance like mine would be futile and rather like Oriel36's ramblings about spheres of illumination. He could be on to something. But almost nobody encountering that can see any actual basis for tossing out established paradigms. The burden is on him in that case.
In my case, I'm not alone by any means. Plenty of people familiar with historical weather data have profound doubts about the simplicity of the IPCC world view. They think it is unlikely that natural variability can play no role, but disagree on proportions.
Anyway, I have debunked the debunker (in my biased opinion) and have no wish to continue the debate. If he wants to keep hammering away at me mostly just quoting my statements with an unspoken "see, he says things I don't agree with, therefore he loses the debate, Q.E.D." then people will tire of it and ask him to retire to where that is acceptable. I don't see why it should be acceptable here. But whatever, I have a lot of work to do now to get these Toronto files ready for public sharing. That's my main focus and you'll see why I think natural variability is more important from some of those files, I hope -- if not, at least consider that it forms the foundation of what I am saying.0 -
Here is one key piece of evidence from the Toronto data to support natural warming as a leading player in the first half of the 20th century.
The graph shows actual vs expected (at random) numbers of daily maximum temperature records broken per year.
Here's an overview of what it shows.
First of all, the "starter record" is defined to be the highest value 1840 to 1870. With equal chances of setting those records (ties count fractionally) each year should hold close to 13 of them (1840 a bit fewer as two months of data are missing). You'll see that there were some variations during that 31-year starter period, but no real trends. Every year grabbed at least a handful of them, 1854 and 1867 did particularly well.
Then for each succeeding year, the expected number of new records (breaking either the starters, or whatever replaced them since) would be (1/n) x 366 where n is the number of years elapsed from 1840. So each year will have a slightly lower number of expected new records. By about 1900, the fraction is (1/61) x 366 or about 6. By about 1950 it's close to 4 and in recent years it is closer to 2.
The key statistic is to track achieved new records at the time, vs expected. The graph shows clearly that this value surged ahead of random expectation quite consistently from about 1890 to 1920, and again around the late 1940s into the 1950s. The performance since then has been closer to random.
The graph also shows how many records have been retained (the bottom or purple line shows that). Obviously the more recent the year, the more likely it is that most records will be retained. 1871 did fairly well at the time, and has since lost all but one of the many records that it set. A year like 1931 which still holds the highest number of retained records still lost a few that it did set back then, but kept most of them.
If as the IPCC says the background climate was slowly cooling and the AGW signal rapidly increasing to overwhelm natural cooling, do you think this graph would look at all like this? No, it would look like most years were managing to keep pace with random expectation with a surge towards the end. It doesn't look like that at all, not even remotely. So there's your smoking gun. The climate warmed naturally in a strong, sustained way after 1890. It's obvious from these statistics.
(switch argument to cherry picking, right?)
Well that won't work. Any analysis of records at other locations would show the same thing, because most places with long intervals of data have similar record highs on similar dates.
Oh, what about 100 F days at Toronto? Want the full list. Promise me you haven't eaten recently, warministas:
1936 had 4
1911, 1918, 1948 had 2 each
1854, 1916, 1953 and 2011 had 1 each
Same weather station in a growing city full of cars and people, and they can only break 100 F once since 1953, after breaking it 13 times before then.
How about August new maximum records since 1970? Want to guess? Five? Ten?
Try three. Same story in May, June and September. Recent months of July have at least matched random chance but all of the new records are replacements of the seven easiest to break older ones (those below 95 F). Only one older record in July was above 97 F. Same goes for August, and that one was only tied.
Want to know what years Toronto all-time monthly maxima were set? About half are fairly recent, mostly winter months. But March remains 1946 despite some close calls in 1998, April was in 1842, May in the 1960s (twice), June 1964, July 1936, August 1918, September 1953. The old October record from 1963 was edged out by 1 deg in 2007. November goes back to 1950.
(have to click on the attachment to see this, I have tried copying the graph but not working this time)0 -
For Toronto, this is what the temperature trend actually does after 1890 ( O_O_O), modified with an assumption of increasing urban heat island, without which the smaller o _ o _ o is the raw data unadjusted, vs what the IPCC theory says it should do (X_X_X):
1890 __ _ _0X
1900 __ _ _XO
1910 __ _X __ Oo
1920 __ __X ___ Oo
1930 __ __ X ____ O_o
1940 __ __ _X _____O _ o
1950 __ __ __X _____O _ o
1960 __ __ ___ X __O _ o
1970 __ __ ___ _OX_o
1980 __ __ ___ __O_ oX
1990 __ __ ___ __ _ O _ o_ X
2000 __ __ ___ __ ___ O __ o __ X
2010 __ __ ___ __ ___ ___ O __o__ _ X
2020 __ __ ___ __ ___ ___ O ___ o___ ___ X
Who to trust? It's a head scratcher, too bad there's "no data."
Once the urban heat island (1.5 C, half of which realized by 1931) is factored into the Toronto data, there really isn't much appreciable warming since around 1921, with a larger and perhaps justifiable urban heat island of 2.0 C there is a steady-state climate for the past century with oscillations. From all the weather data I have seen in North America (and it's a lot) this is probably applicable more generally, not just to this one location. But the way greenhouse gas warming is supposed to work, even one notable counter-example to theory should be troubling in itself.0 -
This is the same analysis of record lows at Toronto, the growing urban heat island really reduces the number of them after about 1890, together with the natural warming trend that followed. A better test would be record low maxima which tend to be more resistant to heat island suppression as they occur in the windier conditions of daytime. I will work up that graph for the eventual presentation.0
-
Fair enough, the perpetual students of Newton's 'scientific method' don't really factor into the discussion on genuine climate as they have their own thing going by entertaining themselves with data and computer generated hallucinations.
The general reader is not meant to deal with all the technical details where these academics organise Earth sciences to suit their experimental agenda but unfortunately they are being drawn into the miserable world of doom and gloom predictions. When shown how the late 17th century Royal Society academics arrived at their doctrine by destroying Western astronomical tradition including the eccentric inability to interpret a basic temperature graph showing daily temperature fluctuations each 24 hours in response to one rotation, they go into spasms of incomprehension.
https://prairieecosystems.pbworks.com/f/1179343887/crerar%20temperature%20variation.jpg
The great English poet William Blake called the condition of contributors here 'Newton's sleep' where they are so focused on their inputs and blinkered in their views that they can't take in the wider surroundings of the Earth and space hence a wasteland surroundings and a starless sky -
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/f6/ff/16/f6ff1604b86f6c64d10c09056e0cd000.jpg
The general reader should sense that these men cannot reason as individuals as what can be worse than an idea that humans can control planetary temperatures by doing or not doing something as the actual destination of their conclusions. It comes from people who refuse to accept that the planet and its motions within a Sun centred system form a single whole every bit as complex as the interactions of the human body and just as enjoyable for genuine researchers.
I can see , for all the whining about suffocating discussion, that contributors are moving towards the idea that my contributions belong in astronomy but then again experimental theorists never cared for solar system structure or the motions of the planet which makes life on the surface possible including the reason our planetary climate is ideal for life with just the right inclination to create the seasonal fluctuations .0 -
Thanks for all the data, MT. So much work gone into it, whether they like it or not. I wouldn't be batting an eyelid about what that poster says anymore as he's just out on the personal attack, without posting a shred of data himself. You know how these people are, we're all onto him.0
-
Gaoth Laidir wrote: »Thanks for all the data, MT. So much work gone into it, whether they like it or not. I wouldn't be batting an eyelid about what that poster says anymore as he's just out on the personal attack, without posting a shred of data himself. You know how these people are, we're all onto him.
The opposition to the 'climate change' modeling is as weak as Labour's opposition to brexit in England with the same poor result. It demonstrates how important it is to have healthy perspectives in order to counter overreaching aspirations , in this case by empirical modelers, who found a drastic way to apply experimental sciences to Earth sciences.
Being weak is not a crime but intellectual nuisances tend to aid those declaring that the humble cow is public enemy number one or some other meaningless assertion. In this case the proponents and opponents of 'climate change' fail to look at the actual conclusion of human control over planetary temperatures and retreat to a weak view as to whether it is man-made or natural.0 -
Thanks MT.
Personally, I think in years to come people will look back at this CO2 alarmist and wonder why we allowed it. Not saying CO2 doesn't warm, but I'm in the Zharakova and Nikolov camps, and think we will be schooled by 'climate drivers' like the sun and clouds.
There's too much repression of science by the IPCC for me to fully trust it.
Why would they try and stop Zharakovas papers being published?
Climategate emails caught them adjusting data to fit the narrative.
They are big business, and unfortunately seem threatened by any science that may challenge the narrative.
I find it suspect that the IPCC include solar forcing in models ONLY when the global temp starts dropping from 2016. And will be 'adjusting' models for the sun from 2020.
I find it suspect that temps are only compared against a period of time that suits the narrative. And earlier higher temps etc, are ignored. What was the American dust bowl but climate change?
Even the reporting annoys me. When temps started dropping they are being reported as 'the hottest in the last 4 years' even though it's actually dropping since 2016.
And why are ACTUAL global temps so hard to find? Why are temps shown in relation to a certain time frame? That annoys me also. :-)
I do feel sorry for Greta. While I applaud what she's doing (anyone who can stop us posioning the planet is praiseworthy) her dad runs her twitter account, and she is, a vulnerable child. It's hard enough to have aspergers without adding the pressure of being at the spearhead of a global movement. I fear it will not end well for her.
Another poster wrote about hubris. I was thinking, thank god for it! Otherwise science would never advance.
Your records, the hunger stones, medieval warming, even the Rok runes, all point to the fact we have been on this merry go round before. And yet there's no discussion around this.
I find it disheartening, from the climate studies are accurate study another poster linked to, of the 1000s of scientists and models the IPCC have, after the trillions spent on the science, cherry picking the 17 most accurate, they had to adjust 4 for CO2 and climate, (adjusting the CO2 and climate models for CO2 and climate!) and then the average performed well. Though the model ranges were within 1.8 C.
Seriously, all that time and money and effort and that's the best we can do?
We are only scrabbling at the edges of Climate Science.
But there's a lot of money being spent to discredit the IPCC as well.
I'm loving Dr. Ned Nikolovs twitter account. You want hubris? Read his tweets. Though in fairness anyone to discover an equation that can predict surface temp of any planet in our solar system to within 1 degree is pretty groundbreaking. And to get three peer reviewed papers published on it.
His paper on cloud cover being the real driver of global temp will be interesting. And now that we have satellite data, we are in an era where it is possible.
But I do think your middle ground approach MT is the most sensible. If we don't examine all inputs, then we are in danger of becoming a cult.
History has shown us time and time again, that consensus does not necessarily mean correct.
I enjoyed the debate thank you.
And don't mind the stalkers.
When people stalk you from forum to forum, and spew insults, it says nothing about you but an awful lot about them..0 -
SeaBreezes wrote: »
Climategate emails caught them adjusting data to fit the narrative.
Surprise, surprise !.
I lived through the rise of RA/Dec modelers and their offshoots like 'climate change' modeling as computers and celestial sphere software entered general circulation.
I have to laugh sometimes as certainly humanity will come to its senses and decide to look elsewhere for the links between planetary motion and Earth sciences such as what actually causes the seasons rather than some clownish celestial sphere 'explanation' -
"The equinoxes are the only times when the solar terminator (the "edge" between night and day) is perpendicular to the equator. As a result, the northern and southern hemispheres are equally illuminated."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equinox
At the North Pole next March, it will already have been polar dawn since February so when the Sun comes into view on the March Equinox, it will remain in view for 6 months and likewise at the South Pole the Sun will turn out of view for 6 months as polar twilight sets in until May at which time polar night becomes established.
On the September Equinox, the Earth's inclination runs Northwest to Southeast relative to the orbital plane and the central Sun -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Space_Climate_Observatory#/media/File:EpicEarth-Globespin-tilt-23.4.gif
On the March Equinox, the inclination runs Southwest to Northeast relative to the orbital plane while on the Solstices the surface runs parallel to the orbital plane -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-OgLCH7jYp8&t=30s
I haven't seen much in the comments other than schoolyard politics but then again most here haven't left that environment so it follows them into paid employment with all the dull bullying, intimidation and the cribbing about not being treated fairly.
At least I know there isn't one person I would like to meet to discuss the issues but such is life sometimes.0 -
Advertisement
-
SeaBreezes wrote: »Thanks MT.
Personally, I think in years to come people will look back at this CO2 alarmist and wonder why we allowed it.
...
What do you mean 'why we allowed it'? Sounds like censorship to me, like you want to be able to tell people what to think...0 -
-
Don't bother wasting your time replying to the nonsense from oriel36, the guy is almost certainly a re-reg of gkell and Orion36, who was already banned
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056427954
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=888725030 -
riffmongous wrote: »Don't bother wasting your time replying to the nonsense from oriel36, the guy is almost certainly a re-reg of gkell and Orion36, who was already banned
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056427954
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=88872503
Such a strange people in the way people are told who to listen to and who not to listen to as an extension of a group who are told what to think and how to think -
http://strangebeautiful.com/other-texts/newton-principia-rules-reasoning.pdf
I think you all run home to mamma when anything interesting appears and although Newton's ability to dictate to his followers what time, space and motion are, such a dereliction of individual responsibilities to someone else is the epitome of slavery.
Basically Royal Society empiricism is a call not to bother with the man behind the curtain, in this case Sir Isaac -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RQxD4Ff7dY
It is not possible to take people seriously who can't affirm the most basic temperature 'heartbeat' of the planet as representative of one complete rotation of the planet and a thousand rotations in a thousand 24 hour days.
https://prairieecosystems.pbworks.com/f/1179343887/crerar%20temperature%20variation.jpg
No need for future 'banning' , perpetual students in a schoolyard atmosphere is not my thing anyway and besides, what I once thought was indifference to the roots of the 'scientific method' just turns out to be boring and dull people in a trance-like subservience to it.0 -
Isn't measuring warming about the mean temp rise not peaks? Isn't is often simply night time temp staying higher rather than much hotter days.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jan/15/climate-emergency-2019-was-second-hottest-year-on-record0 -
Try to take a screenshot of the charts and post as an image, that should work.M.T. Cranium wrote: »This is the same analysis of record lows at Toronto, the growing urban heat island really reduces the number of them after about 1890, together with the natural warming trend that followed. A better test would be record low maxima which tend to be more resistant to heat island suppression as they occur in the windier conditions of daytime. I will work up that graph for the eventual presentation.0 -
The topic within the umbrella of empirical modeling is one of the most gruesome periods in human history for humans cannot control planetary temperatures.
A bit of tidying up before I leave the forum for good.
Early last century there were a bunch of empirical dummies running around declaring that 'time is relative !' as an extension of Newton's idiosyncratic description of a timekeeping facility known as the addito/subtractive equation at one time, the Aequation at others or simply has come down to us as the 'Equation of Time'
It represents the conversion of the variations in the total length of the natural noon cycle to a 24 hour average and from there into the Lat/Long system where it serves the purpose of describing rotation at a constant rate of 15 degrees per hour and turning a full circumference of the Earth in 24 hours. What is implied is that there is no external reference for 24 hours but as daily rotation is anchored to natural noon and also 12 noon clock time, they never fall out of sync as Tuesday follows Monday as one rotation, Wednesday follows Tuesday as another rotation and so on without fail. Sadly , this forum full of experts can't manage to conclude this.
Newton, like so many theorists, never had a feel (intuition/perception) for the purpose of the equation but acted to make it appear that he did by imitating Huygens -
"Here take notice, that the Sun or the Earth moves through the 12 constellations,
or makes an entire revolution in the ecliptic in 365 days, 5 hours 49 min. or there about,
and that those days, reckoned from noon to noon, are of different
lenghts; as is known to all that are versed in Astronomy." Huygens
https://adcs.home.xs4all.nl/Huygens/06/kort-E.html
"Absolute time, in astronomy, is distinguished from relative, by the equation of time. For the natural days are truly unequal, though they are commonly considered as equal and used for a measure of time; astronomers correct this inequality for their more accurate deducing of the celestial motions." Newton
The theorists following Newton hadn't a clue what he was doing as they like, so many unfortunates here, assume the RA/Dec framework has priority as that provided the basis of astronomical predictions using a 24 hour clock as an addition to the calendar framework -
"This absolute time can be measured by comparison with no motion; it
has therefore neither a practical nor a scientific value; and no one
is justified in saying that he knows aught about it. It is an idle
metaphysical conception." Mach, Analyse der Empfindungen,
Mach was right in a way, theorists haven't the slightest idea what purpose the equation of time serves in itself, as it refers to the Lat/Long system and the 24 hour system, what motions create the variations in the natural cycle or the dozen other different facets which distinguish timekeeping from the astronomy which links the motions of the planets to Earth sciences.
The dunces early last century exploited the inability of previous theorists to work out how Newton operated so we have 100+ years of science fantasy passed off as 'fact' such as human control of 'time'. Every single bit of 'astrophysics' is contrived, every single bit of it from start to finish.
Dull people can continue to pretend they are at the service of humanity but unfortunately they have shown themselves to be perpetual students with all the politics of the schoolyard. It is therefore not the academics that will make the difference but fatigue from headlines constantly drumming anxiety and desperation like a river of dreariness from the people with the most severe form of intellectual pretense ever to set foot on the planet.0 -
SeaBreezes wrote: »Thanks MT.
Personally, I think in years to come people will look back at this CO2 alarmist and wonder why we allowed it. Not saying CO2 doesn't warm, but I'm in the Zharakova and Nikolov camps, and think we will be schooled by 'climate drivers' like the sun and clouds.
There's too much repression of science by the IPCC for me to fully trust it.
Why would they try and stop Zharakovas papers being published?
Climategate emails caught them adjusting data to fit the narrative.
They are big business, and unfortunately seem threatened by any science that may challenge the narrative.
I find it suspect that the IPCC include solar forcing in models ONLY when the global temp starts dropping from 2016. And will be 'adjusting' models for the sun from 2020.
I find it suspect that temps are only compared against a period of time that suits the narrative. And earlier higher temps etc, are ignored. What was the American dust bowl but climate change?
Even the reporting annoys me. When temps started dropping they are being reported as 'the hottest in the last 4 years' even though it's actually dropping since 2016.
And why are ACTUAL global temps so hard to find? Why are temps shown in relation to a certain time frame? That annoys me also. :-)
I do feel sorry for Greta. While I applaud what she's doing (anyone who can stop us posioning the planet is praiseworthy) her dad runs her twitter account, and she is, a vulnerable child. It's hard enough to have aspergers without adding the pressure of being at the spearhead of a global movement. I fear it will not end well for her.
Another poster wrote about hubris. I was thinking, thank god for it! Otherwise science would never advance.
Your records, the hunger stones, medieval warming, even the Rok runes, all point to the fact we have been on this merry go round before. And yet there's no discussion around this.
I find it disheartening, from the climate studies are accurate study another poster linked to, of the 1000s of scientists and models the IPCC have, after the trillions spent on the science, cherry picking the 17 most accurate, they had to adjust 4 for CO2 and climate, (adjusting the CO2 and climate models for CO2 and climate!) and then the average performed well. Though the model ranges were within 1.8 C.
Seriously, all that time and money and effort and that's the best we can do?
We are only scrabbling at the edges of Climate Science.
But there's a lot of money being spent to discredit the IPCC as well.
I'm loving Dr. Ned Nikolovs twitter account. You want hubris? Read his tweets. Though in fairness anyone to discover an equation that can predict surface temp of any planet in our solar system to within 1 degree is pretty groundbreaking. And to get three peer reviewed papers published on it.
His paper on cloud cover being the real driver of global temp will be interesting. And now that we have satellite data, we are in an era where it is possible.
But I do think your middle ground approach MT is the most sensible. If we don't examine all inputs, then we are in danger of becoming a cult.
History has shown us time and time again, that consensus does not necessarily mean correct.
I enjoyed the debate thank you.
And don't mind the stalkers.
When people stalk you from forum to forum, and spew insults, it says nothing about you but an awful lot about them..
Hear hear0 -
The irony of this ^^^
You've been telling people what to think and what not to think without offering anything else since this thread started.
I have?
I see I've made 16 post to this forum, all in this thread and all since page 35. Feel free to quote where I've done more than offer a view. It shouldn't be a difficult task!0 -
Advertisement
-
It is therefore not the academics that will make the difference but fatigue from headlines constantly drumming anxiety and desperation like a river of dreariness from the people with the most severe form of intellectual pretense ever to set foot on the planet.
The mistake people often make is that 'academics' (and can scientists even be describe as 'academics' in the real sense of the word?) are, by virtue, 'intellectuals'. Nothing could be further from the truth.New Moon
0 -
The mistake people often make is that 'academics' (and can scientists even be describe as 'academics' in the real sense of the word?) are, by virtue, 'intellectuals'. Nothing could be further from the truth.
It is perhaps impossible to discuss issues with people who follow a very narrow line of thinking defined for them back in the late 17th century so when words like 'science denier' shows up by an academic or one of their cheerleaders, it has all the traits of a mob or cult defence to the point of illness -
"I have heard such things put forth as I should blush to repeat--not so much to avoid discrediting their authors (whose names could always be withheld) as to refrain from detracting so greatly from the honor of the human race. In the long run my observations have convinced me that some men, reasoning preposterously, first establish some conclusion In their minds which, either because of its being their own or because of their having received it from some person who has their entire confidence, impresses them so deeply that one finds it impossible ever to get it out of their heads. Such arguments in support of their fixed idea as they hit upon themselves or hear set forth by others, no matter how simple and stupid these may be, gain their instant acceptance and applause. On the other hand whatever is brought forward against it, however ingenious and conclusive, they receive with disdain or with hot rage--if indeed it does not make them ill." Galileo
It is easier to move on and consider climate as a positive research area in a gruesome era where even cows have become enemies of the planet so rather than join the flow of dreariness or swim against the flow as the weak opponents of 'climate change' do, much better to inspect how we arrived at the nuisance idea of human control over planetary temperatures like some sort of intellectual fever that needs treating. If there is a crisis then it is indeed man-made but the issues are found within individuals and groups rather than in climate so , knowing how intransigent the mind can be, progress to remove doctrines that have been in force for 200+ years can be challenging.
Two things - retain atmospheric, surface and ocean pollution as a human responsibility and this we can control like a global version of 'tidy towns' so if people want to move away from oil and gas then people are already well on their way without the dire and dour warnings.
The other thing is to strip the whole thing bare using cause and effect linking the motions of the planet to Earth sciences and temperature fluctuations. It is not as simple and straightforward as it first seems but what it does is move away from speculative predictions and deal with what is in front of and surrounding people every single moment of their lives.
That is not idealistic - that is simply reasonable.0 -
I am actually genuinely curious if there is a point behind all these obtuse denunciations of modern science, because as people could easily guess, I am wide open to hearing things like that. (not the obtuse part, the rest of it)
But each time I read a post, I get a bit of an unfocused migraine. Surely the fellow does not believe that somehow all of us, from Newton to the present day, failed to notice the "analemma" phenomenon that any sundial designer would have to know about, where our tilted planetary orientation to our orbital plane in three dimensions comes into play.
But all this would really do to our "flawed understanding" of diurnal temperature curves would be that we might overlook the second order variation caused by an earlier solar transit in one half of the orbital year and a later one in the other half. It also accounts for differences in the path followed through the sky of the rising and setting sun in spring and autumn.
These no doubt have very subtle effects on diurnal temperature graphs for each season. Without doing more work than I feel like doing at this very moment, I can't off the top of my head say which of the two seasons the sun appears to rise faster and set slower but there's something like that going on (because if you were able to see the earth's tilt in the three dimensions, it's not just nodding away from and then towards the Sun, it's also tilted over on a diagonal and if memory serves, that is towards the autumn side of our orbit as seen from let's say the perspective of a ringside seat next to our n.h. summer position (June 21st). So if we could sit there, yes we would see the north pole tilting away from us as the earth approached, but we would also notice it was over to the right of what we perceived to be the highest point of the sphere.
But we knew that, so if Oriel36 thinks we didn't, here ya go, we did. Problem solved.
(we also see the moon tilted in the sky, if you look at it during a full moon crossing the transit (south direction) what you see is not quite what you might imagine, the north pole of the moon is over towards that little dot of a black crater in the upper right, and the equator of the moon is higher on its left side than on its right side, as we see it, I would say it's less than one twelfth of a rotation but close to "one o'clock and seven o'clock" for the polar positions. In more detail there is also a wobble called libration so that the poles alternately come into our field of view and recede to the back side in various cycles, the effects are rather subtle but what it adds up to is that we can at some point see a little more than half the Moon's surface from the earth, not just 50% but closer to 60%).0 -
M.T. Cranium wrote: »
But each time I read a post, I get a bit of an unfocused migraine. Surely the fellow does not believe that somehow all of us, from Newton to the present day, failed to notice the "analemma" phenomenon that any sundial designer would have to know about, where our tilted planetary orientation to our orbital plane in three dimensions comes into play.
Like 'solar vs sidereal time' , the so-called analemma is fiction for the idiocy of putting the Sun in a wandering 'sine wave' motion to suit Ra/Dec modeling is followed by putting the Sun in a 'figure 8' motion to suit the attempted dismantlement of relationship between variations in the natural noon and the average 24 hour noon cycle via the Equation of Time -
http://community.dur.ac.uk/john.lucey/users/solar_year.gif
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8c/Analemma_fishburn.tif/lossy-page1-1200px-Analemma_fishburn.tif.jpg
The empirical modelers have the Sun process so many motions to suit whatever narrative they want to 'explain' that they can't manage to associate one rotation of the Earth with one 24 hour day/night cycle using a stationary Sun and the noon cycle as a reference. I already know from experience that when faced with the impossible task of trying to reconcile the idiosyncratic versions of the Sun's 'motions' above that silence is your lot but then again, demonstrating how modelers lack discipline in the area where the motions of the planet intersect with Earth sciences distracts from productive research and especially weather and climate research.
https://prairieecosystems.pbworks.com/f/1179343887/crerar%20temperature%20variation.jpg
A meteorologist who can't affirm cause and effect or cannot attribute one complete rotation to one 24 hour day even though he gives daily forecasts with temperature highs and lows in response to each rotation is certainly an unusual creature. You will come across as lacking common sense but then again, the 'rules of reasoning' Newton left for his modeling followers doesn't permit common sense much less the intuitive/perceptive faculties -
http://strangebeautiful.com/other-texts/newton-principia-rules-reasoning.pdf
It should be immediately clear that what the 17th century English academics were doing was trying to organise the celestial arena and motions using a 24 hour clock and the calendar system (clockwork solar system) without the slightest interest as to how timekeeping technically and historically evolved from specific cyclical references supplied by the daily and annual motions of the Earth. Their followers today are doing the same with celestial sphere software and out into 'climate modeling' by conveniently attempting to extend the success of short term weather modeling to planetary climate with the same dreary results.0 -
I added another graph to the "Tormax" file which shows how two parts of the year (Feb-Mar and late Nov-Dec) have seen more recent warming compared to the rest of the year. Scroll down to find that graph below the first one that you might have already seen. There's a discussion below the graph.0
-
It can't be the analemma that is fiction, it must be synchronized time. You're saying that the length of the second, minute, hour or day as defined by physics is somehow invalid. The analemma can easily be demonstrated by time lapse photography of where the solar illumination falls at the same time each day.
Prediction of max and min temperatures will almost always follow the diurnal cycle of the solar day but sometimes air mass considerations overcome that and impose a different schedule. That is more rare in Ireland than in parts of North America where air mass variations are greater. There is a tendency for winter record highs to occur around midnight in Toronto and that general area, and I think it might have something to do with timing line positions. A timing line ... well see another thread for all that.
I still have no clue what you're saying, perhaps you can give an example of an error in my temperature forecasting that you could ascribe to the undiagnosed rotation. Or are you just saying you don't need to look because in your experience all forecasters are routinely making that mistake? In which case, what's the mistake? What reference tables could we consult to know the timing of this rotation? Any less than specific answer, and I'm bowing out of this conversation. (fish or cut bait as we say)0 -
Advertisement
-
M.T. Cranium wrote: »
Prediction of max and min temperatures will almost always follow the diurnal cycle of the solar day but sometimes air mass considerations overcome that and impose a different schedule.
Your RA/Dec modeling along with the ridiculous 'analemma' insists on one more physical rotation of the Earth than there are 24 hour day/night cycles -
" It is a fact not generally known that,owing to the difference between solar and sidereal time,the Earth rotates upon its axis once more often than there are days in the year" NASA /Harvard
This cretinous allegiance to 17th century clockwork modeling was bound to surface in our era where they now 'explain' the seasons using an Earth with a zero degree axial inclination and a 'pivoting' circle of illumination -
https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap170319.html
I have seen this insanity before in another topic and left to its own devices, the proponents never change because they lack the great human attributes of self-discipline and common sense. It is why this meteorologist can agree that the Earth turns once each 24 hour day and a thousand rotations in a thousand days thereby accounting for temperature highs and lows but also choose to believe the Earth has one more physical rotation than 24 hours days in a year to suit clockwork solar system modeling.
There are people who operate like this in other facets of life and sometimes in politics where operators can switch between opposing views to the consternation of the electorate but unfortunately this trait has run through the education system for centuries and all 'climate change' did was expose the excesses of these people. It is a trance-like or hynoptic state which grip these academics and their cheerleaders in the public but make no mistake, it is both dangerous and unhealthy for any productive and creative society.0 -
M.T. Cranium wrote: »It can't be the analemma that is fiction, it must be synchronized time. You're saying that the length of the second, minute, hour or day as defined by physics is somehow invalid. The analemma can easily be demonstrated by time lapse photography of where the solar illumination falls at the same time each day.
The problem most reasonable people should identify immediately is that accurate clocks didn't always exist no more than computers have, however, the English decided to organise and model motions using the 24 hour clock within the calendar framework.
The only framework the original heliocentric astronomers recognised was the Sun's 365 day trek directly through the background stars which they switched for the 365 day orbital motion of the Earth -
http://community.dur.ac.uk/john.lucey/users/sun_ecliptic.gif
All these weird contortions of the Sun in a 'sine wave' and alternatively a 'figure 8' come from the late 17th century as they tried to justify RA/Dec predictions which Newton exploited in an attempt to link astronomical predictions with experimental predictions. This and this alone has destroyed the ability of genuine researchers to manage the links between the motions of the planet and Earth sciences.
Academics, like the meteorologist here, cannot conceive astronomy before the emergence of accurate clocks so the programme which they have been subjected to since their student days doesn't allow them to consider how timekeeping evolved from antiquity. Whether it is an illness they suffer is not my interest nor duty to comment on although Galileo thought it was.0 -
Have to admit, that this conversation between Oriel36 and MT is just a little bit too high-brow for little old me.
Time for a tune I think!
New Moon
0 -
Have to admit, that this conversation between Oriel36 and MT is just a little bit too high-brow for little old me.
Time for a tune I think!
I think everyone here ....even Oriel....can agree that this is woejious .....as Brian Kerr would say
If any Co2 was used in the making of this video, it was a crime against humanity. If none was released, it's still a crime against humanity
Apologies Oneiric if she's one of your faves.0 -
Have to admit, that this conversation between Oriel36 and MT is just a little bit too high-brow for little old me.
Time for a tune I think!
That is so sweet and that's the spirit !.
The opponents and proponents of 'climate change' are different sides of the same 'scientific method' coin yet they find it impossible to say that the Earth turns once each day. Think of them like brexit where the proponents are English Tories and English Labour are the opponents with the meteorologist fence sitting like Jeremy Corbyn. Think yourself as outside the modeling fuss and you will see where you stand like people outside England see a bigger picture.
As for giants, in a bit of self-promotion, Sir Isaac said he was standing on the shoulder of giants but that bluffer wasn't even the 'wren on the eagle' , he and his empirical followers have a parasitic relationship to astronomy and the links between the motions of the planet to Earth sciences.
So do something the meteorologist can't do - look at the sunrise/noon/sunset cycle where the Sun is in view and fill in the gap until the next cycle from sunset to sunrise the next day when the stars are in view. If you can fit in an extra physical rotation of the Earth into the 24 hour cycle across the year then good luck with that . -
https://www.timeanddate.com/sun/ireland/dublin
The academics have been getting away with blue murder for centuries so all 'climate change' was expose them for the perpetual students and followers of Royal Society English
That is one helluva chic in the video by the way and can belt out a positive tune but hard to beat Satchmo -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21LGv8Cf0us
Flood the place with appreciation of the Earth and its cycles.0 -
Advertisement
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Wljx0Cz9-c
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement