Thread Closed  
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
21-12-2019, 00:33   #76
Birdnuts
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,763
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coles View Post
So there's the choice:

Reduce the population by 5 billion people (how? who?), or...
Change our culture so that people no longer aspire to live unsustainable lifestyles (this is happening slowly).
Yes - I can see that going down well with folks living on a dollar a day " you life is sh*t but at least your Carbon footprint is modest" How about us in the West actually do something usefull for third world countries and help them with family planning, female education and natural resource protection.??
Birdnuts is offline  
(2) thanks from:
Advertisement
21-12-2019, 00:42   #77
Coles
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 998
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuisceanch View Post
Yes I have to agree. That is what I understood too so I'm finding assertions to the contrary troubling.
Very often "climate change skeptics" will select temperature data that commences in 1998 because that year was an extreme El Nino event with very high global temperatures. By selecting data with 1998 as a start point it is possible to create a chart that appears to show a "pause" or "global warming hiatus". Google "global warming hiatus" and you'll see what I mean. It is completely discredited.

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

Really this isn't skepticism. It's outright deliberate denial.
Coles is offline  
(2) thanks from:
21-12-2019, 00:47   #78
Coles
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 998
Here are two charts that illustrate it clearly.
Attached Images
File Type: png Sea ice September volume.png (10.5 KB, 92 views)
File Type: png Sea ice September volume 2010-19.png (8.1 KB, 77 views)
Coles is offline  
Thanks from:
21-12-2019, 00:59   #79
Coles
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 998
Quote:
Originally Posted by Birdnuts View Post
Yes - I can see that going down well with folks living on a dollar a day " you life is sh*t but at least your Carbon footprint is modest" How about us in the West actually do something usefull for third world countries and help them with family planning, female education and natural resource protection.??
Absolutely. And stop exporting unobtainable aspirations.

We don't have time to turn around the population trend.
Coles is offline  
21-12-2019, 04:09   #80
M.T. Cranium
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 11,931
Well, I was out for the day here (eight times away as Oneiric points out) and was surprised to find this much chat already posted. Two questions arose that I think I could answer now.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As to cults of personality, that isn't going to happen because of my particular personality. I have ways of short circuiting that kind of outcome, trust me.
M.T. Cranium is offline  
Advertisement
21-12-2019, 08:55   #81
Gaoth Laidir
Registered User
 
Gaoth Laidir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 6,732
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coles View Post
The Arctic sea ice volume has decreased by 75% since the 1980's. It is melting rapidly.

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

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

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

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

I didn't make the Greenland charts. They're taken from the official 2018 NSIDC report. They show a recent levelling off in the rate of melting, a fact that doesn't ever get mentioned. If you have some data to show differently by all means share it.
Gaoth Laidir is offline  
(4) thanks from:
21-12-2019, 09:07   #82
SeaBreezes
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 1,457
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuisceanch View Post
Well it was an assumption but apparently not baseless as he is quoted as stating:





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

So there does seem some correlation between the two viewpoints. It also is in line with my query regarding the dissidents mentioned in the OP. Anyway I'm hoping that this thread will throw some more light on the subject.
I had time to go through the comments on the article you sent me about SIM and it's really funny.

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

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

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

Her English is very clear to me, I love it when she loses patience with the repeated harassment.
SeaBreezes is offline  
(2) thanks from:
21-12-2019, 09:53   #83
Tuisceanch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 732
Quote:
Originally Posted by SeaBreezes View Post
I had time to go through the comments on the article you sent me about SIM and it's really funny.

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

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

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

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

Did you feel that she adequately answered the question

Quote:
Do you claim that the position of the Sun with respect to the solar system barycentre results in a commensurate change in the Sun-Earth distance?
For instance

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

“The close links between oscillations of solar baseline magnetic field, solar irradiance and temperature are established in our paper without any involvement of solar inertial motion,” Zharkova told New Scientist.
Are you aware of how the link between oscillations of solar baseline magnetic field, solar irradiance and temperature was established? and is she then saying that the position of the Sun with respect to the solar system barycentre does not result in a commensurate change in the Sun-Earth distance and is in fact irrelevant?

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



Her paper actually states that:

Quote:
These oscillations of the baseline solar magnetic field are found associated with a long-term solar inertial motion about the barycenter of the solar system and closely linked to an increase of solar irradiance and terrestrial temperature in the past two centuries.
It goes on to say

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

Quote:
Such large changes would have presented problems for Keplerian models of the Solar System, since Kepler's laws have the Sun at one of the focii of the Earth's elliptical orbit. While Kepler's laws are only an approximation, large changes in the Earth-Sun distance at perihelion (i.e. 0.01-0.02 au) over the past few centuries would produce large errors in the Keplerian predictions that are not observed
In conclusion the paper states:

Quote:
The oscillations of the baseline of solar magnetic field are likely to be caused by the solar inertial motion about the barycentre of the solar system caused by large planets. This, in turn, is closely linked to an increase of solar irradiance caused by the positions of the Sun either closer to aphelion and autumn equinox or perihelion and spring equinox. Therefore, the oscillations of the baseline define the global trend of solar magnetic field and solar irradiance over a period of about 2100 years. In the current millennium since Maunder minimum we have the increase of the baseline magnetic field and solar irradiance for another 580 years. This increase leads to the terrestrial temperature increase as noted by Akasofu26 during the past two hundred years. Based on the growth
rate of 0.5 C per 100 years26 for the terrestrial temperature since Maunder minimum, one can anticipate that the increase of the solar baseline magnetic field expected to occure up to 2600 because of SIM will lead, in turn, to the increase of the terrestrial baseline temperature since MM by 1.3 °C (in 2100) and, at least, by 2.5–3.0 °C (in 2600).
In the chat I posted and you referred to in reply she was asked
Quote:
Yes, these calculations show that the Sun moves around the Solar System barycentre. They do not show that this motion changes the average distance from the Sun to the Earth. You continue to claim that it does, but you have not presented any evidence to support this assertion. Your own sources don't support your claim. This is very basic Celestial/orbital dynamics. Your claim would overthrow centuries of basic physics/astrophysics. Can you at least acknowledge that your suggestion is at odds with the basics of orbital dynamics?
To which she replied
Quote:
You suggest that the Earth like a pet wonder around the space of the solar system instead of moving orderly on the same orbit?
The orbit of the Earth is well protocolled, I assume, and can be tested with the view from outside system. Milankovich spoke about the precession detected this way. If the Earth wondering following the Sun in its SIM it would be detected ages ago. It did not.
You desperate attempt is failed I am afraid.
So here she does seem to suggest that the supports the claim that the position of the Sun with respect to the solar system barycentre results in a commensurate change in the Sun-Earth distance.

The following suggestion was then put to her

Quote:
What I suggest to include this source of terrestrial temperature heating and see what your models will show. Can you do it?
to which she replied

Quote:
You did not do it correctly, because you use the assumption that the Earth follows the Sun in its SIM. This is impossible otherwise we would have very funny seasons. The more you do incorrect simulations the more it looks desperate.
I appreciate this might not be your field of expertise so it would be appreciated if scientists on the forum might help in elucidating her findings.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg SIM.JPG (32.4 KB, 476 views)

Last edited by Tuisceanch; 21-12-2019 at 12:47.
Tuisceanch is offline  
(2) thanks from:
21-12-2019, 09:56   #84
lawred2
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 19,403
What underpins this 25% chance of a natural cooling? And in what timeframe?
lawred2 is offline  
Thanks from:
Advertisement
21-12-2019, 10:27   #85
Danno
Moderator
 
Danno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,483
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coles View Post
Globalists! Communists! Grrrr!

We need to restructure our economies so that our way of life is sustainable and no longer dependent on resource extraction for economic growth.
What economic system to you suggest gets imposed?

Please expand on this.
Danno is offline  
Thanks from:
21-12-2019, 11:19   #86
Oneiric 3
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 5,046
Quote:
Originally Posted by Danno View Post
What economic system to you suggest gets imposed?

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



Oh, wait...
Oneiric 3 is offline  
(3) thanks from:
21-12-2019, 11:38   #87
thecomedian
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,506
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coles View Post
It's a start, but it doesn't qualify you to propose a serious alternative to the IPCC.

As MT gave us his qualifications and experience (which to me were very impressive) would you mind sharing your qualifications in the area.
thecomedian is offline  
(3) thanks from:
21-12-2019, 11:39   #88
Oneiric 3
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 5,046
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coles View Post

We don't have time to turn around the population trend.
Fret not! Only a matter of time now until the UK/US & Germany/EU go to war once again which should help this 'over-population' problem a little. I'm sure, when we are all in the trenches, watching our fallen buddies being eaten by rats, that we can console ourselves that this is all for the greater good of the climate.
Oneiric 3 is offline  
Thanks from:
21-12-2019, 12:47   #89
SeaBreezes
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 1,457
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuisceanch View Post
OK but this is a science forum and since you cited her as someone supporting a position that deviates from the IPCC consensus you must necessarily have reasons based on the underlying physics for you to have become skeptical of the numerous scientific reports which support the view of AGW. How,for instance,were you convinced that she 'nailed them on the science'. That is an extremely vague comment so could you be more specific.

Did you feel that she adequately answered the question



For instance





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

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



Her paper actually states that:



It goes on to say





In conclusion the paper states:



I appreciate this might not be your field of expertise so it would be appreciated if scientists on the forum might help in elucidating her findings.
Well Tuisesch, I'm well impressed. It took me months to examine this and figure it out with no scientific background, and you seem to be an authority in less than 12 hours. Impressive!

What is your background in it did you say?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why have the Greenland glaciers grown last year?

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

Why did Russia have its coldest summer ever last summer?

Looking forward to your science. Isn't learning fun :-)
SeaBreezes is offline  
Thanks from:
21-12-2019, 13:46   #90
Coles
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 998
"If climate change is real why did we have a wet November?"
Coles is offline  
(2) thanks from:
Thread Closed

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search