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

Retr0gamer · 24-01-2020 1:29pm

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

'Dodgy documentary'.

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

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

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

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

oriel36 · 24-01-2020 1:32pm

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

M.T. Cranium · 24-01-2020 1:39pm

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

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

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

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

Retr0gamer · 24-01-2020 1:53pm

M.T. Cranium wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mount Vesuvius · 24-01-2020 2:01pm

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

It's all about the money money money.

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

SeaBreezes · 24-01-2020 2:02pm

Retr0gamer wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

He points out:

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

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

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

Published in another non journal no doubt

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

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

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

Your entire post is complete fantasy.

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

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

oriel36 · 24-01-2020 2:02pm

Retr0gamer wrote: »

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

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

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

SeaBreezes · 24-01-2020 2:11pm

Mount Vesuvius wrote: »

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

It's all about the money money money.

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

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

Longing · 24-01-2020 2:20pm

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

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

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

Retr0gamer · 24-01-2020 2:38pm

All trending upwards by at least 1 degree.

posidonia · 24-01-2020 3:26pm

Mount Vesuvius wrote: »

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

It's all about the money money money.

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

I bet it wont be your last word, or seabreezes's (and no thanks from you for my PM, seabreezes?)...

How the heck do you know you're right? You sound so casually, complacently, certain - could it be you who's unthinking? Only seeing what you want to? Think about it...

There are plenty of people who's working lives (after long years of academic excellence and study) have been devoted to studying this planet's atmosphere - yet you know better. How come?

Btw, I've lived long enough to see changes to the world about me. I guess you simply can't (wont) see them, or you're a child, or you live in one of the few places largely untouched by them.

posidonia · 24-01-2020 3:27pm

SeaBreezes wrote: »

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

BFN, you'll be back. Someone has got to defend N&Z

Nabber · 24-01-2020 3:29pm

Retr0gamer wrote: »

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

CO2 can escape from earths atmosphere :eek:
You have some very questionable responses in here Retrogamer.

Nabber · 24-01-2020 3:34pm

posidonia wrote: »

Btw, I've lived long enough to see changes to the world about me. I guess you simply can't (wont) see them, or you're a child, or you live in one of the few places largely untouched by them.

Any data on these places and their changes?
Curious on what first hand knowledge you have and how you assess the changes there in.

It's more likely the impact is direct human changes (farming, deforestation, construction)

posidonia · 24-01-2020 3:38pm

Nabber wrote: »

Any data on these places and their changes?
Curious on what first hand knowledge you have and how you assess the changes there in.

It's more likely the impact is direct human changes (farming, deforestation, construction)

Is this rope again? Seriously, if you're pi**ing about again get lost if not I'll answer.

Retr0gamer · 24-01-2020 3:42pm

Nabber wrote: »

CO2 can escape from earths atmosphere :eek:
You have some very questionable responses in here Retrogamer.

There's always a statistically small amount that can escape into space but for all intents and purposes it's so small you can equate it to near zero. It's even smaller than the amount of oxygen that escapes into space as it's a heavier molecule.

Again for carbon dioxide, the earth's atmosphere is effectively a closed lid. To say otherwise is just out and out wrong.

Nabber · 24-01-2020 4:21pm

Retr0gamer wrote: »

There's always a statistically small amount that can escape into space but for all intents and purposes it's so small you can equate it to near zero. It's even smaller than the amount of oxygen that escapes into space as it's a heavier molecule.

Again for carbon dioxide, the earth's atmosphere is effectively a closed lid. To say otherwise is just out and out wrong.

Agreed that the quantities are minute.

The issue is where to draw the line on statistics. CO2 constitutes .04% of the atmosphere, human emissions accounts for a rise of ~.018%(?)
Statistically speaking, in many other fields this change wouldn't constitute much of anything.

Retr0gamer · 24-01-2020 4:44pm

Nabber wrote: »

Agreed that the quantities are minute.

The issue is where to draw the line on statistics. CO2 constitutes .04% of the atmosphere, human emissions accounts for a rise of ~.018%(?)
Statistically speaking, in many other fields this change wouldn't constitute much of anything.

CO2 in the atmosphere is about .04%
Not sure about the .018 % rise, this would be a 45% increase in atmospheric CO2. I've heard it's more along the lines of a 32% increase in CO2 from man made emission.

32% increase is in no way statistically insignificant. It's a massive increase and statistically significant. And as only a small amount of CO2 is needed to increase greenhouse effects (which increase exponentially with increases in CO2 concentration) it's also statistically significant to the greenhouse effect.

There's a natural level of CO2 in the atmosphere which is balanced by adsorption and desorption effects and when you start pumping CO2 into it you skew it to adsorption events and put that balance off.

Then there's the run away effects where you get melting of the perma frost which has greenhouse gases absorbed in it and heating of the oceans which release greenhouse gases in it. Once these become more significant is when you get the runaway greenhouse effect where our means of removing CO2 from the atmosphere is outpaced by carbon dioxide being released by permafrost melt and being released by the ocean.

Gaoth Laidir · 24-01-2020 4:51pm

Retr0gamer, could you please show a few of the glaring mathematical mistakes in Nikolov's paper please? In detail.

posidonia · 24-01-2020 4:56pm

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Retr0gamer, could you please show a few of the glaring mathematical mistakes in Nikolov's paper please? In detail.

'A few' - how many are there? Are you a mathematician then?

Can you please explain if you think water vapour is a significant greenhouse gas or not? Indeed, do you think there are any significant greenhouse gasses?

Clearly N&Z don't think there are any significant ghgs?

Additionally, I see Willis Eschenbach, Anthony Watts and Dr Roy Spencer think N&Z is duff - are they brainwashed too?

Oneiric 3 · 24-01-2020 5:01pm

posidonia wrote: »

'A few' - how many are there? Are you a mathematician then?

Can you please explain if you think water vapour is a significant greenhouse gas or not? Indeed, do you think there are any significant greenhouse gasses?

Clearly N&Z don't think there are any significant ghgs?

Additionally, I see Willis Eschenbach, Anthony Watts and Dr Roy Spencer think N&Z is duff - are they brainwashed too?

Perhaps you could contradict the data in the graph he posted yesterday which showed that weather events are not 'getting worse'?

Retr0gamer · 24-01-2020 5:11pm

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Retr0gamer, could you please show a few of the glaring mathematical mistakes in Nikolov's paper please? In detail.

First most glaring issue: No error bars.

Well there is one graph with error bars with a note to see table 2 for error values because some are so small as not to be seen. When you check the table you can see the error bars that are present are wrong.

If you send graphs to a real scientific paper with no error bars it won't get published until they are put in. Without error bars it's hard to tell if data is significant or phoney

Second: Dimensional analysis to measure GMAT. They pick 7 dimensions for this with no explanation. These values seem to be cherry picked and could lead to bias in results. Also dimensional analysis was never meant to be used for these calculations.

RATE values used to calculate temperatures with out atmospheric contributions. It's never been used before and for good reason, it shouldn't be used to compare with measured temperatures as it will give biased results.

Also calculating temperatures on atmospheric planets by assuming they have no atmosphere... something wrong there as they do have an atmosphere.

Then they leave Titan out of their regression because it's totally out of line with their model. Lets ignore it, it doesn't fit our preconceived story isn't maths or science.

There's so much more there but reading it and going over it annoys me and I doubt most people would understand it anyway if you don't have a science background.

Gaoth Laidir · 24-01-2020 5:17pm

posidonia wrote: »

'A few' - how many are there? Are you a mathematician then?

Well Retr0gamer says "it's ALL wrong", so he should be able to take his pick of mistakes to illustrate his point. My qualification is none of your business, but if you need to know, it's physics and chemistry, so yes, maths-heavy.

Retr0gamer wrote:

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

Can you please explain if you think water vapour is a significant greenhouse gas or not? Indeed, do you think there are any significant greenhouse gasses?

Clearly N&Z don't think there are any significant ghgs?

Additionally, I see Willis Eschenbach, Anthony Watts and Dr Roy Spencer think N&Z is duff - are they brainwashed too?

All molecules with 3 or more atoms are greenhouse molecules, so yes, that includes CO2. The contribution of its atmospheric concentration to the overall warming of the atmosphere is the question that is in no way sure, as freely admitted by the IPCC themselves. Observational evidence (such as it is) would suggest that the sensitivity is on the lower end of the scale, closer to the 1.5-degree figure or even lower.

Gaoth Laidir · 24-01-2020 5:22pm

Retr0gamer wrote: »

First most glaring issue: No error bars.

Well there is one graph with error bars with a note to see table 2 for error values because some are so small as not to be seen. When you check the table you can see the error bars that are present are wrong.

If you send graphs to a real scientific paper with no error bars it won't get published until they are put in. Without error bars it's hard to tell if data is significant or phoney

Second: Dimensional analysis to measure GMAT. They pick 7 dimensions for this with no explanation. These values seem to be cherry picked and could lead to bias in results. Also dimensional analysis was never meant to be used for these calculations.

RATE values used to calculate temperatures with out atmospheric contributions. It's never been used before and for good reason, it shouldn't be used to compare with measured temperatures as it will give biased results.

Also calculating temperatures on atmospheric planets by assuming they have no atmosphere... something wrong there as they do have an atmosphere.

Then they leave Titan out of their regression because it's totally out of line with their model. Lets ignore it, it doesn't fit our preconceived story isn't maths or science.

There's so much more there but reading it and going over it annoys me and I doubt most people would understand it anyway if you don't have a science background.

No no, I said the maths in detail.What you've given is just a cursory glance, looking for something quick to bat away the question. Waffle, in other words.

Retr0gamer · 24-01-2020 5:29pm

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

No no, I said the maths in detail.What you've given is just a cursory glance, looking for something quick to bat away the question. Waffle, in other words.

I just told you why the maths is wrong. It's not a schoolboy 2+2 = 5 error. Their use of comparisons with incompatible data is the biggest issue I have amongst many. It's like comparing metres with degrees Celsius, except in this case the used the wrong formulas to calculate both.

The exclusion of error bars is the biggest red flag because I know of no scientific publication that would accept any data without them.

Anyway I gave some of my observations. I can't be responsible if you can't understand them but also you can't rubbish them either if they are beyond your level of comprehension.

oriel36 · 24-01-2020 5:42pm

I have seen all this before historically and it is remarkable how disruptive notions survive regardless of what is brought before these academics hence a disruptive subculture as the root cause of this dour period in human history.

Large scale empirical disasters are infrequent but devastating whereas the smaller ones come and go. When mathematicians try to play astronomers it becomes an assault on the eyes and especially as the motions of the planet govern many Earth sciences by their dynamical traits so while many here process graph warfare of mathematical modelers on both sides, planetary motions are altogether ignored as there has been no real astronomical presence in Earth sciences for centuries.

Only one person in the entire history of humanity asserted the moon also spins as it makes a monthly circuit of the Earth yet because it was Newton, people tied themselves in knots arguing over the silly assertion yet when the dust settled, people still believe the moon spins or the spinning mooners -

https://books.google.ie/books?id=HgcFAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA136#v=onepage&q&f=false

The same happened in this era and this thread, the proponents and opponents are looking for advantage without the slightest sense that the conclusion is the impossible notion of human control over planetary temperatures.

It doesn't matter that humans landed on the moon and an astronaut, if he so chooses, can hop into his vehicle and drive around to the far side of the moon which we cannot see. This is what theorists do, the hapless observer is so mesmerized by counter-productive notions that they are unable to find their way back to a reasonable foundation for discussion whether it is 'climate change' or the weird notion of a spinning moon.

posidonia · 24-01-2020 5:44pm

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

All molecules with 3 or more atoms are greenhouse molecules, so yes, that includes CO2. The contribution of its atmospheric concentration to the overall warming of the atmosphere is the question that is in no way sure, as freely admitted by the IPCC themselves. Observational evidence (such as it is) would suggest that the sensitivity is on the lower end of the scale, closer to the 1.5-degree figure or even lower.

But N&Z say there is no greenhouse effect...they certainly don't think there will be 1.5C warming for CO2 doubling - which is what you seem to be saying.

So you both do and don't agree with N&Z?

aidanodr · 24-01-2020 5:53pm

Coronavirus could turn to global pandemic as freak solar minimum means outbreak ‘imminent'

Oneiric 3 · 24-01-2020 6:30pm

aidanodr wrote: »

Coronavirus could turn to global pandemic as freak solar minimum means outbreak ‘imminent'

Could be a boon for 'scientists'.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-11-05/scientists-call-for-population-control-in-mass-climate-alarm

"The scientists make specific calls for policymakers to quickly implement systemic change to energy, food, and economic policies. But they go one step further, into the politically fraught territory of population control. It “must be stabilized—and, ideally, gradually reduced—within a framework that ensures social integrity,” they write."

The revolution can't come soon enough.

Retr0gamer · 24-01-2020 6:35pm

It's just the usual babbling drivel from the express and bloomberg, two right wing publications with dubious claims to journalism. Last I heard from actual scientists is that over population is no where near a problem if waste can be controlled.

Oneiric 3 · 24-01-2020 6:37pm

Retr0gamer wrote: »

It's just the usual babbling drivel from the express and bloomberg, two right wing publications with dubious claims to journalism. Last I heard from actual scientists is that over population is no where near a problem if waste can be controlled.

Are you saying that they did not say this? And what has 'right-wing' got to do with it, unless you letting your own political bias muddle your thought process a little?

https://www.populationconnection.org/climate-emergency-bioscience/

I'm surprised they didn't go as far as to call for 'extermination'.

Akrasia · 24-01-2020 7:32pm

aidanodr wrote: »

Coronavirus could turn to global pandemic as freak solar minimum means outbreak ‘imminent'

First of all, this has absolutely nothing to do with climate change
Secondly, this is an Express article
Thirdly, the guy they're talking about is Chandra Wickramasinghe who is undoubtedly a smart guy but he is way out on the fringe when he claims without any evidence at all that pandemics are viruses from space

But then, I suppose one lone scientist shouting from the wilderness with a theory that has practically zero supporting evidence and is contradicted by the vast preponderance of evidence would mean that this guy is actually more likely to be correct according to the logic of climate change deniers

Kingswood Rover · 24-01-2020 9:04pm

Its similar to a strain of flu ffs big deal, we love catastrophizing everything.

posidonia · 24-01-2020 9:52pm

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

Are you saying that they did not say this? And what has 'right-wing' got to do with it, unless you letting your own political bias muddle your thought process a little?

https://www.populationconnection.org/climate-emergency-bioscience/

I'm surprised they didn't go as far as to call for 'extermination'.

I'm not surprised you're prepared to go as far as to say such a horrible and scurrilous thing. A particularly nasty, loaded language, sentence.

Shameful.

oriel36 · 24-01-2020 11:08pm

I have mentioned Thomas Malthus often enough in relation to the empire building notion of Darwin/Wallace in terms of population control and from there to the holocaust or indeed the Irish famine where English policy was enacted by Charles Trevelyan as a student of Malthus among others -

"Till at length the whole territory, from the confines of China to the
shores of the Baltic, was peopled by a various race of Barbarians,
brave, robust, and enterprising, inured to hardship, and delighting in
war. Some tribes maintained their independence. Others ranged
themselves under the standard of some barbaric chieftain who led them
to victory after victory, and what was of more importance, to regions
abounding in corn, wine, and oil, the long wished for consummation,
and great reward of their labours. An Alaric, an Attila, or a Zingis
Khan, and the chiefs around them, might fight for glory, for the fame
of extensive conquests, but the true cause that set in motion the
great tide of northern emigration, and that continued to propel it
till it rolled at different periods against China, Persia, italy, and
even Egypt, was a scarcity of food, a population extended beyond the
means of supporting it." Thomas Malthus

This was re-formatted by Darwin/Wallace into an evolutionary narrative based on aggression which was picked up by the national socialists in 1930's Germany.

"Without consideration of "traditions" and prejudices, Germany must find the courage to gather
our people and their strength for an advance along the road that will lead this people from its
present restricted living space to new land and soil, and hence also free it from the danger of
vanishing from the earth or of serving others as a slave nation."
— Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf

In between Malthus and Darwin was the English response to the Irish famine as both an academic policy and political policy. It was more an exploitation issue wrapped up in detached empirical thinking and so , with population control raising its ugly head again on this island, people should become familiar with how academic policy influences political policies to the devastation of society when otherwise people would act with responsibility and accountability.

The word 'denier' is thrown around but it really is unfamiliarity among those reasonable people who can figure things out themselves rather than rely on a weak opposition using the same experimental and data strategies as the proponents. They can be forgiven for believing that academics act with integrity in much the same way people believed proffessionals in charge of financial institutions acted with integrity 10 years ago but that is naive. People probably refuse to believe that humans can act in an evil way within academic circles but history has demonstrated otherwise and it is being repeated today.

In following the 'scientific method' trail there is always worse but that goes nowhere without a positive approach to climate research.

Oneiric 3 · 25-01-2020 12:22am

posidonia wrote: »

I'm not surprised you're prepared to go as far as to say such a horrible and scurrilous thing. A particularly nasty, loaded language, sentence.

Shameful.

They really have you, don't they..

Gaoth Laidir · 25-01-2020 1:11am

posidonia wrote: »

But N&Z say there is no greenhouse effect...they certainly don't think there will be 1.5C warming for CO2 doubling - which is what you seem to be saying.

So you both do and don't agree with N&Z?

The whole premise of the agw argument is that a doubling of CO2 will be directly responsible for anwhere from +1.0 to +6.0 °C of warming (IPCC AR5). They admit they don't have a clue what the actual figure is, though.

No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies.

Meaning there are some studies out (e.g. Bates 2016) that has it down around 1.0, but of course we don't like to talk about him on this forum...

The way some of you are going on you'd think that it's all "virtually certain" with everything IPCC, but it's really not. It brings us back to that one UAH versus Mears TLT dataset again. Which is right? Low confidence. Settled science is not low confidence.

It is virtually certain that globally the troposphere has warmed since the mid-20th century. More complete observations
allow greater confidence in estimates of tropospheric temperature changes in the extratropical Northern Hemisphere
than elsewhere. There is medium confidence in the rate of warming and its vertical structure in the Northern Hemisphere
extra-tropical troposphere and low confidence elsewhere. {2.4}

posidonia · 25-01-2020 8:53am

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

They really have you, don't they..

You scurrilously imply many scientists want genocide - and I'm under their control for pointing that out?

Nurse, it's worse than we thought...

posidonia · 25-01-2020 8:59am

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

The whole premise of the agw argument is that a doubling of CO2 will be directly responsible for anwhere from +1.0 to +6.0 °C of warming (IPCC AR5). They admit they don't have a clue what the actual figure is, though.

There is a new coronavirus spreading among people. it will kills a number of people but we don't have a clue what the actual figure will be, the best estimate atm would be, I understand, 'hopefully not many'.

Therefore, you would say, it isn't happening???? Or what would you say?

Wrt AGW I think we've seen warming, .5-1C so far. For me that adds weight to projections that 2-4C warming by 2100 being highly likely. Am I certain about that? No, and you wont find me expressing certainty. Otoh, am I complacent and thus listen to crackpots? Absolutely not.

oriel36 · 25-01-2020 9:20am

posidonia wrote: »

There is a new coronavirus spreading among people. it will kills a number of people but we don't have a clue what the actual figure will be, the best estimate atm would be, I understand, 'hopefully not many'.

Therefore, you would say, it isn't happening???? Or what would you say?

Wrt AGW I think we've seen warming, .5-1C so far. For me that adds weight to projections that 2-4C warming by 2100 being highly likely. Am I certain about that? No, and you wont find me expressing certainty. Otoh, am I complacent and thus listen to crackpots? Absolutely not.

The emergence of a dangerous virus killing its human hosts has often been equated with humanity as a virus killing the planetary host but such notions are infantile but then again so is 'climate change' as an experimental vehicle.

People are being more reasonable and responsible with atmospheric, land and oceanic pollution or are, at least, taking steps in a global version of 'tidy towns' with no reason why it won't continue to everyone's benefit.

This moaning and groaning about humans as a virus and the need to identify cows as a public enemy or population control (to kill the virus ) comes from a certain section of society which are presently and unfortunately dominant but their pessimism has always existed in one form or other throughout history.

Gaoth Laidir · 25-01-2020 9:29am

posidonia wrote: »

There is a new coronavirus spreading among people. it will kills a number of people but we don't have a clue what the actual figure will be, the best estimate atm would be, I understand, 'hopefully not many'.

Therefore, you would say, it isn't happening???? Or what would you say?

Wrt AGW I think we've seen warming, .5-1C so far. For me that adds weight to projections that 2-4C warming by 2100 being highly likely. Am I certain about that? No, and you wont find me expressing certainty. Otoh, am I complacent and thus listen to crackpots? Absolutely not.

Apples and oranges. Coronavirus research versus the trillion-dollar climate research. Which do you think should have the higher knowledge pool and hence confidence?

Historical records have shown that temperature precedes CO2. This is not disputed by anyone. A natural increase in temperature 200 years ago has led to the natural outgassing of CO2 since, topped up by anthropogenic emissions, and is now around 46% higher than the "stable" figure of 280 ppm of back then. CO2 would have been rising anyway even if we never drilled for oil. The Keeling Curve only starts in 1958 and people seem to think that this is 100% anthropogenic CO2, but it's mainly natural. So, the questions distills down to how much does that non-natural bit of it contribute to the total amount of warming, given that a century of natural warming has shifted the baseline and already accounts for x% of that degree or so.

Akrasia · 25-01-2020 11:44am

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

The whole premise of the agw argument is that a doubling of CO2 will be directly responsible for anwhere from +1.0 to +6.0 °C of warming (IPCC AR5). They admit they don't have a clue what the actual figure is, though.

There are ranges of uncertainty and the extremes are the least likely to be the real climate sensitivity. The most likely figure for ECS is closer to 3c and given that the last decade has seen global average temperatures already exceeded 1c above preindustrial levels according to most of the temperature reconstructions, you need to rely on some unproven negative feedback to kick in and reverse the warming effects of C02

Meaning there are some studies out (e.g. Bates 2016) that has it down around 1.0, but of course we don't like to talk about him on this forum...

The way some of you are going on you'd think that it's all "virtually certain" with everything IPCC, but it's really not. It brings us back to that one UAH versus Mears TLT dataset again. Which is right? Low confidence. Settled science is not low confidence.

You have no scientific justification for believing that Ray Bates climate sensitivity figure is the correct one. On what basis do you think he is right over the CMIP6 climate models that show substantially greater ECS especially considering that Bates figure of 1c has already been reached and we are nowhere near EQuilibrium for the current CO2 concentration never mind the additional CO2 needed to double preindustrial levels

Akrasia · 25-01-2020 11:58am

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Apples and oranges. Coronavirus research versus the trillion-dollar climate research. Which do you think should have the higher knowledge pool and hence confidence?

Trillion dollar climate research???
Where did you get this figure from?

Historical records have shown that temperature precedes CO2. This is not disputed by anyone. A natural increase in temperature 200 years ago has led to the natural outgassing of CO2 since, topped up by anthropogenic emissions, and is now around 46% higher than the "stable" figure of 280 ppm of back then. CO2 would have been rising anyway even if we never drilled for oil. The Keeling Curve only starts in 1958 and people seem to think that this is 100% anthropogenic CO2, but it's mainly natural. So, the questions distills down to how much does that non-natural bit of it contribute to the total amount of warming, given that a century of natural warming has shifted the baseline and already accounts for x% of that degree or so.

Do you have a paper from a reputable source to back up your claim that human emissions are not the main cause of the increase in CO2 in our atmosphere?
Because all the research I have seen is that nature is actually absorbing about half of the addition CO2 emitted by humans in carbon sinks

Akrasia · 25-01-2020 12:04pm

SeaBreezes wrote: »

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

Never answered my question about Ronan Connollys weather balloons. Not an ounce of integrity. Comes in here posting nonsense and then when the sources are shown to be untrustworthy he just pretends it never happened and doesn’t even acknowledge that he was wrong to believe a fraudster. You can be sure he’ll post about the Connollys again some time in the future when he thinks he will get away with it.

Akrasia · 25-01-2020 12:08pm

Longing wrote: »

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

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

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

The very first line talks about how the data was adjusted for time of day and exposure. Where are all the fake outrage calls that they should only ever use raw unadjusted data?

This paper is dancing on the grave of those dead scientists for not using their raw unadjusted data....

Gaoth Laidir · 25-01-2020 1:12pm

Akrasia wrote: »

There are ranges of uncertainty and the extremes are the least likely to be the real climate sensitivity. The most likely figure for ECS is closer to 3c and given that the last decade has seen global average temperatures already exceeded 1c above preindustrial levels according to most of the temperature reconstructions, you need to rely on some unproven negative feedback to kick in and reverse the warming effects of C02

You have no scientific justification for believing that Ray Bates climate sensitivity figure is the correct one. On what basis do you think he is right over the CMIP6 climate models that show substantially greater ECS especially considering that Bates figure of 1c has already been reached and we are nowhere near EQuilibrium for the current CO2 concentration never mind the additional CO2 needed to double preindustrial levels

Natural warming already set the ball in motion, shifting the baseline upwards, so your 1 degree already includes this in it. CO2 naturally lags temperature, so the anthro part is a bit added onto the end of that.

Gaoth Laidir · 25-01-2020 1:16pm

Akrasia wrote: »

Trillion dollar climate research???
Where did you get this figure from?

Sorry, I meant billions for researh. Trillions is the figure being spoken about for mitigation.

Do you have a paper from a reputable source to back up your claim that human emissions are not the main cause of the increase in CO2 in our atmosphere?
Because all the research I have seen is that nature is actually absorbing about half of the addition CO2 emitted by humans in carbon sinks

That's good then. Nature is releasing CO2, which is being partially offset by reabsorption. The equilibrium shifts upwards, with the anthro bit adding x%.

Do you accept that natural warming that started back after the Little Ice Age released CO2? If you don't then there's your problem.

Gaoth Laidir · 25-01-2020 1:22pm

Akrasia wrote: »

The very first line talks about how the data was adjusted for time of day and exposure. Where are all the fake outrage calls that they should only ever use raw unadjusted data?

This paper is dancing on the grave of those dead scientists for not using their raw unadjusted data....

With a short gap in the Armagh data from 1825 to 1833 filled by data from two stations in Dublin

Because Armagh is "only an hour from Dublin". :pac:

If 8 years' data are missing then they're missing. This filling in from other stations business is for the birds. Who knows where thos 1930s figures for Knock Airport came from...

But we shouldn't ask questions about this. The guys in NASA know Mayo like the back of their hands...

Nabber · 25-01-2020 1:43pm

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Because Armagh is "only an hour from Dublin". :pac:

If 8 years' data are missing then they're missing. This filling in from other stations business is for the birds. Who knows where thos 1930s figures for Knock Airport came from...

But we shouldn't ask questions about this. The guys in NASA know Mayo like the back of their hands...

What’s 150 kilometres amongst friends?

posidonia · 25-01-2020 1:49pm

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Natural warming already set the ball in motion, shifting the baseline upwards, so your 1 degree already includes this in it. CO2 naturally lags temperature, so the anthro part is a bit added onto the end of that.

That is nonsense.

You simply need to work out how much CO2 the burning of fossil fuels will have produced to see its is vastly more than there is in the atmosphere - the difference is sequestration. The increase of CO2 from ~280 ppm to ~410ppm is (that's IS) humanities doing. Period.

However, if you seek to further quibble, you probably also know that fossil fuel derived CO2 has a different isotopic signature - further proof the increase is our doing.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/how-do-we-know-that-recent-cosub2sub-increases-are-due-to-human-activities-updated/

There are many things you can quibble about wrt the human influence on climate, the rise in atmosphere CO2 conc isn't one of them...

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

Comments