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

posidonia wrote: »

Two reasons. 1, I have a life, 2, I thought you "learned how the 'atmosphere' worked long before 'climate science' came into being."?

Have you finished accusing scientists of wanting genocide? And have you also finished calling people who dare to care about humanity and the rest of the life on this planet, gullible and accusing them of not being able to think for themselves? Or not?


Looks like you've moved on and now we're sanctimonious and bla bla. What will your insult of choice be tomorrow?

You claim that I am not smart, I never said I was, but I am still smart enough to know exactly who you are...

Also, we all have lives, but if the question is beyond your remit to answer, then at least be honest and say that it is, though I would have thought you might be able, given all of those science papers you read.

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

I'll give that a watch after a while, but you seem to think that others and I have no understanding of what led to the rise of National Socialism throughout 1920s and 1930s Germany?

No you don't to be fair to the millions of innocent people who died as a result of a celebrated academic principle that extermination was not only a part of the human/subhuman scientific principles but also a caucasian wish. I couldn't give a flying f**k above the rise of the Nazis, I do mind that their ideology didn't spring from the sky or that it went through a process where the Darwin/Wallace notion became prefaced with 'social' as though the 'scientific method' application to evolutionary sciences never happened or that the Nazi were in some way subverting the 19th century doctrine.

So here we are !, people in this thread desperate to avoid that the actual issue is human temperature control over the planet's temperature while arguing at a level over whether planetary temperatures are man-made or natural.

Personally, I think it is a human phenomena but only identifiable by few. The same people who will complain that their opponents look for anomalies don't realise that they themselves operate from the same principles that Von Humboldt noticed -

"This assemblage of imperfect dogmas bequeathed by one age to another-- this physical philosophy, which is composed of popular prejudices,--is not only injurious because it perpetuates error with the obstinacy engendered by the evidence of ill observed facts, but also because it hinders the mind from attaining to higher views of nature. Instead of seeking to discover the mean or medium point, around which oscillate, in apparent independence of forces, all the phenomena of the external world, this system delights in multiplying exceptions to the law, and seeks, amid phenomena and in organic forms, for something beyond the marvel of a regular succession, and an internal and progressive development. Ever inclined to believe that the order of nature is
disturbed, it refuses to recognise in the present any analogy with the past, and guided by its own varying hypotheses, seeks at hazard, either in the interior of the globe or in the regions of space, for the cause of these pretended perturbations. It is the special object of the present work to combat those errors which derive their source from a vicious empiricism and from imperfect inductions." Von Homboldt , Cosmos

That may be too much for you because you can't recognise the symptoms of a dysfunctional community in an almost dystopian society even when in plain sight -

https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/earth/in-depth/

The planet turns once each day hence the temperatures rise and fall in tandem with this rotation yet it is disputed by people who follow a prescribed silly doctrine from 17th century England despite the sprawling history of the 24 hour clock and the Lat/long system. Again, it is a phenomena in which you are on the wrong side.

I'd like to ask you about this comment again Oriel36:

"You may marvel at the mechanical efficiency of the death camps and even draw comfort from awful scientific experiments done on children and twins but then again it is this detached mindset that governs people today who are more interested in their own opinions than the actual conclusion of 'climate change'".

It just seems a little odd and accusatory?

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

You claim that I am not smart, I never said I was, but I am still smart enough to know exactly who you are...


Also, we all have lives, but if the question is beyond your remit to answer, then at least be honest and say that it is, though I would have thought you might be able, given all of those science papers you read.

Again, you "learned how the 'atmosphere' worked long before 'climate science' came into being." but you don't know the answer?


Tell you what, I'll ask you a question, just to see if you'll answer. Do you think the climate of NW Europe has warmed in the last 100 years and if so by, roughly will do, how much?

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

It's common knowledge that Darwin was a 'racialist', so much so that this was a big motivation behind his 'Theory of Evolution'. My point was that even philosophers from that era that we hold dear today shared those same views to various degrees of extent.

You may hold them dear but so also did the national socialists who looked for sanction to exterminate an entire culture and by goodness they found it. The idea of human/subhuman remains an integral part of the 'scientific method' approach to evolution, it may have been buried but it will be always there regardless of how you try to avert your gaze -

"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races. The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla." Darwin


It is why the idea that you and others can control the planet's temperature is really behind all the fuss of 'climate change' rather than whether it is human or not. I haven't seen one person in this thread consider just how dumb the main conclusion is .

posidonia wrote: »

Look at the refs, that was actually written several years ago. Antarctic sea ice extent has been ~10% below normal extent for the last four years...

And you talk of cherrypicking :rolleyes:

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

And you talk of cherrypicking :rolleyes:

He's a time waster.

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

I have already posted a graph that answers that question, from data that I looked up and assessed) It'd be a couple of pages back if you want to look it up.

You are the 'climate science' paper reader here, so humour my stupidity for a moment here and answer the question I put to you, given that you must be a great fount of knowledge on all things climate by now.

Actually, it seems to me Akrasia is the one who reads a lot of scientific papers - and good on him, he's refuting a lot of the nonsense that is posted here.



Me? I just don't think I know better than those who know better than I, you and most people here do. I have no qualifications in meteorology or climatology - nor will you find I have claimed such.



Yes, I know what's coming next... that means I'm stupid (gullible) and I can't think for myself - eh? Oh, hang on that would be you calling me stupid so perhaps you wont do it....

Water John wrote: »

So Oriel you're saying the tilt is altering plus or minus and that's what is varying the climate, that and nothing else?

Hey lad, your modelers don't even recognise axial inclination of the Earth to the orbital plane anymore -

https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap170319.html

For whatever reason, proponents and opponents of 'climate change' fling graphs across at each other but when a modeling monstrosity like that appears, they will fight to explain what is ridiculous manipulation of imaging to suit a conclusion.

Who can compete ! - certainly not those gifted with common sense.

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

So it is beyond your remit to answer then...

You just can't stop it can you...

I have no qualifications in either Meteorology or Climate Science, yet I was able to look as some freely available data and discover some new things? Is my graph and observation of that data therefore flawed because I do not have hold those qualifications?

No, get this, it looks fine to me.

posidonia wrote: »

Don't get too near to the event horizon, you get sucked in

You are such strange people who can get excited about literally nothing.

The theorists conjured up a notion of a 'singularity'.

Infinite density/zero volume describes 'nothing'

Infinite volume/zero density still describes 'nothing'.

Society is being destroyed by 10th rate minds but then again, people who tried to counter the excesses of mathematical modeling are few. These people deal with abstractions which have temporarily destroyed astronomy and have now infected Earth sciences. I would say the best commentary on mathematicians at the heart of the 'scientific method' remains Lewis Carroll -

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20427391-600-alices-adventures-in-algebra-wonderland-solved/

These people don't do common sense but live in a world that bears no relationship to the motions of the Earth in respect to planetary sciences not solar system structure -


"The phrase ‘grin without a cat’ is probably not a bad description of pure mathematics. Although mathematical theorems often can be usefully applied to the structure of the external world, the theorems themselves are abstractions built on assumptions that belong to another realm remote from human passions. Bertrand Russell once put it as, ‘remote from the pitiful facts of nature … an ordered cosmos, where pure thought can dwell as in its natural home, and where one, at least, of our nobler impulses can escape from the dreary exile of the actual world.’"

They becomes offended with common sense and restraint and few can deal with this indiscipline while many play along with the charade.

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

Rustled up a quick graph based on the UK 'CET' series, and although central England centric, would be representative of the general long term trends
over the greater NW Europe region.



The chart shows the running 30 year temperature anomaly trends for both the Summer season (JJA) and Winter season (DJF) anomaly trends since the series began in 1659.

What I found interesting is that when 'eyeballing' these graphs, Winter temps have generally risen faster than those of Summer, and I have to ask, is this really a bad thing? Winters in pre-industrial and industrial period UK & Europe tended to be of a brutish nature and what is worse, frequently occurring, which no doubt contributed to many fatalities. Why on earth would we want to return to a climate like that? Sure, it would be interesting from a modern weather enthusiasts point of view, but on a societal level, it would be dangerously impactful.

https://www.pascalbonenfant.com/18c/geography/weather.html

Another thing I noted from that graph is that while it cannot be argued that temperatures have accelerated vastly over the last 40 years or so in both seasons, is that the current rate seems to be more or less on par with a similar rise, albeit from a far lower base, earlier in the series, so it is worth asking, what caused this same level of acceleration in the CET series back in the early 18th century?

Edit: Data used in graph sourced from UK Met Office and can be found here:
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/ssn_HadCET_mean.txt

They’re interesting graphs but you’re not really discovering anything new, climate scientists are all well aware of these trends
And if you’re only showing one region it cannot be extrapolated out to include the rest of Europe or the rest of the world. Regional climate goes up and down based on oscillating atmospheric and oceanic currents and slow changes in the earths orbital mechanics. What you’re showing is essentially the end of the ‘little ice age’ which started in the 1500s and ended in the late 1800s and primarily manifested as colder winters in Northern Europe and America

What’s different about now is that the climate is changing globally and none of the natural causes of climate change can explain why

https://youtu.be/0n3bX_5d7vA

Water John wrote: »

If it was axial fluctuations as Oriel says, then you're correct, some parts would be warming and others cooling.

You are truly awful people but then again, I know all too well the lack of integrity in these affairs given how the works of the original astronomers were misused and vandalised to suit clockwork solar system modelers.

"The third is the motion in declination. For, the axis of the daily rotation is not parallel to the Grand Orb's axis, but is inclined [to it at an angle that intercepts] a portion of a circumference, in our time about 23 1/2°. Therefore, while the earth's centre always remains in the plane of the ecliptic, that is, in the circumference of a circle of the Grand Orb, the earth's poles rotate, both of them describing small circles about centers [lying on a line that moves] parallel to the Grand Orb's axis. The period of this motion also is a year, but not quite, being nearly equal to the Grand Orb's [revolution]." Copernicus

http://copernicus.torun.pl/en/archives/astronomical/1/?view=transkrypcja&

I also know none of you can either discern why that is mostly correct and why Copernicus was forced to alter the perspective to suit the framework of Ptolemy. What is called the 'Grand Orb' is known as the ecliptic or more plainly the Earth's orbital plane and yes, the North pole turns parallel to the orbital plane each orbit and, by physical association, also perpendicular to the planet's vertical circle of illumination. It is within the framework that the expansion and contraction of surface area where the Sun is either constantly in view and out of sight with the North Pole at its centre thereby Arctic sea ice develops and declines coincident with that expanding and contracting circles. So much for the modern imagination which ignores this principles which is easily affirmed and understood with effort.

I said no such thing as axial fluctuations, however, I always say that if modelers wish to make themselves useful for a change, they can model the annual surface conditions across latitudes on Earth using various inclinations within a spectrum borrowed between Jupiter and Uranus.

http://calgary.rasc.ca/images/planet_inclinations.gif


People with no discipline comment like people with no style, class or reason but such is the human descent into depravity.

Akrasia wrote: »

They’re interesting graphs but you’re not really discovering anything new, climate scientists are all well aware of these trends
And if you’re only showing one region it cannot be extrapolated out to include the rest of Europe or the rest of the world. Regional climate goes up and down based on oscillating atmospheric and oceanic currents and slow changes in the earths orbital mechanics. What you’re showing is essentially the end of the ‘little ice age’ which started in the 1500s and ended in the late 1800s and primarily manifested as colder winters in Northern Europe and America

What’s different about now is that the climate is changing globally and none of the natural causes of climate change can explain why

https://youtu.be/0n3bX_5d7vA

Whilst true, I did say that the CET would be representative of NW Europe and not Europe as a whole. Temperature trends here in Ireland, for example, tend to be closely correlated with those within the CET zone.

It is my understanding, however, that the CET series is the oldest and most reliable temperature series in the world, so how do we know if this was sudden surge in temps was more of a local phenomena than global, given that global trends tend to be reflected at more local level over long-term climatologal periods? The UK & Ireland is only a small region of the earth, but point to anywhere on the globe and that same argument could be given.

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

...given that global trends tend to be reflected at more local level over long-term climatologal periods? The UK & Ireland is only a small region of the earth, but point to anywhere on the globe and that same argument could be given.

Once upon a time Ireland had a maritime climate due to its location in the Atlantic ocean with all the related weather experiences. When you tell me what type of climate Ireland is going to change into then consider yourself a climate expert. Will it turn into a continental climate ?, a polar climate ?. There is no answer because what climate Ireland will turn into is a junk question yet 'climate change' for Ireland would distort its original designation as a maritime climate without indicating how that would change.

I think you like each other's company within a Royal Society umbrella while lacking the necessary wider perspectives to allow humanity to approach environment pollution like a global version of tidy towns.

One thing I love about Ireland as it developed from a new state 100 years ago. It showed our natural love of class and quality that was buried under the oppression of another state . Of course not all have that style which wider society takes with tidy towns or just doing things well and with consideration. It is what distinguishes you and your imagined opponents from just good people of Ireland.

Humans cannot change the planet's climate and that is where it begins and ends