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

Akrasia · 27-01-2020 12:16am

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Well that's the CET, but MT has also shown close similarities to the Toronto dataset in the first few posts of this thread (remember back that far?). Similar timing of the early-period warmings, unexplanable by GHG. Coincidence?
Also unexplanable by GHG is the rise in global sea level occuring at the same time. It continues today (at a faster rate, as to be expected) yet the great unwashed remain oblivious to the early rises, relying mostly on the media for their information. As you said, natural warming rising out of the LIA, setting the foundation for further warming down the road.

Did you watch that video in my post? It explains pretty well the differences between that past natural variability and current climate change

Gaoth Laidir · 27-01-2020 12:21am

Akrasia wrote: »

The RSS results were adjusted because of orbital decay giving incorrect results at mid latitudes

The weather balloons records were inaccurate because earlier sensors were not properly shielded from the sun so they reported hotter temperatures during the day (night time recordings were not affected). Scientists have known about this for 15 years, the Connollys ignore this because it doesn’t suit their narrative

Akrasia wrote: »

Yes they do

Except in the stratosphere where they show cooling, which is exactly what is to be expected by the greenhouse effect reducing the earths ability to radiate heat to space

This slipped through the net a while back. Given that you put so much stock in the now-corrected RSS satellite figures, it's interesting that there has been practically no lower-stratospheric cooling over the past 25 years (since Jan 1995), according to the latest v4.0 (well, a trend of -0.029 K / decade is I suppose numerically negative, but I don't think anyone is going to argue that this is anywhere in the realms of what we should be seeing with the ghg theory). Only 0.3 degrees per century. Twenty five years is a significant period (in defence of the inevitable accusation of cherrypicking).

http://images.remss.com/msu/msu_time_series.html

My chart

Gaoth Laidir · 27-01-2020 12:32am

Akrasia wrote: »

Did you watch that video in my post? It explains pretty well the differences between that past natural variability and current climate change

Does it? I didn't see any mention of sea levels at all. A bit of curve-fitting in the later part of the 20th century, ignoring the poor fit in the earlier part.

Oneiric 3 · 27-01-2020 12:53am

I just watched that vid which Arkrasia shared and unsurprisingly, it shows a similar sharp jump in global temps after the 'little ice age' to what was shown in the CET series. Never once, however, is this jump explained by the presenter.

Gaoth Laidir · 27-01-2020 1:04am

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

I just watched that vid which Arkrasia shared and unsurprisingly, it shows a similar sharp jump in global temps after the 'little ice age' to what was shown in the CET series. Never once, however, is this jump explained by the presenter.

'course not.

Danno · 27-01-2020 1:11am

https://news.utexas.edu/2020/01/22/deep-diving-scientists-discover-bubbling-co2-hotspot/

Soda Springs, The Philippines. A staggering 95,000 PPM concentration of CO2 naturally and freely entering the atmosphere. Tax that.

Wonder how many more of these exist around the world?

posidonia · 27-01-2020 8:17am

Danno wrote: »

https://news.utexas.edu/2020/01/22/deep-diving-scientists-discover-bubbling-co2-hotspot/

Soda Springs, The Philippines. A staggering 95,000 PPM concentration of CO2 naturally and freely entering the atmosphere. Tax that.

Wonder how many more of these exist around the world?

If you're proposing that nature is responsible fully for Climate Change (though you might just be making a political point) your evidence has got to be 100%.

Otherwise it's not science.

M.T. Cranium · 27-01-2020 8:31am

A seasonal effect is generally understood from our axial tilt of 23.4 deg with an observed lag of mean temperature amounting to 3-6 weeks depending on how continental or maritime the climate is (even longer lags in air temperatures over large bodies of water, 12 weeks would be the maximum).

So since this is widely known, I would challenge Oriel to state without resorting to mere insults or obscure language what it is that the atmospheric scientists have overlooked about axial tilt.

If there is no clear answer to this, I would suggest no further contact with our forum because I am getting tired of this clearly trolling behaviour. It is detracting from the actual subject matter here and getting at times dangerously close to unsavoury political positions that were discredited in the past century. We have been tolerant and some have even attempted to have a discussion, but the attitude of the poster is clearly antagonistic for no obvious reason since his claimed shortcomings of science cannot even be stated clearly enough for any other reader of this thread to understand what they might be.

posidonia · 27-01-2020 8:53am

M.T. Cranium wrote: »

A seasonal effect is generally understood from our axial tilt of 23.4 deg with an observed lag of mean temperature amounting to 3-6 weeks depending on how continental or maritime the climate is (even longer lags in air temperatures over large bodies of water, 12 weeks would be the maximum).

So since this is widely known, I would challenge Oriel to state without resorting to mere insults or obscure language what it is that the atmospheric scientists have overlooked about axial tilt.

If there is no clear answer to this, I would suggest no further contact with our forum because I am getting tired of this clearly trolling behaviour. It is detracting from the actual subject matter here and getting at times dangerously close to unsavoury political positions that were discredited in the past century. We have been tolerant and some have even attempted to have a discussion, but the attitude of the poster is clearly antagonistic for no obvious reason since his claimed shortcomings of science cannot even be stated clearly enough for any other reader of this thread to understand what they might be.

Well, I agree with paragraph 1 and 2..

But, I put him on ignore because he's obviously not going to answer (in English anyway...) and at times he's so ott it's obviously he's either trolling, or way out on the fringe.

oriel36 · 27-01-2020 8:58am

M.T. Cranium wrote: »

So since this is widely known, I would challenge Oriel to state without resorting to mere insults or obscure language what it is that the atmospheric scientists have overlooked about axial tilt.

Challenge indeed !, more like a fly challenging a train.

Rotational inclination is determined by two traits - a maximum equatorial speed of 1037.5 mph diminishing to zero at the North and South poles and secondly the relationship of that inclination to the orbital plane (blue line).

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

To account for the single day/night cycle at the North and South Poles with a seasonal expansion and contraction of surface area (with the North/South Poles at the centre) where the Sun is constantly in view and out of sight with a maximum expansion coincident with the Arctic and Antarctic latitudes, a single fact must be recognised.

In the absence of daily rotation and all its effects, the entire surface of the planet turns once to the central Sun each orbit as a function of the orbital motion of the planet

I can do my own challenging but much prefer reasonable people who can work with why there is a single sunrise and sunset at the North and South polar latitudes each year unless people find words like North Pole, parallel to the orbital plane, Arctic circle to be obscure language.

If 'climate change' was brexit, the proponents would be conservatives while the opponents would be labour with the wider and correct perspectives existing on a different road where reasonable people exist. It is all about human temperature control of the planet's temperatures so couching the issue in terms of empirical modeling as to whether data shows a natural or human influence is a distraction from the main conclusion. I well understand the desperation in the reactions to get back to data and graph warfare with a plea for banning but then again this comes from a meteorologist who refuses to accept the conclusions derived from a basic temperature graph where fluctuations follow daily rotation once each day and a thousand times in a thousand days.

Ban me if that is what is desired but make no mistake, the perpetual student venture of 'climate change' comes from those who lack integrity, discipline, inspiration and all those other traits which make people responsible and accountable adults. That is not an insult, that is the human nature at its finest.

Danno · 27-01-2020 10:12am

posidonia wrote: »

If you're proposing that nature is responsible fully for Climate Change (though you might just be making a political point) your evidence has got to be 100%.

Otherwise it's not science.

Well it debunks the allegation/theory that man is 100% responsible for all the increases of CO2 in the atmosphere from ~280 PPM to ~415 PPM, doesn't it?

Oneiric 3 · 27-01-2020 10:34am

oriel36 wrote: »

Ban me if that is what is desired but make no mistake, the perpetual student venture of 'climate change' comes from those who lack integrity, discipline, inspiration and all those other traits which make people responsible and accountable adults. That is not an insult, that is the human nature at its finest.

The 'climate change' debate on here is, whether the proponents are for or against the idea of it, is fitting to our interest in all things weather and climate. Really nothing to do with being the 'perpetual student' at all. Clearly, like myself, you see the arguments more from a socio-political angle than just from a purely scientific standpoint alone, and which does need to be part of the bigger discussion. But I have to say my alarm bells were raised after some of your comments yesterday. Perhaps, once again, I have taken them out of context, but given your rambling and somewhat ostentatious style, it can be hard to discern what you are actually trying to say. Sometimes less is more.

oriel36 · 27-01-2020 10:57am

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

The 'climate change' debate on here is, whether the proponents are for or against the idea of it, is fitting to our interest in all things weather and climate.

That is what makes you so dangerous to wider society, not you specifically but the idea that humans can control planetary temperatures through control of pollution or the fact that carbon dioxide is now considered a pollutant. It would normally be a tidy towns project but because it is framed as a 'scientific method' vehicle , the dour and dull conclusions pervade the whole issue with nothing be weak opposition.

I am presenting the positive road of climate research just as any other Earth science but you unfortunates have trouble with the daily temperature fluctuations in a graph representing a specific rotational cause -

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

The modelers tried to force a wedge between the day/night cycle and its rotational cause by insisting rotation to the stars (night) was different to rotation to the Sun (day) -

https://hypertextbook.com/facts/1999/JennyChen.shtml

When Hitler and the national socialists adopted Darwin's idea of human/subhuman among humanity, nobody was around to counter the destructive academic notion and it took courageous people to fight in the fields and beaches to subdue the destructive policy. It wasn't done by academics sitting on their backsides wondering how to dig themselves out of a monstrosity they created and it wasn't done by fools acting like drones among academics. This zombie science is that after pointing out that Ireland has a maritime climate that will not change, you are back here this morning as though it was a punt you made that didn't work out so who can deal with this lack of integrity in a free-for-all !

You don't have an interest in climate or weather as weather does not shade off into climate, climate is a solar system principle made by making planetary comparisons based on the dynamical traits within a common framework.

Carry on with your 'scientific method' crap but all 'climate change' did was expose the rancid indulgences pseudo-intellectuals give themselves in areas that prohibit such indiscipline and stupidity.

TRADES SUPPLY AVAILABLE · 27-01-2020 11:12am

posidonia wrote: »

If you're proposing that nature is responsible fully for Climate Change (though you might just be making a political point) your evidence has got to be 100%.

Otherwise it's not science.

Same as "YOUR" "Evidence" has to be 100 % right!! (surprised to see you're still on this thread, do you go out much?)

Akrasia · 27-01-2020 11:17am

Danno wrote: »

Well it debunks the allegation/theory that man is 100% responsible for all the increases of CO2 in the atmosphere from ~280 PPM to ~415 PPM, doesn't it?

No it doesn't

Nobody says that humans contribute all the CO2 to the atmosphere, or even the majority.
What humans are doing, is pushing the system out of equilibrium.
There was a balance between the CO2 that was emitted by nature, and the CO2 that was sequestered by natural processes.

Think of it like a bathroom sink that is filling up with water. There is an overflow drain near the top of the sink to stop the water from spilling onto the floor if you leave the tap running

Nature had reached a balance where the tap was running at a capacity that almost exactly matched the capacity of the overflow drain so the sink was always full but never overflowed
Then you only need to introduce the tiniest trickle of additional water to cause the sink to overflow

It doesn't matter if the flow before was 100/LPM and the additional flow was only 1 LPM, it's the additional flow that is causing the sink to overflow and flood your bathroom

oriel36 · 27-01-2020 11:27am

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

Clearly, like myself, you see the arguments more from a socio-political angle than just from a purely scientific standpoint alone, and which does need to be part of the bigger discussion.

You know what Copernicus said of your kind, he didn't fear Church censure but rather those who couldn't deal with the technical details of a moving Earth he feared the most -

".. they wanted the very beautiful thoughts attained by great men of
deep devotion not to be ridiculed by those who are reluctant to exert
themselves vigorously in any literary pursuit unless it is lucrative;
or if they are stimulated to the nonacquisitive study of philosophy by
the exhortation and example of others, yet because of their dullness
of mind they play the same part among philosophers as drones among
bees. When I weighed these considerations, the scorn which I had
reason to fear on account of the novelty and unconventionality of my
opinion almost induced me to abandon completely the work which I had
undertaken." Copernicus letter to Paul III.

What you call 'scientific' is really an empirical subculture hence it is cultural whether you choose to affirm it or not. Society doesn't have a problem with climate, it may act in a manner of tidy towns in this respect of what it puts into the atmosphere or oceans, it has a problem with academics and their cheerleaders like yourself based on an overreaching doctrine which tells you what to think and how to think -

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

There are no effin rules but there is discipline and integrity that is entirely absent from this topic.

Go ahead and play with your graphs but anything cyclical or involving planetary motions is absent from climate research and what is there is flawed, deficient and outright wrong. No need to ban, what is done is done.

Oneiric 3 · 27-01-2020 11:30am

oriel36 wrote: »

That is what makes you so dangerous to wider society, not you specifically but the idea that humans can control planetary temperatures through control of pollution or the fact that carbon dioxide is now considered a pollutant. It would normally be a tidy towns project but because it is framed as a 'scientific method' vehicle , the dour and dull conclusions pervade the whole issue with nothing be weak opposition.

I am presenting the positive road of climate research just as any other Earth science but you unfortunates have trouble with the daily temperature fluctuations in a graph representing a specific rotational cause -

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

The modelers tried to force a wedge between the day/night cycle and its rotational cause by insisting rotation to the stars (night) was different to rotation to the Sun (day) -

https://hypertextbook.com/facts/1999/JennyChen.shtml

When Hitler and the national socialists adopted Darwin's idea of human/subhuman among humanity, nobody was around to counter the destructive academic notion and it took courageous people to fight in the fields and beaches to subdue the destructive policy. It wasn't done by academics sitting on their backsides wondering how to dig themselves out of a monstrosity they created and it wasn't done by fools acting like drones among academics. This zombie science is that after pointing out that Ireland has a maritime climate that will not change, you are back here this morning as though it was a punt you made that didn't work out so who can deal with this lack of integrity in a free-for-all !

You don't have an interest in climate or weather as weather does not shade off into climate, climate is a solar system principle made by making planetary comparisons based on the dynamical traits within a common framework.

Carry on with your 'scientific method' crap but all 'climate change' did was expose the rancid indulgences pseudo-intellectuals give themselves in areas that prohibit such indiscipline and stupidity.

You are making the age old folly of mistaking politeness for weakness Oreil36. And while I think you do make some good points, even in this post, your indirect insinuations are becoming tiresome. If you think we are too dumb to understand some of your more 'finer points' on this thread, then you are free to go elsewhere.

oriel36 · 27-01-2020 2:12pm

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

You are making the age old folly of mistaking politeness for weakness Oreil36. And while I think you do make some good points, even in this post, your indirect insinuations are becoming tiresome. If you think we are too dumb to understand some of your more 'finer points' on this thread, then you are free to go elsewhere.

My turn.

The standard here doesn't go beyond that of the judges and audience in those shows that judge dancing, baking, singing of some other talent. While entertaining they do not admit original material or thinking which is why the proponents and opponents of 'climate change' under the peer review umbrella are nuisances but disruptive nuisances nonetheless.

How to counter the drudgery you and your opponents present as authoritative is the only problem humanity faces, a stupid adherence to late 17th century Royal Society modeling that in itself defies common sense and in the case of the holocaust, a road to extermination based on human/subhuman.

You don't contend with pseudo-intellectual cretins - you bury them until they stay buried.

posidonia · 27-01-2020 6:51pm

Danno wrote: »

Well it debunks the allegation/theory that man is 100% responsible for all the increases of CO2 in the atmosphere from ~280 PPM to ~415 PPM, doesn't it?

No it doesn't.

It's one data point.

Gaoth Laidir · 27-01-2020 7:42pm

posidonia · 27-01-2020 7:51pm

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

It's a funny old world no1427:

Not only do I guess we all agree wrt o36, I suspect we'd all agree about XKCD. Which is odd, because I think, in some way, your post must be a criticism of my post.........

posidonia · 27-01-2020 7:58pm

TRADES SUPPLY AVAILABLE wrote: »

Same as "YOUR" "Evidence" has to be 100 % right!! (surprised to see you're still on this thread, do you go out much?)

A fair bit actually.

As part of my job I have to promote the great conspiracy that thousands of people like me are part of - this is just a side show in my spare time

Oops, what have I said! :eek:

M.T. Cranium · 27-01-2020 9:19pm

I didn't see anything close to a rational explanation of the concern about axial tilt, just more wild claims that forum members are dangerous and horrible people.

Enough is enough. This is just some kind of wind-up, possibly a grad student debunker type having a laugh under a second account? It otherwise makes no sense since we all know that axial tilt is understood and accepted by all in the mainstream scientific community.

In the unlikely event that Oriel36 has real concerns about it, would suggest directly contacting NASA. They will find it helpful to learn about axial tilt, it might explain why all the spacecraft keep ending up in the wrong part of the solar system time after time. /s

Thargor · 27-01-2020 10:32pm

M.T. Cranium wrote: »

I didn't see anything close to a rational explanation of the concern about axial tilt, just more wild claims that forum members are dangerous and horrible people.

Enough is enough. This is just some kind of wind-up, possibly a grad student debunker type having a laugh under a second account? It otherwise makes no sense since we all know that axial tilt is understood and accepted by all in the mainstream scientific community.

In the unlikely event that Oriel36 has real concerns about it, would suggest directly contacting NASA. They will find it helpful to learn about axial tilt, it might explain why all the spacecraft keep ending up in the wrong part of the solar system time after time. /s

This has been going on for 10 years at this stage though across multiple user accounts and other forums on the web, its completely deranged.

I honestly still cant figure out what he's getting at either, sometimes its axial tilt, sometimes its the apparent retrograde motion of planets like Mercury. Is he claiming we've miscalculated the axial tilt of the Earth? Is he claiming certain planets do deviate from their regular orbits and go on crazy wandering journeys the way Mercury seems to do if you photograph it from a fixed position on Earth for a year?

oriel36 · 27-01-2020 10:56pm

M.T. Cranium wrote: »

I didn't see anything close to a rational explanation of the concern about axial tilt, just more wild claims that forum members are dangerous and horrible people.

Enough is enough. This is just some kind of wind-up, possibly a grad student debunker type having a laugh under a second account? It otherwise makes no sense since we all know that axial tilt is understood and accepted by all in the mainstream scientific community.

In the unlikely event that Oriel36 has real concerns about it, would suggest directly contacting NASA. They will find it helpful to learn about axial tilt, it might explain why all the spacecraft keep ending up in the wrong part of the solar system time after time. /s

Appealing to engineering is the lowest form of empirical defense while the form of modeling they now use to describe the seasons is based on an Earth with a zero degree inclination and a pivoting circle of illumination off the Equator -

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

That modeling is based on the late 17th century contrivance called RA/Dec where the Sun was sent in a wandering motion by the English modelers to suit their clockwork solar system in defiance of every known astronomical principle up to then -

http://community.dur.ac.uk/john.lucey/users/solar_year.gif

Not content with that conceptual aberration, the frantic meteorologist here has the Sun wander in a figure 8 analemma -

https://www.universetoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Analemma_Web.jpg

The Sun is stationary and central while the motions of the Earth and distance from the Sun supplies life on Earth with not only its heat but why temperatures vary across latitude.

The actual cause of the seasons is one specific fact -

In the absence of daily rotation and all its effects, the entire surface of the planet still turns once to the central Sun each year with the North and South Poles acting as beacons for this surface rotation as a function of the orbital motion of the Earth

Humanity has suffered enough from cretins who have trouble with cause and effect of daily rotation and there are no second chances for those who insist that scientists don't believe in one more rotation than 24 hours days each year when they most certainly did by relying on a silly 'solar vs sidereal' fiction -

https://hypertextbook.com/facts/1999/JennyChen.shtml

The point of departure is knowing what causes the seasons and events like Arctic sea ice evolution or hurricane season first as temperatures drift above and below the Equator -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTig9gKegQk

It is not going to be done by cretins who refuse to or are not competent enough to affirm the cause of the polar day/night cycle.

Akrasia · 27-01-2020 11:02pm

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

There are slightly more than 2 datapoints for climate scientists to work with

oriel36 · 27-01-2020 11:08pm

Thargor wrote: »

Is he claiming certain planets do deviate from their regular orbits and go on crazy wandering journeys the way Mercury seems to do if you photograph it from a fixed position on Earth for a year?

The direct/motions of the planets haven't been dealt with since Copernicus first resolved the issue of the direct/retrogrades of the slower moving planets seen from the faster moving Earth using a fixed stellar background -

https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap011220.html

It doesn't work for the faster moving Venus and Mercury and that is what I have done -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2uCtot1aDg

I have shown how the Earth's orbital motion causes the change in the position of the stars from left to right of the Sun thereby setting our central star as a stationary reference by which we can appreciate their actual circuit of the Sun by filling the in the narrow corridor people cannot observe from dawn to twilight -

https://imgur.com/5adXFsD

That is Venus taken over an 18 month period but the gap or corridor is normally out of view until a satellite creates permanent solar eclipse conditions allowing people to appreciate the motions of the planets close to the central Sun.

Let those who can understand something new, creative and productive do as there hasn't been a single objection outside this forum. Astronomy and Earth sciences are not the preserve of dull and dour people and their awful pessimism.

oriel36 · 27-01-2020 11:32pm

M.T. Cranium wrote: »

I have always understood the difference between sidereal and synodic day length. We get one extra sidereal day per synodic year. There is no temperature cycle from any observation point that corresponds to the sidereal day (roughly 23 hours 56 min), or if so, it would have a very small amplitude compared with the synodic day (24 hours).

In order to justify RA/Dec modeling, the 17th century English conjured up a phony 'solar vs sidereal' time to drive a wedge between rotation to the Sun (day) and rotation to the stars (night) as the single day/night cycle we experience as one rotation -

https://cdn.britannica.com/19/62719-004-242EB2F1.gif

The Earth doesn't turn once to the noon cycle each 24 hours nor does it turn to the stars in 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds for the first defies the principles of both astronomy and timekeeping while the second is just an average using the 24 hour clock within the calendar framework with the noon cycle and the central Sun as an anchor.

Because modelers are aggressive, they were forced to conclude that rotations drift away from the day/night cycle and its noon anchor for both the experience of rotation and for the 24 hour hour AM/PM cycle. The terms AM and PM determine the rotational anchor for the variations in natural noon and the average 24 hour clock noon as both natural noon and clock noon are locked together in an inviolate correspondence -

https://www.dictionary.com/e/what-do-am-and-pm-stand-for/

Zombie science is when some person declares something really stupid, disappears and comes back again with something equally stupid but ultimately the cretins were forced into a conclusion that there were more rotations than 24 hour days and so it remains to this day -

" 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

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.

What is happening here is that nobody has the patience or the integrity to go back and discover how the calendar system emerged and then accurate clocks thousand of years later using specific references. Only incompetent people would turn the 24 hour clock and timekeeping against the very cycles and references which make timekeeping possible. The 17th century English did so they could have their celestial sphere universe and clockwork solar system. This is where modeling came from and now made worse by computers.

The pseudo-intellectuals want to get back to arguing over whether 'climate change' is natural or man-made but that is, like much else, a lot less than the actual moronic conclusion both sides have attached themselves to - that humans can control planetary temperatures.

Gaoth Laidir · 27-01-2020 11:47pm

Oriel, would you just go and f........

Oneiric 3 · 27-01-2020 11:47pm

I'm as much fascinated with the incredible length of Akrasia's image as I am the content!

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

Comments