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

Akrasia

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

Which or whatever, unlike medical science and engineering etc, 'climate science' as a science holds no intrinsic value for the good or functioning of society.

Sigh

Gaoth Laidir

Akrasia wrote: »

Ok, so you’ve found a scientific reason for an adjustment and are verifying if it is valid by asking
Your mate down the pub who thinks dogs can’t look up

I don't think for a minute that a mismatch of almost half a degree would have been either likely or accepted during the automation handover. As I said, I believe the sensors remained the same.

Danno

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Danno, is that difference typical of your screen versus AWS readings? The TUCSON stations in place now do have the same screens, with the same PT100 sensors they've been using for a long time, so it's not the same comparison as your setup. A difference of almost half a degree between old and new sensors is not something that would be either likely or accepted as part of the validation of the switch to automation, I would imagine ]

I am going to have to analyze my dáta here and come back to you on that. I don't suspect there should be such a difference. Normally the thermometer equal or exceed the AWS maximum by 0.1c or 0.2c, whereas the minimum thermometer is lower by 0.1c to 0.3c than the AWS.

Oneiric 3

Akrasia wrote: »

Or you think you learned... how unbelievably arrogant it is to think that a childhood interest in something trumps the combined expertise of every reputable scientific body on the planet who have published on this topic

What I know I have learned.

And how unbelievably arrogant it is of you to reply to me in such a manner, with the usual, cliche appeals to 'authority' and pretty much nothing else of substance.

But explain to me, what is 'climate science' as we know it today? is it the study of climate? or is it something more? For example, why is pretty much every study on climate today more to do with the attempt to influence public policy rather than the pursuit of science for science sake?

Oneiric 3

Akrasia wrote: »

Sigh

Sigh away, but that alone does not prove me wrong.

Gaoth Laidir

Watch for The Guardian to go with an article "Corona Virus linked to Climate Change". It's gonna happen...

Akrasia

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

I don't think for a minute that a mismatch of almost half a degree would have been either likely or accepted during the automation handover. As I said, I believe the sensors remained the same.

Believe based on what? If a new more accurate system is proposed should you use an older less accurate method just for posterity?

We’d all still be using trundle wheels instead of lasers

Akrasia

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Watch for The Guardian to go with an article "Corona Virus linked to Climate Change". It's gonna happen...

Really?
I suppose this will be on par with the other skeptics predictions like global cooling and global warming having stopped in 1998 and the ‘nothing to see here’ attitudes while entire nations are getting wiped out by hurricanes and species driven to extinction by warming oceans, warming forests, and droughts and heatwave fueled wildfires

Danno

Akrasia wrote: »

If a new more accurate system is proposed should you use an older less accurate method just for posterity?

Are you suggesting that digital sensors are more accurate than mercury thermometers? Seriously? :rolleyes:

Akrasia

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

Sigh away, but that alone does not prove me wrong.

You didn’t make a falsifiable statement so it can never be proven wrong

I asked a load of ‘global warming has stopped’ proponents to predict cooling 10 years ago and either they refused (cause they knew they were full of sh1t) or they were proven wrong. What is your prediction for the next 5 years based on your understanding of the science?

Gaoth Laidir

Akrasia wrote: »

Really?
I suppose this will be on par with the other skeptics predictions like global cooling and global warming having stopped in 1998 and the ‘nothing to see here’ attitudes while entire nations are getting wiped out by hurricanes and species driven to extinction by warming oceans, warming forests, and droughts and heatwave fueled wildfires

Entire nations are getting wiped out? Are you for real?

Akrasia

Danno wrote: »

Are you suggesting that digital sensors are more accurate than mercury thermometers? Seriously? :rolleyes:

Yes

Oneiric 3

Akrasia wrote: »

Really?
I suppose this will be on par with the other skeptics predictions like global cooling and global warming having stopped in 1998 and the ‘nothing to see here’ attitudes while entire nations are getting wiped out by hurricanes and species driven to extinction by warming oceans, warming forests, and droughts and heatwave fueled wildfires

Yes, let's go back to the glory days when the earth was cooler. Everything was just fine and dandy back then:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983%E2%80%931985_famine_in_Ethiopia

Danno

Akrasia wrote: »

Really?
I suppose this will be on par with the other skeptics predictions like global cooling and global warming having stopped in 1998 and the ‘nothing to see here’ attitudes while entire nations are getting wiped out by hurricanes and species driven to extinction by warming oceans, warming forests, and droughts and heatwave fueled wildfires

Damn, I take it the carbon taxes have failed then. Where do I get my refund?

Danno

Akrasia wrote: »

Yes

Do elaborate.

Gaoth Laidir

Akrasia wrote: »

Believe based on what? If a new more accurate system is proposed should you use an older less accurate method just for posterity?

We’d all still be using trundle wheels instead of lasers

Believe based on previous knowledge acquired over the years.

Akrasia

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

What I know I have learned.

And how unbelievably arrogant it is of you to reply to me in such a manner, with the usual, cliche appeals to 'authority' and pretty much nothing else of substance.

But explain to me, what is 'climate science' as we know it today? is it the study of climate? or is it something more? For example, why is pretty much every study on climate today more to do with the attempt to influence public policy rather than the pursuit of science for science sake?

The fact that you think this proves that you have not trawled through the thousands of papers discussing the minute details of the differences between isotopes in specific ice cores or variations in distribution of pollen from specific plant species.....
The vast majority of papers in climate science are boring technical analysis of data and models. Most of which your childhood hobby does not qualify you to understand never mind dismiss

Oneiric 3

Akrasia wrote: »

You didn’t make a falsifiable statement so it can never be proven wrong

You mean, that my claim cannot be proven wrong because there is more than a little truth in it?

I think we will continue to see warming trend in the next 5 years or 10 years even. There is no reason the think otherwise, and not because 'climate scientists' churning out sententious, indecipherable papers are telling me so, but because I look at the actual data. That is what I have only ever done... because my 'childhood interest' has carried on.

Akrasia

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Believe based on previous knowledge acquired over the years.

Do you have an example of a scientific body refusing to update their legacy systems to a more accurate system because it didn’t match the old measurements?
(Other than due to cost or resource limitations?)

Akrasia

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

You mean, that my claim cannot be proven wrong because there is more than a little truth in it?

I think we will continue to see warming trend in the next 5 years or 10 years even. There is no reason the think otherwise, and not because 'climate scientists' churning out sententious, indecipherable papers are telling me so, but because I look at the actual data. That is what I have only ever done... because my 'childhood interest' has carried on.

Why is the climate going to continue warming?
What is the cause?

Oneiric 3

Akrasia wrote: »

..
The vast majority of papers in climate science are boring technical analysis of data and models. Most of which your childhood hobby does not qualify you to understand never mind dismiss

Are you 'qualified' in this same regard?

Oneiric 3

Akrasia wrote: »

What is the cause?

Science and scientific endeavour?

Akrasia

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

Are you 'qualified' in this same regard?

Nope. Definitely not qualified to judge and reject the findings of the best qualified experts in this field

Akrasia

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

Science and scientific endeavour?

Did you misquote me on purpose there?

Oneiric 3

Akrasia wrote: »

Nope. Definitely not qualified to judge and reject the findings of the best qualified experts in this field

Who is rejecting what? I asked you recently about climate scientists 'warnings' given out over the last 50 years or so, in how many have come to fruition vs the number that may not have. You follow 'climate science' very closely it seems, so I naturally expected you to have the answer, or an idea at least. Yet, you did not provide either.

Why?

Oneiric 3

Akrasia wrote: »

Did you misquote me on purpose there?

I gave you an answer?. Is it right or wrong?

Oneiric 3

Danno wrote: »

Do elaborate.

For God's sake, do not ask him that because he'll link to some paper full of technobabble again.

posidonia

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

For those of us who were born with an interest in climate, we learned how the 'atmosphere' worked long before 'climate science' came into being.

You're saying you were born with more knowledge of the atmosphere than a climate scientist - how arrogant of you.

Dunning Kruger was right.

oriel36

froog wrote: »

so you trust peer review for medical science and engineering but not for climate science? i don't know what kind of mental gymnastics you have to do to get that straight in your mind. it seems like you think climate science isn't science at all but some kind of art or mystical abstract philosophy?

Astronomy and Earth sciences are cultural so the discussion here is the presence of inspiration in the research of these pair as opposed to counter-productive experimental research that has turned climate into doom and gloom speculative predictions.

I will tell you what happened - the internet happened and brought to light many of the works of the great writers throughout history so while many of you boast about slogging over data and empirical research papers, nothing more satisfying than seeing the level of reasoning applied by our ancestors as to the links between humanity and our astronomical surroundings and how they considered the relationship between the celestial cycles and experiences on the surface of the planet. It is such a rich history that has opened up and nothing like the narrow history the 'enlightenment' academics dumped on them to make themselves look good.

It is therefore not just the inspiration people gain from understanding how life on Earth relates to surface conditions of landscape and weather but the missing part is the relationship between the motions of the Earth in a Sun centred system and their relationship to terrestrial sciences like biology, climate and geology. To be fair to the meteorologist, he did engage instead of averting his gaze in putting late 17th century obstacles in front of what is appreciation of cause and effect between planetary motions and surface experiences. It was a shortcut the Royal Society theorists took to foster the belief that astronomical predictions were also the same as experimental predictions hence the agenda where their followers today can pursue the notion that conditions in a common greenhouse scale up to the Earth's atmosphere so they can hold up a computer generated hallucination as 'facts' based on the need of humans to control planetary temperatures. Give me an effin break !.


So yes, the major issue in all this is why inspiration is completely lacking in the research of climate unlike other Earth sciences and why it has been replaced by doom and gloom predictions by those who have trouble dealing with the most basic experiences of humanity up to and including the cause and effect of the day/night cycle.

posidonia

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

For God's sake, do not ask him that because he'll link to some paper full of technobabble again.

Were you born knowing what 'technobabble' is too?