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

Gaoth Laidir

posidonia wrote: »

Which implies you are so qualified?



Ok, to clear up if you have a conflict of interest: Did you peer review N&Z? Or Lindsen's iris nonsense? Or any other paper you quote?

I don't know what the exact criteria are for someone to peer review such papers. I would assume I too am not qualified as I don't and have never actively work professionally in the climatology. My university placement in southern Germany studying the effect of precipitation on soil radioactivity post-Chernobyl doesn't count either.

So no, I have not peer reviewed any papers. It doesn't stop me or anyone else giving an opinion, though.

Gaoth Laidir

Akrasia wrote: »

Gaoth Laidir is referring to me saying that I am not qualified to peer review these papers. Which is true. It’s baffling to me why he thinks that the act of reading a paper full of esoteric jargon would make my opinion on his conclusions more valid where the conclusions of that paper are not supported the vast majority of experts who are qualified to review it



It’s a bit like if I take a wristwatch back to the shop because it had a smashed screen when I bought it, and the shop owner insisting that I can’t know it’s broken unless I have fully read all of the instructions in the booklet (including the bits in Chinese)

There are thousands of scientific papers out there there are dozens of papers that contradict the scientific consensus but have flaws in them as recognized by experts in the field. Every time someone posts a paper by some crank like Volokin it results in page after page of so called skeptics saying it must be true because it was written down and demanding that others disprove it. Gaoth will make a big deal about going off and reading it and then not finding any flaws in it despite it being batsh1t crazy. Yet whenever a paper is posted that supports the climate change consensus it is either ignored completely, or one line from it is criticized on some flimsy assumptions and used to discredit the whole paper

It’s called anomaly hunting and it’s the first line of defense for anyone who is arguing against any established scientific theory. You can do it with anything to cast doubt on the overall conclusions.
It’s conspiracy theory 101

The GHCN has about 100000 climate stations with millions of data points if you can find a few stations where a few of the readings are incomplete or are of low quality then an anomaly hunter will say that the whole dataset is now unreliable and must be disregarded despite the fact that the curators of this dataset spend most of their time recognizing that the data is imperfect and trying to find methods to validate this data and prevent outliers from skewing the data more than is justified

And the same people arguing that Armagh is an hour from Dublin do the temperatures are different are happy to go along with a guy who s saying he can accurately measure the temperature on mars from the comfort of his own office by typing numbers into an algorithm until it spews out a number that matches what some of the real scientists have measured for Mars (curve fitting)

That's starting to challenge oriel36 for the amount of unrelated babble. Wristwatches, no less, in keeping with his theme on how these are so wrong!

I haven't gone through all GHCN stations one by one, no one has, but the few IMBY ones I did look at threw up some valid questions. How that qualifies as anomaly hunting I don't know. Maybe I should use your method of defining something "batsh1t crazy" by only looking at the authors. Yes, that's how science works alright...

So I take it you're fine with filling in data from a station in a different landscape 100 km away?

Akrasia

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

That critique is as generalised as Retr0gamer's, coming up with problems but not explaining why they are problems, e.g. his point on dimensional analysis and yours on the iris effect and "a lot of assumptions made". You don't state why the assumptions are wrong, only that you see assumptions and you're hence led to believe that he's up to something.

His central assumption, that there is an iris effect which will be a strong enough negative feedback to overwhelm the forcing from increased CO2 is not supported by evidence and so I disagree with his paper. I am confident in this assessment because it agrees with the assessment of actual experts who I trust and who say they have discovered flaws in his paper.

If I showed you a biopharmaceutical paper that concluded that altering one gene could prevent programmed cell death and end aging would you be able to go into that paper, assess the biochemistry, interpret the results of the assays, validate the methodology and assess that paper for yourself??

Would you feel you have to assume it is correct unless you go to university, get a PHD and gain enough experience to asses that paper yourself?

Or would you take the position that it is an extremely controversial paper that contradicts known scientific principles and it is up to the author of that paper to convince his peers why they should take him seriously with data and evidence?

Akrasia

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

That's starting to challenge oriel36 for the amount of unrelated babble. Wristwatches, no less, in keeping with his theme on how these are so wrong!

I haven't gone through all GHCN stations one by one, no one has, but the few IMBY ones I did look at threw up some valid questions. How that qualifies as anomaly hunting I don't know. Maybe I should use your method of defining something "batsh1t crazy" by only looking at the authors. Yes, that's how science works alright...

So I take it you're fine with filling in data from a station in a different landscape 100 km away?

Just because there are questions doesn’t mean those questions don’t have answers, and ‘I’m just asking questions’ is the mating call of the conspiracy theorist

Instead of looking for anomalies in the data, you should be looking at the detailed methodology they use to deal with missing or corrupted data. The GHCN know that there are bad data and they have developed methodology to validate and isolate bad data. I posted one of the checklists they use some pages back that was just brushed past.
This is climatology not weather recording. The data is smoothed out over time to get decadal trends over wide geographical areas.

Oneiric 3

Akrasia wrote: »

It’s at 417ppm today, the most it’s been since about 2.5 million years ago when there were trees on Antarctica

So where are the trees in Antarctica?

Akrasia

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

So where are the trees in Antarctica?

Under very big glaciers and ice sheets which were not there in the Pliocene (just like large parts of Ireland as the sea level was 60 feet higher than it is now

Where was the so called iris effect back then by the way?

Oneiric 3

oriel36 wrote: »

Amazing to encounter people who cannot discuss the real issues in general or detail but this all happened before when an academic notion was taken up by politicians with youth drafted in to act as cheerleaders or cannon fodder. That period was Hitler youth.

Your post reminded me of one of the best Depeche Mode tunes ever recorded:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JwiPcILt9T0

Oneiric 3

Akrasia wrote: »

Under very big glaciers and ice sheets which were not there in the Pliocene (just like large parts of Ireland as the sea level was 60 feet higher than it is now

Where was the so called iris effect back then by the way?

I was more asking why trees aren't growing in Antarctica now if Co2 levels are the same as back when you state.

Akrasia

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

I was more asking why trees aren't growing in Antarctica now if Co2 levels are the same as back when you state.

Because it will take thousands of years for all that ice to melt. I just mentioned that because the equilibrium climate sensitivity figure is on topic and when the CO2 levels were this high, global average temperatures were estimated at 3 to 4 c warmer than now.

Oneiric 3

Akrasia wrote: »

Because it will take thousands of years for all that ice to melt. I just mentioned that because the equilibrium climate sensitivity figure is on topic and when the CO2 levels were this high, global average temperatures were estimated at 3 to 4 c warmer than now.

That's a relief. Rumour had it that we had only 10 years or so left, a rumour pushed by politicians and journalists who have scientists whispering in their ears, and a rumour that too many gullible souls are only too willing to gobble up as true, because they need those they see as 'authorities' to do their thinking for them.

Gaoth Laidir

Akrasia wrote: »

Just because there are questions doesn’t mean those questions don’t have answers, and ‘I’m just asking questions’ is the mating call of the conspiracy theorist

Instead of looking for anomalies in the data, you should be looking at the detailed methodology they use to deal with missing or corrupted data. The GHCN know that there are bad data and they have developed methodology to validate and isolate bad data. I posted one of the checklists they use some pages back that was just brushed past.
This is climatology not weather recording. The data is smoothed out over time to get decadal trends over wide geographical areas.

I have looked at the detailed methodology and nowhere does it explain what's been done to a particular dataset, particularly the Knock Airport one. You don't have an answer either except a Greta-esque "listen to NASA".

Danno

Akrasia wrote: »

Because it will take thousands of years for all that ice to melt.

But Saint George Lee and Greta Thunberg told us that this would be Dublin in 29.8 years. What gives?

Akrasia

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

That's a relief. Rumour had it that we had only 10 years or so left, a rumour pushed by politicians and journalists who have scientists whispering in their ears, and a rumour that too many gullible souls are only too willing to gobble up as true, because they need those they see as 'authorities' to do their thinking for them.

Nobody is saying that the world will end in 10 years. (Well. Apart from a few lunatics) the point is that if we don’t act now there are potential tipping points that could mean climate change will snowball out of control. We don’t know exactly when such tipping points could be triggered. This is not a good thing

You would know this already if you were paying attention instead of trying to score points in some kind of a debate

Gaoth Laidir

Akrasia wrote: »

Nobody is saying that the world will end in 10 years. (Well. Apart from a few lunatics) the point is that if we don’t act now there are potential tipping points that could mean climate change will snowball out of control. We don’t know exactly when such tipping points could be triggered. This is not a good thing

You would know this already if you were paying attention instead of trying to score points in some kind of a debate

Such as the Guardian, Greta and AOC, whom Retr0gamer refers to as a good little politician doing what she should be doing and following the scientists.

Tipping points...sounds like a set of guidelines on how to treat your waitress when paying.

Gaoth Laidir

Akrasia wrote: »

Because it will take thousands of years for all that ice to melt. I just mentioned that because the equilibrium climate sensitivity figure is on topic and when the CO2 levels were this high, global average temperatures were estimated at 3 to 4 c warmer than now.

...because CO2 lags temperature.

posidonia

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

That's a relief. Rumour had it that we had only 10 years or so left, a rumour pushed by politicians and journalists who have scientists whispering in their ears, and a rumour that too many gullible souls are only too willing to gobble up as true, because they need those they see as 'authorities' to do their thinking for them.

It's possible I am gullible and I can't think for myself - we should all beware of arrogance...


It possible you are gullible and can't think for yourself (though I should not forget you were 'born with an interest in climate' and you 'learned how the 'atmosphere' worked long before 'climate science' came into being.' so perhaps you do know everything).



So who is which? You or I?



Well, its clear the world is cooling rapidly. Glaciers are advancing worldwide and places like Ireland and NW Europe are experiencing a fiercely cold winter - you must have seen the reports of the chaos last week's blizzard caused in the UK and Germany? The 'Weather authorities' desperately try to fix the climate record to show warming but we know they are wrong. Other evidence for the conspiracy is that Arctic sea ice continues to advance with the sea ice now around Jan Mayen AND Iceland for the first time since 1969. Icebreakers also battle sea ice in the whole Baltic. Who can forget the northern hemisphere crop failures last year due to the bitter cold of spring and summer 2019? And this isn't the first cold winter, all through the 80s, 90s, 00s, and 10s winters have been getting colder, along with springs, summers, autumns.



Some other, gullible, people speak of 'mass extinctions'. But nothing could be further from the truth. Rhino are swamping much of southern Africa - driving people from their homes. A plague of pangolin is scaring people in SE Asia. In the UK farmland bird number are up by more than 40% over the last 50 years and Germany has seen a massive rise in insect numbers. And as for plastic, there is none to be seen anywhere across the entire planet!!



So, yes, I think you probably are the smart one here!

posidonia

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

...because CO2 lags temperature.

So it is warming atm and atmosphere CO2 concentration is lagging that warming?

Gaoth Laidir

posidonia wrote: »

So it is warming atm and atmosphere CO2 concentration is lagging that warming?

That's what's always happened in the past.

posidonia

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

That's what's always happened in the past.

And is it happening now?

Akrasia

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

That's what's always happened in the past.

No species other than humans has ever dug up the sequestered Carbon that took millions of years to accumulate and release it directly into the atmosphere as CO2

oriel36

When a society believes it can control planetary temperatures then they are being insulted by people who seem intent on insulting themselves or just simply lack integrity. The proponents/opponents try to frame it as natural or man-made and make a terrible fuss on that account but it goes no further than that hence the ultimate conclusion remains untouched that humanity by doing or not doing something can control temperatures. Within the empirical umbrella, the proponents or opponents cannot snap out of it as they have their own thing going.

Atmospheric, oceanic and surface pollution is a 'tidy towns' issue but what 'climate change' did was expose a Royal Society subculture that can be dealt with as a separate issue and as a long overdue one, after all, who wants to be stuck with late 17th century English bluffing.

As for the wristwatch, clock or GPS system. With the upcoming February 29th there is a need to explain the evolution of timekeeping thereby robbing the oxygen from the silly modelers who rely on the clockwork solar system modelers who today attempt to force an Earth with a zero degree inclination and a pivoting circle of illumination on the public like cretins -

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


For all the graphs out there, there is nobody who can interpret the day/night cycle and its rotational cause as one 24 hour day follows one rotation after the next -

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


If people can manage to force through a belief that there are more rotations than 24 hours days, as NASA does, then human control of planetary temperatures is a piece of cake. Again, whether it is a matter of integrity or intelligence, I am nonplussed by attempted insults directed at me from people who have little regard for their own intelligence and reasoning abilities.

Akrasia

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

...because CO2 lags temperature.

https://skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.html
https://youtu.be/dHozjOYHQdE

Are you just going to work your way down the list of climate change denial talking points?

Nabber

Akrasia wrote: »

Because it will take thousands of years for all that ice to melt. I just mentioned that because the equilibrium climate sensitivity figure is on topic and when the CO2 levels were this high, global average temperatures were estimated at 3 to 4 c warmer than now.

The models out put from data indicates the Antarctic ice to shrink, where as it has grown.
https://earthdata.nasa.gov/learn/sensing-our-planet/unexpected-ice
Interesting that the narrative of global warming being 'settled' means that all studies and model adjustments are made to support the AGW theory, science without skepticism is not science at all.

Paul Holland
“Almost all of the CMIP5 models produce a decrease in Antarctic sea ice, there is a problem in the bit that reproduces the last 30 years of sea ice variability

One scientist risking his job by alluding to what could be the truth.... 'we don't know'...
Might need to check his political affiliation.

Ted Scambos
“Partial explanations have been offered, but we don’t have the complete picture. This may just be a case of ‘we don’t know yet.’”

Akrasia

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

I have looked at the detailed methodology and nowhere does it explain what's been done to a particular dataset, particularly the Knock Airport one. You don't have an answer either except a Greta-esque "listen to NASA".

Wait? Are you talking about NASA now or the GHCN? The GHCN is run by NOAA. You must have read those methodologies really carefully if you didn’t notice that

NASA, via GISSTEMP use smoothed means made up 250km2 grids to cover the global surface temperatures so for all intents and purposes Armagh and Dublin are the same dataset, and the Knock station data is fine too as long as the old Connaught weather station was reasonably close to where the current station is cited. (And that data was adjusted via statistical interpolation so even if knocks early 20th century data was way out of step, it wouldn’t be enough to skew the overall data for that period (if that data was even included in the overall analysis, it could well have been excluded in a validation check along the way)

The interpolation of climate data into models is an extremely specialized and complex science and you are not likely to get the answers you need just by googling for them and certainly not by just asking randomers on an Internet forum none of whom are claiming to be that particular type of statistician

posidonia

Nabber wrote: »

The models out put from data indicates the Antarctic ice to shrink, where as it has grown.
https://earthdata.nasa.gov/learn/sensing-our-planet/unexpected-ice
Interesting that the narrative of global warming being 'settled' means that all studies and model adjustments are made to support the AGW theory, science without skepticism is not science at all.



One scientist risking his job by alluding to what could be the truth.... 'we don't know'...
Might need to check his political affiliation.

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...

oriel36

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

Your post reminded me of one of the best Depeche Mode tunes ever recorded:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JwiPcILt9T0

Marching storm troopers may entertain you but an entirely innocent culture heading to their deaths require the inspection of a more courageous person -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATQp8rFXRkg

To exterminate a European culture, the national socialists had to dehumanise these people first via the only academic policy that accepted the notion of human/subhuman -

"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

I suppose you will excuse Darwin as a person of his era but then again you fail to capture the 'scientific method' behind that statement and one that is central to our era , in this case 'climate change'.

Unlike all the soldiers in your video, who many went on to live after the war, all the people in the Auschwitz album were murdered. 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' - that people can control the planet's temperature as though this was normal and reasonable.

Akrasia

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

I have looked at the detailed methodology and nowhere does it explain what's been done to a particular dataset, particularly the Knock Airport one. You don't have an answer either except a Greta-esque "listen to NASA".

Wait? Are you talking about NASA now or the GHCN? The GHCN is run by NOAA. You must have read those methodologies really carefully if you didn’t notice that

NASA, via GISSTEMP use smoothed means made up 250km2 grids to cover the global surface temperatures so for all intents and purposes Armagh and Dublin are the same dataset, and the Knock station data is fine too as long as the old Connaught weather station was reasonably close to where the current station is cited. (And that data was adjusted via statistical interpolation so even if knocks early 20th century data was way out of step, it wouldn’t be enough to skew the overall data for that period (if that data was even included in the overall analysis, it could well have been excluded in a validation check along the way)

The interpolation of climate data into models is an extremely specialized and complex science and you are not likely to get the answers you need just by googling for them and certainly not by just asking randomers on an Internet forum none of whom are claiming to be that particular type of statistician

Akrasia

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...

Also, sea ice extent has little to do with the ice mass of the Antarctic continent has lost about 2.7 trillion tonnes of ice since 1992 and which is now losing ice about 3 times faster than it did in the early 90s
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0179-y

Oneiric 3

posidonia wrote: »

It's possible I am gullible and I can't think for myself - we should all beware of arrogance...


It possible you are gullible and can't think for yourself (though I should not forget you were 'born with an interest in climate' and you 'learned how the 'atmosphere' worked long before 'climate science' came into being.' so perhaps you do know everything).



So who is which? You or I?



Well, its clear the world is cooling rapidly. Glaciers are advancing worldwide and places like Ireland and NW Europe are experiencing a fiercely cold winter - you must have seen the reports of the chaos last week's blizzard caused in the UK and Germany? The 'Weather authorities' desperately try to fix the climate record to show warming but we know they are wrong. Other evidence for the conspiracy is that Arctic sea ice continues to advance with the sea ice now around Jan Mayen AND Iceland for the first time since 1969. Icebreakers also battle sea ice in the whole Baltic. Who can forget the northern hemisphere crop failures last year due to the bitter cold of spring and summer 2019? And this isn't the first cold winter, all through the 80s, 90s, 00s, and 10s winters have been getting colder, along with springs, summers, autumns.



Some other, gullible, people speak of 'mass extinctions'. But nothing could be further from the truth. Rhino are swamping much of southern Africa - driving people from their homes. A plague of pangolin is scaring people in SE Asia. In the UK farmland bird number are up by more than 40% over the last 50 years and Germany has seen a massive rise in insect numbers. And as for plastic, there is none to be seen anywhere across the entire planet!!



So, yes, I think you probably are the smart one here!

I put the question on here yesterday as to why temperatures in the UK occured with a similar rising trend back in the early 18th century as they are doing now. You, or others, did not even bother to answer it, why? is it because it is much easier to post sanctimonious, self-indulgent clap-trap such as what you have done here. You talk about a grim climatic future, yet fail to comprehend the grim climate of even the recent past, to which you wamt us to return.

But while you are focusing on the above, I'm looking at first rumbles of descent in countries such as Poland, Hungary Italy, Greece etc, and all the while as Germany slips ever closer towards recession. I think we are going to be dealing with far bigger, real world problems than 'climate change' sooner than you are I may think.

Oneiric 3

oriel36 wrote: »

Marching storm troopers may entertain you but an entirely innocent culture heading to their deaths require the inspection of a more courageous person -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATQp8rFXRkg

To exterminate a European culture, the national socialists had to dehumanise these people first via the only academic policy that accepted the notion of human/subhuman -

"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

I suppose you will excuse Darwin as a person of his era but then again you fail to capture the 'scientific method' behind that statement and one that is central to our era , in this case 'climate change'.

Unlike all the soldiers in your video, who many went on to live after the war, all the people in the Auschwitz album were murdered. 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' - that people can control the planet's temperature as though this was normal and reasonable.

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?

Also, a lot of the solders in that video were dead. And I am not sure I am appreciate some of what you are suggesting here, such as how I 'marvel at the mechanical efficiecy of the death camps'. Where the hell is that coming from?