FWIS3

There has been some rather surprising findings that are not well known and they are upsetting the accepted theory of global warming.
Note: I am not sourcing climate deniers. I am sourcing actual scientists in the fields of atmospheric physics with impeccable qualifications, theories that actually fit the data. Many claim their work is being suppressed by those who prescribe to the current theory. This includes restricting of funds based on the idea that there should be no link (a completely unscientific thing to do), refusal to publish work, strong opposition based on ideology as opposed to scientific inquiry.


I have not seen the film, I have however read enough about the work that was done to know it was legitimate.
The most fascinating part is the conclusions. Astronomers should find this completely fascinating.

http://thecloudmystery.com/The_Cloud_My ... ntary.html

As the eminent physicist Eugene Parker comments in the film, politically incorrect ideas about global warming face this kind of resistance in the scientific community.

At long last, the paper was accepted for publication by the Royal Society of London in 2006. While the champagne flowed, Svensmark said the cloud mystery was solved but wondered when the climate community would catch up with his discovery. The film ends with Shaviv pointing out that we are part of a galactic ecosystem, and Svensmark saying we must no longer think of the Earth as an island in space.

It's sad when a scientist celebrates being published, after so much opposition and rejections.

Here is an article that describes the case of global warming skeptics. Oddly, even though I am trying to see all sides of the issue, I cannot help but think "science denier" when I read the words "global warming skeptic". Yet, skepticism is not a bad thing, I see it as a good thing, so the only reason is that I am pre-judging when the words "global warming' and "skeptic" are used together. This is a bias I need to work on removing.

It's a good read in any case whether you accept GW or not, at least you can see why they are not convinced. I found it interesting to note that the article cites previously published data on atmospheric temperature but the source was removed. It didn't support the theory or the models of currently accepted global warming. It is still possible to get it via archiving systems however. The skeptics arguments however seem to actually track well with the data.

https://mises.org/library/skeptics-case

I particularly liked the cloud/solar radiation theory which is over a decade old, hardly cited or used but is tracking really well with reality. Really well. Both in the short term measured in months, and the long term measured in millions of years.

I just loved this one.
It shows how astronomy is actually key in understanding our own Earth's climate.

Now you have done it. The witch hunts will begin shortly.

I think man has an impact on his environment. The discussion/disagreement is probably going never be resolved as to how much of an impact it is.

I think we can’t go wrong in decreasing or eliminating our dependence on finite resources such as natural gas and oil.
I think that the same things that people claim are causing GW may also be implicated in other toxic or pollution events.
There definitely seems to be a link between human dominance of all the ecosystems and massive die outs of species.

At the end of the day I think we probably should be better stewards of the planet. Even if we can’t agree on the science.

Of course, I realize that we need to agree on some of the science in order to determine what good stewardship actually looks like.

Having said that I wish I could say that it shocks me that the scientific community engages in the same behavior against opponents or people who disagree as other communities. Or that science can be so political.

SciFiFisher wrote:I think man has an impact on his environment.

If you note the article, it actually states that the scientific skeptics all agree that CO2 contributes to global warming. Where they completely disagree is that the global warming proponents are claiming a threefold amplification of it's effects. Basically positive feedback. The data however is showing negative feedback, which is actually reducing the effects of CO2 by 50%.

The scientist proponents argument is that CO2 increases temperature so as a result more water evaporates and because H2O is a greenhouse gas, they estimate the amplification is about 3 times.

The scientist skeptics are arguing that as water evaporates it increases cloud cover, which directly affects Earths temperature, reflecting more of the Sun's rays and effectively dampening the effects of CO2 emissions. When this data is considered, the results actually tie in extremely well with what we measure. The Southern Hem has more clouds because it has more water, it's average temperature is about 2DegC lower than the Northern Hem. The study on cloud formation being affected by the Suns (stars) rays has been laboratory tested and demonstrated. The theory tracks well with both the short term and the long term temperature variations. Short term due to the Sun, long term due to intergalactic position of Earth. Pretty damned fascinating really. CO2 however does not track as well by comparison.

No one ever said things like clouds or the sun do not affect climate change. Instead, these things are already incorporated in the models, and CO2 still affects things beyond that.

If it was all just natural variations even on the large scale like the Milky Way, the climate record would show this accordingly. It doesn't. Here is a good visual representation of what I mean.

Rommie wrote:No one ever said things like clouds or the sun do not affect climate change. Instead, these things are already incorporated in the models, and CO2 still affects things beyond that.

If it was all just natural variations even on the large scale like the Milky Way, the climate record would show this accordingly. It doesn't. Here is a good visual representation of what I mean.

Apparently it does: http://www.sciencebits.com/ice-ages

Ok, but we get far more cosmic rays from the sun than we do from any galactic sources. And the sun varies in a very nice, observable with far more and better data, rate of every 11 years. So we should see something there, right? We do not.

Plus, there are lots of papers who do not draw the same conclusion as the one mentioned in the blog. Here's one. (Might be behind a paywall, sorry if it is, I'm at uni.) Here's a comment from the author of the blog article, with a response by another scientist.

Rommie wrote:Ok, but we get far more cosmic rays from the sun than we do from any galactic sources. And the sun varies in a very nice, observable with far more and better data, rate of every 11 years. So we should see something there, right? We do not.

Plus, there are lots of papers who do not draw the same conclusion as the one mentioned in the blog. Here's one. (Might be behind a paywall, sorry if it is, I'm at uni.) Here's a comment from the author of the blog article, with a response by another scientist.

One is behind a paywall, I couldn't get the other two to work at all. Not sure why. It might be at my end but I have normal internet access.

I thought I posted this. The correlation shows up when looking at the different hemnispheres.
http://principia-scientific.org/strong- ... s-correct/

I'm not sure I understand why it's not a global thing though. Less interaction in Winter than Summer?

I'll try to find the links you supplied by searching through the urls.

I have genuinely no idea why the non-paywall links wouldn't work for you and highly suggest you check it out because that is my favorite resource for explaining climate science myths. Skeptical Science is the name of it, maybe if you go through Google it'll work better.

I'll give it a go. It seems to fail at establishing a secure connection.

I did find this: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.10 ... 8/4/045022
Which is claiming less than 14% influence by cosmic rays.

Found the website, still can't access it. No idea why.

I tried accessing that site on the phone. Still can't access it. So it's not my laptop.
Very strange. Maybe T-mobile has issues.

Rommie wrote:I have genuinely no idea why the non-paywall links wouldn't work for you and highly suggest you check it out because that is my favorite resource for explaining climate science myths. Skeptical Science is the name of it, maybe if you go through Google it'll work better.

It's very strange, as we are on different connections, but neither of us could access it, so I started researching it, and I found a really cool phone app that this guy developed, so vendic is happily browsing it as I type. No idea if he'll find the specific article you linked, but I'm betting he will with his penchant for researching a subject until I want to puke.

I read through it. There are a lot of claims and counter claims but going from phone to laptop is a pita and this is way too frustrating.
I have trouble with a laptop keyboard. My finger covers about four letters on the phone's.

Can you tell us, Vendic, what questions and criticisms you have with the sources linked in your first post, and how and why they overcame any objections you had to any flaws in their argument you may have detected?

Can you tell us, in detail, what parts of which studies/reports those linked sources refute? Be as broad or specific as you like, this isn't an examination.

I'm just trying to understand what caused you to revisit your beliefs (if I interpret this and the other thread correctly). I'm not sure (I don't want to put words in your mouth), but it seems like you've been suggesting that you did not previously have a firm grasp of the science when you were supporting a conclusion of AGW - but now you want to.

Part of me wants to help, by explaining stuff where I can. But I've also witnessed conversions and know that getting involved in faith-based discussions is often, if not usually, counterproductive. Based on my reading of this and the other thread, it seems to be faith-based since a lot of it is about trusting sources and consensus building, instead of physics, chemistry and mathematics. In my experience, faith is either earned (because a person carefully shepherds their psyche) or is lauded and lambasted (because a person prefers the excitement of the hunt to shepherding).


BTW, I don't want to derail the thread, but that thread title sounds like something Trump would say. OMG, It's almost a paraphrase of what he said about healthcare: "Nobody knew climate could be so complicated."

Tarragon wrote:Can you tell us, Vendic, what questions and criticisms you have with the sources linked in your first post, and how and why they overcame any objections you had to any flaws in their argument you may have detected?

That probably will turn out to be garbage. I just thought it was an interesting concept. Turns out it might be flawed.

Can you tell us, in detail, what parts of which studies/reports those linked sources refute? Be as broad or specific as you like, this isn't an examination.

If they were true, they would explain the long term temperature variations. Though as I explained, they may not be.

I'm just trying to understand what caused you to revisit your beliefs (if I interpret this and the other thread correctly). I'm not sure (I don't want to put words in your mouth), but it seems like you've been suggesting that you did not previously have a firm grasp of the science when you were supporting a conclusion of AGW - but now you want to.

It happened a few years ago. I started noticing that there was quite a few things I'd been taught that turned out to be completely wrong, basically myths. The age of the internet is good at finding those. So I asked a simple question: if my current opinions were formed on previously accepted information, how would my opinions/views change if I was given the correct information back then instead?
It's been a pretty interesting road to travel. That's why I looked at the Red pill movie and researched it deeper. Turns out I was fed garbage, so I no longer hold the same view I once had.
This particular issue regarding climate change is the same thing. I'm now going back to make sure that what I had once accepted as fact, is indeed fact. If it's not, I want to know. How this will change my view is unknown. I just know I'm re-evaluating what I thought I knew and replacing it with what is currently known. Naturally, in ten years time I might have to do it again. It's really a pita.

Part of me wants to help, by explaining stuff where I can. But I've also witnessed conversions and know that getting involved in faith-based discussions is often, if not usually, counterproductive. Based on my reading of this and the other thread, it seems to be faith-based since a lot of it is about trusting sources and consensus building, instead of physics, chemistry and mathematics. In my experience, faith is either earned (because a person carefully shepherds their psyche) or is lauded and lambasted (because a person prefers the excitement of the hunt to shepherding).

I have no faith in anything. That's actually the fundamental reason I'm going through this AGW issue again. I literally have no faith that I came to the correct conclusion because I never challenged myself to see if what I believed actually made sense. IOW, I have doubts about my impartiality on the subject regardless of how much I tried to be impartial.
The problem of course is that climate is so complex that I personally doubt that even climatologists understand it. So I'm just looking at the basic things that may or may not make a difference.
As an example, climate can be broken down into a control system. Something that I do understand. Electrical/electronics engineers really have to understand control theory as it's a basic building block to the field. It's also a very complex subject.
The climate on Earth is just a complex control system. Heat in, heat out, insulation and feedback. We know the heat in. We have a rough idea of the heat out. It's the insulation and feedback that's the problem.
We could in theory do an impulse or a step response test and get almost all the information we need to model the system as it currently is. The logistics however are a problem and convincing people to do it would be damned near impossible. That leaves us trying to analyse a control system with parameters we have few details about. From my pov, that will simply never be accurate. So that's one huge fundamental problem I have with modeling of climate change. If there's one thing I don know and have plenty of experience in, it's knowing that a control system with unknowns or even with parameters that have significant error rates, is never going to be accurate.

Here's a fun video. I'm starting to see far more of these.
http://www.wsj.com/video/opinion-journa ... 68D4C.html

Basically prominent scientists, particularly those near the end of their careers are pointing out the bias in the actual climatology field. Why end of their careers?
They no longer have to fear rejection of their work or funding cuts.

Tree rings.
Seems this is still a very uncertain science but is evolving. Recent changes in the last few years have resulted in the complete abandonment of Uniformitarianism. This is an example where an emerging science is used to provide data but the data and thus the conclusions are now all invalid. That means we have to revisit how that affects what conclusions we formed when we thought it was valid.

Straight from a an education institute that studies tree rings.
http://web.utk.edu/~grissino/principles.htm

One glaring change is that you will no longer notice the inclusion of the Principle of Uniformitarianism (or Uniformity). This principle was most applied to reconstructions of past climate, assuming that the climate response seen in trees during modern times was the same as the climate response in trees during previous times. Study after study has now shown this not to be the case.

So an climate based data from the study of tree rings going back more than a few years old is basically now not deemed accurate or reliable. The classic hockey stick graph was based on this and was published in 1999. So it was based on a flawed premise. So it can no longer be used as evidence. The recent findings show that the conclusions it came to are flawed.

Yeah, fuck those ice core samples, coral, and soil sample data also used to show the same thing, including in the original paper!

Seriously, you've yet to post anything that sounded to me like a valid scientific argument against a theory that is incredibly well cited and accepted. But no, sorry, I don't have time to explain why, really busy time right now in my life. I would really wish that you linked to the actual papers instead of right wing bloggers though sometimes, for a start.

vendic wrote:Tree rings.
Seems this is still a very uncertain science but is evolving. Recent changes in the last few years have resulted in the complete abandonment of Uniformitarianism. This is an example where an emerging science is used to provide data but the data and thus the conclusions are now all invalid. That means we have to revisit how that affects what conclusions we formed when we thought it was valid.

Straight from a an education institute that studies tree rings.
http://web.utk.edu/~grissino/principles.htm

One glaring change is that you will no longer notice the inclusion of the Principle of Uniformitarianism (or Uniformity). This principle was most applied to reconstructions of past climate, assuming that the climate response seen in trees during modern times was the same as the climate response in trees during previous times. Study after study has now shown this not to be the case.

So an climate based data from the study of tree rings going back more than a few years old is basically now not deemed accurate or reliable. The classic hockey stick graph was based on this and was published in 1999. So it was based on a flawed premise. So it can no longer be used as evidence. The recent findings show that the conclusions it came to are flawed.

The hockey stick graph was based only on tree rings and not several proxies?

Why would ditching Uniformitarianism invalidate all the data and the conclusions? Is there not a way to correct for that? Is that what you mean by "revisit", and if so, have they revisited it?

Why are you linking to an introduction page instead of PDFs of studies that shows mathematically how they were flawed and how to correct and what the error bars are, etc.?

vendic wrote:I have no faith in anything. That's actually the fundamental reason I'm going through this AGW issue again. I literally have no faith that I came to the correct conclusion because I never challenged myself to see if what I believed actually made sense. IOW, I have doubts about my impartiality on the subject regardless of how much I tried to be impartial.
The problem of course is that climate is so complex that I personally doubt that even climatologists understand it. So I'm just looking at the basic things that may or may not make a difference.
As an example, climate can be broken down into a control system. Something that I do understand. Electrical/electronics engineers really have to understand control theory as it's a basic building block to the field. It's also a very complex subject.
The climate on Earth is just a complex control system. Heat in, heat out, insulation and feedback. We know the heat in. We have a rough idea of the heat out. It's the insulation and feedback that's the problem.
We could in theory do an impulse or a step response test and get almost all the information we need to model the system as it currently is. The logistics however are a problem and convincing people to do it would be damned near impossible. That leaves us trying to analyse a control system with parameters we have few details about. From my pov, that will simply never be accurate. So that's one huge fundamental problem I have with modeling of climate change. If there's one thing I don know and have plenty of experience in, it's knowing that a control system with unknowns or even with parameters that have significant error rates, is never going to be accurate.

I know I deleted that part from above, but why are you concerned with what is and what isn't fact? that's not the language of science, but of faith. Science is about probability, certainty is more to be found in religion and other exercises of faith.

Having faith and not having faith are flip-sides of the same coin. Your statement above and its context seem to confirm that it's an issue of faith as opposed to merely being an expression of probability or admission of ignorance on a subject. That's what I get from the context, a loss of faith in data, concepts, models, people, institutions, and less about epistemological confidence. Because language. But maybe not, we don't speak the same language, after all.

I'm not sure I follow your control system metaphor. I'm not sure if there is something we could consider a control system or thermostat in climate. That sounds too deterministic.