Conversation
Notices
-
@dokidoki @lambadalambda The reactionless drive has no plausible explanation for how it would work. There's handwaving and a measured effect small enough to be explained by bad experimental setup.
Just because everyone thinks someone is wrong, doesn't mean that person is a maverick genius.
-
@kfist @dokidoki The scientific process is flawed and human, but the case for AGW has been building over the decades and is challenged mainly by politically, socially, or financially corrupted actors.
The IPCC was formed because the model was plausible, correlation was strong and urgent action was needed.
-
@dokidoki @lambadalambda Well, before your experiment is worth replicating, you'd better have a hypothesis and test it. Not just I slapped this thing together and wow look at this millinewton force per kilowatt I put into it.
-
@xj9 @lambadalambda @dokidoki Yeah. The word "disproved" is a bit strong, and "it doesn't fit within the confines of the theory" is "all of them".
-
@xj9 @lambadalambda @dokidoki Remember that Ecat-dude Rossi even managed to dupe a couple of credulous physics professors.
OMG he's calling his company the "Leonardo Corporation" now.
I repeat: Just because everyone thinks someone is wrong, doesn't mean that person is a maverick genius.
-
@clacke @dokidoki The model was plausible but not predictive. Most IPCC models, since the 90s, vastly overstate the effect of AGW and carbon dioxide, as the actual results have shown. In addition, there's a lot of questions still to be answered if effective models are to be made and proper action to be taken.
For example:
What's up with the disparity between radiosondes, weather balloons, and satellites, which all underread compared to sites taken near cities and towns, at all altitudes? Those raw sources outside of cities are always adjusted using the cities as calibration targets, almost always ignoring the urban heat island effect.
What's the actual effect of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere? They correlate heavily with temperature, but ice cores always show that they lag -after- changes in temperature, even accounting for carbon dating recalibration.
If carbon dioxide really is the primary driver of warming periods, where did the carbon go during glacial periods? There's no biomass, permafrost reservoirs, or other carbon dioxide sinks large enough to explain a carbon dioxide-driven warming during post-glacial temperature recovery periods and interglacial periods, without invoking industrialization-tier carbon dioxide outputs.
How about oxygen isotope ratios? They show a far stronger correlation with temperature, and also show that there are interglacial periods that experience extremely rapid temperature rises by 3-5C.
Do IPCC models explain the little ice age? The roman climatic optimum? The Younger Dryas events? Do they have explanatory mechanisms for those events? What were driving those events? What causes the planet to go into and out of an ice age? What drives the smaller climatic events?
Okay, the models might not explain events on that timescale, maybe just 20-100 years out. But what are their fundamental explanations about the Pacific Decadal Oscillation? The North Atlantic Oscillation? Both have major effects on all parts of the world for years at a time.
How can you reasonably model a complex 6-cell 100km layered chaotic system that's 5.15*10^18kg in mass? Do we know all the factors involved? How are atmospheric models being evaluated? How accurate are they? How well do they explain their successes or failures given their fundamental assumptions and first principles? How do we know that
Why are we mostly ignoring solar cycles, solar forcing, and milankovitch cycles? How can we explain Mars' temperature increase, nearly exactly concurrent and correlated with the Earth? There's no AGW going on there.
We use glacier levels from the end of the little ice age as the base level of glacial retreat, but not only was the LIA the coldest it's been in 8500 years, but as the glaciers recede they're finding remains of forests and landscapes that had been overrun by the glaciers, dating from the medieval warm period and roman warm period. Have we truly zeroed our temperature models?
Why was the mandate of the IPCC even "set out to prove AGW is true" rather than "go out and see what's going on with climate change and figure out first principles for a model"?
Yes, global warming is occuring, but are we truly causing it? To what extent? What's the baseline? The climate has been extremely dynamic, all by itself, without any help from industrialization. We have to look at that. Yes, humans are a factor, but what about the others? The other factors were all investigated and dismissed decades ago using old techniques and old methodology, and haven't been raised since because it goes against the IPCC dogma.
These questions don't get investigated because to do so requires you to put your scientific career on the line. There is no funding for these investigations apart from the often and clearly politicized funding by oil companies and others with clearly vested interests, and because of that this also brings another stigma to a scientist's career. The dogma is too strong, and climate change/global warming has been brought out of the scientific sphere and into the political and ideological. No actual science can get done in these conditions, because the dogma is that "the science is settled" and all we can do now is react to climate change of seemingly apocalyptic proportions.
But putting all our eggs into the AGW basket prevents us from reaching any actual understanding and preparing any actual measures to react to the global climate. That's what I have issue with.
And for a better explanation of the current methodology of creating and evaluating IPCC models, here's a good article about their underlying science or lack thereof:
http://motls.blogspot.ca/2017/03/selection-of-climate-model-survivors.html
-
@dokidoki @lambadalambda @xj9 "it doesn't work because it violates this theory that we came up with." makes it sound a bit more arbitrary than it is, when you leave out that the theories were validated by observation.
The supposed observations of reactionless thrust violates prior observations.
-
@kfist @dokidoki Finally someone with good points against the ruling AGW consensus! Thank you.
When it comes to sunspots and Milankovich cycles, my understanding is that they simply don't account for the persistent rise since industrialization. Solar forcing is a generic phenomenon of which the greenhouse effect is one particular aspect. When discussing melting ice sheets, people bring up the change in albedo and its effect on the climate, so if your claim is that people are looking exclusively at the greenhouse effect, it's a strawman.
The MWP and LIA are not well understood, but those anomalies are not on the scale of the one we are seeing now. Of course, whatever cause is behind it could be part of our current warming, but before we could take that into account, we would have to find it. Finding it does not go against "AGW dogma", is not career-threatening, and people are doing it. A quick search found it in a 2009 IPCC report.
> How can you reasonably model a complex 6-cell 100km layered chaotic system that's 5.15*10^18kg in mass?
Isn't that an argument against any climate research at all? Climate modeling is hard, let's go shopping? Or does it only apply to models that include the greenhouse effect?
> Why was the mandate of the IPCC even "set out to prove AGW is true" rather than "go out and see what's going on with climate change and figure out first principles for a model"?
Quoting from the resolution http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/43/a43r053.htm :
The list of concerns emphasize that "human activities could change global climate" and notes the evidence for the greenhouse effect as the trigger for establishing the Panel, but it also says:
> Recognizing the need for additional research and scientific studies into all sources and causes of climate change,
... and in the list of actions to be taken says nothing about what directions of research are more important, merely that research needs to be done regarding the causes behind, and socio-economic effects of, climate change.
Will have to look into the Mars thing, that's new to me.
CO2 lag puts a nail into "CO2 is the sole cause of climate", but that's a strawman. First random climatology pop-sci article I find says 40% of warming at the end of the ice age is explained by CO2 and the rest is left unspecified. Maybe orbital changes trigger the cycles and then ice albedo and CO2 accentuate them, along with other effects.
But rising CO2 and rising temperature since the start of industrialization does not correlate with sun cycles or orbital change. Ice sheets changing the planet's albedo piling upon the effect sounds plausible, but the root cause this time really seems to be CO2, until someone comes up with a better explanation.
-
@kfist @dokidoki The point about the potential smoothing of historic sources like ice cores is a good one too.
https://motls.blogspot.hk/2017/03/scott-adams-sees-through-15-of-20-main.html
-
@dokidoki @lambadalambda @xj9 No, of course, general relativity is an extension of Newtonian physics that happens to agree within the classical physical realm and then makes different predictions at relativistic speeds.
So you can absolutely have a new model that replaces an old one, but it has to fit old data as well as new data. And it has to exist. :-D
Hallå Kitteh
KFist
All Chirp! content and data are available under the