Re: Climate change demystified

Jackson David wrote:
Dear Richard,
So you have it all figured, have you l  And you didn’t need science, or even mathematics to prove it. Just your personal opinion based on a pattern that you claim to have detected in one set of measurements. You have no explanation for the pattern. That takes science, and mathematics.

 

Even if you assume that the measurements taken from ice cores are correct and represent an accurate record of temperatures over time, there are a number of questions that one could ask about the data you present:
1.  Why does the temperature stay at a relatively lower level for long periods of time?
2. Why does the temperature rise steeply to a higher level on a regular basis?
3. Why does the temperature stop rising at a relatively higher level for a very short period of years?
4. Why does the temperature then more gradually fall back down to the relatively lower level again?
5. Why has the temperature stayed at its current higher level much longer than the preceding times?
If you have no explanations for any of these questions you have no way of predicting what is going to happen with regard to future temperatures ! An observation is different from an explanation and an explanation requires science, and mathematics !
Jackson
——
Aryan wrote:

Dear Jackson,

Sorry, but your demand for whatever sort of ‘science’ and mathematics – above and in addition to sheer observation of the cycles in temperature changes on the Earth – is not logical, and makes no sense.

The stated observed cycles are facts. No matter what their causes may be: it is what it is, what has been happening on this planet for hundreds of millennia.

Could those cycles possibly change, now, for the first time in a million years and more ? Yes, of course that is possible. Just extremely unlikely. And, moreover, no ‘science’ or mathematics could possibly provide accurate factual information for such a radical discontinuity.

The explanation provided here for climate change – it happens to be Richard Moore who wrote it – stands on its own feet and evidently provides empirical evidence for what’s been happening on Earth for a very very long time. Whatever it’s ‘scientific’ and mathematical reasons and causes !

Cheers from ‘down under’ !

Ayran
Thanks Aryan for chiming in. Such a response means more coming from a third party. From me, the same thing sounds like being defensive.

 

In science there is always a troublesome relationship between empirical and theoretical approaches. The theory-oriented see contrary data as ‘something to be explained later’, while the empirically-oriented see contrary data as a sign that assumptions need to be revisited. Some, including evidently Jackson, are so committed to theories, that they won’t accept observed patterns as having any meaning at all, unless a mechanism is provided to explain them. That’s a real catch-22, as studying the patterns is a necessary part of the search for a mechanism. Do we need know about Newtonian physics in order to be confident the Sun will rise tomorrow?

 

Nonetheless, I’ll be taking this opportunity to post an article that answers Jackson’s question, that explains why climate follows the patterns we see. We’ll definitely be getting into science rather deeply, but math isn’t particularly relevant.
——
Brian Hill wrote:

Why don’t you now vet this with 4 or 5 respected climate scientists in case there is something you haven’t noticed.  Maybe a new consensus will emerge.

If you can find a respected climate scientist who will look at my material, I’d be happy to open a dialog with them. I doubt if you’ll find one who’s interested in looking at the ideas of a ‘denier’.
——
Sergio Lub wrote:

Dear Richard,
Here is the response from my friend Marc McGuire.

Best, Sergio
Richard does not include data from the past couple of decades.  No one denies cyclical climate changes throughout history, but I understand the data shows that the changes currently underway are 20-50 times more rapid than anytime in the past.  Richard’s argument appears to fall in the first category in this clip: 
https://www.earthday.org/6-arguments-to-refute-your-climate-denying-relatives/

Hi Sergio,

Thanks for sharing the article with your friend. I’m not surprised that a True Believer would find some avenue for dismissal. However…

‘Data’ from the past couple of decades has been manipulated and adjusted to exaggerate warming (See article below). And our 200 years of warming has not exhibited unnatural rapidity. We got about 1.5 degrees of rise in exactly the timeframe we would expect from the pattern. To talk about ’20-50 times’ is utter fantasy. The refutation template Marc refers to is an example of the scam’s mind-control operation.

Here is a presentation on how they’re lying about the data, by a very well-qualified scientist:

Nice to hear from you as always!

richard

——
Mees Baaijen wrote:

Thanks for your crystal clear explanation, Richard!

I would like to add a link to a short article with an interview of a Swiss geologist, Christian Schluchter.
Schluchter does not refer to graphics and scientific data, but to extremely tangible facts:
thousands of years old TREE TRUNKS he found under retracting glaciers in the Alps
https://notrickszone.com/2014/06/09/giant-of-geologyglaciology-christian-schluechter-refutes-co2-feature-interview-throws-climate-science-into-disarray/


This is the most definite proof I know that it used to be much warmer than today in the current interglacial (last 10.000 years). Another tangible proof is the find of 4000 yr old remains of agriculture, at 1000 km from the North Pole in Canada.

There is also the fact that in the warm Middle Ages, French wine producers became very worried about competition … by English wine producers! Grapes were produced as for North as Southern Scotland! (maybe we can do some digging in Stirling to proof that). And in that same period, grain and cattle were produced on Greenland.

Maybe somebody can tell this to Greta?
Thanks Mees for sharing the interview. Schluchter is using data that’s independent of ice cores, and he comes up with exactly the same dates and conditions that are indicated by the ice cores. The two studies validate one-another. I’d like to quote a few items from the interview, and I’ll paste in my climate graph first, so we can make comparisons.



His discovery of 4000-year old chunks of wood at the edge of glaciers in Switzerland…
For 2,000 BC, 4,000 years ago, the ice cores show a temperature peak. 

Schlüchter reminds us that during Roman times in the Alps the forest line was much higher than it is today; there were hardly any glaciers… 
For 0 AD, Roman times, the ice cores show another higher peak.

Ice-free 5800 of the last 10,000 years
The ice cores clearly show that for more than half of the past 10,000 years temperatures have been two or more degrees hotter than today. 

The year of death could be determined to be exactly 8195 years before present. The oxygen isotopes in the Greenland ice show there was a marked cooling around 8200.
Here the precise match between the tree-trunk data and the ice-core data is pointed out (and see 6,200 BC above).
rkm
Share:

istanbul escorts istanbul escorts istanbul escorts istanbul escorts istanbul escorts istanbul escorts istanbul escorts

fuck google fuck google fuck google fuck google