A classic example of the metaphysics of Idealism. People's behaviour is determined by what they *imagine* is the case. The ArtStudent™. Engineers learn to adapt their approach to whatever *is* the case, because they don't deal with people, but with the real world.
Yes, that’s the sort of thing. I was thinking of a Fourier transform to tease out other cycles that might otherwise remain unsuspected. There’s supposed to be a 40-year cycle, which apparently has recently negatively affected the alleged upward climb of global temperatures (AGW believers called this ‘the hiatus’ and couldn’t explain it) and from which we are emerging into a warming period.
Clearly these have nothing to do with CO2 levels, but if these cycles are found to have signals in the frequency domain, it would be easier to determine if the planet is actually warming or whether it’s just a combination of the positive parts of various cycles.
All been done. There are no cycles. Just typical chaotic quasi periodic behaviour. When all you have is Fourier, everything looks like superposed sine waves.
There’s
The planet is and always has wobbled about all over the place climate wise. Apart from gross events like vulcanism, or asteroids hitting, mots of the explanations are pretty sketchy.
Climate changes. End of. Move on.
Once again you're showing ignorance and denial of known cyclic events and correlation of temperature. Milankovitch cycles have been well known for a long time, and although some of his beliefs were off, much of his theory has been correlated with temperature.
If you had bothered to read a little further, I mentioned him Once again your prejudice and bigotry have overwhelmed what little intelligence God gave you
You believe it was god who gave me intelligence?
That certainly explains your myopic views, and why you said, "All been done. There are no cycles."
Oh, quite so.
I posed the question to people who are interested in the climate, the only sense I could get from the very few replies was that they had no idea that transitions from time domain to frequency domain were possible.
I would have thought that the exercise would have been done early in the game, but I’m guessing the believers didn’t want to rock the boat by coming up with difficulties for their narrative.
Have a look at some of the articles that come up on WUWT when doing a search for climate cycles:
Well no one else would have bothered, so it must have been some all compassionate God.
Who undoubtedly regrets is rare moment of weakness.
>
Well WUWT is full of people looking for periods who have done intense Fourier transforms on all the data, and found this set of cycles, or that set of cycles and then a decade later, they aren't there any more.
Oh it's been done, but the general consensus is that there are no cycles to be found that haven't been identified already.
Just change that appears essentially chaotic
>
This one looks right up your street
The cycles that do exist are related to cyclic changes in the Earth's orbit and its axial tilt. The extent to which they affect the climate in a gross way is another matter.
It misses several major points. Politicians as usual
Willis Eschenbach is not very clever, sadly, and is a personal friend of the sites owner. He is a wannabe scientist using tools he doesn't really understand .
Some of what he does is valuable. At least he tries to Do Sums, even if he is rather crap at it.
He is always looking for patterns that aren't there : He has fallen for the non mathematician myth that because things happen, *something* must be causing it. He hasn't got as far as chaos theory, which definitely proves that for complex dynamic systems with time delayed feedback, things will inevitably happen *all by themselves*.
Provided energy is supplied to overcome any losses.
Climate is like a flag flapping in the breeze. Its fully deterministic. governed by the laws of physics, and as long as energy (the wind) is there it will flap. You can analyse its permeability, its elasticity and its flexibility all you want but you will never ever predict exactly where any given part of it will be at any given time. It is bounded. You can give limits to where it cannot be, and you may, at varying wind strengths, think it is undergoing periodic oscillations. And infer wrongly that something periodic is 'causing' that. And waste your life trying to find it.
But any electronic engineer will tell you that things oscillate because of time delayed negative feedback *in the circuit itself*. No external input is needed.
Ocean currents, thermal lag in giant ice sheets etc etc..there are so many time delays in climate, and so many overall feedback loops of which Boltzmann's law is only one.
That there are a few external inputs that *do* modulate climate does not refute the fact that none are needed to generate pseudo periodic variation in the system.
And that is why poorly educated and very narrow climate scientists who never did electronics or system theory and never understood chaos theory go looking for Causes, and when they don't find any say 'it must be CO2 then'
And the rest. Suns output is variable, both intrinsically and by dint of orbital variations. 'space weather' is variable by dint of orbital paths in our galaxy and proximity to things like supernovae etc. We don't really know what effect this has on climate but it will be some.
Vulcanism affects gross climate, too. But by far and away the biggest 'affects' are climate itself. Climate affects climate. NAO , PDO, El Niño and La Niñas, Polar vortices, SSWs..none of these are 'caused' by events outside of the climate system itself. They are reflections of the time delays in heat moving from the equator to the poles. They are the climate flag flapping in the breeze.
And we cannot change one iota off it at all. Pretending that we can is simply being a complete Cnut and commanding the weather to stop, instead of the tides.
Which nicely sums up why you shouldn't be allowing climate scientists (or indeed any scientist in any field) to be marking their own homework by peer reviewing in their own field.
And I omitted to add that, at present, we lack scientists of the stature of those of the 20th Century who could assess climate science as a science rather than as a religion or political philosophy, without fear or favour.
Science used to be the province of educated men of independent means. Today it is just another public sector job. That is how governments now control science.
-- It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. Mark Twain
Most points taken, but I don't think this happened. 'Conclusion first, then causes' is what happened in this case.
I think the fundamental issue is the obsession with equality of outcome held by some people, and we now know that no amount of financial and technological aid will make Africans rich.
I am not actually sure how it happened. IIRC correctly there was a geenreal theory that CO2 might cause warming on account of IR absorption but no one had a clue by how much. Varoous parties with axes to grind against coal or for natural gas - Al Gore with Enron. Maggie Thatcher and the coal unions - though that it was sufficiently grandiose and scary that, irrespective of any truth content it might or might not have, it was, politically, a most convenient lie...
...and the rest is history. It was commercially a most convenient lie. Windmills of no intrinsic value could be subsidised by the taxpayer generating huge green profits. Third rate Journalists could make a Career out of trumpeting its dangers,. Attenborough did exactly that. Third rate academics could make a name for themselves falsifying data and adding to the scare. Phil Jones and Michael Mann did that. Hard left Marxists could adapt it to their general anti-science anti-capitalist moral faux green narrative and get government policy farmed by communists and Greens. Big Oil took a look at it, and realised it was a danger - widespread adoption of nuclear power would threaten their profits - but having done the sums, renewable energy would increase the need for gas, so *they* bought off the Greens as well.
It was, in short, the most gloriously successful boondoggle in history. And anyone who challenged it was 'cancelled' with all the Faux moral outrage the faux Left (fully paid up members of the right) could muster. Climate Denier!
Equality is another faux narrative.
After a couple of years in S Africa it was blindingly obvious to anyone not of an unbending Left ideology, that not all the Africans could be given clothes, housing water, education, healthcare and all the other 'basic human rights'; that the let bleated on about, especially if a bunch of communist indoctrinated tribal chiefs were given government authority.
As it is, *some* Africans have been educated, gone to university, have running water and flush toilets and live in just as much fear of black criminals as their 'white' 'Asian' and 'mixed race' neighbours. Just not enough to vote the ANC out of power and put in a government that would tackle endemic crime and state corruption.
Society functions on inequality. We pay some people inordinate amounts of money to undergo years of training and inordinate tests to do jobs that are highly skilled. There are not enough of these jobs to warrant everybody getting the same training however, and as for 'equality of opportunity', sure, in theory you can allow any deaf dumb and blind pinball genius to take out a pilots license, but is it fair to let him take passengers?
Fuck the Moral Maze. Let's just be pragmatic. Most people need an education appropriate to their skill set and there isn't enough money or space for everyone to live in a stately home, but why not let some people do it if they can fund it?
The only equality we have is that we are all born, life's a bitch, and then we die. And the only human right we have is to live and to die. We are not born equal, nothing like... as anyone who knows of someone with a severely disabled child will know.
The whole philosophy of the Left is utter bullshit, Christian morality repackaged with a Marxist wrapper.
>HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.