Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Javier
#1
From HERE

Hmm, comments not preserved. The ideal setting for a little stir up.

I solved the climate riddle to my satisfaction almost two years ago. I didn’t get to it through hypothesis-driven science, the bane of scientific discovery, but I stumbled upon it through good old-fashioned evidence-driven science. The kind that Popper and Feynman defended. Go where the evidence takes you and only when you arrive at destination make your hypothesis. Hypothesis-driven science inevitably leads to a confirmation-bias trap. Climate is extremely complicated and to have a chance to understand it a good thermodynamics understanding is a must. I started laying out the clues in a series of articles here at WUWT, but I didn’t like the response. Probably not the right audience. Here people that do correlation analysis using sunspot numbers to shun a solar effect are revered as the scientific apotheosis.

People have been looking for a simple answer to the climate problem. Most think is the CO2, a few think is the Sun, others think is the clouds. The answer is not that simple, obviously, or it would have been solved long ago. Scotese has the answer right in front of him when he analyzes the equator-to-pole temperature gradients of the past.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Christopher_Scotese3/publication/275277369/figure/fig6/AS:614234891231243@1523456418674/Pole—to—Pole-Temperature-Gradients-for-Hothouse-Greenhouse-and-Icehouse-Worlds.png


The temperature of the Earth is determined by how much energy moves along that gradient, and the Sun is a key regulator in a way that could never be detected with sunspot number correlations. Arctic amplification is not what it seems. And natural variability is a huge confounding factor because the 60-year oscillation that affects the entire climate system essentially takes energy from the surface and returns it 30 years later. Although in the long term the oscillation is neutral, on multi-decadal timeframes it determines whether there is warming or not, regardless of what the real causes are doing.

I even wrote an article on January 2019 entitled “How the Sun cools the Earth” where the main evidence I had found was to be shown, but finally I decided not to publish it. My past experiences had shown that WUWT was no longer a place for scientific discovery. The place where people like Bill Illis or Ferdinand Engelbeen came to show and discuss what they had found. It has become a sort of tribal outlet where one tribe supporters come for reinforcement and very few commenters are genuinely interested in learning and discovery.

I’ve been trying to publish what I have found in a scientific venue since, but I have the same problem. Everybody thinks they have the answer and nobody is ready to listen. To my knowledge what I have found has not been published, not even discussed elsewhere. It is a weird feeling to think that perhaps I am right and I am the only (or one of very few) person to know why and how the climate has been changing over the past century. Something that if told would make most people think I am a loony. “Hey, Javier thinks he understands climate change and nobody else does. What a loony.” And if I tell, most people would not understand it, would not have any reason to trust what I say, and would just shrug and continue. Nobody that has a different hypothesis would abandon it and they would come to refute or find a different explanation to what I say. Only time can settle this issue, so I will just sit down and wait to find if I was really one of the first to stumble upon the answer or just a loony. I don’t really care that much if people know the truth or not. I am not an evangelizer. For me this was always about me knowing the truth, and I now think I know it.

If somebody else wants to find out they can start from my 2018 articles and continue from there. The answer lies at the end and the fun is the journey.
“I would rather have questions that can’t be answered than answers that can’t be questioned.” Richard P. Feynman.


“The further society drifts from truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.”
George Orwell

Reply
#2
Phil Salmon writes HERE

Bob
Javier has a point about the sun-worshipers. They are just as bad as the CO2 control knobbers, in two respects:


(1) they consider the climate essentially passive, only moved by outside forcing. This is an egregious mistake, with it you’ve failed before you even start. The planet has a layer of water about a billion cubic km, a liquid with an anomalously high heat capacity, which is in constant 4 dimensional movement. This dominates climate, and has its internal independent dynamic. Outside forcing only acts via the ocean, and resonances thereof.



In this respect Javier made probably the single most important discovery in climate science since Agassis discovered ice ages, Milankovitch the orbital glacial forcing and Wegener continental drift. Javier showed that all post-MPR interglacials correlate exactly with obliquity peaks lagged by 6,500 years to allow for ocean thermal inertia. This showed with unambiguous clarity that Milankovitch solar forcing works via the ocean. It is a disgrace that this finding going to the core of how climate is “forced” has been ignored by a community of scientists all blinkered by their own private climate dogmas. The same research community resisted for decades the acceptance of all the aforementioned discoveries – ice ages by Agassis, orbital entrainment of the glacial cycle by Milankovitch and most pitifully of all, the tectonic movement of continents by Wegener. (I would add Belousov to that list.)

(2) CO2 believers and the sun-worshippers have raised the eel-slippery evasion of experimental falsification of their pet hypotheses to an exquisite art form. To their credit the solar peleton at least engage in debate about the evidence, but for example all of Willis’ repeated evidence/data based falsifications of claims of metronomic astrophysicical forcing – he goes to the data and finds no correlation – are all rebuffed with the same excuse – “you’re not doing it right”. If you take the square of the reciprocal and divide by cube of the the sign of the zodiac then take away the number you first thought of – hey presto! There’s our astrophysical forcing, correlation meaning causation and the direction of the arrow of causality can be overlooked by careful sleight of hand. The CO2 crowd on the other hand have denied the very basis of rational science and reject Popper and any need for their “science” to be falsifiable. They deny falsifiability and they deny the null hypothesis.

The sad fact is that we hominids are just crap at science, especially in politicised areas like climate and nuclear energy. They can’t disentangle the search for truth from all the agendas that they are invested in. Even when truth stares them in the face, they won’t accept it until they’re exhausted all the alternatives.
“I would rather have questions that can’t be answered than answers that can’t be questioned.” Richard P. Feynman.


“The further society drifts from truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.”
George Orwell

Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)