Skepticism about Climate Change

[Tim Lookingbill]

Here's one explanation I came up with that I'm sure will be refuted by scientists, but what if the angle of the tilt of the Earth's axis toward and away from the sun is shifting more toward the sun during summer months and farther away during winter?

I haven't seen that mentioned by scientists in the documentaries on global climate change.

[Alan Goldhammer]

Here's one explanation I came up with that I'm sure will be refuted by scientists, but what if the angle of the tilt of the Earth's axis toward and away from the sun is shifting more toward the sun during summer months and farther away during winter?

I haven't seen that mentioned by scientists in the documentaries on global climate change.

the axis of the earth and its variation are governed by standard gravitational physics and are unchanged over the short term observation that we have data for. 

[Tim Lookingbill]

the axis of the earth and its variation are governed by standard gravitational physics and are unchanged over the short term observation that we have data for.

Wow! Alan, you sound so scientific. How do you do that?!

[EricV]

Here's one explanation I came up with that I'm sure will be refuted by scientists, but what if the angle of the tilt of the Earth's axis toward and away from the sun is shifting more toward the sun during summer months and farther away during winter?

 
If the Earth's axis shifted like this, Polaris would no longer be the North star.  So you can test your own hypothesis using photography Look at star circles in a long exposure of the northern sky and see if they are still centered on Polaris.

[Tim Lookingbill]

Eric, I was referring to very small axis angle shifts within maybe an inch or so seeing that climate scientists indicate 1 degree up or down in ocean temperatures can cause so much change.

Climate scientists make Earth appear very sensitive to slight changes imperceptible to humans. The Earth is quite delicate and can be thrown off balance to a certain degree from temperatures, solar flares, magnetic fields, ozone, CO2, etc.

[Tim Lookingbill]

Maybe the ice caps are melting from the bottom up from warmer water migrating from other areas across the ocean.

On CBS Evening news today they show skiers in northern California snow...

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/california/articles/2017-06-12/snow-in-june-dots-california-slopes-with-skiers

...while just a couple of states over in Arizona they can't fly jets because it's too hot.

Where did California get cold enough air to make snow that doesn't melt when it hits the ground but the ice caps melt near the north pole. Doesn't make sense.

This isn't climate change. It's climate migration.

[LesPalenik]

Maybe the ice caps are melting from the bottom up from warmer water migrating from other areas across the ocean.

On CBS Evening news today they show skiers in northern California snow...

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/california/articles/2017-06-12/snow-in-june-dots-california-slopes-with-skiers

...while just a couple of states over in Arizona they can't fly jets because it's too hot.

Where did California get cold enough air to make snow that doesn't melt when it hits the ground but the ice caps melt near the north pole. Doesn't make sense.

This isn't climate change. It's climate migration.

The elevation plays a big role in the creation of snow or ice.
I live in Richmond Hill, with an elevation of 233m, just 30-40km north of Toronto. Toronto's elevation is 76m.
In the winter, on many days, there is a dividing line just north of Toronto (along Hwy 7) with snow north of that line and no snow south of that line. I think it's due more to the elevation than to its more northern location.
 
A better example is Mount Kilimanjaro in Tanzania. Snow covered at 16,000 ft, but the ice and snow mass has been dimishining over the last years.

[Alan Klein]

It still doesn't look like science to me.

Unfortunately, science has gotten very political and economic. 

[Tim Lookingbill]

The elevation plays a big role in the creation of snow or ice.
I live in Richmond Hill, with an elevation of 233m, just 30-40km north of Toronto. Toronto's elevation is 76m.
In the winter, on many days, there is a dividing line just north of Toronto (along Hwy 7) with snow north of that line and no snow south of that line. I think it's due more to the elevation than to its more northern location.
 
A better example is Mount Kilimanjaro in Tanzania. Snow covered at 16,000 ft, but the ice and snow mass has been dimishining over the last years.

You only addressed part of the issue which is elevation making cold air that started out from the ice caps that wasn't cold enough to keep them from melting but suddenly gets colder traveling to mountainous regions in the warmer south.

So I guess the ice caps don't have high elevation induced cold air? How does CO2 air make high elevation air stay cold? I thought CO2 made air warmer due to greenhouse effect.

So I'm having to assume there are multiple layers of air some warm, some very cold moving south from the ice caps to produce our cold fronts where CO2 can't prevent snow from dropping in certain high elevations of the warmer south. I always thought cold air was heavy and sank to lower regions.

Looks like a confusing mixed bag of causality. I still don't see science here.

[EricV]

Eric, I was referring to very small axis angle shifts within maybe an inch or so seeing that climate scientists indicate 1 degree up or down in ocean temperatures can cause so much change.

Scientists can measure the angle of Earth's axis of rotation quite accurately.
Alan might also be interested to learn that the axis does change measurably over time. 
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2428/study-solves-two-mysteries-about-wobbling-earth/

[Tim Lookingbill]

Scientists can measure the angle of Earth's axis of rotation quite accurately.
Alan might also be interested to learn that the axis does change measurably over time. 
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2428/study-solves-two-mysteries-about-wobbling-earth/

Measure, measure, measure! Measuring isn't science.

I just had blood work to measure my PSA levels to check for possible prostate cancer. Some medical organization entity set a region between 4-10 ng/Lm as out of range and should be checked by a urologist.

As stated by my urologist leaving a message on my answering machine and I quote..."we got your tests back and your sort of borderline elevated on your PSA levels OR NORMAL?! but I think you should come in so we can discuss it"...blah, blah, blah.

I went directly to the national institutes of health website and searched on "accuracy" in PSA lab results. Instead of questioning all the competing labs on their accuracy, the authoritative sounding "medical science" NIH article questioned a new 4K score PSA test to prevent or question the necessity of the increase in treatment and unnecessary biopsies.

Then I found that PSA screening for cancer is considered "controversial" indicating there are too many other factors in play by the time a man reaches a certain age to determine cancer causality. Then I read on the NIH and MayoClinic sites that you're not suppose to have sex, RIDE A BIKE, or have a digital prostate exam before blood is drawn OR THE RESULTS WILL BE INACCURATE.

IOW daily living of riding a bike, having sex and someone rubbing their fingers on your prostate will INCREASE PSA levels.

My asshole is such a small target to measure for potential prostate cancer that I'm kinda' having second thoughts on scientists being accurate about predicting what the weather is going to be like in the future. 

[Robert Roaldi]

Unfortunately, science has gotten very political and economic.

The physics of orbital motion, and nutation in "spinning tops" (normal small perturbations in orbital angles) is well understood, and every 2nd or 3rd year physics student knows it. Or should if they expect to pass. The effects of these motions on cyclical climate are well-known and have been well-known for many decades. It has nothing to do with politics or economics.

[Tim Lookingbill]

The physics of orbital motion, and nutation in "spinning tops" (normal small perturbations in orbital angles) is well understood, and every 2nd or 3rd year physics student knows it. Or should if they expect to pass. The effects of these motions on cyclical climate are well-known and have been well-known for many decades. It has nothing to do with politics or economics.

What about these (normal small perturbations in orbital angles) effects on spinning tops that are well known for decades affect Earth's climate/weather?

I haven't seen that discussed in the global climate change documentaries.

[Robert Roaldi]

What about these (normal small perturbations in orbital angles) effects on spinning tops that are well known for decades affect Earth's climate/weather?

I haven't seen that discussed in the global climate change documentaries.

A possible reason that you haven't seen it is probably because popular media reporting of anything technical is usually risible. At best incomplete. Which is a reason why many of these popular online discussions rarely rise above the level of noise. It is commonplace for people without much specific technical knowledge to have an idea or to read something on a subject and ask why this wasn't known, much as you have done above. However, these things ARE well-known, part of the basic body of knowledge in a field, but not something that's discussed much because there is no reason to. Architects don't refer to Newton's third law when being interviewed about a newly designed building.

It's not logical to assume that the thousands of researchers in the field of climate science don't know about orbital nutation or what effect they might possibly have? It's more sensible to assume that you simply don't know about it because it's not your field. I suspect that if you start digging, you'll find mountains of research in that area and that it has been incorporated into the various climate models for a long time now. If it hasn't been discussed in popular forums, it might be because people instead waste their time arguing that CO2 is a fertilizer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutation

Thousands of researchers around the world spend years of detailed study in all aspects of the related sciences that affect climate, physics, chemistry, biochemistry, etc. It is not logical to assume that concepts that emerge in online public discussions such as this one have not been thought of by them. I would say that it is inconceivable. The average non-scientist citizen does not have the time to read the one-paragraph abstracts of all the research articles written in a year, never mind digest all the content. And that's just the English language articles.

Before retirement, my day job was copy-editing physics and chemistry journals (my background was in physics but that was a lifetime ago), and we used to receive submissions from cranks all the time. There are not enough hours in the day to respond to them, and anyway it's a waste of time. I read 10 pages once on why Einstein was wrong about relativity, great laugh over lunch. I suspect that medical journals get submissions from people who try to deny the germ theory of disease. It's an occupational hazard.

If you want to delve into these matters more deeply, my advice would be to start with journals like Science, New Scientist, Scientific American, etc., not online discussions where it is not possible to determine the credentials of the contributors. The articles in those journals will all have extensive bibliographies into which you could dive.

I did not intend to go on at length. it's just that there are literally thousands of scientific journals with dozens of articles written for every issue, and it makes no sense to seek info about those topics from daily newspapers or photographic web sites.

[one iota]

Did you ever get bad advice from a doctor?  I have.  Many times.  You don't have to be a scientist to be a skeptic.  Doctors and scientists are human and make mistakes and are often wrong.  Even whole herds of them.

If i did I wouldn't blame medical science: it is a work in progress. For a start Doctors are practitioners not necessarily scientists just as engineers and architects are not scientists. These professions depend on a body of knowledge developed scientifically...if they fail to diagnose your complaint then blame the application not the basis. Alan you have failed to make an important distinction.

[ppmax2]

A possible reason that you haven't seen it is probably because popular media reporting of anything technical is usually risible. At best incomplete. Which is a reason why many of these popular online discussions rarely rise above the level of noise. It is commonplace for people without much specific technical knowledge to have an idea or to read something on a subject and ask why this wasn't known, much as you have done above. However, these things ARE well-known, part of the basic body of knowledge in a field, but not something that's discussed much because there is no reason to. Architects don't refer to Newton's third law when being interviewed about a newly designed building.

It's not logical to assume that the thousands of researchers in the field of climate science don't know about orbital nutation or what effect they might possibly have? It's more sensible to assume that you simply don't know about it because it's not your field. I suspect that if you start digging, you'll find mountains of research in that area and that it has been incorporated into the various climate models for a long time now. If it hasn't been discussed in popular forums, it might be because people instead waste their time arguing that CO2 is a fertilizer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutation

Thousands of researchers around the world spend years of detailed study in all aspects of the related sciences that affect climate, physics, chemistry, biochemistry, etc. It is not logical to assume that concepts that emerge in online public discussions such as this one have not been thought of by them. I would say that it is inconceivable. The average non-scientist citizen does not have the time to read the one-paragraph abstracts of all the research articles written in a year, never mind digest all the content. And that's just the English language articles.

+1

[Tim Lookingbill]

    Thousands of researchers around the world spend years of detailed study in all aspects of the related sciences that affect climate, physics, chemistry, biochemistry, etc. It is not logical to assume that concepts that emerge in online public discussions such as this one have not been thought of by them. I would say that it is inconceivable. The average non-scientist citizen does not have the time to read the one-paragraph abstracts of all the research articles written in a year, never mind digest all the content. And that's just the English language articles.

Then I'm not going to get an answer to my question about cold air from up north that can melt the ice caps but cold enough to lay a blanket of snow and ice in the warmer southern regions of the US and not have that melt because it's too complicated to explain (counter to what Einstein said).

We must blindly trust humans trained in each specific scientific field that contribute to support and prove the causality of global climate change to be infallible.

IOW they have so much data that it would take an eternity to sort through and understand by the regular citizen. It means we're too stupid to have any valid say in this. Perfect. Just perfect.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Then I'm not going to get an answer to my question about cold air from up north that can melt the ice caps but cold enough to lay a blanket of snow and ice in the warmer southern regions of the US and not have that melt because it's too complicated to explain (counter to what Einstein said).

Not really, it's not too complicated to explain, you just gave insufficient input. Melting icecaps have to do with seawater temperature and gulf streams, and air temperature and wind direction (so low- and high-pressure systems and their locations), and surface albedo, and the solar angle of irradiance, and aerosols and the hole in the ozone layer, etc.

Snow in warmer southern regions depends on how the vertical temperature gradients change, and the amount of moisture that freezes at a given higher altitude so that it survives the fall through warmer air layers to reach the ground.

We must blindly trust humans trained in each specific scientific field that contribute to support and prove the causality of global climate change to be infallible.

Not at all. There is competition amongst scientists, so they keep a close eye on what their colleagues do, and they critique each other's work in peer review. And again, you seem to mix up Climate with Weather. They are different beasts.

IOW they have so much data that it would take an eternity to sort through and understand by the regular citizen. It means we're too stupid to have any valid say in this. Perfect. Just perfect.

Well, don't get me started on stupid people, but indeed some of it is complex (and some of it is blindingly simple, like greenhouse gasses), so one tends to use computers for the data crunching. When that results in a clear presentation format, then some people say they don't believe the result but also do not take the effort to really educate themselves (but rather rely blindly on some blog or another). You can't have it both ways. Either invest in understanding the mechanisms at work or rely on others to do it for you.

Maybe the first paragraph of this web page answers part of your question:
https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/snow/science/formation.html

Just guessing, because you didn't specify the conditions in enough detail maybe the concept of evaporative cooling is what confused you?

Cheers,
Bart

[Robert Roaldi]

Then I'm not going to get an answer to my question about cold air from up north that can melt the ice caps but cold enough to lay a blanket of snow and ice in the warmer southern regions of the US and not have that melt because it's too complicated to explain (counter to what Einstein said).

We must blindly trust humans trained in each specific scientific field that contribute to support and prove the causality of global climate change to be infallible.

IOW they have so much data that it would take an eternity to sort through and understand by the regular citizen. It means we're too stupid to have any valid say in this. Perfect. Just perfect.

No, not in the least, why the overreaction? In fact, good for you for asking about and wanting to understand those ideas. All I'm saying is that this is the wrong place to look. The experts in the field don't participate in forums on photography sites. And layman answers by non-experts with axes to grind will not in general get you the information you want. The answers to your questions are almost certainly out there, just not here. And unfortunately, I don't know enough about it to point you in the right direction. But someone somewhere does.

But to the more general question about blindly trusting humans with specialized knowledge, well, we do that every minute of every day. We trust the traffic lights to work, we trust airline pilots and their mechanics, we trust surgeons, etc. If you become curious about a specific aspect of an upcoming surgery, you'd start by asking your surgeon to at least learn the jargon then get busy on google scholar and elsewhere. Same for any specialized body of knowledge, you ask the experts for the basics or read about them in basic texts, then go to work on your own to understand what's behind it, if you choose to. We'd be better off if more people did that. Reading popular media or reading opinions on forums is not research, it's just friends talking. Not bad in and of itself, but it's not source material.

And no one says that exports in a field are infallible. No scientist ever says that. There is always new knowledge. But new knowledge does not necessarily mean that the old knowledge was wrong. It just means that we know more now than we did before.

Let me give an example of what I think is silliness in these discussions. I have read on these pages (I don't know which thread, may not have been this one) the subject of methane raised, about how it is also a greenhouse gas, and it was raised as a way to point out that therefore CO2 may not be the climate change culprit that we think it is, AND the subject was raised as if this is new knowledge. Well, it may be new knowledge to some readers here, but it's not new knowledge to anyone working in the field. In fact, there is tons of research going on at the moment about the trapped methane (and other gases) that is frozen in the deep oceans or the permafrost. It is another piece of the puzzle, something else researchers are looking into. Please don't misunderstand me. I don't mean that it is silly to ask the question about methane, that's perfectly valid. What is silly is to assume that it has not been thought of before and not already addressed or assessed by experts in the field. That's in general an incorrect assumption to make.

[Alan Klein]

Here's a question.  How do you execute a 100 year plan to change the earth's climate?