1 hour ago, bradschrag said:

I wasn't aware the only way to be honest was to avoid reality. Where do you think the chart should stop?

Are you unaware of the timeframe of when the consensus scientists identified the pause/hiatus as happening? You should've considered making yourself aware of it before opining on the subject.

J

18 hours ago, bradschrag said:

Yep, and you are more than welcome to come up with a model that better explains what is causing the current warming. Just because knowledge on a subject improves doesn't invalidate all previous knowledge. So please, what do you believe to be the cause of the current warming?

It's not incumbent upon me to offer any alternatives. Any theory that you favor doesnt become true by default, or true in the absence of any proposed alternative explanations. That's not the way that science or logic works. There are countless possible explanations, including a great deal of unknowns. Modern science is amazing, but it can't model everything. It still has a great deal of trouble handling many climatological phenomena. It can't track and account for all things that can have influence.

But I think you're missing the point. Our current criticism on this thread is of the glaring contrast in hubris compared to the dozen years of alleged error that you're asking us to accept and yet overlook. Trust the alarmist scientists, they've really got it nailed down? Yet they spent all of that time trying to explain a pause/hiatus which you say they were mistaken about? Do you not grasp how, if what you say is true, the science hasn't been and isn't nailed down, and the geniuses whom you're asking us to trust have demonstrated some severe incompetence?

Heh. And they're not on the same page with you. Despite your and a few others' asserting that it's all officially figured out now, and that no pause/hiatus was or is happening, that's not the new consensus. There's a lot of disagreement.

Alarmist certainty is a bluff. It doesn't go well with claiming that the world's leading climatologists were just recently believing in and chasing phantoms.

J

51 minutes ago, Jonathan said:

Are you unaware of the timeframe of when the consensus scientists identified the pause/hiatus as happening

That's irrelevant to whether or not you feel the plot should be trimmed somewhere. The plot represents what is happening to the surface temperatures currently. That you want to trim it down to validate a false claim is known as:

- Cherry picking

- Red herring and/or

-Straw man

Take your pick. Regardless, it a logical fallacy.

26 minutes ago, Jonathan said:

But I think you're missing the point. Our current criticism on this thread is of the glaring contrast in hubris compared to the dozen years of alleged error that you're asking us to accept and yet overlook.

Perhaps you'll enjoy this article, written by a skeptic:

https://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/26/opinion/a-pause-not-an-end-to-warming.html

A statistical pause doesn't exist in the record, especially when viewed on a climate time period (30 yrs or more). Even the worst case 10yr cherry pick might reveal at best no warming, but that doesn't mean the warming has paused, given the fact that the trends of the discussion are longer than 10 years.

I'm curious, if I concede to you that there was a pause, what do you think that invalidates? The greenhouse effect? Conservation of energy? Honest question.

You're not grasping the conversation.

J

1 minute ago, Jonathan said:

You're not grasping the conversation.

I think I understand just fine that you want to make it about some thing that didn't exist. It's a convenient way to avoid discussing what is actually happening.

19 minutes ago, bradschrag said:

I think I understand just fine that you want to make it about some thing that didn't exist. It's a convenient way to avoid discussing what is actually happening.

Do you mean what is actually happening, or what needs to be done about human activity because what human activity is actually making happening happen?

5 minutes ago, tmj said:

Do you mean what is actually happening, or what needs to be done about human activity because what human activity is actually making happening happen?

Not sure I quite understand your question, but I'm going to guess that you are asking me to clarify my position on whether or not humanity is causing climate change.

Yes, humans are influencing the climate and the rate at which it's currently happening exceeds previous abrupt climate change scenarios that resulted in mass extinction events.

5 hours ago, bradschrag said:

Yep, and you are more than welcome to come up with a model that better explains what is causing the current warming. Just because knowledge on a subject improves doesn't invalidate all previous knowledge. So please, what do you believe to be the cause of the current warming?

Models come up with what the modelers want them to.

I see you have a belief and want a belief to counter your belief.

Belief is CC. Yep, there is CC. When the AGW belief fell into non defendable belief out went AGW and in came the broader category of CC.

That's because the conflict is political and CC has nothing to do with science because not only does climate change it has to change because it's a dynamic system.

In this political context talking about CC is a smokescreen for save-the-planet-now with proscription--that is, initiate force (violate human rights).

When science is politicalized the Nazis swim in the pool. Or, if you prefer Communism, it's a variant on Lysenkoism.

--Brant

you have embraced a political discussion: rationality vrs irrationality and freedom vrs tyranny using pretend science

1 minute ago, Brant Gaede said:

Models come up with what the modelers want them to.

Yep, and the code is generally open source, downloadable, and available for any and all to scrutinize.

2 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

That's because the conflict is political

No it isn't. Calling it political is a straw man.

3 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

using pretend science

I don't see where you offered any science. Did I miss it?

5 hours ago, bradschrag said:

Are we in agreement that...

Brad,

I'm not in this discussion to be persuaded to agree with anything.

If engineering agreement or consent is your aim, you will likely be frustrated by my responses.

I asked a simple question: Where is the repeatable science?

And I am genuinely interested in the answer. (Not as much as Jonathan--who is smarter than me on this--since I am up to my ass in creative writing right now, and I am weary of all the climate change mindgames and yelling and posturing in our culture, but I'm still somewhat interested.)

Like I said, I'm a simple man. For example, WWWWWH works quite well for me most of the time unless it is, say, given in technical jargon I don't understand and in a snotty tone. Then I tune out. (And I still vote when voting time comes around. I happen to vote enthusiastically for President Trump and his ideas. There are millions like me. I wonder if this worries the climate change crisis folks.  )

But, to give you the benefit of the doubt since you seem to suffer from the curse of knowledge, here is bit of advice on how to simplify. 

When dealing with a layman, you have to start by using simple language and analogies. That is, you have to resort to these if you want what you say to be understood by the layman.

(If your aim is to trounce an enemy or wow with bullshit or intimidate or something like that, I have different advice, but that's outside of the scope of what I am discussing.  )

For example, taking a couple of ideas from your post above to me, if you are going to use a term like GHE, you need to say what that means and a simple description of what it does or how it works. Maybe an analogy. If you are going to state (apparently as fact from your tone) that "the earth is over an effective temperature of 255K," you have to say what that means and what that might feel like or look like to the layman. And, for that matter, how people know that. Once again, simple language and analogies are your friends.

If you want to explain the process from the ground up using a causal chain, it's easy-peasy for a layman to understand when the explainer says, "We are going to start at "A" and we are going to end at "Z" with some steps in between. I'll show you how one step causes the following step, from the beginning to the end."

(There are other forms of what Pinker calls "arcs of coherence" than a causal chain, like temporal sequence, etc., but a discussion of that is for another day.)

After you get the overall idea across to the layman in a manner an eight-year old can understand (yes, eight year old), you then take the first point where there is some kind of reproducible test that proves it, explain the test in simple language (this explanation can be more advanced than eight year-old level, but it still needs to be simple) and point to where people can read it for themselves. Tell them anyone can do the test and get the same results.

Then go to the next point and do the same.

After you do a few points like that, you come across to the layman as credible instead of a blowhard on a vanity trip or a propagandist. And, btw, this form answers the initial question nicely and without any ambiguity.

I came up with these steps just now by riffing off the Feynman method of learning that is popular among college students and which he used for his own understanding. To me, if simplifying like that is good enough for a Nobel Prize Winner in quantum physics, it's good enough for me. 

Michael

9 hours ago, bradschrag said:

I think I understand just fine that you want to make it about some thing that didn't exist. It's a convenient way to avoid discussing what is actually happening.

So, you want to discuss "what's actually happening," but only at the moment, not in the recent past, and not in the future if or when another leveling off or dropping of temperatures occurs? Convenient. Is that how you think that science works?

i've been asking questions here about "the science" (and our friend Billy likes to giggle about that term, tee hee hee). I've been asking about what were the conditions and ground rules that were idententified ahead of time. That includes the issue of falsifiability. So, my current question is, when did the scientists who are in charge of the experiment explicitly identify the idea that a pause/hiatus of what certain number of many years would be acceptable and would not falsify their hypothesis? Will you please show me the original text where that was determined and clearly stated ahead of time, before testing began? I haven't been able to find it.

J

8 hours ago, bradschrag said:

Yep, and the code is generally open source, downloadable, and available for any and all to scrutinize.

Which code is the code that you're referring to? Are you saying it's the official, consensus, settled science code? If so, will you please give details about it? When was it created and put into action? How long has it been functioning, unaltered, as the official experiment code?

J

8 hours ago, bradschrag said:

No it isn't. Calling it political is a straw man.

Okay, then. Since you say so. I'll believe that no one has ever tried to use science politically, and no one is doing so now.

Heh.

J

8 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

For example, taking a couple of ideas from your post above to me, if you are going to use a term like GHE, you need to say what that means and a simple description of what it does or how it works. Maybe an analogy. If you are going to state (apparently as fact from your tone) that "the earth is over an effective temperature of 255K," you have to say what that means and what that might feel like or look like to the layman. And, for that matter, how people know that. Once again, simple language and analogies are your friends.

This is why I asked the questions. Some layman are familiar with the concepts. A simple, let's start before that would have sufficed. So, let's start before that, and fair warning, this might get lengthy. Going to try to cover a number of bases here.

When it comes to heat transfer, there are 3 basic modes: conduction, convection, and radiation. Of these 3, only 1 is how the earth receives and loses heat - radiation. Simply put, you can't conduct or convect energy to a vacuum, you can only send it (or radiate it) through the vacuum.

All objects radiate heat, but the wavelength and quantity that they radiate is highly temperature dependent. There are a couple of laws that describe this. Plancks law describes the intensity and wavelength, while the Stefan-Boltzmann Law describes the total amount of emitted power.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck's_law

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan–Boltzmann_law

While I won't go into detail on these, there are a couple things worth checking out. First, in the link to Planck's Law there is a diagram at the top of the page showing the expected spectrum to be emitted by bodies of temperatures 3-5000K. I think that diagram is helpful simply because it highlights where the visible spectrum is, and for reference, the effective temperature of the sun is ~5800K. If you want to know why our eyes evolved/created to see visible light - there's your answer. It's the dominant wavelengths that the sun emits. The other key takeaway from Planck's Law is what kind of radiation do other objects, such as a planet or person emit. These are longer wavelengths beyond the red part of the visible spectrum - therefore are referred to infra-red.

In regards to Stefan-Boltzmann (SB going forward), the key takeaway is that the amount of radiated power from an object increases by the fourth power with it's temperature. So if body A has a temperature a radiates power P, then the body 2A (double temperature) will radiate (2^4 or) 16P power.

So knowing now these couple of concepts we can move onto radiative balance. Objects, such as a moon or a planet, are said to be in radiative balance when they emit as much radiation as the absorb. By conservation of energy and SB, we know that if a cooler body is receiving more radiation than it emits, it will warm. As it warms, it will emit more radiation. When incoming and outgoing are balanced: voila - radiative balance.

Effective temperature is simply the temperature we would expect (according to SB) for a planet to be given the amount of radiation it is absorbing and emitting in radiative balance. It is probably evident that the surface area over which the planet absorbs radiation (the lit side) is much less than the surface area over which the planet can emit radiation (the full surface area). There's some ugly calculus that I'm definitely not comfortable with trying to breakdown Fenyman style to explain, but the short answer is the the difference in surface areas is a factor of 1/4. That is, earth absorbs radiation equivalent to a flat disc with radius r, and emits from a sphere with radius r. The differences in surface area between a flat circle and a sphere is 1/4.

The other key component to calculating effective temperature is albedo, which is a weird word to say reflected energy. The earth reflects approx 30% of the incoming light. Be this in clouds, snow/ice caps, simple reflection off the surface, etc. Albedo is simply (1 - relfected%), so for earth, the albedo is .7

Finally to a bit of math:

Based on observations, or calculations using SB Law and our distance from the sun, it can be shown that the earth receives approx 1365Wm^-2 of power from the sun. That is to say, each square meter of surface area has 1300+ watts reaching it....in space. We first need to knock down that number by a factor of .7 to account for energy that reflected away.

1365 * .7 = 955

Then, we need to be mindful of that factor of 1/4, because the earth surface area for emitting the power it absorbs is much greater than the surface area over which it can absorb:

955 / 4 = 239Wm^-2

This is the effective power received by the planet. If we plug that 239 into SB Law and solve for T, we get this number referred to as the planets effective temperature:

255K

What this number represents is the absolute maximum avg temperature (again, this can be shown through complicated maths that I'll link at the bottom) the planet could have given how much solar energy it absorbs. Of course no one uses Kelvin in their day to day, so let's convert this to more recognizable units:

That would be -18C or just under 0F

The only way to increase the planets temperature beyond that are either internal heating or adjusting the radiative energy balance. While the earth's core is very hot, it turns out the rocky surface it a rather fantastic insulator. The earth's core only gives about one-tenth of a watt per square meter to the surface. That leaves us with adjustment to the radiative energy balance. This term, be it "accurate" or not, is called the greenhouse effect.

I'll stop here for now. I promise I'm on my way to the "repeatable" science. Questions?

Dropping a quick link in here if anyone wants to double check what I'm saying in regards to effective temperature: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effective_temperature

Complicated maths: https://arxiv.org/pdf/0802.4324

1 hour ago, Jonathan said:

Which code is the code that you're referring to? Are you saying it's the official, consensus, settled science code? If so, will you please give details about it? When was it created and put into action? How long has it been functioning, unaltered, as the official experiment code?

I was replying to your comment about models.

There's also code out there for adjustments.

There's also raw data available for download.

You don't seem to be honestly trying to learn anything here.

1 hour ago, Jonathan said:

Okay, then. Since you say so. I'll believe that no one has ever tried to use science politically, and no one is doing so now.

Equivocation fallacy. That something is used politically doesn't mean that the thing is political. Science isn't founded upon politics even though politicians might rely on it.

6 minutes ago, bradschrag said:

I was replying to your comment about models.

There's also code out there for adjustments.

There's also raw data available for download.

You don't seem to be honestly trying to learn anything here.

What are you talking about? I'm eager to learn, which is why I'm asking for information. Give me the details. Answer the specific questions that I've asked. Teach me!

You say that there's code out there. Where? Link to it. Identify what you think it is. Is it the model that represents the "settled science"? Who created it, and when? How long has it been running as the model that has successfully, repeatedly, reliably predicted future temperatures?

J

2 hours ago, Jonathan said:

So, you want to discuss "what's actually happening," but only at the moment, not in the recent past, and not in the future if or when another leveling off or dropping of temperatures occurs? Convenient. Is that how you think that science works?

I'm not the one who was calling fraud because a plot was posted that came all the way to this year. I'm happy to talk about whichever of those times you have questions about. So before you go answering questions for me that you ask of me how about you try honest debate. Ask a question and see if I'm interested in answering, rather than just giving a "but only..... and not.... Convenient" bullshit.

That's how science, and debate, works.

3 minutes ago, bradschrag said:

Equivocation fallacy. That something is used politically doesn't mean that the thing is political. Science isn't founded upon politics even though politicians might rely on it.

No one has claimed that science is founded upon politics, asshole.

Heh. You're just full of lame, dishonest maneuvers, aren't you?

J

1 minute ago, Jonathan said:

What are you talking about? I'm eager to learn, which is why I'm asking for information. Give me the details. Answer the specific questions that I've asked. Teach me!

Can't make you drink, can only show you the water:

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=general+circulation+model+code&t=lm&atb=v1-1&ia=web

All your questions can be answered if you even tried to look.

1 minute ago, bradschrag said:

Can't make you drink, can only show you the water:

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=general+circulation+model+code&t=lm&atb=v1-1&ia=web

All your questions can be answered if you even tried to look.

So, you don't have answers to the questions. It was bluff.

J

2 minutes ago, Jonathan said:

No one has claimed that science is founded upon politics, asshole.

I scrolled back up, he did say the conflict is political, so perhaps you are right. He went onto say it (CC) has nothing to do with science. This is wrong on his part, however maybe i read into it too much that the implication was the CC is political.

3 minutes ago, Jonathan said:

So, you don't have answers to the questions. It was bluff.

As I said, can't make you drink.

http://www.easterbrook.ca/steve/2009/06/getting-the-source-code-for-climate-models/

Did you badger your teachers for not answering the test questions for you too?

1 hour ago, bradschrag said:

As I said, can't make you drink.

http://www.easterbrook.ca/steve/2009/06/getting-the-source-code-for-climate-models/

Did you badger your teachers for not answering the test questions for you too?

1. You're not my teacher, you're a douchebag.

2. This isn't a classroom. We're not discussing education methods, but your climatological claims.

3. The onus is on you, not me. It's not my homework. It is not my burden to hunt down proof to back up you claims. That's your job.

(The lame tactic that you're using in trying to make your homework into mine is what I've identified several times in the past here as the Doubly Irrational Maneuver, which is described here, and which our friend Billy just recently tried to pull here

Quote

 

...It's kind of a doubly irrational misidentification of how the burden of proof works. Rational people understand that they have the burden of supporting their assertions with evidence and logic. Irrational people think that they can make assertions and that others then have the burden of refuting them with evidence and logic. Well, these doubly irrational poseurs act as if they believe that when they make an assertion, it is their opponents' burden to help them support it with evidence and logic!

It's like this:

Doubly Irrational Person: My theory is that X is true.

Rational Person: Then prove that X is true.

Doubly Irrational Person: I'm not going to do your thinking and your homework for you!!!

Somehow we are being lazy and shirking our burdens by not proving his assertions!

 

Answer all of the questions that I asked, not just parts of one or two of them.

The scientific method is a specific thing. It's not just some of the parts of the specific thing.

"There are models out there," isn't enough. All of the details about the model that is said to have succeeded are also needed.

Answer the questions.

And, no, I'm not going to go off on a wild goose chase to search through a site which more than likely doesn't contain what I've asked for. (If it did contain it, you'd be posting it pronto. You're really fucking worked up about this issue, and so much so that any shred of any angle that would make you feel as if you've gotten a win is something that you would jump on.)

J