1 hour ago, bradschrag said:

Questions?

Brad,

Yeah.

Relevance?

How is this relevant to the layman?

I hate to say it, but Al Gore did a much better job in just one minute of An Inconvenient Truth (even though much of that film has already been debunked) than this series of mathematical explanations around radiation you just gave.

Reread your post. Would an eight-year old understand it? Would he even care to understand it?

Al-baby knows, so gets the Oscar and changes the world (for the worse, but he still changed it). Your approach doesn't even get in the running.

This problem is called curse of knowledge and, if you are not familiar with it, it's a technical term. You keep talking about cognitive biases, so I believe you have to be familiar with it.

Michael

4 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

How is this relevant to the layman?

Because we have to start at the beginning. If I just jump into the greenhouse effect, but you don't understand what it is or its relevance, then it isn't going to matter.

5 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Reread your post. Would an eight-year old understand it? Would he even care to understand it?

With pictures, absolutely. Unfortunately I can't post any diagrams here.

6 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

This problem is called curse of knowledge and, if you are not familiar with it, it's a technical term.

I'm not too familiar with it, but I'll take your word for it. 

Now what questions do you have about what I said in regards to effective temperature? 

If effective temperature makes sense, why is it that the planet is about 33C warmer than the effective temperature?

26 minutes ago, bradschrag said:

Because we have to start at the beginning. If I just jump into the greenhouse effect, but you don't understand what it is or its relevance, then it isn't going to matter.

 

With pictures, absolutely. Unfortunately I can't post any diagrams here.

 

I'm not too familiar with it, but I'll take your word for it. 

 

Now what questions do you have about what I said in regards to effective temperature? 

If effective temperature makes sense, why is it that the planet is about 33C warmer than the effective temperature?

What Brad is saying is that he needs to try to impress and intimidate you with everything that he thinks he knows in order to distract you from asking about what he doesn't know. If you ask him a question to which he doesn't have an answer, his first inclination is to bluff. When you call the bluff, he plays victim, and whines that he's being "badgered." And then he goes right back to posing as professor grilling students to show them how little they know, and should therefore shut the fuck up.

Brad, we're not falling for it.

Do you have any answers to the questions yet?

J

51 minutes ago, Jonathan said:

What Brad is saying is that he needs to try to impress and intimidate

Sorry, you don't know me and you really shouldn't try speaking for me. I don't really don't care if you are impressed by me or anything I have to say. My intent isn't to garner followers. I'm only trying to illustrate, currently, what the greenhouse effect is so we can move forward in the conversation. No point in jumping to radiative transfer models when there is ignorance on what they represent.

20 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:

Bringing him here escalates what was simple bad faith into open hostility. Billy didn’t look for someone who could fill–in for his weakness in science, no he brought an intellectual Nazi attack dog.

Just when it is time to acknowledge the deflection and games and apologize, his instinct is to instead pollute his host’s site with this Nazi trash.

21 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:

He’s a real charmer, came in like a Scaramucci. May even be Billy’s twin.

”You saw the graph, now ACCEPT IT!” He carries a whip and his middle name is Heinrich.

Godwin's Law ... ?

30 minutes ago, bradschrag said:

Sorry, you don't know me and you really shouldn't try speaking for me. I don't really don't care if you are impressed by me or anything I have to say.

Then start answering questions instead of avoiding them. Prove me wrong. I think I've got you pegged. You're a poseur.

Quote

I'm only trying to illustrate, currently, what the greenhouse effect is so we can move forward in the conversation.

No, what you're trying to do is impede and control the conversation. A true conversation would involve you answering questions rather than dodging them and playing professor.

Quote

No point in jumping to radiative transfer models when there is ignorance on what they represent.

So, you're assuming that there's ignorance.

And you need to take over the conversation, and guide the little babies, step by step, while avoiding answering their questions.

We can't cut to the chase, or get to the point, because you don't have answers to our questions. So, as a substitute, as a distraction, you're going to pose and preen, act superior, and dump pages and pages of information which has some relevance or connection to the point, but which never gets to the point.

Tasty steamed octopus.

J

2 hours ago, bradschrag said:

Because we have to start at the beginning.

Brad,

That's incorrect. You have to start at the beginning, not we. And by doing it the way you are doing it, you have already lost the layman. Look at your next statement:

2 hours ago, bradschrag said:

If I just jump into the greenhouse effect, but you don't understand what it is or its relevance, then it isn't going to matter.

Relevance to whom and why? Matter to whom and why? I submit giving a person basic grounds (i.e., "the beginning" according to the arc of coherence you prefer) to understand the greenhouse effect at this juncture of the communication is only relevant to you and matters only within the context of the story image in your mind. You seem to be interested in engineering consent and agreement, so I can see where you would think the person in front of you needs indiscriminate elementary education according to a path that means something to you, but you haven't asked yourself, why would he care? Have you tried to look through his eyes?

You care because you want to teach him with your awesome wisdom and get him to comply. But he doesn't give a fuck at this point, so why does he need elementary education or even jargon-dropping? I know I asked for an explanation an eight-year old can understand, but from what I am seeing, you're not really interested in his understanding. You're only interested in getting him to jump though your hoops.

2 hours ago, bradschrag said:

With pictures, absolutely. Unfortunately I can't post any diagrams here.

Bullshit.

Have you never told a story to an eight year old without pictures?

Live near one for a time and you can't not do it.

This is Basic Living 101.

Besides, I said eight year old level. Not eight year olds. Don't forget, you are addressing adults. The eight year old level of language (and commonplace analogies for that matter) is to anchor the framing neurons of the neural networks involved in processing this information closer to the hippocampus. By their very nature, such framing neurons cannot be sophisticated. They just won't process. (It's a little more complicated than that, but that's good enough for this context.) Anyone who learns this way doesn't forget and he doesn't get confused no matter how complicated the jargon or facts or concepts get later.

Pictures are good, but you don't need them for laymen at this stage. You do need simple language and analogies. (To be more precise, analogies prompt the person to create images in his mind, so there are your images.)

(btw - You can post diagrams here. As long as they are standard images like jpg, png, etc., and so long as there is not a lot of javascript, ajax and so on involved. Simply paste the image URL in your post on OL and hit the Enter key. Just make sure there is no space between the cursor and the end of the URL at the time.)

2 hours ago, bradschrag said:

I'm not too familiar with it, but I'll take your word for it. 

Try this, click here.

Or do the Wikipedia thing: Curse of Knowledge.

Understanding this cognitive bias is quite basic if you are going to be the climate change guru to the rest of us ignorant masses. Without it, there is no information passed during communication and interactions.

2 hours ago, bradschrag said:

Now what questions do you have about what I said in regards to effective temperature? 

Well, here's one question, the most basic of all. Why should I care about effective temperature?

If I don't care about it, nothing you say will register.

(See how that works?)

Michael

27 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

Godwin's Law ... ?

It's a natural reaction to the Meatpuppet strategy, and less distasteful and cowardly.

J

I missed this earlier:

2 hours ago, bradschrag said:

With pictures, absolutely. Unfortunately I can't post any diagrams here.

 

Um, why not???

J

By the way, Brad, when you post images and diagrams in the future, please identify their sources and provide links. That way we can verify easily. You've already told some untruths and demonstrated sloppy and/or biased thinking, so I don't trust you to be honest and diligent. You've shown that your stuff needs to be checked up on, so please cite sources.

J

Godwin's Law is not a law of physics nor a true counter argument to anything without an add on explanation.

--Brant 

Newcomers, please, take a minute to read and respect the basic guidelines that rule on this site (at least in the abstract, since old-timers generally get a break). 

I was a moderator on an insanely-combative site, Syria Comment, back a few years.  My main take-away from those forum rules boils down to one thing: do not needlessly personalize discussion.

See the present SC guidelines in the peekaboo at bottom.

Objectivist Living Guidelines:

Quote

Objectivist Living is a forum for Objectivists and their friends. All people are welcome, but we do have our own particular focus.

The view of Objectivism fostered here is that it is a set of philosophical principles created by Ayn Rand. The initial official version includes contributions by her and people she indicated (as she formally stated in The Objectivist).

We hold that Objectivism is a dynamic, not static, set of principles. These principles are integrated into one system, but this does not preclude future integrations, additions and corrections as the nature of human beings and the universe becomes understood in more depth.

"Check your premises" is one of the basic attitudes that is encouraged here and no premise is so sacred that it cannot be periodically checked. There are no Objectivism commandments defining heresy and blasphemy around here. Intelligent and sincere examination, however, is the standard.

Objectivist Living is devoted to the creation of new works in all areas. Both fiction and nonfiction in literature are encouraged, but fiction is given special attention, as are other creative arts. Objectivism started out as wonderful novels by Ayn Rand. More works need to be written and published, but this cannot happen in a vacuum. Thus Objectivist Living is a place for creators and producers to hang out with each other and with their friends - and hopefully get some work done.

For the detractors of the Brandens, please be advised that Objectivist Living is a haven for them. People can get a positive image of them here. They can learn about the Brandens and learn from them. The Brandens were fundamental to the creation of Objectivism and we feel lucky to be able to interact with them. Disagreements with them on specific issues are OK, but Branden bashing is not tolerated. Instead, we wish to honor them.

Also, flame wars will be extinguised the moment they erupt. We will try to be as diplomatic as possible about this but gratuitous insults are not tolerated. We hold good manners as a value in exchanging ideas.

On an emotional level, we nurture positive emotions like love, admiration, curiosity, etc., and not negative ones like hatred, contempt, rage, etc. This is not an exclusive policy, since some things must be condemned, but predominance is on the positive side.

Objectivist Living is not a movement, merely a place to discuss important ideas in peace with highly intelligent people and create works. We are a place for Ayn Rand's "silent contingency" to appear, should such individuals care to do so, or they can simply read. These are people who admire Rand's works but do not admire the behavior of the Objectivists they have encountered, so they stay home. We aim to be an oasis from the bickering for them.

We wish to extend a hearty welcome to all who come in goodwill and peace.

Michael & Kat

The first sentence says OL is not for you, so go suck it, schoolmarm. Your intellectual Nazi is a dud, he’s your clone, and bringing him here was a hostile act. Hauling out the rules of the place to distract from your attempted enflaming of the place isn’t working. You are toxic and stupid.

30 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

Godwin's Law is not a law of physics nor a true counter argument to anything without an add on explanation.

Brant,

Godwin's Law was funny when it came out, but these days it's merely a rhetorical device used to try to shut down disagreement.

Saying, "Godwin's Law, nyah nyah nyah," has the same rhetorical weight these days as alluding to Hitler. That is, none at all.

I don't mind these things since it looks like OL is getting some new members who probably don't know who Ayn Rand is, but who most likely support the crony establishment party line in the climate change crisis panic.

In other words, more gaming the system to win some something-or-other for some someone's someness rather than discussing an issue with reason and goodwill...

So if anyone wants to let loose with Hitler or Godwin or even Mickey Mouse, hell, it won't make any difference in this context.

Just for the record, in my case, I'm more partial to the Road Runner and Wile E. Coyote.  

Michael

4 hours ago, Jonathan said:

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

J

4 hours ago, bradschrag said:

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.

 

CC is political if it's used as a substitute for AGW. Per se climate change as all physical phenomena is legitimately a scientific subject. 

--Brant

I guess William did invite Brad here. They're both data dumpers. But when it comes to climatology there are no climatologists on site. At least none so self identified.

--Brant

13 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

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

And I am genuinely interested in the answer.

I can check if that's the case by seeing how you answer some questions on the science (by the way, I know william.scherk and brad from Twitter; the former from around the time of Scott Adams' climate challenge, and the latter for longer than that).

I don't have much patience for ideologically-motivated evasions of science. So what I'm going to do is ask direct questions and then cite you the information needed for answering them. I'm not interested in tangents about me being a Nazi, or other red herrings. The questions I will to ask will help keep things focused on the topic at hand. You don't need to address all of the questions at once; you can pick which ones to address [here's a hint: the right answer to all of them is "yes"]. And I'm not interested in evasions of the questions:

Question 1: In the 1960s and 1970s, did scientists predict that increased CO2 would warm the lower atmosphere and cool the middle atmosphere? Or to put this another way: did they predict increased CO2, with tropospheric warming and stratospheric cooling that increased with increasing stratospheric height?

Question 2: In the 1970s, did scientists predict that ozone depletion would cause stratospheric cooling that was pronounced in the lower stratosphere and didn't significantly increase with increasing stratospheric height, such that mitigation of ozone depletion (ex: by limiting CFCs) would mitigate lower stratospheric cooling?

Question 3: During the 1970s, did scientists predict that increasing total solar irradiance (TSI) would warm the troposphere, but not significantly cool the stratosphere, instead warming the stratosphere?

Question 4: Was there a post-1950s and post-1970s multi-decadal tropospheric warming trend and stratospheric cooling trend, with stratospheric cooling increasing with increasing height?

Question 5: Did the Montreal Protocol help successfully mitigate human release of ozone depletion substances, resulting in post-1990s mitigation of lower stratospheric cooling, while cooling continuing higher in the stratosphere?

Sources for answering the questions (if you have trouble finding some of the sources, then paste their titles into https://scholar.google.com/ or https://sci-hub.tw/ ) :

Question 1: 

Figure 16: "Thermal equilibrium of the atmosphere with a given distribution of relative humidity"

Figure 4b: "The effects of doubling the CO2 concentration on the climate of a general circulation model"

Figure 3: https://cdn.exxonmobil.com/~/media/global/files/climate/02_technological-forecast-on-co2-greenhouse-effect-1980.pdf

Question 2:

Figure 12: "Sensitivity of surface-temperature and atmospheric-temperature to perturbations in stratospheric concentration of ozone and nitrogen-dioxide"

Figure 18: "Thermal equilibrium of the atmosphere with a given distribution of relative humidity"

Question 3:

Page 2048: "The effects of changing the solar constant on the climate of a general circulation model"

Question 4:

http://images.remss.com/msu/msu_time_series.html

"Radiosonde Atmospheric Temperature Products for Assessing Climate (RATPAC): A new data set of large-area anomaly time series"

"Atmospheric changes through 2012 as shown by iteratively homogenized radiosonde temperature and wind data (IUKv2)"

Question 5:

"Quantifying the ozone and ultraviolet benefits already achieved by the Montreal Protocol"

"Evidence for the effectiveness of the Montreal Protocol to protect the ozone layer"

"Emergence of healing in the Antarctic ozone layer"

"Postmillennium changes in stratospheric temperature consistently resolved by GPS radio occultation and AMSU observations"

"Radiosondes show that after decades of cooling the lower stratosphere is now warming"

"Stratospheric temperature climate data record from merged SSU and AMSU-A observations"

"Isolating the roles of different forcing agents in global stratospheric temperature changes using model integrations with incrementally added single forcings"

4 minutes ago, Atomsk's Sanakan said:

I can check if that's the case by seeing how you answer...

I don't have much patience...

I'm not interested in tangents...

You don't need to address all of the questions at once...

And I'm not interested in evasions of the questions...

Atomsk,

This is easy.

I'm not interested in you or your post.

You mean nothing to me.

Michael

Just now, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Atomsk,

This is easy.

I'm not interested in you or your post.

You mean nothing to me.

Michael

And there we have it. You ask for repeatable, falsifiable science on climate change. And when the relevant evidence is cited to you, you're only response is to say you're not interested, while making sure to quote-mine in a way that avoids any of the evidence cited to you. Thank you for showing you're not actually interested in  scientific evidence.

Atomsk,

You're here to bicker.

Not interested.

I asked a question. You answered with several questions.

That's the way Jesus Christ used to do.

And I'm not doing religion right now.

Michael

Just now, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Atomsk,

You're here to bicker.

Not interested.

I asked a question. You answered with several questions.

That's the way Jesus Christ used to do.

And I'm not doing religion right now.

Michael

I'm here to discuss scientific evidence. You're clearly not.

You were cited evidence addressing answering your question, and the answer was explained to you at a layman's level. You responded by showing no interest in the evidence or the answers.

You were asked questions to help you make it clear which piece of evidence you didn't accept. You responded by willfully ignoring the questions. 

And you wrapped it up by doing the standard contrarian tactic of acting as if the science you don't accept is on par with religion, while not bothering to actually address the evidence

None of your claims display the response of someone actually interested in scientific evidence that addresses their questions. But your lack of a cogent response was a useful object lesson, nonetheless.

12 minutes ago, Atomsk's Sanakan said:

And when the relevant evidence is cited to you, you're only response is to say you're not interested, while making sure to quote-mine in a way that avoids any of the evidence cited to you. Thank you for showing you're not actually interested in  scientific evidence.

Here is a perfect example of why I am not going to engage much with this person.

I said I was not interested in him. I don't like his bullshit bullying manner of showing up out of nowhere, bossing people around and giving out homework. I refuse to talk to people like that. I never show up anywhere the way he did.

He interprets my objection to him as not showing interest in science.

Legend in his own mind and so on.

It's just bullshit.

No wonder these people are losing the climate change moral panic.

(btw - I vote. Millions of people like me do, too. If we have any say about it, these jokers will never compel us to do or fund anything. There's an object lesson there, too, but I doubt it will be learned by these kinds of folks.)

Michael

He's got electric boots

A mohair suit

You know I read it in a magazine

B-B-B-Billy and the Meatpuppets...

10 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

You're here to bicker.

5 minutes ago, Atomsk's Sanakan said:

I'm here to discuss scientific evidence. You're clearly not.

See what I mean?

That's obviously bickering to anyone except this genius here.

For any reader interested in changing the minds of people, this is a perfect example of how not to do it.

Michael

5 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

It's just bullshit.

And that's about as far as you can go.