14 minutes ago, bradschrag said:

I'm not here looking for acceptance or permission from you or anyone else.

Brad,

And just because you say it, that makes it true?

I've been at this a long time.

I know mind games when I see them.

And I see them in some of your posts.

Sorry, but that's the way you come off.

Michael

16 minutes ago, bradschrag said:

Anyway, have a good one.

Thank you. 

You too.

12 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

And just because you say it, that makes it true?

I didn't realize you were an authoritative judge of other's intents.

12 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I've been at this a long time.

And just because you say it, that makes it true?

12 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I know mind games when I see them.

And I see them in some of your posts.

Funny, all I've done is attempt to answer some questions and point out logical fallacies.

13 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Sorry, but that's the way you come off.

To be clear, I'm not looking for an apology. However, if you are going to apologize to someone "Sorry, but...." is not the way to do it. You aren't accepting responsibility for your actions when you do so. Please do practice being a bit more honest.

It's a new day, ready to get back to the greenhouse effect so you can understand the repeatable science?

No one has said they don't understand the repeatable science. This is not a lecture hall. No one has engaged you as a teacher--not here.

--Brant

15 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Brad,

No you didn't.

But I'm not going to argue it other than to say, I don't think you want to communicate information, but instead play the role of instructing from on high according to some inner script of your own...

What Brad is doing is trying to bog down the discussion by overwhelming it with minutiae. The game is that we asked for repeatable, so Brad is going to pretend to not understand the context, and give all sorts of examples of repeatable in regard to noncontroversial pieces of the puzzle, while hoping that we didn't notice that he switched to talking about pieces when we were specifically asking for repeatable entire picture.

It's like someone saying that granite floats on air. You ask for proof via repeatable experiments, and douchebag then goes into the repeatable science of the mineralogical composition of granite, and what evidence there is to label it felsic. Do you know what felsic means? Huh, stupid? No? But yet you have your big important opinions about rocks not floating! Science denier!

That, and another tack is bickering about how badly Brad's being treated, and who said what. Boo hoo hoo. Brad has lots of time for all of that, but no time for answering my questions.

That's fanboy/activist stuff, not science.

Science is actually the mindset that the alarmist fanboy/activists ridicule: critical thinking, skepticism, caution, testing, etc. A truly scientific mindset is that of trying as hard as one can to find flaws in any theory. 

I don't get the impression that Brad, Meatball2, or Billy have ever taken that approach. Their mindset seems to be that of confirmation bias, heroically fighting the silly "denier" rubes, tee hee heeing, and high-fiving.

But maybe I'm wrong. I guess Meatball2 is gone, but I'd like to ask Brad and Billy to tell us about their critical examination of the idea of anthropogenic climate change. What are your biggest criticisms? Do you have any? What holes have you found in the theory? What are the biggest weaknesses in whatever theory you have the most confidence? Do you feel that you have to hide them? Show us your critical scientific side rather than just the fanboy side. After all, even the IPCC identifies severe weaknesses. It admits to significant limitations.

Anyway, there's no need for the trick of trying to obscure the forest with leaves. It's really as simple as X amount of CO2 over time period Y should equal temperature Z. Sounding like a broken record: In regard to the big picture issue of anthropogenic climate change (and not isolated, smaller pieces of the picture), show us the repeatable, successful predictions. Identify specifically what was the hypothesis, precisely what predictions were made, when were they made, what potential results were identified ahead of time as falsifying or invalidating the hypothesis, what the start and finish dates of the experiment were, provide the unmolested data, the untainted control, and the unmanipulated historical record.

J

Michael kicked meatball2 out.

--Brant

good move

2 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

No one has said they don't understand the repeatable science. This is not a lecture hall. No one has engaged you as a teacher--not here.

Michael explicitly asked for it. When shown a plot of modeled radiative emissions from the planet overlayed with observed radiative emissions he said he didn't understand why it represents. So either he is going to have to make an effort to learn what it represents or sit quietly in his echo chamber.

1 hour ago, Jonathan said:

What Brad is doing is trying to bog down the discussion by overwhelming it with minutiae.

No, a question was asked for repeatable science. That's what is being offered.

I asked up front before my explanation if we were all in acceptance of the GHE, or if we needed to start before that. So we don't need to bicker about the GHE?

1 hour ago, Jonathan said:

Brad and Billy to tell us about their critical examination of the idea of anthropogenic climate change. What are your biggest criticisms? Do you have any? What holes have you found in the theory? What are the biggest weaknesses in whatever theory you have the most confidence? Do you feel that you have to hide them? Show us your critical scientific side rather than just the fanboy side.

> Biggest criticism - While the climate models do a fair job at prediciting the surface temperatures, they don't do as well replicating the mid troposphere temps. This could hint at TCS (transient climate sensitivty) being a bit overstated, in my opinion.

> What holes - I'm not sure what constitutes a "hole" to you. From comments and criticisms I've seen of the original Mann hockey stick, it would seem there may have been some... hmmm... methodology that isn't entirely sound. That said, Mann's work has been replicated by over 50 other independent, peer reviewed studies using entirely different proxies and methodologies from his own. So what could be considered a hole (Mann's work, and again I'm not one that can speak for or against his work) in isolation has been repeatedly shown to be a non-issue. Jim Java (@priscian on twitter and github) has compiled a list of these independent studies, but in the meantime here's this:

> biggest weakness - Again, I'm not sure how to respond to that. Spectroscopy is very well understood and validated. Line-by-line radiative transfer models do an excellent job modeling outgoing infrared radiation. Because of this, we can tweak the inputs (ghg concentrations) and see what happens to the resulting output. Of course there are some intricacies that pop up here that, again see above, I believe result in issues with TCS. However, TCS aside, we still have a good handle on equilibrium climate sensitivity due to an enormous wealth of knowledge in paleoclimatology. From paleo data, ECS can be well approximated to be ~3C for a doubling of co₂ (approx 3.7Wm^-2

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/337/6097/917.full

> show us your critical scientific side - You first.

1 minute ago, Jonathan said:

Oh, okay, well then let's talk about the repeatable science of making vinegar and baking soda volcanoes!

Ok, but I hardly see how that applies to climate. I started at the line-by-line radiative transfer models because it's highly applicable to the topic.

Is strawmanning all you are going to be good for here?

Also, one other note. 

In science, a theory is a hypothesis that has been repeatedly tested or criticized without falsification. That AGW is a scientific theory speaks enormously to the amount of validation that goes into it. For anyone to dismiss it as simply a theory that might be wrong rewrites them to bring the evidence to the table to overturn it.

1 hour ago, bradschrag said:

Michael explicitly asked for it. When shown a plot of modeled radiative emissions from the planet overlayed with observed radiative emissions he said he didn't understand why it represents. So either he is going to have to make an effort to learn what it represents or sit quietly in his echo chamber.

My bag. I was focused on repeatable science not THE repeatable science. Or, I thought I was speaking generally, not particularly. I misread you and wrongly kept the "the."

--Brant

Brad,

There have been a lot of apocalyptic stories in the media about rising sea levels that would threaten to flood whole countries or at least a large part of them. But then I read in a recent (October 2018) report by the IPCC (not really an organization known for covering up climate problems):

Quote

 

B.2.1 Model-based projections of global mean sea level rise (relative to 1986–2005) suggest an indicative range of 0.26 to 0.77 m by 2100 for 1.5°C of global warming, 0.1 m (0.04–0.16 m) less than for a global warming of 2°C (medium confidence).

 

( https://report.ipcc.ch/sr15/pdf/sr15_spm_final.pdf )

So, with a 2°C global warming, the expectation is some 50 cm, at least < 1m, sea level rise in 80 years, which is a period of several generations. I can’t see that as very threatening. What’s your opinion on this - am I missing something?

2 hours ago, Jonathan said:

What Brad is doing is trying to bog down the discussion by overwhelming it with minutiae. The game is that we asked for repeatable, so Brad is going to pretend to not understand the context, and give all sorts of examples of repeatable in regard to noncontroversial pieces of the puzzle, while hoping that we didn't notice that he switched to talking about pieces when we were specifically asking for repeatable entire picture.

It's like someone saying that granite floats on air. You ask for proof via repeatable experiments, and douchebag then goes into the repeatable science of the mineralogical composition of granite, and what evidence there is to label it felsic. Do you know what felsic means? Huh, stupid? No? But yet you have your big important opinions about rocks not floating! Science denier!

That, and another tack is bickering about how badly Brad's being treated, and who said what. Boo hoo hoo. Brad has lots of time for all of that, but no time for answering my questions.

That's fanboy/activist stuff, not science.

Science is actually the mindset that the alarmist fanboy/activists ridicule: critical thinking, skepticism, caution, testing, etc. A truly scientific mindset is that of trying as hard as one can to find flaws in any theory. 

I don't get the impression that Brad, Meatball2, or Billy have ever taken that approach. Their mindset seems to be that of confirmation bias, heroically fighting the silly "denier" rubes, tee hee heeing, and high-fiving.

But maybe I'm wrong. I guess Meatball2 is gone, but I'd like to ask Brad and Billy to tell us about their critical examination of the idea of anthropogenic climate change. What are your biggest criticisms? Do you have any? What holes have you found in the theory? What are the biggest weaknesses in whatever theory you have the most confidence? Do you feel that you have to hide them? Show us your critical scientific side rather than just the fanboy side. After all, even the IPCC identifies severe weaknesses. It admits to significant limitations.

Anyway, there's no need for the trick of trying to obscure the forest with leaves. It's really as simple as X amount of CO2 over time period Y should equal temperature Z. Sounding like a broken record: In regard to the big picture issue of anthropogenic climate change (and not isolated, smaller pieces of the picture), show us the repeatable, successful predictions. Identify specifically what was the hypothesis, precisely what predictions were made, when were they made, what potential results were identified ahead of time as falsifying or invalidating the hypothesis, what the start and finish dates of the experiment were, provide the unmolested data, the untainted control, and the unmanipulated historical record.

J

Jonathan,

You've nailed so many correct points, especially about the rhetorical methods of these Meatball geniuses, I quoted the entire post.  

Basically the bullshit these pro-sky-is-falling climate crisis people serve up hasn't changed ever since Michael Crichton wrote State of Fear. Probably before, but I know it from this date because that's when I started following it. Crichton used to run a discussion forum back then (around 2004) and, after a gazillion  posts between warring factions on manmade global warming, he simply shut down the discussions. I remember the phrase he used: "Same old same old."

You called this new batch of Meatballs who showed up on OL "fanboy/activists." I think that's about right. Their behavior fits fanboy/activists to a tee.

I thought the Brad Meatball was a bit different, but you know what convinced me he wasn't? I don't think he's very smart. I mean, if you're going to snark, at least don't be totally clueless. I told him I've been at this stuff for a long time. And Brad Meatball genius, posting on a forum I have run for 15 years with a published record of it all right at his fingertips, snarks back my own words, "And just because you say it, that makes it true?"

That's retarded. You'd think the guy didn't have eyes to see what was right in front of him to ask that. So if snark is the genus, and his snark question is the conceptual referent, we have a specific differentia (retarded), so we can call this retarded snark.

Part of your last paragraph bears repeating:

Quote

In regard to the big picture issue of anthropogenic climate change (and not isolated, smaller pieces of the picture), show us the repeatable, successful predictions. Identify specifically what was the hypothesis, precisely what predictions were made, when were they made, what potential results were identified ahead of time as falsifying or invalidating the hypothesis, what the start and finish  dates of the experiment were, provide the unmolested data, the untainted control, and the unmanipulated historical record.

You're never going to get that from the climate change crisis Meatballs.

You are going to get the evasive techniques you so well described. I don't think that's ever going to change.

Hell, even doing it the Meatball way, I asked him what GTE was and he was too caught up in his snark to answer. For someone who wants to be the enlightener of the rubes and lecture professor and says we have to start at the beginning, once again, that's retarded. It just is.

I have no doubt the Brad Meatball has some learning, but like I said, this particular Meatball is pretty dumb.

Michael

2 hours ago, william.scherk said:

The "Greenhouse Effect" (GHE)

William,

Thank you. I didn't read the rest of your post, but what the acronym meant was the information I wanted. So for that I thank you.

I bet that never occurred to you and the meatball geniuses, huh?

You guys are too busy posturing to see something basic like that. Even when prompted to explain it at an eight-year-old level. 

(And I seriously didn't know what it meant. I don't recall ever using the abbreviation myself. We all have brain farts and that was mine...)

Michael

(To the readers:)

If any of you ever want to see what happens when the curse of knowledge goes out of control with ill will on the part of the guru-wannabees purporting to enlighten their lessors, the posts above, including those by the Meatball geniuses, are a great example.

Bad Faith + Vanity = Dumb.

That's a quip, but there is serious grounding for it. Here on OL, there's a thread that explains the grounding: Human Stupidity. It's based on an article by Carlo M. Cipolla.

The gist is that people fall into four categories: 

Helpless (does things at a loss while causing gain for others),
Intelligent (does things for gain while causing gain for others),
Bandit (does things for gain while causing loss to other) and
Stupid (does things at a loss while causing loss to others).

Let's translate this for the context of the Meatballs (and William) in terms of wasting people's time.

Helpless (wastes his own time while saving time for others), 
Intelligent (saves his own time while causing others to save time), 
Bandit (saves his own time while wasting the time of others) and 
Stupid (wastes his own time while wasting the time of others).

There you have it. Meatballs are stupid and they can't help it, poor things.

Michael

2 hours ago, william.scherk said:

Brad, please respect that some folks here will consider you an "invader" and perhaps not be interested in anything you have to contribute.

And some folks will consider you a douchebag, but will nevertheless be interested in anything that you have to contribute, especially anything that is actually relevant. Answer my questions, and I will be happy to consider very carefully what you have to say. Please, pretty please, answer the questions. Billy invited you here because he couldn't answer them. I hope that you can do better.

J

Jonathan,

I'm confused about some technical jargon.

Meatballs or Meatpuppets?

Which is it?

Decisions, decisions...

(If we can't get any good will and actual information out of these jokers, might as well have fun with them.  After all, they came here. I don't go where they are. I don't like stupid people of ill will who think they're smart.)

Michael

42 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

William,

Thank you. I didn't read the rest of your post, but what the acronym meant was the information I wanted. So for that I thank you.

I bet that never occurred to you and the meatball geniuses, huh?

You guys are too busy posturing to see something basic like that. Even when prompted to explain it at an eight-year-old level. 

(And I seriously didn't know what it meant. I don't recall ever using the abbreviation myself. We all have brain farts and that was mine...)

 

Michael

 

They're operating under the assumption that, since you disagree with them, you are therefore retarded. So, when you ask them what GHE stands for (or any other TLA -- three letter acronym), it doesn't occur to them that you're simply asking what the letters stand for. The only thought in their pompous twat heads is that you've never heard of the greenhouse effect, which confirms their view that you're retarded, and why you disagree with them.

This is how their minds work. And it spills over into their approach to science.

J

9 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Jonathan,

I'm confused about some technical jargon.

Meatballs or Meatpuppets?

Which is it?

Decisions, decisions...

 

(If we can't get any good will and actual information out of these jokers, might as well have fun with them.  After all, they came here. I don't go where they are.)

Michael

It's "Meatpuppets" in general, but our specific special guests are "Meatballs," just out of endearment.

J

2 hours ago, Max said:

So, with a 2°C global warming, the expectation is some 50 cm, at least < 1m, sea level rise in 80 years, which is a period of several generations. I can’t see that as very threatening. What’s your opinion on this - am I missing something?

Thanks for the question. First, a link. Yes the number they are using is 6m, rather than .5m, but there are other assumptions being made by your question that are inaccurate. So I'll focus  on those inaccuracies.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sea-level-could-rise-at-least-6-meters/

Yes, for 2C warming the middle of the road number is around .5m of SLR (sea level rise). This is not the amount of SLR you can expect once you've reached 2C warmer, it's the amount you can expect once the system has fully equilibriated and is back to being in dynamic balance.

I say all that because we aren't there. We've warmed over 1C already, and there's currently another 1-1.5C of warming in the pipeline if we stopped burning fossil fuels tomorrow. As we continue to increase co2 concentrations we are only adding more warming into that pipeline. I guess my main point here is it's an ok assumption that we might only rise .5m in 80 yrs, it's not ok to think that that is all the SLR that will occur.

I also agree that 80yrs seems like a while for humans to migrate and adapt. However, many of the towns, cities, and villages that do lie within this danger zone of SLR aren't going to be salvageable. One can't simply relocate the city of Miami for example (although their issue is partly subsidence, I hope it's illustrative of the issue nonetheless).

The other things that is glossed over by these statements and questions revolves around the inherent chaos of storm systems in these areas. Many coastal towns have been built to account for these storm surges safely. Be it through barriers or simply proximity to the coastline in more remote parts of the world, these natural and man-made barriers or going to prove to be less effective. This raises the long term costs and damages associated with SLR.

Now, will we rise 6m? I hope not. That's very drastic change given the timespan. That's the key issue and concern behind AGW after all. It's not whether or not the ice caps have disappeared in the past, they have. It's not whether or not we've been warmer in the past, we have. It's not about whether or not co2 has been higher in the past, it has. The issues surrounding the current changes to the system is how quickly they are changing.

The most recent mass extinction (PETM - Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene–Eocene_Thermal_Maximum) event seems to most likely have been driven by a very large outgassing of methane. Methane is a more potent ghg than co2, however it has a relatively short lifecycle in the atmosphere. That's because methane (ch4) breaks down into co2 and water, and the co2 has a very long adjustment time in the atmosphere. So this co2 can have a very long and persistent effect. My reason for mentioning the PETM is the current rate of change far exceeds the rate's seen in the PETM. The 1C warming we've witnessed over the last 100yrs would have taken 2500yrs during the PETM, and it wiped out approx 50-60% of the biosphere.

These mass extinction events don't happen literally overnight, only figuratively. Too much of the dismissal by individuals on the basis of lack of evidence, I think , is due to not witnessing a catastrophe due to AGW during their individual lifetime. My personal thoughts on it is that the human lifespan and experience isn't long enough for any individual to realize the full impacts of what is happening. Each subsequent generation going forward will see a slightly less productive, slightly more shallow biosphere. There won't be a morning that comes where all of humanity to wake up and realize something terrible has happened, like a bomb going off. It will be a much slower and more gradual slide and to me, that's more dangerous because it simply leaves the doors open to individuals to dismiss as some other cause.

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Thank you. I didn't read the rest of your post, but what the acronym meant was the information I wanted. So for that I thank you.

Apologies for not interpreting your question as simply what did the GHE refer too. Apparently I've spent too much time arguing with deniers about basic founded principals that I saw your question as an attack on the existence of the greenhouse effect.

In regards to your question about repeatable science, I'm going to go back once again to radiative transfer models(RTM or LBL for line-by-line).  This is how we approx the GHE for the system. The RTM's demonstrate that we have a very solid understanding of how much energy the system emits when it's fed the proper inputs (as is the case for all models). This is demonstrated when we run models for a particular region and then use a satellite to take a snapshot of the upwelling infrared (IR) of that region. That is what the original image I linked you was demonstrating. Here's another prime example of how well MODTRAN matches satellite observations. For reference, the x-axis simply represents wavelengths (or wavenumbers) and the y-axis represents intensity.