Placeholder for GW/CC 'How I got here' thread

[Edited January 2 2019 -- to remove or replace dead visual-links]

Long ago Jonathan and I got some good traction out of a tangle of issues related to Global Warming slash Climate Change.  I think we are slated to renew or refresh our earlier exchanges.  I am going to poke in links to some he-said/he-saids from a few different threads at different times. One feature of the updated software is an automated 'sampling' of a link posted raw.  See below. 

So this blog entry will be kind of administrative-technical while being built and edited. I haven't figured out if Jonathan and I should impose some 'rules' going in, so your comment may be subject to arbitrary deletion before the field is ready for play. Fan notes included.

Study-links-Greenland-melting-with-Arctic-amplification.jpg

globalWarmingPEWpolarization.png

Adam, see what you think of the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication, especially the revealing map-based representations of opinion. You can drill and zoom down to state, county, district level to track data across a number of survey questions, where some of the answers are surprising. On some measures at least, the thing it is not found only in the UK, Quebec, Canada: Here's a snapshot of several maps which do not always show an expected Red State/Blue State pattern;

[images updated January 2 2019; click and go images]

2018YaleClimateOpinionMaps.png

personalHarmYaleCC.png

[Deleted image-link]

Edited  by william.scherk

 

Plug my How To Get Where I Got book of books, Spencer Weart's The Discovery of Global Warming. Insert link to Amazon, Library link, and to the intro chapter of Weart's companion website to the book. Make sure you include a link to Ellen's mention of a book review. 

Bob Kolker's June 3 comment is a good hinge. What do we (J and I) think we know about the mechanism Bob sketches? What can we 'stipulate' or what can we agree on, for the sake of argument?

On 6/3/2016 at 9:31 AM, BaalChatzaf said:

CO2 does  slow down the radiation of energy in the infra-red bandwith.  The question is to what degree  given that there are other systems that tend to diffuse and disperse heat (such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and El Nino, along with convection and the Coriolis Effect that moves warm are to the polar regions).  The scientific fact is that CO2 tends to absorb radiated energy in the infra red range.  That is NOT fabricated.  That is a matter of experimental fact. 

Please see http://scied.ucar.edu/carbon-dioxide-absorbs-and-re-emits-infrared-radiation

The issue is to what extent is the CO2 load of the atmosphere is slowing down heat radiation into space, when such absorbing or radiation occurs along with other heat dispersing processes.   

No denies that putting a blanket on, when it is cold slows down the rate at which one's body radiates heat.  Air is a poor heat conductor and the blanket traps air.  Also the blanket is warmed and radiates half its heat back to the source.  This produces a net slowing down of heat loss.  Heat loss still occurs (Second Law of Thermodynamics in operation)  but the rate of loss is affected. 

Tyndol and Arhenius  established the heat absorbing properties of CO2  in the late 19 th and early 20 th century.  Subsequent work has show the absorbtion to be the case and has measured it even more accurately than Tyndol and Arhenius. 

 

 

arctic1.jpg



161 Comments


Recommended Comments



The green religion versus Christian religion. The first is collectivist the second is individualist because the second is concerned with individual salvation. Hence the left can advocate or tolerate the murder of tens of millions in the name of a higher truth or moral good. The greens--some of them--even want that ideal virus to come along and wipe out seven billion men, women and children. Of course they don't say it that way; they just say "people" or x (ideal) number or "virus." Never "men, women and children."

--Brant           

Share this comment


Link to comment

[Updated at 11:22] Video of Brown's press conference regarding the wildfires currently devastating California ... I haven't caught the two phrases cited in the Bridget Johnson article at PJMedia. 

[This is the wrong briefing video. Will post in the correct one after Family Time]

 

The Woolsey fire is edging east from Calabasas, which made me think of our departed Greg Mamishian, who lives just east of Topanga (which is now under mandatory evacuation); this Google map has a lot of detail on the Woolsey fire: https://google.org/crisismap/google.com/2018-Woolsey-fire

Edited by william.scherk

Share this comment


Link to comment

The video I posted was the wrong briefing; it also no longer embeds (at least in Chrome).

On 11/12/2018 at 10:29 AM, william.scherk said:

[This is the wrong briefing video. Will post in the correct one after Family Time]

Here's a brief extract from Brown's response to questions on the 11th, from Global News:

In an earlier round of wildfires in California, President Trump laid some of the blame on Canada, which seems only right in the circumstances:

So, how is Trump sharing out the blame for the current horrific wildfires in northern and southern California?

Edited by william.scherk

Share this comment


Link to comment
52 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

The video I posted was the wrong briefing; it also no longer embeds (at least in Chrome).

Here's a brief extract from Brown's response to questions on the 11th, from Global News:

In an earlier round of wildfires in California, President Trump laid some of the blame on Canada, which seems only right in the circumstances

Deniers dunnit! It's settled science. And we could've stopped it if the deniers weren't using their denying powers. End freedom now! Punish the deniers! Our very existence is at stake! Just ask the scientists and firefighters. They all say that we should start doing some killing now. We used to be able to prevent all bad things until the deniers came along and started denying! Kill the deniers!

Share this comment


Link to comment
On 11/13/2018 at 2:48 PM, Jonathan said:

Deniers dunnit! It's settled science. And we could've stopped it if the deniers weren't using their denying powers. End freedom now! Punish the deniers! Our very existence is at stake! Just ask the scientists and firefighters. They all say that we should start doing some killing now. We used to be able to prevent all bad things until the deniers came along and started denying! Kill the deniers!

How typical of Governor Moonbeam, the Lord of the Medflies.

 

Share this comment


Link to comment

We have to start punishing people now in order to avoid extinction.

It's settle science. If you're a Denier, then you are causing our extinction, and we therefore have the right to stop you with any means necessary. We've tried to do it legally, and we've tried to do it only slightly violently. You didn't listen, so the next step is blood. Damn, it's going to be fun and gloriously righteous to punish the Deniers/Nonbelievers/Infidels! 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/nov/17/thousands-gather-to-block-london-bridges-in-climate-rebellion

  • Like 1

Share this comment


Link to comment

Don't build at the beach. Don't build on a cliff. Don't build where wild fires happen. Don't put a Qwicky Mart in a ghetto.  Don't build on a filled in swamp or basin in case an earthquake occurs. Sheesh. Do we always need to be evolutionary? But then again, evolution won't happen if we save idiots from their mistakes.  Oh, oh. Starting to sound all Eugenic-kee.

Share this comment


Link to comment

Hey. it worked. I typed in Windows and cut and pasted here without melting my computer! I liked these quotes the best. [WSS added: Dozens arrested after climate protest blocks five London bridges ]

Quote

The move is part of a campaign of mass civil disobedience organised by a new group, Extinction Rebellion, which wants to force governments to treat the threats of climate breakdown and extinction as a crisis. “The ‘social contract’ has been broken … [and] it is therefore not only our right but our moral duty to bypass the government’s inaction and flagrant dereliction of duty and to rebel to defend life itself,” said Gail Bradbrook, one of the organisers . . . . In a letter published in the Guardian they said: “While our academic perspectives and expertise may differ, we are united on this one point: we will not tolerate the failure of this or any other government to take robust and emergency action in respect of the worsening ecological crisis. The science is clear, the facts are incontrovertible, and it is unconscionable to us that our children and grandchildren should have to bear the terrifying brunt of an unprecedented disaster of our own making.”

Soooo. It sounds like a Monty Python sketch. They want a totalitarian dictatorship to save us from ourselves? The billions of humans we keep adding to the planet every generation who use fossil fuels to survive is bad?  Kind of like a comet coming to hit the earth? But guys! Have a heart or more accurately have a brain. Look for real evidence of global catastrophe. If people are thriving and reproducing . . . . As Carl Sagan so wisely did not say, “Camp fires are not destroying the planet.” Peter

Edited by william.scherk

Share this comment


Link to comment

Peter, I am going to add in a URL from Jonathan's comment and format your post.

While I am here, here's something tangentially-related to the topic: Mick West's Metabunk has a few QAnon posts, and in one thread various posters comment on the conspiracy theory that the current California wildfires were ignited by space-based laser or 'directed energy' weapons. In some QAnon-inflected imaginings, it was Jerry Brown who commanded the lasers -- so that the fires would trigger federal aid.

This one is fun for all ...

Quote

Explained: House "Cut in Half", Tubbs Fire, Santa Rosa, Coffey Park

  1. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Metabunk 2018-11-16 08-55-22.

    With the recent interest in the Camp Fire, the above image is being recycled as "evidence" that fires in California were aided by energy beams from space. The house upper middle is described as being "cut in half". A video by flat earther "aplanetruth.info" has nearly half a million views:

    Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEqaeNWkSDg


    Close up reveals more detail
    Metabunk 2018-11-16 09-00-40.
    (Image Source: https://www.ocregister.com/2017/10/12/photos-northern-california-is-devastated-by-wildfires/)

    If we use Google Earth to do a before and after, we can see that what remains is only a small part of a larger house. The roof is a bit lower than the main structure.
     

 


If we take a wider view, we can get an idea of what happened:
Metabunk 2018-11-16 09-16-49.
Source: Duncan Sinfield)

The "half house" lot is on the edge of the fire region, this is looking South. What we are seeing here is the line where the firefighters stopped the advance of the fire. Here's an even wider view (still looking south)
Metabunk 2018-11-16 09-22-28.
As you can see the lot is just on the edge of the burnt area.

So what happened? Firefighters sprayed that bit of the house with water to stop it spreading to the next house. This was at the leading edge of a very fast-moving fire. Any building already burning was going to keep burning, the best they could do was to try to stop the fire spreading.

The best way of understanding this is to watch this video by Kent Porter:

 


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2kk7RJdKjE


The video opens with the reasons the fires spread - high winds blowing flames and embers:
Metabunk 2018-11-16 09-29-39.

We then see a firefighter directing the firehose on the left side of a burning house. He's not trying to save the house from the fire, he's just trying to stop it spreading.
Metabunk 2018-11-16 09-30-44.

Later he switches to the other side of the house, to try to save the unburnt house on that side.
Metabunk 2018-11-16 09-34-08.

So in the case of the "half" house, all that happened was firefighters were hosing down that smaller side structure of the house. The main house burnt and collapsed, and they were able to douse the flames, stopping the forward progress of the fire. The "half" house just shows where they held the line.

 

This probably belongs elsewhere, but hey.

Spoiler

[This is from contributor Z W Wolf. It strikes me as a bit over-determined. Surely one can believe in a particular theory without being afflicted with all the listed irrational attitudes and behaviours. But as a check on your own cognitions ...]

You might be a conspiracy theorist if ...

- your theories are unfalsifiable. If disconfirming evidence is presented it is dismissed as faked or otherwise rationalized away. The theory moves farther away from the credible without limit.

- you get angry and contemptuous when confronted with disconfirming evidence. When pressed you get evasive, relentlessly change the subject, hold onto a standard manta, or run away.

- you hold onto zombie beliefs - beliefs which have been explained and disproven over and over and should be dead. E.g. "It's only a theory."

- you never admit a mistake.

- your thinking is based in suspicion. Your default assumption in all situations is that you are being lied to.

- your emotions are primarily negative. Suspicion, anger, disgust, contempt and fear.

- you believe in multiple suspicion-based theories. Crank magnetism.

- you believe in suspicion-based theories which are contradictory. The filling cabinet syndrome.

- you present evidence that some people within a group have lied and use this as proof that all people within that group always lie.

- you have a personal devil. All evil flows from this devil; e.g. the Government, Masons, Jews, Bankers, Democrats.

- you seek any connection between your devil and your suspicion-based theory and use this connection as absolute proof of your theory.

- you aggressively sort people into negative categories: "awake," "sheeple," "evil" and "shills."

- your suspicion-based theories seem all consuming. Will not discuss other subjects and scorn people who are not consumed with these suspicion-based theories. "Sheeple watch their sports and gossip shows on TV."

- you habitually engage in argument by intimidation.

- you habitually engage in sophistry.

- you habitually engage in binary thinking. All true or all false, all good or all evil, for us or against us.

- your devotion to your theory (ies) is behaviorally and psychologically indistinguishable from addiction.

 

Edited by william.scherk

Share this comment


Link to comment

I really miss this guy but I guess he did a lot of puzzles before he died so his widow could “carry on” the tradition. I started around dinner time and I just finished it. This Sunday Crossword by the late Merle Reagle is titled “Light Opera.”

Clue: “Der Ring des Nibelungen” translated: Answer: I want a donut.

Clue: “Tristen and Isolde” translated: Answer: I used to sell nasal spray.

Clue: “Der Rosenkavalier” translated: Answer: The cowboy is Jewish.

Clue: “Parsifal” translated: Answer: You dropped your garnish.

Clue: “Die Gotterdammerung” translated: Answer: Who broke the ladder?

Clue: “Die Fledermaus” translated: Answer: Your Disneyland balloon is losing air.

Share this comment


Link to comment

Judy the fucking science denier is dumping cold water on the climate doom money grab again:

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/dec/27/judith-curry-sea-level-study-disputes-climate-disa/?fbclid=IwAR13JHSjwAnjj3SlNjzKx8JhVp0oTEe3FBlr4X68_vGI6fwQQq6YS7YuSMw

No, I didn't call her a denier, I really didn't. I wouldn't do that. I'm a true scientist, not someone who uses intimidation tactics. Huh? My having falsely accused her of science denial is in my written testimony? Hey, look over there! What's that? Yeah, over there. Behind the thing. Hmmm, I thought that I saw something. Anyway. Um, what were we talking about? Oh, yeah, have you seen the Gaga version of A Star is Born?

Heh.

J

Share this comment


Link to comment

 

Climate change expert Aaron Doering charged with choking his fiancée

 

A well-known climate change expert and professor at the University of Minnesota choked and brutally assaulted his fiancée, who told cops she fears he will kill her, according to a criminal complaint...

“Aaron has received millions of dollars in grants; has published more than 80 journal articles, books, book chapters, and conference proceedings; and is the coauthor of two books, The New Landscape of Mobile Learning: Redesigning Education in an App-based World and Integrating Educational Technology into Teaching...”

https://nypost.com/2018/12/28/climate-change-expert-aaron-doering-charged-with-choking-his-fiance/

----

I wonder what triggered it. Did she express some minor skepticism of or disagreement with his settled science? Disrespected his authoritay?

Millions in grants. And he's just one of the thousands of climate douches on the dole.

J

  • Like 1

Share this comment


Link to comment
6 hours ago, Jonathan said:

Judy the fucking science denier is dumping cold water on the climate doom money grab again:

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/dec/27/judith-curry-sea-level-study-disputes-climate-disa/?fbclid=IwAR13JHSjwAnjj3SlNjzKx8JhVp0oTEe3FBlr4X68_vGI6fwQQq6YS7YuSMw

No, I didn't call her a denier, I really didn't. I wouldn't do that. I'm a true scientist, not someone who uses intimidation tactics. Huh? My having falsely accused her of science denial is in my written testimony? Hey, look over there! What's that? Yeah, over there. Behind the thing. Hmmm, I thought that I saw something. Anyway. Um, what were we talking about? Oh, yeah, have you seen the Gaga version of A Star is Born?

Heh.

J

I don't know if this has been posted on OL yet:

Until now it's been beyond rare to see such people share a stage.  On the downside, there's virtually no interaction between the opposing sides. 

This next one has more actual debate, but is marred by Lawrence Krauss's slimeball tactics and a lack of oratorical skill on the part of two of the members of the opposition.  I wish they'd have ceded their time to Lindzen.

 

Share this comment


Link to comment
2 hours ago, william.scherk said:

Polar vortices!

So there's going to be an unusually cold winter because of global warming.

232e8j.jpg

Thankfully, there's only 1 day to go (it was 10 days, 9 days ago when this was posted):

 

Share this comment


Link to comment
2 minutes ago, 9thdoctor said:

So there's going to be an unusually cold winter because of global warming.

That Arctic warming and the Arctic Oscillation may lead to a "loose" vortex or spawn several vortices is a hypothesis.  Not a new idea or finding, and not 'settled' or without skeptical attention and cautions. What was new in the post above was that particular kind of animation.  It modeled how the Arctic vortex may spawn separate vortices.

A reconstruction of today's charted Climate Reanalyzer "Jet Stream" with the angle on the northern pole:

gfs_nh-sat1_ws250-snowc-topo_1-day.png

And the anomalies:

gfs_nh-sat1_t2anom_1-day.png

This video combines visuals to explain the idea.  The most interesting part (for me) is the translation of the stratospheric conditions down to the troposphere.

 

Share this comment


Link to comment

Yeah yeah, they used to say global cooling was going to cause the same problem with the polar vortices. 

Scott Adams wants to host a debate!  Good breakdown of the issues:

 

Share this comment


Link to comment

Pro-manmade climate change people don't want facts.

They want power over all humans and the appearance of facts to justify the power grab.

I'll see Scott's video later, but I don't see such a debate shaping up, ever. On one side, you would have people like him. On the other, you would have propagandists for power-grabbers funded with millions and millions of dollars and gobs of backroom crony government-corporation arrangements.

Where could a debate like that ever happen and mean something rational?

Michael

Share this comment


Link to comment

The best part of good faith disagreements is being portrayed as an immoral propagandist from the get-go.  It's slightly more appealing than being called a pedophile boyfucker, but that might just be me.

"They" say a lot of things, I am told.

Climate changes in the Arctic can be ...  interesting (in at least a few details), and scientific efforts to understand, model and forecast complicated processes in our atmosphere will continue; my opinion and five bucks will buy you a lottery ticket. 

patagonia_school_children-blurred.png

I hereby declare 2019 to be Year of the Arctic in this topic.  A robust argument or review of 'what I know' about Arctic climate would result in a fifty buck donation to OL (in honour of it's continuing on-sufferance hosting of Friends and Foes). 

Judges for the prize-winning comment are Brant, Jonathan, Ninth and Michael. You four nominate a fifth and Majority Rules.

Edited by william.scherk

Share this comment


Link to comment
3 hours ago, 9thdoctor said:

Yeah yeah, they used to say global cooling was going to cause the same problem with the polar vortices.

 

1 hour ago, william.scherk said:

The best part of good faith disagreements is being portrayed as an immoral propagandist from the get-go. 

I haven't gotten around to portraying that way yet.  You must must be referring to MSK's post, you fraud-enabler you! 

Share this comment


Link to comment
2 hours ago, william.scherk said:

I hereby declare 2019 to be Year of the Arctic in this topic.  A robust argument or review of 'what I know' about Arctic climate would result in a fifty buck donation to OL (in honour of it's continuing on-sufferance hosting of Friends and Foes). 

Judges for the prize-winning comment are Brant, Jonathan, Ninth and Michael. You four nominate a fifth and Majority Rules.

I heard a lecture recently by Willie Soon on the topic.  I've had some free time lately.  If I hunt it down, will that suffice?  Or do I have to put it in my own words?  That would take time, and alas, free time is about to become much more scarce for your friendly neighborhood Time Lord. 

Share this comment


Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now