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



3 hours ago, william.scherk said:

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.

He can’t do it. He can’t resist his stalker urges.

  • Haha 1

Share this comment


Link to comment
3 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I'll see Scott's video later, but I don't see such a debate shaping up, ever.

I saw the video.

Scott wants to run a discussion with legitimate experts on both sides, no surprises and no yelling.

Interesting idea.

Will never happen.

Too much money and power involved for reason, truth, etc.

Michael

Share this comment


Link to comment
10 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I saw the video.

Scott wants to run a discussion with legitimate experts on both sides, no surprises and no yelling.

Interesting idea.

Will never happen.

Too much money and power involved for reason, truth, etc.

Michael

If no representative of the orthodoxy is willing to step forward it would imply they're all in on the scam.  I don't believe that.  Wouldn't it be irresistible for an up-and-coming public figure in the sciences to take down the likes of Richard Lindzen?  The recent debates (posted on this thread) establish that the "don't sanction them by sharing a platform" excuse is no longer operative. 

Share this comment


Link to comment
15 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:

He can’t do it. He can’t resist his stalker urges.

lol. Mr Pot,meet Dr. Ketel..

  • Haha 1

Share this comment


Link to comment
6 minutes ago, caroljane said:

lol. Mr Pot,meet Dr. Ketel..

That is false, Twat.

I have been ignoring the pedophile completely, I have refrained from posting in his blog for months. Until he failed, in the quoted bit, above. He. Twat.

You don’t actually care about who starts what, though, because as a collectivist you believe in a fundamental right to harass or do anything else to your fellow men and women, so you support the pedophile refusing to leave me alone and drop it and move on.

Share this comment


Link to comment

Year of the Arctic!

20 hours ago, 9thdoctor said:
20 hours ago, 9thdoctor said:

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? 

I set a suggestive criteria, but not the judging of the 'winner.' I'd personally prefer to read something that told us readers what you personally believe or support or find convincing whatever your position might be. In other words, speak for yourself, if possible.

Quote

That would take time, and alas, free time is about to become much more scarce for your friendly neighborhood Time Lord. 

No hurry.  We have a year ...

gfs_nh-sat1_t2anom_1-day.png

[Added:  I seem to have destroyed the code with the last entry on this page.  I've asked Michael if he is able to remove it, as I am unable to at my end.

Sorry, y'all, my HTML coding error has killed this topic dead and closed it to any further commentary (unless MSK is able to delete the final entry). Maybe I can restart it at some later time. ]

Edited by william.scherk

Share this comment


Link to comment

Judy the fucking science denier betrayer whore is at it again:

National Climate Assessment: A crisis of epistemic overconfidence

Posted on January 2, 2019 by curryja | 101 Comments

by Judith Curry

“You can say I don’t believe in gravity. But if you step off the cliff you are going down. So we can say I don’t believe climate is changing, but it is based on science.” – Katherine Hayhoe, co-author of the 4th National Climate Assessment Report.

 

So, should we have the same confidence in the findings of the recently published 4th (U.S.) National Climate Assessment (NCA4) as we do in gravity?  How convincing is the NCA4?

https://judithcurry.com/2019/01/02/national-climate-assessment-a-crisis-of-epistemic-overconfidence/

Share this comment


Link to comment
On 1/2/2019 at 11:41 AM, william.scherk said:

[Added:  I seem to have destroyed the code with the last entry on this page.  I've asked Michael if he is able to remove it, as I am unable to at my end.

Sorry, y'all, my HTML coding error has killed this topic dead and closed it to any further commentary (unless MSK is able to delete the final entry). Maybe I can restart it at some later time. ]

Thank you, Michael.  

Share this comment


Link to comment
43 minutes ago, Jonathan said:

Judy the fucking science denier betrayer whore is at it again:

Do you mind using one of your other 'impersonation' voices, Jonathan?  Nobody here has ever called Judy Curry these names. 

Share this comment


Link to comment
1 minute ago, william.scherk said:

Do you mind using one of your other 'impersonation' voices, Jonathan?  Nobody here has ever called Judy Curry these names. 

I didn't mean to imply that you or anyone else here had called her names. My impersonation is of Mann and Company, all of whom can get quite angry and uppity and unscientific in the face of her criticisms (and she is a moderate). She is soooooo good at pointing out that that mindset of theirs is not that of science, and rather clashes with their poses of being the guardians of true real settled science.

J

Share this comment


Link to comment

When I read the headline, I knew that they'd have to find a way to somehow work global warming climate doom into the story:

Earth’s magnetic pole is on the move, fast. And we don’t know why

Earth’s magnetic field is what allows us to exist. It deflects harmful radiation. It keeps our water and atmosphere in place. But now it’s acting up — and nobody knows why.

---

In the near future, man-made climate doom will be first suspected to cause this magnetic pole dance, then it will be openly blamed, and finally it will be announced to be settled consensus science, you fucking science deniers!

J

Share this comment


Link to comment

Dang Arctic Oscillation ...

The polar vortex split apart. Here’s what to expect.

Quote

 

By Ula Chrobak  January 11, 2019

[...]

If left alone, the vortex hangs out through winter and dissipates in late spring. But, roughly every other year on average, waves of warm air intrude on the vortex in what’s called sudden stratospheric warming. It really is sudden—temperatures in this part of the atmosphere warm by as much as 50ºC (or 90º F) in just a few days.

When this happens, the vortex either moves south or is split apart. Then, sometimes—but not always—this disruption of the vortex leads to cold weather in the midlatitudes, including the northeastern U.S., western Europe, and northern Asia. “These are quite dramatic events,” says Seviour. “Even though they happen in the stratosphere … we see an impact that propagates down to the surface.”

Seviour adds that it’s incorrect to say the polar vortex is “moving” to those affected areas. While it can move a little south in a disruption, the polar vortex, as scientists define it, is mainly confined to the stratosphere above the Arctic. Instead, the jet stream—located in the troposphere—moves south after a polar vortex disruption and brings the Arctic cold air with it.

[...]

gfs_nh-sat1_t2_1-day.png

 

Edited by william.scherk

Share this comment


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

Interesting weather at the top of the world ...

gfs_nh-sat1_t2anom_1-day.png

 

gfs_nh-sat1_ws250-snowc-topo_1-day.png

 

On any given day of any given year there is always somewhere, where the weather is "interesting".  Weather is NOT  climate.

 

Share this comment


Link to comment
16 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

On any given day of any given year there is always somewhere, where the weather is "interesting".  Weather is NOT  climate.

 

And climate doom alarm mongers say exactly the same thing when weather doesn't support their doomsaying. When they feel that they can take advantage of weather as a scare tactic, they conveniently forget how caustically they scolded others on the distinction between weather and climate.

Share this comment


Link to comment
3 hours ago, Jonathan said:

And climate doom alarm mongers say exactly the same thing when weather doesn't support their doomsaying. When they feel that they can take advantage of weather as a scare tactic, they conveniently forget how caustically they scolded others on the distinction between weather and climate.

The meteorologists consider a 30 year running average  of  temperature,  humidity,  ghg  levels.  sea levels  cloud cover   as a climate data point.    One day's weather  doth not make climate. 30 years average weather is a climate data point.  

Share this comment


Link to comment
17 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

The meteorologists consider a 30 year running average  of  temperature,  humidity,  ghg  levels.  sea levels  cloud cover   as a climate data point.    One day's weather  doth not make climate. 30 years average weather is a climate data point.  

Today's "scientists" and spokesman for the "scientists"often seem to forget that. So often we hear from them that we don't have time to wait that long. We have to act now to save the planet, the universe, existence.

J

Share this comment


Link to comment

Ohmyfuckinggad!

Weather in Nukualofa, Tonga

Now
wt-15.png
77 °F

Partly cloudy.

Proof of climate doom! If this keeps up at the current rate, Tonga will melt into glass and be completely underwater in three weeks. It's settled science. The only cure is to create a one-world government with absolute power and then to immediately begin torturing and killing deniers and skeptics and their children and pets.

J

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