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



192 Comments


Recommended Comments



On 1/12/2019 at 7:01 PM, 9thdoctor said:

Not snobby ole Parrotholer!  Skeptics, quiver with fear!

 

Potholer54's reply does a good job of keeping the tone civil.  He doesn't hesitate to throw Al Gore under the bus.  The scientific aspects of his rebuttal are hard for this layman to evaluate quickly.  I look forward to Heller's reply.

 

Share this comment


Link to comment
20 minutes ago, 9thdoctor said:

Potholer54's reply does a good job of keeping the tone civil.  He doesn't hesitate to throw Al Gore under the bus.  The scientific aspects of his rebuttal are hard for this layman to evaluate quickly.  I look forward to Heller's reply.

 

Well, it sure didn't take long.  Who's got time for all this?

 

Share this comment


Link to comment
On 1/18/2019 at 4:04 AM, Jonathan said:

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

The Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), alternatively "Eocene thermal maximum 1" (ETM1), and formerly known as the "Initial Eocene" or "Late Paleocene Thermal Maximum", was a time period with more than 8 °C warmer global average temperature than today.  The CO2 level was at 550 ppm.  This was 55 million years ago.  This very warm period lasted 200,000 years and did NOT  produce an unstoppable warming.  Life flourished subsequent to this period.  Eventually the CO2 level and temperature levels went down and  several million years of hard ice age and glaciation followed.  If the PETM  did not turn us into Venus, nothing we are doing now will.  

Humans do not possess the technology to sterilize this planet.  However  there is little doubt that we could kill ourselves off if we set our minds to it.  But no matter what we do, the Earth will remain an abode of life for the next billion years  barring  an exceedingly large celestial body colliding with Earth and busting the planet into little pieces.

 

Share this comment


Link to comment
On 1/18/2019 at 10:34 AM, william.scherk said:

Dang Arctic Oscillation ...

The chief weighs in on interesting aspects of the sloppy Polar Vortex:

Spoiler

gfs_nh-sat1_t2anom_1-day.png

Here in Chilliwack, not a speck of snow this winter.  Which is not of course too interesting.

Edited by william.scherk

Share this comment


Link to comment

All possible outcomes are proof of man-made global warming. It's settled fucking science already, so there's no need to keep talking about it. We're doomed. It's an emergency. We need the Vancouver city council to save us all.

J

Share this comment


Link to comment
1 hour ago, Jonathan said:

All possible outcomes are proof of man-made global warming. It's settled fucking science already, so there need to keep talking about it. We're doomed. It's an emergency. We need the Vancouver city council to save us all.

J

 

Share this comment


Link to comment

OCASIO-CORTEZ ON MILLENNIALS: ‘WE’RE LIKE THE WORLD IS GOING TO END IN 12 YEARS IF WE DON’T ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE’

‘At some point these chronic realities do reach a breaking point’
Jan 21, 2019 10:17 PM
  
 
Play Videologo_player.png
 

The world is going to end in 12 years unless the government takes action, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) said Monday at a Martin Luther King forum in New York City. 

Here’s an excerpt from her interview with Ta-Nehisi Coates:

“And I think the part of it that is generational is that millennials and people, in Gen Z, and all these folks that come after us are looking up and we’re like, the world is gonna end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change. You’re biggest issue, your biggest issue is how are going to pay for it? — and like this is the war, this is our World War II. And I think for younger people looking at this are more like, how are we saying let’s take it easy when 3,000 Americans died last year, how are we saying let’s take it easy when the end person died from our cruel and unjust criminal justice system?

How are we saying take it easy, the America that we’re living in today is dystopian with people sleeping in their cars so they can work a second job without healthcare and we’re told to settle down. It’s a fundamental separation between that fierce urgency of now, the why we can’t wait that King spoke of. That at some point this chronic reality do reach a breaking point and I think for our generation it reached that, I wished I didn’t have to be doing every post, but sometimes I just feel like people aren’t being held accountable. Until, we start pitching in and holding people accountable, I’m just gonna let them have it.”

Share this comment


Link to comment

The key sentences in the above:

"That at some point this chronic reality do reach a breaking point and I think for our generation it reached that, I wished I didn’t have to be doing every post, but sometimes I just feel like people aren’t being held accountable. Until, we start pitching in and holding people accountable, I’m just gonna let them have it.”

Yup, we need to get down to the business of punishing the Others™. Gaia thirsts for blood. Violence is virtuous in the name of stopping climate doom. Killing is the cure.

J

Share this comment


Link to comment

Bob's first sentence was copied from Wikipedia ...

On 1/19/2019 at 2:51 PM, BaalChatzaf said:
On 1/18/2019 at 4:04 AM, Jonathan said:

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.

The Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), alternatively "Eocene thermal maximum 1" (ETM1), and formerly known as the "Initial Eocene" or "Late Paleocene Thermal Maximum", was a time period with more than 8 °C warmer global average temperature than today.

The larger context:

Quote

Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia [...]
300px-65_Myr_Climate_Change.png
 
Climate change during the last 65 million years as expressed by the oxygen isotope composition of benthic foraminifera. The Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) is characterized by a brief but prominent negative excursion, attributed to rapid warming. Note that the excursion is understated in this graph due to the smoothing of data.

The Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), alternatively "Eocene thermal maximum 1" (ETM1), and formerly known as the "Initial Eocene" or "Late Paleocene Thermal Maximum", was a time period with more than 8 °C warmer global average temperature than today.[citation needed] This climate event began at the time boundary of the Paleogene, between the Paleocene and Eocene geological epochs.[1] The exact age and duration of the event is uncertain but it is estimated to have occurred around 55.5 million years ago.[2]

The associated period of massive carbon injection into the atmosphere has been estimated to have lasted no longer than 20,000 years. The entire warm period lasted for about 200,000 years. Global temperatures increased by 5–8 °C.[3] The carbon dioxide was likely released in two pulses, the first lasting less than 2,000 years. Such a repeated carbon release is in line with current global warming.[2] A main difference is that during the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum, the planet was essentially ice-free.[4] However, the amount of released carbon, according to a recent study, suggests a modest 0.2 gigatonnes per year (at peaks 0.58 gigatonnes); humans today add about 10 gigatonnes per year.[5][6]

The onset of the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum has been linked to an initial 5 °C temperature rise and to extreme changes in Earth's carbon cycle.[3] The period is marked by a prominent negative excursion in carbon stable isotope (δ13C) records from around the globe; more specifically, there was a large decrease in 13C/12C ratio of marine and terrestrial carbonates and organic carbon.[3][7][8]

Stratigraphic sections of rock from this period reveal numerous other changes.[3] Fossil records for many organisms show major turnovers. For example, in the marine realm, a mass extinction of benthic foraminifera, a global expansion of subtropical dinoflagellates, and an appearance of excursion, planktic foraminifera and calcareous nanofossils all occurred during the beginning stages of PETM. On land, modern mammal orders (including primates) suddenly appear in Europe and in North America. Sediment deposition changed significantly at many outcrops and in many drill cores spanning this time interval.

At least since 1997, the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum has become a focal point of considerable geoscience research because it probably provides the best past analog by which to understand impacts of global climate warming and of massive carbon input to the ocean and atmosphere, including ocean acidification.[9] Although it is now widely accepted that the PETM represents a "case study" for global warming and massive carbon input to Earth's surface,[3][10] the cause, details and overall significance of the event remain perplexing.

 

Meat?

Quote

 

Edited by william.scherk

Share this comment


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

Yay! Public opinion is very important to you on this issue, isn't it?

Meanwhile, my questions from long, long ago remain unanswered. Remember the "show me the science questions," the "postponed or dog-eaten homework" that you've promised to turn in, but have yet to do so?

J

Share this comment


Link to comment

Check out this wonderful opening line of "journalism":

Quote

(Bloomberg) -- A South Florida developer is questioning the well-established facts of climate change...

Read more at: https://www.bloombergquint.com/business/miami-beach-developer-dismisses-rising-sea-levels-as-paranoia#gs.4BpXe4rN
----

 

Heh. Sea level doom is an "established fact!" Manhattan WILL be underwater in a few years. Lady Liberty will be up to her chin in ocean in a few more. It's a fact. An established fact. And the evil billionaire isn't obeying us! Damn it! We must be allowed to punish him! But until then, the best we can do is find solace in our smug fantasy that his property investments will be underwater soon. That'll show him to disrespect us and our Narrative™!

 

Quote

 

“It’s funny, that’s the last concern that I have here in Miami, that global-warming issue,” [Jose Isaac Peres] said in an interview Wednesday...

“You’re leaning toward paranoia, you know?” he said, suggesting that Americans are more fixated on the study of climate change than Brazilians are. “You see a ghost, and you run after it as if it were real.” Still, Peres didn’t fully discount global warming, instead saying he didn’t think it was going to occur “as quickly as people imagine.”

...Peres’ climate-change skepticism follows similar statements by a number of high-profile politicians and business leaders, most of them not scientists themselves.
----

 

 

How utterly gauche and uncouth of this Peres thing to not heed his betters.

J

Share this comment


Link to comment

Let's ask the horse itself, IPCC Special Report, October 2018:

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

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).

Doesn‘t sound so alarming to me, particularly because it comes from the IPCC.

  • Like 1

Share this comment


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

The world is your oyster, Jonathan. 

So, that's a "no."

But, please, do carry on with the endless song and dance, the heaps of inessential document dumps and scarily colored pictures in the place where the science should go.

J

  • Haha 1

Share this comment


Link to comment

Say hello to the Belligerent Reference-Desk Librarian. "Do you have 'Hostile Seas'?"

On 9/14/2016 at 1:07 PM, william.scherk said:

I think I might have asked if you would read Spencer Weart's book.  Did you give that consideration, or did you look at the website that accompanies and expands upon the book?

Why I recommend it is that it filled in the holes in my general knowledge. Who came first, Fournier, Tyndall or Arrhenius? How can I be reasonably sure that the 'greenhouse' effect is sound and foundational knowledge?

It has meat enough to serve as a general-interest introduction to all the building blocks of what is known to a reasonable degree.

Have we read a book yet?

On 9/16/2016 at 8:47 AM, william.scherk said:

I have cited and quoted Weart's chapter on Simple Models as a primer on where and how the concept of Global Warming formed in the science of the time -- how it came to be, and how it undergirds the rational inquiry that came afterwards.  I recommend to any reader following along: Simple Models (from his book The Discovery of Global Warming, which is available in enriched and updated form at the link).  I recommend the book for its intellectual integrity -- it seeks to explain to a lay reader just how 'the science' of global warming was assembled from the work of many hands, many minds.

Without a historical grounding, I don't think I would be as well-informed as I think I am. 

Read everything ever published!

On 9/15/2016 at 11:48 AM, william.scherk said:

Did you read and gain anything from the extract and page from Weart's book?

Give me the science in a package that I can consume. Don't have fits about your personal research design.  Be more 'Q' ...

On 8/21/2018 at 7:40 AM, william.scherk said:

-- I recommend, as ever, Spencer Weart's book and website The Discovery of Global Warming.  For those wondering especially about the stages of discovery of the atmospheric properties of CO2, it's a good resource and will bring you up to speed on how some people came to be convinced the GHE is quite real.  You can come up to speed on the entailments of GHE and the simplest predictions of the modern era. You can become familiar with the 'building blocks' of a present day understanding of the effect of CO2 concentrations in our atmosphere.

Why are you tormenting me with a science history book and website?  I am not interested in the time frame or the early wonks. I like a nice sunset.

On 8/21/2018 at 9:23 AM, william.scherk said:
Quote

Should we go with the one that makes us have the most feelings?

You do you. If angry feelings are among your best guides to knowledge, have at 'er.  And any time you want to construct a comment that explains specifically what you believe, know, or suspect about components (ie, GHE, projections, scenarios, models), I will have the most feeling of all.

Quote

The one that confirms our biases?

You do you, Jonathan.  Tell us what it is you actually believe about, say the Greenhouse Effect and its scientific support ... and everyone can have some feelings about that ...

I have feelings about the other guy's feelings?  What a greenhouse.

On 1/1/2019 at 3:59 PM, 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.

The heat is on.  All PayPal buttons at the ready.  Flop sweat is still sweat.

I too wait expectantly for Inspector Badger's emergence from the bowels with new findings in his teeth.

While we are slinging around Youtube dispute videos, here is an ugly man with a sociological spin on the schmozzles. Shoot, work camp, or replace the messengers. Let a hundred quarrels bloom.  This is brought to you by CFI, so count your coins before and after the show.

Taking On Fake News About Climate Change | John Cook

[Added: relaxing weather-porn]

 

Edited by william.scherk

Share this comment


Link to comment

The accusatory approach hasn't been working, and has maybe even beenbackfiring. So the leftist climate activists are adopting a new strategy of lessening the focus on blame and hiding their urge to punish, while also upping the scary doom.

Quote

The New Language of Climate Change

Scientists and meteorologists on the front lines of the climate wars are testing a new strategy to get through to the skeptics and outright deniers.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/01/27/climate-change-politics-224295

 

 

The "settled science" is that these hick deniers "livelihoods and health will be at stake"? Everything will be worse: "Local crops are dying or washing away at alarming rates"? Oh, fucking no!  More panic! More doom! Urgency, emergency!

Good luck trying to sell those lies to those who live in ag regions, and who grow crops, and who therefore know that you're full of leftist shit.

When the lefty predictions have not succeeded in reality, but yet lefties still want to act as if they have, I guess the only option is to act as if hypothesizing is the final step in science.

It's also interesting that these "scientists" are proposing "solutions" which deal with fields way outside of their areas of expertise, such as the economic risks versus rewards. They know nothing about these subjects, and have not analyzed or weighed any of the consequences of what they are proposing, but rather are just shouting the first thing that pops into their leftist heads: More government! More control! Less freedom for the Others!

Shiftng to a new semantics isn't a scientific mindset. It's still a political ploy, despite the article's claim that they want to avoid appearing to be political.

The scientific approach would be to debate the science with informed critics, rather than avoiding them, shutting them out and vilifying them. Answer their criticisms. Release all of the data and the models/programs. Open up access to everything.

Instead of telling doom stories and making emotional appeals to hunters, fishermen and farmers who don't have access to any of the "science," exhibit the courage of inviting expert critics to present their arguments, rather than maligning and ostracizing them.

But I think we all know that that's not going to happen, because this isn't about climate. It's about power. Actions speak louder than words, and the leftist actions are not consistent with their words, which is why they are focused on semantic tactics.

J

 

Share this comment


Link to comment

The key to the warming effect of the greenhouse gases is the stephan-boltzmann  law.  The greenhouse gasses absorb heat and reradiate in all directions. Which means half the heat absorbed radiated downward .  The effect  of the greenhouse gasses is slow the rate at which energy in the infrared frequencies is radiated into space (which is the cold sink for Earth's heat).  According to the stephan boltzmann law the temperature will rise until the outward flux  of energy is equal to inbound flux of energy (from the Sun).  Please see:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan–Boltzmann_law

 

Share this comment


Link to comment

Mr Trump gets it.

Pioneering Rush Limbaugh had at it during an earlier excursion of an Arctic winter low:

Limbaugh slams polar vortex 'hoax'

Quote

Do you know what the polar vortex is? Have you ever heard of it? Well, they just created it for this week. Actually, there is a piece. I’ve got a piece in the Stack [Ed: 404 link] that actually makes the case that all of this frigid, chilling cold is due to global warming, strange as it may sound, it says. Other wackos are saying it’s a great example of climate change, but regardless, the agenda is that we’re responsible, we’re causing it, we have to pay the price. And so any weather extreme now is said to be man-made, and therefore it fulfills the leftist agenda on this.

Now, in their attempt, the left, the media, everybody, to come up with a way to make this sound like it’s something new and completely unprecedented, they’ve come up with this phrase called the “polar vortex.” If you’ve been watching television, they’ve created a graphic, all the networks have, and it basically consists of a view of the planet if you are right above the North Pole. They put this big purple blob, or blue blob, or red blob, depending on the network you’re looking at, over the entire North Pole, and they call that the polar vortex. It actually sounds like a crappy science fiction movie to me, but anyway, that’s what they’re calling it. It makes it sound like the jet stream is being forced lower across the United States.

Porn!

Spoiler

 

gfs_nh-sat1_t2anom_1-day.png

gfs_nh-sat1_ws250-snowc-topo_1-day.png

 

 

 

Edited by william.scherk

Share this comment


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

Mr Trump gets it.

Pioneering Rush Limbaugh had at it during an earlier excursion of an Arctic winter low:

Limbaugh slams polar vortex 'hoax'

Porn!

  Reveal hidden contents

 

gfs_nh-sat1_t2anom_1-day.png

gfs_nh-sat1_ws250-snowc-topo_1-day.png

 

 

 

Is Limbaugh wrong? What would we need to know to answer that question?

When did alarmists begin citing polar vortices as proof of climate change? What, specifically are their predictions about them? When were the predictions first made?

J

Share this comment


Link to comment

Damn it! The cold weather hasn't quite reached record cold. That would've been an extra-exciting propaganda tool. So, I guess we'll have to run with something else. Hardships, frostbite, power-outages, deaths. All due to cold temps due to climate doom. Freezing to death is what your future looks like unless you surrender your freedoms immediately.

Share this comment


Link to comment

With the incursion of quite icy weather into their winter landscapes, I hope all OLers keep safe and sound. Looks like they caught the culprit responsible for the lobe of the vortex ...

 

Edited by william.scherk

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