william.scherk

22,446 views

[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 4 May 2015 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

1,168 Comments


Recommended Comments



Those are pretty pictures and animations.

I still don't see anything near a repeatable result or repeatable conclusion.

I want an ice cream cone, not turkey bacon with quinoa and bok choy.

:) 

Michael

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

Jonathan,

It's funny. When you ask for repeatable scientific results re Climate Change, you always get blah blah blah and they never use the term "repeatable results." 

It's like going into a small eatery and saying, "Do you have an ice cream cone?"

And the person says, "Here's some tasty steamed octopus."

You ask, "What about an ice cream cone?"

The person says, "Look at these green beans and mashed potatoes. How big a portion do you want?"

"But I want an ice cream cone."

"Well, you've come to the right place. Our mac and cheese is amazing."

"Don't you have ice cream cones?"

"Only stupid people think we don't have hamburgers."

"You really don't have ice cream cones?"

"True believer idiot. The dinner rolls are right in front of you. God, some people..." He throws a stack of menus in your face--ones that do not list ice cream cones...

And on it goes. It's amazing to watch.

:) 

Michael

It is indeed amazing to watch. Billy seems to think that it's still working, even after we've told him several times that we know exactly what he's doing and that it isn't working.

 

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

Those are pretty pictures and animations.

I still don't see anything near a repeatable result or repeatable conclusion.

I want an ice cream cone, not turkey bacon with quinoa and bok choy.

:) 

Michael

Billy doesn't have the science. In fact, he likes to mock the term "the science," tee hee hee. He hasn't seen it, he doesn't have access to it, and, even if he did, he'd have no interest whatsoever in examining it critically. Doing so would be cultish. Questioning scientists' claims and being critical of them is "denial." Only bumpkins do that -- those lesser Others™. Instead, he prefers to trust activists who assure him that the science supports their conclusions. That's how real science is done, not via your childish notions of the scientific method. Tee hee hee. You're such a rube. You're so far beneath the informed elite. You need to have your life managed by your betters.

Link to comment

I thought that it might be time again to share one of my favorite things about Climate Doom and the alleged consensus.

Remeber this? It's what got the whole 97% thing started:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

Quote

Several studies of the consensus have been undertaken.[1] Among the most-cited is a 2013 study of nearly 12,000 abstracts of peer-reviewed papers on climate science published since 1990, of which just over 4,000 papers expressed an opinion on the cause of recent global warming. Of these, 97% agree, explicitly or implicitly, that global warming is happening and is human-caused.[2][3] It is "extremely likely"[4] that this warming arises from "... human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse gases..."[4] in the atmosphere.[5] Natural change alone would have had a slight cooling effect rather than a warming effect.[6][7][8][9]

Notice that the papers were not read, but only the abstracts were considered. And what isn't noted in the above is that even the abstracts weren't actually read, but were only electronically scanned for predetermined words and phrases which might indicate agreement with or rejection of man-blamed climate change.

So, they immediately eliminated from consideration two-thirds of the papers due to their not expressing an opinion. And why? Who decided that not expressing an opinion is not a valid position? One must have a strong opinion pro or con, or else one is not counted? Heh.

And it gets worse. The deeper you look into it, the more pathetic these people's notions of science is in regard to the alleged consensus.

Anyway, Billy, I'm curious if you find anything to criticize in their methodology. Is it what you would call good science?

J

 

Link to comment

Check out the article below. While reading it, do any critical questions come to mind? Is this science? Is it settled?

https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2019-02/ru-ccs022219.php

PUBLIC RELEASE: 28-FEB-2019

Climate change shrinks many fisheries globally, Rutgers-led study finds

Researchers find losses as high as 35 percent in some regions

RUTGERS UNIVERSITY

IMAGE

IMAGE: BLACK SEA BASS ARE ONE OF THE CLIMATE CHANGE "WINNERS " THAT HAVE SEEN THEIR PRODUCTIVITY INCREASE WITH WARMING OCEAN TEMPERATURES. view more 

CREDIT: ORION WELDON

Climate change has taken a toll on many of the world's fisheries, and overfishing has magnified the problem, according to a Rutgers-led study in the journal Science today.

---

 

 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Jonathan said:

The deeper you look into it, the more pathetic these people's notions of science is in regard to the alleged consensus.

Jonathan,

I learned a term a couple of years ago that fits this perfectly: moral panic.

The more I look at the behavior of people who advocate manmade climate change, the more I see similarities with moral panics. And it starts with slapping opinions on scientific observations and findings that create widespread fear and mass hysteria. But the science for these cases has generally been cherry-picked, flawed conclusions drawn from it, or outright pseudo-science has been presented as the read deal. And once a moral panic starts, laws get passed, deniers get demonized by both huckster authorities and the terrorized masses, lots of doomsday scenarios get predicted, the press goes nuts, books and movies get produced, and so on. Often, companies and government authorities work covertly to keep the fear rolling while they provide "solutions."

(For a typical huckster authority cashing in on climate change, one that resembles megachurch preachers who cash in on moral panics involving demons, think Al Gore. But there are plenty of others.)

Here are some examples of things that have been used to trigger moral panics with large-scale social and legal impacts: comic books, switchblades, implanted, false and/or recovered memories, HIV and Aids, witches, guns, sundry games, vaccines, Jews, poor immigrants in general who live in ghettos of their culture, alcohol, different drugs, population explosion, and so on. And, now, of course, the climate.

Moral panics sometimes result in major social damage like Prohibition and eugenics (which is still with us in different forms), but they mostly fizzle out after peaking.

The thing that has kept the manmade climate change moral panic going for so long, I believe, is the seduction of the massive money and power to be gained from preaching it, which is why there are constant new rounds of goosing up the science to make the doomsday scenarios look like "settled science." 

Michael

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

Jonathan,

I learned a term a couple of years ago that fits this perfectly: moral panic.

The more I look at the behavior of people who advocate manmade climate change, the more I see similarities with moral panics. And it starts with slapping opinions on scientific observations and findings that create widespread fear and mass hysteria. But the science for these cases has generally been cherry-picked, flawed conclusions drawn from it, or outright pseudo-science has been presented as the read deal. And once a moral panic starts, laws get passed, deniers get demonized by both huckster authorities and the terrorized masses, lots of doomsday scenarios get predicted, the press goes nuts, books and movies get produced, and so on. Often, companies and government authorities work covertly to keep the fear rolling while they provide "solutions."

(For a typical huckster authority cashing in on climate change, one that resembles megachurch preachers who cash in on moral panics involving demons, think Al Gore. But there are plenty of others.)

Here are some examples of things that have been used to trigger moral panics with large-scale social and legal impacts: comic books, switchblades, implanted, false and/or recovered memories, HIV and Aids, witches, guns, sundry games, vaccines, Jews, poor immigrants in general who live in ghettos of their culture, alcohol, different drugs, population explosion, and so on. And, now, of course, the climate.

Moral panics sometimes result in major social damage like Prohibition and eugenics (which is still with us in different forms), but they mostly fizzle out after peaking.

The thing that has kept the manmade climate change moral panic going for so long, I believe, is the seduction of the massive money and power to be gained from preaching it, which is why there are constant new rounds of goosing up the science to make the doomsday scenarios look like "settled science." 

Michael

Well said!

On this thread, I've been hoping to move beyond the panic ploys. Please convince me with the science, I request. Here is what I'll need to see, I say. I've looked for it myself, and haven't succeeded. After following the issue for decades, I've also seen past failed predictions disappear, never to be mentioned again, and others become altered mid-experiment. I've seen the press report blatant untruths, and scientists not correct them -- and I've seen brave individual scientists then step forward to correct the record, earning them vitriol from fellow scientists who were silent about the untruths.

Let's cut through all of that and have a grown up conversation. Show me what I ask to see. It's what I need to be convinced. I need to see the science, not a substitute and some tee hee hees. I need to see reliably repeatable successful predictions, including all of the details that I've listed several times here.

I'll wait. I'll continue to laugh at the non-responsive responses, the silent treatment games, the tee hee heeing, and the panic ploys. I'll wait.

J

 

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

I really have to change my approach and methods.  I am taking a look at a selection of the non-answered questions between Jonathan and WSS  -- from our most recent exchanges.

I'm looking forward to it.

But I guess that in the mean time, it'll be more of the same..."Here's some tasty steamed octopus."

 

23 hours ago, william.scherk said:

Wow, dose bois are effen certain, eh? Especially considering that up until just recently, the consensus scientists had spent about a decade being very uncertain and trying to come up with a hypothesis or forty which they had hoped might explain the 15 to 18-year "pause" or "hiatus" which showed up in reality after they hadn't predicted it. It was very troublesome and problematic. They came up with all sorts of stuff that they felt almost explained it, but nothing to form a consensus around. Then one day, a couple of scientists came up with a great solution: Everybody had been making a big deal outta nuffin, and plus it never happened, so let's make it go away and we'll stop talking about it. Yeah, that's the ticket. All of you other scientists were wrong, see, as were all of your data and analyses for all of those years. Shut up about it, it's done now, and we're all certain and on the same page again. It never happened. Oceana has never been at war with Eastasia. We are "gold standard" certain, and we always have been.

J

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

By the way, virtually no one truly believes the above, including the people who performed the analyses and published them, and we all know it. Their actions betray them. They don't live as if they believe what they're preaching. In fact, generally speaking, the opposite is true: they usually have much larger carbon footprints than the average person.

I'll believe that the alarmists are serious about their claimed beliefs about climate change when they behave accordingly. And that applies to you, Billy, as well. When y'all focus on yourselves and your own actions, and voluntarily take real steps and give up the luxuries in your lives which contradict your positions on climate (and I mean real actions based on a consistent, disciplined regimen for the rest of your lives, and not just occasional, superficial, virtue-signaling, publicity-seeking symbolic actions), then I will begin to believe that you believe what you claim.

You want us to believe that you believe this shit? Then show us. Lead by example. No more lame excuses. Walk the walk.

J

Link to comment
On 3/5/2019 at 1:05 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Those are pretty pictures and animations.

One man's 'pretty pictures' are another man's (sometimes amazing) visualizations of atmospheric processes. One can also think of them as tools -- tools for understanding some current weather features -- especially the effect of the polar vortex 'weakening' the jetstream this winter. I find them useful and interesting and "I bet I am not the only one." 

Could anyone reading this thread and using the tools learn anything about atmospheric processes that they mightn't otherwise? I think so.

 

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

I really have to change my approach and methods.  I am taking a look at a selection of the non-answered questions between Jonathan and WSS  -- from our most recent exchanges.

I'm looking forward to it.

But I guess that in the mean time, it'll be more of the same..."Here's some tasty steamed octopus."

I haven't figured out just where and how to change my approach and methods -- but the effort requires me to start at the beginning of this topic thread.  I will be looking for good questions -- good questions unanswered. And I will probably be boring and recursive to some readers.

In the meantime ...

I will continue to offer 'tasty steamed octopus' in the guise of tools for exploration. I don't at the moment see why posting snapshots from Climate Reanalyzer's visualization tool is an octopus instead of, what -- Ice Cream.

Speaking of seafood ...

On 3/6/2019 at 4:38 PM, Jonathan said:

[Quoting a Eureka-Alert press release: "]Climate change has taken a toll on many of the world's fisheries, and overfishing has magnified the problem, according to a Rutgers-led study in the journal Science today["].

Who has yet managed to examine the publication in Science?

2019-03-11%2010_52_48-Climate%20change%20shrinks%20many%20fisheries%20globally,%20Rutgers-led%20study%20finds%20_%20EurekA.png

Spoiler

 

 

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

One man's 'pretty pictures' are another man's (sometimes amazing) visualizations of atmospheric processes.

William,

Why is this either-or to you?

It's not to me.

1 hour ago, william.scherk said:

One can also think of them as tools -- tools for understanding some current weather features...

And as tools for propaganda, especially in engineering consent of the masses for dictatorship by technocrats.

I mean, if you want to spread propaganda, you might as well make it pretty. The ignorant populace likes pretty pictures, huh?

:)

Michael

Link to comment
On 3/11/2019 at 11:42 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:
On 3/11/2019 at 10:42 AM, william.scherk said:

One man's 'pretty pictures' are another man's (sometimes amazing) visualizations of atmospheric processes.

Why is this either-or to you?

Could it be that your comments disparage the several data-visualization tools I have most recently offered in this thread -- as mere "pretty pictures"?  That is the impression I got, but I could be wrong. 

I would not dispute that they may perhaps seem like irrelevant 'pretty pictures' to you, in the sense of what you want to know. 

Quote

It's not to me.

I don't really understand, but let me ask to make sure:  is the Earth.nullschool.net project 'pretty' but otherwise useless to you as a tool for greater understanding of atmospheric processes?

Or better --  can you let us know if you clicked over to the project site?

Quote
On 3/11/2019 at 10:42 AM, william.scherk said:

One can also think of them as tools -- tools for understanding some current weather features...

And as tools for propaganda, especially in engineering consent of the masses for dictatorship by technocrats.

Let's narrow it down:  what is your actual objection to the Earth.nullschool.net tool?  

Quote

I mean, if you want to spread propaganda, you might as well make it pretty. The ignorant populace likes pretty pictures, huh?

I infer from this that you suspect the Earth.nullschool.net project is useless to you except for propaganda.  Is that accurate?  Can you think of and share a scenario that might make Earth.nullschool.net useful to you personally?

Or, under what circumstances would you recommend anyone spend time at Earth.nullschool.net?

On 3/5/2019 at 1:05 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Those are pretty pictures and animations.

I still don't see anything near a repeatable result or repeatable conclusion.

Sure. But try to look at it from a different perspective -- let us say you were wondering about a particular aspect or setting of any visualization tool: how would we get to satisfying a desire for 'repeatable result' or 'repeatable conclusion'?

For example, let's say I posted a weather-data graphic from a meteorology site.

alabamaWeather.gif

-- this is a radar map from https://www.alabamawx.com/

So, let's say this visualization doesn't satisfy -- in the sense of returning to any of us "The Science" underlying the radar arrays and the interpretation/coding of the models that give us the visualization above.

How might you or I or any silent reader here come to the point of 'repeatable result' or 'repeatable conclusion' from the data visualization?

My answer off the top of my head is that we would have to build up our understanding of the instruments used -- including those aloft in space and those in the supercomputers that mash the 'raw' data into an indicative representation.

I hope you can understand that this would be a pretty involved project.  How does one of us 'test' the underlying machinery and assumptions of a visualization such as a radar map? 

Quote

I want an ice cream cone, not turkey bacon with quinoa and bok choy.

Okay -- what might someone like you (who may not be all that interested in the first place) want from a data-visualization tool like Earth.nullschool.net?

None of my questions here above need an explicit answer. Maybe we can just think about the tools and how much rigorous work went into a given representation. Without doing heavy duty coursework in meteorology ...

 

Spoiler

 

 

Edited by william.scherk
Link to comment

William,

That's quite a lot of deflection and blah blah blah in answer to a repeated simple question. And it still doesn't answer the question.

A simple answer to a simple question is pretty basic for us retards. We do it every day.

I guess for an intellectually superior man like you, that is no longer possible. I mean, who has time for trifles like clarity, huh? Especially when there are important things to do like The Art of the Preen...

Some people like Ice Cream and they ask for it, but that is soooo very vulgar for the initiated...

(btw - I like the pretty pictures. :) )

Michael

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

How shall I respond to a comment that presumes I operate in bad faith?

William,

That's not the term I came up with, but I'll take it.

And here's why.

How does an intelligent person (like you) ignore a simple question for months and months, one that has been asked countless times in several different manners, and always resort to responding with self-serving data dumps or news headline dumps, boilerplate talking points, irrelevant (to the question) articles and graphics, mockery or at least belittlement of the questioner's ability to understand the oh so obvious, including the mental abilities of those who think like the questioner, etc., etc., etc., if not bad faith?

We are speaking English and, I presume, English is your native language.

So it can't be lack of understanding English.

Are you stupid? No. You're not stupid.

Do you know what a question is? Yes. You know what a question is.

Do you know what an answer is? Yes. You know what an answer is.

Yet you sidestep, obfuscate, mock, dump oodles of work by other people, blah blah blah.

But answer the question? You don't.

Why?

Nah... Forget it. I don't even want to know why. It's been too long and there's been too much bullshit. So to answer your question about how to respond, you don't need to. It will just be more bullshit.

Hell, even a simple, "I don't know," or "I don't have such repeatable science," would do. Or, "Here is the gist of a repeatable finding (in everyday English). And here is the repeatable finding itself: (source)." Boom. Done. What's wrong or complicated about giving a fucking answer?

Nothing, that's what.

So it has to be bad faith.

Michael

Link to comment

I think that the tools and toys that Billy links to are fun. They're interesting.

They're not answers to my questions, however. In the context of my asking for the science (OMG, he said "the science," tee hee hee), they are the equivalent of posting pictures of molecules containing carbon and today's weather in Tonga.

 

20 hours ago, william.scherk said:

I haven't figured out just where and how to change my approach and methods -- but the effort requires me to start at the beginning of this topic thread.  I will be looking for good questions -- good questions unanswered. And I will probably be boring and recursive to some readers.

Cool. It really shouldn't be a difficult thing to figure out. Just answer the questions. Or tell us why you think that the questions are not valid, if that's the case. Do you not like the scientific method? Do you reject it as being silly or old-fashioned or something? If so, explain why, and then identify what you propose to replace it with.

 

20 hours ago, william.scherk said:

In the meantime ...

I will continue to offer 'tasty steamed octopus' in the guise of tools for exploration. I don't at the moment see why posting snapshots from Climate Reanalyzer's visualization tool is an octopus instead of, what -- Ice Cream.

Hmmm. Have you not read and understood the questions that I've asked multiple times? I don't understand how that could be possible. You're definitely not stupid. Are you trying to not understand? Are you suffering some sort of psychological block which prevents you from understanding? I don't know. And I don't know how to make my questions any clearer. They mean what they mean, and they're not hard to understand. They're not complex metaphors with obscure references or anything like that. They're just simple, direct questions.

J

Link to comment
On 3/11/2019 at 6:08 AM, Jonathan said:

which they had hoped might explain the 15 to 18-year "pause" or "hiatus" which showed up in reality after they hadn't predicted it. It was very troublesome and problematic.

There is no statistical pause in any dataset. Even UAH shows greater warming after 1998 than it did prior to 1998. Why do you insist on referring to a non existent pause? This is a strawman. Note, the final 2016 super El Nino was intentionally left off to give a best case scenario for constant warming and it still fails. Warming rate has increased, there is no pause.

Screenshot_20181229-155851.jpg

Link to comment
40 minutes ago, Guest said:

There is no statistical pause in any dataset. Even UAH shows greater warming after 1998 than it did prior to 1998. Why do you insist on referring to a non existent pause?

Oceana has never been at war with Eastasia.

So, what you're saying is that all of the scientists who observed and analyzed the pause/haitus were wrong. All of the theorizing that they did over a dozen years to explain it was a big waste of time based on mistaken opinions? And these are the same scientists who are among the "consensus" of the "settled science"?

It was a very big worry, and now it never existed?

Am I having false memories of history? None of it ever happened? Somebody decided that the best way to handle the pause, after years of no one being able to explain it, was to deny its existence?

Is this how the new concept of "science" works?

J

Link to comment
25 minutes ago, Jonathan said:

Oceana has never been at war with Eastasia.

So, what you're saying is that all of the scientists who observed and analyzed the pause/haitus were wrong. All of the theorizing that they did over a dozen years to explain it was a big waste of time based on mistaken opinions? And these are the same scientists who are among the "consensus" of the "settled science"?

It was a very big worry, and now it never existed?

Am I having false memories of history? None of it ever happened? Somebody decided that the best way to handle the pause, after years of no one being able to explain it, was to deny its existence?

Is this how the new concept of "science" works?

J

Short abet to nearly every question, yes.

 

Longer answer, science isn't absolute. It's a process and someone's through that process we realize we were incorrect. Now that you've been shown there isn't a pause in the data, are you going to accept it or try make a mountain out of the hole you are digging for yourself?

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