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



642 Comments


Recommended Comments



1 hour ago, bradschrag said:

Longer answer, science isn't absolute.

BS,

(Sorry, I couldn't resist the initials. :) )

Welcome to OL.

From the quote above, are you saying there is no "settled science" about this issue?

Did you ever get in touch with former President Obama (or his people) to correct his mistake about his claim of settled science--one that he constantly repeated in front of the most prestigious and powerful people on the planet--and demand, "Now that you've been shown there isn't settled science, are you going to accept it or try make a mountain out of the hole you are digging for yourself?"

And, based on that premise, it would make sense to gut all the climate change treaties, correct? That makes President Trump a moral giant for pulling out of these frauds. Why? Because there is such a thing as "settled law based on wrongly settled science." That's what politico-techno-elites are trying to do. Guess who is the beneficiary of these laws? Not the people or the planet, that's for sure. How can one legislate correctly over something one has identified incorrectly, and identified as settled at that?

If I understand your thinking method correctly and decide to use it myself, I can only conclude it would be a good idea to fix this error. That way everything can be logically consistent.

:) 

Michael

Share this comment


Link to comment
1 hour ago, bradschrag said:

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. 

But it was settled science! It was consensus scientists who identified the pause and were struggling with it, not skeptics. And now it's false and never happened and there's a new settled science? Is there a new consensus already too? What percentage is it this time? The consensus scientists pissed and moaned about it for around a dozen years, but then one day, a few people declared that it never existed, and so that's that? Heh.

That's a whole lot of incompetence perpetrated by the alleged consensus of brilliant scientists whom we're supposed to trust as being certain, no? It doesn't exactly inspire confidence in new claims of certainty.

 

1 hour ago, bradschrag said:

Now that you've been shown there isn't a pause in the data...

Your chart shows no such thing. It shows the pause.

You're playing games to try to achieve the outcome that you desire.

What's your goal in doing so? Why not be honest? Tell us what you're after.

 

1 hour ago, bradschrag said:

...are you going to accept it or try make a mountain out of the hole you are digging for yourself?

Am I going to accept what, your false assertions over reality? Heh.

J

Share this comment


Link to comment

I appreciate all good-faith efforts to re-orient my approach in this discussion.  But I need to level the playing field with an off-site voice ...

 

Share this comment


Link to comment

He’s a real charmer, came in like a Scaramucci. May even be Billy’s twin.

”You saw the graph, now ACCEPT IT!” He carries a whip and his middle name is Heinrich.

Share this comment


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

But I need to level the playing field with an off-site voice ...

The manmade climate change folks have fucked up so badly, they can't even keep Greenpeace on board.

That's an impressive fuck up. I've fucked up in life before, but I can't get near this level of expertise.

I stand in awe.

:) 

Michael

Share this comment


Link to comment

And the new guy still didn't answer the question.

All he said, essentially, is there is no question. And if there were one, Jonathan certainly can't understand it.

How cool is that?

:evil:  :) 

To paraphrase a failed presidential candidate:

He came, he snarked, he left...

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha...

:) 

Michael

Share this comment


Link to comment
2 hours ago, Jonathan said:

But it was settled science!

Yep, and you are more than welcome to come up with a model that better explains what is causing the current warming. Just because knowledge on a subject improves doesn't invalidate all previous knowledge. So please, what do you believe to be the cause of the current warming?

Share this comment


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

Sorry, I couldn't resist the initials. 

If only I had a $ for every time 😉

Share this comment


Link to comment
1 hour ago, Jon Letendre said:

Bringing him here escalates what was simple bad faith into open hostility. Billy didn’t look for someone who could fill–in for his weakness in science, no he brought an intellectual Nazi attack dog.

One reply gets me labeled and I'm supposed to think this isn't a hostile environment?

  • Like 1

Share this comment


Link to comment
38 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

And the new guy still didn't answer the question.

Which question? Lots to scroll through so yeah, I just kinda hopped in somewhere.

  • Like 1

Share this comment


Link to comment
2 hours ago, Jonathan said:

Your chart shows no such thing. It shows the pause.

Actually, no it doesn't. What you see "see" use not what the statistics reveal. This is why we don't rely on human perception, rather objective facts, for science.

 

Same plot, sans 1997-1999, where's your pause?

Screenshot_20190312-164310.jpg

Share this comment


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

From the quote above, are you saying there is no "settled science" about this issue?

Nope. What in seeing use that to some contrarians, they made a mountain out of a mole hill that was a super El Nino followed by a stratospheric volcanic eruption and labeled it as a pause. Cooling (short term) always follows an El Nino and stratospheric eruptions cause short term cooling as well. There are other metrics that we can use to see what is happening in the system such as ocean heat content. It also shows there was nothing resembling a pause.

IMG_20180519_081442.jpg

Share this comment


Link to comment
42 minutes ago, bradschrag said:

Which question?

Brad,

It has taken several different forms, but it generally includes the word "science" near the terms "repeatable" and/or "falsifiable." 

No matter how many times this kind of question comes up, the answerer always ends up blanking out those two last terms and other stuff is brought in instead. (Generally in a tone of haughty disdain for the questioner.) 

So that's basically the question: Where is the repeatable science?

(btw - I only do a quip like the initials thing once. :)  I mention this because I sometimes use the term "BS" for rhetoric. I already succumbed to the temptation of the tasteless obvious and once is plenty :) , so, from now on, in my posts, if you see the term "BS," it will never be an allusion to your name.)

Oddly enough, I saw a recent video of a scientist of ill-repute among the sciency folks (Rupert Sheldrake) and he seems to be able to come up with at least 10% of the peer-reviewed stuff concerning climate change that does have "repeatable" results (see here)--I remember him using the term "reproducible" instead of "repeatable." He didn't give specifics in that discussion because that was not the topic, but, say what one may about him, he does properly source conclusions like the one he gave when asked (having a PhD from Cambridge and all...). The climate change crisis people can't or won't do this. So I guess they have to leave it up to the Sheldrakes of the world.

For folks who keep trying to sell their sky-is-falling agenda to get their mitts on gobs of money and power, that's just plain awful as persuasion.

Michael

Share this comment


Link to comment
2 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

So that's basically the question: Where is the repeatable science?

I'd start simple, and that's the radiative transfer models. The equation for them was derived long before there was computing power to plot it, much less satellites to observe it. But once technology caught up, it was safe to say the models are validated.... And I can't upload anymore so here's a link 

https://twitter.com/BradSchrag/status/1104750783357247488?s=19

Share this comment


Link to comment
On 11/18/2018 at 12:34 PM, william.scherk said:

[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.

It appears that a new age of Arctic shipping has opened, with the passage of a Danish container ship from South Korea to Saint Petersburg in what is advertised as a 'one-off trial. That Arctic warming outpaces the average of the globe is perhaps not intuitively graspable or grokked. Here is an item of purported science from the journal Nature Climate Change.  I'd be interested in a critical analysis ...

Arctic warming hotspot in the northern Barents Sea linked to declining sea-ice import

Earth.nullschool.net has shown a persistent flow of 'Pacific weather' toward the Bering Strait over the month and a half since I began monitoring. 

Edited by william.scherk

Share this comment


Link to comment
12 minutes ago, bradschrag said:

I'd start simple, and that's the radiative transfer models. The equation for them was derived long before there was computing power to plot it, much less satellites to observe it. But once technology caught up, it was safe to say the models are validated.... And I can't upload anymore so here's a link 

https://twitter.com/BradSchrag/status/1104750783357247488?s=19

Brad,

I'm not good with scientific jargon, nor what I seem to need to infer from the above. I'm a simple man (one who votes, too :) ). Can you put this in plain English for me? Pretend I'm a retard and, maybe, try the Feynman form of explanation.

As to the tweet, I have no idea what that graph means, nor, for that matter, what "bed to be done" means.

Thanks.

Michael

Share this comment


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

It it kind of a "tough crowd" here ...

Yeah...

We're just biding our time while waiting for a savior...

And no one thinks for himself or herself. It's all just collective stupidity.

Now that we've got that out of the way...

:) 

Michael

Share this comment


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

Mr B. S., thanks for dropping in. It it kind of a "tough crowd" here ...

Heh. You should see what it's like for critics of the herd out there beyond the walls of OL. Ask Judy the science denier whore about it. Express dissent to the "consensus" if you want to see what a tough crowd looks like.

J

Share this comment


Link to comment
1 hour ago, bradschrag said:

Actually, no it doesn't. What you see "see" use not what the statistics reveal. This is why we don't rely on human perception, rather objective facts, for science.

 

Same plot, sans 1997-1999, where's your pause?

Screenshot_20190312-164310.jpg

Yeah, you're playing games. Why have you added the final years up until 2019?

Because you're dishonest, and because cheating is the only way to get the lying results that you wanted.

J

Share this comment


Link to comment
7 minutes ago, Jonathan said:

Because you're dishonest, and because cheating is the only way to get the lying results that you wanted.

I wasn't aware the only way to be honest was to avoid reality. Where do you think the chart should stop?

Share this comment


Link to comment
40 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

bed to be done

Yeah, sorry about that. Sometimes, since I primarily tweet from mobile, some interpretation is required.

bed -> need

So where to start. Are we in agreement that the GHE is the reason that the earth is over an effective temperature of 255K, or do we need to back track further?

Share this comment


Link to comment

Guest
This blog entry is now closed to further comments.