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



716 Comments


Recommended Comments



7 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

What should we do about AGW? For the sake of the "discussion" let's go to the next level and talk about costs.

Policy isn't my thing. Speaking generally, efforts to curb, reduce, and even draw down co2 are the direction we need to be heading. How to do that without stripping others of accessibility to stable living is the key of course. Again, speaking generally, I don't think there is a one size fits all solution.

Share this comment


Link to comment
1 hour ago, bradschrag said:

See, all this high level of agreement by multiple independent agencies becomes a problem for you because all it leaves you with are really two options:

a) claim conspiracy and gloat

 

You're really into using conspiracy as a weapon. I've already explained that I don't t think there's a conspiracy, and that one isn't needed to explain motivations.

Additionally, I've personally observed the incentives and pressures that scientists face. I just recently witnessed an overnight political 180 that just happened to occur with a great new job opportunity. I am certain that no one told this friend of mine what is expected of him. No threats or promises, no one conspiring. It's very much like public teachers. They don't need to conspire to arrive at the same political positions, the same educational theories, and the same rhetorical devices.

So, no, we're not limited to the choices that you want to limit the conversation to.

 

1 hour ago, bradschrag said:

 

By the way, this word consilience comes back to bite...

And you're off and running, assigning me arguments, and arguing against them, playing professor, condescending...

 

1 hour ago, bradschrag said:

As I said earlier Jonathan, it's much easier to address 1-2 specific topics at a time...

Great. Let's start with time and falsifiability.

How long of a time period must we observe temperatures rising, without leveling off or falling, in order to conclude not only that temperatures are indeed rising enough so as to be considered climactic change, but also primarily caused by human activities? Which models/experiments have identified this timeframe prior to the models' predictions being made, and prior to reality then being observed? Where may I find the details of these types of ground rules? We already know that some scientists are asserting that a 12 to 15 year "pause/hiatus," or even a 15 to 18 year one, is not sufficient to falsify their favorite models. With such assertions, determining exactly when the ground rules were established becomes very important. Without these details, it can seem that people are just making it up as they go along.

What are the specific conditions of falsifiability? What results in reality would invalidate the hypothesis? And why?

And let's add just one more question. Which single model is the settled science model? I've seen a range of models with a range of predictions. Some have fallen by the wayside over the decades, and we don't hear about them anymore, but, anyway, which of the differing and competing current models settled it once and for all, and what date was it officially determined by the consensus scientists that that single model nailed it?

Thanks,

Share this comment


Link to comment
43 minutes ago, bradschrag said:

Policy isn't my thing. Speaking generally, efforts to curb, reduce, and even draw down co2 are the direction we need to be heading. How to do that without stripping others of accessibility to stable living is the key of course. Again, speaking generally, I don't think there is a one size fits all solution.

Personally, I've never seen any alarmists acting in accordance with their stated beliefs about man-made global warming. Actions versus words. I see their actions as revealing their true beliefs. I'll believe that they believe it when they behave accordingly.

J

Share this comment


Link to comment
7 minutes ago, Jonathan said:

How long of a time period must we observe temperatures rising, without leveling off or falling, in order to conclude not only that temperatures are indeed rising enough so as to be considered climactic change, but also primarily caused by human activities?

Generally, climate is referred to as periods of 30years or greater. So any consistent trends longer than 30yrs could be considered climate change, but of course should be taken with a grain of salt. However, the longer the trend, the more definitive it becomes. Currently we are on a consistent warming trend for about the last 150 years, with a minor cooling trend in the 40's that is mostly attributable to a change in the AMO phase (Atlantic Multidecadal Ociscllation, basically a long term version of El Nino) and aerosols.

Using models, we can estimate how much of the current warming is anthropogenic. It's all us. This has an easy to follow observation with the other components that influence the planets radiative balance. It steps through adding in these components individually so you can see the individual and cumulative effects:

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/

 

21 minutes ago, Jonathan said:

Which models/experiments have identified this timeframe prior to the models' predictions being made, and prior to reality then being observed?

Sorry, I don't understand what you are asking here.

 

23 minutes ago, Jonathan said:

Where may I find the details of these types of ground rules? We already know that some scientists are asserting that a 12 to 15 year "pause/hiatus," or even a 15 to 18 year one, is not sufficient to falsify their favorite models. With such assertions, determining exactly when the ground rules were established becomes very important. Without these details, it can seem that people are just making it up as they go along.

Hmmm... I'll see if I can find a link, but the basic rule is that to determine that the climate is changing we need to have a large enough timeframe to exclude natural variability. The extreme example of this is of course every day when the sun rises and sets. Some people have conceded that because the temperature changes by many degrees during the day, climate change is irrelevant or not occurring. This is false of course, as day/night (diurnal cycle) exists regardless of AGW. So we need to zoom out far enough that those positiive and negative phases of those cycles are offsetting one another. There are a couple really large scale cycles (orbital for example) that we can't really zoom out far enough on in the context of human timeframe, but that cycle is in decline so it is most assuredly not a cause of climate change. Things like PDO, AMO are generally on the timescales of decade to multidecade (about 60yrs for AMO). However, the other key thing to be aware of is generally speaking, the longer the phase, the smaller it's influence is on the system.

So in short again, a timeframe long enough to not be influenced by internal variability is what should be focused on. The other key thing is recognizing all the factors that go into radiative forcing. I mentioned earlier the cooling in the 40's-70's is partly attributed to a huge increase in aerosols from factories. It's also partly the reason for the old global cooling scares.

Share this comment


Link to comment
2 hours ago, bradschrag said:

This is cute, Ellen. And by cute, I really mean pathetic. Maybe try addressing some of the evidence I've brought forward instead of attacking the individual. It's called ad hom and it's really sad excuse of a debate tactic.

It isn't a debate tactic.  It's a question. 

And you've once again avoided at length the issues Jonathan is challenging you to address.

Ellen

Share this comment


Link to comment

Well, damn it, there was, like, 99.9% consensus on this one, but they're overturning the settled science now:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2019/03/18/aspirin-prevent-heart-attacks-strokes-doctors/3199831002/?fbclid=IwAR3TdMnApUpzbMz0jcHmdBnEsXTLu_QzWEUomGC8Ty1sect_GiTn02v8KZg

Don't take an aspirin a day to prevent heart attacks and strokes: Doctors reverse recommendation

...A large clinical trial found a daily low-dose aspirin had no effect on prolonging life in healthy, elderly people and actually suggested the pills could be linked to major hemorrhages...

-----

Buh, buh, but, muh settled science! But, muh conspiracy kooks!

J

Share this comment


Link to comment
1 hour ago, bradschrag said:

Sorry, I don't understand what you are asking here.

Do you not understand words? I can't help you with that. You're going to have to work on that yourself.

Once you understand words and sentences and stuff, come on back, read what I wrote, comprehend it, and then we'll finish our conversation.

J

Share this comment


Link to comment
On 3/16/2019 at 10:09 PM, Ellen Stuttle said:

Brad is far too slick at the snake oil salesmanship to be innocently duped.

This type of comment is remarkable.

Share this comment


Link to comment
19 minutes ago, Jonathan said:

In what way? Elaborate, please.

J

He wishes she didn’t notice intellectual douchebaggery. He wishes that for her politeness would mean not calling–out their intellectual douchebaggery.

Share this comment


Link to comment
On 3/13/2019 at 2:36 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

William set up, on his own, an Objectivist Living twitter account. So he's squatting on the name.

I let him know back when he did it, I was not happy about it.

Had I embraced it, imagine the mess that would have ensued with him in the driver's seat.

If you had asked me to delete the account, I would have obeyed.

OL_unofficial-Twitter.png
 

Michael, do you want me to suspend or delete the @OL_unofficial account?

Share this comment


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

Michael, do you want me to suspend or delete the @OL_unofficial account?

William,

I don't own Twitter. That is your decision.

However, I will say this. I don't understand the urge to vest the name of another in normal public (i.e., not in a fantasy costume-like context like a parade or party or show or Halloween or whatever). I would, under no circumstances, register an account called "William Scherk" (or similar) anywhere on a discussion site filled with strangers, then start posting ideas or slant commentary in a manner that I know you would not agree with. 

I could see making an account called "William Sherk Fan" or "William Sherk Troll" or something like that as admiration or parody. But I would never set up something to make it look like I was you. That's just plain weird to me.

Those are my criteria. You have yours. It's a free world (so far) and Twitter has its own rules.

So it's your choice.

Follow your bliss. I follow mine...

Michael

Share this comment


Link to comment
1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Follow your bliss. I follow mine...

I used to be more creative.  The best benefit of the OL_unofficial is that I can view accounts that have blocked me from following.

A creative option might be to follow a suggestion and re-brand the account as "My Block Evading Alternative" and ID myself, leaving only the link to OL as an indication that I tend to yap a bit here, or that I have a lengthy list of comments/articles in the temporal archive. Or link exclusively to this blog within ...

Another option might be to turn over the ostensible "OL fan account" to  someone else who is also an OL old-timer or/and a fan. 

I could auction off the account to OL (MSK), with the proceeds going to the general OL fund.  It might lead to more invaders dropping in or not, depending if it was used or semi-automatic. It's hard to say what the future should hold.

In the meantime, I'll rebrand and remove what could stick in a craw. Any further suggestions are welcome.

[Added: done -- https://twitter.com/WSS_Block_Evade

 

Share this comment


Link to comment
23 hours ago, bradschrag said:

Policy isn't my thing. Speaking generally, efforts to curb, reduce, and even draw down co2 are the direction we need to be heading. How to do that without stripping others of accessibility to stable living is the key of course. Again, speaking generally, I don't think there is a one size fits all solution.

Oh, you're paving the way for the statists but you aren't a statist.

Look, let's let CO2 happen; it's going to anyway. More plant and animal life AND the planet qua planet isn't at risk. Just the polluting humanoids. Let them eat their just desserts.

Now correlate your supposed scientific position with us living in an interglacial period likely to end sooner rather than later. Maybe saving humanity--is that what you're about?--is pumping  into the atmosphere all the CO2 we can as fast as we can?

Your essential triteness has been noted.If you're honest here you are trite and if dishonest you're that and trite.

Now about a ad h. There is a ad h and simple ad h. The latter is not a logical fallacy.

--Brant

  • Confused 1

Share this comment


Link to comment

I just thought to wish everyone in the thread a happy first day of Spring.  Here in Chilliwack the jetstream had 'loosened' and brought us winter-ish weather right up until a week ago. We are now enjoying summer-like temperatures, and everyone and their dog and bicycle and children are taking advantage of it. 

On the topic, I've asked Scott Adams permission to mirror an excerpt from the latest installment in his ongoing "Climate Challenge."  One of the fellows in the extended Twitter thread that began in January was mentioned in the most recent video uploaded yesterday.

gfs_nh-sat1_t2anom_1-day.png

Edited by william.scherk

Share this comment


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

I just thought to wish everyone in the thread a happy first day of Spring. 

Right back atcha.

 

1 hour ago, william.scherk said:

 

 

So true on the issue of disabusing people of fake news. I've experienced the exact same example -- the claim that Trump called neo-nazis and white supremacists good people -- many times, including here on OL. Another favorite is the fake news that Trump mocked a person's physical disability. Here are the facts. "Yabut he did make the grabmbythepussy comment." Then, a week later, we're back to the lie that he mocked a person's physical disability.

J

Share this comment


Link to comment

Ya think Brad's having any luck chasing down 'the science'?

It's weird how he went from 2,000 miles per hour to zero in half a second.

J

Share this comment


Link to comment
On 3/14/2019 at 8:39 AM, bradschrag said:

While the climate models do a fair job at prediciting the surface temperatures, they don't do as well replicating the mid troposphere temps. This could hint at TCS (transient climate sensitivty) being a bit overstated, in my opinion.

This one always eludes me:  what is the difference between equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) and transient climate sensitivity (TCS). Any pointers, Brad, for those who also would like to fill a gap in knowledge?

Share this comment


Link to comment

"What Is the Polar Vortex and How Does It Influence Weather?"  An excellent explainer and set of cautions/recommendations for reporting on the "stratospheric polar vortex" and the distinct "circumpolar tropospheric vortex." Refer back to the earliest mention here (thirteen pages back) for more context.

From the conclusion, two points of order:

Quote
[...] CONCLUDING REMARKS.

It is not clear that describing cold-air-outbreak events, such as the one shown in Fig. 4, in terms of a polar vortex adds significant new insights compared to the traditional descriptions in terms of ridges and troughs or in terms of waves propagating along the jet stream. As there are two distinct polar vortices, and the stratospheric one can play a significant role but often does not, introducing the term may, in fact, cause some misunderstanding. Additionally, since surface weather disturbances are associated only with displacements of the vortex edge in limited areas rather than hemispheric-scale changes to the vortex, it is not clear that invoking the term vortex clarifies anything, given that the vortex is a hemispheric-scale structure. Use of the term without adequate explanation can suggest a more dramatic change to the global tropospheric circulation than has actually occurred (e.g., “The polar vortex is back!”).

That said, the term has become rapidly ingrained into the vocabulary of popular weather journalism and appears to be coming more common in the science literature of extreme weather (Wallace et al. 2014). We encourage those who use it to do the following:

  1. Distinguish clearly between the stratospheric and tropospheric polar vortices. Many surface weather events involve only the tropospheric vortex, yet most scientific literature using the term polar vortex refers to the stratosphere. Thus, the distinction must be made with some care, and any chosen references or quotations should refer to the correct vortex (which is normally the tropospheric one). The stratospheric vortex may play a role in some events, but that role is typically more subtle and indirect and requires further specific explanation.

  2. Make clear that any individual extreme weather event is not the consequence of either the existence or gross properties of either polar vortex, whether tropospheric or stratospheric, as both vortices are normal climatological features of Earth’s atmospheric circulation. Rather, as in the case of 2014, the events of interest tend to be associated only with transient and localized displacements of the tropospheric vortex edge.

Speaking of vortices in the atmosphere, here is a representation from Earth.nullschool.net.  "Leaving, on a jet stream. Don't know when I'll be back again."

jetstreamMarch25-2019optimized.gif

-- the video explainer previously posted, featuring Paul Beckwith, which features the tools at Earth.nullschool.net  ...

Quote

Human experience with weather is all within the lower atmosphere (troposphere). Above this is the stratosphere, where the protective ozone layer resides. Near the borderline (tropopause) jet streams (aka Rossby Waves or Tropospheric Polar Vortices) circumvent the planet, dividing cold dry polar air from hot moist equatorial derived air, and guiding storms. Much less well known is the Stratospheric Polar Vortex that crucially interacts with the jet streams affecting surface weather, and vice versa.

 

Edited by william.scherk

Share this comment


Link to comment

🐙versus 🍦 versus EarthNullSchoolgif.jpg

🐙   -- represents a order within the class Cephalopoda

🍦    -- represents a form of frozen cream

EarthNullSchoolgif.jpg-- represents atmospheric circulation patterns 

 

 

Share this comment


Link to comment

In the absence of any answers from Brad, let's do a bit of postmortem work.

What did we learn from Brad's brief visit here? I think the most important thing was that a couple of years of warming (of maybe even less) is enough, by his unidentified standards, to falsify the hypothesis that temperatures, on a climactic scale, are either remaining about the same or only warming slightly (much less than alarmists have predicted), but, 12 to 18 years (depending on whom you ask) of stasis or near-stasis are not enough to falsify the hypothesis of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. Weird huh? Seems like a blatant double standard. Is there a possible rational explanation? I can't think of one. Anyone else? Billy? Help me out, please.

J

Share this comment


Link to comment

That AGW is politicalized science is so blatantly obvious Brad was blatantly phony. That comes from treating it as a non-issue. He could have gone on and on quoting studies and papers and other sources on the implicit premise that the massive body of politicalized work doesn't exist.

He doesn't do policy my ass. He's policy's ice breaker. The ice is the truth.

--Brant

Share this comment


Link to comment

Guest
Add a comment...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...