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



615 Comments


Recommended Comments



15 hours ago, william.scherk said:

The capital of Missouri got a tornado whacking last night.  Data-visualization of storm dynamics is advancing. This appeared earlier on Twitter.

 

The new settled science of advanced imaging is that that individual storm was caused by pretend climate activists whose carbon footprints are hundreds of times larger than the average person. They are a very large group.

J

Share this comment


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

Some people, huh?

 

Oh my god, there's no time to waste? There's no planet B? Oh, no! Well, then, we had better forget all about the questions that I've asked which remain unanswered, and instead focus on action. We have to act now. It's an emerergency. Extreme measures need to be taken. And Billy is going volunteer to be the first. Thank you for your sacrifice, Billy, and for leading by example.

J

  • Like 1

Share this comment


Link to comment

Heroic London, below, is going to "save the planet" with greater emissions and greater waste, and, of course, punishments and controls! Hooray, hoorrrahh!

The wtiter appears to not quite understand the goal, which is to make private ownership and usage of vehicles difficult, and then eventually illegal. Force people to do what you wish, make them dependent and biddable. Doing so can even have the opposite effect of the stated excuse of saving the planet. Seriously, fuck the environment. We only claim to care about it because it calms the sheep and makes them follow. They don't even care about the results of our policies, but just the tone of our voices.

Your dreams are starting to come true, Billy! I'll bet that you'll get to see some seriously exciting events yet before you die. Definitely even televised/social-mediaed this time around! Live! You'll get to see Them receiving their just deserts. So thrilling!

London Plans 15mph Speed Limit To "Cut Air Pollution"

Profile picture for user Tyler Durden
Sun, 05/26/2019 - 08:45

In what is a solid contender for this year's Darwin Awards for environmental virtue signalling, the City of London has proposed a 15mph speed limit and the closure of some streets at lunchtime as part of a “radical plan” to reduce air pollution, cut traffic, and promote walking.

With more than half a million people commuting into the City of London each day, the authorities have been working to reduce air pollution in the area which contains several of the most polluted spots in the capital, the FT reported quoting Alastair Moss, chair of transport and planning committee at the City of London Corporation, who said the “radical plans” would help Greater London maintain its competitive edge as a business destination. The new 15mph speed limit could go into effect as soon as 2021, pending further approval from the Department for Transport.

It was not immediately clear how or why the artificial ceiling of 15mph would help the environment, especially since the maximum emissions from a car engine peak at a low rate of speed, but we'll leave that to the Darwin Award nominations committee to answer. There is another, more pertinent question: why impose a 15 mps limit when the average traffic speeds in the City of London are already roughly half that due to narrow streets and congestion. 

While the number of vehicles driving in London's “Square Mile” has halved in the last 20 years, the corporation aims to further reduce vehicle traffic by 25% by 2030, and by 50% by 2044. “We are working tirelessly to support the 513,000 workers that commute to the Square Mile every day,” said Mr Moss.

The current speed limit in the City is 20mph for roads controlled by the corporation, while some larger thoroughfares managed by Transport for London, such as Blackfriars Underpass and Upper Thames Street, have a 30mph limit that is scheduled to change to 20mph.

In addition to cutting top speed for internal combustion engines, the City of London is already piloting three “zero emissions zones”, or streets that only allow electric or hybrid vehicles.

Of course, the bigger issue as noted above, is that this is, above all, an exercise in environmental virtue signaling. Steve McNamara, general secretary of the Licensed Taxi Drivers’ Association, said: "Cutting the Square Mile speed limit won’t make much practical difference, as average traffic speeds in London are around 7 miles per hour. Reducing the excessive number of private hire vehicles is a better way to improve air quality.”

Share this comment


Link to comment
2 hours ago, Jonathan said:

Your dreams are starting to come true, Billy!

This is a setback.

AOC called out by meteorologist after linking DC tornado warning to climate change

Quote

 

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., took to social media on Thursday during a tornado warning in Washington, D.C., and swiftly tried to connect it to climate change -- prompting one meteorologist to call her out for not knowing "the difference between weather and climate."

[...]

The Green New Deal advocate then shared a story published by PBS in March questioning if climate change makes tornadoes worse and put emphasis on a quote from the piece that read, "Rather than lie squarely in the Great Plains, America’s tornadoes appear to be sliding into the Midwest and Southeast."

The tornado warning followed a devastating tornado in Missouri's capital of Jefferson City the night before.

"Tornadoes are challenging to link to climate change links due to their nature (geographically, limited, acute patterns, how they form, etc.)," Ocasio-Cortez told her followers as she reviewed the article. "But we DO know that tornadoes HAVE been changing. They are no longer being limited to the Great Plains, and are shifting to other regions of the country."

“The climate crisis is real y’all … guess we’re at casual tornadoes in growing regions of the country,” she later wrote on Instagram.

Meteorologist Ryan Maue, though, argued that she was confusing climate change with "weather" in the capital region.

"The Congresswoman @AOC does not know the difference between weather and climate," wrote Maue. "Let's try an easy analogy: Weather is what outfit you wear heading out the door. Climate is your closet wardrobe."

 

 

Share this comment


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

Heh. No, it's not a setback at all. Not in the slightest. The critic is a mere meteorologist, an insect, and not an officially recognized and accredited Climate Science Authority. Plus, he has a history of mildly criticizing officially recognized and accredited Climate Science Authorities, or at least of expecting them to not employ double standards. He is therefore a "science denier," and soon he will have to be destroyed.

Aroused yet, Billy? Yes, I thought so! What do you look forward to the most? What's your favorite part: strangling, emasculation, evisceration, beheading, or placing the head atop a pike? Which is most satisfying to you, the screams or the blood?

 

Share this comment


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

Your dreams are starting to come true, Billy!

This is a setback.

Some people just don't know when to shut up.

 

Share this comment


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

Some people just don't know when to shut up.

 

Oh my god, Trump is against science!!! He's attacking science!!! And this isn't hysterical spin, but calm, factual reporting.

 

Share this comment


Link to comment
On 5/27/2019 at 6:48 PM, Jonathan said:

Oh my god, Trump is against science!!! He's attacking science!!! And this isn't hysterical spin, but calm, factual reporting.

Jonathan,

I heard from lefties that President Trump is so much against science, he wants to fire the NASA scientists and do his moonshot and 5G stuff through prayer.

:) 

Michael

  • Thanks 1

Share this comment


Link to comment
On 5/27/2019 at 3:44 PM, william.scherk said:
On 5/27/2019 at 10:25 AM, william.scherk said:
On 5/27/2019 at 8:00 AM, Jonathan said:

Your dreams are starting to come true, Billy!

This is a setback.

Some people just don't know when to shut up.

When dreams come true and the emotions build; the storm, the wrath.

Mothership_Nebraska.jpg

The Cabal or conspiracy to defraud, the foulness and histrionics, the emotional messaging and 'nudging' ... the following National Public Radio issue has a lot to unpack for those who like a puzzle.

From yesterday (kind of poorly-constructed headline) ... The radical approach these communities have taken to flood mitigation. Of interest to thinkers on/aficionados of propaganda and persuasion, perhaps.

In the same line, a concentrated solution of AlarmO6:

And ...

 

Share this comment


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

When dreams come true and the emotions build; the storm, the wrath.

Mothership_Nebraska.jpg

The Cabal or conspiracy to defraud, the foulness and histrionics, the emotional messaging and 'nudging' ... the following National Public Radio issue has a lot to unpack for those who like a puzzle.

From yesterday (kind of poorly-constructed headline) ... The radical approach these communities have taken to flood mitigation. Of interest to thinkers on/aficionados of propaganda and persuasion, perhaps.

In the same line, a concentrated solution of AlarmO6:

And ...

 

We need to take action now. And by "we," I mean Others™.

In the short mean time, Billy, I know that you're not going to (can't) answer any of my previous questions about "the science" (tee hee hee), but might you have enough intellectual curiosity to offer up some thoughts on what "the science" should consist of? What are the ground rules? What is the methodology? Can you give some idea of how you think it should work, and maybe show that proposed method successfully applied to phenomena other than or in addition to climate?

No? More steamed octopus? M-Kay.

J

  • Like 1

Share this comment


Link to comment

So far, the best I can make of the scientific methodology for manmade climate change works like this.

1. A scientist (or somebody else) notices something interesting about an impact of weather on a part of nature.

2. The scientist (and others) devise a way to measure aspects of it and go into the field ameasuring.

3. They input the measurements into a computer and devise computer models around the measurements that can give a wide range of outcomes, all of which they call "climate."

4. The politicians and people funding the scientist see which outcomes give insiders the most money and power and choose those, and they make the scientist (if he/she is not an insider) say the other models were flawed.

5. The politicians and insiders tell all other scientists they need more measurements and that their measurements have to conform to the computer models they chose on pain of losing their funding and reputations. They sacrifice a few scientists to show they mean it.

6. They make pretty pictures and graphs to show the public to help engineer consent for their expanded power and money.

How am I doing so far?

:) 

Michael

Share this comment


Link to comment

Well, back in the day--early 1980s--the environmentalists couldn't decide between global warming and cooling. So I guess the money gravity made the choice for them.

--Brant

Share this comment


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

So far, the best I can make of the scientific methodology for manmade climate change works like this.

1. A scientist (or somebody else) notices something interesting about an impact of weather on a part of nature.

2. The scientist (and others) devise a way to measure aspects of it and go into the field ameasuring.

3. They input the measurements into a computer and devise computer models around the measurements that can give a wide range of outcomes, all of which they call "climate."

4. The politicians and people funding the scientist see which outcomes give insiders the most money and power and choose those, and they make the scientist (if he/she is not an insider) say the other models were flawed.

5. The politicians and insiders tell all other scientists they need more measurements and that their measurements have to conform to the computer models they chose on pain of losing their funding and reputations. They sacrifice a few scientists to show they mean it.

6. They make pretty pictures and graphs to show the public to help engineer consent for their expanded power and money.

How am I doing so far?

:) 

Michael

Also, lots of emoting and double standards. No consistent rules. Sneering and tee hee hees in the place of substantive argument. Unfounded accusations of conspiracy theory mindsets. Steamed octopus on top of steamed octopus with a side of steamed octopus.

J

Share this comment


Link to comment
2 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

Well, back in the day--early 1980s--the environmentalists couldn't decide between global warming and cooling. So I guess the money gravity made the choice for them.

--Brant

They're not "environmentalists." Their actions betray them. They do not behave as if they believe what they say. None of them do. Including our Billy.

J

Share this comment


Link to comment

Doing nothing is always better than doing what liberals/progressives/socialists want to do. Having a "plan" doesn't automatically make it better than the lack of a plan, regardless of how much you tee hee hee about the lack of a plan. At least we have a plan! Sure, it will cause mass hardship and austerity while achieving nothing, but it's a plan!

Speaking of lackings, what is your plan, Billy? Hell, you can't even support your argument here or answer simple questions. Your adopted method of dealing with challenges is to ignore them and to serve up more steamed octopus. That's much worse that what you're criticizing, tee hee hee.

J

Share this comment


Link to comment

Recursion ... jet stream.

Here's why the US has seen tornadoes, floods and extreme heat in the past few weeks

Quote

[...] Is this climate change?

It depends. Meteorologists don't believe there is a link between the remarkable amount of tornadoes and climate change. Flooding is a different story.

[...]

The gist of the story is a persistent pattern in the jet stream ...

https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/250hPa/orthographic=-87.88,26.85,346

Share this comment


Link to comment

This guy seems a bit nuts -- as in 'lit' -- but the video is funny in parts, and lays bare three argumentative ploys used in this topic thread.

 

Share this comment


Link to comment

The leftists in LA and SanFran have found a quicker route to their goals than AGW fear-mongering:

Dr. Drew Pinsky: Entire Population of California Could Fall Victim To Bubonic Plague Due To Homelessness

 
 
Posted By Ian Schwartz 
On Date May 31, 2019

 

 

Dr. Drew Pinsky warns about the health effects of the homelessness epidemic in Los Angeles in an interview with FNC's Laura Ingraham. Pinsky, a board certified internist, called the L.A. city government "disgustingly negligent" and said they are not addressing the issue correctly.

The government believes housing is the problem but Pinsky said there is rampant mental illness and drug addiction among the homeless and they aren't interested in housing...

-----

Damn, just think how thrilling a plague would be for leftists! Misery all around, and unlimited opportunities to control the Others™ and decide who receives benefits versus who receives punishments. Very exciting! They'll get to see, firsthand, the Others™ dying en masse, instead of just reading about it. They'll finally get to be there, and to live it! Their anticipation must be just intolerable.

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...