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



32 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Maybe if we had some intellectual explain it correctly to us...

Oh...

I forgot...

Many of them have explained it.

Global warming...

Global cooling...

I mean, who can keep up with all this stuff?

:evil:  :) 

Michael

Share this comment


Link to comment
4 hours ago, Jonathan said:

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.

Leftism doesn't confer immunity from bubonic plague.  If there really were a plague epidemic, leftists, along with the Others, might get the "thrill" of dying from it.

Ellen

Share this comment


Link to comment
13 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

Leftism doesn't confer immunity from bubonic plague.  If there really were a plague epidemic, leftists, along with the Others, might get the "thrill" of dying from it.

Ellen

The same is true of all of their policies. They're willing to take the risk. They hope that they're less likely to be affected. They expect to have at least slightly worse lives in exchange for being allowed to make the Others' lives miserable. They think that they'll be part of the group that largely gets to escape the horrors that they dream of imposing.

Share this comment


Link to comment

“Wettest in U.S. History,” So stupid and so cleverly deceiving all at once, like everything about the Left today.

Of course we will have the wettest and the driest years in history, and we can expect many more for a certainty. That’s because the data set of reliable, accurate rainfall in the U.S. is only about 100 years in extent. But many will read the headline and think: the wettest year ever.

Often hitting new highs and lows of a data set many thousands of years old may indicate recently increased volatility.

Often hitting new highs and lows of a data set with only about 100 entries is mathematically inevitable and is in no way unexpected. Indeed, their absence would indicate we were living in a stasis: no weather.

All this stuff you post, Billy, is calibrated to an audience with minimal mathematical and scientific familiarity. No surprise it impresses you.

Share this comment


Link to comment
21 hours ago, Jonathan said:

The same is true of all of their policies. They're willing to take the risk. They hope that they're less likely to be affected. They expect to have at least slightly worse lives in exchange for being allowed to make the Others' lives miserable. They think that they'll be part of the group that largely gets to escape the horrors that they dream of imposing.

I think it would be a rare person, even among leftists, who was quite so insane as to want to risk dying of bubonic plague him/herself so that you (for instance) and other Others would die from it.

And what advantage do you see to leftists anyway in having the homeless population of Los Angeles and San Francisco die off?  Can homeless people not vote?  I'd think, though maybe I'm wrong, that, come voting time, the California homeless, of whom there are a large number, are rounded up and paid to take a trip to polling places where they vote Democrat.

Ellen

Share this comment


Link to comment
4 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

I think it would be a rare person, even among leftists, who was quite so insane as to want to risk dying of bubonic plague him/herself so that you (for instance) and other Others would die from it.

And what advantage do you see to leftists anyway in having the homeless population of Los Angeles and San Francisco die off?  Can homeless people not vote?  I'd think, though maybe I'm wrong, that, come voting time, the California homeless, of whom there are a large number, are rounded up and paid to take a trip to polling places where they vote Democrat.

Ellen

They aren't engaged in rational calculations. Thus they don't have to deal with the evil consequences subsequent to their advocated policies.

The left is suffused with moral righteousness out of intellectually dissipated Marxism blessed with general cultural inertia and it's not and never has been American for it's America it's at war with from the inside out.

--Brant

Share this comment


Link to comment
5 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

I think it would be a rare person, even among leftists, who was quite so insane as to want to risk dying of bubonic plague him/herself so that you (for instance) and other Others would die from it.

And what advantage do you see to leftists anyway in having the homeless population of Los Angeles and San Francisco die off?  Can homeless people not vote?  I'd think, though maybe I'm wrong, that, come voting time, the California homeless, of whom there are a large number, are rounded up and paid to take a trip to polling places where they vote Democrat.

Ellen

 

1 hour ago, Brant Gaede said:

They aren't engaged in rational calculations. Thus they don't have to deal with the evil consequences subsequent to their advocated policies.

The left is suffused with moral righteousness out of intellectually dissipated Marxism blessed with general cultural inertia and it's not and never has been American for it's America it's at war with from the inside out.

--Brant

They are "predictably irrational." Envy is a primary motivator in their lives. They take opportunities to diminish others' lives even in situations where they themselves will also experience some difficulty or hardship. The value that they experience in hurting others more than they are hurting themselves is, to them, worth the price, worth the risk.

J

Share this comment


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

Mann bites dog.

 

Billy, have you found any information on Mann's following the scientific method and his making of successful predictions? Have you found any details on his identifications of the conditions of falsifiability in regard to his hypothesis and predictions? Have his tests been repeated/reproduced?

Please, Billy, show some interest, some curiosity.

J

Share this comment


Link to comment
11 hours ago, Jonathan said:

 

They are "predictably irrational." Envy is a primary motivator in their lives. They take opportunities to diminish others' lives even in situations where they themselves will also experience some difficulty or hardship. The value that they experience in hurting others more than they are hurting themselves is, to them, worth the price, worth the risk.

J

The amorphous leftist Blob, so eaten by envy each and every one they'd willingly die the ghastly death of bubonic plague if only Others would go too - or need it be first?  That is, would the thought of the death of Others be sufficient for the leftist to lead off the dying or must the leftist see some dying first?

Ellen

Share this comment


Link to comment
4 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

The amorphous leftist Blob, so eaten by envy each and every one they'd willingly die the ghastly death of bubonic plague if only Others would go too - or need it be first?  That is, would the thought of the death of Others be sufficient for the leftist to lead off the dying or must the leftist see some dying first?

Ellen,

This is core story material. I don't think it's simple hatred or schadenfreude or something like that. These lefties (and not only lefties--I prefer to call them all elitists) believe they are immune to reality by virtue of the story that confers superiority to others on them. They believe that their core story is reality and is not to be questioned.

They may cognitively know of dangers like being vulnerable to the bubonic plague if an epidemic breaks out near them, but inside, swimming between their reason and their emotions, they don't believe this situation applies to them. Their core story makes them believe they are above this. The bubonic plague is for others, not them.

This mode of thinking and submitting to a core story may not apply to all elitists, but I know many of them who suffer from it. As is said about all true believers, you may win an argument against them, but you will not convince them.

That's one of the reasons I believe they have no problem with shame when they present blatant double standards to the world that unfairly or even irrationally favor them. To them, this is as normal and right as common sense, just like two plus two equals four. I mean, duh people. Superior Ones should be treated better than others even in matters of logic. :) 

btw - I generally say "core story," but the more I study this, the more I think it is more accurate to say "core story models." That's a clunky term, though. "Core story" allows for a religious or religious-like scope that I believe belongs to the idea. (All religions are collections of many stories.)

Also, here's a weird fun fact. I've read some scientists and writers on narrative say we "hallucinate our own reality" when they basically mean what I do by core story. I get what they mean (something along the lines of "the map is not the territory" to use a metaphor), but I think they expose parts of their own souls they normally prefer to hide when they insist (some with a huge chip on their shoulder) on using a term borrowed from mental illness to apply to all of human life.

Michael

Share this comment


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

Ellen,

This is core story material. I don't think it's simple hatred or schadenfreude or something like that. These lefties (and not only lefties--I prefer to call them all elitists) believe they are immune to reality by virtue of the story that confers superiority to others on them. They believe that their core story is reality and is not to be questioned.

They may cognitively know of dangers like being vulnerable to the bubonic plague if an epidemic breaks out near them, but inside, swimming between their reason and their emotions, they don't believe this situation applies to them. Their core story makes them believe they are above this. The bubonic plague is for others, not them.

This mode of thinking and submitting to a core story may not apply to all elitists, but I know many of them who suffer from it. As is said about all true believers, you may win an argument against them, but you will not convince them.

That's one of the reasons I believe they have no problem with shame when they present blatant double standards to the world that unfairly or even irrationally favor them. To them, this is as normal and right as common sense, just like two plus two equals four. I mean, duh people. Superior Ones should be treated better than others even in matters of logic. :) 

btw - I generally say "core story," but the more I study this, the more I think it is more accurate to say "core story models." That's a clunky term, though. "Core story" allows for a religious or religious-like scope that I believe belongs to the idea. (All religions are collections of many stories.)

Also, here's a weird fun fact. I've read some scientists and writers on narrative say we "hallucinate our own reality" when they basically mean what I do by core story. I get what they mean (something along the lines of "the map is not the territory" to use a metaphor), but I think they expose parts of their own souls they normally prefer to hide when they insist (some with a huge chip on their shoulder) on using a term borrowed from mental illness to apply to all of human life.

Michael

Bingo. They believe that they will be largely immune from the horrors that they wish to impose.

J

Share this comment


Link to comment
On 6/8/2019 at 9:59 AM, Jonathan said:

Billy, have you found any information on Mann's following the scientific method and his making of successful predictions? Have you found any details on his identifications of the conditions of falsifiability in regard to his hypothesis and predictions? Have his tests been repeated/reproduced?

Please, Billy, show some interest, some curiosity.

J

He doesn’t have the mental capacity to grasp the meaning of your questions.

You are not being fair.

He can’t.

Share this comment


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

To add to your list of monstrous fascists and nazis ...

Information on the AMSR2 (Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer 2) satellite data at NASA: https://earthdata.nasa.gov/earth-observation-data/near-real-time/download-nrt-data/amsr2-nrt

To whom was that addressed?

Me? If so, I haven't taken issue with anyone's reporting of any conditions in reality.

If not me, then whom? What do imagine that you're trying to say, Billy?

It seems that you believe that you've delivered a successful characterization of someone's opinions or mindset. You seem to be pretending that someone has denied something in reality. Is that what you're trying to do? If so, I'll remind you that all that I've done is asked you to present scientific evidence to support your position, and I mean actual scientific evidence. That's why I've asked very specific questions about hypotheses and predictions.

See, the way that science works isn't to just post recorded results and images, and to then come to a conclusion based on your feelings, but to demonstrate that the results were predicted, and that they are reliably repeatable over specific durations of time which have also been identified and explained ahead of time. Understand? You've done none of that. Come on, Billy, you're easily bright enough to understand all of this if you want to.

J

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...