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



25 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said:

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

You are not being fair.

He can’t.

No, he has the capacity to understand. He's just being a stubborn little believer.

J

Share this comment


Link to comment
24 minutes ago, Jonathan said:

No, he has the capacity to understand. He's just being a stubborn little believer.

J

You’re probably right.

But I have never seen him discuss anything intelligently. I’ve been quite surprised at how spectacularly he misunderstands certain things, I’ve never seen him demonstrate an aptitude for anything.

He doesn’t speak of climate science in his own voice, only posted links.

He selects decidedly incompetent people (Brad and the other one)  to come here and speak climate science for him. Making those selections is not indicative of good judgement or grasp of the subject. I think he struggles to keep up a lot more than you think.

Share this comment


Link to comment

Pretty pictures and videos.

Let's do a rerun, shall we?

ABC on Good Morning America in 2008.

FLASHBACK: ABC's ’08 Prediction: NYC Under Water From Climate Change By June 2015

Here's the video link (it doesn't embed):

https://www.mrctv.org/videos/flashback-abcs-08-prediction-nyc-under-water-climate-change-june-2015

And here is Rush Limbaugh talking about it:

Flashback 2008: What ABC Predicted Climate Change Would Do by 2015
 

Quote

It was a bunch of young people in this ad. They were predicting that by 2015 — four years ago — milk would be 13 bucks a gallon, gasoline over $9 a gallon. The video effects show Manhattan half underwater.

They show very little of Miami left. This was gonna happen by 2015, and this was just a promo for a special that was to run and did run in the fall of 2008 called Earth 2100 — and it’s a good catch, because it illustrates just how wrong and fearmongering the entire climate change, global warming (now “extreme weather”) crowd is.

Man, were we screwed in 2015.

I don't know how we survived it. But somehow we did.

It was probably something Obama did that saved us... a law or a tax or sumpin'...

:) 

Michael

Share this comment


Link to comment

Officials at Glacier National Park (GNP) have begun quietly removing and altering signs and government literature which told visitors that the Park’s glaciers were all expected to disappear by either 2020 or 2030.

”In recent years the National Park Service prominently featured brochures, signs and films which boldly proclaimed that all glaciers at GNP were melting away rapidly. But now officials at GNP seem to be scrambling to hide or replace their previous hysterical claims while avoiding any notice to the public that the claims were inaccurate. Teams from Lysander Spooner University visiting the Park each September have noted that GNP’s most famous glaciers such as the Grinnell Glacier and the Jackson Glacier appear to have been growing - not shrinking - since about 2010. (The Jackson Glacier—easily seen from the Going-To-The-Sun Highway—may have grown as much as 25% or more over the past decade.)

The ‘gone by 2020’ claims were repeated in the New York Times, National Geographic, and other international news sources. But no mainstream news outlet has done any meaningful reporting regarding the apparent stabilization and recovery of the glaciers in GNP over the past decade.Even local Montana news sources such as The Missoulian, Billings Gazette and Bozeman Daily Chronicle have remained utterly silent regarding this story.”

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-06-10/glacier-national-park-quietly-removes-its-gone-2020-signs

Share this comment


Link to comment
On 3/14/2019 at 3:29 PM, Jon Letendre said:

You have the soul of (child) rapist.

If it belonged to you then you would be able to do something about me coming here to call you a pedophile, without having to worry if it would open the door to more banning, such as your own, pedophile.

This takes the cake ...

  • Haha 1

Share this comment


Link to comment

So, now the Climate Change Hoax is the LAST thing you want to talk about, and you want to change the subject to your victimhood. Be responsible, honor the value of your self, and go the fuck away if you are being made a victim at OL.

I was simply responding to your assertion that you were the owner of your blog here at OL. You are a guest only here, like me, and you own nothing.

And you do have the soul of a child rapist. I have watched your work for well over a decade now. You are dishonest, you play sick mind games, you laugh at reasonable, credible pedo charges (your favorite thing to laugh at.)  People choose pet subjects to sneer at for reasons.

As Ellen has noted before, you get a rise out of people then cry victim when they strike at you. You have a wounded, sick and twisted soul. I do feel a little bad for you about it, but you continue affirming my judgement of you and I will never stop noting it.

Share this comment


Link to comment

Really Billy, have some respect for yourself. The owner here identified you as a form of cancer so you modified your avatar accordingly and carried on and now want to present as a victim. Healthy, balanced people do not behave this way. Go live your life with people who value you.

Share this comment


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

Pretty pictures and videos.

Let's do a rerun, shall we?

ABC on Good Morning America in 2008.

FLASHBACK: ABC's ’08 Prediction: NYC Under Water From Climate Change By June 2015

Here's the video link (it doesn't embed):

https://www.mrctv.org/videos/flashback-abcs-08-prediction-nyc-under-water-climate-change-june-2015

And here is Rush Limbaugh talking about it:

Flashback 2008: What ABC Predicted Climate Change Would Do by 2015
 

Man, were we screwed in 2015.

I don't know how we survived it. But somehow we did.

It was probably something Obama did that saved us... a law or a tax or sumpin'...

:) 

Michael

 

19 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:

Officials at Glacier National Park (GNP) have begun quietly removing and altering signs and government literature which told visitors that the Park’s glaciers were all expected to disappear by either 2020 or 2030.

”In recent years the National Park Service prominently featured brochures, signs and films which boldly proclaimed that all glaciers at GNP were melting away rapidly. But now officials at GNP seem to be scrambling to hide or replace their previous hysterical claims while avoiding any notice to the public that the claims were inaccurate. Teams from Lysander Spooner University visiting the Park each September have noted that GNP’s most famous glaciers such as the Grinnell Glacier and the Jackson Glacier appear to have been growing - not shrinking - since about 2010. (The Jackson Glacier—easily seen from the Going-To-The-Sun Highway—may have grown as much as 25% or more over the past decade.)

The ‘gone by 2020’ claims were repeated in the New York Times, National Geographic, and other international news sources. But no mainstream news outlet has done any meaningful reporting regarding the apparent stabilization and recovery of the glaciers in GNP over the past decade.Even local Montana news sources such as The Missoulian, Billings Gazette and Bozeman Daily Chronicle have remained utterly silent regarding this story.”

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-06-10/glacier-national-park-quietly-removes-its-gone-2020-signs

Many others have also made predictions, and then they've made new predictions and adjusted the old ones, and they've done so over and over again. Then they show a timeline of their series of predictions strung together, without anything to indicate that the line represents several failed predictions rather than one which might appear to have not quite failed yet. Such tricks are why I ask to see all of the information that I've requested several times on this thread.

Share this comment


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

This has very little to do with the topics covered in this thread...

Huh? Doesn't it have everything to do with this thread? As in, if we don't completely get rid of freedom, and if we don't immediately start punishing evil deniers, then, by the end of next week, the entire planet will be on fire just like that, followed shortly by everything being five thousand feet underwater due to all of the ice, everywhere, melting?

J

  • Haha 1

Share this comment


Link to comment

That’s a nice metaphor for your situation in 2019: You are surrounded by every intellectual position you have ever taken going up in flames.

Share this comment


Link to comment

This is more related to themes covered by various personalities in this thread (the story is in the context of Australia):  

Not everyone cares about climate change, but reproach won’t change their mind.

Quote

Belonging to a social group that doesn’t have its own narratives of climate concern is one of the most common reasons for unconcern. People who are unconcerned about climate change often see it as a “greenie” issue. If they identify themselves as opposed to green politics, they are unlikely to prioritise calls for climate action.

The rural/city divide also plays a key part in polarising narratives of climate action, as regional and outer-urban Australians, who are more likely to be economically dependent on natural resources, feel ignored and devalued by policies designed to appeal to capital city electorates. If we want to break down polarisation on climate change, we need to understand what matters to rural and conservative social groups.

Bridging the divide

Our findings suggest a set of principles for engaging with people who are unconcerned about climate change:

  • Respect difference. Don’t assume that being unconcerned about climate change is a moral failing. People have other active concerns that are no less valid.

  • Listen. Build relationships with people who have different life experiences to your own, by asking what is important to them. Appreciate that some people may find social change more threatening and immediate than climate change. Empathising with this feeling can foster understanding of the core concerns that underpin resistance to change, and potentially help identify ways to address these concerns.

  • Value values. Avoid arguments based on appeals to the authority of science, or the consensus of expert opinion. “Debating the science” is a red herring – people’s responses to claims about climate change are motivated primarily by what they value, and the narratives of their social group, not their acceptance of scientific fact. Focus on values you might have in common, rather than getting caught up in disputes over facts.

  • Move beyond Left and Right. Don’t conflate political ideology with stance on climate. Showing that climate is not a defining issue for social groups is really important to avoid polarisation. We need to work against the idea that action on climate is an exclusively left-wing or “greenie” agenda.

gfs_nh-sat1_t2max_1-day.png

  • Haha 1

Share this comment


Link to comment
On June 9, 2019 at 3:49 AM, 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.

 

On June 9, 2019 at 2:09 PM, Jonathan said:

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

J

 

It would take one hell of a "core story" and/or severe ignorance to produce that degree of sangfroid at the thought of a bubonic plague epidemic.

Let's hope that there won't be an opportunity for learning the hard way.  Problem is, it isn't unreasonable to fear that there might be.

Ellen

Share this comment


Link to comment

That last picture needs more red. People won’t notice until it is all red. Tell them the more red it gets, the spicier it gets. Most Americans can’t do spicy so that will get their attention. So many people are scientifically illiterate, like Billy, and stupid shit like that might get through to them, it’s personal.

Share this comment


Link to comment

Put an “Environmental Destruction Surcharge” tax on everyone’s energy bill.

Two–thirds of Democrats will never get past “if it didn’t cause environmental destruction, how could they get away with naming the tax that way?”

Share this comment


Link to comment

You know Billy, the more I think about that list you posted of how to approach people and recruit them into the cult, the more I think it is all wrong. Probably most effective is the stuff the movement has been doing all along, just ramped up to max, to eleven, Baby! Make it about class and race and sex, set us apart one from another with every Marxist method in the book. Pull all that toxic shit out and polish it up.

There are plenty of dumb people who don’t understand any science, so I think your list advice was good for not suggesting talking about the science of climate. And there are plenty people who get excited about laws and punishing people.

I really think the target audience is going to continue to respond positively to the current leftist program, it’s what they like because it’s who they are. It hooked you, right? There is no shortage of people like you in the world, so don’t change the pitch, the movement is doing great.

Share this comment


Link to comment
1 hour ago, Jon Letendre said:

That last picture needs more red. People won’t notice until it is all red. Tell them the more red it gets, the spicier it gets. Most Americans can’t do spicy so that will get their attention. So many people are scientifically illiterate, like Billy, and stupid shit like that might get through to them, it’s personal.

Click on the graphic William posted and compare to the actual Reanalyzer graphic.  William has played games.

Also, re the issue of what he understands and what he doesn't, he ever so obviously doesn't understand what either the distribution or the sequencing and fluctuation of the figures at the bottom of the Reanalyzer series mean re the "humans are causing it" claim.

Ellen

  • Like 1

Share this comment


Link to comment
1 hour ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

Click on the graphic William posted and compare to the actual Reanalyzer graphic.  William has played games.

Also, re the issue of what he understands and what he doesn't, he ever so obviously doesn't understand what either the distribution or the sequencing and fluctuation of the figures at the bottom of the Reanalyzer series mean re the "humans are causing it" claim.

Ellen

Ellen, whereas I am sure Billy would “empathize with you if you found social change more threatening than climate change,” I am certain he will “avoid arguments based on [science] as “Debating the science” is a red herring.” So don’t expect any coherent response. I expect next he will ask you about “the narratives of your social group.” Don’t go down that path — he is just trying to “focus on values you might have in common, rather than getting caught up in disputes over facts.” What’s your favorite part about People magazine? That sort of thing. Instead of facts. Just giving you a heads up.

Share this comment


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

This is more related to themes covered by various personalities in this thread (the story is in the context of Australia):  

Not everyone cares about climate change, but reproach won’t change their mind.

  • Listen. Build relationships with people who have different life experiences to your own, by asking what is important to them..

What's important to me? Science. Show me the science. Answer the questions that I've asked. Give me the specific details that I've requested about the hypotheses, predictions, the dates and durations, the conditions of falsifiability, etc. No need to try to crawl inside my head and manipulate me based on guessing about my social group influences or my childhood traumas. Just show me the science, tee hee hee.

 

Quote

Value values. Avoid arguments based on appeals to the authority of science, or the consensus of expert opinion. “Debating the science” is a red herring – people’s responses to claims about climate change are motivated primarily by what they value, and the narratives of their social group, not their acceptance of scientific fact. Focus on values you might have in common, rather than getting caught up in disputes over facts

My value is science. Not opinions of scientists. Not reporters' interpretations of opinions of scientists. Please, present the science. Maybe some day we can "debate the science," but first you'd have to present it. And, as I mentioned above, there's no need to try to figure out what motivates me and what appeals to me other than the "acceptance of scientific fact." I'm asking, demanding, begging you to focus on the scientific facts. You refuse to do so.

Share this comment


Link to comment

Individual weather events, be they fair or foul  do not give us much information on  climate.

In the climate  trade  moving 30 years intervals over which temperature, humidity,  and frequency  of  rain,  drought  is  averaged.  A 30 year average gives us a single  climate point.  

Weather  is  controlled by  some  form of chaotic dynamics.  Read up on Ed Lorentz  and the butterfly effect  to get a grip on that.  Chaotic dynamics  manifests  a extreme dependency on initial and boundary conditions. Please  see:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory   That is why weather cannot be accurately predicted more than a week ahead. 

Climate exhibits chaotic behavior  but on a stretched time scale  

How difficult is it  to model  and predict climate?   On a scale of 1 to  10   producing a quantum theory of elementary particles  is a +5 (the standard model)   and  climate is 9.9.  One of the reasons that a faithful climate model is not forthcoming  is that there is currently no know algorithm for  computing the solution to the Navier-Stokes  equation numerically at all necessary scales of resolution.  Please see:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navier–Stokes_existence_and_smoothness

Climate not only involves temperature and humidity, but also the flow of matter  from region to region.  Thus a solution to the Navier Stokes equation is require. 

If one wished  to  compare the development of climate science  with the development  of  basic particle physics  or equilibrium thermodynamics, it would  be fair to say climate science has not achieved the level  that  dynamics and mechanics  was at  prior  to Galileo  and Newton.  Or the level that Thermodynamics as at  prior to Maxwell and Boltzmann. 

 

Ba'al  Chatzaf 

Share this comment


Link to comment

To sum up this thread:

Side A: "We have science on our side. The facts. Reality. You are deniers."

Side B: "Show us those facts, that science, that reality. Present it, please."

Side A: "Demiers! How can we get through to you when your minds are closed to the scientific facts?"

Side B: "Show us the scientific facts."

Ad infinitum.

 

Share this comment


Link to comment
45 minutes ago, Jonathan said:

To sum up this thread:

Side A: "We have science on our side. The facts. Reality. You are deniers."

Side B: "Show us those facts, that science, that reality. Present it, please."

Side A: "Demiers! How can we get through to you when your minds are closed to the scientific facts?"

Side B: "Show us the scientific facts."

Ad infinitum.

 

I don't think you understand. You're supposed to do that in Billy's cosmology.

It's called division of labor.

Get on the team.

--Brant

if you fail to do so you fail and are refuted, autonatically--and he keeps on trucking

Share this comment


Link to comment
4 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Individual weather events, be they fair or foul  do not give us much information on  climate.

In the climate  trade  moving 30 years intervals over which temperature, humidity,  and frequency  of  rain,  drought  is  averaged.  A 30 year average gives us a single  climate point.  

Weather  is  controlled by  some  form of chaotic dynamics.  Read up on Ed Lorentz  and the butterfly effect  to get a grip on that.  Chaotic dynamics  manifests  a extreme dependency on initial and boundary conditions. Please  see:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory   That is why weather cannot be accurately predicted more than a week ahead. 

Climate exhibits chaotic behavior  but on a stretched time scale  

How difficult is it  to model  and predict climate?   On a scale of 1 to  10   producing a quantum theory of elementary particles  is a +5 (the standard model)   and  climate is 9.9.  One of the reasons that a faithful climate model is not forthcoming  is that there is currently no know algorithm for  computing the solution to the Navier-Stokes  equation numerically at all necessary scales of resolution.  Please see:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navier–Stokes_existence_and_smoothness

Climate not only involves temperature and humidity, but also the flow of matter  from region to region.  Thus a solution to the Navier Stokes equation is require. 

If one wished  to  compare the development of climate science  with the development  of  basic particle physics  or equilibrium thermodynamics, it would  be fair to say climate science has not achieved the level  that  dynamics and mechanics  was at  prior  to Galileo  and Newton.  Or the level that Thermodynamics as at  prior to Maxwell and Boltzmann. 

 

Ba'al  Chatzaf 

On that note I am buying a 1993 CBR900RR this afternoon. My fifth motorcycle and eighth plated motor vehicle.

And Billy still hasn’t turned off his pipeline.

if-you-are-against-pipelines-then-do-you

Share this comment


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

Disputes ... "dishonesty" ... reflection ... discussibiles ...

So let's see you discuss.

Ellen

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...