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



6 hours ago, william.scherk said:

Disputes ... "dishonesty" ... reflection ... discussibles ...

 

Yeah, Judy the science denier whore has become the enemy. She used to be a real scientist, someone whose authority must be trusted without question, but now she's just a stupid denier skank who rejects all of science. She's a threat to the entire planet. Steps should be taken.

J

Share this comment


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

Cool.

Here are the 11 steps in the article that are designed to induce one of the conversationalists to "do something different":

Quote

1. Know thyself
2. Having a conversation about climate change takes practice
3. Begin by asking for consent
4. Be a good host
5. Begin by asking, “What do you know about climate change?”
6. Ask: “How do you feel about climate change?”
7. Ask: “What do you think we can do about climate change?”
8. Ask: “What do you think you can do about climate change?”
9. Ask: “Would you like to learn more or do more about climate change?”
10. Ask: “Can we talk about this again sometime?”
11. Continue to talk about climate change.

That looks more like comedy to me than anything else.

Talk about bait and switch.

The bait: Let's have a "useful conversation" about climate change. (Useful to whom? As Rand says, blank-out.)

The switch: Here is an indoctrination funnel we have set up for you to go through.

:)

What's worse, that indoctrination funnel qua persuasion is not very good.

Pure amateur posturing.

The comedy part gets funnier if you imagine the Big Bad Wolf using this funnel on Little Red Riding Hood.

:) 

Michael

Share this comment


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

Disputes ... "dishonesty" ... reflection ... discussibles ...

 

10 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

So let's see you discuss.

 

So does William discuss?

No, he posts a link:

Slide, slip, slither, avoid - and then whine if you're called dishonest

And what the linked-to list is about, as Michael points out, isn't how to have a discussion but how to indoctrinate.

Ellen

  • Like 2

Share this comment


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

Cool.

Here are the 11 steps in the article that are designed to induce one of the conversationalists to "do something different":

That looks more like comedy to me than anything else.

Talk about bait and switch.

The bait: Let's have a "useful conversation" about climate change. (Useful to whom? As Rand says, blank-out.)

The switch: Here is an indoctrination funnel we have set up for you to go through.

:)

What's worse, that indoctrination funnel qua persuasion is not very good.

Pure amateur posturing.

The comedy part gets funnier if you imagine the Big Bad Wolf using this funnel on Little Red Riding Hood.

:) 

Michael

It's to create the illusion of moral efficacy by the left from the left. The ostensible target is next to irrelevant. It's bathing in one's own sauce.

--Brant

Share this comment


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

 

22 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Cool.

Here are the 11 steps in the article that are designed to induce one of the conversationalists to "do something different":

 
Quote

1. Know thyself
2. Having a conversation about climate change takes practice
3. Begin by asking for consent
4. Be a good host
5. Begin by asking, “What do you know about climate change?”
6. Ask: “How do you feel about climate change?”
7. Ask: “What do you think we can do about climate change?”
8. Ask: “What do you think you can do about climate change?”
9. Ask: “Would you like to learn more or do more about climate change?”
10. Ask: “Can we talk about this again sometime?”
11. Continue to talk about climate change.

12. Ignore their questions.

13. Do not acknowledge any gaps in your kowledge, or any inability of yours to address their questions or challenges.

14. Serve tasty steamed octopus.

15. Avoid their questions. Act as if they haven't been asked, even if they've been asking them for years.

16. When you don't have answers to their questions, change the subject.

17. Serve more tasty steamed octopus. Smile.

18. Give them information and advice on how to be polite, and how to influence people. Don't follow the advice yourself. Offer hugs.

19. Reward them with tasty steamed octopus, and a handjob if you're comfortable doing that.

20. Bring in meatpuppets who you think are ringers. Display gleeful anticipation.

21. More TSO.

22. Ignore the fact that your meatpuppets didn't do any better than you've done in addressing any substance.

23. Randomly choose one of the steps above and repeat. Then repeat it again.

24. Tee hee hee. Never forget to tee hee hee during any of the above steps!

25. All they can eat TSO, 24/7.

 

  • Like 1

Share this comment


Link to comment
On 6/13/2019 at 12:58 PM, Jon Letendre said:

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

The combustion of natural gas produces one half  the CO2 per joule of energy released by combustion  as does burning coal.  So if all our coal burning generating plants were replaced by natural gas burning plants the a amount of CO2 produced would be cut by a half. In addition  burning natural gas is cleaner than burning coal and burning natural gas does not produce the horrendous poisonous  ash heaps that burning coal does.  In the ash heaps you find  heavy metals (lead, arsenic...)  and trace amounts of fissile elements.  When the rain wets the ash heaps  heavy metal compounds are leached into the the soil  and find their way  to nearby aquifers. 

Share this comment


Link to comment
On 6/16/2019 at 10:19 AM, Jonathan said:

 

12. Ignore their questions.

13. Do not acknowledge any gaps in your kowledge, or any inability of yours to address their questions or challenges.

14. Serve tasty steamed octopus.

15. Avoid their questions. Act as if they haven't been asked, even if they've been asking them for years.

16. When you don't have answers to their questions, change the subject.

17. Serve more tasty steamed octopus. Smile.

18. Give them information and advice on how to be polite, and how to influence people. Don't follow the advice yourself. Offer hugs.

19. Reward them with tasty steamed octopus, and a handjob if you're comfortable doing that.

20. Bring in meatpuppets who you think are ringers. Display gleeful anticipation.

21. More TSO.

22. Ignore the fact that your meatpuppets didn't do any better than you've done in addressing any substance.

23. Randomly choose one of the steps above and repeat. Then repeat it again.

24. Tee hee hee. Never forget to tee hee hee during any of the above steps!

25. All they can eat TSO, 24/7.

 

When you are called on the above toxicities, whine like a little girl who didn’t get her pony.

Share this comment


Link to comment

I can't wait to witness the unintended consequences, and then the new plan to make things even worse.

Canada plans to ban single-use plastics by 2021

Reducing, reusing, or recycling 3 million tons of plastic waste

By Mary Beth Griggs  Jun 10, 2019, 12:32pm EDT
 

1139496824.jpg.0.jpg Plastic trash gathered during a clean-up in Germany.  Photo by Sean Gallup/Getty Images

From plastic bags to straws, single-use plastic products have worn out their welcome in Canada. Today, the Canadian government announced that it plans to “ban harmful single-use plastics as early as 2021” in an effort to reduce the 3 million tons of plastic waste tossed out by the country every year...

https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/10/18659644/canada-ban-single-use-plastics-bags-straws-2021

Share this comment


Link to comment
On 6/17/2019 at 1:28 PM, Jon Letendre said:

When you are called on the above toxicities, whine like a little girl who didn’t get her pony.

And we're still waiting for the answers to my questions. Why is it taking so long? Is it really that hard to find the information? It's such a basic, simple request. Does the information not exist? What's the problem? Hello? Billy? Brad? Meatball? Tee hee hee?

J

Share this comment


Link to comment
On 6/28/2019 at 4:10 PM, william.scherk said:
On 6/10/2019 at 10:05 AM, william.scherk said:

[Added the unsourceable-so-far image of Walhor's Bingo card:]

logicalFallacyBingo.jpg&key=44668ed8b543

I think I am most prone to N1, N4, O4 and O5. 

N1 -- Appeal to Emotion
N4 -- No True Scotsman
O4 -- Black or White
O5 -- Middle Ground

Quote

New cards!

Here is a fallacy bingo example card, from a place that might offer a better game than the ones shared so far. This collaborative effort-hawking website invites putative  'players' to contact them, so I did, in hopes I would get to play the underlying 'learning game' with my own fresh randomly-populated card.

_Fallacy_Bingo_card_001_sample.png

It's a bit of a puzzle what each of those pictographs is denoting. I can pick maybe three, and definitely want to know what O1 means.

-- had to do some work just as I posted this fragment. I'll unlock the thread when I get back to business here.  The 'New Dispensation' ...

[Added July 5 2019:] Starting with my listening to a cobbled-together set of comment/response where I just am not achieving communication goals -- nor outlining a way out of impasse.  The set of comment/response is taken from a stymied place back a page or three, in February of this year. I've uploaded the text-to-speech file of what caught me up, and made it available via website file storage: http://wsscherk.hostingmyself.com/VIDEOCASTS/A25KF/February_TheScience.html

[Added link  to the "initiating obstruction" or hinge of recursion from February:]

 

Edited by william.scherk

Share this comment


Link to comment

Oh noes!

Muh, muh consensus!

Muh 97%!

Libertarian Group Demands NASA Remove False '97 Percent Consensus' Global Warming Claim

Headshot-2.sized-50x50xf.png 
BY TYLER O'NEIL JULY 10, 2019
shutterstock_153806906.sized-770x415xc.j
(Shutterstock)

On Tuesday, the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) sent NASA a formal complaint, asking the agency to withdraw the false claim that 97 percent of climate scientists agree that humans are the primary cause of global warming and climate change. The 2013 study purporting to demonstrate that number was fatally flawed and proved no such thing.

"The claim that 97% of climate scientists believe humans are the primary cause of global warming is simply false," CEI attorney Devin Watkins said in a statement. "That figure was created only by ignoring many climate scientists’ views, including those of undecided scientists. It is time that NASA correct the record and present unbiased figures to the public."

According to the CEI complaint, NASA's decision to repeat the false claim violated the Information Quality Act (IQA). Specifically, NASA claimed that "[n]inety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities." The claim appears on the NASA website on the page "Climate Change: How Do We Know?"

The claim traces back to a study led by John Cook entitled "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature" and published in the journal Environmental Research Letters in 2013.

The study is fundamentally dishonest, as the CEI complaint explains. The study analyzed all published peer-reviewed academic research papers from 1991 to 2011 that use the terms "global warming" or "global climate change." The study placed the papers into seven categories: explicit endorsement with quantification, saying humans are responsible for 50+ percent of climate change; explicit endorsement without quantification; implicit endorsement; no position or uncertain; implicit rejection; explicit rejection with qualification; and explicit rejection without qualification.

The study found: 64 papers had explicitly endorsed anthropogenic global warming (AGW) with quantification (attributing at least half of climate change to humans); 922 papers had explicitly endorsed AGW without quantifying how much humans contribute; 2,910 papers had implicitly endorsed AGW; 7,930 papers did not state a position and 40 papers were uncertain; 54 papers implicitly rejected AGW by affirming the possibility that natural causes explain climate change; 15 papers explicitly rejected AGW without qualification; and 9 papers explicitly rejected AGW with quantification, saying human contributions to global warming are negligible.

 
So how did Cook and his team come up with the 97 percent number? They added up the first three categories (3,896 papers), compared them to the last three categories (78 papers) and the papers expressing uncertainty (40 papers), and completely ignored the nearly 8,000 papers that did not state a position.

Of the papers Cook's team characterized as stating a position, 97 percent (3,896 of the 4,014 papers) favored the idea of man-made global warming.

See the problem? The study completely discounted the majority of the papers it analyzed (66.4 percent — 7,930 of the 11,944 papers analyzed). With those papers included, only 32.6 percent of the papers explicitly or implicitly endorsed AGW (3,896 of 11,944 papers).

But it gets worse. Many of the scientists who wrote the original papers Cooks' team analyzed complained that this study mischaracterized their research.

The survey "included 10 of my 122 eligible papers. 5/10 were rated incorrectly. 4/5 were rated as endorse rather than neutral," complained Dr. Richard Tol, professor of the economics of climate change at Vrije Universiteit.

He argued that of the 112 omitted papers, only 1 strongly endorses man-made global warming.

"That is not an accurate representation of my paper," wrote geography Ph.D. Craig Idso. "Nope ... it is not an accurate representation," Nir Shaviv, associate professor at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, wrote.

Ph.D. physicist Nicola Scafetta complained that "Cook et al. (2013) is based on a strawman argument because it does not correctly define the IPCC AAGW theory, which is NOT that human emissions have contributed 50%+ of the global warming since 1900 but that almost 90-100% of the observed global warming was induced by human emission."

Cook's team categorized his paper as one that "explicitly endorses and quantifies AGW as 50+%." Scafetta countered, "What my papers say is that the IPCC view is erroneous because about 40-70% of the global warming observed from 1900 to 2000 was induced by the sun."

Even including Scafetta's incorrectly categorized study, Cook's team only found 64 papers that explicitly endorsed man-made global warming and attributed more than 50 percent of it to human activity. That represents a minuscule 0.5 percent of the 11,944 papers. Even excluding the 66.4 percent of the papers that did not take a position, the 50 percent plus approach only accounts for 1.6 percent of all papers in the Cook study.

The study — and the 97 percent figure that depends on it — is fatally flawed, and NASA has 120 days to respond to the CEI complaint. It is far past time people reject this false claim.

https://pjmedia.com/trending/libertarian-group-demands-nasa-remove-false-97-percent-consensus-global-warming-claim/?fbclid=IwAR0iYR3eYXZGECcwj4C7_8TurCUH4Gx5tno4vOVLG9kjx5YMh5z0J6onsNE

Share this comment


Link to comment

That study is important, I'm surprised and pleased the "consensus" is not as much consensual as I'd been led to think. Good on the independent scientists who haven't capitulated, but it all seems like Galileo against the Catholic Church. Can AGW, the religion, be pulled back this far down the road of smug, universal belief and power-politicization?

Share this comment


Link to comment

Jonathan,

Here's a little more relevant information. Even the ruling-class leaning Wikipedia has to admit some things. In my rule of thumb that Wikipedia is ruled by ruling class toadies, and since the following article goes against the ruling class dogma, there is likely magnitudes more information that was omitted or not allowed to be listed (just look at the bias in the title):

List of scientists who disagree with the scientific consensus on global warming

But wait!

There's still some fun to be had!

:) 

For example, there's this from the World Tribune (a couple of days ago).

Galactic cosmic-rays research rains on man-made climate change parade

From the article:

Quote

A pair of new international studies which punched holes in the absoluteness of man-made climate change have gotten little-to-no attention in the corporate media.

Researchers from Kobe University in Japan found that high-energy particles from space known as galactic cosmic rays affect the Earth’s climate by increasing cloud cover, causing an “umbrella effect.”

A second study, a paper published by researchers from the University of Turku in Finland, concluded that even though observed changes in the climate are real, the effects of human activity on these changes are insignificant. Such findings create cognitive dissonance for celebrity and media actors committed to the narrative that human behavior is killing the planet.

“We have to recognize that the anthropogenic climate change does not exist in practice,” the study concluded.

Here are some more articles (ain't hyperbolic headlines fun? :) ) covering the same two studies. 

Man-Made Global Warming Theory Takes Major Hit

Scientists Find “Man-made Climate Change Doesn’t Exist In Practice”

Finnish Researchers Find ‘Practically No’ Evidence For Man Made Climate Change

I have not read the studies mentioned in the article, but, from my limited perspective, this does not look like information put together by kooks, cranks or people who want to destroy the earth.

I had to run the two studies down and I found them:

Intensified East Asian winter monsoon during the last geomagnetic reversal transition
by Yusuke Ueno, Masayuki Hyodo, Tianshui Yang & Shigehiro Katoh 
Scientific Reports, volume 9, Article number: 9389 (2019) 

The following is PDF:

No Experimental Evidence For The Significant Anthropogenic Climate Changebeside-link-icon.svgbeside-link-icon.svgbeside-link-icon.svg
By J. Kauppinen And P. Malmi

I don't have any pretty pictures of the globe handy, so I will have to make do with the picture of the Andromeda (M31) Galaxy from the World Tribune article.

galxymway-copy.jpg

The caption reads: The Andromeda (M31) Galaxy: ‘When galactic cosmic rays increase, so do low clouds.’

Ain't science funner with pretty pictures?

:)

Michael

Share this comment


Link to comment

I get the dangers of conflating causation with correlation, but a study by people that likely trade steamed octopus recipes? Mere coincidence?

Share this comment


Link to comment
On 3/31/2019 at 10:55 AM, william.scherk said:

What is going on in the Arctic, my ice-cream octopus?

Not much except for seasonal weather.

gfs_nh-sat1_t2anom_1-day.png

-- "Radio-Active Magnetic Geo-Storm Weapons?"  Mebbe. Mebbe not.

Energy was expended in a variety of spaces, with the seeming goal of "informing" rational analysis. 

I dunno. Is that even possible?

Spoiler

Ice cream!

We have heard this bumf before ... right?

Just who are they trying to fool?  

 

One minute and twenty seconds of drunk-with-power meteorologist ...

 

Share this comment


Link to comment

New highs are expected from a dynamic system and fewer than 2,000 months in the data set.

Is the hope that this record hot month excitement impresses simpletons, leads them to the assumption that there must be warming if new highs are being set?

Share this comment


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

That's some mighty fine tasty steamed octopus!

I've heard that Manhattan is 5 feet underwater. Is that true, Billy? Who should be punished first? How exciting!

Anyway, do you have any answers to my questions yet? No? Still hoping that we'll forget what actual science is?

J

  • Like 1

Share this comment


Link to comment

Any "scientific consensus" is bogus, politicalized science. Its first cousin is "climate change."

A family of lying liars.

--Brant

the real message is "Shut up, fool!"

  • Like 1

Share this comment


Link to comment

Guest
This blog entry is now closed to further comments.