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



719 Comments


Recommended Comments



Although we might each of us be both stupid and ignorant, or -- as concluded elsewhere -- stupid about science, or, unwilling to entertain bad faith arguments from slithering nazi pedophiles ... there has to be a way to get something besides Advanced Psychologizing happening.

I will cop to being both stupid and lazy about climate science, climatology, what have you. I will cop to being among the party of 'concerned' as surveyed and grouped by the Yale Climate Communications cabal.

wss_Sassy_Concerned.png

I will cop to being frustrated with my lazy ass self for not doing more homework, and not carrying out certain postings I intended. I will admit I soured on the process at some point in the emotion. I mean name-calling and scorn can be unattractive no matter where it comes from. So, "Fuck you, Pedophile" is never too far from my mind in these free-wheeling times.

What else can I cop to, specifically?  I can cop to failing to get my shit together and starting up again around here (below, quoted). I turned a webpage (which is here) into a sound file for repeat listening, so I could become more acquainted with the major "asks."  There are several questions there that do deserve a good-faith answer and explanation. 

It looks like everyone has figured out my motivations, character defects, moral failings and psycho-epistemology to their own satisfaction. Are there any arguments of 'the other guy' that are worth revisiting? I've written much more detailed and expository climate-controversies-related comments over the years, and it does feel bad that I cannot find the spirit and time to be a bit more forthcoming (even at boring, 'data-dump' length).

This old can of quoted  worms may yet be able to help catch some fish. 

"Am I wrong? Does this not excite you? It seems to be exactly the kind of thrill that's right up your leg."

It warms my leg that there is a "Billy" tag to help me organize a review of some hundreds of items and questions I may previously ignored. Especially since the nickname represents a mostly-defunct reality.  I do believe in Intellectual Resurrection.

NB:WSS | Note to my self: be as autistic as you can be within your limitations of stupid. Be not reactive beyond the bounds of taste. Be amusing if not educational, and don't let "You obviously are X" or "You People" excursions dominate any forthcomingness ... until perhaps collocutors ID themselves as one of the six Yale 'gangs of attitude.' 

Insert [snake and cancer metaphor] here ...

On 2/26/2019 at 11:01 AM, william.scherk said:
On 2/25/2019 at 11:16 AM, Jonathan said:

Was I wrong? Did it not excite you? It seemed to be exactly the kind of thrill that's right up your leg.

It irritated me, for the plain reasons I gave above -- there was no link to the two 'studies.'  In other words, there was no way to check 'the information,' at least in that story.  I might assume that you dug a bit deeper to find the actual pieces noted.

On 2/25/2019 at 11:33 AM, Jonathan said:

"I ask to be able to review the science and to evaluate the success or failure of its predictions. Give me all of the information.

Give us all the information you found after you have done some homework finding "the science."  Or make your request rich in particulars.

Quote

What was the hypothesis, precisely what predictions were made, when were they made, what potential results were identified ahead of time as falsifying or invalidating the hypothesis, what were the start and finish dates of the experiment, what is the unmolested data, the untainted control, and the unmanipulated historical record?"

Do you want me to give you (and other readers) my impression or plain-language precis of one or more of the Arrhenius, Tyndall, Fourier pioneering studies/research? 

If I  were a reference librarian or indentured servant, Jonathan, I might be more inclined to do something for you that you seem unable to do for yourself. We are probably both relatively unmoved by bad faith, histrionics and posturing. As for particulars ... 

Quote

You don't have answers to all of these questions.

I need you to narrow it down.

As a counterbalance to my rambly and self-referential sniffiness, listen to this load of alarmist whoopee. It's been a while since we visited with Paul Beckwith, and he has sort of slipped deeper into believing in a doom-ier scenario for the future. 

For those stimulated in some way by visual data of the Earth's atmospherics, I always recommend Earth:nullschool. It's relaxing. Let's return to the tradition of sampling from various layers.  The Climate Reanalyzer is also fun for some, as a means of comprehending large-scale events as they occur over months. Or as a means of insinuating that it's useful even for Yale's too-neat trio cohort of 'Dismissive,' 'Doubtful' and 'Disengaged'.

gfs_nh-sat1_ws250-snowc-topo_1-day.png

gfs_nh-sat1_t2anom_1-day.png

 

earthNullschoolPuertoRicoFlorida.gif

 

I also may not have mentioned another large data visualization offering, from NASA,  Eyes on the Earth: https://eyes.nasa.gov/eyes-on-the-earth.html

NASA_EYES.png

 

In re Ellen's aside about 'pretty pictures' selling a climate-doom pamphlet in place of a weather snapshot, fair enough for a surface reading (though I have yet to see detail/argument about "re-radiative" physics that the stupid all get wrong).  I do get spellbound by various aspects of visualized weather/atmospheric behaviours, particularly the polar streams, and I stupidly think I might have a few good questions about the phenomena/prediction of Arctic Amplification. 

Of all the questions asked above in the set of quotes, the demand for the science got tied (in my mind) into 'the science of CO2.'  Probably since this molecule and its part in the earthly carbon-cycle is I believe at the heart of most advanced and crashingly simplistic arguments -- arguments for and against accepting the notion that "extra" atmospheric CO2 will lead to the physical effects predicted by the earliest "Atmospheric Scientists."

So, where could anybody start or finish when sharing findings of CO2? Can those who are less stupid about the  mysteries of CO2 explain to William and silent readers what a decent Objective 'take' is or could be be? -- if indeed this is a central hinge of argument upon which Alarm >> Dismissal cohorts raise armies.

[original spelling, grammar and infelicities posted without a block. If you quote, the quote may have been slightly altered. Happy Tyndall Month!]  

Edited by william.scherk

Share this comment


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

Of all the questions asked above in the set of quotes, the demand for the science got tied (in my mind) into 'the science of CO2.'  Probably since this molecule and its part in the earthly carbon-cycle is I believe at the heart of most advanced and crashingly simplistic arguments -- arguments for and against accepting the notion that "extra" atmospheric CO2 will lead to the physical effects predicted by the earliest "Atmospheric Scientists."

So, where to start or finish when sharing findings of CO2? Can those who are less stupid about the  mysteries of CO2 explain to William and silent readers what a decent Objective 'take' is -- if indeed this is a central hinge of argument upon which Alarm >> Dismissal cohorts raise armies.

William,

In other words, up to now, you have thought that all that massive money and power the manmade climate change elitists are clamoring for, all those political intrigues and global meetings of countries, all that hostility in the press and statements by the President of the United States no less that the "science was settled," all those halfbrained scams like carbon credits and God knows what else, were solely to find money to fund and explore CO2 science?

That's what you have thought all the shouting was about for decades up to now?

The power proposed by the manmade climate change elitists aims at a borderless open society world with dictatorship by technocrats, the money they seek is in the trillions of dollars if not more, and the control over individual lives they seek includes not allowing people to speak and jailing them or killing them if they say the wrong things.

And, up to now, you have believed they have been proposing and fighting for all that just to fund CO2 science?

Hmmmmm...

:) 

Michael

Share this comment


Link to comment
50 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

William,

In other words, up to now, you have thought that all that massive money and power the manmade climate change elitists are clamoring for, all those political intrigues and global meetings of countries, all that hostility in the press and statements by the President of the United States no less that the "science was settled," all those halfbrained scams like carbon credits and God knows what else, were solely to find money to fund and explore CO2 science?

No. In other words, nay. 

50 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

That's what you have thought all the shouting was about for decades up to now?

Nope. 

50 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

The power proposed by the manmade climate change elitists aims at a borderless open society world with dictatorship by technocrats, the money they seek is in the trillions of dollars if not more, and the control over individual lives they seek includes not allowing people to speak and jailing them or killing them if they say the wrong things.

That's your opinion. I don't agree with you.

50 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

And, up to now, you have believed they have been proposing and fighting for all that just to fund CO2 science?

No. Wrong. False assumptions. What part of my preceding post gets into funding? William-Whisperer grudge-match stuff turns me off, I gotta say, to mess with metaphor. It makes me consider that the rest of my sojourn here might meet with implacable hostility on a pretty basic social level.

Sunny Days! 

50 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Hmmmmm...

:) 

Michael

Boilerplate is fine. It's just not a chain for my gears as posted above. 

I tend to ignore most "let me put you in your place" gambols, Michael.  Let this be the one time I get forgiven a  reaction. Maybe I can come back and edit this into a Bob-level sangfroid, yes? And maybe have one or more pertinent questions answered with an equal sangfroid.

No. Yes. 

 

Share this comment


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

That's your opinion. I don't agree with you.

William,

That's not an opinion. Things like the Open Society Foundation of Soros is not an opinion. It exists. The sundry efforts to install forced carbon credits on the world and the projections of the flood of money they would garner are not opinions. They existed--in official records like government registries where they were attempted. And so on.

2 hours ago, william.scherk said:

What part of my preceding post gets into funding?

The parts that need to be paid for.

For just one example, there are no "findings" like the ones you referred to without funding. That's why I said "fund and explore."

Look at it this way. The people you agree with make a point of demanding that I and others pay for their follies through our taxes. You may not think money is relevant when discussing "the science," thus get surprised that someone adds it in as a critical input when discussing science, but as one of the people who is forced to pay for something so damn corrupt as the climate science world, I will keep bringing it up when the innocence or good faith of this field is touted or inferred.

Here's an idea if you are game. I don't want to know the answer, but I have to warn you that it's only fun if you are totally honest with yourself. Imagine what it would be like if you could remove the money and power from the climate change movement and see how much enthusiasm you can keep going for how long. That's just a suggestion, though, because I'm not convinced you would be able to imagine that.

The core of the manmade climate change cartel is a repository of the Marxist left, mostly in America and Europe, that scattered back when the Soviet Union collapsed. The whole climate change movement does not exist to save the planet. That part is propaganda, not reality. Their goal is money and power. 

3 hours ago, william.scherk said:

William-Whisperer grudge-match stuff...

Who is whispering? I, for one, state my views out loud. If anyone is whispering, they are not whispering to me.

As to hostilities, you might notice that this is limited to a few people and not others. Some people react to nonstop mockery differently than others. You decided to mock them over a long period. And it wasn't friendly poke in the ribs funning. It was the way bigots mock their targets. So I'm not going to ask them to suddenly adopt sanction of the victim as a principle because you (or anyone) wags a finger about civility. However, you are all adults and all have really good minds. So I believe you can eventually work it all out among yourselves.

3 hours ago, william.scherk said:

I tend to ignore most "let me put you in your place" gambols, Michael.  Let this be the one time I get forgiven a  reaction.

I'm not sure what this means. If you are saying you did not write clearly because you were getting riled or whatever, OK. That's normal for everyone, including me. So no need to ask for forgiveness. (If you insist, though, I'm game. :) )

If my supposition is the case, my earlier comments of incredulity at your position are not accurate.

I'm saying that out of good will since, as I said, I don't know what your statement means, but I'm reading into it what I hope it does.

Michael

Share this comment


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

What else can I cop to, specifically?

 

You can cop to not having answered my questions. Please visit the first few posts on the Part 2 version of this thread. Read the many different ways that I've asked the questions. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt in accepting the possibility that you haven't understood what I've been asking during all this time -- you haven't grasped my questions. I'll accept part of the blame for that. Please read the questions, and ask questions in return if you don't understand. I'll then do my best to try to explain what I apparently haven't succeeded in explaining so far.

I had asked your friend Brad the same questions. He was sure that the information was out there and easy to find, and he was going to get right back to us with it. He never came back.

In addition to those old questions that have been asked, re-asked, re-worded and asked again, only to be ignored or misunderstood or whatever, there is now an additional question that I would appreciate your answering, and that is the one about the libertarian group and its analysis of the false claim that 97% of scientists believe that mankind's activities are the primary driver/cause of global warming. Do you agree or disagree with their position? Why? Explain, please.

J

Share this comment


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

Who is whispering? I, for one, state my views out loud...

I think Billy's use of the term "William-Whisperer" is meant to be something like a dog whisperer or horse whisperer.

J

Share this comment


Link to comment

No one would have to play Billy-Whisperer if he ever spoke plainly and backed up what he said, saying what he meant and meaning what he says. He seems to want it both ways, have his cake and eat it too, get to say a thing and yet be not on record saying it. So he slithers about, as Ellen says, hinting at a thing, insinuating, making certain he can never quite be quoted asserting a specific thing. Never playing anything quite straight up is a pervasive character trait of his, it is his knee-jerk, fallback, standard M.O. He is not bright enough to hide it better, so in that way I guess he lets some honesty through.

Share this comment


Link to comment

William-Whisperer...

I wonder why he coined that phrase.

Does he want to be tamed?

I mean, after all, isn't that what animal whisperers do? Tame wild animals?

:)

I'm still figuring that one out. I haven't gotten to the grudge match part, yet...

:)

Michael

Share this comment


Link to comment

Don’t worry, Michael, there is nothing about the whispering grudge match crap to figure out.

He’s in a corner in a discussion in which he is way over his head.

Per his usual M.O., that’s the time to deflect, distract, point fingers elsewhere and generally bitch and complain that nobody is playing fair.

He might get called out again as a pedophile, and that’s why he can’t answer Jonathan’s questions. It’s not the reason he is leaving and never coming back, no, but it’s the reason he can’t answer Jonathan’s questions. Weak, pathetic loser.

Share this comment


Link to comment
On 8/28/2019 at 7:23 PM, william.scherk said:

Of all the questions asked above in the set of quotes, the demand for the science got tied (in my mind) into 'the science of CO2.'  Probably since this molecule...

 

In an attempt at conversation and graciousness, I’ll give it another shot, and ask my questions in yet another way:

What was the hypothesis that has been “settled"? Wasn't it that mankind’s activities are the primary cause of global warming — that global warming is happening due to mankind’s activities, and it would not be happening without those activities? That’s what it seems to have been? Was it that if mankind produces X amount of CO2 over time period Y, then the result must be temperature Z, and temperature Z will mean changes in climate, and catastrophic consequences?

Here are the questions:

How many years’ of data of CO2 emissions and temperatures were determined — prior to gathering that data — to be needed to be recorded in order to confirm the hypothesis, and why that amount of time? What duration of time was established as a falsification limit, after which the hypothesis would be considered to have failed if the predictions did not come true in reality, and why that amount of time? What other criteria were identified, ahead of testing, as falsifying the hypothesis? Why those criteria and not others? Or were none identified?

Which one of the many climate computer models has succeeded in predicting future temperatures reliably and repeatedly? When — what date — was that single model proposed as one whose predictions were expected to succeed in reality? When did it become active, and its predictions began to be put to the test and compared to data collected in reality? Was the model unaltered, or, during testing, did it receive any revisions or updates? If so, on what grounds were those modifications deemed to be acceptable rather than as invalidating the original model? On what date was the conclusion determined that the model had met all of the criteria that had been established before testing, and that it had succeeded, had avoided falsification, and had been independently repeated and confirmed?

Prior to all of that, how was it determined what the global temperature should be were it not for mankind’s activities? By what means and reasoning have natural drivers of temperature been accounted for and eliminated as affecting outcomes?

More to come. But, please, start with the above.

J

Share this comment


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

This is not going to work, at all.

It's true that the strategy isn't going to work, but "dealing with climate change" isn't what it's aimed at.  Ruling the world is.

Ellen

  • Like 2

Share this comment


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

This is not going to work, at all.

snub_Trump_Climate_Story_Politico.png

Hi Billy,

Did you see above that I had posted a new version of my set of questions in an effort to communicate more clearly?

Do you understand the questions?

Snubbing isn't working.

J

Share this comment


Link to comment

It’s working well at demonstrating his actual level of respect for intellectual discourse. It sure puts the lie to his representations of being here for any of that.

Share this comment


Link to comment

Hurricane Dorian's wind-action, image taken from Earth:nullschool.net 

[https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/orthographic=-69.60,22.11,1810/loc=-121.959,49.104]

I hope our members in the way of the storm are battened down, and that the least worst track is taken.

DORIAN.gif

-- Earth:nullschool has a Youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCZyd1nnJuvS-EZvAV-IDtPg/videos

-- a couple of examples of detailed metrics available using Earth:nullschool data visualization. Tweets from the main guy behind the site Cameron Beccario.

Our old friend Paul Beckwith continues to pump out his videos, which I would guess seem dangerously kooky and alarmist, depending on your point of view and priors.

 

Edited by william.scherk
  • Haha 1

Share this comment


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

Hurricane Dorian's wind-action, image taken from Earth:nullschool.net 

[https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/orthographic=-69.60,22.11,1810/loc=-121.959,49.104]

I hope our members in the way of the storm are battened down, and that the least worst track is taken.

DORIAN.gif

-- Earth:nullschool has a Youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCZyd1nnJuvS-EZvAV-IDtPg/videos

-- a couple of examples of detailed metrics available using Earth:nullschool data visualization. Tweets from the main guy behind the site Cameron Beccario.

Our old friend Paul Beckwith continues to pump out his videos, which I would guess seem dangerously kooky and alarmist, depending on your point of view and priors.

 

Tasty steamed octopus! What a surprise!

J

Share this comment


Link to comment

Damn. This will make it harder to punish people.

New NASA Data On Forest Fires, Deforestation Refutes Climate Alarmists

 

Newly released data from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) refutes claims made by climate alarmists that forest fires are becoming more prevalent as a result of climate change and that the world is losing its forests...

 

https://www.dailywire.com/news/51285/new-nasa-data-forest-fires-deforestation-refutes-ryan-saavedra?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=benshapiro

Share this comment


Link to comment

Tasty steamed humans in the near future? It's settled science. It's what we need to do in order to Save The Planet™. Isn't it exciting, Billy? First it will be voluntary, but, eventually, the virtuous wokescolds will have to decide who will be sacrificed for the greater good.

 

SWEDISH BEHAVIORAL SCIENTIST SUGGESTS EATING HUMANS TO ‘SAVE THE PLANET’

The “food of the future” may be dead bodies.

Paul Joseph Watson | Infowars.com - SEPTEMBER 4, 2019
Swedish Behavioral Scientist Suggests Eating Humans to 'Save the Planet'
 
 
 
 
 
 

A Swedish behavioral scientist has suggested that it may be necessary to turn to cannibalism and start eating humans in order to save the planet.

Appearing on Swedish television to talk about an event based around the “food of the future,” Magnus Söderlund said he would be holding seminars on the necessity of consuming human flesh in order to stop climate change.

Environmentalists blame the meat and farming industry for a large part of what they claim is the warming of the earth.According to Söderlund, a potential fix would be the Soylent Green-solution of eating dead bodies instead.

He told the host of the show that one of the biggest obstacles to the proposal would be the taboo nature of corpses and the fact that many would see it as defiling the deceased.

Söderlund also acknowledged that people are “slightly conservative” when it comes to eating things they are not accustomed to, such as cadavers.

The discussion took place accompanied by a graphic of human hands on the end of forks. Lovely.

Another proposal to save the earth which has been promoted by numerous mass media outlets and environmentalists is only somewhat less disgusting – eating bugs.

No doubt Greta Thunberg and Prince Harry will be first in line for when cockroaches and human flesh is being dished out at the next international climate summit.

Share this comment


Link to comment

The right should get themselves a spokeschild. One that's cuter, younger, and even more hypocritical and transparent than Greta. OMG, isn't it adorable how self-contradictory our spokes child is? Don't you dare criticize her! She's just a child.

And then the left would go even younger and cuter, but the right could be ready for that, and would switch to kittens and puppies.

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...