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



680 Comments


Recommended Comments



Here is an editorial I wrote 3.5 years ago.

I am not a climatologist, but I do think of myself as a scientist.  With that in mind, I find it helpful to look at the issue in layers.  The simplest layer is just the factual question of whether the earth has warmed up in recent years.  This I am inclined to believe, based mainly on the years I spent living within walking distance of Canada.  There I heard constant reports of the dislocation of native peoples in the north.  Areas that had been solid for as long as written records and native legends go back are now mud or open sea. For the people who used to live in these areas, climate change is obvious. You can see a map of the changes in this article from The Economist.

http://www.economist.com/node/21556798

Then there is the question of whether that warming will continue.  (Some claim it has already stopped.)  Here I find it helpful to think about predicting the stock market.  There we have the same issue of sorting out short term from long term trends.  The market has been going up for several years as I write this.  Will it continue?  If the market went down last week, does that prove the long term trend is not up?  I also find it helpful to think about how well we are able to forecast the weather, for, say, five days.  Are we sure we can do much better when the time frame is five decades?

At the next layer, the reason people feel they can predict climate change is that they have a theory about its causes.  (There are as many theories about the stock market as there are investors or Presidents.)  I would be willing to call that theory our current best guess.  There has been no experimental confirmation, and limited empirical evidence to support it.  And even if it explains the past, there is a big leap of faith involved in assuming the future will be the same as the past.  

Finally we come to the political debate.  On one side we seem to have the creationists and flat-earth folks who consider science irrelevant any time they don't like its conclusions.  I would hate to see Objectivists associated with this group.   Except for the fact that the other side is even worse.  To me the most important thing to be said about the politics of climate change is that is represents an opportunity that is just too good to be true for those who wish to concentrate more money and more power in the national government.  It offers the potential for limitless regulation and limitless spending, but the beauty of it all is that it is all to prevent some disaster in the far future -- long after those who get the money and power are gone.  They can only be proven wrong after it's too late.

There are also some practicalities.  Nations like India and China seem little interested in curtailing their economic growth to avoid climate change.  So we do face the possibility of having the United States bear most of the costs of a likely failure.  But note that attempt does further the goal of more money and power for U.S. politicians!  "If you wish to understand a folly, ask what it accomplishes."

One clue of the insincerity of the climate opportunists is that they mention only possible bad effects of climate change.  The article cited above from The Economist is a rare exception.  Here in New Hampshire, where I live, a warmer climate would be hard on the ski resorts and snowmobile sales (and I am sure they will be putting in for subsidies).  Warming might be good for NH agriculture, and a boon to those of us who stay here and heat our homes in winter.  In fact, the climate change doomsayers seem to be basing their program on what Nathaniel Branden called "The Divine Right of Stagnation." (His essay by that title in included in The Virtue of Selfishness anthology.)  The fans of climate change can't weigh the good changes against the bad changes because they are opposed to change in principle.

In a free market, there would be no response to climate change until somebody was sure enough of it to bet their own money, perhaps by moving their ski resort 200 miles north.  They would be rewarded if their prediction was accurate, but only after they were shown to be correct.  The climate warmers want to force everyone to bet on their one possible scenario for the future.  They want a big cut on all those bets, to accrue to them whether they are right or wrong, and long before the race is run.

 

Share this comment


Link to comment

A podcast from NPR/NYT caught some reaction elsewhere:

I'll do my best to put in an unofficial transcript here, once Voicebase does its business.

gfs_nh-sat1_t2anom_1-day.png

 

-- textarea test text from a machine-transcription of the audio, vvia Voicebase (the page at the link shows a sound file, text-transcription, extracted keywords and concepts IDed by presumably AI, all in all decent means to aid analysis of the text):

 

Share this comment


Link to comment

After reading that, or listening to the podcast, remember that the investigations and reconstructions of alleged past temperatures, and the invention of the "hockey stick" graph didn't happen until 20 years after these assholes expected everyone to heed their warnings and forcefully alter everyone's freedom, productivity and lives. With that in mind, go back and read it or listen to it again. They were demanding and expecting the same power and control then as they are today, and they were doing so prior to applying the scientific method, making predictions, and testing them. That says quite a lot about their biases and their disregard of actual science.

Which "scientists" who haven't demonstrated their case using the scientific method should we be listening to and heeding today? If we're going to be judged as villains in the future for expressing doubt today about someone's scare stories which haven't yet had the opportunity to be tested or have their predictions succeed or fail, by what "settled science" means should we choose whom to believe? Do we go with whomever has the strongest feelings, whips up the largest crowds, and convinces the most politicians? Or maybe we go with the story which predicts the worst horrors, presents them in the scariest colors, and promises that we'll get to punish certain people with jail time, or maybe even disembowelment if everyone has a taste for it at the time?

J

 

Share this comment


Link to comment

I think it a mistake to focus on the science which few of us are able to judge.  Regardless of the science, the political question is whether this provides justification for a massive concentration of wealth and power in Washington, DC.  Even if things do heat up, I doubt the government will respond in a more efficient and economical manner than will leaving people to sort this out for themselves.  About the only regulation I would support would be a stiff tax on hot air from politicians.

  • Haha 1

Share this comment


Link to comment

"I think it a mistake to focus on the science which few of us are able to judge."

"We few . . . ."

Now why is that?

Gross deficiency in Liberal Arts education.

Neither Ayn Rand nor Nathaniel Branden really understood science, for instance.

--Brant     

Share this comment


Link to comment

I'm not sure better Liberal Arts education would help.  In any case, though I am an MIT grad. I know little about climatology.  I do know a fair bit about statistics, and often I think the climatologists are at least talking the language of science, while the doubters often talk the language of ignorance. 

http://oddblogs.org/irrevo/?p=106

But I am also all too aware of the hubris in the science community.  In self-defense, I have had to learn a lot about medicine in my old age, and experienced "experts" unwilling to listen to patients or common sense. 

Share this comment


Link to comment
On 9/2/2018 at 8:18 AM, bob_hayden said:

I think it a mistake to focus on the science which few of us are able to judge.

I disagree. The science is the only thing that we should focus on. Scientists should present the science, and nothing else. And I mean the actual science, not their interpretations of it or what we should do about it, not appeals to opinions and consensus and scary feelings and to trust them because they're scientists and we're not.

Simply demonstrate that they've followed the scientific method, release their models, predictions, observations and results.

J

Share this comment


Link to comment

Black hole headed our way:

http://www.physics-astronomy.org/2018/04/a-supermassive-black-hole-is-heading.html

It's coming for us, and I bet that it's mankind's fault. In fact, let just say that it's settled science that it's our fault. We need to crack down immediately. Regulations. Stuff some motherfuckers into the wood chipper. We need Obama back, or Bernie. Maybe even Ocasio-Cortez. She would personally stuff 'em into the chipper with that special socialist gleam in her eye. We have to act now to save the world.

 

Share this comment


Link to comment
33 minutes ago, Jonathan said:

It's coming for us, and I bet that it's mankind's fault.

Jonathan,

The black hole is attracted by the burning of carbon fuel in an oxygen-rich environment.

As you said, that's settled science.

:) 

Michael

Share this comment


Link to comment
3 hours ago, Jonathan said:

Black hole headed our way:

http://www.physics-astronomy.org/2018/04/a-supermassive-black-hole-is-heading.html

It's coming for us, and I bet that it's mankind's fault. In fact, let just say that it's settled science that it's our fault. We need to crack down immediately. Regulations. Stuff some motherfuckers into the wood chipper. We need Obama back, or Bernie. Maybe even Ocasio-Cortez. She would personally stuff 'em into the chipper with that special socialist gleam in her eye. We have to act now to save the world.

 

In two and half billion years.  Don't worry. complex life on earth will be dead and gone by that time.  The Sun will have used up its hydrogen fuel by then,  and will be fusing helium. This will make the Sun 40 percent hotter than it is know, causing the oceans and seas to dry up.  With the water gone, complex life on the surface will become extinct. That includes us, unless we can find another star with an earth like planet to live on.  There are two chances of that happening: slim and none.

 

Share this comment


Link to comment
48 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

In two and half billion years.  Don't worry. complex life on earth will be dead and gone by that time.  The Sun will have used up its hydrogen fuel by then,  and will be fusing helium. This will make the Sun 40 percent hotter than it is know, causing the oceans and seas to dry up.  With the water gone, complex life on the surface will become extinct. That includes us, unless we can find another star with an earth like planet to live on.  There are two chances of that happening: slim and none.

 

So, what you're really saying is that we need to come up with some regulations which will stop corporations from doing things which are making the sun use up hydrogen.

Do you recommend electric wood chippers over gas-powered ones? What's the data comparing their effectiveness versus their carbon footprint?

Share this comment


Link to comment
10 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

In two and half billion years.  Don't worry. complex life on earth will be dead and gone by that time.  The Sun will have used up its hydrogen fuel by then,  and will be fusing helium. This will make the Sun 40 percent hotter than it is know, causing the oceans and seas to dry up.  With the water gone, complex life on the surface will become extinct. That includes us, unless we can find another star with an earth like planet to live on.  There are two chances of that happening: slim and none.

 

Well that puts a kink in my plan to live forever...

  • Haha 1

Share this comment


Link to comment
22 hours ago, Jonathan said:

So, what you're really saying is that we need to come up with some regulations which will stop corporations from doing things which are making the sun use up hydrogen.

Do you recommend electric wood chippers over gas-powered ones? What's the data comparing their effectiveness versus their carbon footprint?

 That is not what I am saying.

Share this comment


Link to comment
12 hours ago, KorbenDallas said:

Well that puts a kink in my plan to live forever...

 

Even the cosmos is not going to "live" forever.  The second law of thermodynamics  appears to be true.  Entropy will increase until no more happens in the cosmos.  

 

Share this comment


Link to comment
58 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Even the cosmos is not going to "live" forever.  The second law of thermodynamics  appears to be true.  Entropy will increase until no more happens in the cosmos.  

Bob,

I can't resist.

So how did the cosmos itself come into being with self-destruct baked in?

Through entropy?

:evil:  :) 

It's like the anti-religious argument. If God created everything, who created God?

If entropy destroys everything, how was entropy created?

Do you believe in destruction without creation?

:) 

Michael

  • Confused 1

Share this comment


Link to comment

William,

Step out of your story world and try to peg my question as an honest ontological question, not an attack on scientism, nor an indirect promotion of a different form of religion.

The question makes sense, that is, unless one believes in "settled science" as ontology.

We all know something exists called the cosmos. Bob says the only certainty is that it will destroy itself.

"I am that I am," says the God Science according to its disciples. "And I am destruction." 

And no one is allowed to ask if that's all there is to reality?

Why?

Talk about a faith-based epistemology...

Michael

Share this comment


Link to comment

I wrote:

Quote

 

So, what you're really saying is that we need to come up with some regulations which will stop corporations from doing things which are making the sun use up hydrogen.

Do you recommend electric wood chippers over gas-powered ones? What's the data comparing their effectiveness versus their carbon footprint?

 

Bob replied:

2 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

 That is not what I am saying.

Ah, I see, so then what you're saying is that mere regulations and wood chippers aren't enough, and that we have to go much further!

J

  • Haha 1

Share this comment


Link to comment
1 hour ago, Jonathan said:

I wrote:

Bob replied:

Ah, I see, so then what you're saying is that mere regulations and wood chippers aren't enough, and that we have to go much further!

J

I am saying eventually our species will become extinct.  And so will  life on this planet.  When the sun gets hot which it will in one billion to two billion years, the oceans and seas will evaporate and life on the surface and what were the oceans will cease.  Any life that hangs on underground will be ended when the Sun expands into a red giant and vaporizes the earth.

 

Share this comment


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

Bob,

I can't resist.

So how did the cosmos itself come into being with self-destruct baked in?

Through entropy?

:evil:  :) 

It's like the anti-religious argument. If God created everything, who created God?

If entropy destroys everything, how was entropy created?

Do you believe in destruction without creation?

:) 

Michael

Excellent question.  Even as the cosmos  expanded into what it is now  it was doomed from the start.  Entropy increases.  How things really began?  I do not know.

 

Share this comment


Link to comment

There is plenty of time to settle the entire solar system including millions of artificial satellites around this systems’ dozens of large bodies, plenty of time to then move away from this system.

Share this comment


Link to comment
1 hour ago, BaalChatzaf said:

... it was doomed from the start.

Bob,

Do you know enough about the start of the cosmos to make that statement?

All you know is what humans--at the present level of evolution--have observed.

Or do you believe humans stopped evolving?

Michael

Share this comment


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

Bob,

Do you know enough about the start of the cosmos to make that statement?

All you know is what humans--at the present level of evolution--have observed.

Or do you believe humans stopped evolving?

Michael

Basic law of thermodynamics.  Entropy increases. When entropy becomes maximum  temperature everywhere is the same. No more work can occur.  The so-called heat-death of the Universe.  No exception to the second law of thermodynamics has ever been observed so if the second law is really true  then the cosmos will reach a stage where nothing else happens. Heat death. It does not matter how the cosmos got started. The entropy is increasing.

 

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...