[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.



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]



[Deleted image-link]

Edited 4 May 2015 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. 





Recommended Comments

Jonathan observed: The way that modern "science" works is that you make extreme and scary predictions based on your hypothesis, and then, when they don't come true, you do not conclude that your hypothesis has been falsified, but that new predictions, which are even scarier, need to be made and publicly promoted as being logically justified following the failure of the last predictions. end quote

Wow. We have a real Karl Popper in our midst. Good thinking Jonathan! Hypothesis fails scrutiny so you up the ante and say, I was just a wee bit wrong, because obviously the evidence says even worse is going to happen. Two not so long quotes and then I shall reenter the conversation.  

Karl Popper wrote: . . . .To this we have to add (3) the principle of empiricism which asserts that in science only observation and experiment may decide upon the acceptance or rejection of scientific statements, including laws and theories . . . . What is the justification for the belief that the future will resemble the past? What is the justification of so-called inductive inferences? By an inductive inference is here meant an inference from repeatedly observed instances to some as yet unobserved instances. It is of comparatively minor significance whether such an inference from the observed to the unobserved is, from the point of view of time, predictive or retro-dictive; whether we infer that the sun will rise tomorrow or that it did rise 100,000 years ago. Of course, from a pragmatic point of view, one might say that it is the predictive type of inference which is the more important. No doubt usually it is. end quote

From “The Universe in a Nutshell,” by Stephen Hawking: “Any sound scientific theory, whether of time or any other concept, should in my opinion be based on the most workable philosophy of science: the positivist approach put forward by Karl Popper and others. According to this way of thinking, a scientific theory is a mathematical model that describes and codifies the observations we make. A good theory will describe a large range of phenomena on the basis of a few simple postulates and will make definite predictions that can be tested. If the predictions agree with the observations, the theory survives that test, though it can never be proven to be correct. On the other hand, if the observations disagree with the predictions, one has to discard or modify the theory.  (At least, that is supposed to happen. In practice, people often question the accuracy of the observations and the reliability and moral character of those making the observations.)  If one takes the positivist position, as I do, one cannot say what time actually is. All one can do is describe what has been found to be a very good mathematical model for time and say what predictions it makes.” end quote

Back to me. Can the previous quotes about induction, science, and time also pertain to political theories and predictions? I think politics, which is a part of philosophy, should be based on as few postulates as needed and no more. And a political theory should be amendable to our current level of knowledge. But the basic premises cannot change. An example is, The Bill of Rights is the basis for long term existence of The Constitution of the United States. Only if current political thinking and action are in sync with the Constitution is it likely, probable, or certain to work and not be nullified by the Supreme Court or by failure. Sorry if that is jumbled. It’s late. Peter

Link to comment

I wonder have many grants away we are from when 'they' will be able to wipe that swarmy 'elitist' (crap) from your public vocabulary.

It was much more palatable for some , when the unwashed knew their place , the uppity masses are becoming quite.. well uppity.

Link to comment

I forgot the subtitle.

Climate Change in What the Ruling Class Believes is the American Mind
Why the Propaganda Stopped Working and What We can do About it.

Obviously, they will need more government money to do some deeper studies about this. And if that doesn't make new propaganda work, well, it's obviously a funding issue. More government money, serious money this time, might do the trick.



Link to comment

Increasingly, academics who signed on to the scare as the sophisticated and properly "concerned" belief are getting panicky over the prospect of being made to look like fools.


Link to comment

Hypothesis falsified:


The signs at Glacier National Park warning that its signature glaciers would be gone by 2020 are being changed...


But it's still gonna happen, and we need to stop freedom cuz the scientists have made new predictions which are less specific and even more certain. Forget about those past predictions. Just go by how much confidence we're expressing right now.


  • Like 1
Link to comment

Superlatives!  Oceans were hottest on record in 2019


That means the world's oceans have absorbed 228 Zetta Joules (228 billion trillion Joules) of energy in recent decades.

"That's a lot of zeros," said Cheng Lijing, lead paper author and associate professor at the International Centre for Climate and Environmental Sciences at the IAP.

"The amount of heat we have put in the world's oceans in the past 25 years equals 3.6 billion Hiroshima atom bomb explosions."

The past five years are the five hottest years for the ocean, the study found.

"That's a lot of zeroes."


From NBC



Edited by william.scherk
Link to comment

A lot of zeroes.

Is that how Shit-for-Brains can tell it must be super-sciency? It gets redder and redder. Wow. Science. 🤣

So cute and dumb.

Link to comment

Russia announces plan to ‘use the advantages’ of climate change.


Russia has published a plan to adapt its economy and population to climate change, aiming to mitigate damage but also “use the advantages” of warmer temperatures.

The document, published on the government’s website on Saturday, outlines a plan of action and acknowledges changes to the climate are having a “prominent and increasing effect” on socioeconomic development, people’s lives, health and industry.

Russia is warming 2.5 times faster than the planet as a whole, on average, and the two-year “first stage” plan is an indication the government officially recognises this as a problem, even though Vladimir Putin denies human activity is the cause.


Moscow formally adopted the Paris climate accord in September last year and criticised the US withdrawal from the pact.

Putin, however, has repeatedly denied the scientific consensus that climate change is primarily caused by emissions deriving from human activity, blaming it last month on some “processes in the universe”.

He has also criticised the Swedish climate campaigner Greta Thunberg, describing her as an uninformed, impressionable teenager possibly being “used” in someone’s interests.

He has also voiced scepticism on numerous occasions about solar and wind energy, expressing alarm about the dangers of turbines to birds and worms, causing them to “come out of the ground” by vibrating. While there is evidence that large wind-power installations can pose a risk to birds, known research does not suggest they harm worms.


Putin says 'nobody knows' causes of global climate change

The USA's 4th National Climate Assessment was released in 2017:


About the report:


The Climate Science Special Report (CSSR) is designed to be an authoritative assessment of the science of climate change, with a focus on the United States, to serve as the foundation for efforts to assess climate-related risks and inform decision-making about responses. In accordance with this purpose, it does not include an assessment of literature on climate change mitigation, adaptation, economic valuation, or societal responses, nor does it include policy recommendations.

As Volume I of NCA4, CSSR serves several purposes, including providing 1) an updated detailed analysis of the findings of how climate change is affecting weather and climate across the United States; 2) an executive summary and other CSSR materials that provide the basis for the discussion of climate science found in the second volume of the NCA4; and 3) foundational information and projections for climate change, including extremes, to improve “end-to-end” consistency in sectoral, regional, and resilience analyses within the second volume. CSSR integrates and evaluates the findings on climate science and discusses the uncertainties associated with these findings. It analyzes current trends in climate change, both human-induced and natural, and projects major trends to the end of this century. As an assessment and analysis of the science, this report provides important input to the development of other parts of NCA4, and their primary focus on the human welfare, societal, economic, and environmental elements of climate change.

Much of this report is written at a level more appropriate for a scientific audience, though the Executive Summary is intended to be accessible to a broader audience. [...]


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

Putin, however, has repeatedly denied the scientific consensus that climate change is primarily caused by emissions deriving from human activity, blaming it last month on some “processes in the universe”.

About the report:


Oh, no! Putin denies the pretend consensus? The one which I've posted proof that it has been demonstrated as being false, and which Billy has refused to address? Heh.



  • Like 1
Link to comment

“ ...designed to be an authoritative assessment of the science ...”

Billy doesn’t understand any climate science or any contributing science involved, so he loves intros like that because it comes with a promise of authoritativeness and best of all there is no science involved, so he can actually read it.

Link to comment

That’s cute, Billy. 

4 hours ago, Jonathan said:

If Billy posts stuff about the pretend consensus often enough, it will become true.

He struggles with science but is quite adept with propaganda. 

Link to comment
20 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:

... is quite adept with propaganda. 


No he isn't.


Who has he convinced so far? Or who has he silenced?

People who already agree with him?

That's being inept at propaganda.

I like the pretty pictures, though.


  • Like 1
Link to comment

Well, it's a new year, and time once again to remind Billy of the unanswered questions:



In regard to the big picture issue of anthropogenic climate change (and not isolated, smaller pieces of the picture), show us the repeatable, successful predictions. Identify specifically 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 the start and finish dates of the experiment were, provide the unmolested data, the untainted control, and the unmanipulated historical record.

And here, again, are the questions that your surrogate/ringer-wannabe, disappearing Brad, couldn't answer:

How long of a time period must we observe temperatures rising, without leveling off or falling, in order to conclude not only that temperatures are indeed rising enough so as to be considered climactic change, but also primarily caused by human activities? Which models/experiments have identified this timeframe prior to the models' predictions being made, and prior to reality then being observed? Where may I find the details of these types of ground rules? We already know that some scientists are asserting that a 12 to 15 year "pause/hiatus," or even a 15 to 18 year one, is not sufficient to falsify their favorite models. With such assertions, determining exactly when the ground rules were established becomes very important. Without these details, it can seem that people are just making it up as they go along.

What are the specific conditions of falsifiability? What results in reality would invalidate the hypothesis? And why?

And let's add just one more question. Which single model is the settled science model? I've seen a range of models with a range of predictions. Some have fallen by the wayside over the decades, and we don't hear about them anymore, but, anyway, which of the differing and competing current models settled it once and for all, and what date was it officially determined by the consensus scientists that that single model nailed it?




What ever happened to Brad? Are you still in touch with him, Billy? He had promised to find answers to these questions, and he even implied that doing so would be pretty easy. Do you think that he ever found them? Heh. Or is it more likely that instead he put his efforts toward blocking them from his mind and pretending that he was never asked them?


Link to comment

A language barrier?

If you want to talk to Billy rend out the science.


there, that was easy

"Science? I don't have no science! I don't have to show you any stinkin' science!"

Link to comment
15 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

If you want to talk to Billy rend out the science.

Brant said "the science." Tee hee hee!


Link to comment
On 1/27/2020 at 2:32 PM, Jonathan said:

Well, it's a new year, and time once again to remind Billy of the unanswered questions:


In regard to the big picture issue of anthropogenic climate change (and not isolated, smaller pieces of the picture)

I am reminded that Jonathan doesn't answer questions put to him in this thread. Being an asshole must be its own reward ...

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

I am reminded that Jonathan doesn't answer questions put to him in this thread. Being an asshole must be its own reward ...

You could just do your best to answer his questions, stay on the intellectual plane. If you were different, you could.

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now