william.scherk

22,708 views

[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 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. 

 

 

arctic1.jpg

1,169 Comments


Recommended Comments



39 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 ...

HELLO???

"Jonathan doesn't answer questions put to him in this thread"???

What questions?  And look who's talking.  A person who's kept a supercilious nose in the air as if ignoring a bad smell, completely avoiding the challenge, when asked and asked and asked to provide anything resembling some decent science.

Ellen

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

HELLO???

"Jonathan doesn't answer questions put to him in this thread"???

What questions?  And look who's talking.  A person who's kept a supercilious nose in the air as if ignoring a bad smell, completely avoiding the challenge, when asked and asked and asked to provide anything resembling some decent science.

Ellen

It was likely some other thread, ten years ago.

Is it not interesting that when called out for shitty behavior Billy doesn’t demand more of himself but rather goes about looking for where his interlocutor may have been hypocritical somewhere in the past so he point that out, instead? It doesn’t occur to him just stop being foul and make an attempt at answering legitimate scientific questions about his climate religion.

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

What ever happened to Brad?

Brad is on Twitter, doing Brad Schrag activities: https://twitter.com/BradSchrag/with_replies

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

Are you still in touch with him, Billy?

Of course.  Are you hoping to have him return for a talking-to?  That may not be the most alluring prospect for him  ... but in any case, here's a recent comment retweeted by Brad Schrag, in which pioneers of climatological inquiry are noted.  The names may mean nothing to a reader if the reader hasn't cracked open The Discovery of Global Warming.

 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:
2 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

HELLO???

"Jonathan doesn't answer questions put to him in this thread"???

What questions?  And look who's talking.  A person who's kept a supercilious nose in the air as if ignoring a bad smell, completely avoiding the challenge, when asked and asked and asked to provide anything resembling some decent science.

Ellen

It was likely some other thread, ten years ago.

Is it not interesting that when called out for shitty behavior Billy doesn’t demand more of himself but rather goes about looking for where his interlocutor may have been hypocritical somewhere in the past so he point that out, instead? It doesn’t occur to him just stop being foul and make an attempt at answering legitimate scientific questions about his climate religion.

"Fuck off, Pedophile" speaks!

[Gotta run out for an hour on family duties. I will edit these jottings, and think about a way to re-start or re-configure, or reiterate or assuage concerns about fair-play and scientific stupidity, and in my dreams even chart a course for better communications ...]
[Back unlocked, my lazy mind has moved on to other items of interest and concern. If I only had one last question to ask, something bland, innocuous, throbbing with probity and good faith, incandescent with curiosity and wonder ... I'll check back in to post tomorrow morning after I listen to my "Jonathan and the Science" recording while cycling madly in all directions]

The floor is open. All advisories suspended. 32 pages and only five of them at Fever Pitch.

[Added scrawled notes before KP duty; to be revised/corrected/expanded/tideed away in a Spoiler. Nobody really minds me using the blog as notepaper, as long as I preserve even accidental/negligent postings of drafts, right?]

30 January 2020
AGWA Re set

What would persuade you
What persuaded you

What persuaded me
What is my 5 paragraph informal argument
FOR my position

Topic sentence/paragraph "How I got here" is bland and stupid
What is my position, in a one-liner
What has changed ab out my position a la from 'dismissive' to 'concerned'

What is the thing[ I do] that is most annoying in this thread

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

Chemtrails for the win. "It's SCIENCE!"

Thank you for dutifully confirming what I said about your habit of deflecting.

But, yes, it is science because it is simple comparison of observations over my five decades. It begins with collection of evidence of the senses. Contrails did not persist for hours in the past, only minutes maximum, usually only seconds.

Go outside day after day and observe. Notice a day when all the contrails disappear within seconds. THAT was the only way contrails ever appeared. At most they persisted one minute. They NEVER persisted  for hours, as the adulterated trails of today do. Notice also on such a day how the trail is formed, it’s straight shape. Compare to a persistent day and the shape of what is persisting.

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

"Fuck off, Pedophile" speaks!

[Gotta run out for an hour on family duties. I will edit these jottings, and think about a way to re-start or re-configure, or reiterate or assuage concerns about fair-play and scientific stupidity, and in my dreams even chart a course for better communications ...]
[Back unlocked, my lazy mind has moved on to other items of interest and concern. If I only had one last question to ask, something bland, innocuous, throbbing with probity and good faith, incandescent with curiosity and wonder ... I'll check back in to post tomorrow morning after I listen to my "Jonathan and the Science" recording while cycling madly in all directions]

The floor is open. All advisories suspended. 32 pages and only five of them at Fever Pitch.

What does your being a pedophile have to do with this?

Link to comment
4 hours 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 ...

Which questions haven't I answered?

J

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

Of course.  Are you hoping to have him return for a talking-to?

I was hoping that he might return to answer the question that I asked him, and which he figured would be a breeze.

I doubt he'll be back, and I suspect that he gave up on answering, and pushed the questions out of his mind (probably while making Sally Field "Sybil" noises) never to go near them again.

J

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

"Fuck off, Pedophile" speaks!

[Gotta run out for an hour on family duties. I will edit these jottings, and think about a way to re-start or re-configure, or reiterate or assuage concerns about fair-play and scientific stupidity, and in my dreams even chart a course for better communications ...]
[Back unlocked, my lazy mind has moved on to other items of interest and concern. If I only had one last question to ask, something bland, innocuous, throbbing with probity and good faith, incandescent with curiosity and wonder ... I'll check back in to post tomorrow morning after I listen to my "Jonathan and the Science" recording while cycling madly in all directions]

The floor is open. All advisories suspended. 32 pages and only five of them at Fever Pitch.

[Added scrawled notes before KP duty; to be revised/corrected/expanded/tideed away in a Spoiler. Nobody really minds me using the blog as notepaper, as long as I preserve even accidental/negligent postings of drafts, right?]

30 January 2020
AGWA Re set

What would persuade you
What persuaded you

What persuaded me
What is my 5 paragraph informal argument
FOR my position

Topic sentence/paragraph "How I got here" is bland and stupid
What is my position, in a one-liner
What has changed ab out my position a la from 'dismissive' to 'concerned'

What is the thing[ I do] that is most annoying in this thread

You are congenitally disingenuous, that’s what’s most annoying.

Link to comment
On 1/30/2020 at 3:44 PM, william.scherk said:

The names may mean nothing to a reader if the reader hasn't cracked open The Discovery of Global Warming.

 

Which "a reader" are you looking down your nose upon? Making assumptions about "the reader’s'" intellectual inferiority? Oh, dear, a reader can't understand anything unless he has read all of the books that Billy has assigned. Heh. Are you turning into Phil, Billy? 

You've been told many times, but you still haven't grasped that your presenting of Arrhenius et al doesn't answer the questions that I've asked. It's been explained to you carefully and in different ways. You've been given more than the benefit of the doubt. I have to conclude now that you're deliberately trying your hardest not to grasp it.

J

Link to comment

Billy, do you remember ever having heard of the scientific method?

Do you know what it is? Can you explain what it is? Can you describe how it works?

What is the difference between a hypothesis and a conclusion? Can a hypothesis magically transform into a conclusion if you just refuse to answer questions and keep on posting items about Arrhenius?

What roles do predictions and testing play in the scientific method? Can those steps be discarded if you don't like them?

J

Link to comment
On 1/27/2020 at 4:32 PM, Jonathan said:

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

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?

J

Got busy with school, and now new job. Thanks for thinking of me though.

 

Here's a good list a falsifiable hypothesis in regards to AGW that been tested and validated. 

These results could easily be invalidated by then not happening, but they've been validated.

 

Let's see if we can touch on some of these other questions. 

How long must we observe temperatures to rise before we can attend then to humans?

We need to be considerate of all the forcing on the system (see a few tweets into Gavin's thread where he links to a bloomberg article). Using various methods/models observations we can estimate the forcing of the individual components. Then construct a model based on these forcings and hindcast to test it. Turns out, our grasp of the inputs and forcings on the system does well to explain the last few million years:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2019/04/first-successful-model-simulation-of-the-past-3-million-years-of-climate-change/

Future projections will never be perfect, because we ultimately don't know what all the future inputs will be. There are chaotic events (volcano eruptions for ex), and changes within economies and society (which will change emissions, land use, etc) that can only be estimated. So in regards to your comment about range of models, that's all you will get. They give us a probability of future outcomes based on the modelers choice in some of those parameters as well as other natural occurrences, such as clouds.

And again, in regards to your hosting comment, that really isn't one when you look at the data. A minor slow down in warming is not a hiatus. Hindsight is 20/20. Maybe you should step into the 21st century and look at the temperature record rather than living in 1995.

https://images.app.goo.gl/43SaR9QqyYXR2xp47

 

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

[Gotta run out for an hour on family duties. I will edit these jottings, and think about a way to re-start or re-configure, or reiterate or assuage concerns about fair-play and scientific stupidity, and in my dreams even chart a course for better communications ...]
[Back unlocked, my lazy mind has moved on to other items of interest and concern. If I only had one last question to ask, something bland, innocuous, throbbing with probity and good faith, incandescent with curiosity and wonder ... I'll check back in to post tomorrow morning after I listen to my "Jonathan and the Science" recording while cycling madly in all directions]

Back to the billows and swirls style of saying nothing specific - lengthily.

Ellen

Link to comment
On January 30, 2020 at 4:44 PM, william.scherk said:

The names may mean nothing to a reader if the reader hasn't cracked open The Discovery of Global Warming.

 

On January 30, 2020 at 7:39 PM, Jonathan said:

Which "a reader" are you looking down your nose upon? Making assumptions about "the readers'" intellectual inferiority? Oh, dear, a reader can't understand anything unless he has read all of the books that Billy has assigned.

The only book I recall William's assigning is The Discovery of Global Warming.  His statement that "the names may mean nothing" to someone who hasn't read that book is indicative of his ignorance, not that of "the reader."

Ellen

 

Link to comment

I saw two ladies on the Weather Channel discussing the groundhog’s emergence tomorrow. I think they said it will be rainy in Puxatawny.  And they said it was all humbug thinking a groundhog could have anything to do with the climate. Say? Maybe the groundhog should be named Al Gore . . . or William.

Here on Delmarva we will be in the high fifties to sixties for the next week. Our weatherman, Paul Satterfield, said he thinks winter is over here, but don’t quote him on it. Tonight we have drizzling rain and it is 41 degrees at around midnight. That was brave of Paul because some of our worst snowstorms have been in February. There are several establishment that have palm trees and in spite of a very warm winter all the palms have died.   

Link to comment
On 1/30/2020 at 10:16 PM, bradschrag said:

Here's a good list a... 

Appaently you haven't grasped the questions. Please, slow down and try to read them more carefully. Here they are once again:

 

Quote

 

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?

Thanks,

J

 

 
Please, don't give me more of what I didn't ask for. Answer the questions rather than inventing your own substitute questions to answer.
J
 
 
Link to comment
On 1/30/2020 at 10:16 PM, bradschrag said:

Got busy with school, and now new job.

Government job? Or government-tied?

:evil:  :) 

(I couldn't resist. :) )

Michael

  • Like 1
Link to comment
On 1/30/2020 at 10:16 PM, bradschrag said:

Let's see if we can touch on some of these other questions. 

How long must we observe temperatures to rise before we can attend then to humans?

We need to be considerate of all the forcing on the system (see a few tweets into Gavin's thread where he links to a bloomberg article). Using various methods/models observations we can estimate the forcing of the individual components. Then construct a model based on these forcings and hindcast to test it.

The above is not an answer. It’s a bunch of words related to the subject, minus an actual answer.

Quote

Future projections will never be perfect, because we ultimately don't know what all the future inputs will be.

We don’t need to know future inputs while making predictions. We can plug in the future data when we have it. X amount of mankind’s emissions during duration Y must result in global temperature Z.  Reliably and repeatably. Everything clearly defined ahead of time. No after-the-fact fixes or exceptions or erasures of things like unpredicted hiatuses.

J

Link to comment
On 1/30/2020 at 6:16 PM, Jonathan said:

Which questions haven't I answered?

J

Still waiting on this one.

Link to comment
17 minutes ago, Jonathan said:

Perhaps you don’t remember all of that because you were like twelve at the time? Well, we remember it,

Dream sequence. The year is 1920 and your great, great, great grandparents buy five acres of the highest ground in in Key West. They then raise the land with stabilizing rods and several hundred dump truck loads of dirt. Soon you have a hill shaped to withstand erosion and any hurricane they may ever come along. Now it is worth a lot of money but then Al Gore starts saying "We are doomed because of man-made global warming" and the land's value plummets" . . . Heck, I think I would still be confident enough to go live there myself. Even by the worst predictions of the alarmist, I would still have 500 years to go before the land is threatened . . . though maybe I could only travel to and from the mainland by boat, like Harry and Meghan on Vancouver Island. Peter      

Link to comment
19 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

 

The only book I recall William's assigning is The Discovery of Global Warming.  His statement that "the names may mean nothing" to someone who hasn't read that book is indicative of his ignorance, not that of "the reader."

Ellen

 

Yeah, poor Billy thinks Tyndall and Arrhenius would be unknown to someone who hasn’t read his favorite propaganda.

I think we could have some fun with this. I propose a challenge: do what Billy did;  same stupidity and ignorance but a little different. I’ll go first:

—If you wish to understand intellectual history you must grasp what Kant did. But you probably haven’t heard of him unless you’re brushed up on your Ayn Rand—

 

Link to comment
11 hours ago, Jonathan said:

The above is not an answer. It’s a bunch of words related to the subject, minus an actual answer.

 

You aren't getting it. To know if humans are the primary contributions to climate change doesn't require a specific timeframe, it requires us to have a grasp on how the forcings impact the system. Climate is generally considered time period of at least 15 years, but that doesn't mean that is there were a 15 year cooling streak humans aren't still contributing to warming, it would just mean other forcings had more influence during that timeframe.

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

Government job? Or government-tied?

:evil:  :) 

(I couldn't resist. :) )

Michael

Your conspiracy is showing.

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