william.scherk

22,312 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

1,168 Comments


Recommended Comments



London and LA smog. Dust bowls created by over-farming and then a lack of cover crops in the winter. Heat island effect from concrete and steel. Coughing from the neighbor's barbeque. Those are affects from humans on earth. Oh. And cow farts. Uh, we raise too many cows. 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, bradschrag said:

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.

Now that is bold and blatant.  We just decree the answer we want as unfalsifiably true no matter what actually happens.

Link to comment
4 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

Now that is bold and blatant.  We just decree the answer we want as unfalsifiably true no matter what actually happens.

No, you just have to take into account all factors. For example, if there are several large volcanic eruptions within a short time frame - let's say a decade, we'd expect cooling from it. It might even extend past 15 years. That doesn't mean humans aren't the primary drivers of climate change since the beginning of the industrial age.

Link to comment
3 hours ago, bradschrag said:

No, you just have to take into account all factors. For example, if there are several large volcanic eruptions within a short time frame - let's say a decade, we'd expect cooling from it. It might even extend past 15 years. That doesn't mean humans aren't the primary drivers of climate change since the beginning of the industrial age.

Or that they're the drivers of any cc. 

So you even realize that you just said the invention of the steam engine to pump water out of coal mines in GB instantly made human activity the primary driver of cc--may have?

--Brant

brought back by Billy?

Link to comment
8 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

Now that is bold and blatant.  We just decree the answer we want as unfalsifiably true no matter what actually happens.

I don't think he understood you.

--Brant

or wanted to

Link to comment
13 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

Or that they're the drivers of any cc. 

So you even realize that you just said the invention of the steam engine to pump water out of coal mines in GB instantly made human activity the primary driver of cc--may have?

--Brant

brought back by Billy?

The primary driver is going to be the strongest forcing for a given period of time. As it stands, changes in ghg concentrations are by far the strongest forcing on the system since the industrial era began.

Link to comment
12 hours ago, bradschrag said:

Your conspiracy is showing.

Brad,

Ha!

Your non-identification is showing, too.

But I suppose you could be selling vacuum cleaners door to door, right?

:)

Michael

Link to comment
11 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

Now that is bold and blatant.  We just decree the answer we want as unfalsifiably true no matter what actually happens.

Ellen,

That's the path to government funding.

1. Make a bold statement.

2. Try to dazzle with a lot of bullshit and never answer questions without obfuscation.

3. Claim one needs the government funding for science to save the world. (Or better, work for folks who already did that. After all, belonging to a club of world-saving insiders makes one feel so very warm and fuzzy. And one gets the money when one kisses the the right asses.)

:)

Michael

Link to comment
12 hours ago, bradschrag said:

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.

So you don’t have answers to my questions which you had early stated with supreme confidence would be super easy to find the answers to,

 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Jonathan said:

So you don’t have answers to my questions which you had early stated with supreme confidence would be super easy to find the answers to,

 

Jonathan,

Do you mean you are not satisfied with the insinuation that your questions are non-questions, you are not satisfied with being instructed in the fact that you don't get it? After all, the guy said it. You don't get it. He put it in writing right there. Under his name and all. So it has to be true.

Come on, man. Get with the program. At your rate, you're not in the game. Hell, you'll never even get close to an important ass to kiss.

:)

Michael

Link to comment
3 hours ago, bradschrag said:

The primary driver is going to be the strongest forcing for a given period of time. As it stands, changes in ghg concentrations are by far the strongest forcing on the system since the industrial era began.

Argument by asseveration.

--Brant

Link to comment

I met an astro-physicist from Spitsbergen, Norway yesterday who totally believes in AGW. Very intelligent and commited to his belief system. Nice guy full of "facts." He did fail on falsifiability respecting CO2's role. He didn't understand it. I don't know how one can be any kind of scientist and not.

--Brant

Link to comment
57 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

He didn't understand it. I don't know how one can be any kind of scientist and not.

Brant,

I sound like a broken record at times, but the answer is simple.

It's the storytelling.

Once the global warming folks hooked into their power and money sources (one world governing body, carbon credit schemes, etc.), they ramped up their use of mythology to "control the narrative." As human beings literally think everything in narratives (even math), it's easy to fabricate true believers if one knows how to feed them the right myths in the right ways.

Thus scientists can run tests according to propaganda-engineered storylines and pretend they are basing it all on controlled conditions, trial and error, observation and falsifiability. Underlying it, though, is the core story that they are the chosen people. By extension, this leads to an attitude that a mistake by them is superior to a truth by a non-chosen person. Why? Because they are saving the world and the non-chosen are destroying it. The storyline abides...

Thus scientists are, at times, prone to believing the dumbass silly shit at the core of many of the myths they are fed and then assimilate. It's a leap too far to expect members of a chosen people to give up their standing without slamming down hefty defense mechanisms in their minds. Believing one is a chosen people comes with a dopamine and serotonin payoff (and a few other neurochemical goodies in the kick) that's stronger than crack cocaine.

That's a high to kill for.

Enter faith.

From everything I have seen up to now in this controversy, modern climate science is based on faith which is fed by contrived narratives (or dogma if you will) that are controlled from above. That's the foundation. They try to pour reason and the scientific method on top of that, but that's the paint job. The rusty body underneath is a manmade myth, not manmade climate change. And a myth is a story divorced from nature, but true according to human inclinations when interpreted through metaphor.

We all, at root, would love to be a chosen people. But not everyone gets to be one, right? So how do you tell if you are a chosen people other than by public asseverations, rituals and public sacrifices? You adopt the following premise: I am a chosen one because I was chosen. That is the circular logic of the conceit.

Scientists are not immune from the power of this form of epistemology to undermine the very science they claim to promote. Conceit is an addiction fed by story. And the nucleus accumbens of climate change scientists have callouses from running in overdrive.

:) 

Michael

Link to comment

How long since the first derail?

On 8/21/2018 at 8:44 AM, william.scherk said:

About the only places where we may further disagree on objective measures is where we find (and 'how could we trust') differing answers to questions like:

  1. -- over what timescales should we assess 'global warming'?
  2. -- what would be robust findings of global warming look like?
  3. -- has there been a 'significant' amount of earthly temperature rise?
  4. -- what is a 'significant' rise in temperatures?
  5. -- what might be a 'dangerous' rise in temperatures over a defined term?

[WSS added numbers to list Aug 21 2018]

In the rest of your comment, I need a bit more precision to make sure I am not mistaken as to what you think or know or believe: [...]

Time is relative to motion?

Salt and Popper

Quote

The general picture of Popper’s philosophy of science, then is this: Hume’s philosophy demonstrates that there is a contradiction implicit in traditional empiricism, which holds both that all knowledge is derived from experience and that universal propositions (including scientific laws) are verifiable by reference to experience. The contradiction, which Hume himself saw clearly, derives from the attempt to show that, notwithstanding the open-ended nature of experience, scientific laws may be construed as empirical generalisations which are in some way finally confirmable by a ‘positive’ experience. Popper eliminates the contradiction by rejecting the first of these principles and removing the demand for empirical verification in favour of empirical falsification in the second. Scientific theories, for him, are not inductively inferred from experience, nor is scientific experimentation carried out with a view to verifying or finally establishing the truth of theories; rather, all knowledge is provisional, conjectural, hypothetical—we can never finally prove our scientific theories, we can merely (provisionally) confirm or (conclusively) refute them; hence at any given time we have to choose between the potentially infinite number of theories which will explain the set of phenomena under investigation. Faced with this choice, we can only eliminate those theories which are demonstrably false, and rationally choose between the remaining, unfalsified theories. Hence Popper’s emphasis on the importance of the critical spirit to science—for him critical thinking is the very essence of rationality. For it is only by critical thought that we can eliminate false theories, and determine which of the remaining theories is the best available one, in the sense of possessing the highest level of explanatory force and predictive power. It is precisely this kind of critical thinking which is conspicuous by its absence in contemporary Marxism and in psychoanalysis.

May the harpies feast!

Link to comment
15 hours ago, bradschrag said:

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.

Dipshit, were discussing climate, which, by definition, includes time as a factor.

Quote

Climate is generally considered time period of at least 15 years...

False. It's generally considered to be 30 years.

Quote

...but that doesn't mean that is there were a 15 year cooling streak humans aren't still contributing to warming...

For someone who is claiming to have science on his side, you sure are sloppy and imprecise in your use of words, and in your misunderstandings and misrepresentations of your opponents' positions. No one has claimed, fuckhead, that a 15 year cooling streak would mean that humans are not contributing to warming. Rather, it would mean that any hypothesis which predicted warming during that timeframe had been falsified.

Youre playing the standard stupid fucking games of equivocation. See, this is why I asked the specific questions that I asked -- so that dishonest assholes like you can't switch between hypotheses and evidence at will.

Your dishonesty is the reason that you won't answer the questions, but keep hoping that you'll be able to make us forget what the questions were. You're attempting to bypass the scientific requirements. You're attempting to substitute pseudoscience for actual science.

J

Link to comment
9 hours ago, bradschrag said:

No, you just have to take into account all factors. For example, if there are several large volcanic eruptions within a short time frame - let's say a decade, we'd expect cooling from it. It might even extend past 15 years. That doesn't mean humans aren't the primary drivers of climate change since the beginning of the industrial age.

What the Douche is saying is that regardless of the predictions matching or not matching the outcomes in reality, all possible outcomes mean that human activity is the primary driver. Such a position is the definition of unfalsifiability and pseudoscience.

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

How long since the first derail?

Time is relative to motion?

Salt and Popper

May the harpies feast!

Are you trying to express something, Billy? Searching for some way of continuing to avoid real science while still believing that science is on your side? Which tenets might be jettisoned, and how might we justify doing so, but only in regard to climate? Tee hee hee?

Oh dear, oh dear, our discussion has gone off the rails. How might we get it back? Please don't suggest that Billy might help get it back on the rails by answering the questions which have been asked of him repeatedly, or by explaining why he thinks that the questions are not valid or pertinent. No. Billy is not the problem. The problem is the lesser Others. They must be fixed.

Billy, I know you're very upset about the requirements of science. You seem to be taking it personally, and it's almost as if you feel that I invented them, and that I did so just to spite you. The truth is that I'm just the messenger. You're really not angry with me, but with the idea of science not conforming to your feelings and wishes.

J

 

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

Jonathan,

Do you mean you are not satisfied with the insinuation that your questions are non-questions, you are not satisfied with being instructed in the fact that you don't get it? After all, the guy said it. You don't get it. He put it in writing right there. Under his name and all. So it has to be true.

Come on, man. Get with the program. At your rate, you're not in the game. Hell, you'll never even get close to an important ass to kiss.

:)

Michael

My favorite thing in all of this was Brad's original acceptance of my questions about following the requirements of the scientific method. Initially, he had no problems understanding my questions and their relevance, because, at the time, he believed that the climate alarmists must have been complying with true science, and that the answers could be easily found. He has since discovered otherwise, and is therefore now dodging the questions, and trying to treat them as if the don't exist, or are not worthy of consideration, while offering no explanation of why the are suddenly not worthy.

So, as is true with Billy, open honest discussion is to be avoided, and all that's on the menu is mound after mound of Tasty Steamed Octopus.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
15 minutes ago, Jonathan said:

He has since discovered otherwise, and is therefore now dodging the questions, and trying to treat them as if the don't exist, or are not worthy of consideration, while offering no explanation of why the are suddenly not worthy.

Jonathan,

The answer is social and pure value judgment, not rational.

They'll kick his ass right out of the Chosen People club if he treats this issue with true intellectual seriousness.

The club is more important than the truth. That's why the intellectual arguments from these people consistently sound good, but when examined are not good. Once in the club, one does not need to make sense. One merely needs to dazzle with bullshit and snark a little for proof. In fact, making sense is the surest way of getting thrown out. :) 

The storyline abides...

Michael

  • Like 1
Link to comment
7 hours ago, Jonathan said:

Are you trying to express something, Billy?

Jonathan,

That's a very interesting question.

I don't think he's expressing anything at all. 

I think he's collecting specimens and sorting them according to a custom-made taxonomy embedded in his vanity.

There's a story at the end, I'm sure, and William is the hero of that story. That is, he's a flawed hero, but mucho hero-level heroic nevertheless, striking blows for truth and social justice where ever an oppressed victim may be found, and saving the planet for The Children and whales and shit. That's for later. For now, I feel he is in list compiling mode most of the time.

:)

There's a catch I think he doesn't see, too.

Lists get awfully boring unless you do them right. ABT works really well on lists. See here: Narrative Is Everything: The ABT Framework and Narrative Evolution by Randy Olson. ABT means And, But and Therefore.

A quick example:

Here is List Item 1, and List Item 2, and List Item 3, and List Item 4, and List Item 5, and List Item 6, and List Item 7, etc.

Boring boring boring..

BUT

Try this:

List Item 1, and List Item 2, and List Item 3, BUT Opinion or Conclusion or Other List Item 1, and Other List Item 2, and Other List Item 3, and Other List Item 4, but Opinion or Conclusion, THEREFORE list items with but and therefore are far more interesting than those with just and.

Once William gets the hang of it, he might start peeping his head out again from his clam shell and showing he exists as a person. For now, though, adding to lists is all he's got, poor thing.

:) 

(Believe it or not, Olson came up with this trying to sell climate change. However, it works like gangbusters for selling the opposite. :) If the climate change people won't pick up this tool made by one of their own and use it, I sure will. It's a great tool. :) )

Michael

  • Like 1
Link to comment
4 hours ago, Jonathan said:

Are you trying to express something, Billy? Searching for some way of continuing to avoid real science while still believing that science is on your side? Which tenets might be jettisoned, and how might we justify doing so, but only in regard to climate? Tee hee hee?

Oh dear, oh dear, our discussion has gone off the rails. How might we get it back? Please don't suggest that Billy might help get it back on the rails by answering the questions which have been asked of him repeatedly, or by explaining why he thinks that the questions are not valid or pertinent. No. Billy is not the problem. The problem is the lesser Others. They must be fixed.

Billy, I know you're very upset about the requirements of science. You seem to be taking it personally, and it's almost as if you feel that I invented them, and that I did so just to spite you. The truth is that I'm just the messenger. You're really not angry with me, but with the idea of science not conforming to your feelings and wishes.

J

 

It looks like a civil debate with you will be impossible, afterall.

If only you could communicate without insults and loaded language.

Link to comment
22 hours ago, Jonathan said:

Dipshit, ...

False. It's generally considered to be 30 years.

No one has claimed, fuckhead, that a 15 year cooling streak would mean that humans are not contributing to warming. Rather, it would mean that any hypothesis which predicted warming during that timeframe had been falsified.

 

Any remarks coming from bottom of the permit will be ignored. Rephrase as a reasonable and respectable question is you want a response.

707px-Graham's_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement

https://images.app.goo.gl/MdR2vvGc34L1Aqzx9

 

So anyway, back at the top of the pyramid, the only thing you stated I'm going to spend time responding to is your comment about length of climate. 30 is a common baseline, but that isn't what's required to determine whether or not humans are having an impact. That's why I said it requires understanding oh the various forcings on the system and the roles they play. You could have 10000 years of data but without any context you can't make any determination as to what was driving the changes for that period. Likewise, with as little as 10-15 years, the warming signal can be picked up in the data quite readily. But again, you need the context of the other variables in the system to determine the primary driver of change.

[03/02/2020 -- Edited by WSS to include the "Graham's hierarchy of disagreement image linked by Brad Schrag]

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

Brad,

Ha!

Your non-identification is showing, too.

But I suppose you could be selling vacuum cleaners door to door, right?

:)

Michael

I fail to see how what I do for a living is relevant to the conversation, unless ad hom is your preferred approach. 

🙂

Link to comment
33 minutes ago, bradschrag said:

I fail to see how what I do for a living is relevant to the conversation, unless ad hom is your preferred approach. 

🙂

Not very preferred. It's about all that's left to keep the conversation alive. When you left or didn't embrace reason what did you expect?

--Brant

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