william.scherk

22,168 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



3 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

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

Attacking arguments based on an individuals character isn't a conversation. So far Michael has made nothing but empty remarks toward me. There is no reason in his remarks to be embraced.

Link to comment
59 minutes ago, bradschrag said:

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

 

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.

AGW rest's on the theoretical premise that CO2 drives planetary warming. The amount or quality of the data is secondary to the theory. Now, what is necessary to invalidate the theory? Without theoretical falsifiability the theory qua theory is invalid regardless of data adducement. If you fill up a swimming pool with water you can't call it a lake.

--Brant

Link to comment
37 minutes ago, bradschrag said:

Attacking arguments based on an individuals character isn't a conversation. So far Michael has made nothing but empty remarks toward me. There is no reason in his remarks to be embraced.

What i said is it works both ways. He doesn't embrace you for substantive reasons you lacked and you don't embrace him not embracing you for that. I agree with you and I agree with him. There's nothing there. But Michael's not claiming there's anything there. Thus, you bested him with your nothing, nothing being 100 percent epistemological.

--Brant

you won, you beat him, rejoice

Link to comment
26 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

AGW rest's on the theoretical premise that CO2 drives planetary warming. The amount or quality of the data is secondary to the theory. Now, what is necessary to invalidate the theory? Without theoretical falsifiability the theory qua theory is invalid regardless of data adducement. If you fill up a swimming pool with water you can't call it a lake.

--Brant

To invalidate co2 as the current driver of warming would require someone to hypothesize and demonstrate so other mechanism for the warming. They'll also need to dismantle the radiative physics that's understood, tested and modeled that hello visualize the greenhouse effect. If they can't dismantle the radiative physics, they'll need to explain where the extra heat from increased co2 is going. Their mechanism(s) needs to handle the cooling of the stratosphere as well and somehow account for cooling from eruptions like Pinatubo while avoiding the radiative physics that explains why eruptions of that scale cause cooling. Because if they accept that the volcano causes cooling because of the radiative physics, they are going to be hard pressed to dismiss the radiative physics behind greenhouse gases. What mechanism do you hypothesize is driving the current warming?

 

Edit: perhaps you missed it, but theres a link from a couple days ago with a thread of falsifiable hypothesis revolving around AGW, some of which I've borrowed here already. Might help to look that over.

Link to comment
59 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. 

Brad,

You said you've been busy with your new job. That's what sparked my comment. The only folks I know who employ manmade climate change specialists are governments or organizations (public or private) that receive hefty amounts of government funds. To do what? Well, to promote manmade climate change, for one thing.

So I asked. And in my experience, one mostly succeeds in government work not by merit, but by ass kissing.

Since you believe my question was an ad hominem thingie, do you believe that working for the government is disreputable? If not, how on earth is asking if you have a government job attacking your character?

(You're using the term incorrectly anyway.)

Think about it...

:) 

And for the record, ad hominem was not my main motivation in that post, but I actually do think snark (to use a correct term for what you meant) is a great approach to use with condescending people who demonstrate that they are coming here to slum with the rubes. If you think I'm backing off or something by saying that's not what I was doing with you, no biggie. I'll be happy to assume it despite it not being accurate. I think the snark approach is a good one with people like you.

If you ever you show interest in the actual ideas and demonstrate respect for OL members, at least demonstrate enough respect to answer their questions in good faith, I could change that. But, frankly, I don't care one way or another.

I don't like people who act in bad faith. And lie about it all to boot.

Michael

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

Brad,

So I asked. And in my experience, one mostly succeeds in government work not by merit, but by ass kissing.

Michael

Interesting take. So if I have a government position, and an successful, I must not have much merit. Talk about a loaded question. 

No, my job had nothing to do with government and I'm not sure why you assumed it has anything to do with climate. 

25 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

 

If you ever you show interest in the actual ideas and demonstrate respect for OL members, at least demonstrate enough respect to answer their questions in good faith, I could change that. But, frankly, I don't care one way or another.

Michael

I've answered the questions to the best of my knowledge, and frankly have to sort through or ignore at least 2-3 condescending remarks aimed at me just to get to some reasonably asked question. That you want to police me while fostering an environment for others to behave that way is simply hypocritical and shallow. Brant allied a reasonable and simple question without the need to resort to attacks or remarks. How about you scroll up and see the kind of response he was given. Better yet, how about making a response to my reply to him so there can be a conversation.

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

 

And for the record, ad hominem was not my main motivation in that post, but I actually do think snark (to use a correct term for what you meant) is a great approach to use with condescending people who demonstrate that they are coming here to slum with the rubes. 

Michael

And for the record, I want referring to your question about the government job as ad hom. I was referring to your remark of being a vacuum salesman. I can only imagine that (or whatever my job might be) as being used as an attempt to discredit any argument I make. So please do enough me as to how I'm indirectly using the term:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

 

It's interesting to, given your perception of successful individuals in government jobs, that your remark shouldn't be taken as an attack. Thanks for sharing it. I honestly thought the government remark was snark, I now see it was a bit more sinister.

Link to comment
23 minutes ago, bradschrag said:

That you want to police me while fostering an environment for others to behave that way is simply hypocritical and shallow.

Brad,

My problem is that I am hypocritical and shallow.

I am so hypocritical and shallow I don't know where to put it all.

There is not enough hypocrisy and shallowness in the universe to contain me.

So let me say, hypocritically and shallowly, knock it off.

Michael

Link to comment
28 minutes ago, bradschrag said:

I was referring to your remark of being a vacuum salesman. I can only imagine that (or whatever my job might be) as being used as an attempt to discredit any argument I make.

Incidentally, your snoot is showing.

Selling vacuum cleaners is honest work.

I don't know anyone who does that, but I will not look down on those who do.

Michael

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

Incidentally, your snoot is showing.

Selling vacuum cleaners is honest work.

I don't know anyone who does that, but I will not look down on those who do.

Michael

Point to where I looked down on someone because they were a vacuum salesman. Remember, my concern was your usage of my occupation against me. I don't have regard for an individual's occupation when it comes to discussing science. If you think otherwise of me, I'd suggest you find an example of me dismissing others based on their occupation or education, rather than the merit of their argument before insinuating again that I was looking down on someone else based on their occupation. Talk about acting in bad faith...

Link to comment
46 minutes ago, bradschrag said:

Point to where I looked down on someone because they were a vacuum salesman. Remember, my concern was your usage of my occupation against me. I don't have regard for an individual's occupation when it comes to discussing science. If you think otherwise of me, I'd suggest you find an example of me dismissing others based on their occupation or education, rather than the merit of their argument before insinuating again that I was looking down on someone else based on their occupation. Talk about acting in bad faith...

Final warning.

You are in my house. I am not in yours.

Act right and you can stay. So knock it off.

Michael

Link to comment
8 hours ago, bradschrag said:

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

Oh, darn! So, you were going to answer my questions, and, in fact, you were just on the verge of doing so, but now you won’t because I accepted your invitation to join you in snark? Yeah, okay then, we’re all buying that. As earlier, you could easily answer the questions, but you just don’t want to right now? Because you’re having feelings? Because demanding that being treated in a way better than the way that you treat people is more important than scientifically nailing down the climate issue once and for all? Heh. Fuck off, pretender.

Link to comment
10 hours ago, bradschrag said:

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.

So, are you claiming that the above is the position that was identified as part of the "settled science" hypothesis prior to its predictions being made and then being tested?

Or is it it just your personal opinion?

Do you remember the questions that I asked? They're specific questions. I didn't ask for your opinions as a substitute to the actual answers to the questions.

Um, perhaps you don't realize this, but the questions are not being asked because we revere you and hope that you can share your wisdom with little us. We're not lost souls looking for your guidance. The questions are being asked because they cut through the bullshit. You are not a respected sage, but a bullshitter.

Your bluff has been called over and over again, shitbag. When will it sink in that you should stop trying to bluff?

J

Link to comment
9 minutes ago, Jonathan said:

So, are you claiming that the above is the position that was identified as part of the "settled science" hypothesis prior to its predictions being made and then being tested?

Or is it it just your personal opinion?

Do you remember the questions that I asked? They're specific questions. I didn't ask for your opinions as a substitute to the actual answers to the questions.

Um, perhaps you don't realize this, but the questions are not being asked because we revere you and hope that you can share your wisdom with little us. We're not lost souls looking for your guidance. The questions are being asked because they cut through the bullshit. You are not a respected sage, but a bullshitter.

Your bluff has been called over and over again, shitbag. When will it sink in that you should stop trying to bluff?

J

No content. Try rephrasing as a reasonable question. 

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

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

It really is interesting to watch. While we're pointing out to DoucheBrad that he's not answering the questions, and that we are not being fooled by his inventing alternate questions to answer while pretending that they're the questions that we asked, he continues to believe that he's going to fool us into believing that he has answered the questions.

J

Link to comment
9 hours ago, bradschrag said:

To invalidate co2 as the current driver of warming would require someone to hypothesize and demonstrate so other mechanism for the warming. They'll also need to dismantle the radiative physics that's understood, tested and modeled that hello visualize the greenhouse effect. If they can't dismantle the radiative physics, they'll need to explain where the extra heat from increased co2 is going. Their mechanism(s) needs to handle the cooling of the stratosphere as well and somehow account for cooling from eruptions like Pinatubo while avoiding the radiative physics that explains why eruptions of that scale cause cooling. Because if they accept that the volcano causes cooling because of the radiative physics, they are going to be hard pressed to dismiss the radiative physics behind greenhouse gases. What mechanism do you hypothesize is driving the current warming?

 

Edit: perhaps you missed it, but theres a link from a couple days ago with a thread of falsifiable hypothesis revolving around AGW, some of which I've borrowed here already. Might help to look that over.

The question then might be properly reductive to whether you are working off a theory or hypothesis. I'm not competent to address this issue with you further. I cannot evaluate your ideas about falsifiability.

--Brant

Link to comment
14 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:

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

If only you could communicate without insults and loaded language.

Indeed. The most common ploy in forums like this is probably that of suddenly placing respect and civility above all else.

"It's not that I can't answer your questions, it's that I value civility so much that I won't dignify your icky meanness with a response."

Then the next step is for a surrogate to step forward and ask the same questions politely. And then new excuses are made, such as that the questions, despite being asked politely, came from the meanie, so they need to be put into the surrogate's own words before being acceptable. And then new demands are imposed, followed by people being banned if possible.

Heh. Billy once played the role of surrogate for me over on SLOP. Remember? I had criticized Pigero's attempt at pretending that his personal, consumer musical taste were "objectively superior." I posted my criticism there, but he wouldn't answer due to the lack of respect and civility that it contained. Boo-hoo-hoo. But then Billy stripped my criticisms of their ickiness, yet Pigero still found excuses for not answering, including eventually banning me.

Billy has since adopted Pigero's sniveling style of dealing with criticism. Billy has become the Pigero of OL.

J

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

The question then might be properly reductive to whether you are working off a theory or hypothesis. I'm not competent to address this issue with you further. I cannot evaluate your ideas about falsifiability.

--Brant

Douchebrad was asked to identify the specific conditions of falsifiability employed -- and identified prior to predictions an testing taking place -- by the one model which settled the science once and for all.

He opted to dodge the question and post something else which he felt was kind of somewhat related and might make us forget what the actual questions was.

J

Link to comment
18 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

The question then might be properly reductive to whether you are working off a theory or hypothesis. I'm not competent to address this issue with you further. I cannot evaluate your ideas about falsifiability.

--Brant

Sorry, I guess I'm not understanding the issue in regards to falsifiability. Once again, falsifiable hypothesis and their approx date:

And their conclusions:

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
11 hours ago, bradschrag said:

I fail to see how what I do for a living is relevant to the conversation...

Really? You're THAT stupid?

Link to comment
17 minutes ago, Jonathan said:

Really? You're THAT stupid?

Again, that's the kind of argument that takes place at the bottom of the pyramid. Dismissing a point based on the character, rather than the argument is ad hom. 

Link to comment
50 minutes ago, bradschrag said:

No content. Try rephrasing as a reasonable question. 

No, it really doesn't matter how the questions are phrased, nor how politely they're asked. You won't be answering them. You have nothing but bullshit. If you could answer the questions, you would do so, and so would Billy. Neither of you has the honesty to address the questions directly.

Link to comment
24 minutes ago, bradschrag said:

Again, that's the kind of argument that takes place at the bottom of the pyramid. Dismissing a point based on the character, rather than the argument is ad hom. 

Yeah, douchebag, let's look at that chart of yours.

First, you indulged in the lame attempt at insult by claiming that I was living in 1995 simply by identifying the reality that there had been a "hiatus." Is that not adhominem?

Rather than addressing the substance of the questions that I've asked, you've dodged it, and have whined about the tone. Look at your chart again, hypocrite douchebag.

Finally, I have not offered name-calling as a substitute for argument. I have offered it as accompaniment to my argument, and as a criticism of your refusing to address the specific questions at hand.

So, enough with the whining and hypocritical distractions, asshole.

You have all of the time in the world for everything but addressing the questions.

Go to the top of the pyramid. Address my questions. Focus on my central point. Answer the questions, or fuck off.

J

Link to comment
35 minutes ago, bradschrag said:

Sorry, I guess I'm not understanding the issue in regards to falsifiability...

Indeed.

J

Link to comment
9 hours ago, bradschrag said:

I've answered the questions to the best of my knowledge...

Do you possess the capacity to recognize that you've failed to answer the questions?!

Is there nothing about your failing to answer the questions that piques your curiosity? Has your failure to answer had no effect on you? Has it stimulated no thoughts?

J

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