william.scherk

23,149 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



14 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

No exception to the second law of thermodynamics has ever been observed...

Bob,

In other words, the certainty of this law depends on human observation.

Correct?

And were humans around at the start of the cosmos?

:)

Michael

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

Bob,

In other words, the certainty of this law depends on human observation.

Correct?

And were humans around at the start of the cosmos?

:)

Michael

As do all scientific laws.  Any scientific law, hypothesis or theory  is one empirical falsification away  from being modified or discarded.  That includes the second law of thermodynamics.  However as physical laws go the second law of thermodynamics is a close to "a sure thing"  as any physical law yet propounded.  Put it another way.  If the second law of thermodynamics  is falsified,  most of physics  will come down with it.  It was found out recently that certain neutrinos had small but non-zero mass.  The standard model had to be modified slightly to accommodate this finding, but the Standard Model remained intact.  If the second law is ever falsified then the Standard Model will come crashing down, although the General Theory of Relativity will remain intact.  That is how central thermodynamics and the second law is to non-gravitational physics. 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Put it another way.  If the second law of thermodynamics  is falsified,  most of physics  will come down with it.

Bob,

I look at it from a different angle.

When someone--states--as fact--that the cosmos sprang into existence with entropy ensuring its own destruction, I look to the beginning of the cosmos and wonder how anyone can know. From the knowledge we have at the present, we can say no human was there to observe.

And we have yet to tap into nonhuman intelligence, if such exists. And, even if that should ever happen, maybe we will only get some cosmic fake news about what went on in the beginning.

:) 

Michael

Link to comment
On 9/14/2018 at 4:33 PM, BaalChatzaf said:

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.

 

There might be things which are not observable. We don't know.

You can't get your brain around the totality of existence with a "law." That's hubris. Scientists are modest---or should be. Conclusions should not outrun observations except to suggest avenues of inquiry.

---Brant

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

Bob,

I look at it from a different angle.

When someone--states--as fact--that the cosmos sprang into existence with entropy ensuring its own destruction, I look to the beginning of the cosmos and wonder how anyone can know. From the knowledge we have at the present, we can say no human was there to observe.

And we have yet to tap into nonhuman intelligence, if such exists. And, even if that should ever happen, maybe we will only get some cosmic fake news about what went on in the beginning.

:) 

Michael

You may look to the beginning of things but you won't see them.  You can only guess what there possibly were.  There is just so far we can look back in time.

 

Link to comment
4 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

There might be things which are not observable. We don't know.

You can't get your brain around the totality of existence with a "law." That's hubris. Scientists are modest---or should be. Conclusions should not outrun observations except to suggest avenues of inquiry.

---Brant

That is almost certainly true.  We now have good evidence that space itself is is expanding and at an accelerating rate.  Which means there are portions of the physical cosmos where the space is expanding at greater than the speed of light.  This does not contradict relativity,  which postulates that no local motion IN spacetime of a wave or object  can be such that the local motion is at greater than light speed.  Spacetime can expand (or at least is not forbidden by theory) at greater than light speed. Which means there may be portions of the physical cosmos which we can never see which means we can never know them.

Link to comment
7 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

You may look to the beginning of things but you won't see them.  You can only guess what there possibly were.  There is just so far we can look back in time.

Bob,

That's exactly my point. So shouldn't one be careful in making absolute statements of fact about the cosmos ending by entropy?

I believe a qualification is in order.

"If we use the entropy law, which until now has not been breached, and only that, the cosmos will end one day by entropy. And even then, this is according to the present level of knowledge, which is subject to change."

Michael

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

Bob,

That's exactly my point. So shouldn't one be careful in making absolute statements of fact about the cosmos ending by entropy?

I believe a qualification is in order.

"If we use the entropy law, which until now has not been breached, and only that, the cosmos will end one day by entropy. And even then, this is according to the present level of knowledge, which is subject to change."

Michael

No scientific statement is absolute.  Scientific conclusions are held provisionally as probable but nevertheless subject to empirical falsification.  There statement "No scientific statement is absolute" is not a scientific statement.  It is a metastatement,  a statement -about- science.

Link to comment
9 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

It is a metastatement,  a statement -about- science.

Bob,

So metastatements are absolute?

:evil:  :) 

(No need to reply seriously. I'm just busting your balls. :) )

Michael

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

Bob,

So metastatements are absolute?

:evil:  :) 

(No need to reply seriously. I'm just busting your balls. :) )

Michael

It is not an absolute scientific statement.  I don't think there are any such.  The best physical science can mange are assertions so backed up by experiment that it would be unreasonable to doubt them in the absence of evidence that they might not be true.  No reasonable person doubts the second law of thermodynamics at this time, but if evidence were found against it, we would have to reconstruct the physics of energy.  The conservation of energy is similar in that fashion. No one doubts it, but it could, in principle,  be empirically falsified.  No scientific theory or hypothesis is beyond possible falsification.  The is why physical science succeeds where philosophy fails.

 

 

Link to comment
15 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

It is not an absolute scientific statement.  I don't think there are any such.  The best physical science can mange are assertions so backed up by experiment that it would be unreasonable to doubt them in the absence of evidence that they might not be true.  No reasonable person doubts the second law of thermodynamics at this time, but if evidence were found against it, we would have to reconstruct the physics of energy.  The conservation of energy is similar in that fashion. No one doubts it, but it could, in principle,  be empirically falsified.  No scientific theory or hypothesis is beyond possible falsification.  The is why physical science succeeds where philosophy fails.

 

 

But absolutism belongs to philosophy. Philosophy came first and it is philosophy that science always repairs to for the certainty of inquiry that is possible, hence the philosopy  of science and it's method.

--Brant

Link to comment

Al Gore's claim about Hurricane Florence doused by scientists

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/sep/16/al-gores-hurricane-florence-claim-debunked-scienti/

Quote

 

...Meanwhile, Mr. Gore’s defenders, including some scientists, have praised his work for bringing climate change to the forefront and dismissed the fact-checks as nitpicks.

CleanTechnica’s Michael Barnard called the criticisms “straw men that have been erected since 2006 by skeptics” in a Friday post headlined, “Hurricane Florence is Part of What Al Gore Got Right in An Inconvenient Truth.”

 

Yeah, when critics point out that these assholes' predictions don't work out in reality, or that they're playing the trick of abandoning falsifiability by predicting several contradictory outcomes and then claiming success when predicting correctly but also incorrectly, the critics are just dealing in "nitpicks" and "straw men." Ha.

The issue is so important that the attention that Gore has brought to the cause outweighs the falsehood of his ridiculous claims. Man-made climate change theory is more important than truth. It's settled science that it's more important than scientific truth!

J

Link to comment

Why some think higher temps result in more hurricanes is beyond me. A conclusion without adequate data--or any data. One storm is not data, it's a datum. There were fewer storms a hundred years ago--and of less intensity? If the enviros abandon global warming for cooling I'm sure they'll blame the next such datum on cooling.

Liberal (left wing) moral hubris has ruled this country at least since the New Deal. It's now being challenged to the core in a real life and practical way and they are going absolutely nutzo. They can't have their way with their whithered ideas which they have lost the ability to articulate, so what they are doing now is all they can do and it's embracing violence and will do so on steroids if they can't retake the House of Representatives in November.

They are way, way out-gunned. Welcome to the really real world.

--Brant

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Brant Gaede said:

Why some think higher temps result in more hurricanes is beyond me.

Hurricanes are scary. The condition of people being scared is more likely to result in their accepting the idea of more government to stop what's scary. People who want to control over other people via climate change legislation will never predict any benefits to tiny changes in global temperature. We are doomed if we don't give up our freedoms.

Link to comment
8 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

But absolutism belongs to philosophy. Philosophy came first and it is philosophy that science always repairs to for the certainty of inquiry that is possible, hence the philosopy  of science and it's method.

--Brant

And philosophy will be absolutely unable to produce anything useful.  Philosophy, by and large,  is a failure at being useful.  There are some minor exceptions in  the field of epistemology.  But in ethics,  aesthetics, psychology  it is useless. Metaphysics is beyond useless.  It is a vacuum that sucks thoughts out of the heads of otherwise intelligent people.

 

Link to comment

This has been all over the place already, but not yet OL. Hope this doesn't derail the conversation ...

Shoulda been in the Weather Wars thread, but what the hell. The speed of that flame astounds me.

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

This has been all over the place already, but not yet OL. Hope this doesn't derail the conversation ...

There's a "conversation"?

11 hours ago, william.scherk said:

Shoulda been in the Weather Wars thread, but what the hell. The speed of that flame astounds me.

Yeah, "Firenado" is a better much name than "Weather Wars."

J

Link to comment

So, I've been looking online, and, sure enough, people are citing fire whirls as proof of man-made climate change.

Dude, it's like the scientists totally predicted it, bro! They said, like back in the 70s or something, that extreme stuff and scary shit would happen. Well firenadoes are like totally extreme and scary shit, hoss! It's proof! They therefore nailed the prediction! That's settled science!

So, we have to surrender our freedoms right now to stop the fire whirls, otherwise they will be everywhere. And worse. Other scary shit that we haven't specifically identified, and didn't know existed throughout history, will happen which we'll then say that we predicted without naming it.

J

 

Link to comment

OLers who know who Raymond Pierrehumbert is might enjoy this video from the American Geophysical Union, which speaks to predictions ... from the "Tyndall Lectures."  Those who fall in a skeptical camp will find plenty to sharpen their questions and challenges.

 

Bonus points to anyone who can describe one of the discoveries of Tyndall ... perhaps in terms of the Tyndall Effect or the Tyndall Gases Effect. 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, william.scherk said:

OLers who know who Raymond Pierrehumbert is might enjoy this video from the American Geophysical Union, which speaks to predictions ... from the "Tyndall Lectures."  Those who fall in a skeptical camp will find plenty to sharpen their questions and challenges.

 

Bonus points to anyone who can describe one of the discoveries of Tyndall ... perhaps in terms of the Tyndall Effect or the Tyndall Gases Effect. 

Yeah, um, the above confirms what my position has been for a long time.

They failed to predict important things. Vital things. They can't explain them. They believe that one or two potential explanations might allow them to hopefully salvage their theory (I think at last count, the total of proposed dog ate my homework potential rescue proposals was around 34 to 37 -- and there was no "consensus" on which of those the true real certified so trust us scientists found the most plausible).

But we don't have time to wait to find out! Trust us, we're the scientists! To end the lecture, let's go with a scare story where our successful predictions and explanations should be.

So, to summarize, we admit that we think that we kind of don't know, but we're still certain that you're going to have to give up your freedom, cuz we believe that we really do know despite the fact that we don't.

 

Link to comment
22 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

And philosophy will be absolutely unable to produce anything useful.  Philosophy, by and large,  is a failure at being useful.  There are some minor exceptions in  the field of epistemology.  But in ethics,  aesthetics, psychology  it is useless. Metaphysics is beyond useless.  It is a vacuum that sucks thoughts out of the heads of otherwise intelligent people.

 

Philosophy produced the scientific method thank you.

--Brant

thank you Issac Newton

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Brant Gaede said:

Philosophy produced the scientific method thank you.

--Brant

thank you Issac Newton

Brant,

Bob has discovered time travel.

:) 

Michael

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

Philosophy produced the scientific method thank you.

--Brant

thank you Issac Newton

Newton and Galileo dumped Aristotle's nonsense as did Kepler.   Science did not progress until Aristotle was purged.

 

Link to comment

Climate deniers caused the fire. We need to punish them. Dishing out punishment is virtuous.

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/jerry-brown-climate-change-deniers-definitely-contributing-to-the-new-abnormal-of-wildfires/

The deniers thought their wrong thoughts, and those thoughts caused thought waves which created sparks, and the thoughts dried out brush and wood, and made the temperatures super hot. It's settled science. If you disagree, then you are a science denier and will be punished accordingly.

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