william.scherk

22,635 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



2 hours ago, bradschrag said:

It's not about being "worthy". If there's disagreement then we can focus on that point of disagreement to try to better understand the arguments involved in each side. 

 

Have humans driven concentrations from 285-~415?

Maybe. Maybe probably. But we just don't if not can't KNOW.

Science is a slow path to some certainty. Certainty is a fast path to ignorance, for that's where most of it starts. For instance, bleeding as a cure for a multiplicity of ills.

"Arguments involved in each side." Brad, qua science you don't have a side. You've refused to argue that. Or know that. When the proponents of AGW ran out of pseudo science they bait and switched to CC. 

--Brant

Link to comment
1 hour ago, bradschrag said:

It's not about being "worthy". If there's disagreement then we can focus on that point of disagreement to try to better understand the arguments involved in each side. 

I'm not interested in that type of exchange and distraction from my questions.

Im not interested in your ploys to avoid my questions and substitute them with your method of controlling the conversation so that my question can be dodged.

During your first appearance here, you claimed that the questions could be answered easily. Not so anymore.

So more Tasty Steamed Octopus it is!

J

Link to comment
15 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

J,

I'm starting to wonder if we're wrong in thinking that Brad's maneuverings are designed to deceive. Maybe he's as clueless as he acts.  Like William's "Then it's fraud?" about the Arctic sea ice (however exactly William worded the question - I didn't check).

Ellen

I think it's a bit of both.

J

Link to comment

The cry of the climate change fanatic:

My kingdom for a climate computer model that works!

One that I can call fact.

I never let on, but these constant failures are embarrassing, Fucking irritating...

:)

Michael

Link to comment
12 hours ago, bradschrag said:

Have humans driven concentrations from 285-~415?

The "Ergo" I think you're after doesn't follow.

Ellen

Link to comment
On 2/7/2020 at 10:17 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

So let me take another swing.

He thinks President Trump is a climate change fanatic?

Questions, questions...

Strike two. Here comes a change-up pitch. Maybe. 🙂 Why does President Trump seem concerned enough about climate change to say "nothing's a hoax" and do the two things I referenced to fight it? Are they mere vote chasing? 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, merjet said:

Are they mere vote chasing?

Merlin,

Nope.

I'll say it, but I'm not sure you'll get it.

The big moment in President Trump's life every day is not when he finds a gotcha. It's when he builds something. He likes to produce, look at it and tell himself and others he did that, often with help from others who wanted to build it, too. Sometimes he slaps his name on it.

A massive number of Trump voters and supporters know that and love it. They couldn't give a crap about word games. When they have to interact with word-only warriors, they vastly prefer professional wrestling smack talk over gotchas.

When compared to actually building something, word jousting with gotchas is just not serious enough to bother with.

Michael

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

Nope.

My other question was: Why does President Trump seem concerned enough about climate change to say "nothing's a hoax" and do the two things I referenced to fight it?  

 

Link to comment
5 hours ago, merjet said:

My other question was: Why does President Trump seem concerned enough about climate change to say "nothing's a hoax" and do the two things I referenced to fight it?

Merlin,

I will look into it if you like, but my guess off the top of my head is that he is fixing a specific problem or other. Since he is saying so, I presume the problem he is targeting is not a hoax. (He's probably cleaning up some mess or other people caused.) So he says that is not a hoax when prompted.

At other times, you will see President Trump refer to manmade climate change as a hoax. In those instances, he is referring to the Obama form of extrapolating a doomsday scenario based on "settled science" so he can help degrade the US on the world stage, enter the US into a more global form of government, and make a killing from his carbon credits scam that tanked.

Now why would President Trump use the same expression, climate change, to mean two different things?

Open any dictionary and you will find there is more than one definition for almost every word in the English language. President Trump speaks English.

There is a difference between being a blatant hypocrite (outright lying) and simply using the meanings of words that best fit the context at the time one is speaking, even when such meanings clash with other meanings for the same words when used in other contexts.

Michael

 

EDIT: I was just watching a video by Scott Adams and learned that this whole narrative that Trump thinks climate change is not a hoax is a Bloomberg talking point, context-dropping and all. As this came out of nowhere, I wondered what was really going on. Now it makes sense. Money buys a lot, two billion dollars is a lot of money, and the fake news media is nothing but sell-outs...

Here's the video for those interested.

 

Link to comment

So, anyway, clearly Billy’s savior has nothing.

Do you have anyone better, Billy?

C’mon. There has to be someone who will actually try to answer the questions instead of running away from them, someone bright enough to come up with something other the stupidity of believing that we’re going to fall for the Tasty Stramed Octopus menu substitution.

You can’t all be that incompetent. Seriously, Billy, bring someone with a brain.

J

Link to comment

Billyboy is, cognitively,  a cripple.

Many tasks that seem simple are actually way beyond his capacities.

For example, he cannot reliably judge who does and who does not have a brain.

If he ever sounds intelligent, just notice the links attending the post in which you think he sounds intelligent. He has spent  the last few hours reading people who can think. Then he composes his post. Notice that he can never address follow-ups, never answers questions in his own voice. Instead, more links. He hides it well.

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

I will look into it if you like, but my guess ...

You failed to answer my question.

I’m not interested in your word games or your ploys to avoid my question.  I’m not interested in your method of trying to control the conversation so that you can dodge my question. Does that sound familiar? 

Link to comment
3 hours ago, merjet said:

You failed to answer my question.

I’m not interested in your word games or your ploys to avoid my question.  I’m not interested in your method of trying to control the conversation so that you can dodge my question. Does that sound familiar? 

It's familiar to me. Why are you throwing my words in MSK's face? Are you confusing the two of us, gramps?

J

Link to comment
44 minutes ago, Jonathan said:

Are you confusing the two of us, gramps?

No, idiot. The difference between a junkyard dog and a human being is stark.

Link to comment

 

The original MSK classic, along with my addition of Brad at the end:

 

Quote

It's like going into a small eatery and saying, "Do you have an ice cream cone?"

And the person says, "Here's some tasty steamed octopus."

You ask, "What about an ice cream cone?"

The person says, "Look at these green beans and mashed potatoes. How big a portion do you want?"

"But I want an ice cream cone."

"Well, you've come to the right place. Our mac and cheese is amazing."

"Don't you have ice cream cones?"

"Only stupid people think we don't have hamburgers."

"You really don't have ice cream cones?"

"True believer idiot. The dinner rolls are right in front of you. God, some people..." He throws a stack of menus in your face--ones that do not list ice cream cones...

And on it goes. It's amazing to watch.

 

Enter Brad:

"I apologize for my waiter’s temper, sir. Hi. I’m Brad. I’m the owner and cook here. Now, if I overheard correctly, you would like an ice cream cone. Is that correct? Yes? Well, I don’t want to go though the trouble of making one for you, only to then discover that I’ve wasted my time because it’s not what you really want. So, let’s first explore any grounds for disagreement that we might have. Please answer this question: Octopus is the primary ingredient in Tasty Steamed Octopus, yes or no?

J

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
On 2/9/2020 at 7:46 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I'll say it, but I'm not sure you'll get it.

 

10 hours ago, merjet said:

You failed to answer my question.

Merlin,

I did.

You didn't get it.

10 hours ago, merjet said:

I’m not interested in your word games or your ploys to avoid my question.  I’m not interested in your method of trying to control the conversation so that you can dodge my question.

Fine by me.

:)

Michael

Link to comment
4 hours ago, Jonathan said:

Enter Brad:

"I apologize for my waiter’s temper, sir. Hi. I’m Brad. I’m the owner and cook here. Now, if I overheard correctly, you would like an ice cream cone. Is that correct? Yes? Well, I don’t want to go though the trouble of making one for you, only to then discover that I’ve wasted my time because it’s not what you really want. So, let’s first explore any grounds for disagreement that we might have. Please answer this question: Octopus is the primary ingredient in Tasty Steamed Octopus, yes or no?

Jonathan,

LOL...

:)

That is a perfect analogy to Brad's contribution to the discussion in this thread.

:) :) :) 

Michael

Link to comment
On 2/8/2020 at 8:48 AM, Jonathan said:

I'm not interested in that type of exchange and distraction from my questions.

Im not interested in your ploys to avoid my questions and substitute them with your method of controlling the conversation so that my question can be dodged.

Not avoiding or dodging, it's about establishing a conversation based on understood and agreed upon points. You agreed Arrhenius hypothesized increasing co2 would cause warming. Do you agree that humans have increased co2 from 280-~415? There's no point in discussing things any further unless you can answer the question. After all, if you say they haven't, it's on you to offer a source of co2 that is causing levels to rise and let us know where fossil fuel emissions have gone. Or cry conspiracy that co2 levels aren't actually rising. So which is it?

1.Rising caused by humans

2.Rising caused by unknowns

3.All a conspiracy

Link to comment
11 hours ago, Jonathan said:

 

The original MSK classic, along with my addition of Brad at the end:

 

 

Enter Brad:

"I apologize for my waiter’s temper, sir. Hi. I’m Brad. I’m the owner and cook here. Now, if I overheard correctly, you would like an ice cream cone. Is that correct? Yes? Well, I don’t want to go though the trouble of making one for you, only to then discover that I’ve wasted my time because it’s not what you really want. So, let’s first explore any grounds for disagreement that we might have. Please answer this question: Octopus is the primary ingredient in Tasty Steamed Octopus, yes or no?

J

 

 

This analogy really demonstrates either

1. Your lack of understanding the subject in the least bit or

2. That you are a completely dishonest broker in this conversation.

Based on your tone, reliance on name calling, and complete refusal to answer a simple question that is very relevant to establish humans as the driver of the current climate, I'm going with #2.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, bradschrag said:

You agreed Arrhenius hypothesized increasing co2 would cause warming. Do you agree that humans have increased co2 from 280-~415?

As I thought about the "Ergo" you're trying for.

Your trap has no teeth - but I think you don't know that.

Ellen

Link to comment

I love filling up my Expedition. 30 gallons. Gas is cheaper in town, but up in the mountains I can spend over $100. It makes me feel good. Doing my part.

Last week I noticed two of my bikes had older—smelling fuel in them. Can’t have that. So I drained about five gallons of gasoline from them and left it out to evaporate. I wish I had more time to ride that out of them instead, but it’s ok, gasoline is cheap and hopefully a very good greenhouse vapor until it breaks down. People talk a lot. I’m doing real things to save us all from the coming ice age. Raise your hand if you enjoy sleeping in wool.

Link to comment

In fact, Brad, if you won’t answer whether you enjoy sleeping in wool I don’t see how this conversation can proceed.

Link to comment
On 2/8/2020 at 6:39 PM, Ellen Stuttle said:

The "Ergo" I think you're after doesn't follow.

Ellen

Brad didn’t have any reaction to that.

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