Placeholder for GW/CC 'How I got here' thread

[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



1,166 Comments


Recommended Comments



28 minutes ago, bradschrag said:

There's no sense in moving on unless there is agreement because if he stated that humans aren't the cause of increasing co2 then we would need to address that first. It's unsurprising that this logical process eludes you.

Missionary,

It doesn't elude me.

It's refusing to play your frame control game (your logic only works within your frame). And I bet you know exactly what I'm talking about.

Or not...

:evil: 

Michael

 

Share this comment


Link to comment
1 minute ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

And I bet you know exactly what I'm talking about.

Or not...

No, I really don't. 

 

Whether humans have caused the increase in atmospheric co2 is a key component to whether or not humans are driving global warming. But I guess you know that.

  • Haha 1

Share this comment


Link to comment

We could have hockey games on Equatorial Atlantic if there was no sun. I used to look at the sun when I was a preteen through a telescope and darkening lenses. There were lots of spots then, large ones. Other times there are no spots on the surface. The sun is quite dynamic. It is the source of all the warming here in the first place.

Share this comment


Link to comment
2 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said:

We could have hockey games on Equatorial Atlantic if there was no sun. I used to look at the sun when I was a preteen through a telescope and darkening lenses. There were lots of spots then, large ones. Other times there are no spots on the surface. The sun is quite dynamic. It is the source of all the warming here in the first place.

Energy balance of the planet has to do with how well heat moves from source (the sun in this case) to the sink (space). Greenhouse gases impede that movement.

  • Haha 1

Share this comment


Link to comment
4 minutes ago, bradschrag said:

Energy balance of the planet has to do with how well heat moves from source (the sun in this case) to the sink (space). Greenhouse gases impede that movement.

Do you want to rewrite that?

Going too fast.

Share this comment


Link to comment
33 minutes ago, tmj said:

Pretty sure ppm concentrations of carbon and its  proven effects on global climate is the question.

"Proven"? But not proved.

--Brant

 

Share this comment


Link to comment
21 minutes ago, bradschrag said:

Energy balance of the planet has to do with how well heat moves from source (the sun in this case) to the sink (space). Greenhouse gases impede that movement.

How do you know so much while scientists know so little?

--Brant

  • Haha 1

Share this comment


Link to comment
14 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

How do you know so much while scientists know so little?

--Brant

Know so much?

Brad just said that greenhouse gasses impede the movement of energy from the sun to space. But they are literally in no place to do that. He meant another thing.

Share this comment


Link to comment
46 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said:

Do you want to rewrite that?

Going too fast.

True, a bit sloppy. The energy balance of any object has to do with how much it receives (in this case Earth receives energy from the sun) and how well it dissipates that heat (in this case Earth sheds heat to space). Greenhouse gases impede that lots of heat, causing the state to reach a equilibrium temperature with the heat source. Without greenhouse gases, the planet would be a snowball, with possibly a bit of liquid water at the equator.

Share this comment


Link to comment
1 hour ago, bradschrag said:

 The energy balance of any object has to do with how much it receives (in this case Earth receives energy from the sun)

The dynamic sun.

Share this comment


Link to comment
7 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said:

What fraction of climate doom research is on the sun, which does the warming?

I'm not sure about fraction. After all, climate change is supported by numerous overcome from different disciplines -conscilience. Scientists that study the sun have gone on record plenty of times starting that it is not the sun. The rate of warming does not match any changes in output of the sun. For a period, cosmic rays were being thrown around as a possible controller of cloud cover. That has since been debunked.

 

And again, what causes a change in temperature in a system is either changes to the incoming energy or changes to the outgoing energy. You can warm yourself by throwing an extra blanket on you, for example.

  • Haha 1

Share this comment


Link to comment
4 hours ago, tmj said:

Yep our betters and their peers.

T,

Scientists invented the atomic bomb with lots of peer reviewed stuff and boy did they improve on that (each improvement peer-reviewed, of course). Scientists paved the way for different genocides in different places through peer reviewed eugenics. They addicted a huge hunk of society to artificial opiods through peer reviewed pain research (which, for some goddam reason left out the addiction component of the solutions). They supplied DARPA with weapons that would raise the hairs on your asshole , including lethal biochemical thingies you can't even imagine, all through peer-reviewed research. Scientists used large groups of peaceful humans countless times as unwitting lab rats (that's right, without their consent or knowledge) in peer reviewed studies. More recently, scientists have gone goofy and separated human gender from biology and attributed it to society through peer reviewed research. And on and on.

Are these folks the betters and their peers you refer to?

:) 

And, to go the other way, scientists, through peer reviewed research have developed countless way of using fossil fuels that inject co2 in the air. Scientists have devised more and more powerful ways to strip mine mountains and destroy rain forests through peer-reviewed research. Scientists constantly butcher and torture animals for experiments and present their results in peer reviewed research papers. I could go on and on with things the left, including climate change fanatics don't like. I should, too, maybe, but I'm tired right now and don't feel like pulling more list items out of where the sun doesn't shine. The point is, these things are done by scientists all.

Are these folks the betters and their peers you refer to?

And how bout the sheer numbers of frauds, plagiarisms, hoaxes, lunacy like feminist studies, and so on--all done by so-called scientists and all peer reviewed?

Our betters? These people?

Come on...

Dedication to science does not make a person moral or good--or even gain a lick of sense. So why should scientists be considered by default our betters and be privileged to treat humanity as livestock?

Do you want to see how much better scientists and their peers are than us (to them) human cattle? Take away their government funding then see what's left. The good ones will find their way in society. The rest will result in a sorry-ass sight.

Don't get me wrong. I love science and great scientists. And they have a super-important place in society.

But our betters? Really? 

I, for one, loathe the crap the elitists are doing with scientists in the name of science these days. Including manmade climate change pseudoscience.

There are some good scientists in the climate field, but man have they been made to pay a price by the evil side.

Speaking of which, the archetype of the evil scientist exists and has persisted down the centuries for a reason. Do you want to know why? Because evil scientists exist. And guess what? They do evil deeds and couldn't give a crap about the collateral damage (or intentional damage for that matter) to innocents.

These people are not our betters. Ditto for their peers. Science does not turn a bad person into a good one and a gang does not do that either.

Michael

Share this comment


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

T,

Scientists invented the atomic bomb with lots of peer reviewed stuff and boy did they improve on that (each improvement peer-reviewed, of course). Scientists paved the way for different genocides in different places through peer reviewed eugenics. They addicted a huge hunk of society to artificial opiods through peer reviewed pain research (which, for some goddam reason left out the addiction component of the solutions). They supplied DARPA with weapons that would raise the hairs on your asshole , including lethal biochemical thingies you can't even imagine, all through peer-reviewed research. Scientists used large groups of peaceful humans countless times as unwitting lab rats (that's right, without their consent or knowledge) in peer reviewed studies. More recently, scientists have gone goofy and separated human gender from biology and attributed it to society through peer reviewed research. And on and on.

Are these folks the betters and their peers you refer to?

:) 

And, to go the other way, scientists, through peer reviewed research have developed countless way of using fossil fuels that inject co2 in the air. Scientists have devised more and more powerful ways to strip mine mountains and destroy rain forests through peer-reviewed research. Scientists constantly butcher and torture animals for experiments and present their results in peer reviewed research papers. I could go on and on with things the left, including climate change fanatics don't like. I should, too, maybe, but I'm tired right now and don't feel like pulling more list items out of where the sun doesn't shine. The point is, these things are done by scientists all.

Are these folks the betters and their peers you refer to?

And how bout the sheer numbers of frauds, plagiarisms, hoaxes, lunacy like feminist studies, and so on--all done by so-called scientists and all peer reviewed?

Our betters? These people?

Come on...

Dedication to science does not make a person moral or good--or even gain a lick of sense. So why should scientists be considered by default our betters and be privileged to treat humanity as livestock?

Do you want to see how much better scientists and their peers are than us (to them) human cattle? Take away their government funding then see what's left. The good ones will find their way in society. The rest will result in a sorry-ass sight.

Don't get me wrong. I love science and great scientists. And they have a super-important place in society.

But our betters? Really? 

I, for one, loathe the crap the elitists are doing with scientists in the name of science these days. Including manmade climate change pseudoscience.

There are some good scientists in the climate field, but man have they been made to pay a price by the evil side.

Speaking of which, the archetype of the evil scientist exists and has persisted down the centuries for a reason. Do you want to know why? Because evil scientists exist. And guess what? They do evil deeds and couldn't give a crap about the collateral damage (or intentional damage for that matter) to innocents.

These people are not our betters. Ditto for their peers. Science does not turn a bad person into a good one and a gang does not do that either.

Michael

There's your conspiracies again. By the way, I think you've swapped the term scientist with corporation in your vocabulary. Enjoy your paranoia of scientists.

Share this comment


Link to comment
3 hours ago, bradschrag said:

Whether humans have caused the increase in atmospheric co2 is a key component to whether or not humans are driving global warming. But I guess you know that.

Brad,

I know that's the claim made by those invested in the power-grab.

Frankly, I'm not convinced that the globe is warming (or the climate is changing, etc.) outside of what nature normally does. (And I've read a lot more than you probably think I have.) So arguing over whether humans are causing anything like that is, to me, like arguing about whether humans cause day and night to be longer or shorter.

Michael

Share this comment


Link to comment
1 minute ago, bradschrag said:

By the way, I think you've swapped the term scientist with corporation in your vocabulary.

Brad,

Actually I haven't. I said scientists and I meant scientists.

The peer-reviewed journals are full of their works.

On the other hand, I know for a fact you mean priest when you use the term scientist.

Since I don't belong to your religion, I don't resonate with your missionary work.

Michael

Share this comment


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

So arguing over whether humans are causing anything like that is, to me, like arguing about whether humans cause day and night to be longer or shorter.

Interesting that you equate discussing a phenomena that is validated by many independent branches of science to something completely kooky. Keep on reading, I guess.

Share this comment


Link to comment
1 minute ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Brad,

Actually I haven't. I said scientists and I meant scientists.

The peer-reviewed journals are full of their works.

On the other hand, I know for a fact you mean priest when you use the term scientist.

Since I don't belong to your religion, I don't resonate with your missionary work.

Michael

A religion is a set of beliefs. Science is a set of observations. You have a religious beliefs that nature is currently changing the climate. You have no observations or mechanisms to validate your beliefs.

Share this comment


Link to comment
Just now, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

You are interested?

Really?

I doubt it.

Michael

I find it very interesting. By that I mean hypocritical, but you demanded me to stop calling you that.

Share this comment


Link to comment
1 minute ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Exactly.

That's what you have. And that's all you have.

Michael

Such a logical response to evidence.

Share this comment


Link to comment

Guest
Add a comment...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...