william.scherk

22,376 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



Here's the deal for the reader because this bickering is getting tiresome.

The unspoken issue is lying.

Climate scientists of the government-funded establishment sort have lied over and over and over, they have sold out their scientific integrity in so many ways it's not funny, and now they demand to be taken seriously.

Who can take that seriously? 

The con is being dismantled and now they are squawking.

These are not good people.

And I am getting bored...

Michael

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, bradschrag said:

Such a logical response to evidence.

Well try this.

I vote.

As to millions of others who think like I do.

We are going to take your government money away.

Keep snarking and posturing as your form of communication.

Let's see what you look like without sucking on the government teat.

Michael

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

Here's the deal for the reader because this bickering is getting tiresome.

The unspoken issue is lying.

Climate scientists of the government-funded establishment sort have lied over and over and over, they have sold out their scientific integrity in so many ways it's not funny, and now they demand to be taken seriously.

Who can take that seriously? 

The con is being dismantled and now they are squawking.

These are not good people.

And I am getting bored...

Michael

There are plenty of scientists not funded by the government. So try again with your conspiracy, but see if you can make it slightly believable next time.

Do you recall telling me that I must see myself as some sort of God, yet here you are determining who the good and bad people are. Interesting, to say the least. Get it?

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

We are going to take your government money away.

You still think I'm paid by the government. 

 

You really are a kook.

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, bradschrag said:

You still think I'm paid by the government. 

Look what I can do.

Where did the words go?

Hmmmm?

Michael

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, bradschrag said:

There are plenty of scientists not funded by the government. So try again with your conspiracy, but see if you can make it slightly believable next time.

We're still going to take the government funding for manmade climate change away--most of it, anyway. (That, of course, includes government funding for NGOs and think tanks, university programs, etc., that work in this area.)

Good for you if you can make do with those left and still preach your dogma and get taken seriously.

Michael

 

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, bradschrag said:

You still think I'm paid by the government. 

Maybe. Maybe not.

I know your church is paid for by the government.

And I know you preach like a good little disciple of your church.

Michael

Link to comment
30 minutes ago, bradschrag said:

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.

A set of observations? You really don’t understand the requirements of science at all, do you?

And you really are so confused as to believe nature changing the climate (a simple statement of fact) is religious.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Jon Letendre said:

A set of observations? You really don’t understand the requirements of science at all, do you?

And you really are so confused as to believe nature changing the climate (a simple statement of fact) is religious.

Jon,

I've kinda hogged this thread for a bit, but what the hell.

You find out what these people really think when you draw them out according to the stereotypes they harbor in their souls.

As you noticed, Brad doesn't do so well when he gets drawn out. (Me being the rube, of course. :) )

I learned back in middle school, ages ago, about forming hypotheses, then theories, then laws after due testing through trial and error under controlled conditions. That's what they called the scientific method when I was in school. Nowadays, people fling the word falsification around like a fast food meal coupon as if it replaced the scientific method for some reason. But still, even though this happens and falsification is a control system for propositions only, I believe the rest of the scientific method is not erased by it. 

I have yet to see this elementary level of understanding of what the scientific method is in any of Brad's posts.

The second thing, Brad treating the idea that nature changes the climate as some kind of religious thing, was just too silly to argue against. We live in a world where some people sever gender from biology and think it is assigned by society or whim, so why not have people who sever nature from changes in the climate?

The tiresome thing is that these errors in thinking that you noticed are already present as subtext in practically all of his earlier posts. That's what makes him go yawp yawp yawp and constantly land beside the point.

Trying to carry on an intelligent conversation with that kind of behavior as response can get irritating, then boring real fast.

But when I get feeling ornery out of boredom (or you or Jonathan or Ellen or Brant or any number of others here on OL), then the fun begins.

:)

But, God, couldn't some of these people who show up show some brains (rather than parroting) and show some elementary communication ability--like being able to answer questions with responses that are relevant to the questions?

Modern education sucks. It really does when you look at results like this.

Michael

Link to comment
3 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:

You really don’t understand the requirements of science at all, do you?

That's become painfully obvious.  What science education is coming to that we get something like Brad thinking he's being scientific.

Also:  Greenhouse gases don't "impede" energy transfer.  They act by re-radiation, not by interfering with convection.

Also:  MSK, I think that TMJ was being facetious.

Ellen

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

And you really are so confused as to believe nature changing the climate (a simple statement of fact) is religious.

To call it facts requires you to provide evidence of such happening. I'll wait.

Link to comment

 

8 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Look what I can do.

Where did the words go?

Hmmmm?

Michael

Not much I guess.

EDIT FROM MSK: You guessed wrong.

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

Look what I can do.

Where did the words go?

Hmmmm?

Michael

Thanks for letting me know that you have no issues editing what others post though.

Link to comment
9 hours ago, bradschrag said:

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.

Without water vapor . . .

--Brant

Link to comment
2 hours ago, bradschrag said:

To call it facts requires you to provide evidence of such happening. I'll wait.

This is stupid.  Before the industrial revolution nature didn't cause CC? The planet was climatically in a state of stasis? Also, the sun is outside of "nature"?

--Brant

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Brant Gaede said:

This is stupid.  Before the industrial revolution nature didn't cause CC? The planet was climatically in a state of stasis? Also, the sun is outside of "nature"?

--Brant

Red herring. We aren't taking about how the climate change before the industrial revolution. I've already covered the mechanisms that lead the planet in and out of ice ages. That mechanism is in the wrong sign (negative) to explain current changes and there is not record of changes happening as abruptly as they currently are. Go back and read what I told you about Milakovitch Cycles. Funny that you didn't think my reply was applicable then.

Link to comment
3 hours ago, bradschrag said:

Thanks for letting me know that you have no issues editing what others post though.

Brad,

Actually, I'm going to do better than that, except it's going to be a pain in the ass for me.

All of your future posts will now have to be reviewed by me before they will be published. Nobody will be able to see them. Only me. I will make sure to delete anything else inappropriate before letting them through.

Call it potty training for now.

Michael

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

Brad,

Actually, I'm going to do better than that, except it's going to be a pain in the ass for me.

All of your future posts will now have to be reviewed by me before they will be published. Nobody will be able to see them. Only me. I will make sure to delete anything else inappropriate before letting them through.

Call it potty training for now.

Michael

NOTE FROM MSK: Trolling text removed.

Link to comment
4 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

Also:  MSK, I think that TMJ was being facetious.

Ellen,

Man, I'm getting old...

All due apologies to T...

:)

Michael

Link to comment

Heh, np

I'm just vain enough to think my wit was being used to address Brad.

6 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Ellen,

Man, I'm getting old...

All due apologies to T...

:)

Michael

 

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

Call it potty training for now.

LOL...

This guy just made a post calling me a snowflake. Nothing more. Just that.

:)

Too bad I'm not going to let that one through.

People will see Brad's displeasure and trolling only if I decide to tell them about it.

:) 

Later when he's house trained, I will release the restriction. 

Control freaks sure hate it when they find out how little they control things among the people they consider their inferiors.

btw - I went ahead and approved his post, but with the trolling removed.

Michael

Link to comment

It occurs to me that restricting Brad for trolling might seem hamhanded. After all, what we say among ourselves gets a lot worse at times.

There's a difference, though. And it's tribal, to be frank.

We (meaning regulars and normal OL readers) have a good thing going here. We are here by attraction to ideas, with interest in Ayn Rand as a common ground starting point. This guy did not come here with any common ground or anything like that. He came here by invitation of William to dispense his climate change enlightenment on us unwashed savages, to see what he could get away with, then to later point to posts when he is among his peeps so they can laugh at us rubes.

I let it run. After all, many people here are smarter than me in many things and can easily deal with that kind of crap. But I see no reason to allow people like him to display gross disrespect to the traffic cop (me) while he's using this forum as a prop for his delusions and bad faith.

I have no intention to interfere in anything by regulars, or newbies or guests, for that matter. I'm just clipping the wings of toxic bad faith by one person who is not here in good faith before it becomes actual damage to the forum. I've seen this crap grow before, so I know what it looks like and what happens over time if left unchecked.

Sorry for any inconvenience. I'm doing the best I can according to the best thinking I am able to muster.

Michael

Link to comment

Okay, so how to sum up Brad’s return?

Let’s see. I asked about the details of the successful hypothesis which “settled” the science once and for all regarding anthropogenic climate change.

In response, first Brad substituted different questions that he liked better, and answered those instead: I had asked what the scientists who had achieved the successful model had identified, prior to making predictions and testing them, what length of time must be observed, and how was that length of time arrived at. Brad decided to pretend that I was asking what HE thought should be the proper duration, and not back prior to the predictions being made, but today, long after they’ve been made, and after reality as been observed in regard to those predictions.

I asked what percentage of warming mankind is responsible for, and, in response, Brad took two different positions at the same time. He didn’t identify a single hypothesis which represented either of those two positions, or any of the details and conditions of the predictions, durations or falsifiability of either of those positions, but rather just stated that it was what certain unnamed people believed.

Etc.

With all of Brad’s maneuvering, I think that the potency of my questions is clear, and it’s also clear why Brad, and Billy, are so opposed to answering them.

Distractions. Substituting their own distortions of my questions rather than answering mine. Pretending. Lying. Getting caught doing exactly what I’ve said they would do, and illustrating the need for my insistence on answering the questions that the scientific method demands.

QED.

J

Link to comment
26 minutes ago, Jonathan said:

illustrating the need for my insistence on answering the questions

Well, as part of a debate, it is necessary to see where each party doesn't agree. Cause of increasing atmospheric co2 is what?

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