william.scherk

22,381 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



30 minutes ago, bradschrag said:

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

Your foundation is missing.

--Brant

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

Your foundation is missing.

--Brant

In what way? We have observations of increasing co2 through various methods. It's best to establish what that driver of increased concentrations is.

Link to comment
14 minutes ago, bradschrag said:

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

I'm not participating in a debate. Where did you get the idea that it was a debate?

Pay attention: Billy asked what it would take to change our minds on the issue of anthropogenic climate change. I answered. I named my conditions. I simply explained that I'd need to see the details of the scientific method being followed, and I listed specifically what that would mean. Identify and define the single successful hypothesis, the duration of the observations, how that duration was chosen, identify the predictions, the specific conditions of falsifiability, independent repeatability and validation, etc., etc.

I didn't ask for a debate. I didn't ask for douchebags to try to talk me into opting for a different method of what would convince me.

But, anyway, regarding your statement above, no -- bullshit -- it is not necessary to see where each party agrees or disagrees. All that is needed is for you to state your case, define it, and support and defend it.

That's all that my questions represent.

Answer the questions. Stop trying to push the distraction of setting up a "debate."

J

 

Link to comment
21 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

Your foundation is missing.

--Brant

Exactly.

Brad is sniping. He's trying to force the discussion in a direction where he hopes that he'll be able to find chinks in my armor. He is refusing to identify his foundation -- the definitions, terms and conditions that I'm asking him to identify -- and he's focused on trying to target what he hopes might be my beliefs.

J

Link to comment

Brian’s advice applies here:

 
 
Brian Cates // Digital Soldier for Flynn
 
 
This is what you need to remember about these people who still make up the die hard Democratic base: THEY KNOW THEY ARE LYING TO YOU. I see a whole lot of Conservatives **wasting their time** trying to convince someone who KNOWS they are lying...that they are lying.
12:34 PM · Feb 12, 2020
 
 
 
Link to comment

People don't waste time lying about about the fate of the planet and how humanity can atone for it, they usually get something for it.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, tmj said:

People don't waste time lying about about the fate of the planet and how humanity can atone for it, they usually get something for it.

T,

It does make one wonder, doesn't it?

Ellen suggested the incentive might be romance (bimbo in distress kind of thing in this case :) ), I have posited it is religion and/or vanity, others bounce back and forth between stupidity and dishonesty, now you bring up money (by insinuation).

We don't know for sure until we know, but money sounds awfully good for this much effort out of this guy...

Who knows? Maybe it's all of the above.

There is one thing I am sure it is not. That is passion for discussing the scientific method applied to climate, or to anything for that matter.

:) 

Michael

Link to comment
On 2/12/2020 at 11:25 AM, bradschrag said:

In what way? We have observations of increasing co2 through various methods. It's best to establish what that driver of increased concentrations is.

You took a conclusion, increase in CO2 causes climate  change (AGW), then went fact shopping calling it science.

The science, the foundation, is missing.

--Brant

 

Link to comment
7 hours ago, Jonathan said:

Exactly.

Brad is sniping. He's trying to force the discussion in a direction where he hopes that he'll be able to find chinks in my armor. He is refusing to identify his foundation -- the definitions, terms and conditions that I'm asking him to identify -- and he's focused on trying to target what he hopes might be my beliefs.

J

That'd be a theological discussion.

--Brant

Link to comment
On 2/11/2020 at 10:09 AM, Jonathan said:

do you have any insights as to why Trump has changed his position?

 

On 2/11/2020 at 12:38 PM, merjet said:

Do you? Ask MSK, moron. Maybe he'll tell you what he pretends to know about what's on Trump's mind.  He didn't or wouldn't tell me anything relevant. Mere word games and smoke screens. Nothing about planting trees or bigger subsidies.

Still no answers.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, merjet said:

 

Still no answers.

That's false. MSK answered your questions.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, merjet said:

 

Still no answers.

Btw, Merlin, don't you have something better do in your doderage?

Isnt there another Wikipedia page that you can destroy with your stupidity?

Link to comment
On February 12, 2020 at 4:53 PM, tmj said:

People don't waste time lying about about the fate of the planet and how humanity can atone for it, they usually get something for it.

Why would someone pay a person who isn't even competent at basic logic to post to a non-receptive audience on a thread which averages fewer than 20 reads per post?  A waste of money.

Ellen

Link to comment
34 minutes ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

A waste of money.

Ellen,

You can say that again.

People who would fund that are the kind who might pay, say, 14 million dollars for a report that said Trump hired prostitutes in Moscow to pee on a bed the Obamas slept in.

These people love to waste their money.

btw - Fewer than 20 reads per post? Where did you get that stat? Educated guess? I don't know how to get views per post. I don't even get views per thread, although I might be able to find out where to turn that on in the backoffice. (For the record, your guess sounds good to me, maybe even a little high since this thread is in William's blog and, from a general impression I have garnered over time, blog threads on OL don't seem to get the same luv from the search engines that normal threads do.)

Anyway, it's easy to see number of points per poster over time, although I'm not sure what these points are (maybe likes).

Here is the Leaderboard stats for top points during the month from January 14 to February 14.

image.png

Guess who's at top?

Busy busy busy...

:)

Michael

Link to comment
22 hours ago, Jonathan said:

That's false. MSK answered your questions.

 

21 hours ago, Jonathan said:

Btw, Merlin, don't you have something better do in your doderage?

Isnt there another Wikipedia page that you can destroy with your stupidity?

Ha ha ha  ha ha ha.  

You are still a lying, obnoxious ignoranus.  
 
Doderage? Are you senile?
 
Here's your chance to improve or mutilate Wikipedia.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coin_rotation_paradox  Edit the page to explain why the phenomena happens.  I bet you can't do so correctly and without help. But you can show your stupidity to many people not on OL.
Link to comment
5 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

Why would someone pay a person who isn't even competent at basic logic to post to a non-receptive audience on a thread which averages fewer than 20 reads per post?  A waste of money.

Ellen

My thought wasn’t directed solely at Brad and not necessarily only about money.

Gore and Gore-like people do it to fleece money from the ‘system’ , Hollywood type virtue-signalers are probably motivated by an inherent narcissism. And they need their parrots to help move masses to accept the building of the ‘system’ or even to just be complacent enough to not fight back against the building . 

  • Like 2
Link to comment

Oh no! The Coin Rotation “Paradox” 😆

But Merlin, what is there for Jonathan to explain? It is right there in the article, there are two motions involved. That’s why you find it novel and troublesome, because there is so much going on at once and your brain cannot track it all.

Link to comment

Views is at the very top, below the top graphic, top page, 17,880

Post count is directly above recommended posts, 1,093

Views per comment, 17,880 / 1,093 = 16

Link to comment
3 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:

Oh no! The Coin Rotation “Paradox” 😆

Indeed.

From the wiki page that Merlin posted:

Quote

The coin rotation paradox is the counter-intuitive observation...

Counter-intuitive to whom? Counter-intuitive to the visuospatially and mechanically inept, and therefore to everyone?

Apparently Merlin finds it paradoxical. Not surprising.

J

Link to comment

Billy? Are you okay? Still alive?

I see that your Twitter account is suspended. What is up with that?

J

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
8 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

Why would someone pay a person who isn't even competent at basic logic to post to a non-receptive audience on a thread which averages fewer than 20 reads per post?  A waste of money.

Ellen

For ego fun.

--Brant

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Jonathan said:

Billy? Are you okay? Still alive?

I see that your Twitter account is suspended. What is up with that?

J

 

They disinfected.

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