[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.



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]



[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. 





Recommended Comments

22 hours ago, william.scherk said:

Here is an item from the Front Porch that contains a fair bit of sense in its general scope:

Someone might ask: "What is the climate of city (or settlement or area X)?"  Or, "How does the climate of city Y differ from the climate of city Z?"


There really is no global climate. There are regional climate regimes governed by latitude, topography, nearness to the oceans, the presence of forests and grasslands,   etc.  In general climate is warmer in the tropics which receive sunlight nearly directly than at the poles where the sunlight cames in aslant due to the tilt of the earth to the plane of the ecliptic.  The climate subsystems interact because heat is transferred from the higher temperature regions to the lower temperature regions by the oceans and atmosphere.  

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment

Elsewhere, a difference in focus ...

On 1/29/2019 at 12:37 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:
On 1/29/2019 at 9:19 AM, BaalChatzaf said:

Climate, roughly speaking is averaged weather.  By convention climate is a sequence of averages taken over a moving 30  year window.

Not in propaganda.

In propaganda, "climate" is a buzzword container for horror stories of universal planetary destruction. The point is to scare the shit out of the public so they will agree with a technocratic elite getting gobs of power over the entire planet, and, of course, all the money and sex that come with it.

Heat, clouds, rain, ice, atmosphere, the sun, etc., are mere details and of little importance to climate in a propaganda sense. 

Cool Earth imaging tool:  https://earth.nullschool.net/ (see also this link, which brings up a visualization of higher altitude atmospheric movement: https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/250hPa/orthographic=-79.77,47.60,320).

This video begins with a quick primer on how to use the visualization tool (from January 24, 2018):



Edited by william.scherk
Link to comment

I asked:

On 1/29/2019 at 9:31 PM, Jonathan said:

Is Limbaugh wrong? What would we need to know to answer that question?

When did alarmists begin citing polar vortices as proof of climate change? What, specifically are their predictions about them? When were the predictions first made?


No? No answers? No curiosity? Just tee hee hee? 


Link to comment

For another angle on the Jetstream and the Polar Vortex. HAARP!:


This video uses jetstream data to explain why the 2013 2014 winter was so long and cold in the USA. The Polar Vortex was not a natural event, it was a man-made act of weather warfare, with TWO goals:
1) accelerate the arctic melting by driving warm air from asia into the arctic
2) do psychological warfare on the american people, to stop any discussion of global warming, by creating an artificially cold and icy winter.

The polar vortex was a success on both accounts, as it has constantly pushed warm air into the arctic, since October, 2013.

Also, anyone who discusses global warming is laughed at in the US now. The "monkey see, monkey do" effect is alive and well in the mentally challenged United States.

In fact, the arctic methane catastrophe is very near the doomsday tipping point, with the arctic methane emissions increasing perhaps, ten-fold, each summer. This summer (2014), or next, could be the death knell for planet earth, as described by Sam Carana's excellent website: http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/

The survival of planet Earth depends on stopping the HAARP transmitters RIGHT NOW! Any more delay may push the arctic over the tipping point, into exponential, unstoppable, methane release.

In the last 300 years, only 3 gigatons of methane have been released by ALL of human activities, and that methane caused half of the global warming since 1750. The melting arctic is beginning to QUICKLY release 5,000 gigatons of methane in the next few decades.

The most grave and urgent assignment for all political leaders MUST be to STOP THE HAARP HEATING OF THE ARCTIC!!! If HAARP is not stopped immediately, mankind, along with 95% of life will be extinct in the very near future, caused by the extreme temperature increases that WILL happen in coming decades.



Link to comment

I wrote:

19 hours ago, Jonathan said:

I asked:

   On 1/29/2019 at 9:31 PM,  Jonathan said: 

Is Limbaugh wrong? What would we need to know to answer that question?

When did alarmists begin citing polar vortices as proof of climate change? What, specifically are their predictions about them? When were the predictions first made?


No? No answers? No curiosity? Just tee hee hee? 

Bueller? Bueller? Bueller? Bueller? Bueller? Bueller? Bueller?

I had heard that this was going to be the "Year of the Arctic!” here on OL, with “robust arguments” and donation prizes, excitement galore, and unbound enthusiasm for exploring, learning and lecturing all about arctic climate and its contributions to and indicators of the DOOM. Let’s see what we know, and have sleepover parties, and write essays, and scrapbook our favorite scary pictures of Earth on fire.

But, suddenly, no interest whatsoever in my questions about the history and accuracy of predictions of alarmists’ uses of the issue of polar vortices? WTF? Why is that? Did I not know the rules? Were we supposed to limit ourselves to looking at only what we would be guided to look at, and to dare not consider any larger context or history? What gives? Why the 180? How did we go from full throttle to zero in half a second?


Link to comment

Okay, so, the Year of the Arctic has been canceled?

That was fucking quick.

What's next? Let's move it along already. What's the next ploy to avoid dealing with the absence of presenting the science?


Link to comment

More from Judy the denier who hates science and probably deserves to be killed:


Link to comment
On 2/8/2019 at 11:21 AM, Jonathan said:

More from Judy the denier who hates science and probably deserves to be killed:


Judith Curry is a top of the line atmospheric physicist and has written the basic text on Atmospheric thermodynamics.  Curry does science.  The Climatistas do models and poor models at that. The IPCC  in its CMIP=5 bundle has produced shit.   Humans do affect climate but the IPCC climatistas have not modeled climate anywhere near correctly.  The difference between Curry and you  is that she knows thermodynamics thoroughly  and you don't.


Link to comment
3 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:
On 2/8/2019 at 8:21 AM, Jonathan said:

More from Judy the denier who hates science and probably deserves to be killed:


Judith Curry is a top of the line atmospheric physicist [...]

Jonathan is -- I think -- spoofing a spitting-mad anti-Curry person who may appear in his nightmares (in other words, the quote above is not Jonathan speaking his own opinion).

Of course, assigning to a tribe is one of those things humans tend to do when speaking in general terms. 


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

Jonathan is -- I think -- spoofing a spitting-mad anti-Curry person who may appear in his nightmares (in other words, the quote above is not Jonathan speaking his own opinion).

In my nightmares? No. They exist in reality. Flesh and blood. They are your "consensus scientists." They no like Judy.



Link to comment

☎ ⚡ ⚗

The "Contrarian Matrix" is a fun set of talking points, all put in one place.


In other argle-bargle news from Twitter, Scott Adams has been participating in a long discussion thread that might provide interest or entertainment to folks who 'keep up with the Joneses.' The threaded discussions started back at the end of December 2018. You can hop in to spectate at this link (the thread breaks here and there).



... and has continued up until this point:


Link to comment

Oh, no! If that's what they're predicting, then it must necessarily come true. Because that's the way that science works: Any predictions that scientists make and believe in really really hard absolutely must come true. So, we're doomed.

So, thanks for sharing that, Billy. You've reached me, you've changed my mind. Now I'm convinced. Never mind those old requests of mine about showing us the science, the successful predictions, and all of that nonsense. The link that you posted makes all of that junk unnecessary.


Link to comment

Who should we sacrifice first in order to prevent the Doom™? What's the scientific consensus?

And they should probably be tortured before being killed, right?


Link to comment

"If you want to argue with the imaginary  people in your head, that's fine. Enjoy yourself. But why do it here? We aren't seeing and hearing them, so when you respond to what you think they're saying, it just sounds crazy to us."


Link to comment

Hi Billy! So, you're feeling up to responding to my posts now? Cool!

Are you ready to show me the science?

No? I didn't think so.

Carry on with the enecdotal distractions song and dance.


Link to comment

Top 10 climate change myths

-- some excellent sourcing by the video maker.  


SOURCES: There are way too many sources listed in each of my videos, and they won't fit in the space alotted by YouTube for the video description. So I have just listed a dozen or so only. For the rest, please go to the video on my channel that deals with the relevant myth, for which I have pasted the title and URL. For other myths, such as "The hockey stick has been faked" (dealt with in my video 'The Medieval Warm Period - fact vs. fiction') please watch the climate change series. All the top myths are there.

MYTH #1 -- All sources, such as Atthenius 1896, are already shown in the video itself.

MYTH #2 -- I go into more detail in my video "Climate Change -- Isn't it natural?" -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5hs4... Sources are listed in the video description.

MYTH #3 -- Causes for the drop in CO2 and the onset of an ice age in the late Ordovician:
"Bathymetric and isotopic evidence for a short-lived late Ordovician glaciation in a greenhouse period"
-- Brenchley et al, Geology; April 1994
"Reconciling Late Ordovician (440 Ma) glaciation with very high (14X) CO2 levels"
-- CROWLEY T. J. ; BAUM S. K., Journal of Geophysical Research 1995
"An atmospheric pCO2 threshold for glaciation in the Late Ordovician"
-- M. T. Gibbs et. al, Geology; May 1997
"A weathering hypothesis for glaciation at high atmospheric pCO2 during the Late Ordovician."
-- L.R. Kump et al, Palaeoclimatology alaeogeography Palaeoecology 1999
"Long-lived glaciation in the Late Ordovician? Isotopic and sequence-stratigraphic evidence from western Laurentia"
-- M. R. Saltzman,S. A. Young, Geology; February 2005

MYTH #4 -- I explain the relationship between solar output and CO2 during the Phanerozoic in more detail in my video "Monckton Bunkum -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpF48...
Sources are in the video description

MYTH #5 -- Examples of papers that have looked at the sun as a factor in climate change:
"Unusual activity of the Sun during recent decades compared to the last 11,000 years"
-- S.K. Solanki et al, Nature Sep 2004
"Can solar variability explain global warming since 1970?"
-- S. K. Solanki and N. A. Krivova, Journalof Geophysical Research, May 2003
"Solar Activity and the Mean Global Temperature"
-- A.D. Erlykin et al, Physics Geo 2009
"Solar trends and global warming"
-- R. Benestad and G. Schmidt, Journal of Geophysical Research July 2009
"How natural and anthropogenic influences alter global and regional surface temperatures: 1889 to 2006"
-- J. Lean and D. Rind, Geophysical Research Letters, Sep 2008
"Recent changes in solar outputs and the global mean surface temperature. III. Analysis of contributions to global mean air surface temperature rise"
-- M. Lockwood, June 2008

MYTH #6 -- Milankovitch cycles are explained in more detail in my video "Does CO2 lead or lag global temperature?" https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...

MYTHS #7 and #8 -- All sources in the video description of my video "Does CO2 lead or lag global temperature?" https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...
CORRECTION: At 10:57 I say "a wobble in the earth’s axis and orbit that allows more sunlight to hit the Earth." I should have said the sunlight hits part of the Earth during a particular season.

MYTH #9 -- All sources in the video description of my video "Are humans contributing only 3% of CO2 in the atmosphere?" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcmCB...

MYTH #10 -- See my videos "Global warming has stopped? Again??" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qbn1r... and "Response to "The Global Warming Hoax Lord Monckton & Stefan Molyneux" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LiZlB...



Link to comment
4 hours ago, william.scherk said:

Billy, do you think that the video follows this advice:



How to compose a successful critical commentary:

You should attempt to re-express your target’s position so clearly, vividly, and fairly that your target says, “Thanks, I wish I’d thought of putting it that way"...


Or does it play the sly little games of caricaturing, straw-manning, and context-substituting?



Link to comment

Turdeau really liked Butts, but Butts gots to go, even though he dindu nuffin:


Gerald Butts resigns as Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's principal secretary

On his way out, of course he had to promote the DOOM™:

A well-known policy wonk, Butts has been a vocal defender of the government's Canada Child Benefit and an advocate for carbon pricing as a solution to climate change...

...In his resignation letter, Butts said he hoped fighting global warming "becomes the collective, non-partisan, urgent effort that science clearly says is required. I hope that happens soon."

So, I had heard claims that global warming is "settled science," and also that the blame being mankind's is "settled science," but I had not heard that it had been scientifically settled that there's DOOM™ right around the corner, that we're on the fucking verge, that a collective, non-partisan urgent effort involving carbon pricing is "required." When did that become what science "clearly says"? Where can I review that science?

Is it the same place that I can review all of the other unsuccessful predictions behind the "settled science"?


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