william.scherk

22,446 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



14 hours ago, william.scherk said:

Scott Adams Solves the Climate Debate!

 

Great vid, Billy. Thanks for posting it. It's what I've been saying for, what, years now? I've identified what it would take to convince me and to change my mind. I've suggested openness and debate. Many others have done the same. The response has been no response (ahem). And I'm not talking about only here on OL, but everywhere.

One minor nit to pick about the video: I don't respond to assertions of scientific certainty with the attitude of immediately believing that it's "bullshit," but with the mindset of "show me." I ask to be able to review the science and to evaluate the success or failure of its predictions. Give me all of the information. What was the hypothesis, precisely what predictions were made, when were they made, what potential results were identified ahead of time as falsifying or invalidating the hypothesis, what were the start and finish dates of the experiment, what is the unmolested data, the untainted control, and the unmanipulated historical record?

My requests go unanswered, and only then do I begin to think "bullshit." When my requests, and the same made by others much more knowledgeable than I, begin to appear to be actively unanswered, I think "extra-bullshit."

Now, right back to whack-a-mole?

J

Link to comment

Wallace Smith Broecker death: Father of global warming who predicted rising carbon dioxide levels dies, aged 87

Quote

A scientist who raised early alarms about climate change and popularised the term “global warming” has died. Wallace Smith Broecker was 87.

The longtime Columbia University professor and researcher died Monday at a New York City hospital, according to a spokesman for the university’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory. Kevin Krajick said Mr Broecker had been ailing in recent months.

The renowned scientist brought the term “global warming” into common use with a 1975 article [Link added: https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu//files/2009/10/broeckerglobalwarming75.pdf] that correctly predicted rising carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere would lead to pronounced warming. He later became the first person to recognise what he called the Ocean Conveyor Belt, a global network of currents affecting everything from air temperature to rain patterns.

Mr Broecker said it is possible that warming caused by the buildup of greenhouse gases could be enough to affect ocean currents dramatically.

In 1984, he told a Congressional subcommittee that the buildup of greenhouse gases warranted a “bold, new national effort aimed at understanding the operation of the realms of the atmosphere, oceans, ice and terrestrial biosphere.”

[...]

Broecker's name and work has been noted here at OL over the last few years ...

 

 

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

...correctly predicted rising carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere would lead to pronounced warming...

Indeed, some of his predictions came true, and then they didn't. See, that's the part of real science where repeatability comes in. The idea isn't just to make some successful predictions, but to do so repeatedly and reliably.

Heh, but if we don't mention the failed predictions, maybe they didn't happen! And if we temporarily forget about repeatability, maybe readers won't notice!

Whack. Next mole, please? Bring it already. It's supposed to move much faster than this. The idea of Whack-A-Mole is speed and confusion, not one lethargic mole at a time. We should be overwhelmed rather than waiting for the next sluggish mole to bumble from its hole and just lie there resigned to getting whacked.

J

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

“However, these scientific and national security judgments have not undergone a rigorous independent and adversarial scientific peer review to examine the certainties and uncertainties of climate science, as well as implications for national security.”

 

OMG, they can't be serious! We don't have time for rigorous review and criticism! It's settled science that we can't wait to do actual science.

J

Link to comment

Not as kooky as AOC's belief that the world will end in 12 years, but close:

Kamala Harris: “In a Relatively Short Time, Portsmouth, NH Will Be Underwater” 

During a speech at the New Hampshire Institute of Politics on Tuesday, California Senator–and Green New Deal supporter– Kamala Harris had a dire warning for the Granite State: The city of Portsmouth will soon be underwater due to climate change.

https://www.insidesources.com/kamala-harris-in-a-relatively-short-time-portsmouth-nh-will-be-underwater/

 

And then there's Judy the science denier:

 Judith Curry Retweeted
Link to comment

That months-long Twitter thread noted above is still going, and Scott Adams is still on board with interesting questions about persuasion.

One of the stalwart participants is Jeff Segor.  He is working on an interesting database project, where arguments and questions lead to 'the science' ... if you are a Twitter user, you may want to follow his account.

A sneek-peek from Jeff this morning:

 

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

One of the stalwart participants is Jeff Segor.  He is working on an interesting database project, where arguments and questions lead to 'the science'

Will it ever actually arrive at the science? If so, please post it!

J

Link to comment

OMG, look at this! A giant bee that was extinct became unextinct because of man-made climate change! And the climate scientists predicted it years ago!

The world's largest bee is a big, black wasp-like insect as long as an adult's thumb, and it was extinct — or so scientists thought. The massive bee was rediscovered alive in Indonesia last month, decades after it was last seen.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/wallaces-giant-bee-megachile-pluto-once-thought-extinct-has-been-discovered-alive-on-island-in-indonesia/

 

It was settled science that it was extinct -- more than 97% consensus -- but now it's been seen alive again, so that can only mean that it somehow became unextinct (because the consensus can't be wrong), and the only way that that could happen would be through the power of man-made climate change, which is caused by, and can cause, anything and everything. Scientists predicted that weird, unexpected and extreme stuff would happen because of man-made climate change, and this is definitely weird, unexpected, and extreme, so, see? It's proof. We're definitely going in the direction of finding the road that leads to the path that leads to arguments and questions that lead to the science! Now if we can only sharpen our persuasion techniques!

J

 

Link to comment

People have forgotten about a bit of very important settled science from the past, and I think that we should get back to it:

 

Quote

 

The Population Bomb

The Population Bomb is a best-selling book written by Stanford University Professor Paul R. Ehrlich and his wife, Anne Ehrlich (who was uncredited), in 1968.[1][2] It warned of mass starvation of humans in the 1970s and 1980s due to overpopulation, as well as other major societal upheavals, and advocated immediate action to limit population growth. Fears of a "population explosion" were widespread in the 1950s and 1960s, but the book and its author brought the idea to an even wider audience.[3][4][5]

The book has been criticized since its publishing for its alarmist tone, and in recent decades for its inaccurate predictions. The Ehrlichs stand by the basic ideas in the book, stating in 2009 that "perhaps the most serious flaw in The Bomb was that it was much too optimistic about the future..."

 

 

As long as we need to take immediate action to stop Climate Doom™, we should also revive the immediate action on population control. We've lost focus and have let the issue slide. It's still an imminent threat. We can't just forget about it because Ehrlich might have gotten one or two minor details wrong. He was generally right, and, as he believes, his only mistake was in being too optimistic in his predictions. We need to act now!

J

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Jonathan said:

We need to act now!

Jonathan,

More regulations! More taxes! More government!

And may people learn to live off the land like people did in the good old days when milk and honey flowed from the stars like manna from heaven, the days before the Industrial Revolution ruined Planet Earth. The days when air and water existed.

After all, the science is settled, isn't it?

:) 

(btw - I find it a hoot you keep asking for actual repeatable science, but the only things that come are data compilations that look like science, but are mostly speculations that keep changing, except the more government part, and sundry measurements. :) )

Michael

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

Jonathan,

More regulations! More taxes! More government!

And may people learn to live off the land like people did in the good old days when milk and honey flowed from the stars like manna from heaven, the days before the Industrial Revolution ruined Planet Earth. The days when air and water existed.

After all, the science is settled, isn't it?

Yes!!! You get it, MSK! We need punishments.

 

2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

(btw - I find it a hoot you keep asking for actual repeatable science, but the only things that come are data compilations that look like science, but are mostly speculations that keep changing, except the more government part, and sundry measurements. :) )

Yeah, it seems that there's hope that I'll forget what I asked and be distracted by what I've pointed out doesn't fit the bill. Maybe a document dump that doesn't address the core issue will work today? Let's try it once again!

J

Link to comment

Why did it snow in Tucson today?

4 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:
6 hours ago, Jonathan said:

We need to act now!

More regulations! More taxes! More government!

More exclamation points!

4 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I find it a hoot you keep asking for actual repeatable science, but the only things that come are data compilations that look like science, but are mostly speculations that keep changing, except the more government part, and sundry measurements.

I recommend Spencer Weart's book (and AIP-affiliated website) "The Discovery of Global Warming" for those who sincerely want to have "The Science" brought to them, since it serves as a simple on-ramp to the very first stirrings of the AGWA beast in scientific literature.

It is not thrilling in the way a swashbuckler might be, but it will help anyone answer excellent 'beginner' questions such as "Where did all this nonsense first start -- what kind of 'sciencey' papers were published by whom, and where can I find them to look over myself?"  Or, "I hear talk talk talk about Tyndall. Did Tyndall do "The Science" or was he full of shit?"  Or, "Stop bringing up names and roll a trolley full of journal articles tabbed for the exact place "The Science" was published. Start with that fucking Leftwing grifter Arrhenius.  What the fuck did he ever do for "The Science?"  Or, better yet: "What is the foundation for the misunderstanding of  'extra' COemissions being responsible for more 'heat' in the atmospheric 'envelope'?  Which early works of grifter 'science' served as the bottom-most structure of the entire filthy and corrupt edifice of climatology?"

 

 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, william.scherk said:

Why did it snow in Tucson today?

More exclamation points!

I recommend Spencer Weart's book (and AIP-affiliated website) "The Discovery of Global Warming" for those who sincerely want to have "The Science" brought to them, since it serves as a simple on-ramp to the very first stirrings of the AGWA beast in scientific literature.

It is not thrilling in the way a swashbuckler might be, but it will help anyone answer excellent 'beginner' questions such as "Where did all this nonsense first start -- what kind of 'sciencey' papers were published by whom, and where can I find them to look over myself?"  Or, "I hear talk talk talk about Tyndall. Did Tyndall do "The Science" or was he full of shit?"  Or, "Stop bringing up names and roll a trolley full of journal articles tabbed for the exact place "The Science" was published. Start with that fucking Leftwing grifter Arrhenius.  What the fuck did he ever do for "The Science?"  Or, better yet: "What is the foundation for the misunderstanding of  'extra' COemissions being responsible for more 'heat' in the atmospheric 'envelope'?  Which early works of grifter 'science' served as the bottom-most structure of the entire filthy and corrupt edifice of climatology?"

 

 

I was very born and raised in Tucson. I've been here continually since 1995. I know why it snowed in Tucson today. I SAW IT COME DOWN! A dreadful sight, but glorious!

The record snowfall in this hot city is 5 inches, I've been told. Gone with the Sun.

On nearby Mt. Lemmon is the southern most United States ski facility. But don't come here for the skiing, go to Flagstaff. Or, better, COLORADO!

Next time ask the expert.

---Brant

I didn't tell you why it snowed in Tucson, that takes money I don't have (yet) but you do--I hope

we have a street in Tucson called "Tyndall"--I lived on it just west of the University of Arizona as a medium-sized boy (my old home destroyed by high-rised student housing--SOB!) in the early and mid-1950s

I swear upon the altar of God (eternal hostility over every form of tyranny over the mind of man) that every word I've written here is true

(My grandfather, Irving Brant, is responsible for that inscription inside the Jefferson Memorial)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
1 hour ago, william.scherk said:

I recommend Spencer Weart's book (and AIP-affiliated website) "The Discovery of Global Warming" for those who sincerely want to have "The Science" brought to them, since it serves as a simple on-ramp to the very first stirrings of the AGWA beast in scientific literature.

It is not thrilling in the way a swashbuckler might be, but it will help anyone answer excellent 'beginner' questions such as "Where did all this nonsense first start -- what kind of 'sciencey' papers were published by whom, and where can I find them to look over myself?"  Or, "I hear talk talk talk about Tyndall. Did Tyndall do "The Science" or was he full of shit?"  Or, "Stop bringing up names and roll a trolley full of journal articles tabbed for the exact place "The Science" was published. Start with that fucking Leftwing grifter Arrhenius.  What the fuck did he ever do for "The Science?"  Or, better yet: "What is the foundation for the misunderstanding of  'extra' COemissions being responsible for more 'heat' in the atmospheric 'envelope'?  Which early works of grifter 'science' served as the bottom-most structure of the entire filthy and corrupt edifice of climatology?"

William,

Wow. A strong attitude.

Maybe it will convert me overnight. Can you try to add a tad more intimidation in the tone? Who knows? It might work. 

:) 

I don't have as much patience to plow through this crap as Jonathan has, but I don't see the term "repeatable" popping up anywhere near the speculated conclusions. I keep seeing the conclusions change and computer models murmph murmph murmph murmph murmph... Lots of numbers and graphs and pictures... (I used to like the ones of the polar bears... :) )

Come to think of it, I never have seen the term "repeatable" popping up anywhere near the speculated conclusions in all the time I have seen people yelling at each other about climate change. Years of it... 

Maybe a new law will help...

:) 

Michael

Link to comment

First science ruined AGW so the advocates almost overnight switched to CC which is being ruined by boredom. At least the former was pretend science. The latter only rhetoric.

---Brant

surely you aren't a climate change denier?

surely you aren't an idiot!

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

Why did it snow in Tucson today?

Because of the Man-Made Climate Doom!!!!!!!!!!!!! Everything is proof of the Doom!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If it's hot, cold or average in Tucson, it's cited by alarmists as proof. On the other hand, when "deniers" use the same tactic, the alarmists are very quick to remind them that weather is not climate. The rules generally shift seasonally.

Quote

More exclamation points!

Aw, Billy's having feelings about punctuation. Poor dear. Sheath your interrobangs, everyone, lest he develop a case of the vapors

Quote

I recommend Spencer Weart's book (and AIP-affiliated website) "The Discovery of Global Warming" for those who sincerely want to have "The Science" brought to them...

Science is a real, specific thing, Billy, regardless of your disliking that fact and attempting to mock it. Your little act of posing as superior while trying to find a way around the scientific method isn't working here. Acting as if we're unreasonable for not letting you slough off the scientific burden of proof is a lame tactic. We're not imposing it on you, science itself is. That's the way that it works. And no, your reading recommendations are not a substitute for the science. They're yet another distraction. A wild goose chase.

 

Quote

It is not thrilling in the way a swashbuckler might be, but it will help anyone answer excellent 'beginner' questions such as "Where did all this nonsense first start -- what kind of 'sciencey' papers were published by whom, and where can I find them to look over myself?"  Or, "I hear talk talk talk about Tyndall. Did Tyndall do "The Science" or was he full of shit?"  Or, "Stop bringing up names and roll a trolley full of journal articles tabbed for the exact place "The Science" was published. Start with that fucking Leftwing grifter Arrhenius.  What the fuck did he ever do for "The Science?"  Or, better yet: "What is the foundation for the misunderstanding of  'extra' CO2 emissions being responsible for more 'heat' in the atmospheric 'envelope'?  Which early works of grifter 'science' served as the bottom-most structure of the entire filthy and corrupt edifice of climatology?"

Science is what it is, and your emotions aren't going to change it. Trying to skip steps in the scientific method is not science, but rather an admission of a failed hypothesis. Attempting to skirt the requirements of science, and to then whine when caught doing so, isn't the way that science works. We're not being bullies and meanies and denier poopyheads in adhering to the rules of science and not letting you substitute something else for them

Your distractions aren't working. After all this time, you still can't answer the challenge of presenting the science of repeatable, successful predictions.

J

 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

First science ruined AGW so the advocates almost overnight switched to CC which is being ruined by boredom. At least the former was pretend science. The latter only rhetoric.!

Billy posted a video which he likes to believe defeated the above claim. The video shows that someone decades ago used the term "climactic change" in a paper, and that therefore it has always been called climate change and not just global warming. So, we're supposed to forget what we experienced, and believe this fictional alternate history based on this one use of the term. We're also, apparently, supposed to forget that studies in climactic change at the time included theories that we were doomed to experience a new ice age.

Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia, see, here's a document from long ago which shows that Oceania was at war with Eastasia back then, therefore it has always been.

J

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

William,

Wow. A strong attitude.

Maybe it will convert me overnight. Can you try to add a tad more intimidation in the tone? Who knows? It might work. 

:) 

Billy has been preaching persuasion techniques, fairness, generosity, etc., but not practicing the preachings. I think that we're supposed to mind the sermons, not he.

J

Link to comment
16 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

I know why it snowed in Tucson today. I SAW IT COME DOWN! A dreadful sight, but glorious!

 

Spoiler

gfs_nh-sat1_t2anom_1-day.png

 

gfs_nh-sat1_ws250-snowc-topo_1-day.png

 

Link to comment

Tony Heller was tasked by Scott Adams ...

"Climate *SCIENCE* Challenge."  How did Tony Heller do (and more intriguingly, will Tony Heller tolerate any dissent at his blog?)?

5topArgymentsTonyHellerFeb22.png

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

Tony Heller was tasked by Scott Adams ...

"Climate *SCIENCE* Challenge."  How did Tony Heller do (and more intriguingly, will Tony Heller tolerate any dissent at his blog?)?

5topArgymentsTonyHellerFeb22.png

My heavens, how gauche this Heller chap is. Why, the silly man is talking about "the science." Tee hee hee. He acts as if he expects us to make predictions which then later succeed in reality, and succeed repeatedly, unerringly. It's madness, I say. 

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