bradschrag

Members
  • Content Count

    128
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

Everything posted by bradschrag

  1. You asked for repeatable science won't acknowledge the basics. I provided a plot of radiative transfer models that you said you don't understand. I get that and sounds like to help you understand what it represents. After all, it's repeatable. Let me know when you are interested in learning.
  2. Well when you're done staring at a single puzzle piece, wondering out it might relate to the whole puzzle, let me know. Not going to try to convince it's part of a bigger picture.
  3. Interesting. You have no issue with OL readers treating newcomers this way. Why isn't this a 2-way street? Nevermind that, where are you at on the effective planet temperature Michael. Are you ready to move onto the greenhouse effect yet or still clinging to why all of it is relevant?
  4. Sorry, you don't know me and you really shouldn't try speaking for me. I don't really don't care if you are impressed by me or anything I have to say. My intent isn't to garner followers. I'm only trying to illustrate, currently, what the greenhouse effect is so we can move forward in the conversation. No point in jumping to radiative transfer models when there is ignorance on what they represent.
  5. Because we have to start at the beginning. If I just jump into the greenhouse effect, but you don't understand what it is or its relevance, then it isn't going to matter. With pictures, absolutely. Unfortunately I can't post any diagrams here. I'm not too familiar with it, but I'll take your word for it. Now what questions do you have about what I said in regards to effective temperature? If effective temperature makes sense, why is it that the planet is about 33C warmer than the effective temperature?
  6. As I said, can't make you drink. http://www.easterbrook.ca/steve/2009/06/getting-the-source-code-for-climate-models/ Did you badger your teachers for not answering the test questions for you too?
  7. I scrolled back up, he did say the conflict is political, so perhaps you are right. He went onto say it (CC) has nothing to do with science. This is wrong on his part, however maybe i read into it too much that the implication was the CC is political.
  8. Can't make you drink, can only show you the water: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=general+circulation+model+code&t=lm&atb=v1-1&ia=web All your questions can be answered if you even tried to look.
  9. I'm not the one who was calling fraud because a plot was posted that came all the way to this year. I'm happy to talk about whichever of those times you have questions about. So before you go answering questions for me that you ask of me how about you try honest debate. Ask a question and see if I'm interested in answering, rather than just giving a "but only..... and not.... Convenient" bullshit. That's how science, and debate, works.
  10. Equivocation fallacy. That something is used politically doesn't mean that the thing is political. Science isn't founded upon politics even though politicians might rely on it.
  11. I was replying to your comment about models. There's also code out there for adjustments. There's also raw data available for download. You don't seem to be honestly trying to learn anything here.
  12. This is why I asked the questions. Some layman are familiar with the concepts. A simple, let's start before that would have sufficed. So, let's start before that, and fair warning, this might get lengthy. Going to try to cover a number of bases here. When it comes to heat transfer, there are 3 basic modes: conduction, convection, and radiation. Of these 3, only 1 is how the earth receives and loses heat - radiation. Simply put, you can't conduct or convect energy to a vacuum, you can only send it (or radiate it) through the vacuum. All objects radiate heat, but the wavelength and qua
  13. Yep, and the code is generally open source, downloadable, and available for any and all to scrutinize. No it isn't. Calling it political is a straw man. I don't see where you offered any science. Did I miss it?
  14. Not sure I quite understand your question, but I'm going to guess that you are asking me to clarify my position on whether or not humanity is causing climate change. Yes, humans are influencing the climate and the rate at which it's currently happening exceeds previous abrupt climate change scenarios that resulted in mass extinction events.
  15. I think I understand just fine that you want to make it about some thing that didn't exist. It's a convenient way to avoid discussing what is actually happening.
  16. Perhaps you'll enjoy this article, written by a skeptic: https://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/26/opinion/a-pause-not-an-end-to-warming.html A statistical pause doesn't exist in the record, especially when viewed on a climate time period (30 yrs or more). Even the worst case 10yr cherry pick might reveal at best no warming, but that doesn't mean the warming has paused, given the fact that the trends of the discussion are longer than 10 years. I'm curious, if I concede to you that there was a pause, what do you think that invalidates? The greenhouse effect? Conservation of energy? Hone
  17. That's irrelevant to whether or not you feel the plot should be trimmed somewhere. The plot represents what is happening to the surface temperatures currently. That you want to trim it down to validate a false claim is known as: - Cherry picking - Red herring and/or -Straw man Take your pick. Regardless, it a logical fallacy.
  18. Yeah, sorry about that. Sometimes, since I primarily tweet from mobile, some interpretation is required. bed -> need So where to start. Are we in agreement that the GHE is the reason that the earth is over an effective temperature of 255K, or do we need to back track further?
  19. I wasn't aware the only way to be honest was to avoid reality. Where do you think the chart should stop?
  20. I'd start simple, and that's the radiative transfer models. The equation for them was derived long before there was computing power to plot it, much less satellites to observe it. But once technology caught up, it was safe to say the models are validated.... And I can't upload anymore so here's a link https://twitter.com/BradSchrag/status/1104750783357247488?s=19
  21. Nope. What in seeing use that to some contrarians, they made a mountain out of a mole hill that was a super El Nino followed by a stratospheric volcanic eruption and labeled it as a pause. Cooling (short term) always follows an El Nino and stratospheric eruptions cause short term cooling as well. There are other metrics that we can use to see what is happening in the system such as ocean heat content. It also shows there was nothing resembling a pause.
  22. Actually, no it doesn't. What you see "see" use not what the statistics reveal. This is why we don't rely on human perception, rather objective facts, for science. Same plot, sans 1997-1999, where's your pause?