bradschrag

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    128

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

 Content Type 

Blog Comments posted by bradschrag

    william.scherk

    Posted

    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.

    william.scherk

    Posted

    1 hour ago, Brant Gaede said:

    Without water vapor . . .

    --Brant

    Atmosphere won't hold much water vapor without non condensing greenhouse gases since the saturation pressure is highly temperature dependent. Remove the non condensing ghg and h2o would condense, rain out, surface would freeze, increasing albedo, reducing the insolation.

    https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/water-vapor-saturation-pressure-d_599.html

    william.scherk

    Posted

    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.

    william.scherk

    Posted

    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?

    william.scherk

    Posted

    1 minute ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

    Brad,

    Actually I haven't. I said scientists and I meant scientists.

    The peer-reviewed journals are full of their works.

    On the other hand, I know for a fact you mean priest when you use the term scientist.

    Since I don't belong to your religion, I don't resonate with your missionary work.

    Michael

    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.

    william.scherk

    Posted

    8 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

    T,

    Scientists invented the atomic bomb with lots of peer reviewed stuff and boy did they improve on that (each improvement peer-reviewed, of course). Scientists paved the way for different genocides in different places through peer reviewed eugenics. They addicted a huge hunk of society to artificial opiods through peer reviewed pain research (which, for some goddam reason left out the addiction component of the solutions). They supplied DARPA with weapons that would raise the hairs on your asshole , including lethal biochemical thingies you can't even imagine, all through peer-reviewed research. Scientists used large groups of peaceful humans countless times as unwitting lab rats (that's right, without their consent or knowledge) in peer reviewed studies. More recently, scientists have gone goofy and separated human gender from biology and attributed it to society through peer reviewed research. And on and on.

    Are these folks the betters and their peers you refer to?

    :) 

    And, to go the other way, scientists, through peer reviewed research have developed countless way of using fossil fuels that inject co2 in the air. Scientists have devised more and more powerful ways to strip mine mountains and destroy rain forests through peer-reviewed research. Scientists constantly butcher and torture animals for experiments and present their results in peer reviewed research papers. I could go on and on with things the left, including climate change fanatics don't like. I should, too, maybe, but I'm tired right now and don't feel like pulling more list items out of where the sun doesn't shine. The point is, these things are done by scientists all.

    Are these folks the betters and their peers you refer to?

    And how bout the sheer numbers of frauds, plagiarisms, hoaxes, lunacy like feminist studies, and so on--all done by so-called scientists and all peer reviewed?

    Our betters? These people?

    Come on...

    Dedication to science does not make a person moral or good--or even gain a lick of sense. So why should scientists be considered by default our betters and be privileged to treat humanity as livestock?

    Do you want to see how much better scientists and their peers are than us (to them) human cattle? Take away their government funding then see what's left. The good ones will find their way in society. The rest will result in a sorry-ass sight.

    Don't get me wrong. I love science and great scientists. And they have a super-important place in society.

    But our betters? Really? 

    I, for one, loathe the crap the elitists are doing with scientists in the name of science these days. Including manmade climate change pseudoscience.

    There are some good scientists in the climate field, but man have they been made to pay a price by the evil side.

    Speaking of which, the archetype of the evil scientist exists and has persisted down the centuries for a reason. Do you want to know why? Because evil scientists exist. And guess what? They do evil deeds and couldn't give a crap about the collateral damage (or intentional damage for that matter) to innocents.

    These people are not our betters. Ditto for their peers. Science does not turn a bad person into a good one and a gang does not do that either.

    Michael

    There's your conspiracies again. By the way, I think you've swapped the term scientist with corporation in your vocabulary. Enjoy your paranoia of scientists.

    william.scherk

    Posted

    7 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said:

    What fraction of climate doom research is on the sun, which does the warming?

    I'm not sure about fraction. After all, climate change is supported by numerous overcome from different disciplines -conscilience. Scientists that study the sun have gone on record plenty of times starting that it is not the sun. The rate of warming does not match any changes in output of the sun. For a period, cosmic rays were being thrown around as a possible controller of cloud cover. That has since been debunked.

     

    And again, what causes a change in temperature in a system is either changes to the incoming energy or changes to the outgoing energy. You can warm yourself by throwing an extra blanket on you, for example.

    william.scherk

    Posted

    46 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said:

    Do you want to rewrite that?

    Going too fast.

    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.

    william.scherk

    Posted

    2 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said:

    We could have hockey games on Equatorial Atlantic if there was no sun. I used to look at the sun when I was a preteen through a telescope and darkening lenses. There were lots of spots then, large ones. Other times there are no spots on the surface. The sun is quite dynamic. It is the source of all the warming here in the first place.

    Energy balance of the planet has to do with how well heat moves from source (the sun in this case) to the sink (space). Greenhouse gases impede that movement.

    william.scherk

    Posted

    2 hours ago, tmj said:

    often wonder if cutting down old growth rainforest and planting grazing grasses for cattle and dairy would make for more carbon capture , by acre , over just leaving the old growth in place.

    Old growth sequesters at a much lower rate than new growth trees. However, if comparing trees to something cyclic like crops, they inevitably don't sequester much since their carbon is released annually.

     

    2 hours ago, tmj said:

    an added question , would it be less or more greenhouse gassy to combust the cattle flatulence, would burning the farts be ,on net balance, more or less warmy ? Burnt methane or raw which is worse greenhouse gas wise?

    Since methane breaks down into co2 eventually in the atmosphere it's actually more beneficial to burn it immediately. Methane is a much more potent ghg than co2. This is in no way advocating lighting cow farts on fire, however there are gas flare stacks used in various places and refineries.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_flare

    william.scherk

    Posted

    9 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

    How many times has he asked about whether you believe humans are the cause of co2 blah blah blah? He even says it's pointless to talk about this stuff with you until you admit humans are the cause.

    There's no sense in moving on unless there is agreement because if he stated that humans aren't the cause of increasing co2 then we would need to address that first. It's unsurprising that this logical process eludes you.

    william.scherk

    Posted

    11 hours ago, Jonathan said:

     

    The original MSK classic, along with my addition of Brad at the end:

     

     

    Enter Brad:

    "I apologize for my waiter’s temper, sir. Hi. I’m Brad. I’m the owner and cook here. Now, if I overheard correctly, you would like an ice cream cone. Is that correct? Yes? Well, I don’t want to go though the trouble of making one for you, only to then discover that I’ve wasted my time because it’s not what you really want. So, let’s first explore any grounds for disagreement that we might have. Please answer this question: Octopus is the primary ingredient in Tasty Steamed Octopus, yes or no?

    J

     

     

    This analogy really demonstrates either

    1. Your lack of understanding the subject in the least bit or

    2. That you are a completely dishonest broker in this conversation.

    Based on your tone, reliance on name calling, and complete refusal to answer a simple question that is very relevant to establish humans as the driver of the current climate, I'm going with #2.

    william.scherk

    Posted

    On 2/8/2020 at 8:48 AM, Jonathan said:

    I'm not interested in that type of exchange and distraction from my questions.

    Im not interested in your ploys to avoid my questions and substitute them with your method of controlling the conversation so that my question can be dodged.

    Not avoiding or dodging, it's about establishing a conversation based on understood and agreed upon points. You agreed Arrhenius hypothesized increasing co2 would cause warming. Do you agree that humans have increased co2 from 280-~415? There's no point in discussing things any further unless you can answer the question. After all, if you say they haven't, it's on you to offer a source of co2 that is causing levels to rise and let us know where fossil fuel emissions have gone. Or cry conspiracy that co2 levels aren't actually rising. So which is it?

    1.Rising caused by humans

    2.Rising caused by unknowns

    3.All a conspiracy

    william.scherk

    Posted

    14 hours ago, Jonathan said:

    In other words, it's a test. You're testing whether or not there is agreement. Which means you're testing whether or not I'm worthy of having my questions answered. You're trying to make it about me. You're doing so because you have nothing. You can't answer the questions, and you don't want to try because the actual answers don't back up your opinions. Answering the questions would box you in, and take away your means of deception.

    J

    It's not about being "worthy". If there's disagreement then we can focus on that point of disagreement to try to better understand the arguments involved in each side. 

     

    Have humans driven concentrations from 285-~415?