Page 87 of 210 FirstFirst ... 377783848586878889909197137187 ... LastLast
Results 2,151 to 2,175 of 5238
  1. #2151
    Veteran DarrinS's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    41,654

  2. #2152
    Veteran DarrinS's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    41,654
    DarrinS dodges again.
    Scientists should disclose their funding, whether it's Exxon or Greenpeace

  3. #2153
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    22,829
    Wow. Nice meltdown. I think I'll express my own opinions, thankyouverymuch.

    In terms of the warming trend of the 20th century and the lack of trend since 1998, I have no opinion. The data speaks for itself. Saying that it warmed in the 20th century by about 1 degree, AND that there's no statistically significant warming in the past 15 years or so, is completely consistent with the data.
    So all three are true at the same time. Between this and the pedo-stalkeresque "did you know that I used to be a AGW believer like you"line, you are one creepy dude.

    Did you read the Politico piece about Soviet style disinformation campaigns that I linked in another thread? You made me think of the people and methods the author describes:

    “There is no such thing as objective reporting,” the managing editor of RT, Alexey Nikolov, told me when I interviewed him in 2013. By then, I was based in London again, working in think tanks, and Nikolov met me in his bright, large office at RT’s Moscow HQ. A veteran international reporter, he spoke near perfect English and sat at the top of a very long desk wearing a knowing smile. In the corner was a Kalashnikov, a collector’s item from one of his reporting adventures. “Does it scare you?” he half-joked, when he caught me looking at it.

    “But what is a Russian point of view? What does Russia Today stand for?” I asked.

    “Oh, there is always a Russian point of view,” he answered. “Take a banana. For someone it’s food. For someone else it’s a weapon. For a racist it’s something to tease a black person with.”

    And there you have it: Russia’s opportunistic foreign policy, all wrapped up in a banana metaphor. Thus the Kremlin preaches non-intervention and sovereignty while defending Assad, yet uses the reverse position to justify the invasion of Georgia and annexation of Crimea. Thus it warns against American exceptionalism while claiming that Russia has a special mission to rule over and enlighten its “near abroad.” The Russian point of view is anything the Kremlin wants it to be.

    During the conflict over Ukraine, disseminating “a Russian point of view” has increasingly meant helping Russian military and intelligence operations. For example, after Moscow-supported rebels in East Ukraine shot down a Malaysian Airlines jet in July, RT spat out a mul ude of conspiracy theories (from claims that the real target of the attack was Putin’s personal plane to assertions that Ukrainian fighter jets were behind the tragedy), in order to direct attention away from the real perpetrators. Another infamous RT story featured a supposed RAND Corporation do ent, in which the think tank advises Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko to ethnically cleanse eastern Ukraine, bomb it heavily and place locals in internment camps. The fact that the do ent was found on the fringe conspiracy web-site Before It’s News should have alerted any news editor as to its lack of credibility—but the story found its way onto RT. (It was subsequently removed from the news site proper (after it had been broadly viewed), but continued to be referenced by RT’s opinion contributors.

    Some of these tricks smack of an updated model of Active Measures, the Soviet era KGB-run disinformation and psychological warfare department designed to confuse and disorganize the West. Active Measures employed an estimated 15,000 agents at the height of the Cold War, part of whose brief was to place forgeries in international media. Stories ranged from “President Carter’s Secret Plan to Put Black Africans and Black Americans at Odds,” to those that claimed AIDS was a weapon created by the CIA or blamed the United States for the assassination attempt on Pope John Paul II. But if Soviet measures went to great lengths to make their forgeries look convincing, now the Kremlin doesn’t seem to care if it is caught: The aim is to confuse rather than convince, to trash the information space so the audience gives up looking for any truth amid the chaos.

    Over a decade since my first visit to that boardroom in Ostankino I now find myself in similarly intense, if less smoky, meetings with government officials in London and Washington. They wonder how to deal with the Kremlin’s masterful use of the media, which NATO’s Gen. Philip Breedlove, the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, has called “the most amazing information war blitzkrieg known in history.”

  4. #2154
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    Anyone see the new nature Study?

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture14240.html

    Bad news for warmers!

  5. #2155
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    89,421
    from the link, 1st paragraph:

    Here we present observationally based evidence of clear-sky CO2 surface radiative forcing that is directly attributable to the increase, between 2000 and 2010, of 22 parts per million atmospheric CO2.

  6. #2156
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    89,421
    bad news for warmists!

  7. #2157
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    Just proves you don't understand the study.

    Should I elaborate, or give you a day to figure out the impact first?

  8. #2158
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    89,421
    by all means, profe, please explain the importance of the study.

  9. #2159
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    by all means, profe, please explain the importance of the study.
    hint.

    It's the 0.2 W/m^2 for the 22 ppm increase.

    It's only about 2/3rds the sensitivity claimed by the IPCC et. al.

  10. #2160
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    89,421
    These results confirm theoretical predictions of the atmospheric greenhouse effect due to anthropogenic emissions, and provide empirical evidence of how rising CO2 levels, mediated by temporal variations due to photosynthesis and respiration, are affecting the surface energy balance

  11. #2161
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    89,421
    It's only about 2/3rds the sensitivity claimed by the IPCC et. al.
    so?

  12. #2162
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    These results confirm theoretical predictions of the atmospheric greenhouse effect due to anthropogenic emissions, and provide empirical evidence of how rising CO2 levels, mediated by temporal variations due to photosynthesis and respiration, are affecting the surface energy balance
    Yes, they say that. However, those aren't the facts in the study. If they don't appeal to authority of printing, they don't get published. It also says that the trend is 10% of the observed warming trend, meaning CO2 only accounts for 10% of the warming!

    There is a Al Goolish type movie coming out to appeal to the alarmists/warmists. However, 8 seconds into the YouTube of it, is something that clearly applies to climastrology papers:



    keep it simple, people will fill in the blanks with their own ... I hate to say biases... But with their own perspective.

  13. #2163
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    It is a significant level to reduce the AGW bible by.

  14. #2164
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    If we use the IPCC accepted radiative formula:

    5.35 x ln(392/370) = 0.31 W/m^2.

    However, it is reduced now to 0.2 W.m^2.

    0.2 / 0.31 x 5.35 = 3.45

    This places a doubling of CO2 at:

    3.45 x ln(2) = 2.39 W/m^2 instead of the previous 3.71 W/m^2.

  15. #2165
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    22,829
    WC please show your source from the IPCC that indicates the exact same forcing is being discussed as the IPCC official number. The reason why I bring this up is because as Manny years ago explained, they view the forcings as an uncertainty within a particular range as they work through various iterations of models. Frankly pretending like there is only one forcing number for C02 is pretty ing ignorant.

    I will await you trying to spin uncertainty.

  16. #2166
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    It changes the previous assessment of IPCC warming covering 1750 to 2011 from 1.82 W/m^2 to 1.18 W/m^2.

  17. #2167
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    22,829
    I asked for a source. We have already established you have no credibility.

  18. #2168
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    WC please show your source from the IPCC that indicates the exact same forcing is being discussed as the IPCC official number. The reason why I bring this up is because as Manny years ago explained, they view the forcings as an uncertainty within a particular range as they work through various iterations of models. Frankly pretending like there is only one forcing number for C02 is pretty ing ignorant.

    I will await you trying to spin uncertainty.
    That's because they always used correlation equals causation and couldn't properly account for all variables. This is the first study of it's kind that actually measures the power of CO2 spectra from the sky, over a decade period of time.

    They do give an error range. It's something like 0.06 W/m^2.

  19. #2169
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    22,829
    That's because they always used correlation equals causation and couldn't properly account for all variables. This is the first study of it's kind that actually measures the power of CO2 spectra from the sky, over a decade period of time.
    I didn't ask for your feeble-minded rationalizations on how modeling is done. I asked for something from IPCC indicating their most current official forcing numbers to justify your earlier assertions.

    You have a penchant for cherry picking numbers, aggrandizing them and representing them as something they are not. Your failure to produce said numbers speaks to your credibility.

  20. #2170
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    Fuzzy, are you for published material by Nature, until it disagree with your bias?

  21. #2171
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    22,829
    Fuzzy, are you for published material by Nature, until it disagree with your bias?
    Quote the Nature article then. You are dissembling under examinations and you look like a fool.

  22. #2172
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    I didn't ask for your feeble-minded rationalizations on how modeling is done. I asked for something from IPCC indicating their most current official forcing numbers to justify your earlier assertions.

    You have a penchant for cherry picking numbers, aggrandizing them and representing them as something they are not. Your failure to produce said numbers speaks to your credibility.
    The IPCC uses 5.35 x ln(C(new)/C(old)) This is how they calculate the 1.66 W/m^2 in the AR4:

    5.35 x ln(379/278) = 1.66.

    In the AR5:

    5.35 x ln (391/278) = 1.82

    How am I cherry picking numbers?

    Please explain.

  23. #2173
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    Quote the Nature article then. You are dissembling under examinations and you look like a fool.
    How about Berkley Lab's response:

    Both series showed the same trend: atmospheric CO2 emitted an increasing amount of infrared energy, to the tune of 0.2 Watts per square meter per decade. This increase is about ten percent of the trend from all sources of infrared energy such as clouds and water vapor.
    Only 10% of the trend... from all sources...

    http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2015/02/25...fect-increase/

  24. #2174
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    22,829
    The IPCC uses 5.35 x ln(C(new)/C(old)) This is how they calculate the 1.66 W/m^2 in the AR4:

    5.35 x ln(379/278) = 1.66.

    In the AR5:

    5.35 x ln (391/278) = 1.82

    How am I cherry picking numbers?

    Please explain.
    Quote the Nature article then. You are dissembling under examinations and you look like a fool.
    As I explained that IPCC implements dozens of models and a range of forcing valuations in their models. When they present their forcings it is done as a range of values.

    You have no source from the article you linked or from the IPCC. There is no reason for anyone to pay attention to your napkin math.

  25. #2175
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    22,829
    How about Berkley Lab's response:



    Only 10% of the trend... from all sources...

    http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2015/02/25...fect-increase/
    Quote the Nature article then. You are dissembling under examinations and you look like a fool.
    How about an ocean solubility chart next? It's obvious you cannot justify your numbers. I will quote the nature article just like Wine did:

    These results confirm theoretical predictions of the atmospheric greenhouse effect due to anthropogenic emissions, and provide empirical evidence of how rising CO2 levels, mediated by temporal variations due to photosynthesis and respiration, are affecting the surface energy balance

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •