Reply With Quote
http://www.people-press.org/2012/10/...lobal-warming/
Pew polls that more people believe the claimate is warming. The oilco's have moved there strat now from is it happening to its not us that is doing it.
http://www.people-press.org/2012/10/...lobal-warming/
Pew polls that more people believe the claimate is warming. The oilco's have moved there strat now from is it happening to its not us that is doing it.
Yes, most people do believe the climate is warming. More are believing than before that it is more natural rather than anthropogenic however.
After the last thread you'd think you'd just learn to shut up about the subject.
It doesn't matter what most people believe is happening. , most people believe an invisible sky daddy has their backs. All that matters are the facts.
That's not what my link says and you should take Manny's advice.
You think you won that?
After the last thread you'd think you'd just learn to shut up about the subject.
LOL...
LOL...
LOL...
Let's try this again.
Is there anyone out there that thinks that WC knows what he is talking about in regards to global warming instead of being an idiot that googles things and acts like he has any clue what he is talking about? Anyone not think WC is an idiot?
I exposed fault in the simple model in the other thread. When it comes to radiative forcing, it is closer to what I have been saying. Then, like I said before, the nonlinear aspect I was leaving out works to support my contention. That is water vapor. As for the nonlinear aspect of that model, those calculation cancel themselves out. Upward fourth power cancels downward fourth power.
Remember. I was only speaking in terms of radiative forcing and atmospheric temperatures. Not actual surface temperatures. It is obvious you haven't figured out the actual dynamics of that simple model. Notice how Manny left the discussion after I pointed out how the H2O feedback isn't properly represented in it?
You built a strawman and now you misunderstand exponentials. Which is greater, dimwit? 2^4 or 3^4. What do cancel mean?
You don't fool anyone, dimwit.
Their you go again Fuzzy with your stupidity.
When the values are so far off, like your 3 being 50% greater than the two, then we lose all meaning of "near linear" when we convert back to upward radiation.
When the approximate average of almost 500 watts/sq meter that is absorbed by the earth and turned to heat, only about 1 watt/sq meter is not reemitted as the oceans warm in the current imbalance. Maybe 2. It's pretty insignificant for models with only 2 or 3 significant digits of accuracy to try to factor in such a small change. It stay very near to linear. You need four significant digits to see change at those levels.
Do you understand significant digits, and why in some cases I am not bothering with unneeded complexity?
Logarithmic? In my own words?
No thanks. You wouldn't understand my explanation sine you can't look it up on the internet, so I will give you an internet answer:
Wiki: Logarithm
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 10-22-2012 at 02:54 AM.
I wouldn't understand your explanation? You don't even understand dependent and independent variables. Every time I read you write '4th order' I just rolls my eyes. What variable are we varying and which one are we viewing the output? You clearly have no idea wtf you are talking about. You parrot other people's stuff.
That quote sums you up perfectly.
You keep on babbling about linearity and claim its based on a log. I ask you waht you think a log is because you should justify what you are saying. You never do that tou just dissemble into this stupidity as you always do. What I am getting at is what is the nature of a log function? What is it's base ie an exponential, base 10 or what and most importantly what is the function and initial conditions and/or variance such that you can justify it being 'nearly linear.'
It's obvious you are parroting bull you are reading off the internet and it becomes abundantly clear when you are questioned on the subject. These are very basic questions that you should be able to answer if you are going to talk about how you are modeling a system. You cannot even explain a simple logarithm. I'll help it has to do with order's, a base and a variable. You will note the keywords are all tied into the nonsense you are spewing.
You are a simpleton fool with no shame.
Maybe because I didn't say "fourth order..."
I see you are throwing more and hoping it will stick.
Why don't you just admit, you don't understand and you don't even try to understand. Your goal is to troll.
So, instead of investigating the strengths/weaknesses of climate science, they're going to do some half-assed "expose" of AEI and Heartland?
I think they missed a good opportunity.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...ss-release-19/
HOW THE SKEPTICS CHANGED THE GAME ON CLIMATE CHANGE:
INSIDE THE REMARKABLE TURNAROUND THAT CHANGED PUBLIC OPINION AND THE U.S. POLITICAL LANDSCAPE
FRONTLINE presents
Climate of Doubt
Tuesday, October 23, 2012, 10 P.M. ET on PBS
http://www.pbs.org/frontline/climate-of-doubt
www.facebook.com/frontline
Twitter: @frontlinepbs #frontline
Four years ago, the presidential candidates agreed that climate change was a critical issue demanding urgent attention. But that national call to action has disappeared and in the past four years public opinion on the climate issue has cooled. This election cycle, the presidential candidates barely discuss climate change. And new studies find that only about half of Americans believe global warming is caused by human activity. What’s behind this dramatic reversal? In Climate of Doubt, FRONTLINE correspondent John Hockenberry of PRI’s The Takeaway explores the inner workings of the movement that changed the debate on climate change.
In numerous interviews that took him across the country, Hockenberry discovers how climate skeptics mobilized, built their argument, and undermined public acceptance of a global scientific consensus. Tim Phillips, President of Americans for Prosperity, explains how the movement was able to find a voice and gain momentum as the economy failed, “We got up a hot-air balloon, put a banner on the side of it that said, cap-and-trade means higher taxes, lost jobs, less freedom. And we went all over the country doing events and stirring up grassroots anger and frustration, concern.”
Climate of Doubt describes the individuals and groups behind an organized effort to attack science by undermining scientists, and to unseat politicians who say they believe there is current climate change caused by human activity. Andrew Dessler, a climate scientist at Texas A&M, says, “I fully expect that after this program airs I’ll get another FOIA request for all of my emails with you. And you know, I’ll just deal with that. As a climate scientist, I think a lot about the future. It goes with the job. And I want to make sure that in 50 years or 100 years or 200 years, nobody could ever say we didn’t warn them.”
FRONTLINE also investigates the funding that powers the skeptic movement in the name of free market, anti-regulation, small government causes. Hockenberry finds that funding has shifted away from fossil fuel companies to more ideological, and less public, sources. According to Robert Brulle, a sociologist studying the funding patterns of these groups, “The major funders of the climate counter-movement are ideologically driven foundations that are very much concerned about conservative values and world views.”
Frontline is probably the best journalism show on TV. I am really looking forward to this show.
What do you think of their premise?
Do you really think these two think tanks are responsible for such a large change in public opinion on the subject. I doubt that most people have ever heard of AEI or Heartland.
"I doubt that most people have ever heard of AEI or Heartland."
I agree, and I'm very sorry
The carbon, etc corporations have $Bs to hire scientists, professors, Fox Repug, etc, etc to spew their lies and propaganda.
I'm just glad the intellectual community is deciding that it's time to push back against stupid. It's not 1616 but stupid would very much so like it to be.
Isn't that the point of a news show?
I haven't seen it, yet. If the entire AGW denial strategy is blamed on those two stink tanks, then that's bull . I don't think PBS would put out such bull .
Heartland would spew to the Bible-thumpers, anti-choicers, and marans while AEI would spew to other VRWC stink tanks and the business community. hardly covering the entire USA.
If very few people have ever heard of AEI or Heartland, then how could they "undermine public acceptance".
In numerous interviews that took him across the country, Hockenberry discovers how climate skeptics mobilized, built their argument, and undermined public acceptance of a global scientific consensus.
Or, perhaps the case for catastrophic climate change isn't very strong.
I don't see the logic behind your thought process at all. Because people wouldn't be able to identify the think tanks behind the framework of dishonest skeptics they can'at be behind it? I don't know if thats the case or not but I don't get your point at all. I'll reserve judgement until I see it.
I could give you hundreds of examples where people are affected by someone they don't know exists.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
