Reply With Quote
A bit more on adjustments on raw data when it comes to arriving at finished data sets:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpre...d-adjustments/
https://theconversation.com/why-scie...-can-too-36825
(shrugs)
Haven't had the time to read it yet. If not having the time to read something is somehow indicative of a lack of integrity, you have an odd definition of integrity.
Seems interesting to me, so I will probably take the time, especially since you want to be a tool about it.
A bit more on adjustments on raw data when it comes to arriving at finished data sets:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpre...d-adjustments/
https://theconversation.com/why-scie...-can-too-36825
LOL...
I understand, as I see most of your posts as BS as well.
Now, under the assumption you are asking for support of the warming formula, let me start with this, which you can verify with a calculator or Excel:
The AR4 claims a 1.66 W/m^2 warming for the period of 1750 to 2004(5?). The use the increase in CO2 from 278 to 379 ppm.
5.35 x ln(379/278) = 1.66
The AR5 claims 1.82 W/m^2 for the range of 278 to 391 ppm for 1750 to 2011.
5.35 x ln(391/278) = 1.82
I don't recall where in the AR4 or AR5 the formula is listed, but they do refer to the study, Myhre et al 1998, and it is is the TAR, table 6.2, the first of three CO2 formulas:
Looks like BigOil/BigCarb/US COC/Repug/right wing hate media AGW-denying isn't working too well with Repug voters
Fit To Print: The GOP's Deepening Climate Change Divide
The Republican party's deep divisions on climate change and the environment were on full display at the recently-concluded Conservative Political Aciton Committee (CPAC). How the GOP presidential contenders attempt to navigate these divisions is an important news story that deserves media attention in the weeks and months ahead.
Several weeks ahead of CPAC,
a poll came out showing that 48% of Republicans would be more likely to vote for a candidate who supports taking action on climate change, compared to just 24% who would be less likely to vote for such a candidate.
The poll also showed that GOP supporters are inclined to oppose candidates who view climate change as a "hoax" by the same 2-to-1 ratio.
While many self-described Republicans support climate action, it seems unlikely that the same can be said of the conservative activists and donors who attended this year's CPAC.
CPAC attendees are far more engaged than rank-and-file Republicans, and the GOP presidential contenders know that winning support -- financial and otherwise -- from the CPAC base will be crucial if they hope to emerge from a crowded primary field and ultimately capture the presidency. But trying to appease the CPAC crowd's anti-environmental extremism without alienating most Americans -- and even many Republicans -- could prove to be an insurmountable task.
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/03...-change/202772
so the ST AGW deniers are becoming more and more of an extreme fringe, duh
Oh come on at least try for some wit!
Manny sighting
What's up?
Nothing new with this poll.
Most republicans agree global warming is happening. They just have more important issues than global warming.
Once again, B- and his material is misleading. The 48% came from this:
If a candidate said:
“I believe that global warming has been happening for the past 100 years, mainly because we have been burning fossil fuels and putting out greenhouse gasses. Now is the time for us to be using new forms of energy that are made in America and will be renewable forever. We can manufacture better cars that use less gasoline and build better appliances that use less electricity. We need to transform the outdated ways of generating energy into new ones that create jobs and entire industries, and stop the damage we’ve been doing to the environment.”
Most people agree with shifting away from fossil fuels, and that's the extent of the "action" listed here. The only problem I see with this statement is agreeing it is saying "mainly because." If it was "partially," or some other word not implying most;y, the percentage would have been greater.
"Most republicans agree global warming is happening."
Not the Repug politicians, because their policies are dictated by their BigCarbon financiers, not by ignorant voters who vote Repug for social issues (guns, gods, LGBT, abortion, s-s marriage)
No, they are just level headed about the known facts. They don't buy into the hype like weak minded liberals do.
Maybe if the alarmists were level headed and used s0-called facts that didn't keep pan out, they would be listened to. Climatology is becoming more and more a joke every day.
I went to your favorite source.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/201...ange-trolling/
Repugs STILL made him chairman: " he was the ranking member of the United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works and was its chairman from 2003 to 2007, then regained the chairmanship in January 2015."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Inhofe
Repugs will DO NOTHING to slow, stop, or reverse AGW from industrial GHG. In fact, they will weaken or kill any and all such regulations, and block any new regulations. They are rolling back, killing RETs, renewable energy targets, in red states.
so, GFY
Senate Votes 98-1 That ‘Climate Change Is Real And Not A Hoax’
and Repugs made AGW-is-Hoax asshole/BigOilShill Senator the chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Nobody told Florida:
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/stat...e12983720.htmlThe state of Florida is the region most susceptible to the effects of global warming in this country, according to scientists. Sea-level rise alone threatens 30 percent of the state’s beaches over the next 85 years.
But you would not know that by talking to officials at the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, the state agency on the front lines of studying and planning for these changes.
DEP officials have been ordered not to use the term “climate change” or “global warming” in any official communications, emails, or reports, according to former DEP employees, consultants, volunteers and records obtained by the Florida Center for Investigative Reporting.
The policy goes beyond semantics and has affected reports, educational efforts and public policy in a department with about 3,200 employees and $1.4 billion budget.
“We were told not to use the terms ‘climate change,’ ‘global warming’ or ‘sustainability,’” said Christopher Byrd, an attorney with the DEP’s Office of General Counsel in Tallahassee from 2008 to 2013. “That message was communicated to me and my colleagues by our superiors in the Office of General Counsel.”
Kristina Trotta, another former DEP employee who worked in Miami, said her supervisor told her not to use the terms “climate change” and “global warming” in a 2014 staff meeting. “We were told that we were not allowed to discuss anything that was not a true fact,” she said.
so much for denial being a mythical media creation, in Florida it's politically enforced
Freedom!
sloppy seconds http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=220853&page=19&p=7862658&viewfull =1#post7862658
sorry, you said something in another thread? don't know how I missed that.
A search of the Florida DEP web site for the term “global warming” yields, according to the site, 244 results. And, according to the site, another 1,640for “climate change.”
They haven't had time to scrub the truth from their websites.
from the article:
Now, maybe there is something going on at the Florida Department of Environmental Protection.
climate change denial is real. one political party feeds it red meat under the table, your feeble protests that it doesn't exist totally notwithstanding.
climate change trolling, DarrinS style:
words count
AGW is real, climate change is amorphous, vague.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
