Page 28 of 228 FirstFirst ... 1826272829303878128 ... LastLast
Results 271 to 280 of 2276

Thread: OT: Politics

  1. #271
    i did.
    social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.

  2. #272
    Insider PBSteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    3,084
    Quote Originally Posted by pbjosh View Post
    Now THAT was a proper reply, best one on here yet. I really respect it. I have very little to argue with on that. A small change in the numbers here and there, but we really are on the same page. Good job.

    No, really. I really appreciate the effort and I am glad your really brought the argument to this level.

    It was a setup though, a bit.
    Not really, I gave you several days to actually examine it for yourself or *gasp* ask me what you were doing wrong. You didn't, because you're not actually interested in a scientific discussion. Feel free to run my numbers again (you know, for yourself). You'll find they won't change in any appreciable way, and you'd know that off-hand if you actually understood this for yourself.

    But it's funny, I don't respect any of your posts. I feel like we learned how to do this thing in third grade, you know, put things into our own words to make sure we understand them. You aren't doing that. Walls of text aren't citations or useful to an actual intelligent discussion. But after all it does seem pretty clear you're not interested in that.

    This entire thing has been about you grandstanding over something you've clearly read a lot about but never even tried to work through the basics for yourself.
    Last edited by PBSteve; 11-30-2017 at 11:08 PM.
    Ever so many citizens of this republic think they ought to believe that the Universe is a monarchy, and therefore they are always at odds with the republic. -Alan Watts

    I work for the company building the Paragon

  3. #273
    Insider
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    2,303
    Gordon, maybe I should have said "comprehend." Another:

    https://www.researchgate.net/publica...Climate_Change

    The ACRIM TSI satellite composite shows that during the last 30 years TSI
    averaged at 1361 Wm-2, varied during solar cycles 21 to 23 by about 0.9 Wm-2, had
    increased by 0.45 Wm-2 during cycle 21 to 22 to decline again during cycle 23 and the
    current cycle 24 [47]. By contrast, the PMOD TSI satellite composite suggests for the
    last 30 years an average TSI of 1366, varying between 1365.2 and 1367.0 Wm-2 that
    declined steadily since 1980 by 0.3 Wm-2. On centennial and longer time scales,
    differences between TSI estimates become increasingly larger. Wang et al. [40] and
    Kopp and Lean [48] estimate that between 1900 and 1960 TSI increased by about 0.5
    Wm-2
    and thereafter remained essentially stable, whilst Hoyt and Schatten [41]
    combined with the ACRIM data and suggest that TSI increased between 1900 and
    2000 by about 3 Wm-2
    and was subject to major fluctuations in 1950-1980 [46,49].
    Similarly, it is variably estimated that during the Maunder Solar Minimum (1645-
    1715) of the Little Ice Age TSI may have been only 1.25 Wm-2 lower than at present

    [40,50,51,52] or by as much as 6 ± 3 Wm-2 lower than at present [39,41], reflecting a
    TSI increase ranging between 0.09% and 0.5%, respectively
    (fig. 2)
    I can do this all day for the rest of the year, and into all of next. There is a large body of work on it.

    Steve,

    Maybe I wanted to see that you grasped anything beyond sitting there telling me I am stupid. Maybe I needed proof. Saying "your wrong" is just a shit sitter. If you can't prove it, if you can't work it out, you are not contributing but just being an ass. I knew it all along, it wasn't even a hard attempt at anything. It was a setup to get you working with the values to realize both that CO2 increase is a small factor, and to see that the numbers change by a margin of error far larger than solar or CO2 in just a couple years with no real explanation short of a wiggle in a variable that is manually adjusted.

    Even then, with the articles I posted to you and Gordon showing a correlation between solar output and temperature changes, neither of you accepted it, no matter how many times I did. And I just did again, showing the range in solar output changes, right as Gordon repeats "No it doesn't."

    There is ample proof that solar output varies, and that solar output and climate track together. The Empirical data falsifies the models. Solar has an impact.

    Sitting there like Gordon going "No it doesn't" is like a child trying to convince me they didn't poop their diaper. Oh, you figured it out, you looked in the diaper. Congrats. You want a reward for that. I did praise you for it. Good boy. I also told you to look.

    But you totally ignored responding to the large margin of error in the 'Known' Energy Balance, how the values are changing by amounts higher than the CO2 contribution, and how that eclipses the CO2 contribution by a significant amount.

    So, your shit still stinks kid, and so does your attitude.
    Last edited by pbjosh; 12-01-2017 at 08:27 AM.
    Josh Coray
    J4 Paintball
    Lead Design
    www.j4paintball.com

  4. #274
    Quote Originally Posted by pbjosh View Post
    Gordon, maybe I should have said "comprehend." Another:

    https://www.researchgate.net/publica...Climate_Change



    I can do this all day for the rest of the year, and into all of next. There is a large body of work on it.

    Steve,

    Maybe I wanted to see that you grasped anything beyond sitting there telling me I am stupid. Maybe I needed proof. Saying "your wrong" is just a shit sitter. If you can't prove it, if you can't work it out, you are not contributing but just being an ass. I knew it all along, it wasn't even a hard attempt at anything. It was a setup to get you working with the values to realize both that CO2 increase is a small factor, and to see that the numbers change by a margin of error far larger than solar or CO2 in just a couple years with no real explanation short of a wiggle in a variable that is manually adjusted.

    Even then, with the articles I posted to you and Gordon showing a correlation between solar output and temperature changes, neither of you accepted it, no matter how many times I did. And I just did again, showing the range in solar output changes, right as Gordon repeats "No it doesn't."

    There is ample proof that solar output varies, and that solar output and climate track together. The Empirical data falsifies the models. Solar has an impact.

    Sitting there like Gordon going "No it doesn't" is like a child trying to convince me they didn't poop their diaper. Oh, you figured it out, you looked in the diaper. Congrats. You want a reward for that. I did praise you for it. Good boy. I also told you to look.

    But you totally ignored responding to the large margin of error in the 'Known' Energy Balance, how the values are changing by amounts higher than the CO2 contribution, and how that eclipses the CO2 contribution by a significant amount.

    So, your shit still stinks kid, and so does your attitude.
    wow, you even conveniently quoted why an increase of .5 watts/meter on a 1600+ watts/meter number is totally irrelevant.

    arguing with you is so easy. you just quote mine, and then you provide your own evidence why its a quote mine.

    as stated, the TSI has not increased. sorry, you lose.
    social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.

  5. #275
    Insider
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    2,303
    Just putting the baseline out that that is varies, vs your claim it doesn't.

    Your claim that it is insignificant is a different position.

    Now that you have gotten that far:

    What is important is that they track together.

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...7737911630381X

    We find an overall cyclic-pattern (wet/warm or dry/cold) in the precipitation and temperature anomalies on centennial- to millennial-scale that can be likely considered as a representative for the entire NC by comparison with other related climatic records. We suggest that solar activity may play a key role in driving the climatic fluctuations in NC during the last 22 centuries, with its quasi ∼100, 50, 23, or 22-year periodicity clearly identified in our climatic reconstructions. We employ variation partitioning and redundancy analysis to quantify the independent effects of climatic factors on accounting for the total variation of 17 fine-grained numerical Chinese historical records.
    See. Solar activity is clearly identified in the climate records. I have been putting these examples on almost every page.

    While you can claim "It doesn't matter due to a percentage I think is insignificant" what is found, a few hundred times over, is that small variation results and correlates in the climate records.

    It is consistent, and very robust.

    In the IPCC reports they claim it has little or no affect, so they don't use it as a variable.

    What is found in the history is that it does have an effect, and it is variable.

    For modeling purposes, it needs to be added as a major variable, because it has been. If you are not tracking it, you can't have an accurate model. As I have shown, the models failed.

    So, even if the change is small, there is a correlation:









    A few wm^2 of change in TSI results in corresponding changes in temperature.

    It is significant.
    Josh Coray
    J4 Paintball
    Lead Design
    www.j4paintball.com

  6. #276
    as your graphs show quite-clearly, there has not been a signification rise in TSI over the warming period in question.

    you already posted these graphs. they still do not say that the TSI has increased over the time period in question.
    social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.

  7. #277
    Insider
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    2,303
    The top one says, clearly, "Total Solar Irradiance Record, (TSI, Vieira et al., 2011)"

    Many I have posted have said TSI, some have said solar activity. Your point is barely semantics.

    ALL of them show a correlation between changes in solar output and changes in temperature.
    Josh Coray
    J4 Paintball
    Lead Design
    www.j4paintball.com

  8. #278
    Quote Originally Posted by pbjosh View Post
    The top one says, clearly, "Total Solar Irradiance Record, (TSI, Vieira et al., 2011)"

    Many I have posted have said TSI, some have said solar activity. Your point is barely semantics.

    ALL of them show a correlation between changes in solar output and changes in temperature.
    none of them show a correlation between TSI and changes in temperature over the warming period in question.

    why? because TSI has been flat for the last 100 years, and the temp has not.

    no one denies that the suns output can and does effect the temperature of the earth. we simply know that that can't be the cause of the warming we are concerned about because the TSI has been flat over the warming period in question.

    as already detailed, the temp of the earth is primarily governed by two things: the sun, and the atmosphere. ones the fire, ones the blanket. if the fire hasn't gotten any hotter (the TSI has not increased), then the other factor is the reason for the warming: the blanket has gotten thicker. the blankest has gotten thicker because carbon gasses in the atmosphere has changed the radiance of the earth so it can shed less heat to space. this is why there are large periods of time where the temp and the suns output correlate well, and times it hasn't.

    if you are such a climatologist, this is literally grade school level climatology.
    social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.

  9. #279
    TSI flat:



    earths temp over a similar period:



    note the total lack of correlation, esp in the later half of the 20th century. you know, the warming period in question.

    you lose
    Last edited by cockerpunk; 12-01-2017 at 10:58 AM.
    social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.

  10. #280
    also, i think we see the REAL reason why republicans wanted to push there tax hikes on us by christmas .... because flynn is guilty as fuck, kushner and junior and right behind him, and trump is right behind them.

    they have seen the writing on the wall for this local maximum in republican power, and they know it was always going to be short lived.
    social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.

Posting Permissions

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