Page 26 of 228 FirstFirst ... 1624252627283676126 ... LastLast
Results 251 to 260 of 2276

Thread: OT: Politics

  1. #251
    Insider
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    2,303
    So, that's that.
    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.

    Because that was the 2009 reports. Notice the .9 Wm^2 at the bottom? That is the net from AGW. Our 'footprint'.

    Here is Trenberth and the IPCC in 2007:



    See the changes in input, and changes to the surface output? There are large changes:

    Surface Absorbtion from 161 to 168?
    Surface Radiation from 390 to 396?
    GHG Back Radiation fro 390 to 396?
    Outgoing from 235 to 239?

    And then, later, this paper in 2014:

    http://science-edu.larc.nasa.gov/ene...tho_10year.pdf

    Which gave us this graphic:



    To make it easier, here is the overlay between the two:



    The big kicker, is bottom center.

    The GHG energy increase, the Footprint, should go up. A decent amount.

    Instead, it went...down.

    From 0.9 Wm^2 to 0.6 Wm^2.

    Why did it go down? Because the science is showing there is a significantly smaller AGW footprint than previously expected? That is a 30% reduction.

    This is not a settled science. Nor are we really in solid grasp of the components in it. The small .25 Wm^2 affect, either my solar input or CO2 is still far below the margin of error for energy in, energy out, or any understanding we have of the process.

    There is still far more to understand. And so far, The Theory has failed. We keep finding less warming than expected. Less energy retained.

    Yes, science moves forward, and things change. Right now we are finding that we don't have a hard grasp on some basics, even at the highest level. It goes back to my original claim: Climate Science is young, we need more data, and the current models show too much warming.

    Time for better data and better models.
    Josh Coray
    J4 Paintball
    Lead Design
    www.j4paintball.com

  2. #252
    Insider
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    2,303
    Gordon, I had a nice link on the last page with a W. Soon et al paper that addresses this directly.

    I have had several links to more.

    You just say it, but you have no proof of anything to support your comments.

    The burden of evidence is on my side, by a large pile. The W Soon paper also shows papers that support, contradict, and show variations in how much. It is worth a read, and until you do, your position is moot.
    Josh Coray
    J4 Paintball
    Lead Design
    www.j4paintball.com

  3. #253
    I'm just happy I'm going to pay more taxes so rich people can buy more boats...

  4. #254
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    1,581
    Quote Originally Posted by d0cwho View Post
    I'm just happy I'm going to pay more taxes so rich people can buy more boats...
    Yeah, and we get to have large corporations drive our data use.

    An interesting report that's published quarterly:
    https://www.akamai.com/fr/fr/multime...ity-report.pdf

  5. #255
    welcome to trump's america, where being a pedophile by your own admission is still better than being a democrat.

    moore is going to win by 10+
    social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.

  6. #256
    Thanks for this. I'll take a look.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by cockerpunk View Post
    welcome to trump's america, where being a pedophile by your own admission is still better than being a democrat.

    moore is going to win by 10+
    The article posted by the Federalist shows we have hit rock bottom...

  7. #257
    Insider
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    2,303
    welcome to trump's america, where being a pedophile by your own admission is still better than being a democrat.
    Ouch. Though, it could be called a Post Hillary DNC America. I think a 'Sanders Party' would have left a better taste on the people's tongue for a democrat than Hillary, and I think blaming Trump is missing the problem of the DNC's overall position for the last couple years. Trump is the symptom, not the driver, the method of destruction instead of a force of his own. It seems the DNC pissed off way to many blue collar workers that they had used to bring Carter and Clinton into the presidency before. The party seems....bitter and elitist and judgmental? of the flyover areas they had supporting them for decades. At least with Clinton behind the wheel. I think Sanders wouldn't have done the same type of damage.

    Thoughts? Mind you, not supporting moore or trump in this and reply that says I am can DIAF, but looking at the state of the DNC, which I think needs to drop Hillary for something healthier.
    Josh Coray
    J4 Paintball
    Lead Design
    www.j4paintball.com

  8. #258
    Insider
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,182
    If we can't agree on what 1 paper says, I'm afraid we'll never be able to agree on what the entire corpus of literature says.

    The claim that climate feedbacks are overstated is specifically refuted by the Santer paper - this is what "external forcings" means.

    Here is a technical blog link discussing what the paper actually says: https://arstechnica.com/science/2017...er-atmosphere/

    With the relevant link: https://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/.../ngeo2105.html

    Both are significantly more comprehensible than the original Santer paper.


    As for my previous specifics, I don't have much to say, because you have misconstrued what I mean about metastability, and do not seem to be aware of the technical meaning of pattern correlation.


    I hope that you're right. I'm of the opinion that from a policy standpoint the horse has left the barn, so this is all tragically moot, and someone will need to do geoengineering, after a significant amount of entrenched wealth is destroyed (mostly via property damage -> insurance claims->actuarial crisis).
    "So you've done this before?"
    "Oh, hell no. But I think it's gonna work."

  9. #259
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    1,581
    Though I disagree with the DNC position on a few key social points, the republican party has done an excellent job turning me away. It's not even a party of fiscal opportunity, it's a party that is doing a damn good job killing the middle class.

  10. #260
    Quote Originally Posted by pbjosh View Post
    Ouch. Though, it could be called a Post Hillary DNC America. I think a 'Sanders Party' would have left a better taste on the people's tongue for a democrat than Hillary, and I think blaming Trump is missing the problem of the DNC's overall position for the last couple years. Trump is the symptom, not the driver, the method of destruction instead of a force of his own. It seems the DNC pissed off way to many blue collar workers that they had used to bring Carter and Clinton into the presidency before. The party seems....bitter and elitist and judgmental? of the flyover areas they had supporting them for decades. At least with Clinton behind the wheel. I think Sanders wouldn't have done the same type of damage.

    Thoughts? Mind you, not supporting moore or trump in this and reply that says I am can DIAF, but looking at the state of the DNC, which I think needs to drop Hillary for something healthier.
    Hillary would have kept the ship stable. May have not gotten anything done, but at least we could have kept with the status quo, which is a lot better than what is happening now. Given that Hillary won the popular vote in the democratic primary, I think Sander's base of support is over played. I'm sure a lot of people voted for Sander's simply on the basis that they didn't like Hillary. I'll show my colors here - as a Democrat I can't stand the Bernie wing of the party. The support that Sanders (and trump) has represents a failure to understand history. It's a failure to understand why we have multilateral free trade agreement and international institutions, i.e. to prevent having to fight another world war. I understand that doesn't sound great to someone who lost his job to economic competition, i.e. capitalism, but there are better ways to help people retrain and prepare for the 21st century than tearing up free-trade agreements and applying tariffs.

Posting Permissions

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