Comment Re:Penny says (Score 0) 281
Isn't this where he says bazooka or something?
Bazinga!
Isn't this where he says bazooka or something?
Bazinga!
The White House told the truth
Oh, really??
Yes, really. Or, more precisely: the White House statements were based on the information reported by US intelligence at the time.
Here's the report http://www.intelligence.senate... The relevant part, from the summary, is here: In intelligence reports after September 11, 2012, intelligence analysts inaccurately referred to the presence of a protest at the U.S. mission facility before the attack based on open source information and limited intelligence, but without sufficient intelligence or eyewitness statements to corroborate that assertion. The Intelligence Community took too long to correct these erroneous reports, which caused confusion and influenced the public statements of policymakers.
Oh, right, of course: CANNOT be the fault of the White House. It's "somebody else's fault". We can blame this one on Bush, too, right?
So, we can say they told "the truth", because, of course, the truth is fungible. It doesn't matter if it was completely wrong, or inaccurate, or that they kept promoting the false narrative even after the intelligence reports were corrected, only that we deflect blame before the elections!
LOL @ MediaMatters propaganda.
The White House told the truth
Oh, really??
From ABC: "The "talking points" memo on what the Obama administration should tell the public was the basis for statements made by U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice, who appeared on talk shows five days after the Sept. 11 attack to explain what happened.
Rice insisted the attack emanated from a protest over an anti-Islam video produced in America that turned violent and that terrorism was not involved. The White House has since acknowledged the assault was a preplanned terror attack and no protest happened."
It obviously isn't accurate, as proven by the 1976 US Standard Atmosphere. Didn't you fucking notice? Just look at the fucking temperature at 50 km.
The temperature chart calculates a temperature of about -17C at 50 Km, with a pressure of about 5.4 mb. That's in line with everything else I can find. What do you think the temperature at 50 km is, anyway?
again, the only, THE ONLY source for this idiocy is a well known psuedo science website that hosts nothing but discredited BS.
I appreciate Joel's reasoned criticism (you could have just posted a link, but it appears you don't like to reference any of your claims), but it seems all you can come up with is bullshit ad hominems.
claiming that the excess CO2 in the atmospere is the result of "ocean outgassing".
The Earth has had much higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere before humans were around. And there is certainly plenty of CO2 (and methane) present there, which also makes it into the atmosphere. Clearly there is currently a lot of anthropogenic sources of CO2 today. So I'm not sure what you're referring to that the "authors" said, or why you think it's wrong.
Here, this is their membership page, you more than qualify: http://theflatearthsociety.org... [theflatearthsociety.org]
What a fucking jackass tool you are. Stop posting on the Internet. You're making the whole thing dumber by your presence.
You are correct - there are issues with Nikolov's ideas (I was actually referencing Jelbring, but some of the ideas are similar), specifically, now can the equilibrium temperature of a black body be different with an atmosphere without GHGs? I don't think it can, but that doesn't mean that the tiny amount of CO2 is going to make up all the difference, and I think it's a good starting point to describe why the "radiative forcing" theory is clearly wrong.
There is a better discussion at (Oh Nos! DENIERS site) Watt's blog, and he has the same problem with those theories himself.
It's funny that neither you nor the morons you copied your little theory from realized that the Standard Atmosphere model disagrees with the true and only model to explain global warming ("Maxwell gravito-thermal mass/gravity/pressure theory of the 33C "greenhouse effect"" you just touted.
Not sure what you're trying to assert here. There is nothing in the "Maxwell gravito-thermal mass/gravity/pressure theory" that explains global warming - it's used to calculate the average global temperature of a planetary body, and does so very accurately without using "radiative forcing" as a feedback mechanism. That pretty much disproves radiative forcing, since the Maxwell theory is so accurate without it.
BTW if you think "fixed" means constant, why the hell am I even talking to you?
I don't know what your context is, here, but it seems to have changed. You originally said "should be exactly the same temperature all day and all year around at any place on Earth's surface." How is that not "constant". Of course temperature changes, because the climate is chaotic. But we're looking for a global average temperature over a long term. There is no model anywhere that will tell you with any accuracy the surface temperature at any given time. The best we have is using current observations to predict temperature within a few degrees 10 days to 2 weeks out.
the idea, the concept that your formula controls the earths temperature is what has been disproven.
Because you said so. Got it.
I'll remember who NOT to ask for scientific evidence in the future.
the very concept means that you think the sun has absolutely no effect on earth's temperature.
Incorrect. You need to determine the Earth's base equilibrium temperature with the Sun, which was unknown in the 1970's. We now have satellite observations that give is that (Te = 255K). They didn't have that in 1976, so they used the known surface temperature. But it works just the same with more precise measurements.
that gas theory, that formula, does not and cannot account for the warming trend in any way shape or form. it cannot even account for the basic fundamental difference in temperatures between day and night. nor can it account for the difference in temperatures between the differant locations on the planet, such as the the difference between the poles and the equator.
Neither can any other theory, certainly not the "radiative forcing" theories that drive the climate change alarmism. The formula DOES, however, when combined with satellite observations, DISPROVES "radiative forcing", because it would result in temperatures much higher than we have today. So it cannot be true.
The 1976 US Standard Atmosphere document and database (which still remains the gold standard today and has not changed despite 39 years of greenhouse gas emissions)
Funny how you suddenly favour a model According to it, it should be exactly the same temperature all day and all year around at any place on Earth's surface. At least according to your interpretation of it.
In this case, not an opaque computer model with unspecified parameters and assumptions as input, but instead a clear mathematical model that can easily be tested.
that at its basis declares a fixed temperature distribution throughout the atmosphere.
Look again, that's exactly the opposite of what the model does.
dT/dh = -g/Cp
where
dT = change in temperature
dh = change in altitude
g = gravitational acceleration constant
Cp = heat capacity at constant pressure
"Denialist"? Is that the term you CAGW alarmists are using these days to describe "science"? Pretty clever, considering you have completely destroyed the original meaning of the word science into something that is (1) Settled (2) Reported by political committees, and (3) Arrived at by "consensus".
Unlike what you said, it hasnt been disproven.
You, sir, are a damn liar. Contrary to your ridiculous assertion, the US Standard Atmosphere Model and satellite and other observations prove Maxwell's Mass/Gravity/Pressure theory of the 'Greenhouse Effect' is, in fact, correct.
If you've seen some claim that the dT/dh = -g/Cp equation has been "disproven", I'd love to see it. Don't bother with non-peer-reviewed blog posts, either.
Are you seriously trying to argue that energy companies would SUPPORT a tax on carbon?
In fact, they do:
"By trading on carbon credits, we'll be able to achieve significantly more cuts at a lower cost," said Anthony J. Alexander, president and chief executive of FirstEnergy, electric utility that serves several states, according to the Times. "The broader the options, the better off we're going to be."
John McManus, vice president of environmental services at American Electric Power, told the Times he agreed cap-and-trade programs can keep costs down.
Republican U.S. Senate candidate Mark Jacobs said Thursday his stated support of a proposed federal policy to reduce carbon dioxide emissions was expressed not as an individual opinion but in his role in leading an energy conglomerate. Jacobs was an executive with Reliant Energy in 2007 when supporting the so-called cap and trade legislation, which passed in the House but stalled in the Senate.
Today, at the Duke Energy annual shareholder meeting in Charlotte, policy experts from the National Center for Public Policy Research challenged CEO Jim Rogers over his company's lobbying for President Obama's energy policy, which seeks to make electricity prices skyrocket.
that I have to go back almost 40 years to find something that I can try to claim gives me a reason to continue to lie.
Oh, of course. We should throw out Relativity, too, it's even older.
The 1976 US Standard Atmosphere document and database (which still remains the gold standard today and has not changed despite 39 years of greenhouse gas emissions) is an absolute goldmine of detailed information on the physical derivation of the standard atmospheric model and confirmatory observations, collected from satellite data that was not even available when Maxwell's equations were first derived. It provides overwhelming physical proof and overwhelming observational evidence that the Maxwell gravito-thermal mass/gravity/pressure theory of the 33C "greenhouse effect" is correct, and would necessarily falsify any significant "radiative forcing from greenhouse gases" affecting the lapse rates or various atmospheric temperature gradients, and thus as well negate the theory of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. Only one of these two competing greenhouse theories can account for the 33C greenhouse effect, since if both were true, the Earth would be an additional 33C warmer than present.
Life is not that simple.
In this case, yea, it is. If you're a descent PM, when you start seeing that kind of stuff cropping up, you do two things, simultaneously. 1 - you start pointing out the issues, in many ways and using as many analogies you can think of, to the project sponsors, in hopes of righting the ship. AND 2 - start making contacts and keeping your resume up to date. It's fix or exit time. Real PMs don't have much power, but the good ones can come into any situation and improve things. Whether they can actually make enough difference in a troubled project depends very much on the PM and the organization. Both.
"More software projects have gone awry for lack of calendar time than for all other causes combined." -- Fred Brooks, Jr., _The Mythical Man Month_
