Water vapour, the unknown factor, till now. [moved]
-
I never publiched an atricle and Oakman positively asked me to join his forum. Basically, its the old soapbox without CSS and Illion. I dont know why Illion, he had been around a long time and hadnt caused that much offence. CSS was, as you know, a diferent matter. He is probably deranged and mentally unstable. Aggressive and a drug user. Although he was also clever, he spoofed me once using an Arabic text reversal tag very effectively. It was him who destroyed the SB really.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
As far as individuals mentioned in your last paragraph are concerned, it is a matter of record of their respective behaviour, so I refer you to those records in this forum and elsewhere on Code Project. Considering the fact that the new Soapbox 1.0 is supposed to be private by invitation/application only and the Jon Oakman inspired rules define who can and who cannot be a member, this CP member named Nick Stern, being only a CP member for just a few days appears to violate the first Oakman rule in both time and article requirements. His (Nick Stern) second ever posting was in the new soapbox and made reference to French trains and was made within hours (or possibly minutes) of his CP membership, and France you know - you live there! His very first posting referenced an effect within the sphere of global warming that included a comment about surfing in Devon, a part of the world you know only too well. His other two messages are incorporated in this moved message thread and this was about how water vapour affect Global Warming, again a subject you have posted on a substantial number of times. You can't blame me for presuming something is amiss. The expansion of the name (Nick Stern) gives the name of an important UK government advisor on the economics of Global Warming. So looking at Global Warming and French trains and the name, it is all a bit too much in the coincidence stakes thus my suspicions that something is very amiss. But then, this Nick Stern might be genuine, but, then again, perhaps not.
-
As far as individuals mentioned in your last paragraph are concerned, it is a matter of record of their respective behaviour, so I refer you to those records in this forum and elsewhere on Code Project. Considering the fact that the new Soapbox 1.0 is supposed to be private by invitation/application only and the Jon Oakman inspired rules define who can and who cannot be a member, this CP member named Nick Stern, being only a CP member for just a few days appears to violate the first Oakman rule in both time and article requirements. His (Nick Stern) second ever posting was in the new soapbox and made reference to French trains and was made within hours (or possibly minutes) of his CP membership, and France you know - you live there! His very first posting referenced an effect within the sphere of global warming that included a comment about surfing in Devon, a part of the world you know only too well. His other two messages are incorporated in this moved message thread and this was about how water vapour affect Global Warming, again a subject you have posted on a substantial number of times. You can't blame me for presuming something is amiss. The expansion of the name (Nick Stern) gives the name of an important UK government advisor on the economics of Global Warming. So looking at Global Warming and French trains and the name, it is all a bit too much in the coincidence stakes thus my suspicions that something is very amiss. But then, this Nick Stern might be genuine, but, then again, perhaps not.
Oh OK, it is me. I have to say I am surprised anyone payed such close attention, and at the samne time remembering from way back that I mentioned living in Devon. Have to say though the name was a big clue! Anyone gomr the UK should have picked it up straight away. As for posting in Oakmans SB though, I can only imagine it happened because I was logged in as fat_boy in Jons forum and then logged in as nic stern. Perhaps with the same IP address I got through. Anyway, 10 out of 10 for observation!
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Oh OK, it is me. I have to say I am surprised anyone payed such close attention, and at the samne time remembering from way back that I mentioned living in Devon. Have to say though the name was a big clue! Anyone gomr the UK should have picked it up straight away. As for posting in Oakmans SB though, I can only imagine it happened because I was logged in as fat_boy in Jons forum and then logged in as nic stern. Perhaps with the same IP address I got through. Anyway, 10 out of 10 for observation!
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
As for posting in Oakmans SB though, I can only imagine it happened because I was logged in as fat_boy in Jons forum and then logged in as nic stern. Perhaps with the same IP address I got through.
If true then bug exists and needs to be squished. I'm sure you would like to report this bug to Maunder and his team.
fat_boy wrote:
I have to say I am surprised anyone payed such close attention, and at the samne time remembering from way back that I mentioned living in Devon.
My mother came from Plymouth. And I recall a conversation, perhaps over a year or two ago, with yourself.
fat_boy wrote:
Have to say though the name was a big clue!
Stern is not a well known name in British politics and most would not know of him, had you called yourself Edward Miliband, then that would be a bigger giveaway :-\
-
You should read my response to Shog if you are interested in what is right. --- edit--- You can look at the news too: Many of the emails reveal strenuous efforts by the mainstream climate scientists to do what outside observers would regard as censoring their critics. And the correspondence raises awkward questions about the effectiveness of peer review – the supposed gold standard of scientific merit – and the operation of the UN's top climate body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).[^] AGW is coming apart. For a paprer like the Guardian which has had a guy called Monbiot telling us airline executives should be thrown form their planes for the damage they do to african farmers to run articles that show the scientific process behind AGW has been subjected to bias is remarkable.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
modified on Thursday, February 4, 2010 2:44 AM
dude, take it to the soapbox. nobody wants to read your rantings up here.
-
dude, take it to the soapbox. nobody wants to read your rantings up here.
-
The first part you highlight cobntinues "While this theory was has been carried by climate change skeptics for some time, global warming advocates dismissed them" This is saying that untill now water vapour has been discounted by the AGW crowd. This research sugests that in fact is is twice as powerfull as CO2. So, from AR3 to AR4 the IPCC reduced CO2 forcing from 2.4 to 1.7 W/m^2 s^-1. This study suggests that that figure be reduced even further. What is ujnisial about this? The IPCC stated at the time that 4/5ths of factors affecting climate have "very low level of scientific understanding" (I would quote but the IPCC have messed up thier website and the links to the figures are a mess and broken), so it is expected that as more research is done and the rest of the forcings understood then CO2 forcing gets adjusted. The second bit you highlight just confirms the first. Water vapour is twice as powerfull as CO2. It states it *could* act as an amplifier. In fact the first paper specifically speculates that water vapour acts as a negative feed back on CO2 warming. -- edit-- Look, what is good for me about this is that it shows that research is still being carried out (in this case because the earth stoped playing ball with the models). The science is not settled. The case for AGW rests entirely on the fact that the measured warming from 1970 to 1998 can not be explained. Bob Watson recently stated this. He said that since they cant explain it the only thing left is man made CO2 and so that must be the cause. A heck of a lot has been said based on this very shaky premis, and it is time that some propper research is done. This article suggests that that is now starting to happen.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
modified on Thursday, February 4, 2010 2:31 AM
Ok, first off... I don't care. About AGW, I mean. I know this is a hobby for you, and I do respect that, but... The drama you're looking to enjoy, it just leaves me cold. I responded because bad reporting bothers me.
fat_boy wrote:
The first part you highlight
...was flawed, because it failed to comprehend what its source was actually saying. So all conclusions, suspicions, revelations or conspiracy theories drawn in that article are immediately suspect.
fat_boy wrote:
This research sugests that in fact is is twice as powerfull as CO2.
Except that it doesn't. The NASA article doesn't say that, and was misquoted in the article linked from the OP. Which was my point.
fat_boy wrote:
In fact the first paper specifically speculates that water vapour acts as a negative feed back on CO2 warming.
Speculation is easy. I can speculate that neither you nor the OP (heh...) actually read the NASA article, but can't prove it.
-
Ok, first off... I don't care. About AGW, I mean. I know this is a hobby for you, and I do respect that, but... The drama you're looking to enjoy, it just leaves me cold. I responded because bad reporting bothers me.
fat_boy wrote:
The first part you highlight
...was flawed, because it failed to comprehend what its source was actually saying. So all conclusions, suspicions, revelations or conspiracy theories drawn in that article are immediately suspect.
fat_boy wrote:
This research sugests that in fact is is twice as powerfull as CO2.
Except that it doesn't. The NASA article doesn't say that, and was misquoted in the article linked from the OP. Which was my point.
fat_boy wrote:
In fact the first paper specifically speculates that water vapour acts as a negative feed back on CO2 warming.
Speculation is easy. I can speculate that neither you nor the OP (heh...) actually read the NASA article, but can't prove it.
Yeah, OK. I see your point. The NASA article didnt make the same claimns. What grabbed me about this was that it shows that the science is not settled, that its still being refined. This is all sceptics want. They want an end to the ridiculous alarmism, and a return to clear headded calm science so we can actually understand the true impact of CO2 on the planet.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription