Smersh's Page

More from Smersh

Forum Posts

Comments

Posted on: F.1 2009 discussion and SDC F.1 Pool
at 11/23/2009 4:51am

If you feel you'd like to have a go SK, please do so. I wasn't a member here at SDC during the last World Cup (not the ... more(+)

SpaceKiwi wrote:Speaking of football, yes, a World Cup thread sounds like an excellent idea. Do we have any volunteers to run the SDC comp for the event or would you like me to have another lash at it in 2010? I need to review what happened last time and see what improvements might be made to the point's-scoring method we used. My faded memory is suggesting to me it went quite well with bonus points for Golden Boot/World Cup Champion, but perhaps I'm recalling things nostalgically rather than accurately.

If you feel you'd like to have a go SK, please do so. I wasn't a member here at SDC during the last World Cup (not the football one, anyway.) My first experience of an SDC pool was the last Cricket World Cup that you organised which was excellent, as was the Rugby one. You and Newsartist are great at doing these pools.

If we start a World Cup pool thread soon ("ish" anyway- after the draw has been made might be best) we'll have plenty of time to work out the rules and points scoring system between us, if you neeed any assistance. Also, the earlier we get it underway, the more people we should get taking part, I would think. close(-)

Posted on: Digital and Colorized Remaster of WWII Archival Fi...
at 11/23/2009 4:24am

Yes, the History forum at Live Science might well be the place that Imaginova would prefer to have a Military History ... more(+)

yevaud wrote:

jim48 wrote:Hitler made 3 big mistakes: Invading Russia, declaring war on the U.S. and delaying his jet fighter.

Oh, much more than that, surely.

I'm sure he made more than as well. His biggest mistake though in my opinion was invading Russia. In Britain we were on our knees and expecting a German invasion across the channel at any moment. Once Germany invaded Russia, Hitler's resources had to be mostly concentrated on attempting to conquer it, giving Britain a breathing space and a chance to regroup.

His timing for the Russian invasion was all wrong as well, as it was just before the onset of winter. His troops were ill-prepared and poorly equipped for the bitter Russian winter and were easy meat for the Russians, fighting on their own soil and much more experienced in those conditions.

yevaud wrote:I should ask, since there's clearly some interest in it; should I ask DoubleHelix to create a history/military history sub-forum?

jim48 wrote:What do you think of the military history sub-forum idea, Smersh?

I would agree with that, but as Yevaud also pointed out:

yevaud wrote:Well, history, not specifically military history. Dunno if DH will agree; there is already a history forum over at LiveScience (though it probably doesn't get as much traffic as one here would).

Yes, the History forum at Live Science might well be the place that Imaginova would prefer to have a Military History sub-forum. I'm sure it would get more posts here at SDC though than at LS. I still don't understand why the policy is to keep the SDC and LS fora separate though and there is already some overlap (for example "Forces of Nature" here at SDC.)

My own message board (that I share with some other guys) actually gets more posts atm than Live Science ...  close(-)

Posted on: Five Word Story
at 11/23/2009 3:57am

that don't agree with Carter

Posted on: Anthropogenic GW now exposed as a myth? Hackers le...
at 11/22/2009 8:06pm

Here's three of the alleged e-mails Wayne:


Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send ... more(+)

Here's three of the alleged e-mails Wayne:

From: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley ,mann@[snipped], mhughes@
[snipped]
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: k.briffa@[snipped],t.osborn@[snipped]
Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow. I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd [sic] from1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
Thanks for the comments, Ray.
Cheers, Phil
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit

From: Tom Wigley [...]
To: Phil Jones [...]
Subject: 1940s
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:25:38 -0600
Cc: Ben Santer [...]
Phil,
Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly explain the 1940s warming blip. If you look at the attached plot you will see that theland also shows the 1940s blip (as I’m sure you know).
So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean – but we’d still have to explain the land blip. I’ve chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are 1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips—higher sensitivity plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from.
Removing ENSO does not affect this.
It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with “why the blip”.
Let me go further. If you look at NH vs SH and the aerosol effect (qualitatively or with MAGICC) then with a reduced ocean blip we get continuous warming in the SH, and a cooling in the NH—just as one would expect with mainly NH aerosols.
The other interesting thing is (as Foukal et al. note – from MAGICC) that the 1910-40 warming cannot be solar. The Sun can get at most 10% of this with Wang et al solar, less with Foukal solar. So this may well be NADW, as Sarah and I noted in 1987 (and also Schlesinger later). A reduced SST blip in the 1940s makes the 1910-40 warming larger than the SH (which it currently is not)—but not really enough.
So … why was the SH so cold around 1910? Another SST problem? (SH/NH data also attached.)
This stuff is in a report I am writing for EPRI, so I’d appreciate any comments you (and Ben) might have.
Tom.

From: Kevin Trenberth
To: Michael Mann
Subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 08:57:37 -0600
Cc: Stephen H Schneider , Myles Allen , peter stott , “Philip D. Jones” , Benjamin Santer , Tom Wigley , Thomas R Karl , Gavin Schmidt , James Hansen , Michael Oppenheimer
Hi all
Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming ? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low.
This is January weather (see the Rockies baseball playoff game was canceled on saturday and then played last night in below freezing weather).
Trenberth, K. E., 2009: An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth’s global energy. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 1, 19-27, doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2009.06.001. [1][PDF] (A PDF of the published version can be obtained from the author.)
***
The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.***

Those were posted to a climate change blog here, but if you copy / paste some of the body text of the e-mails (leave out the sender/ recipients etc) into Google they are shown on websites all over the place.

And here's a story on the Beeb:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8370282.stm

It's being called "Climategate" on some sites.  close(-)

Posted on: Anthropogenic GW now exposed as a myth? Hackers le...
at 11/22/2009 6:42am

 more(+)

The University of East Anglia, in eastern England, said in a statement Saturday that the hackers had entered the server and stolen data at its Climatic Research Unit, a leading global research center on climate change. The university said police are investigating the theft of the information, but could not confirm if all the materials posted online are genuine.

More than a decade of correspondence between leading British and U.S. scientists is included in about 1,000 e-mails and 3,000 documents posted on Web sites following the security breach last week.

Some climate change skeptics and bloggers claim the information shows scientists have overstated the case for global warming, and allege the documents contain proof that some researchers have attempted to manipulate data ...

http://www.physorg.com/news178046136.html

This story is creating waves all over the net as I write. If true, it seems to me to be the final nail in the coffin for the Anthropogenic (man-made) global warming theory. close(-)

This user has not commented on any articles or features...