Winter 2006: One for the record books (3382 hits)
Category: Science & EnvironmentalLabels: ETS_Sociopolitical_Commentary ETS_Essays
Rating: 0 on 204 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (View user info) at 2006-03-13 16:15:14 EST
Official Start of Spring 2006 = 20th of March at 1:26 PM EST (18:26 GMT)
One week left of winter, and I am left to reflect on how this winter has succeeded in supporting what I've believed for years now - that the world is warming up and our climatological patterns are, to put it bluntly, fucked.
In a time where I should be running around with the birds and bees, the rabbits and butterflies, and other happy woodland creatures getting 'twitterpated' and high on smiles, I am sitting here counting on one hand the number of days over the last few months that have actually resembled a traditional winter here in southern Indiana.
Winter officially began on December 21st and from then until the end of the year was mild and dry throughout much of the American midwest. Average temperatures were above normal with much of Minnesota and North Dakota experiencing deviations of 20 degrees above the normal mean. (Figure 1)
Some snowfall was recorded in parts of the midwest in the first week of winter, but surface temperatures above freezing quickly melted away any accumulation. December often brings with it school closings as road conditions make driving hazardous; however, we did not see that this winter. Cities like Chicago that are used to plowing snow and digging out automobiles in late December experienced clear roadways and mild conditions.
January brought with it the warmest weather above mean of any month on record...EVER. (Figure 2)
Temperatures again reached well above normal - as much as 20 degrees again in states like Minnesota and Wisconsin. One of the most shocking of the statistics to come out of this January 2006 is the fact that sities like Minneapolis, Bismarck, and Green Bay didn't have ONE SINGLE DAY in which the temperatures dipped below zero. Not one. A typical winter should see these cities with 15 or more days below zero.
30 weather observing stations throughout the midwest recorded record temperatures for the month of January (source: Midwestern Regional Climate Center)
Station : New Record : Old Record : Year of Old Record
Urbana, IL 37.9°F 37.7°F, 1933
Midway Airport (Chicago), IL 36.5°F 35.2°F, 1933
Galesburg, IL 36.9°F 33.9°F, 1990
Quincy, IL 38.4°F 37.5°F, 1990
Rochester, MN 28.1°F 25.8°F, 1990
Duluth, MN 23.8°F 21.9°F, 1944
International Falls, MN 18.8°F 17.5°F, 1944
Minneapolis, MN 28.6°F 26.6°F, 1944
Appleton, WI 30.2°F 26.9°F, 1990
Green Bay, WI 30.5°F 27.6°F, 1933
Marshfield, WI 26.5°F 24.5°F, 1990
Manitowoc, WI 31.0°F 30.2°F, 1933
Oshkosh, WI 32.4°F 28.1°F, 1933
Steven Point, WI 29.0°F 27.9°F, 1990
Sturgeon Bay, WI 29.9°F 26.9°F, 1932...1990
Wausau, WI 26.7°F 25.1°F, 2002
Wisconsin Rapids, WI 28.7°F 26.4°F, 1921
Mansfield, OH 37.1°F 34.5°F, 1990
Youngstown, OH 36.8°F 36.0°F, 1950
Jackson, KY 45.1°F 42.8°F, 1990
Paducah, KY 44.0°F 44.0°F, 1950
Kansas City, MO 42.7°F 42.4°F, 1933
Joplin, MO 45.6°F 42.9°F, 1990
Vichy, MO 41.8°F 37.6°F, 1964
West Plains, MO 43.9°F 42.4°F, 1990
South Bend, IN 35.8°F 34.0°F, 1990
Fort Wayne, IN 36.9°F 36.8°F, 1932
Goshen, IN 36.1°F 35.7°F, 1990
Defiance, OH 36.7°F 36.6°F, 1932
Lima, OH 38.5°F 38.1°F, 1932
It is interesting to note that many of these records broke the 1990 record for those areas. 1990 would later become the worst year for killer tornados F3 and above since the terrible 1974 outbreak. Indiana, my home state saw a record 69 tornados in 1990 compared to only 26 the year before. If unusually warm January temperatures are any kind of barometer for tornados, this year should prove to be equally significant for the midwest in tornado activity. In fact, a line of tornadic storms have made their way across the region over the weekend.
I can't prove this theory quite yet, but I look for tornado seasons over the next several years to begin earlier with their epicenter of activity moving northeastward as arctic air stays at higher latitudes and the dry line pushes further east than normal.
While February temperatures retreated closer to normal, the temperatures across the region were still above average. Overall, this winter was nothing like the winters I remember as a kid growing up in this region. It could be argued that I just remember there being more snow because snow is what stuck out. Snow was the fun stuff to a kid, so sure I'm gonna remember more of it. But the numbers don't lie. Precipitation this year was relegated to mostly rain, not snow, and what little snow we did get did not stay for long in most cases because of higher than normal surface temperatures.
Someone once said you can't understand the future until you understand the past. This winter will go down as the 5th warmest on record. What impact that will have on the coming year and whatever natural events await us remains to be seen. It is possible, though, that at least some clues can be found in the patterns of the past.
People can argue about the causes of the current warming trends and man's role in them till their blue in the face, but that's never going to change the fact that they're happening. Nor will it change the fact that we simply do not know the full extent of the impact of our meddling on the environment.
One thing is guaranteed: time will tell...and chances are it ain't gonna be pretty.
Further reading on this exceptionally warm winter: http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2006/s2591.htm
User Reviews
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-04-12 10:29:27 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220
Climate of Fear
Global-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence.
BY RICHARD LINDZEN
Wednesday, April 12, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT
There have been repeated claims that this past year's hurricane activity was another sign of human-induced climate change. Everything from the heat wave in Paris to heavy snows in Buffalo has been blamed on people burning gasoline to fuel their cars, and coal and natural gas to heat, cool and electrify their homes. Yet how can a barely discernible, one-degree increase in the recorded global mean temperature since the late 19th century possibly gain public acceptance as the source of recent weather catastrophes? And how can it translate into unlikely claims about future catastrophes?
The answer has much to do with misunderstanding the science of climate, plus a willingness to debase climate science into a triangle of alarmism. Ambiguous scientific statements about climate are hyped by those with a vested interest in alarm, thus raising the political stakes for policy makers who provide funds for more science research to feed more alarm to increase the political stakes. After all, who puts money into science--whether for AIDS, or space, or climate--where there is nothing really alarming? Indeed, the success of climate alarmism can be counted in the increased federal spending on climate research from a few hundred million dollars pre-1990 to $1.7 billion today. It can also be seen in heightened spending on solar, wind, hydrogen, ethanol and clean coal technologies, as well as on other energy-investment decisions.
But there is a more sinister side to this feeding frenzy. Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis.
To understand the misconceptions perpetuated about climate science and the climate of intimidation, one needs to grasp some of the complex underlying scientific issues. First, let's start where there is agreement. The public, press and policy makers have been repeatedly told that three claims have widespread scientific support: Global temperature has risen about a degree since the late 19th century; levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have increased by about 30% over the same period; and CO2 should contribute to future warming. These claims are true. However, what the public fails to grasp is that the claims neither constitute support for alarm nor establish man's responsibility for the small amount of warming that has occurred. In fact, those who make the most outlandish claims of alarm are actually demonstrating skepticism of the very science they say supports them. It isn't just that the alarmists are trumpeting model results that we know must be wrong. It is that they are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn't happen even if the models were right as justifying costly policies to try to prevent global warming.
If the models are correct, global warming reduces the temperature differences between the poles and the equator. When you have less difference in temperature, you have less excitation of extratropical storms, not more. And, in fact, model runs support this conclusion. Alarmists have drawn some support for increased claims of tropical storminess from a casual claim by Sir John Houghton of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that a warmer world would have more evaporation, with latent heat providing more energy for disturbances. The problem with this is that the ability of evaporation to drive tropical storms relies not only on temperature but humidity as well, and calls for drier, less humid air. Claims for starkly higher temperatures are based upon there being more humidity, not less--hardly a case for more storminess with global warming.
So how is it that we don't have more scientists speaking up about this junk science? It's my belief that many scientists have been cowed not merely by money but by fear. An example: Earlier this year, Texas Rep. Joe Barton issued letters to paleoclimatologist Michael Mann and some of his co-authors seeking the details behind a taxpayer-funded analysis that claimed the 1990s were likely the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year in the last millennium. Mr. Barton's concern was based on the fact that the IPCC had singled out Mr. Mann's work as a means to encourage policy makers to take action. And they did so before his work could be replicated and tested--a task made difficult because Mr. Mann, a key IPCC author, had refused to release the details for analysis. The scientific community's defense of Mr. Mann was, nonetheless, immediate and harsh. The president of the National Academy of Sciences--as well as the American Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Union--formally protested, saying that Rep. Barton's singling out of a scientist's work smacked of intimidation.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-04-12 10:28:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
All of which starkly contrasts to the silence of the scientific community when anti-alarmists were in the crosshairs of then-Sen. Al Gore. In 1992, he ran two congressional hearings during which he tried to bully dissenting scientists, including myself, into changing our views and supporting his climate alarmism. Nor did the scientific community complain when Mr. Gore, as vice president, tried to enlist Ted Koppel in a witch hunt to discredit anti-alarmist scientists--a request that Mr. Koppel deemed publicly inappropriate. And they were mum when subsequent articles and books by Ross Gelbspan libelously labeled scientists who differed with Mr. Gore as stooges of the fossil-fuel industry.
Sadly, this is only the tip of a non-melting iceberg. In Europe, Henk Tennekes was dismissed as research director of the Royal Dutch Meteorological Society after questioning the scientific underpinnings of global warming. Aksel Winn-Nielsen, former director of the U.N.'s World Meteorological Organization, was tarred by Bert Bolin, first head of the IPCC, as a tool of the coal industry for questioning climate alarmism. Respected Italian professors Alfonso Sutera and Antonio Speranza disappeared from the debate in 1991, apparently losing climate-research funding for raising questions.
And then there are the peculiar standards in place in scientific journals for articles submitted by those who raise questions about accepted climate wisdom. At Science and Nature, such papers are commonly refused without review as being without interest. However, even when such papers are published, standards shift. When I, with some colleagues at NASA, attempted to determine how clouds behave under varying temperatures, we discovered what we called an "Iris Effect," wherein upper-level cirrus clouds contracted with increased temperature, providing a very strong negative climate feedback sufficient to greatly reduce the response to increasing CO2. Normally, criticism of papers appears in the form of letters to the journal to which the original authors can respond immediately. However, in this case (and others) a flurry of hastily prepared papers appeared, claiming errors in our study, with our responses delayed months and longer. The delay permitted our paper to be commonly referred to as "discredited." Indeed, there is a strange reluctance to actually find out how climate really behaves. In 2003, when the draft of the U.S. National Climate Plan urged a high priority for improving our knowledge of climate sensitivity, the National Research Council instead urged support to look at the impacts of the warming--not whether it would actually happen.
Alarm rather than genuine scientific curiosity, it appears, is essential to maintaining funding. And only the most senior scientists today can stand up against this alarmist gale, and defy the iron triangle of climate scientists, advocates and policymakers.
M. Lindzen is Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT.
Submitted by psychodude98 (user info) at 2006-03-18 16:08:14 EST (#)
Ranking: -1
Why do I carE?
Submitted by AlwaysAnEagle (user info) at 2006-03-17 14:22:54 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Awww, you're such a nerd! I love it! I used to work in the building NOAA is in down in DC. They were all nerds too, and it was awesome.
I totally agree - fucked - but the thing about this winter? I thought it was going to be BLISTERINGLY cold, mostly because that's how our pets reacted to it - putting on extra extra fur, blah blah blah - and they have never been wrong before, and yet? Lame. And I'm in Massachusetts.
Submitted by Jimmo (user info) at 2006-03-17 07:59:14 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I'm not reading all the comments. This idea is nothing new, covered the theory at Uni watched it in action over the last eight years.
The seasons are shifting. Winter is coming later and later and it's not just me and the other loons, it's a topic regularly addressed in the office, pubs etc.
Does it really matter, are seasons just dates on a man made map? I think we will find out.
My tutor expressed the opinion that global warming will be compensated by increased photosynthesis.
It's almost like we are fertilizing them direct from the car exhaust.
The best thing to do would be to grow wood in sustainable forests and once used,buried deep down,to become future generation's oil. (except they won't need because they will be able to float using the power of their minds by then).
Thus keeping that pesky CO2 safely underground.
Submitted by Jacobt26 (user info) at 2006-03-16 13:12:10 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by ThatOneGirl (user info) at 2006-03-16 09:59:07 (#)
Ranking: 0
As selfish as this sounds, being a Michigander, I can't say I minded too much!
------
Too bad its going back to the 20's tonight...
Submitted by inion_de_trua (user info) at 2006-03-16 10:50:26 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
i'm not saying small changes don't matter. i'm just saying that the models we have aren't really all that great at predicting the future or averaging the past. and it wasn't even 600,000 years, which is still only .001% of the earth's age, it was 160,000.
it's just not enough to get your panties in a twist about.
Submitted by ThatOneGirl (user info) at 2006-03-16 09:59:07 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
As selfish as this sounds, being a Michigander, I can't say I minded too much!
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-15 16:07:03 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Inion: We now have climate records that stretch back about 600,000 years due to ice cores. Take into account sedimentary layers and fossils, and we have information upon which to make informed guesses about the climate dating back millions of years.
When you're talking about a working climate model that will give us an indication of what the future might hold, 600,000 years could very well be enough, especially if you're simply trying to prove man's contribution, because that's only a couple hundred years out of 600,000.
Hell, for that matter, you can look at the last 1000 years and SEE man's contribution: http://www.env.go.jp/en/w-paper/1997/images/03_1.jpg
Here's what we DO know: In that time the earth has never been hotter than it is now on average, so we simply can't say with any certainty the effect of continued warming this will have, but it doesn't take a genius to hypothesize it's not a good thing for our survival.
ANY kind of climatic change will challenge ANY organism's survival. That's common sense.
Submitted by JonnyX (user info) at 2006-03-15 15:40:13 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Yellow Dart, I always told that joke for Caulaincourt about a year and a half ago!
http://www.ubersite.com/m/50547
Submitted by inion_de_trua (user info) at 2006-03-15 15:11:01 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
sorry couple hundred thousand. i gave too much credit.
Submitted by inion_de_trua (user info) at 2006-03-15 15:08:24 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-14 15:18:02 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by inion_de_trua (user info) at 2006-03-14 14:57:26 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Oxymoron (user info) at 2006-03-14 14:53:30 (#)
Ranking: 0
The cause. Almost all scientists agree that the Earth has been gradually warming over time.
They don't agree on whether it was caused by me or the Earth itself.
-----------
exactly, there isn't enough compiled data to make up for the billions of years before we started measuring and recording all this info.
------------------------
You're wrong: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/warnings/stories/nojs.html
--------------
in comparison to the age of the earth, that's still nothing to base assumptions on. that's the problem. when the planet's 6bil years old there's really not much to go on even if we did have a gander at what life was like a couple hundred million years ago.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-15 11:03:50 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by TheSpook (user info) at 2006-03-15 07:20:32 (#)
Ranking: 0
I just think the world is going through a climate change. Whether it's man made or not is a question I really don't care to answer. It's not like we're going to reverse it, so why not just adapt?
---------------------
I'm already getting there too.
You're exactly right. But I'd just like to think I at least tried, you know? I have done a few things to do my part, but it's not going to be enough, even if we all do those things, so you're right, adaptation is going to be a neccessity. Problem is, there are some environments humans simply wil not be able to adapt to. We could say "technology technology" all we want, but if we can't get out and mine or gather the raw materials to create that technology, we're fucked.
Submitted by TheSpook (user info) at 2006-03-15 07:20:32 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I just think the world is going through a climate change. Whether it's man made or not is a question I really don't care to answer. It's not like we're going to reverse it, so why not just adapt?
Submitted by TheSpook (user info) at 2006-03-15 07:18:29 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Try living in the worst winter Cleveland's ever seen back in 2004-2005 and tell me the world's warming up.
Submitted by Istaros (user info) at 2006-03-15 02:22:58 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
"Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-13 16:30:52 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by JonnyX (user info) at 2006-03-13 16:29:09 (#)
Ranking: 0
I BLAME GREOGE W. BUSH FOR ALL OF THIS
-----------------------
That joke is getting really old."
too bad it's not a joke you delusional pill-guzzling hemorrhoid of a person
Submitted by Oxymoron (user info) at 2006-03-14 17:22:54 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
yep, been ready.
Submitted by Jacobt26 (user info) at 2006-03-14 17:11:37 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-14 15:30:47 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Oxymoron (user info) at 2006-03-14 14:12:02 (#)
Ranking: 0
My personal theory? Ok you didn't ask but I'll spit it out anyways.
The Earth's polarity is switching. We're all gonna -2DIE!
http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/002236.html
-------------------------------
Have you seen any of the recent talk about the 11 year sunspot cycle that's set to correspond with the end of the Mayan calendar in...you guessed it....2012?
Google it and check it out. This coming sunspot cycle, researcher's say, is going to be one of the worst humans have ever seen.
Who knows what effect that could have on our magnetic poles. It will almost certainly have an effect on our satellites, our power systems, our electronics, etc.
As Coyote, who is a physicist, said on one of my posts, "This is going to be an interesting time to be alive."
--------
Damnit, something else I want to respond to...
Its predicted in some forms of Judaism that 7 years after the division of Israel(remember last year? Palestine) the end of the world will come. Signs of the apocolypse: moon turning red, happened in 2004 with an eclipse in the very least, war in the holy land(middle east), coming of the antichrist who shall bring peace before the end. Those are just a few.
I watched some thing on either the history channel or was it discovery... where astronomically the signs for a great birth, and the location of a possible star or bethleham would have occured about 12 years after our current year we believe Jesus was born, and its already known that our callender skills aren't all that accurate, lining up the real year 2000 with 2012, 7 years after the division of Israel, and at the end of the Mayan callender.
Are you ready for the end?
Submitted by Jacobt26 (user info) at 2006-03-14 17:06:13 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I tried reading through the reviews on this thing to follow the argument, and I've come to a concrete conclusion about all of this:
Ets, Coulaincourt, and Indoninja need lives.
Submitted by Jacobt26 (user info) at 2006-03-14 16:36:30 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by Jacobt26 (user info) at 2006-03-09 08:38:47 (#)
Ranking: -2
Jesus christ dude shut up.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-03-14 16:26:05 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by Oxymoron (user info) at 2006-03-14 16:14:29 (#)
Ranking: 0
I was fucking around. Same as my Polarity switch comment.
If you read the article that I linked you would know that the poles change so gradually that we would have plenty of time to prepare for it.
I personally don't think the apocolypse is near. I think God can do a lot better than melting a couple Icebergs(and allowing you to get a tan)
===
I don't know man...according to ETS we will all catch on fire.
Seriously, I find it funny that pessimistic over anxious people like him who curb in fetal position at night forget that our ancestors lived through much worse conditions, in much smaller numbers and obviously, much less technology.
Submitted by Shlongy (user info) at 2006-03-14 16:19:41 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Yeah...you have "fans" alright.
Here's one now! Go fuck yourself, you self-absorbed pseudo-intellect.
You're as "intellectual" as a palmetto tree.
Submitted by Oxymoron (user info) at 2006-03-14 16:18:10 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I found it on a website. Said it was derogatory to French Canadians.
"Caul has electric teeth"....is that the insult you can't bear?
Submitted by Oxymoron (user info) at 2006-03-14 16:14:29 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I was fucking around. Same as my Polarity switch comment.
If you read the article that I linked you would know that the poles change so gradually that we would have plenty of time to prepare for it.
I personally don't think the apocolypse is near. I think God can do a lot better than melting a couple Icebergs(and allowing you to get a tan)
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-03-14 16:12:05 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Oxymoron (user info) at 2006-03-14 16:10:33 (#)
Ranking: 0
Caul: If I were to call you Pepsi, would you find it offensive?
===
Of course not. There is only one insult I cannot bear, and it has nothing to do with my Pepsi drinking origins.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-03-14 16:11:08 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Oxymoron (user info) at 2006-03-14 16:06:16 (#)
Ranking: 0
There could be one easy explanation to the recent weird weather...Tribulation.
Fits into whats happening politically/socially in the world right now.
===
Yes there are a lot of things happening right now but do you really think it's nearly as bad as during...let's say...WWII or um...the Dark Age or just about any other period of time when there wasn't anything closely ressembling the somewhat cohesive stability we have right now?
Acknowledging problems is one thing, being fatalist is another.
Submitted by Oxymoron (user info) at 2006-03-14 16:10:33 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Caul: If I were to call you Pepsi, would you find it offensive?
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-03-14 16:06:51 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
by the way, nice job on ignoring the opposite effects of solar dimming, which just might come in handy when the next apocalyptic (<- according to you, not scientists) sunspot cycle occurs.
Submitted by Oxymoron (user info) at 2006-03-14 16:06:16 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
There could be one easy explanation to the recent weird weather...Tribulation.
Fits into whats happening politically/socially in the world right now.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-03-14 16:04:30 EST (#)
Ranking: -1
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-14 15:51:26 (#)
Ranking: 0
"You overexagarate the effects of global warming. There will always be humans. Maybe less of them. It's evolution, not the Apocalypse."
----------------------------
"Overexaggerate"? Really? Where's your evidence? PROVE it!
Humans might be adaptable, but we are NOT invincible. To assert there will always be humans is a highly naive statement. And you call ME self-aggrandizing!
The hypocracy is endless.
===
My evidence is that humans won't start roasting all of a sudden. The temperature doesn't have to rise to a 100C for it to have devastative effects on huge populations. The U.N. already predicted effects of slight but constant temperature rise...major cities flooded enough to make them inhabitable, spread of disease, hastening of arid land...etc. Enough consequences to slow down human activity if you ask anyone.
No, we're not invicible. I don't think we could live through a meteor the size of China but if our ancestors made it through the Ice Age, I'm pretty certain we can make it fairly easily through this. Though not without casualties, which I know you'll be part of since you're the "talk but don't act" type.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-14 15:51:26 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
"You overexagarate the effects of global warming. There will always be humans. Maybe less of them. It's evolution, not the Apocalypse."
----------------------------
"Overexaggerate"? Really? Where's your evidence? PROVE it!
Humans might be adaptable, but we are NOT invincible. To assert there will always be humans is a highly naive statement. And you call ME self-aggrandizing!
The hypocracy is endless.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-14 15:46:48 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
"On the other hand, the "global dimming" (something equally important) caused by polution lowers solar radiations which were naturally on the rise and somewhat helps stabilizing the rise of temperature."
-------------------
Solar radiations that were 'naturally' on the rise? Tell me, oh Caul, where you came across this information.
Point me to a website that corroborates this idea that solar radiation was naturally on the rise and had nothing to do with the depletion of the ozone layer as a result of human activity.
This should be good. I guess two wrongs DO make a right after all!
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-14 15:42:47 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
"IGNORE IT AND IT WILL GO AWAY."
Interesting point of view... Unfortunately, a lot of people seem to share it.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-03-14 15:37:36 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-14 15:17:23 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Oxymoron (user info) at 2006-03-14 14:53:30 (#)
Ranking: 0
The cause. Almost all scientists agree that the Earth has been gradually warming over time.
They don't agree on whether it was caused by me or the Earth itself.
---------------------------
Not all of them.
Since the added data from ice cores, tree rings, and sedimentary deposits have entered the mix, a picture is emerging that clearly shows CO2 levels (a scientifically established greenhouse gas) along with methane levels (another scientifically established greenhouse gas), sulfides, etc., began to rise dramatically around 1800. The worldwide temperature rise corresponds in general with this rise in greenhouse gas in the atmosphere.
In the 1940s, direct levels have been taken and recorded that corroborate this rise in CO2 and other greenhouse gasses.
VERY FEW scientists disagree we are having an effect on our environment, and the ones that are cautious or skeptical seem to be waiting for better computer models to prove it to them.
The problem is, computer models are only as good as the input data and the equasions used to interpret it, not to mention the computing power that is required to run these different scenarios in search of the one that will give us an accurate back prediction of climate over the course of the known past.
We probably don't have that kind of time.
And yes...intuition plays a part in telling me that. It's an overwhelming feeling in the gut that we are on the cusp of an epoch in human and planetary history, not only with respect to our climate, but with respect to EVERYTHING.
There will be no "I told you sos" if it turns out I'm right. That's the gravity of the situation.
===
You overexagarate the effects of global warming. There will always be humans. Maybe less of them. It's evolution, not the Apocalypse.
On the other hand, the "global dimming" (something equally important) caused by polution lowers solar radiations which were naturally on the rise and somewhat helps stabilizing the rise of temperature.
Submitted by Jeanneee (user info) at 2006-03-14 15:31:57 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
You remind me of my company's most pain-in-ass client, Joe. He's retired and has nothing to do, so he gets off on calling me and my co-workers 10 times a day to ask the same questions over and over to annoy the living shit out of us. He gets a kick out of frustrating people and being an irritating jerk, just like you do.
The only thing even remotely amusing about you is that the same people get sucked into arguing with you time after time after time. GIVE IT UP, PEOPLE - IT'S FUTILE. IGNORE IT AND IT WILL GO AWAY.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-14 15:30:47 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Oxymoron (user info) at 2006-03-14 14:12:02 (#)
Ranking: 0
My personal theory? Ok you didn't ask but I'll spit it out anyways.
The Earth's polarity is switching. We're all gonna -2DIE!
http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/002236.html
-------------------------------
Have you seen any of the recent talk about the 11 year sunspot cycle that's set to correspond with the end of the Mayan calendar in...you guessed it....2012?
Google it and check it out. This coming sunspot cycle, researcher's say, is going to be one of the worst humans have ever seen.
Who knows what effect that could have on our magnetic poles. It will almost certainly have an effect on our satellites, our power systems, our electronics, etc.
As Coyote, who is a physicist, said on one of my posts, "This is going to be an interesting time to be alive."
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-14 15:22:50 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-03-14 14:53:05 (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-14 14:47:09 (#)
Ranking: 0
Quote 1: "Guess what fucktard, you don't have the brains for that, and you certainly don't have the training for that if you think your intuition should play a role in a scientific theory." ~Indoninja
Quote 2: "...for the record I think it is important, just not in proving something to others." ~Indoninja 20 minutes later
------------------------------
Where is the contradiction?
I think intuition is important in day to day life. In makeing decisions in where you want to live, everything. But when you are looking at hard facts and trying to analyze them it has no place. Anyone who has ever done tests or experaments knows that.
---Aaaaaaand, when have I said any different? The hypothesis formation stage of the scientific method is almost entirely BASED on intuition and guesswork. That's all I've said. Never said I was beyond that stage with my 'theory' about the tornados. If I were, I'd have given you the data. Give me time. I was thinking out loud here and I've just started to compile the data and look at it. Why? Because it's pretty damn fun.
"I can't prove this theory quite yet, but..."
That indicates you are on your way, or close to proving it. Otherwise you would say I can't prove this.
---No it doesn't. It indicates I intend to investigate it further. Nothing more.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-14 15:18:02 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by inion_de_trua (user info) at 2006-03-14 14:57:26 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Oxymoron (user info) at 2006-03-14 14:53:30 (#)
Ranking: 0
The cause. Almost all scientists agree that the Earth has been gradually warming over time.
They don't agree on whether it was caused by me or the Earth itself.
-----------
exactly, there isn't enough compiled data to make up for the billions of years before we started measuring and recording all this info.
------------------------
You're wrong: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/warnings/stories/nojs.html
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-14 15:17:23 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Oxymoron (user info) at 2006-03-14 14:53:30 (#)
Ranking: 0
The cause. Almost all scientists agree that the Earth has been gradually warming over time.
They don't agree on whether it was caused by me or the Earth itself.
---------------------------
Not all of them.
Since the added data from ice cores, tree rings, and sedimentary deposits have entered the mix, a picture is emerging that clearly shows CO2 levels (a scientifically established greenhouse gas) along with methane levels (another scientifically established greenhouse gas), sulfides, etc., began to rise dramatically around 1800. The worldwide temperature rise corresponds in general with this rise in greenhouse gas in the atmosphere.
In the 1940s, direct levels have been taken and recorded that corroborate this rise in CO2 and other greenhouse gasses.
VERY FEW scientists disagree we are having an effect on our environment, and the ones that are cautious or skeptical seem to be waiting for better computer models to prove it to them.
The problem is, computer models are only as good as the input data and the equasions used to interpret it, not to mention the computing power that is required to run these different scenarios in search of the one that will give us an accurate back prediction of climate over the course of the known past.
We probably don't have that kind of time.
And yes...intuition plays a part in telling me that. It's an overwhelming feeling in the gut that we are on the cusp of an epoch in human and planetary history, not only with respect to our climate, but with respect to EVERYTHING.
There will be no "I told you sos" if it turns out I'm right. That's the gravity of the situation.
Submitted by inion_de_trua (user info) at 2006-03-14 14:57:26 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Oxymoron (user info) at 2006-03-14 14:53:30 (#)
Ranking: 0
The cause. Almost all scientists agree that the Earth has been gradually warming over time.
They don't agree on whether it was caused by me or the Earth itself.
-----------
exactly, there isn't enough compiled data to make up for the billions of years before we started measuring and recording all this info.
your typo made me think of that line "is it hot in here or is it just me."
Submitted by BadAssJulie (user info) at 2006-03-14 14:54:52 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-14 14:34:52 (#)
Ranking: 0
*yawn*
I grow bored of this 'argument'. Few of you have anything of value to add whatsoever.
Norman is about the only person with anything interesting to say on this topic. The rest of you apparently want to try to poke holes in the post like I was selling it as a scientific thesis or something.
Fucking stupid.
Once again, a post of mine becomes a clusterfuck of idiots who'd rather attack me personally than discuss the subject.
------------------------
And once again you back down and say this whole thing is just a personal attack because people have pointed out the flaws in your argument. Jesus, GROW UP.
Oh and do you honestly think you've added anything valuable here?
Submitted by Oxymoron (user info) at 2006-03-14 14:53:30 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
The cause. Almost all scientists agree that the Earth has been gradually warming over time.
They don't agree on whether it was caused by me or the Earth itself.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-03-14 14:53:05 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-14 14:47:09 (#)
Ranking: 0
Quote 1: "Guess what fucktard, you don't have the brains for that, and you certainly don't have the training for that if you think your intuition should play a role in a scientific theory." ~Indoninja
Quote 2: "...for the record I think it is important, just not in proving something to others." ~Indoninja 20 minutes later
------------------------------
Where is the contradiction?
I think intuition is important in day to day life. In makeing decisions in where you want to live, everything. But when you are looking at hard facts and trying to analyze them it has no place. Anyone who has ever done tests or experaments knows that.
"I can't prove this theory quite yet, but..."
That indicates you are on your way, or close to proving it. Otherwise you would say I can't prove this.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-14 14:48:14 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Oxymoron (user info) at 2006-03-14 14:46:33 (#)
Ranking: 0
The 'scientific' community isn't at odds. It's the political community that's at odds.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, politicians are divided on this as well as scientists. Didn't you read any of the links I attached...guess not.
---------------------------
I think you took me a little out of context. What PART of the global warming theory are you saying science is disagreeing over?
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-14 14:47:09 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Indo, I've just got one thing to say to your apparently ILLITERATE ass, and I QUOTE:
"I can't prove this theory quite yet, but..."
That's taken DIRECTLY FROM THE POST. I wasn't trying to 'PROVE' shit here. I was offering my perception and intuition and indicating I intend to look into it further, which I am.
I'm not trying to "make you believe" a goddamn thing. I couldn't give a fuck less what YOU think.
Allow me to quote you one last time just in case the uber contingent hasn't yet seen what a fucking DUMBASS, wishy-washy, retard you are:
Quote 1: "Guess what fucktard, you don't have the brains for that, and you certainly don't have the training for that if you think your intuition should play a role in a scientific theory." ~Indoninja
Quote 2: "...for the record I think it is important, just not in proving something to others." ~Indoninja 20 minutes later
Now, let me ask YOU, Indo: What do you think "scientific THEORY" is?
You might want to think before you open your fucking mouth this time.
Submitted by Oxymoron (user info) at 2006-03-14 14:46:33 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
The 'scientific' community isn't at odds. It's the political community that's at odds.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, politicians are divided on this as well as scientists. Didn't you read any of the links I attached...guess not.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-03-14 14:46:19 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-14 14:34:52 (#)
Ranking: 0
*yawn*
I grow bored of this 'argument'. Few of you have anything of value to add whatsoever.
Norman is about the only person with anything interesting to say on this topic. The rest of you apparently want to try to poke holes in the post like I was selling it as a scientific thesis or something.
-------------------------------------------
"I can't prove this theory quite yet, but I look for tornado seasons over the next several years to begin earlier with their epicenter of activity moving northeastward as arctic air stays at higher latitudes and the dry line pushes further east than normal."
"I can't prove this theory quite yet"- Would indicate that you are well on your way to proving this theory. That coupled with the pretty pictures and record temps you put down (which would be impressive to a 10 yr old with no access to the internet) make it look like you are trying to back up your theory with facts. It is all fucking window dressing for another post that does nothing but insult the itellegence of the reader.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-03-14 14:44:56 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
the only thing you consider valuable is when people agree with you.
you don't want debate, you want approval.
go back to making bad music, you fucking suck at adult conversations.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-14 14:34:52 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
*yawn*
I grow bored of this 'argument'. Few of you have anything of value to add whatsoever.
Norman is about the only person with anything interesting to say on this topic. The rest of you apparently want to try to poke holes in the post like I was selling it as a scientific thesis or something.
Fucking stupid.
Once again, a post of mine becomes a clusterfuck of idiots who'd rather attack me personally than discuss the subject.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-03-14 14:33:29 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-14 14:13:23 (#)
Ranking: 0
I am not being wishy washy. I don't think intuition has any place in proving a scientific theory.
---------------------
Yes, I agree that it cannot 'prove' anything. But that's not what you said. You said, "Intuition has NO PLACE in a scientific conversation."
Now, you have two choices...admit you were wrong in your statement, or carry on trying to revise your statement and vainly attempting to reconcile that with what you said.
------------------------------------------
What place does your intuition have in scientific theory?
Fine Einstein said it was important (for the record I think it is important, just not in proving something to others).
Because your intuition tells you something we should believe it? That is what you were asking when I said it has no place in scientifis theory.
"Everything requires faith...even science. A little intuition can go a LOOONG way. It's regrettable a lot of people don't understand that. *cough* Indoninja *cough*".
What are you trying to say here? That we should have faith in your theory because your intuition says it is true? Do you really think that was what Einstein meant? And if so why did his theories change throughout the course of his life? If his intuition was always so right, why did he change his mind?
You are harping on this point because you realize your post is shit. You pulled some theory out of your ass from temp databases you can barely understand. When confronted with how ludicris and stupid it sounded for you to come up with predictions, you retreated into this intuition BS.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-03-14 14:24:17 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-14 14:19:27 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-03-14 14:17:13 (#)
Ranking: -2
ETS, you are milking that tiny "flaw" in indoninja sentence so desperatly it's pathetic.
Stop trying so hard to discredit people to feel better about your shitty arguments.
Get back on topic, you're drifting.
--------------------
What the hell do you think you fuckers always do to me.
===
Most of the times I intially respond to your posts with something on topic. Then you usually wig out because you don't like arguments that discredit you.
Submitted by inion_de_trua (user info) at 2006-03-14 14:23:26 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-03-14 14:13:04 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by inion_de_trua (user info) at 2006-03-14 13:56:14 (#)
Ranking: 0
ya know you both should read this book called "quantum questions." it's basically a compilation and analyzation of what various physicists say about the relationship between physics/science and spiriutuality/god. including people like einstein. it's actually fairly amazing how spiritual the world's top phsycists were.
-----------------------------
If you look at things close enough they will all look the same, we are all made of the same subatomic particles. Looking at the world on such a small (or large scale we are all shooting out in an expanding universe) it is easy to see how they would develope a spiritual side.
I haven't read it, but when I was in college I studied nuclear engineering for a time and one of my profs had a boner for essays and letters by scientists that had a spiritual bend. I am sure I have seen a lot of the stuff in there, but i might check it out.
----------
sooooo i read your reply and my mind went "hehe you said boner." ooooh i'm a thinker today.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-03-14 14:21:39 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-14 14:18:06 (#)
Ranking: 0
SHUT THE FUCK UP.
===
No I won't you little psycho.
What are you gonna do about it?
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-14 14:20:49 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Inion: Read "The Mind of God" by Paul Davies
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-14 14:19:27 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-03-14 14:17:13 (#)
Ranking: -2
ETS, you are milking that tiny "flaw" in indoninja sentence so desperatly it's pathetic.
Stop trying so hard to discredit people to feel better about your shitty arguments.
Get back on topic, you're drifting.
--------------------
What the hell do you think you fuckers always do to me. What's good for the goose....
Again, Caul, SHUT THE FUCK UP. This is MY post. You don't even know what the 'topic' is, let alone whether or not I'm drifting off it.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-14 14:18:06 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
By the way, Caul, you can stay the fuck out of this conversation. We (neither I nor Indo) need your Frenchie ass standing on the sidelines like a fucking cheerleader in a miniskirt.
SHUT THE FUCK UP.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-03-14 14:17:13 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
ETS, you are milking that tiny "flaw" in indoninja sentence so desperatly it's pathetic.
Stop trying so hard to discredit people to feel better about your shitty arguments.
Get back on topic, you're drifting.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-14 14:15:16 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Oxymoron (user info) at 2006-03-14 14:05:09 (#)
Ranking: 0
I can't fully invest in something that has the scientific community at odds with each other.
---------------------
The 'scientific' community isn't at odds. It's the political community that's at odds.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-14 14:13:23 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-03-14 13:54:01 (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-14 13:44:17 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-03-14 13:15:07 (#)
Ranking: 0
I never said it has *no* value.
-----------------------
REALLY??? Cause that's not what it sounds like when you say: "Intuition has no place in a scientific conversation."
Way to double back and completely contradict yourself, coward. If you're gonna have a philosophy, at least make an effort to stick to it. Being wishy washy doesn't become you.
----------------------------------
I am not being wishy washy. I don't think intuition has any place in proving a scientific theory.
---------------------
Yes, I agree that it cannot 'prove' anything. But that's not what you said. You said, "Intuition has NO PLACE in a scientific conversation."
Now, you have two choices...admit you were wrong in your statement, or carry on trying to revise your statement and vainly attempting to reconcile that with what you said.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-03-14 14:13:04 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by inion_de_trua (user info) at 2006-03-14 13:56:14 (#)
Ranking: 0
ya know you both should read this book called "quantum questions." it's basically a compilation and analyzation of what various physicists say about the relationship between physics/science and spiriutuality/god. including people like einstein. it's actually fairly amazing how spiritual the world's top phsycists were.
-----------------------------
If you look at things close enough they will all look the same, we are all made of the same subatomic particles. Looking at the world on such a small (or large scale we are all shooting out in an expanding universe) it is easy to see how they would develope a spiritual side.
I haven't read it, but when I was in college I studied nuclear engineering for a time and one of my profs had a boner for essays and letters by scientists that had a spiritual bend. I am sure I have seen a lot of the stuff in there, but i might check it out.
Submitted by Oxymoron (user info) at 2006-03-14 14:12:02 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
My personal theory? Ok you didn't ask but I'll spit it out anyways.
The Earth's polarity is switching. We're all gonna -2DIE!
http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/002236.html
Submitted by Oxymoron (user info) at 2006-03-14 14:05:09 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I find it interesting that one organization sees progress:
http://www.cleanairprogress.org/clean-air-pollution/air-pollution-facts.asp
...and another sees the opposite:
http://www.sierraclub.org/cleanair/factsheets/
I think we need to find cleaner ways of doing things. I don't think it's as huge a problem as some people want to make you think. They'll say some pretty outlandish things to get you to support their cause(bank accounts) and sadly a lot of people believe it.
I can't fully invest in something that has the scientific community at odds with each other.
read these:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0510042
http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/20060126/20060126_13.pdf
both of these were found on: http://www.junkscience.com/
Submitted by inion_de_trua (user info) at 2006-03-14 13:58:46 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
um and ets should read it too but for other reasons.
i think indo would actually like it.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-03-14 13:58:05 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-14 13:51:21 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-03-14 13:47:22 (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-14 13:44:17 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-03-14 13:15:07 (#)
Ranking: 0
I never said it has *no* value.
-----------------------
REALLY??? Cause that's not what it sounds like when you say: "Intuition has no place in a scientific conversation."
Way to double back and completely contradict yourself, coward. If you're gonna have a philosophy, at least make an effort to stick to it. Being wishy washy doesn't become you.
===
You're good at misleading and misinterpreting people though.
---------------------------------
If you can possibly formulate a theory on exactly how he DIDN'T just completely contradict himself, I'd LOVE to hear it.
We're all ears, Caul. Enlighten us.
===
Stop ignoring replies you fucking homo: http://www.ubersite.com/cgi-bin/message_get.cgi?message=1142284514257510613#1883504
Here, he made clearer for you since you're so fucking dense: http://www.ubersite.com/cgi-bin/message_get.cgi?message=1142284514257510613#1883581
Godamn, why we must hold your hand all the time?
Now, will you get back to the subject at hand instead of trying to find loopholes in our replies? The subject at hand being of course that your evidence SUCK ass.
Submitted by inion_de_trua (user info) at 2006-03-14 13:56:14 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-03-14 13:09:39 (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-03-14 12:59:59 (#)
Ranking: 0
indo - I'm starting to think ETS is a high school drop out.
------------------------------------------
I hope so.
I know american schools aren't great but if he was taught that his "intuition" plays a critical role in science we are in worse shape than I thought.
-----------
ya know you both should read this book called "quantum questions." it's basically a compilation and analyzation of what various physicists say about the relationship between physics/science and spiriutuality/god. including people like einstein. it's actually fairly amazing how spiritual the world's top phsycists were.
just a recommendation, it's a fairly easy read too.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-03-14 13:54:43 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-14 13:49:08 (#)
Ranking: 0
Using an Einstein quote to rebut an obviously ignorant statement by Indoninja is a far cry from "comparing myself to Einstein".
Why don't you get over YOURself, Caul. You obviously haven't the English skills to reason through an argument without making wild, unwarranted extrapolations and assuming things that aren't there.
===
So far my english skills have proven to be better than you since I, along with hundreds of people, have ridiculed the majorify of your "scientific" arguments.
*I* am extrapolating? Aren't you the one who used small-scale statistics on a short period of time to assert global warming?
You misinterpreted indoninja on purpose so you could divert the attention from your poorly made arguments. That's the only thing you ever do.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-03-14 13:54:01 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-14 13:44:17 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-03-14 13:15:07 (#)
Ranking: 0
I never said it has *no* value.
-----------------------
REALLY??? Cause that's not what it sounds like when you say: "Intuition has no place in a scientific conversation."
Way to double back and completely contradict yourself, coward. If you're gonna have a philosophy, at least make an effort to stick to it. Being wishy washy doesn't become you.
----------------------------------
I am not being wishy washy. I don't think intuition has any place in proving a scientific theory. When I said "I never said it has *no* value" I was correcting what I posted earlier. It is important in everyday life.
Maybe intuition gave Eisnstein direction in some of his theories, but he also changed his theories when the facts did not back up the theories that his intution drove him towards.
Find one instance of him defending his theories with intution.
Einstein was a man trying to share the spark of excitement he found in science with the world. I am sure you will find hndreds of out of place quotes that attribute his discoveries to intuition. However you won't find them in his proofs.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-14 13:51:21 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-03-14 13:47:22 (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-14 13:44:17 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-03-14 13:15:07 (#)
Ranking: 0
I never said it has *no* value.
-----------------------
REALLY??? Cause that's not what it sounds like when you say: "Intuition has no place in a scientific conversation."
Way to double back and completely contradict yourself, coward. If you're gonna have a philosophy, at least make an effort to stick to it. Being wishy washy doesn't become you.
===
You're good at misleading and misinterpreting people though.
---------------------------------
If you can possibly formulate a theory on exactly how he DIDN'T just completely contradict himself, I'd LOVE to hear it.
We're all ears, Caul. Enlighten us.
Submitted by inion_de_trua (user info) at 2006-03-14 13:50:32 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
oops, climate.
Submitted by inion_de_trua (user info) at 2006-03-14 13:49:39 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
there's a minor problem with tracking weather and making records and assumptions based on those records. the earth has been around for what 6 billion years? we hadn't decided to start recording natural phenomena on a regular basis until, at MAX 150 years ago really. so 6,000,000,000,000 minus 150 is.... alot of time not recording what happened before. this really might be absolutely normal and we could just be on the downhill slope of the cycle.
no one knows for sure and we won't really be able to get a reasonable average without like another 10,000 years of weather tracking, and even then that's still like 1/10000000 of a percentage worth of data that we'd have to skew and guess at to apply to the rest of the time unmeasured.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-14 13:49:08 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Using an Einstein quote to rebut an obviously ignorant statement by Indoninja is a far cry from "comparing myself to Einstein".
Why don't you get over YOURself, Caul. You obviously haven't the English skills to reason through an argument without making wild, unwarranted extrapolations and assuming things that aren't there.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-03-14 13:48:41 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
I also love how only you picked a small part of his reply, totally ignoring what he said about Einstein spirituality.
You're so full of shit, it's unbelievable.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-03-14 13:47:22 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-14 13:44:17 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-03-14 13:15:07 (#)
Ranking: 0
I never said it has *no* value.
-----------------------
REALLY??? Cause that's not what it sounds like when you say: "Intuition has no place in a scientific conversation."
Way to double back and completely contradict yourself, coward. If you're gonna have a philosophy, at least make an effort to stick to it. Being wishy washy doesn't become you.
===
You're good at misleading and misinterpreting people though.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-03-14 13:45:59 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
you're comparing yourself to Einstein?
Einstein proved his theories. He didn't compile some data on Excel and screamed "Eureka!".
FACE IT, YOU ARE AN IDIOT!
GET OVER YOURSELF!
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-14 13:44:17 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-03-14 13:15:07 (#)
Ranking: 0
I never said it has *no* value.
-----------------------
REALLY??? Cause that's not what it sounds like when you say: "Intuition has no place in a scientific conversation."
Way to double back and completely contradict yourself, coward. If you're gonna have a philosophy, at least make an effort to stick to it. Being wishy washy doesn't become you.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-14 13:38:27 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
"The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift." ~Albert Einstein
Who is this 'Einstein' fella anyway? He seems to have an awful lot to say about the value of intuition in science. Much more, in fact, than our venerable scientist Indoninja, it would seem!
What a dumbass he must have been!
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-14 13:36:04 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
"Finding and assessing primary historical data is an exercise in detective work. It involves logic, INTUITION, persistence, and common sense." (Tuchman, Gaye in Strategies of Qualitative Inquiry)
Submitted by Sphagnum (user info) at 2006-03-14 13:35:38 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by Donitsu2002 (user info) at 2006-03-14 13:29:21 (#)
Ranking: -2
why dont you go talk to your spirit friend.
fucking idiot.
-----
haha, at least this dumb gook's got a sense of humour.
Submitted by Donitsu2002 (user info) at 2006-03-14 13:29:21 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
why dont you go talk to your spirit friend.
fucking idiot.
Submitted by Oxymoron (user info) at 2006-03-14 13:22:06 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
It snowed in the SF hills last Friday. Heard something like 4"
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-14 13:21:57 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-03-14 12:59:59 (#)
Ranking: 0
indo - I'm starting to think ETS is a high school drop out.
----------------------
I resent that! High school was the best 6 years of my life!
Submitted by BadAssJulie (user info) at 2006-03-14 13:15:19 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
-2 because this isn't anything I haven't already seen or read about before.
By the way, I'm pissed off because I've been freezing in California. This morning it was about 40 degrees. I know some of you are going to say "I start breaking out my summer clothes when the temperature hits 40" but fuck you, I'm a native So. Cal girl. I'm used to temps no lower than 60 at night and 80 during the day. I don't understand how you people can live in areas that get any colder than it is now.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-03-14 13:15:07 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I never said it has *no* value.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-03-14 13:14:12 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-14 13:08:17 (#)
Ranking: 0
"Intuition has no place in a scientific conversation." ~Indoninja
"The only real valuable thing is intuition." ~Albert Einstein
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm........
SHOW SHOULD I TRUST!?!?!?!?! :-O
-------------------------------------
I never said it has value. Einstein was a spiritual man, he believed in a higher power, he saw the hand of it in his theories. He never used intuition as proof or a reason for his theories.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-03-14 13:12:15 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
way to misuse a quote...douchebag
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-03-14 13:09:39 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-03-14 12:59:59 (#)
Ranking: 0
indo - I'm starting to think ETS is a high school drop out.
------------------------------------------
I hope so.
I know american schools aren't great but if he was taught that his "intuition" plays a critical role in science we are in worse shape than I thought.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-03-14 13:09:33 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-03-14 12:59:59 (#)
Ranking: 0
indo - I'm starting to think ETS is a high school drop out.
------------------------------------------
I hope so.
I know american schools aren't great but if he was taught that his "intuition" plays a critical role in science we are in worse shape than we thought.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-14 13:08:17 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
"Intuition has no place in a scientific conversation." ~Indoninja
"The only real valuable thing is intuition." ~Albert Einstein
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm........
SHOW SHOULD I TRUST!?!?!?!?! :-O
Submitted by Oxymoron (user info) at 2006-03-14 13:07:09 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
"I love how people think I'm French. hahahaha "
---
We(I anyways) know you're not french, Frenchy.
Maybe I'll start calling you Pepsi to avoid any confusion ;)
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-03-14 12:59:59 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
indo - I'm starting to think ETS is a high school drop out.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-03-14 12:57:25 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
ETS-
"Everything requires faith...even science. A little intuition can go a LOOONG way. It's regrettable a lot of people don't understand that. *cough* Indoninja *cough*
...
You know, for someone who likes to dog my scientific knowledge so much, Indo sure likes to assume an awful lot. Interesting... "
Intuition has no place in a scientific conversation.
How fucking simple minded are you?
Two thousand years ago I bet most people's intuition told them the world was flat because that was all they could see.
How the fuck do you even attempt to have a conversation about anthing science related if your intuition is guiding your beliefs.
I never said you thought you were proving anything, I never assumed anything about what you said. You brought up your hypothesis. Guess what fucktard, you don't have the brains for that, and you certainly don't have the training for that if you think your intuition should play a role in a scientific theory.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-03-14 12:49:51 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
"tibute_posts_from_idiot_french_people"
What's a tibute?
I love how people think I'm French. hahahaha
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-14 12:43:41 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Crystle (user info) at 2006-03-14 11:43:33 (#)
Ranking: 0
just a note: it's been the coldest Feb/March I've ever lived through in the california S.F. Bay Area
I haven't read through all the other replies, so I don't know if it's been said already
-------------------------------
That's just as concerning as warming.
It's an overall disruption of climate patterns coupled with an overall warming trend across the entire globe. I don't know the precise number, but the average global temperature is rising every year. This will cause areas of extreme cold and violent weather as these areas clash more of less in an effort to reach equilibrium.
Anytime you have an extreme deviation from the mean in either direction, you know factors are at work that are not 'normal'.
The unfortunate conclusion many people who live in areas that experience colder than normal weather will reach will be that global warming is a hoax because if it's warming up, how come it's so cold here? They forget that 'global warming' is a complex system and it describes an overall warming of the average temperatures across the globe which cause these strange weather patterns, alter the vectors of trade winds, etc.
Indo is right about one thing...one season in one area isn't gonna prove anything. But it was his fallacy to assume I was trying to 'prove' it in the first place. I am just adding my observations to the growing pile of people who are experiencing anomolous weather the world over.
Including you, Crystle.
Thanks.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-14 12:35:58 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Norman (user info) at 2006-03-14 11:13:35 (#)
Ranking: 1
Climate scientists, even the skeptics, do not dispute that global warming is occurring due to anthropogenic activities. The real debate is about the impacts of said warming.
I really wish I could post some relevant links, but I prefer relative anonymity. ETS's comments about assimilation schemes and modelling efforts are interesting, as that's how I spend the vast majority of my time. You really are limited by computing capacity in these endeavors, many processes get heavily parameterized or even at times ignored based on a scale analysis argument (i.e. process A is an order of magnitude smaller than process B, hence A is ignored). Not to mention limiting mathematical constructs, such as effectively representing non-linearities in a world we can only model with linear methodologies.
-----------------------
It's chaos. Plain and simple. Ordered chaos. There is so much to account for, you'd almost have to be God to take it all in and present it in a convincing manner.
In fact, the 'perfect' model of climate would be only one half step away from the perfect model of the universe itself...and there is no reason to doubt it would not only have the ability to predict climate, but it should even be able to predict the future of everything else.
Feed enough data about the world into a 'model' and that 'model' will BECOME the world. It is in this way that ALL MODELS ARE LIMITED. The world IS describably with math, but the calculation is endless. Therein lies the problem. The human mind tends toward simplification. We want to find a grand unified theory of everything in one little neat equasion that contains the description of everything in the universe. We hope that by understanding the state of the universe at the big bang we can 'predict' the world with mathematics.
THe thing about scientific equasions is not what you include so much as it is what you leave out. Climate modeling includes nearly every aspect of life, so it's not that simple.
Everything requires faith...even science. A little intuition can go a LOOONG way. It's regrettable a lot of people don't understand that. *cough* Indoninja *cough*
His mistake is in thinking that I THINK that I'm proving anything, when I know full well that 'proof' is IMPOSSIBLE. The nature of science and proof lies in repeated testing. The problem with climate is, there are a TON of variables, and the data could be persuaded to say anything you like. I choose to attack the problem from a logical and observational perspective to add weight to all the other information that is already out there. I think we are contributing to global warming because my own reason tells me it's a more feasible explanation to the current trend than anything else being offered.
I'm just throwing my cherry on top of the mounting pie of information and reports on the subject, I'm under no illusions I'm actually 'proving' anything. I never said I was.
You know, for someone who likes to dog my scientific knowledge so much, Indo sure likes to assume an awful lot. Interesting...
About the impacts of global warming... In my view, we only need look at Venus to see the POTENTIAL effects of global warming. The atmosphere is not the same, but the mechanics of global warming are essentially the same. Here's what we're doing in essence: we're making our atmosphere thicker. We're taking shit out of the ground and releasing the chemical compounds and molecules contained therin into the atmosphere. That is a FACT.
We're actually ADDING TO our atmosphere. The oceans and water cycle helps the planet absorb these extra molecules, but not all of them. There is going to naturally be a capacity to that mechanism.
The really scary thing is when you COMPOUND the human element with naturally occurring elements like sunspots (which are predicted to be especially bad this cycle, which will peak in 2012), volcanos, forest fires, etc.
Oh, by the way... We all should invest in solar technology and uranium exploration. Caul seems to think I'm full of shit, but others now disagree...like...I don't know...major investment firms: http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/060313/energy_conversion_devices_mover.html?.v=1
I am gonna laugh my ass off when these stocks jump 30% in the next 18 months because of precisely the concerns I'm expressing right now on this post.
Submitted by Crystle (user info) at 2006-03-14 11:43:33 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
just a note: it's been the coldest Feb/March I've ever lived through in the california S.F. Bay Area
I haven't read through all the other replies, so I don't know if it's been said already
Submitted by j0andre1 (user info) at 2006-03-14 11:20:09 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-13 16:30:13 (#)
Ranking: 0
Thanks, Jon.
I'm compiling a BUNCH of data right now for a big tornado post from their site.
Weather and climate are fucking fascinating. It's like looking at baseball stats and seeing the homerun and RBI numbers of the players for every season.
Right now, the climate is on steroids, and until we pressure the Players' Union to punish the offenders, I think we're going to be seeing more of these big numbers in years to come.
_____________________________________________________________
This guy is my hero:
http://www.stormchaser.ca/Galleries.html
Submitted by Norman (user info) at 2006-03-14 11:13:35 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
Climate scientists, even the skeptics, do not dispute that global warming is occurring due to anthropogenic activities. The real debate is about the impacts of said warming.
I really wish I could post some relevant links, but I prefer relative anonymity. ETS's comments about assimilation schemes and modelling efforts are interesting, as that's how I spend the vast majority of my time. You really are limited by computing capacity in these endeavors, many processes get heavily parameterized or even at times ignored based on a scale analysis argument (i.e. process A is an order of magnitude smaller than process B, hence A is ignored). Not to mention limiting mathematical constructs, such as effectively representing non-linearities in a world we can only model with linear methodologies.
Submitted by Sphagnum (user info) at 2006-03-14 11:04:23 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Get your fist out of your ass, fag.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-03-14 11:03:00 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
ETS-
"The years have shown me that major changes CAN happen within a short span of time, and pure common sense forms my hypothesis. No amount of reading or studying on the subject is ever going to be as powerful or convincing to me as SEEING it in action every time trees try to bud in January or a massive hurricane the likes of which has never been recorded spins out in the Caribbean not once, not twice, but THREE TIMES in one season."
What you are seeing isn't major changes. Hurricaines, fuck all types of weather we stand up and take note of happen in cycles, even if they didn't on the scale of the whole world those are insignificant blips. They prove absolutely nothing, basing global warming arguments on first hand experiences or recent weather events is plain stupid.
Nobody expects you to spit out all the hard facts that are needed to prove global warming, the best climate scientists in the world would be hard pressed to do that. You get shit because you post a thimble full of info and think it is a good case for what you believe. You aren't capable of proving global warming, it makes you look stupid when you try.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-14 10:54:43 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Norman (user info) at 2006-03-14 10:08:32 (#)
Ranking: 1
It's nice to see some discussion about this. But this really can't be eschewed as a climatically significant trend without some further statistical analysis. You need to show that this anomalous temperature pattern is above and beyond the interannual variability of the seasonal cycle.
-----------------------
Your exactly right. A serious study of climate needs to involve ALL available weather-related data going back as far as possible. This isn't my only post on this subject either. Climate is a pretty daunting subject to try and tackle. I'm hoping that by posting a little here and a little there, I'll eventually have conveyed my point effectively. I can't dedicate the kind of time to this that a career climatologist can, but apparently uber EXPECTS it of me. Actually, I don't even know what some people expect of me.
My next post on this subject will feature more numbers than anyone ever WANTS to look at, I can promise you all that much. You asked for it, so now you'll get it.
Problem is, no amount of evidence is ever going to be enough for some people. You cannot PROVE a positive. You could collect ever single shred of available data and assimilate it all into a massive climate modeling program and then account for all possible variables and scenarios and someone will still have something to say about it.
That's not necessarily a 'bad' thing. The progress of learning cannot cease because we're too lazy to go the extra mile to seek out truth. Skepticism is what drives science forward. It's a necessary element to questioning. If people here are still skeptical, I feel it's because I haven't completely conveyed the information I've accumulated on the subject that have convinced me, or the observations I've made myself over the years when things have gone wacky.
I am not a 'scientist' and the writing I do is often from the perspective of someone who knows a little and wants to know more. Ever since I was a little kid I knew instinctively that the shit coming out of the ass end of all these cars on the road couldn't be helping anything. It's plain common sense.
My reasoning has always been this: if you wouldn't shut yourself up in a garage with a running vehicle, what makes you think you'd want 1 BILLION vehicles running outside every day? Of course, that's not really so much about global warming as it is about simple air pollution, but that's always been my logic. Simple.
The years have shown me that major changes CAN happen within a short span of time, and pure common sense forms my hypothesis. No amount of reading or studying on the subject is ever going to be as powerful or convincing to me as SEEING it in action every time trees try to bud in January or a massive hurricane the likes of which has never been recorded spins out in the Caribbean not once, not twice, but THREE TIMES in one season.
If all these things are so-called 'anomolies', they would be the exception, NOT the norm. Furthermore, all the dilly dally and argument over it is exactly what the oil tycoons WANT us to do while they rake in $10 BILLION a year in net profits.
Here's the thing... You look at the posts on this website for instance... You'll see everything from fiction, non-fiction, vignettes, short stories, novels, drawings, music, whatever. I've decided to post about the things I think are IMMINENTLY IMPORTANT to our world. I never said I was a fucking expert. I try to inform myself and read as much as possible so I'm not passing on false information. Some people take that as a sign I'm trying to dictate to them or put myself up on a pedestal or even parroting my pseudo-science 'propaganda' I've read from some leftist magazine or something.
I just think it's unfortunate that we can't leave the fucking politics out of this. There are plenty of political posts we can argue on...this isn't one of them.
The only time politics enter into climatology is when politicians try to skew or destroy or suppress the information, or otherwise use it as a means to an end. It's forgivable if they're telling the truth about what's going on...it's DISPICABLE when they're lying.
More times than not, they're lying.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-03-14 10:21:44 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by CaptainThorns (user info) at 2006-03-14 08:21:50 (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-14 01:41:58 (#)
Ranking: 0
I just don't understand why you think I'm an egomaniac because I won't back down on global warming.
Does this make sense to anyone else, because it sounds pretty fucking stupid to me.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah. It's called "preconceived perceptions" on the part of the accusers.
As usual, emotions and facts have become intertwined once again amongst the reviews.
===
Keep your pop psychology for yourself.
If you read my reply to his comment, I don't mind his opinions...I hate the way he presents them.
ETS needs to get over himself and then maybe people will. It's really that simple.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-14 10:19:35 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Who knew the climate could be such a heated subject!?
It's like two old timers sitting on a park bench with newspapers and canes slappin' each other screaming, "It's gonna SNOW, I say!"
"I think the front is going to move north!"
"Oh, you stupid wrinkled bastard!" *slap*
There's never any teeth in that scene...
...never.
Submitted by Norman (user info) at 2006-03-14 10:08:32 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
It's nice to see some discussion about this. But this really can't be eschewed as a climatically significant trend without some further statistical analysis. You need to show that this anomalous temperature pattern is above and beyond the interannual variability of the seasonal cycle.
On a side note, it's really fun to sit and listen to people talk about their theories regarding global warming. I was on the bus the other day and the driver started in on how he felt that the spraying of magnesium chloride (a de-icing agent) on roads was a likely culprit. He pointed out that the stuff had to be going in the local rivers (no names, sorry stalkers) and into the Mississippi out into the Gulf. Even ignoring the fact that the amount of salt injected is miniscule compared to the volume in the ocean, this effect only serves to increase the density of the water and further enhance the meridional global heat transport. Funny stuff! </end geek rant>
Submitted by BranDo (user info) at 2006-03-14 09:53:26 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
Down here we're facing up to 2 mtrs of snow and day temps still below 0º Celsius.
We are facing more extreme weather as we move along. I saw the tornado season started also very dramatic over at your end.
Maybe we can swap summer/winter clothes?
Submitted by MANICMOTHER (user info) at 2006-03-14 09:09:04 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
It could just be a climatic shift in a weather cycle that's 1000000s of years old.
Then again it might not.
I'll agree with your thoughts on the tornado seasons, however. Looks like it's going to be nasty year for them.
Submitted by ozzy (user info) at 2006-03-14 08:57:24 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
The UK has just had it's coldest winter since 1996-7.
The USA had a warm one.
Big deal. There is no conclusive proof one way or the other which says "humans burning fossil fuels made the climate warmer."
Besides, if you ask me, the world could stand to be a little warmer. There's no way I should have to sulk for 6 months of the year because all the nubile, fine young ladies are covered in thick clothing and fur.
Submitted by CaptainThorns (user info) at 2006-03-14 08:21:50 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-14 01:41:58 (#)
Ranking: 0
I just don't understand why you think I'm an egomaniac because I won't back down on global warming.
Does this make sense to anyone else, because it sounds pretty fucking stupid to me.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah. It's called "preconceived perceptions" on the part of the accusers.
As usual, emotions and facts have become intertwined once again amongst the reviews.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-03-14 07:13:42 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-14 01:41:58 (#)
Ranking: 0
All I can do is present the way *I* see it and *I* understand it from my own personal, albeit limited and noviciate, point-of-view.
--------------------------
If your posts reflected what you said right there you would have a lot more +2's, and more people would take you seriously. You present things as if you are an expert.
Take this post for instance. You have extremely limited data and next to no tools for in depth analysis, yet you spit out a theory as if it is backed by real science instead of a shoot from the hip guess, which it is, the facts you have (at least the ones you presented) aren't even enough to call it an educated guess.
Submitted by Flying_buttmonkey (user info) at 2006-03-14 03:18:58 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
England calling, hey America, we found your snow mate.
IT'S ALL FUCKING HERE!
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-03-14 02:12:36 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
I never said I don't believe in global warming. This is an issue that people in Canada are very sensitive too.
What I don't like is how you present your shitty attempts at arguments. And how you overeact like a psychopath whenever someone points out the major flaws in your arguments. Thus, why I think you're an egomaniac.
Just because you think you have figured out the whole world, doesn't mean you can force feed us your poorly formed thesis.
That's what I hate about you. Though I should say, that's what makes me laugh about you. Your bizarre self-aggrandizing stance on everything.
Submitted by Chroniclysm (user info) at 2006-03-14 01:51:22 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
It's cyclical. Sometimes it's warmer. Sometimes it's colder.
We're on a rock flying through space.
Looking at a warm winter isn't some end-all be-all.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-14 01:41:58 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I just don't understand why you think I'm an egomaniac because I won't back down on global warming.
Does this make sense to anyone else, because it sounds pretty fucking stupid to me.
There are, I'm sure, lots of reasons to think me an egomaniac besides my stance on this issue.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-14 01:39:32 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I don't dismiss that scientific data is fundamentally limited. We've only been collecting data on this for a short while in detail, but our knowledge is expanding every day, and evidence such as the rings of ancient trees and the ice cores of glaciers all over the world are backing up the claim that as of the start of man's industrial revolution, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and global temperature has increased steadily.
If you're asking me to dismiss global warming as a crackpot scheme perpetrated by scientists from virtually every country in the entire world, then you're right, I'm not going to back down.
Submitted by rockdocc (user info) at 2006-03-14 01:36:12 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
noone cares about the northern states...
fucking snowbirds.
goddamned yankees
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-03-14 01:28:38 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
you get passionate because you can't back down.
For instance, this post was based on U.S. data over only over a tiny period of time so it is initially flawed and is inconclusive. But you will dismiss that because you have that egomaniac thing going.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-14 01:18:27 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-03-14 00:59:08 (#)
Ranking: -2
It is up to every person to discover that for himself. No one can twist arms and force people to believe in anything, and likewise, no one should ALLOW their arms to be twisted into believing anything.
===
OMG, can you say hypocrisy!? Practice what you preach. The ONLY reason I dislike you is because of your little despotic way of debating because you assume you're the only person on earth with a brain and dismiss any valid argument.
------------------
I don't dismiss valid arguments... Doesn't the fact that I dismiss it, MAKE it invalid? ;)
I get passionate about things...what can I say. I'm not going to apologise for it. Never have, never will. Especially not to you.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-03-14 00:59:08 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
It is up to every person to discover that for himself. No one can twist arms and force people to believe in anything, and likewise, no one should ALLOW their arms to be twisted into believing anything.
===
OMG, can you say hypocrisy!? Practice what you preach. The ONLY reason I dislike you is because of your little despotic way of debating because you assume you're the only person on earth with a brain and dismiss any valid argument.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-14 00:47:50 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Oxymoron (user info) at 2006-03-13 22:43:42 (#)
Ranking: 0
yeah but whether humans are mainly responsible for it is another question
---------------------------
Ok, but if you're going to question the most plausible cause, it might be a good idea to offer an alternative explanation. I don't hear skeptics really doing that to any satisfaction. Any explanation they have offered for this observed and very real warming trend is just as 'shaky' as the idea that the BILLIONS OF TONS of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses that man is dumping into the atmosphere annually is behind it.
Of course, there is going to be a combination of factors that work together to create a warming effect, but it is counter-productive to try to distract people by pointing to only the things humankind CANNOT control rather than the things we can...but don't.
It's just common sense. Any intelligent person who approaches the subject with an open mind and a non-politically motivated agenda will see that the evidence favoring anthropogenic meddling is too real to ignore. And one step further along the pathway of logic and reason will lead an intelligent person to see how there are people in very high places who stand to lose a lot of money if global warming becomes a society-changing issue.
I liken this to the way the Christian right attacks evolution when every credible SHRED of scientific evidence points to its reality.
I liken it to the way even Einstein, himself, at first dismissed Hubble's Red Shift as nonsense, but it has since been proven to be just as empirical as the General Theory of Relativity.
Through every argument and behind every man's personal agenda, somewhere there is Truth. It is up to every person to discover that for himself. No one can twist arms and force people to believe in anything, and likewise, no one should ALLOW their arms to be twisted into believing anything.
The only harbinger of Truth should be our God-given gift of REASON.
I know that I am not really the best at conveying the truth when I see it, or my ideas about what the truth even MIGHT be. All I can do is present the way *I* see it and *I* understand it from my own personal, albeit limited and noviciate, point-of-view.
I've always been a lover of science. I've also always also held a fascination with human behavior, which is also a science in its own way. This issue of Global Warming is a combination of both. It is the story of the consequences of our love affair and need for energy, and the fierce opposition that arises when someone says, "You can't have your cake and eat it too," or, "There are consequences to EVERY SINGLE ACTION we take."
All I want is for people to think for themselves and, paradoxically, NOT just take some jackass like ETS's word for it. That's why I like to leave links on my posts, so you can see for yourself.
The health of our world SHOULD NOT be a partisan issue. It should be a HUMAN issue.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-03-14 00:33:28 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
there you go you little cuntL: http://www.ubersite.com/m/85276
Submitted by bob (user info) at 2006-03-14 00:08:43 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Oxymoron (user info) at 2006-03-13 22:43:42 (#)
Ranking: 0
yeah but whether humans are mainly responsible for it is another question
__________
somewhat true.
although the world has undergone multiple climate shifts, towards both extremes, during the history of the earth, the difference between this climate shift and the others is the degeneration of the ozone layer, which points to some new variable in the climate that is causing the increased temperature coupled with the depletion of the ozone.
Submitted by ripple (user info) at 2006-03-13 23:38:47 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
cute. i can see my state. geographry is worth something.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-03-13 22:58:22 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Oxymoron (user info) at 2006-03-13 22:43:42 (#)
Ranking: 0
yeah but whether humans are mainly responsible for it is another question
===
It doesn't matter to ETS. As long as he finds a reason to project his own anxiety and despair on Humanity.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-13 22:45:08 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Yes, Bob. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/10/AR2006021001766.html?nav=rss_politics
Submitted by Oxymoron (user info) at 2006-03-13 22:43:42 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
yeah but whether humans are mainly responsible for it is another question
Submitted by bob (user info) at 2006-03-13 22:02:27 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Anyone who doesnt believe in global warming, spend a minute with Jim Hansen.
You will be proven wrong, just like the Bush administration was.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-03-13 21:52:43 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-13 21:34:37 (#)
Ranking: 0
"---Damn right I do. You're a fucking pundit and you're either getting paid to discredit anything relating to global warming, or you've got a financial reason to that is personal. You have no interest in science. You only want to distract the issue by introducing bullshit into it without actually having anything specific to say about it. "
Yep you figured me out, I am a professional computer troll. We all know that the real decisions on energy are made on the internet so i am being paid to discredit you.
I am not introducing bullshit, I am mocking your bullshit.
"---Go for it. Take a poll. Come to think of it, I don't think I've seen you write ONE SINGLE POST about a scientific subject...ever. You got something to say against me? Why don't you post a rebuttal? Why don't you get your finger out of your fat ass and do some fucking reading and research for yourself and share it with the rest of us. Until then, shut the fuck up and stop reading my posts if you disagree with them so goddamn much."
Why would I write a scientific post here? The things I find interesting or post worthy don't appeal to most people here, and to be honest there is nothing I could post that isn't written a hundred times better by professionals in whatever academic field I would write about. Whereas you read a scientific blurb that you can barely understand and you will then rush out to try and "educate" Uber.
I post rebuttals to your BS on your posts, it isn't worth making another post about it, especuially since you can't seem to grasp any of the arguments against your "theories". I don't need to do reading to know you are full of shit. I have had a technical education beyond high school special ed science classes.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-13 21:34:37 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-03-13 20:54:28 (#)
Ranking: -2
Haha, "my" leaders in the oil industry? Oh yeah, I forgot that you think I am a plant by the oil industry to discredit you.
---Damn right I do. You're a fucking pundit and you're either getting paid to discredit anything relating to global warming, or you've got a financial reason to that is personal. You have no interest in science. You only want to distract the issue by introducing bullshit into it without actually having anything specific to say about it.
Please take a poll. Find me one engineer or scientist on this website that thinks anything you have written about has technical or scientific merit, oh and not the onse who believe in cold fusion.
---Go for it. Take a poll. Come to think of it, I don't think I've seen you write ONE SINGLE POST about a scientific subject...ever. You got something to say against me? Why don't you post a rebuttal? Why don't you get your finger out of your fat ass and do some fucking reading and research for yourself and share it with the rest of us. Until then, shut the fuck up and stop reading my posts if you disagree with them so goddamn much.
Submitted by iddqd (user info) at 2006-03-13 21:10:18 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
ill be posting something very closely related to this topic soon, but on a different side of this issue.
Submitted by Smack_Fuck (user info) at 2006-03-13 21:01:23 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
R U GUYS WANA SKTE BRD I SKTE BRD I DO JUMPS LIKE SHIT ALSO SRFNG ITS FCKING CRAZY IM LIKE SHIT WHEN IM SKTNG DO YOU GUYS SKTE
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-03-13 20:54:28 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-13 20:08:27 (#)
Ranking: 0
---where? show me right now. show me where i've demonstrated my ignorance and I'll defend myself.
Look at any of my comments on your hydrogen or nuclear bomb/cement post. Look at your replies on this post, "I'm incapable of making hypothesis based on everyday observation?" Of course you can't make a hypothesis on the environment through everyday observation. You can't gather nearly enough data, and if you had even a glimmer of understanding of how the world works you would know this.
---i didn't say i was gonna try to solve the world's problems. I only said I had a vague hypothesis about future tornado activity based on the data I'd seen so far, but nothing concrete yet because it takes for fucking ever to even fill up a spreadsheet with the required information to begin to extrapolate.
The data you have seen so far?!?! The data you have seen so far is less than a drop in the bucket. You think you have nothing concrete because of the time it takes to fill up a spread sheet! You have nothing so far because you don't have access to nearly enough data. You have nothing so far because excel is not a strong enough tool to predict climate change. And most importantly you don't have anything concrete because you lack the education and training to make use of the data if you had it and access to programs that could interpret tha data. Jesus man read what you wrote, you don't think that clearly demonstrates your ignorance? To think that with enough time, the NOAA website, and Excel you could predict the weather and climate changes?
---i never have claimed to have solved a FUCKING THING. all i've ever said was there are certain things i think are problematic that i'd like to draw attention to. thank you for helping me in that, btw, with all your hits and idiotic feedback. the hydrogen 'BS' was about global warming as much as it was some 'energy crisis'. I, unlike your fearless leaders in the oil business, don't shy away from a subject because it involves something the entire reputable scientific community agrees exists.
Haha, "my" leaders in the oil industry? Oh yeah, I forgot that you think I am a plant by the oil industry to discredit you.
Please take a poll. Find me one engineer or scientist on this website that thinks anything you have written about has technical or scientific merit, oh and not the onse who believe in cold fusion.
Submitted by The_Yellow_Dart (user info) at 2006-03-13 20:37:52 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-03-13 20:35:20 (#)
Ranking: -2
Old. We make it but for Ontarians. :-)
_____
But Ontarions don't want to seperate though.
(I figured you'd heard it before, but I still love it)
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-03-13 20:35:20 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by The_Yellow_Dart (user info) at 2006-03-13 20:34:11 (#)
Ranking: 2
A joke pour Caul:
A Newfie, Quebecor and Ontarion are all stranded on a deserted island after a plane crash. They decide to look around and one of them finds a lamp. They rub it and a genie pops out and grants them all one wish each.
The Newfie goes first and says he'd like to be off the island and back at home with his wife and kids. The genie nods and poof he was gone.
The genie turns to the Ontarion to go next but the Quebecor cuts in and says his wish, which was that he'd like a thousand foot wall put around Quebec. It has to impenetrable and he wants to be put in it. The genie nods again and the Quebecor is gone in a flash.
The Ontarion asks the genie: "Tell me about this wall"
The genie replies: "Well, it is a thousand foot high, strong, surrounding all of Quebec and nothing can get in or out of it"
The Ontarion nods and says to the genie: "Fill it with water."
===
Old. We make it but for Ontarians. :-)
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-03-13 20:34:25 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Tyrone_Washington (user info) at 2006-03-13 20:30:11 (#)
Ranking: 0
It's definitely associated with poverty. Newfs are the fattest, they are also the poorest. I know this post wasn't about obesity rates but it was quite dull so wtf, why not start a random discussion.
===
I agree. Though culture also plays a role. That % is much higher all across the States.
I think B-C is so low because they are populated with asians and they are very sportif people.
Submitted by The_Yellow_Dart (user info) at 2006-03-13 20:34:11 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
A joke pour Caul:
A Newfie, Quebecor and Ontarion are all stranded on a deserted island after a plane crash. They decide to look around and one of them finds a lamp. They rub it and a genie pops out and grants them all one wish each.
The Newfie goes first and says he'd like to be off the island and back at home with his wife and kids. The genie nods and poof he was gone.
The genie turns to the Ontarion to go next but the Quebecor cuts in and says his wish, which was that he'd like a thousand foot wall put around Quebec. It has to impenetrable and he wants to be put in it. The genie nods again and the Quebecor is gone in a flash.
The Ontarion asks the genie: "Tell me about this wall"
The genie replies: "Well, it is a thousand foot high, strong, surrounding all of Quebec and nothing can get in or out of it"
The Ontarion nods and says to the genie: "Fill it with water."
Submitted by Sacrilicious (user info) at 2006-03-13 20:31:27 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
I'm in PA, where some winters we don't get much snow and others we're deluged. It seemed about as cold to me as usual this year, but we only got one or two good snows..even less than usual. Do I think this proves anything? Not necessarily. Do I find it eerie and think the global warming issue is relevant? Hell, yeah.
Submitted by Tyrone_Washington (user info) at 2006-03-13 20:30:11 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
It's definitely associated with poverty. Newfs are the fattest, they are also the poorest. I know this post wasn't about obesity rates but it was quite dull so wtf, why not start a random discussion.
Submitted by Tyrone_Washington (user info) at 2006-03-13 20:27:03 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
The whole world's getting fat. To be truthful, when I saw those obesity rates I thought they were all terrible. A truly healthy country should have an obesity rate of 5-10%, tops.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-03-13 20:24:27 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Tyrone_Washington (user info) at 2006-03-13 20:14:31 (#)
Ranking: 0
http://www.statcan.ca/english/research/82-620-MIE/2005001/charts/adults/chart5.htm
Caulaincourt - "Ontario is full of fat fucks, etc."
Take a look at that chart. I really had no idea what the fuck you were talking about when you said all Ontarians were horribly overweight. Pretty weak argument that is completely flawed and based on nothing but your undisciplined cocksmoking brother.
There were no Arby's, Popeye's, Applebee's etc. in Ottawa. The food is generally better for the body than anything I've ever found in the States...
===
Yes, but we have a lot more niggers!
All right, enough...maybe I exagarated a little. There are indeed plenty of fat people here too. Fortunately, most live in welfare ghettos. :-)
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-03-13 20:20:36 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Tyrone_W - I know...lame argument. One can always try.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-13 20:00:04 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-03-13 19:47:44 (#)
Ranking: 0
I don't get the Descartes reference, maybe I'm retarded. Or I could just Google it and pretend to be knowledgable like ETS does.
----------------------
If you googled it, you WOULD be knowledgable.
It's called 'learning'. You should try it sometime.
===
I'm pretty sure that I have acquired more knowledge at 24 years od age than you did at the ripe old bitter age of 30 years old. How can I make that claim?
Well, first off because people who claim to be above everyone intellectually, as you've done several times, are usually fucking idiots. The fact that you have to show off your "knowledge" shows how weak you are...I did that when I was 16.
Second, your posts have shown quite a few times that you have a very vague and sketchy knowledge about how the world works. Even though all your little theories have been invalidated within seconds, you still argue, which leads us to my next point.
Third, you are stubborn and prideful. And I don't mean like I am when I make completly retarded arguments on Ontario and whatnot. You're actually serious. I don't remember one hypothesis of yours that wasn't deconstructed by at least 10 people. Yet, you still hold on to your views like they are oxygen because like many self-acclaimed "intellectuals", you are not in it for the wisdom, but for the ego.
The fact that an ESL person manages to ridicule you is also an indicator that you're not very bright. But in the end, I don't have anything to prove to a little douchebag whose life is in a cul-de-sac. I really just find you entertaining. We need people like you to feel better about ourselves.
-2 pour le braillard.
Submitted by Tyrone_Washington (user info) at 2006-03-13 20:14:31 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
http://www.statcan.ca/english/research/82-620-MIE/2005001/charts/adults/chart5.htm
Caulaincourt - "Ontario is full of fat fucks, etc."
Take a look at that chart. I really had no idea what the fuck you were talking about when you said all Ontarians were horribly overweight. Pretty weak argument that is completely flawed and based on nothing but your undisciplined cocksmoking brother.
There were no Arby's, Popeye's, Applebee's etc. in Ottawa. The food is generally better for the body than anything I've ever found in the States...
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-13 20:08:27 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-03-13 19:49:36 (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-13 16:37:45 (#)
Ranking: 0
Indo, why is it you think I'm incapable of making hypothesis based on everyday observation? I actually got the idea while compiling a shitload of data from the NOAA website which lead me to postulate that the epicenter of tornado activity is probably on the move due to change of climate. That and the fact that 23 people were killed in my hometown last November from the worst tornado disaster ever to hit my state. Not to mention the early arrival of tornado season this year with 2 people dying in Missouri last week as a result of a line of storms. Then there was one back in January in Alabama that killed someone.
I've got my own mind and I use it regularly. Now if you'd kindly fuck off, I'd appreciate it.
Thanks.
-------------------
I don't think you are capable of making hypothesis based on everyday observation for anything because of your clearly demonstrated ignorance on all things sientific in past posts.
---where? show me right now. show me where i've demonstrated my ignorance and I'll defend myself.
I don't know what is more laughable. That you are taking this theory as your own, or that you think your little pea brain can come up with a prediction on weather patterns and climate change armed with an excel spread sheet (if that) and some data from NOAA while people who have studied the climate and the environment their whole lives and have access to world class computers can't.
---i didn't say i was gonna try to solve the world's problems. I only said I had a vague hypothesis about future tornado activity based on the data I'd seen so far, but nothing concrete yet because it takes for fucking ever to even fill up a spreadsheet with the required information to begin to extrapolate.
It amazes me that there are people like you out there. I wonder if it is comforting or scary to live in a world devoid of any real understanding of the complexity of the world around you. Keep up the good work ETS. You sloved the energy crisis with your hydrogen BS, and now you are takling global warming. Why don't you give us interstellar travel next.
---i never have claimed to have solved a FUCKING THING. all i've ever said was there are certain things i think are problematic that i'd like to draw attention to. thank you for helping me in that, btw, with all your hits and idiotic feedback. the hydrogen 'BS' was about global warming as much as it was some 'energy crisis'. I, unlike your fearless leaders in the oil business, don't shy away from a subject because it involves something the entire reputable scientific community agrees exists.
Submitted by Smack_Fuck (user info) at 2006-03-13 20:04:25 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
OOOO BURN
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-13 20:00:04 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-03-13 19:47:44 (#)
Ranking: 0
I don't get the Descartes reference, maybe I'm retarded. Or I could just Google it and pretend to be knowledgable like ETS does.
----------------------
If you googled it, you WOULD be knowledgable.
It's called 'learning'. You should try it sometime.
Submitted by Tyrone_Washington (user info) at 2006-03-13 19:58:06 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-03-13 19:24:13 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Tyrone_Washington (user info) at 2006-03-13 19:15:47 (#)
Ranking: 0
And yes, I'm biased because I hate the french. Always have, always will. That is just how it's going to be.
===
Good. I was raised to hate you too. Perhaps we should seperate and be over with it, don't you think? Oh right, we all know you don't want to lose all the money you make on our backs. Proof in case, Ottawa was built after an anglo loon burnt the Parliament down in Montreal and has been chipping away on Québec since its creation (they even put it right on the border to faciliate it)
-------------------------------------------------
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH Money we make on YOUR backs! Give me a break.
Know this - Quebec gets over FOUR BILLION dollars in equalization payments - that's money for doing absolutely nothing! That's the only reason you didn't separate, even if you did, you'd still want OUR money!
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-03-13 19:51:27 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
HAHAHHAHAHAHA
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-03-13 19:49:36 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-13 16:37:45 (#)
Ranking: 0
Indo, why is it you think I'm incapable of making hypothesis based on everyday observation? I actually got the idea while compiling a shitload of data from the NOAA website which lead me to postulate that the epicenter of tornado activity is probably on the move due to change of climate. That and the fact that 23 people were killed in my hometown last November from the worst tornado disaster ever to hit my state. Not to mention the early arrival of tornado season this year with 2 people dying in Missouri last week as a result of a line of storms. Then there was one back in January in Alabama that killed someone.
I've got my own mind and I use it regularly. Now if you'd kindly fuck off, I'd appreciate it.
Thanks.
-------------------
Well number one I don't think you are capable of making hypothesis based on everyday observation on the topic of global warming because you don't travel all around the world every day, and you haven't been around for the hundreds of years to accurately understand the cyclical nature of our environment through observation. I don't think you are capable of making hypothesis based on everyday observation for anything because of your clearly demonstrated ignorance on all things sientific in past posts.
I don't know what is more laughable. That you are taking this theory as your own, or that you think your little pea brain can come up with a prediction on weather patterns and climate change armed with an excel spread sheet (if that) and some data from NOAA while people who have studied the climate and the environment their whole lives and have access to world class computers can't.
It amazes me that there are people like you out there. I wonder if it is comforting or scary to live in a world devoid of any real understanding of the complexity of the world around you. Keep up the good work ETS. You sloved the energy crisis with your hydrogen BS, and now you are takling global warming. Why don't you give us interstellar travel next.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-03-13 19:47:44 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I don't get the Descartes reference, maybe I'm retarded. Or I could just Google it and pretend to be knowledgable like ETS does.
Submitted by The_Yellow_Dart (user info) at 2006-03-13 19:43:12 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-03-13 19:41:06 (#)
Ranking: -2
I think I hate everybody. :-/
_______
Do you own a mirror? Your biggest challenge yet! Follow in the footsteps of fellow francophone, Rene Descartes!
Submitted by The_Yellow_Dart (user info) at 2006-03-13 19:41:50 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
Submitted by FilthyAssistant (user info) at 2006-03-13 19:10:03 (#)
Ranking: 1
Canada is a godless wasteland. Case closed.
________
Who left the back gate open? Filthy got out again.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-03-13 19:41:06 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by The_Yellow_Dart (user info) at 2006-03-13 19:38:39 (#)
Ranking: 1
So you're even against some of your own Quebecors too!? How elitist are you people? (Can I join?) :-(
===
I think I hate everybody. :-/
Submitted by The_Yellow_Dart (user info) at 2006-03-13 19:38:39 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
So you're even against some of your own Quebecors too!? How elitist are you people? (Can I join?) :-(
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-03-13 19:30:42 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by The_Yellow_Dart (user info) at 2006-03-13 19:27:50 (#)
Ranking: 1
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-03-13 19:18:35 (#)
Ranking: 0
That anglo women are so ugly that ontarian men prefer teh cock.
_______
Good god. I don't think Anglo men are any better. But heaven forbid we degrade ourselves to the Francos down the river.
===
stfu...Montreal is considered one of the cities with the most beautiful women. Of course, if you're talking about the francos in Outaouais. First of all, these people have mixed too much with you squareheads and secondly, they invented poutine.
On an another note, I love that we have used the two solitudes to hijack this shit post.
Submitted by The_Yellow_Dart (user info) at 2006-03-13 19:28:34 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
<weeps>
Submitted by The_Yellow_Dart (user info) at 2006-03-13 19:27:50 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-03-13 19:18:35 (#)
Ranking: 0
That anglo women are so ugly that ontarian men prefer teh cock.
_______
Good god. I don't think Anglo men are any better. But heaven forbid we degrade ourselves to the Francos down the river.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-03-13 19:27:02 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
The_Yellow_Dart - all right, but that won't change the fact that everybody hates you :-D
Submitted by The_Yellow_Dart (user info) at 2006-03-13 19:25:11 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-03-13 19:08:30 (#)
Ranking: -2
I have friends who have lived in Ontario. I have family in Ontario. I have been there a number of time. We all agree on one thing, most conversations revolve aroud comparing money and belongings. Consumerism is definitly stronger in that province. Even when you walk down Ste-Catherine street, there is a HUGE change of attitude in the anglophone part (where ontarians/americans hang out). The majority of western Canadians I met hate you (why must you be loud when they aren't?). The various immigrants I know say we're a lot more simple people and authentic than american-wannabe neighbors (http://www.ontariousa.org/). Shit man, even people who were raised in Ontario - like one of my best friends - are ashamed of their origins.
I'm sorry to be the one telling you but there IS a difference. It is my belief that there wouldn't be seperatism if didn't have such a shitty neighbor that's been fucking us over every possible ways since the creation of Upper Canada.
If you spoke french, you would find there are legions of people like me. But hey, every good Ontarian is way too lazy to be billingual.
p.s. Since my brother married an Ontarian and moved there, he's 50 pounds overweight.
_________
First off, I'm not ashamed to live in Ontario like you would like me to be. I already said that I find it disgusting too and that I am not like any of the things you keep saying "YOU" to me about. Every person I meet says I am very softspoken. We probably are more american due to our lack of cohesion that you seem to have and the stupid fucking individualism that goes on around here; I hate it and would rather it otherwise. Hell, I plan on moving to BC in the future.
I wasn't arguing there isn't a difference. To say that is just as arrogant as claiming the difference is huge canyon that you seem to think there is. People aren't as stereotypical as you seem to think; I was born and raised in Ontario and when have you seen me ever act as arrogant or blatant even on this, the internet?
Oh and Caul, to attribute laziness to the fact that we're not bilingual is a pretty lazy thing to do in itself. Perhaps it's because most don't need it to function in our day to day lives? I wouldn't call you lazy for not knowing German. And if you're going pull out the "secluding french-candians" argument, don't bother. I'm not talking about politicians. I'm talking about the majority to live here.
By the way I understand a surprising amount of french; can't speak it because it's never been part of my dialect, but I can pick out and piece together franco-conversations.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-03-13 19:24:13 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Tyrone_Washington (user info) at 2006-03-13 19:15:47 (#)
Ranking: 0
And yes, I'm biased because I hate the french. Always have, always will. That is just how it's going to be.
===
Good. I was raised to hate you too. Perhaps we should seperate and be over with it, don't you think? Oh right, we all know you don't want to lose all the money you make on our backs. Proof in case, Ottawa was built after an anglo loon burnt the Parliament down in Montreal and has been chipping away on Québec since its creation (they even put it right on the border to faciliate it)
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-03-13 19:18:35 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by The_Yellow_Dart (user info) at 2006-03-13 18:55:35 (#)
Ranking: 1
Submitted by Smack_Fuck (user info) at 2006-03-13 18:47:03 (#)
Ranking: 0
ontario has the highest rate of homosexuality in the western world, just over 8%, with upwards of 40% having had some homosexual experience.
______
What point are you trying to achieve by stating this?
===
That anglo women are so ugly that ontarian men prefer teh cock.
I would too if my women all looked pretty much like this: http://www.nld.com.vn/img/3253/fat-girl.jpg
Submitted by Tyrone_Washington (user info) at 2006-03-13 19:15:47 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Well Ottawa's the only city in Ontario I've lived in, yeah a lot of them are just government punks but the Ontario side didn't seem to have any terrible weight problems, unlike their friends from across the river.
And yes, I'm biased because I hate the french. Always have, always will. That is just how it's going to be.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-03-13 19:11:31 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by Tyrone_Washington (user info) at 2006-03-13 18:40:49 (#)
Ranking: 1
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-03-13 17:56:47 (#)
Ranking: -2
Loyalists of course, are now called Ontarians who are a carbon copy of Americans.
Boring passionless fat ugly people whose life revolve around belongings.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
I don't care about the post, but who the fuck is this french fag that keeps ripping on Ontario. Ugly and fat? Man take a look at your own fucking people, you piece of shit cocksucking frog bastard.
I lived in Ottawa for 3 years and the french people there were exactly like Americans - only difference is they spoke french. Fat, chainsmoking, alchoholic assholes with nothing better to do but go to the strip club and collect welfare cheques.
Shut the fuck up. The french are about as much a part of Canada as poutine is - a vile, disgusting creation one can only stomach for so long.
===
Hilarious. But it is my belief, that Ottawa people (french or english) fucking suck. So do everybody who live in a city of civil servants.
Submitted by FilthyAssistant (user info) at 2006-03-13 19:10:03 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
Canada is a godless wasteland. Case closed.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-03-13 19:08:30 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by The_Yellow_Dart (user info) at 2006-03-13 18:34:14 (#)
Ranking: 1
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-03-13 17:56:47 (#)
Ranking: -2
Loyalists of course, are now called Ontarians who are a carbon copy of Americans.
Boring passionless fat ugly people whose life revolve around belongings.
___________
Seeing as I don't fit that description at all, your theory gets thrown out the window.
Unless of course you're speaking of generalities, which doesn't hold water at all. I agree such people can be found in Ontario; just like they can be found in every province. Quebec isn't some pure haven of anti-americanised people either. All you're doing with your argument is some patriotic jargon, the same stuff you hate about Americans, towards Ontario in some lame-ass attempt to scratch your own back and feel apart from this made up "other" you've slapped on us.
Yes, Ontario has it's share of dip-shits; but you'll never find a ruby in a mountain of rocks if you don't bother looking, to quote Meatloaf. In short: don't be so arrogant Caul, lest I start slapping that term on every Quebecor
===
I have friends who have lived in Ontario. I have family in Ontario. I have been there a number of time. We all agree on one thing, most conversations revolve aroud comparing money and belongings. Consumerism is definitly stronger in that province. Even when you walk down Ste-Catherine street, there is a HUGE change of attitude in the anglophone part (where ontarians/americans hang out). The majority of western Canadians I met hate you (why must you be loud when they aren't?). The various immigrants I know say we're a lot more simple people and authentic than american-wannabe neighbors (http://www.ontariousa.org/). Shit man, even people who were raised in Ontario - like one of my best friends - are ashamed of their origins.
I'm sorry to be the one telling you but there IS a difference. It is my belief that there wouldn't be seperatism if didn't have such a shitty neighbor that's been fucking us over every possible ways since the creation of Upper Canada.
If you spoke french, you would find there are legions of people like me. But hey, every good Ontarian is way too lazy to be billingual.
p.s. Since my brother married an Ontarian and moved there, he's 50 pounds overweight.
Submitted by Oxymoron (user info) at 2006-03-13 19:00:09 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
CANUK FIGHT!!!!
My moneys on Frenchy.
Submitted by The_Yellow_Dart (user info) at 2006-03-13 18:55:35 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
Submitted by Smack_Fuck (user info) at 2006-03-13 18:47:03 (#)
Ranking: 0
ontario has the highest rate of homosexuality in the western world, just over 8%, with upwards of 40% having had some homosexual experience.
______
What point are you trying to achieve by stating this?
Submitted by Tyrone_Washington (user info) at 2006-03-13 18:51:56 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
wow. i'll shut up now. (shudders). thank my good graces i'm in idaho then
Submitted by Smack_Fuck (user info) at 2006-03-13 18:47:03 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
ontario has the highest rate of homosexuality in the western world, just over 8%, with upwards of 40% having had some homosexual experience.
Submitted by Tyrone_Washington (user info) at 2006-03-13 18:40:49 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-03-13 17:56:47 (#)
Ranking: -2
Loyalists of course, are now called Ontarians who are a carbon copy of Americans.
Boring passionless fat ugly people whose life revolve around belongings.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
I don't care about the post, but who the fuck is this french fag that keeps ripping on Ontario. Ugly and fat? Man take a look at your own fucking people, you piece of shit cocksucking frog bastard.
I lived in Ottawa for 3 years and the french people there were exactly like Americans - only difference is they spoke french. Fat, chainsmoking, alchoholic assholes with nothing better to do but go to the strip club and collect welfare cheques.
Shut the fuck up. The french are about as much a part of Canada as poutine is - a vile, disgusting creation one can only stomach for so long.
Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2006-03-13 18:39:20 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
We in Denver are shocked... SHOCKED that we've received only 18 inches of snow this year.
We're also very very afraid, because the last time we had a winter like this, in 2003, we got HAMMERED with, oh, 8 FEET in the 3rd weekend of March.
So yeah. But otherwise we've been in the 60's all winter for highs, which is downright frightening.
Submitted by The_Yellow_Dart (user info) at 2006-03-13 18:34:14 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-03-13 17:56:47 (#)
Ranking: -2
Loyalists of course, are now called Ontarians who are a carbon copy of Americans.
Boring passionless fat ugly people whose life revolve around belongings.
___________
Seeing as I don't fit that description at all, your theory gets thrown out the window.
Unless of course you're speaking of generalities, which doesn't hold water at all. I agree such people can be found in Ontario; just like they can be found in every province. Quebec isn't some pure haven of anti-americanised people either. All you're doing with your argument is some patriotic jargon, the same stuff you hate about Americans, towards Ontario in some lame-ass attempt to scratch your own back and feel apart from this made up "other" you've slapped on us.
Yes, Ontario has it's share of dip-shits; but you'll never find a ruby in a mountain of rocks if you don't bother looking, to quote Meatloaf. In short: don't be so arrogant Caul, lest I start slapping that term on every Quebecor.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-03-13 17:56:47 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Loyalists of course, are now called Ontarians who are a carbon copy of Americans.
Boring passionless fat ugly people whose life revolve around belongings.
Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2006-03-13 17:54:57 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
didn't read it.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-03-13 17:53:10 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-13 16:43:57 (#)
Ranking: 0
Nah, go ahead Caul. I hit back.
Global warming would not be good for Canada at length because Americans will be migrating there if it gets too bad.
You'd be overrun.
===
Oh, and what makes you think we want you?!
We learned our lessons since the Loyalists.
Submitted by The_Yellow_Dart (user info) at 2006-03-13 17:47:59 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
Submitted by FilthyAssistant (user info) at 2006-03-13 17:11:53 (#)
Ranking: 1
...ten minutes to Wapner....definitely ten minutes to Wapner...
___________
Of course I don't have my underwear. I'm definately not wearing my underwear.
Submitted by Teephphah (user info) at 2006-03-13 17:47:05 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-13 16:43:57 (#)
Ranking: 0
Nah, go ahead Caul. I hit back.
Global warming would not be good for Canada at length because Americans will be migrating there if it gets too bad.
You'd be overrun.
_____________________________________________
Pffft. Only temporarily. Global warming is only the precursor to the next Ice Age. So we'll all get to Canada just in time for expanding glaciers to chase us to Mexico.
Great. I was starting to care, but now you've inadvertantly made me a nihilist.
Thanks a lot.
Submitted by badassmofo (user info) at 2006-03-13 17:45:07 EST (#)
Ranking: -1
if...you took time to read my comments you would see that i only gave you a -1
you retaliatory little cunt
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-13 17:38:34 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I 'cherry pick' information...
I can't believe any of you would actually believe that, and even if you did, would be so goddamn lazy you can't even click the link I clearly left in the post pointing to the NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION'S (a publicly funded organization's) own article on the subject.
TTOM: I understand where you're coming from, dude. I'm sorry that life has dealt you a bum hand.
I know it's gotta be hard for you to see how any of this will affect you. Few healthy people even see it, because we always think the consequences are too far in the future to affect us. They might be right in a sense. But in a deeper sense, I think they're wrong.
I believe that, in spite of our illusion of separateness, we are all one. I believe this because I have seen it with my own two eyes, not because I read it in some book. I believe we are all just droplets of water looking for our way back to the ocean that is...God. (Whatever you want to name Him/She/It.)
We always have been, and always will be, One. There is much more to the universe than the miniscule part we see, but while we're here on this rock, in this corner of it, we should respect the gift we've been given (however shitty that might seem to us), because it's still better than nothingness.
We will all die in our time, and that time is like the blink of an eye, or the flapping of a hummingbird's wings. Nothing lasts forever. All things will eventually crumble into dust. The sun will eventually expand as it loses it's fuel and it will swallow the entire earth in fire. Even further into the future, the universe is likely to go cold and silent as the last of the nuclear fuel from the Big Bang runs out.
One could argue that none of this matters very easily, but one could also argue that if anything matters at all, it would be this. The trick is not to care because you can't let go of it...but care because it's beautiful, and because it's part of God.
Anyway...that's my take on it. More or less.
Submitted by FilthyAssistant (user info) at 2006-03-13 17:11:53 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
...ten minutes to Wapner....definitely ten minutes to Wapner...
Submitted by Axolotl (user info) at 2006-03-13 17:03:20 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
How's the quest for the AK47 going?
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-03-13 17:00:28 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by badassmofo (user info) at 2006-03-13 16:54:09 (#)
Ranking: 0
You are the Fox News of Ubersite, congrats
===
Exactly. ETS cherry-picks "facts" on the Internet, writes wordy posts around them then claims to be our sheperd.
Submitted by badassmofo (user info) at 2006-03-13 17:00:09 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
oh and i read the post
but you can stick this in your ass anyway
Submitted by MyNameIsTim (user info) at 2006-03-13 16:54:25 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
i agree with you. i think we probably are fucked.
that said, you, like everyone else who makes the point you just made, neglected to provide statistical information. why?
i'm sure you're a pretty smart guy. most conspiracy theorists tend to be. and i'm lumping you into that stereotype. i'm sure you can see how much stronger your point would be had you said "this is the 5th warmest year on record. average temperature is 23249123491240 degrees kelvin above the mean, or 359132481244 standard deviations above the mean. is the past 50 years statistically significantly hotter than 50 years 1000 years ago?
i'm no theoretical statistician, but i did take a summer class in statistics at a bullshit college, and learned a very very little. I then took a graduate class in statistics at a sweet college, and learned a lot.
unless you provide the statistical information to back up the logic, it doesn't resonnate. people don't buy it. they have no reason to. you haven't proven anything.
if you don't know them, learn statistics. then make your points.
Submitted by badassmofo (user info) at 2006-03-13 16:54:09 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I think that your 'research' and your 'statistics' are bias.
I believe, and i'm not going to check because fuck that i HAVE a life, that you could pull basically the same temperature related statistics for every fucking year ever. Sure you may have to move over a few towns to get it, but records are set every year.
Same could be said for statistics that disprove your theory here, and again fuck off if you think i'm going to put the time into looking them up because...um...well because what the fuck are you doing about it anyway.
What this means all in all is, you theory is nothing more than the trumped up bullshit news stories that come out year after year.
You are the Fox News of Ubersite, congrats
Submitted by RamJetMax (user info) at 2006-03-13 16:49:03 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
"One week left of winter, and I am left to reflect on how this winter has succeeded in supporting what I've believed for years now - that the world is warming up and our climatological patterns are, to put it bluntly, fucked."
Ya right, tell that that to the people in Russia who froze to death in one of their coldest winters ever.
Global Warming is the greatest hoax ever pulled.
I am going outside right now just to release arisol into the air and pour some lead-based paint into the river.
Dumb ass.
Submitted by MistressFist (user info) at 2006-03-13 16:47:12 EST (#)
Ranking: -1
You should move to Mars then.
Submitted by The_taste_of_Monkeys (user info) at 2006-03-13 16:46:36 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Its a sad comment to make but I ACTUALLY probably won't live long enough for any of this to affect me and I figure I'm now owed some payback on mother nature, so I'm giving up caring.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-03-13 16:46:30 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-13 16:37:45 (#)
Ranking: 0
Indo, why is it you think I'm incapable of making hypothesis based on everyday observation? I actually got the idea while compiling a shitload of data from the NOAA website which lead me to postulate that the epicenter of tornado activity is probably on the move due to change of climate.
===
Pot-smokers and people who are 30 and still doing fuck all are way too lazy to do that kind of work. Just like those "tips" on economy which were really just echos of the national news, you're just parroting again.
Submitted by Waxinmyeye (user info) at 2006-03-13 16:44:29 EST (#)
Ranking: -1
yes global warming, you are a genius
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-13 16:43:57 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Nah, go ahead Caul. I hit back.
Global warming would not be good for Canada at length because Americans will be migrating there if it gets too bad.
You'd be overrun.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-13 16:37:45 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Indo, why is it you think I'm incapable of making hypothesis based on everyday observation? I actually got the idea while compiling a shitload of data from the NOAA website which lead me to postulate that the epicenter of tornado activity is probably on the move due to change of climate. That and the fact that 23 people were killed in my hometown last November from the worst tornado disaster ever to hit my state. Not to mention the early arrival of tornado season this year with 2 people dying in Missouri last week as a result of a line of storms. Then there was one back in January in Alabama that killed someone.
I've got my own mind and I use it regularly. Now if you'd kindly fuck off, I'd appreciate it.
Thanks.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-03-13 16:36:28 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
While this winter was ridiculously easy go through (not -50C for two weeks like last year http://ubersite.com/m/57037), it's not the case everywhere. Parts of Europe is having one of its coldest winter. My hometown is litterally buried under surreal absurd amount of snow and when I went there in early January, it was locked under constant -30F (windchill not included) temperature.
I remember that my parent would complain that the winter was getting way to cold in the early nineties.
The weather goes through cycle, buddy. Right now it's getting warmer...WE KNOW, it's all over the news. Instead of screaming about how the sky is blue and how water is wet, try to do your part by changing small day-to-day habits and shut the fuck up.
Global warming is a great thing for us Canadians. I spent all Saturday on terrasses and cafés...in Montréal...in mid-March!!! :-D
p.s. I'm giving you a -2 because I know it hurts your feelings
Submitted by PokeyPecker (user info) at 2006-03-13 16:34:21 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
How many guns do you have in your cellar, ETS?
Submitted by Beano312003 (user info) at 2006-03-13 16:33:48 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
You're all so lucky. We don't have weather in the UK.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-13 16:30:52 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by JonnyX (user info) at 2006-03-13 16:29:09 (#)
Ranking: 0
I BLAME GREOGE W. BUSH FOR ALL OF THIS
-----------------------
That joke is getting really old.
Submitted by Oxymoron (user info) at 2006-03-13 16:30:42 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-13 16:26:46 (#)
Ranking: 0
The title of the post is "Winter 2006" and it was filed under "Science and Environmental". What did you think I was gonna talk about? Turkey hunting?
Besides, this isn't about "weather"; it's about "climate". There is a difference.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HEEEEYYYY, there you go, Turkey season starts next Sat. the 25th.
gobble gobble gobble BANG!
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-03-13 16:30:34 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
"I can't prove this theory quite yet, but I look for tornado seasons over the next several years to begin earlier with their epicenter of activity moving northeastward as arctic air stays at higher latitudes and the dry line pushes further east than normal."
I wonder what website you ripped this idea from?
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-13 16:30:13 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Thanks, Jon.
I'm compiling a BUNCH of data right now for a big tornado post from their site.
Weather and climate are fucking fascinating. It's like looking at baseball stats and seeing the homerun and RBI numbers of the players for every season.
Right now, the climate is on steroids, and until we pressure the Players' Union to punish the offenders, I think we're going to be seeing more of these big numbers in years to come.
Submitted by JonnyX (user info) at 2006-03-13 16:29:09 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I BLAME GREOGE W. BUSH FOR ALL OF THIS
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-13 16:26:46 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
The title of the post is "Winter 2006" and it was filed under "Science and Environmental". What did you think I was gonna talk about? Turkey hunting?
Besides, this isn't about "weather"; it's about "climate". There is a difference.
Submitted by j0andre1 (user info) at 2006-03-13 16:24:53 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
NOAA is automatic plus 2
I spend way too much time at www.nws.noaa.gov
Thank God someone else is as insane of a nerd as I am.
Submitted by Oxymoron (user info) at 2006-03-13 16:24:18 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
It's been as cold as witch's tit out here in CA. Raining a lot too.
Maybe someone fucked up and switched our weather for yours. Give it back.
Really though, why are you complaining? At least the tornadoes missed you.
Submitted by Foolproof (user info) at 2006-03-13 16:21:00 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-13 16:19:18 (#)
Ranking: 0
It's called 'information'.
About the weather?
I have television, ETS. I can find this if I want to, but hey - Thanks!
Submitted by TigerLilly (user info) at 2006-03-13 16:20:28 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-13 16:19:18 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Foolproof (user info) at 2006-03-13 16:16:47 (#)
Ranking: -2
What the hell is this horseshit??
----------------
It's called 'information'.
Submitted by Foolproof (user info) at 2006-03-13 16:16:47 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
What the hell is this horseshit??