Winter 2006: One for the record books (3209 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)