meazza Posted January 8, 2014 Posted January 8, 2014 One thing you have to appreciate is how the media will work so hard to make something like cold weather sound really dramatic by calling it a polar vortex! I haven't seen a dramatic vortex like this since the last time I cleared a level on Asteroids for Playstation 2. Here we call it winter.
DC Tom Posted January 8, 2014 Posted January 8, 2014 One thing you have to appreciate is how the media will work so hard to make something like cold weather sound really dramatic by calling it a polar vortex! I haven't seen a dramatic vortex like this since the last time I cleared a level on Asteroids for Playstation 2. It is a pretty dramatic polar vortex...in meterological terms. The media, of course, doesn't know that. They just like the term because words that end with "x" sound scary.
Taro T Posted January 8, 2014 Posted January 8, 2014 It is a pretty dramatic polar vortex...in meterological terms. The media, of course, doesn't know that. They just like the term because words that end with "x" sound scary. Which probably stems from so many of them storing their heads near their coccyges.
3rdnlng Posted January 10, 2014 Posted January 10, 2014 (2014-01-09) — Just as the recent deadly cold-snap and the entrapment of a scientific vessel in the Antarctic ice pack can be traced to man-made global warming, the White House announced today that melting Arctic ice-flows will soon spawn a “polar bear vortex” which will move south in a swirling mass migration. “Unscientific Americans fail to comprehend why man-made warming causes extreme cooling,” said White House science adviser Dr. John Holdren. “So these same ignorant folks will be stunned when massive herds of endangered polar bears swarm neighborhoods from Maine to Texas.” Holdren explained that as global warming melts polar ice flows, bears have no floating platforms from which to hunt the ocean. With all that extra downtime, many of them mate voraciously, and give birth to multiple litters of cubs, who, lacking food, will migrate toward the protein-rich garbage cans of suburban Americans. “Within just a few years,” Holdren said, “you’ll be able to walk from Philadelphia to Dallas on the backs of polar bears…that is, if you haven’t already been slain by a ravening famished pack of them.” http://scrappleface.com/2014/01/09/white-house-warns-of-coming-polar-bear-vortex/
John Adams Posted January 11, 2014 Posted January 11, 2014 I am an engineer...BSME Clarkson....MBA too..although I have never been a "practicing" PE. Did not read all of it. Seriously not sure what response you are looking for...you contradict yourself so much its tough to even understand what your point is and how you got there. Don't flaunt degrees. They don't mean anything here. And really, your ME degree and MBA hardly qualify you as a climatologist. One thing you have to appreciate is how the media will work so hard to make something like cold weather sound really dramatic by calling it a polar vortex! I haven't seen a dramatic vortex like this since the last time I cleared a level on Asteroids for Playstation 2. Did the name it? Screw these naming things.
ExiledInIllinois Posted January 11, 2014 Posted January 11, 2014 It is a pretty dramatic polar vortex...in meterological terms. The media, of course, doesn't know that. They just like the term because words that end with "x" sound scary. This polar vortex is sure taking a beating tonight...Being pushed aside/tempered. Pouring rain right now, low 36 hours ago was -6. I can't wait to go into work @ midnight and see the incredible ice jam! The suspense is killing me (not really). There was a tow itching to head south with 2 tankers (6400 tons) of residual fuel oil, gonna be interesting to see him try and break the ice field up. Oh... BTW, he has 3200 horses in his hull. This morning he called and said he was getting stopped in his tracks trying to break the ice up! ;-) Al Gore you damn twit! Did the name it? Screw these naming things. I think it was Ion? Yep, screw these naming things!
OCinBuffalo Posted January 12, 2014 Author Posted January 12, 2014 (edited) And yet you were eventually pwned by Chef Jim in a thread about programming. How predictable. I mean, it's almost like I said "4merdipshit is going to put me in thread about a website, and then make sure I don't win...buy 'judging' it that way." word for word. Hence: the rhyming. Which, I think all will agree, was not only funny, but a fine response to your transparent set-up. As I also said: "Hey, I enjoy watching children get a new toy". Or, if I didn't, I should have. So, by all means: run along and play with yours. But...never forget who quite willingly, and knowingly, went out and bought you your new toy. I just...didn't want to disappoint you on something you clearly had worked so hard at. I am an engineer...BSME Clarkson....MBA too..although I have never been a "practicing" PE. Did not read all of it. Seriously not sure what response you are looking for...you contradict yourself so much its tough to even understand what your point is and how you got there. Oh? Where? Specifically when and where do I contradict myself? This will be the 3rd?...well, I've been away a while, it could be the 5th...time I've asked you the same question: Why do you need 2 separate and distinct speculations..."bottom of the ocean", and "pollution stops pollution" to be true, in order for the AGW theory to be true? If this is all "settled"...then the speculations shouldn't be necessary, yet, here they are. What does your "science mind" tell you about that? Or, how about we speak, again, to your brilliant...ly obvious speculation: Shouldn't "water holds more energy than air" have been factored in? Nice short questions, and a nice small post that the ADHD kids can't complain about. Now, who wants to bet on whether this turd(still a turd, as defined) will answer the questions? ============================= Now, for some fun with MBAs: 3 MBAs work for me, but they are middle of the pack, and nowhere near my best. I've fired more MBAs than I've hired. This is largely due to the fact that most of my career has been about taking over and turning around failing IT projects (and you guys wonder why I am bitter some days), most often planned/managed/sponsored by idiots....with MBAs. Interestingly enough: if you have an MBA, I've found that you are 2x more likely to suck balls at NFL-level IT...than not. I have the #s to back this up, and we are talking the thousands of people I've worked with here, all for extended period of time...my entire career. It's just a personal theory but, I think I've found out why these trends occur: the most important skill in consulting is being able to have client people identify with you enough, or just enough, to tell you the "truth". (no such thing, I know, but what's true for them, is the truth) A consultant with expert skill in this means they will also tell who is lying and why. People love to tell their side of the story. Too often, MBAs won't/don't let them, when it's our job to get that, but also what they don't want to tell, out of them. I've found too many MBAs...use that as a wall, or worse, as a reason for why they DON'T need to bother with/strive for expertise in this most important skill. This is patently retarded of them, as a business analyst, who can't get requirements, is as about as useful as a bull with no balls. Thus, more often than not MBAs are useless, empty suits in what I do. The best requirement-getter I know, and have tried to hire for years, is an ex-um, "waitress", now MILFy business analyst. She doesn't have an MBA. But, if she asked you for yours, you'd give it to her, I guarantee it. Edited January 12, 2014 by OCinBuffalo
Koko78 Posted January 12, 2014 Posted January 12, 2014 (edited) Slowdown in Global Warming is Apparently a Mirage (Op-Ed) By Ilissa Ocko, Environmental Defense Fund January 10, 2014 5:41 PM Ilissa Ocko, the High Meadows post-doctoral science fellow at Environmental Defense Fund While the planet's surface temperatures over the past century have risen to unprecedented levels, records have shown a slowdown in the pace of warming over the past 15 years. ... Accounting for data that was omitted in the standard HadCrut4 surface temperature dataset — one of the most prominent temperature datasets — the scientists found that the recent warming trend is two and a half times greater than what the original data suggests. ... This study is important because it advances the accuracy of monitoring temperatures worldwide, and provides insight into the highly publicized 'global warming pause.' In fact, the global warming pause has entirely vanished using this new method. http://news.yahoo.com/slowdown-global-warming-apparently-mirage-op-ed-224132740.html So their answer as to when the data doesn't show what they want it to show is to simply change the data. Brilliant! I'll bet these idiots still wonder why no one takes their word as gospel. Edited January 12, 2014 by Koko78
OCinBuffalo Posted January 12, 2014 Author Posted January 12, 2014 http://news.yahoo.co...-224132740.html So their answer as to when the data doesn't show what they want it to show is to simply change the data. Brilliant! I'll bet these idiots still wonder why no one takes their word as gospel. Hehe....the best is: they actually believe this. The believe that there's nothing wrong with what they've done to get where they are. And, you guys wonder why I call them Scientologists? Consider: every time a Scientologists claims are empirically denied, what do they do? They claim that the "tech was not standardized". See here: http://www.xenu.net/archive/free_speech/2006-faggot.html and http://the-scientologist.com/whatisstandardtech.shtml. But of course, they must always be forward-looking: NOW "The Tech is Standardized", NOW, we are going to "save mankind". IF you can read these links in the context of AGW, and, you can do your best not to laugh at their absurdity(or consider the striking similarity between them and some posts here), you might begin to see the same thing I do: Hey! A cult is at work here. If not a cult, then certainly a group of people using the same playbook as a cult. The "tech", as it were, being now-standardized, is a perfect excuse: we never call the entire thing into question, and we never question the premise(s) of the argument. No. By describing the "tech's" misalignment with reality as merely not standardized, all we are really saying is that it needs to be "tweaked". Standardized implies that it was merely not standardized...before, not that the whole thing is bunk. It takes away, at least in their minds, any possibility to question the entire thing. It also focuses us at the end, not the beginning, of the argument. Notice: we aren't talking about AGW as a theory overall...now we are talking about this pause? Most importantly, this description allows "most supporters" to indemnify themselves from the "non-standard" work of others. How convenient! Same thing occurs for the people above! Thus, credibility, and the confidence of those they are speaking with, is never truly threatened. (Confidence...you know, where the "con" in "con-man" comes from?) One of these days I'm going to match up the quotes from the Scientologists with the quotes from environtologists and show you all how consistently they match....but not now. I want to watch football.
DC Tom Posted January 12, 2014 Posted January 12, 2014 http://news.yahoo.co...-224132740.html So their answer as to when the data doesn't show what they want it to show is to simply change the data. Brilliant! I'll bet these idiots still wonder why no one takes their word as gospel. It's a decent study...but anyone should automatically be suspicious of a conclusion that amounts to saying "our predictions are right because the supporting data has been hiding where we haven't been measuring."
TH3 Posted January 13, 2014 Posted January 13, 2014 (edited) How predictable. I mean, it's almost like I said "4merdipshit is going to put me in thread about a website, and then make sure I don't win...buy 'judging' it that way." word for word. Hence: the rhyming. Which, I think all will agree, was not only funny, but a fine response to your transparent set-up. As I also said: "Hey, I enjoy watching children get a new toy". Or, if I didn't, I should have. So, by all means: run along and play with yours. But...never forget who quite willingly, and knowingly, went out and bought you your new toy. I just...didn't want to disappoint you on something you clearly had worked so hard at. Oh? Where? Specifically when and where do I contradict myself? This will be the 3rd?...well, I've been away a while, it could be the 5th...time I've asked you the same question: Why do you need 2 separate and distinct speculations..."bottom of the ocean", and "pollution stops pollution" to be true, in order for the AGW theory to be true? If this is all "settled"...then the speculations shouldn't be necessary, yet, here they are. What does your "science mind" tell you about that? Or, how about we speak, again, to your brilliant...ly obvious speculation: Shouldn't "water holds more energy than air" have been factored in? Nice short questions, and a nice small post that the ADHD kids can't complain about. Now, who wants to bet on whether this turd(still a turd, as defined) will answer the questions? ============================= AFA "flashing credentials" (not your post - but someones): People questioned whether I actually had an engineering degree = so I responded. AFA MBA's: I felt I needed the business education to get where I wanted - so I went back to school to augment my engineering degree. I cannot answer to your personal observations. AFA various observations on "pauses" etc: http://www.ncdc.noaa.../global/2013/11 The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for November 2013 was record highest for the 134-year period of record, at 0.78°C (1.40°F) above the 20th century average of 12.9°C (55.2°F). How we got these rising temps is up to discussion. Again - I don't understand whether your point is - or others on this board - the rising temperature is not actually happening or whether it is happening and man has nothing to do with it. My take is that it is happening and human/fossil fuels is the cause. I also maintain that until there is a cost effective alternative to carbon - we should keep using fossil fuels. Edited January 13, 2014 by baskin
OCinBuffalo Posted January 13, 2014 Author Posted January 13, 2014 AFA "flashing credentials" (not your post - but someones): People questioned whether I actually had an engineering degree = so I responded. AFA MBA's: I felt I needed the business education to get where I wanted - so I went back to school to augment my engineering degree. I cannot answer to your personal observations. AFA various observations on "pauses" etc: http://www.ncdc.noaa.../global/2013/11 The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for November 2013 was record highest for the 134-year period of record, at 0.78°C (1.40°F) above the 20th century average of 12.9°C (55.2°F). How we got these rising temps is up to discussion. Again - I don't understand whether your point is - or others on this board - the rising temperature is not actually happening or whether it is happening and man has nothing to do with it. My take is that it is happening and human/fossil fuels is the cause. I also maintain that until there is a cost effective alternative to carbon - we should keep using fossil fuels. You're still ducking the issue here, and pretending you don't understand something that's been exhaustively explained to you. Now, either you are an idiot, who got you degrees in some dubious manner, or, you're a liar, or, you're playing games and trying to say you don't understand: The 15 year "pause" in warming, while CO2 emissions have EXCEEDED the predictive modeling expectations, and the hilarious speculations that result. debunk the predictive claims made by the supposedly serious scientists working this issue. What do we normally do with an "event" like this in our raw data? Well, normally, I go back and tell whoever is saying that a "trend" is occurring...that they need to start over again, because that's too much contradictory data. We reject their take on the data, and we sure as hell don't try to generate intelligence based on it. What I don't do? Keep driving the original model, and then run around grasping for every straw to defend the original position. Oh... Wait... Yeah, actually? I have done that. You know when? When it threatens the existence of my project. When there's a good chance we will get the boot if I don't. Then? I would basically say anything I could, provided I could back it up in some way, no matter how lame/tenuous. It's not lying. It's just stretching what you have, because you are desperate, and, because it's your job. Now...having admitted to this behavior...do you now realize that, when I see it in others, I know it? Moreover, since I'm usually on the side of taking over/firing the F ups, I've heard/seen the same story, over and over. Dude, this is about people trying to protect their "project". Nothing more. Sometimes, it works. Most of the time? It doesn't. The reason they are doing it? Because they are desperate, and, because it's their job.
TH3 Posted January 13, 2014 Posted January 13, 2014 (edited) You're still ducking the issue here, and pretending you don't understand something that's been exhaustively explained to you. Now, either you are an idiot, who got you degrees in some dubious manner, or, you're a liar, or, you're playing games and trying to say you don't understand: The 15 year "pause" in warming, while CO2 emissions have EXCEEDED the predictive modeling expectations, and the hilarious speculations that result. debunk the predictive claims made by the supposedly serious scientists working this issue. What do we normally do with an "event" like this in our raw data? Well, normally, I go back and tell whoever is saying that a "trend" is occurring...that they need to start over again, because that's too much contradictory data. We reject their take on the data, and we sure as hell don't try to generate intelligence based on it. What I don't do? Keep driving the original model, and then run around grasping for every straw to defend the original position. Oh... Wait... Yeah, actually? I have done that. You know when? When it threatens the existence of my project. When there's a good chance we will get the boot if I don't. Then? I would basically say anything I could, provided I could back it up in some way, no matter how lame/tenuous. It's not lying. It's just stretching what you have, because you are desperate, and, because it's your job. Now...having admitted to this behavior...do you now realize that, when I see it in others, I know it? Moreover, since I'm usually on the side of taking over/firing the F ups, I've heard/seen the same story, over and over. Dude, this is about people trying to protect their "project". Nothing more. Sometimes, it works. Most of the time? It doesn't. The reason they are doing it? Because they are desperate, and, because it's their job. 2013 warmest on record...to quote Texas Ranger "someone didn't love you enough when you were a kid" Edited January 13, 2014 by baskin
IDBillzFan Posted January 13, 2014 Posted January 13, 2014 2013 warmest on record...to quote Texas Ranger "someone didn't love you enough when you were a kid" How far back do the records go?
....lybob Posted January 13, 2014 Posted January 13, 2014 The British (most importantly the British royal navy) have been keeping microscopically detailed weather records including temperature and barometric pressure since the 1850s- important because while they may not have been everywhere they were pretty !@#$ing close to everywhere.
DC Tom Posted January 14, 2014 Posted January 14, 2014 The British (most importantly the British royal navy) have been keeping microscopically detailed weather records including temperature and barometric pressure since the 1850s- important because while they may not have been everywhere they were pretty !@#$ing close to everywhere. Longer than that...Royal Navy logs contain weather data from about 1650. There's a project on line to transcribe the climate data in ships' logs into digital format for climatology use (I participate in it). But it's hardly "microscopic." There's an unavoidable bias in them based on they only contain data from where the ships actually are. That's a much bigger bias than it would seem at first (imagine trying to collect historical hurricane data from sources that actively try to avoid hurricanes.) How is that? You're an "engineer." Figure it out. The above is a BIG hint.
Recommended Posts