We had a cold snap up here in the midwest. Below zero nearly 3 weeks. The popular stupid explanation for this is now called "polar vortex". When we got tons of snow last year it was termed "snowmageddon!" I must be stupid, here I thought for all these years it was called "winter". Please list the stupid terms that you have heard in the last few years that really make your face turn red with embarrasment. I thought this could be a fun thread to start so members could vent a little about fads in media, the internet, the gun industry, at your job or anything really. Example: zombie apocolapse! What the hell is that all about?
- Thread starter 100meterpeter
- Start date
i thought it was slang for a wife's VJ after five years.
Stephen Colbert Braves Polar Vortex?s Thunder Snow, Prepares for Cloudpocalypse Rain-a-Geddon (Video) - Yahoo TV
other ones:
politically correct (oxymoron)
home invasion (getting robbed)
modern sporting rifle (40ish years old is modern?)
American girl (made in china)
life partner (where cock sucker or cunt licker seems too harsh to use)
alternative lifestyle - switching hands?
texting - writing to typing, typing to speaking, speaking back to typing? why talk when you can opt to do something that's tougher to do? what's the deal with that?
snowden - once upon a time this name would have been associated with being a patriot.
challenged - everyone is, no responsibility for their own actions because of it.
victim - aren't we all, no responsibility for their own actions because of it.
little people - hi ho, hi ho
special needs - being retarded never felt so good - crippled or birth defect take your pick
handicapped - being fat isn't it. anorexics don't get special parking neither should the fat (sorry, the obese)
gansta - there's nothing "gangster" about flaunting how bad assed you are. Enjoy your spoils in private, makes you less of a target stupid.
tactical - anything black, anything camo, anything with extra lines, anything with extra hooks / loops / buckles / velcro / pockets, anything that doesn't look like a unicorn.
body art - once referred to as tattoos and shrapnel
pickers - see sanford and son
participation trophy - it's like getting laid but only looking at the victoria secret catalog. striving to be average or substandard is now the 'merican way.
antiques - now is garbage no one wants
vintage - antiques people will pay top dollar for
tape a show, roll up a window, dial a number - when was the last time anyone did any of that?
assistant caterer to the 2nd executive stage grip assistant - remember when movie credits were shorter than the movie?
incandescent light bulb - Light bulb has been burning 110 years straight - Technology & science - Science - LiveScience | NBC News
yeah, they don't last as long as fluorescent light bulbs
"air quotes" - we gotten so used to stupidity, we don't use them anymore on all of the above
Stephen Colbert Braves Polar Vortex?s Thunder Snow, Prepares for Cloudpocalypse Rain-a-Geddon (Video) - Yahoo TV
other ones:
politically correct (oxymoron)
home invasion (getting robbed)
modern sporting rifle (40ish years old is modern?)
American girl (made in china)
life partner (where cock sucker or cunt licker seems too harsh to use)
alternative lifestyle - switching hands?
texting - writing to typing, typing to speaking, speaking back to typing? why talk when you can opt to do something that's tougher to do? what's the deal with that?
snowden - once upon a time this name would have been associated with being a patriot.
challenged - everyone is, no responsibility for their own actions because of it.
victim - aren't we all, no responsibility for their own actions because of it.
little people - hi ho, hi ho
special needs - being retarded never felt so good - crippled or birth defect take your pick
handicapped - being fat isn't it. anorexics don't get special parking neither should the fat (sorry, the obese)
gansta - there's nothing "gangster" about flaunting how bad assed you are. Enjoy your spoils in private, makes you less of a target stupid.
tactical - anything black, anything camo, anything with extra lines, anything with extra hooks / loops / buckles / velcro / pockets, anything that doesn't look like a unicorn.
body art - once referred to as tattoos and shrapnel
pickers - see sanford and son
participation trophy - it's like getting laid but only looking at the victoria secret catalog. striving to be average or substandard is now the 'merican way.
antiques - now is garbage no one wants
vintage - antiques people will pay top dollar for
tape a show, roll up a window, dial a number - when was the last time anyone did any of that?
assistant caterer to the 2nd executive stage grip assistant - remember when movie credits were shorter than the movie?
incandescent light bulb - Light bulb has been burning 110 years straight - Technology & science - Science - LiveScience | NBC News
yeah, they don't last as long as fluorescent light bulbs
"air quotes" - we gotten so used to stupidity, we don't use them anymore on all of the above
pre-owned - only sounds better than "used" to the stupid.
recently made redundant - only sounds better than "laid off" to the stupid.
re-purposed - only sounds interesting and exiting to the idiotic.
"This was the worst (storm/accident/crisis/event/whatever) since the one back in '52..... So seeing as there apparently was a "worse" one yet, back then... why would you try to elevate the badness of a negative?
Society (?) is so full of naivete and delusion lately, and all we want to do here is move out of town. Far, far away from the city.
As to the weather, my thoughts are that the media simply needs to self-aggrandize for the continuous (illusionary) following of those we want to escape from.
recently made redundant - only sounds better than "laid off" to the stupid.
re-purposed - only sounds interesting and exiting to the idiotic.
"This was the worst (storm/accident/crisis/event/whatever) since the one back in '52..... So seeing as there apparently was a "worse" one yet, back then... why would you try to elevate the badness of a negative?
Society (?) is so full of naivete and delusion lately, and all we want to do here is move out of town. Far, far away from the city.
As to the weather, my thoughts are that the media simply needs to self-aggrandize for the continuous (illusionary) following of those we want to escape from.
Holy crap thats funny!
I might start marketing a "tactical" Thermos mount for mounting on a rail for rifles. Paint the thermos tactical black and make it look like some kind of night vision. I bet someone would buy them.
I also wonder how long it is going to be before "smaller" cellphones are going to be all the rage? I suppose after enough people throw out their rotator carrying around the plasma screen tv phones they have now. And by the way ladies, that huge phone looks STUPID in your back pocket when you are wearing ultra tight pants to show off your ass, instead, all we see is one giant square ass cheek!
G
Guest
Guest
It's not a new term. Just new to most of the media, and thus to you as well.
"The polar vortex was first described as early as 1853. The phenomenon sudden stratospheric warming (SSW) appears during the wintertime in the Northern Hemisphere and was discovered 1952 with radiosonde observations at altitudes higher than 20 km."
The Living Age - Google Books
"The polar vortex was first described as early as 1853. The phenomenon sudden stratospheric warming (SSW) appears during the wintertime in the Northern Hemisphere and was discovered 1952 with radiosonde observations at altitudes higher than 20 km."
The Living Age - Google Books
I'm a Meteorologist - Bachelors from Mizzou and Masters from Texas A&M. The term Polar Vortex does exist, but the application of it in this instance has been misguided. They're using it like it refers to this particular storm system. Polar Vortex is nothing more than the northernmost jet stream circulation, and in this case it dipped down much farther South than normal.
The Weather Channel has become nothing but a joke, they're just left-wing propaganda. And these days they'll do anything to hype the hysteria, naming winter storms was the final straw for me. I literally haven't tuned to the Weather Channel in over 2 years.
The Weather Channel has become nothing but a joke, they're just left-wing propaganda. And these days they'll do anything to hype the hysteria, naming winter storms was the final straw for me. I literally haven't tuned to the Weather Channel in over 2 years.
There was a surge in super small cell phones right before the Smart Phone boom.
Amen!
During Carter it was global cooling that was going to ruin the earth as we know it. Then it was global warming. Then it was global weirding. Now it is climate change. I predict next that it will be "climate evolution" when the temps swing the other way. You have to admit, it is funny to watch the stupidity.
Someone beat him to it. Saw a blub on Fox that demos were blaming global warming for the harsh winter. Of course it could be Bush's fault (same initials).
G
Guest
Guest
Funny thing- the Polar vortex dip was used in the 70's as an example of "Global Cooling"
FYI: anybody that questions this graph is free to come and check out my glaciers, and listen to my story about last year's late caribou migration
Global cooling is what I'm worried about, as everybody should be much more-so than warming. Much impact to the food supply and pretty quickly stores could be empty. We're at a solar max right now for this current cycle, and it's as low a peak as we've seen in 100 years. If the much lower than usual continues into the solar minimum over the next 5 or so years, we could be in a World of hurt. No politician has figured out how to increase taxes based on solar cycles however, at least not yet.
I don't question the graph, but I know how they fudged the data to arrive at it is complete horse shit.
Military Intelligence? To civilians who don't understand it's an oxymoron. To military people who do understand it's almost NEVER right.
The only good thing about living in So Cal is the fine looking babe's and the weather, the rest of it pretty much SUCKS.
So in 120 years, the global temperature rose 0.79 degrees and I'm supposed to support the annihilation of our economy in favor of environmental concerns over the latest bullshit "crisis"?
Change the scale of that graph to a meaningful number and you basically see a flat-line of temperature change over more than a century of world industrialization.
(Sorry if that bordered on political.)
Not to mention the instrumentation used, locations of said data collection points, there quality and quantity over the last 120+ years hasn't changed in any way, right?!?
I just heard the newest embarrasing term to come out. Nissan just came out with a car to target the newest group of people. Are you ready???? DIGITAL NATIVES! That is anyone born after 1990. Apparently these people wont buy any of the cars that the rest of us cavemen buy. They need something from star trek that symbolizes the digital superiority they posess. By the way, digital natives might buy into that temperature graph.
S
Surgikill
Guest
[MENTION=11864]Anvil[/MENTION] you do realize that the climate is cooling and that Antarctica is growing colder and increasing in size.
Sent from my SCH-I535
Sent from my SCH-I535
All you heard was marketing and the result of a customer segmentation initiative aimed at aligning a standard product with a specific target demographic. It's part of selling stuff. Welcome to capitalism.
Agree. I see water tables the highest in history. I think cattle will eventually develop webbed hooves and I'll need a permanent hat mounted deet sprayer to deal with mosquitoes.
Agree. Its all part of the expanding and fragmenting of media, news and broadcasting. As sources of information expand and advertising shrinks for each segment of the market. Every media channel leads with "interesting", "outrageous" and controversial story lines to attract and define its market segment. After all who needs the weather channel when the local time, news and temperature is on the face of your smart phone.
G
Guest
Guest
Every time I tune in TWC to see actual conditions or forecasts, they have "Storm Stories" or some other crap running.
It's kind of like going to MTV and expecting music.
It's kind of like going to MTV and expecting music.
A guy would have to build a picatinny to picatinny mount for that. Now would the rifle mount to the mug or would the mug mount to the rifle? I wouldnt want to be hit in the face by the muzzle everytime I took a sip. It probably keeps your drink "tacticool".
Don't forget the prospector show---that's all about weather you know.
don't worry, the topic is still valid, even if some morons have made it political. Think of it this way: how many calories of energy did it take to change the planet's temperature that much? that's a HUGE amount of energy, and first off, we really should be pretty impressed with ourselves.
Second, when you add energy to a system, it makes said system more energetic (ie: less stable). our concern is not that every place on the planet is going to get warmer, but rather that we will no longer have a reliable 'average'. During the Hurricane Sandy debacle, I had to constantly remind people that Hurricane Sandy was, in fact, pretty normal and par for the course.
The dingbats in the media are citing the absolute wrong data to prove what may be a valid hypothesis.
And I kid you not, the class I'm about to start in ten minutes is by a professor that specializes in treeline ecology (ie: the study of spruce trees advancing further north into the tundra as the planet warms up). Pretty neat stuff if you're not concerned about the implications of melting permafrost, which at the moment happens to be trapping a couple gigatons of Methane, which is many times worse than CO2 as a greenhouse gas.
You can also look at it from another perspective--If we make changes to our economy, they'll most likely be methods to refine our present industry and make it more cost-effective (efficient). With the smog situation in China rapidly growing worse, the communist government there is beginning to impose tighter regulations. While I am personally against government fiddling, the result in twenty years will be a more efficient industrial sector.
This is all beside the fact that the global economy is running on a nonrenewable resource. Here in Alaska, we're running entire communities on diesel generators that are in the middle of what has been referred to as the "Saudi Arabia of Wind and Geothermal Energy". We can literally make the Volcanoes give us near-unlimited free energy, and even export it at low cost using HVDC lines to the lower 48.
Think of that: Why should I pay exorbitant sums of money to the top five richest companies in the world (who, mind you, get large subsidy packages from the federal government) when I can spend a little extra up-front capital costs and have a few centuries of free power?
Like you say, this whole warming/change/cooling thing may be a complete crock. I acknowledge this because that possibility exists with literally EVERYTHING that science does.
But what's the harm if it gives us a reason to build a more awesome economic machine?
yep, please refer to the big post above this one. (summation: adding energy to a system makes it more unstable, and prone to larger variance. the term 'warming' is not very accurate)
S
Surgikill
Guest
You can't create energy anvil. Only transform it. I hope you know that in 2010 90 percent of national weather service stations failed criteria to record accurate temperature readings. Requirements such as being more than thirty feet away from a heat reflective surface and being stationed in the shade, so as to read ambient air temperature and not absorb radiant energy. You should also know that global warming proponents say that in order for temperature increases to be caused by green house gases there has to be a hot spot roughly 10k to 15k above the earths surface. They have been unable to find that hot spot to date. The earth also goes through a natural cooling and warming cycle. It has been observed by many scientists and the pattern had been found in every continent and in every medium. It has also been observed in sediment samples taken from the sea floor. There was a recent news media hype centered around wiki leaks. In those files was proof that temperatures were falsified and false data was given. You should also look at who profits from these accusations. Car companies can charge 50k for an electric car. The government can dump money into horrible alternative energy sources. This false belief that the media and government started is just a way to bleed the system.
Sent from my SCH-I535
Sent from my SCH-I535
I think you misconstrued so I'll reiterate. Forgive me if this sounds condescending.
The sun is constantly adding energy (note that I did not mention such a violation of the laws of physics as creation of energy) to the system (Earth). Normally, a lot of the energy added by the sun is reflected back into space. Greenhouse gasses such as CO2, CH4, etc. suspended in the atmosphere act as a mirror, reflecting that energy back toward the Earth. This retained energy, in the form of heat, is now trapped within the system thereby increasing the overall energy of the system, and leading to a decline of stability (again, the name 'global warming' is silly). This increase in instability can lead to larger gradients between different areas of the system (ie: the point brought up earlier about Antarctica becoming colder, a point which my friends at McMurdo station can wholeheartedly endorse).
As far as issues with weather recording stations--If these weather stations were held to such strict criteria, then we would have to throw out all of the data ever gathered around major metropolitan areas, like Atlanta, because the pavement will affect your readings.
The amount of data collected by these weather stations is extraordinary. we're talking millions (if not billions) of data points per station, so if say somebody chopped down a tree next to one in 1964, that sheer mass of data would overwhelm the difference. The weather stations I've encountered in my travels over three continents have all held to a pretty reliable standard, which is easily discerned as no other structure on the planet is built on stilts, seven feet high, painted white, and looking like a well-roofed birdhouse.
This brings up another point which I've found fascinating: statistics are full of shit. dead serious, Statistics are so silly, I can take the exact same demographic data, hand it to two statisticians, and get completely different answers.
I will say this about that graph--there is no R^2 value. R^2 indicates a margin of error in regard to the data, and will tell you how far a researcher has his head shoved up his fourth point of contact.
Here's some of my recent work as an example.
Note the R^2 value, and the margin of error between the trend line and my data points. Some of the statistics(read: bullshit) people throw around nowadays have R^2 values of less than ten percent. Compare that to how much of a difference there is at less than 77%.
sorry, bit of a tangent there. Anywho.
I'm not an expert in Atmospherics, so you're going to have to shoot me some links so that I can check the peer-reviewed articles regarding such phenomena. But if I follow you correctly, riddle me this: have you ever hit a mirror with a high-powered laser? Greenhouse gasses function as such by reflecting energy back to the earth. While they may absorb some of that energy, the amount would have little effect compared to the energy that they reflect, which is then absorbed by the oceans or landmass below.
True, Earth does go through natural cycles, and 99 point something percent (sorry I don't have an R^2 value for that) of all greenhouse gasses are produced naturally by volcanoes and farts. However, the small amount of greenhouse gasses that humans produce can have catastrophic second and third-order effects by pushing what may have been a normal warming trend into high gear. Doing so has the potential to release CH4 stored in the arctic tundra.
That's a very bad thing. Like "we as a species may not survive the ten years that it would take for the CH4 to work its way out of the atmosphere' bad.
As for wikileaks and other such nonscientific topics, that's not my realm, nor am I inclined to muddle in such things. I've heard of such falsification of temperature data, and IF the allegations are true, those scientists should be skullraped in no uncertain terms.
Cars: funny thing about those 'ecofriendly' 50,000 dollar cars is that they're just as ecologically unsound, if not moreso than a standard vehicle. This is where smart people need to come in and bring a garbage truck full of good ideas.
As far as profit benefits, I'm more concerned with things like having a mountain come down on my head the next time I'm sheep hunting because the permafrost has grown too weak to hold a whole mountainside up.
http://thewatchers.adorraeli.com/20...ska-june-one-biggest-ever-seen-north-america/
The above happened while I was a park ranger. NPS made a very big stink about it.
Landslide Transforms Mountain Near Matanuska Glacier | Alaska Public Media
These are happening all over the state. Not to mention that nearly every glacier is in massive retreat (except for Taku and a few other freaks), and the spruce trees are on a slow but sure march north. Things are changing, and it doesn't really matter whether we have a hand in it or not. How we deal with it does.
Here's the cost/benefit analysis that I think will underline my point.
If you are right, and we changed our habits just-in-case, we will have retooled our economy to rely less on fossil fuels. If you're right, and we do nothing, then no harm done.
If I am right, and we do something about it, then we survive. If I am right, and we do nothing, then our civilization will be *at least* severely damaged, with climate-related catastrophes wiping out massive swaths of our population
I'd personally rather stay on the cautious side when it comes to billions of lives and thousands of species. Besides, why should we not try to keep our house clean and improve our technology?
You know what really kills me about the "global warming/climate change" crisis? I grew up in the sixties and seventies. I saw Los Angeles in the days when every day was a smog day. Look at it now. It ain't the best, but it ain't the dark haze it was every day there in the 60's and 70's. Rivers through industrial towns on all three coasts can be used again. They used to be dark with industrial sludge. They run a lot cleaner these days. It's like a lot of the people pushing for environmental issues ran out of things to push. I want to see our environment continue to improve through clean practices. But, this crap of climate change and global warming is simply a front for 'environment only' people to run around with another "sky is falling" crisis to get federal money for.
You sound like a smart guy, but all you're doing here is regurgitating unproven loose theory, and your own anecdotal evidence as "proof". I'll pick and choose a few quotes below to my my point, being a Masters Atmospheric Scientist myself.
This is exactly the "makes sense in my layman mind" analogy that talking heads use over, and over, and over. The problem is primarily that Meteorology has traditionally only consider the Troposphere as 'in play'. Stratosphere, ionosphere, etc are not considered because the Tropopause is in effect a brick wall that caps the atmosphere. However we've learned in the last 10-20 years just how much that is NOT the case. Google "research into stratospheric intrustions". Thanks to new satellite technology, we've discovered just how often the stratosphere and troposphere interact. That reality combined with the fact that Earth is not a closed system, as all climate models assume, destroys this analogy of yours. So greenhouse gasses are somehow polarized so that they can only reflect downward? Nonsense, and you double down by saying "trapped within the system", again nonsense. Leads to increased instability, why? Because it makes sense? That's the only justification, certainly not because it's been proven out through research.
You don't know what you're talking about in this case. Fact is nearly all the US weather stations were in rural grass covered areas 50 years ago, and are now embedded in urban heat islands:
Nearly 90% of Temperature Stations Show Extreme Heat Bias, Study Says | Heartlander Magazine
I've personally seen numerous National Weather Service automated monitoring stations that were obviously corrupted by nearby heat signatures. I remember one in San Antonio that had a 4' high stack of old tin roof panels lying right next to the building, and there was no grass surrounding as detailed in guidelines, just bare dirt.
It took me 10 minutes to find this video, but I remembered it from years ago ... basically some dorky kid shit-canning the entire debate, showing it's all due to heat island effect and poorly regulated monitoring stations:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_G_-SdAN04
Clearly ...
If you're engaging in this debate, but unaware of how NOAA changed ALL data pre-1998 to make things look cooler than they were, you need to educate yourself before saying another word. It's outright fraud. Just one link, there are hundreds available:
NOAA Temperature Fraud Expands (Part 1) | Real Science
That's one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard, just contrived blather to hopefully stagger a weaker minded opponent.
More speculation and theorization based on nothing more than "makes sense to me" thought processes.
You're being obtuse, the falsification of data has been known for over a decade, and easily verified. 30 seconds and Google and you'd know it yourself.
So now we're back to anecdotal evidence?
And now moving onto hysteria tactics ...
Whenever a scientific debate becomes public domains, the only reason is that some politician behind the charade in order to increase taxation. You unfortunately have taken the bait.
This is exactly the "makes sense in my layman mind" analogy that talking heads use over, and over, and over. The problem is primarily that Meteorology has traditionally only consider the Troposphere as 'in play'. Stratosphere, ionosphere, etc are not considered because the Tropopause is in effect a brick wall that caps the atmosphere. However we've learned in the last 10-20 years just how much that is NOT the case. Google "research into stratospheric intrustions". Thanks to new satellite technology, we've discovered just how often the stratosphere and troposphere interact. That reality combined with the fact that Earth is not a closed system, as all climate models assume, destroys this analogy of yours. So greenhouse gasses are somehow polarized so that they can only reflect downward? Nonsense, and you double down by saying "trapped within the system", again nonsense. Leads to increased instability, why? Because it makes sense? That's the only justification, certainly not because it's been proven out through research.
You don't know what you're talking about in this case. Fact is nearly all the US weather stations were in rural grass covered areas 50 years ago, and are now embedded in urban heat islands:
Nearly 90% of Temperature Stations Show Extreme Heat Bias, Study Says | Heartlander Magazine
I've personally seen numerous National Weather Service automated monitoring stations that were obviously corrupted by nearby heat signatures. I remember one in San Antonio that had a 4' high stack of old tin roof panels lying right next to the building, and there was no grass surrounding as detailed in guidelines, just bare dirt.
It took me 10 minutes to find this video, but I remembered it from years ago ... basically some dorky kid shit-canning the entire debate, showing it's all due to heat island effect and poorly regulated monitoring stations:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_G_-SdAN04
Clearly ...
If you're engaging in this debate, but unaware of how NOAA changed ALL data pre-1998 to make things look cooler than they were, you need to educate yourself before saying another word. It's outright fraud. Just one link, there are hundreds available:
NOAA Temperature Fraud Expands (Part 1) | Real Science
That's one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard, just contrived blather to hopefully stagger a weaker minded opponent.
More speculation and theorization based on nothing more than "makes sense to me" thought processes.
You're being obtuse, the falsification of data has been known for over a decade, and easily verified. 30 seconds and Google and you'd know it yourself.
So now we're back to anecdotal evidence?
And now moving onto hysteria tactics ...
Whenever a scientific debate becomes public domains, the only reason is that some politician behind the charade in order to increase taxation. You unfortunately have taken the bait.
S
Surgikill
Guest
I think you misconstrued so I'll reiterate. Forgive me if this sounds condescending.
The sun is constantly adding energy (note that I did not mention such a violation of the laws of physics as creation of energy) to the system (Earth). Normally, a lot of the energy added by the sun is reflected back into space. Greenhouse gasses such as CO2, CH4, etc. suspended in the atmosphere act as a mirror, reflecting that energy back toward the Earth. This retained energy, in the form of heat, is now trapped within the system thereby increasing the overall energy of the system, and leading to a decline of stability (again, the name 'global warming' is silly). This increase in instability can lead to larger gradients between different areas of the system (ie: the point brought up earlier about Antarctica becoming colder, a point which my friends at McMurdo station can wholeheartedly endorse).
As far as issues with weather recording stations--If these weather stations were held to such strict criteria, then we would have to throw out all of the data ever gathered around major metropolitan areas, like Atlanta, because the pavement will affect your readings.
The amount of data collected by these weather stations is extraordinary. we're talking millions (if not billions) of data points per station, so if say somebody chopped down a tree next to one in 1964, that sheer mass of data would overwhelm the difference. The weather stations I've encountered in my travels over three continents have all held to a pretty reliable standard, which is easily discerned as no other structure on the planet is built on stilts, seven feet high, painted white, and looking like a well-roofed birdhouse.
This brings up another point which I've found fascinating: statistics are full of shit. dead serious, Statistics are so silly, I can take the exact same demographic data, hand it to two statisticians, and get completely different answers.
I will say this about that graph--there is no R^2 value. R^2 indicates a margin of error in regard to the data, and will tell you how far a researcher has his head shoved up his fourth point of contact.
Here's some of my recent work as an example.
Note the R^2 value, and the margin of error between the trend line and my data points. Some of the statistics(read: bullshit) people throw around nowadays have R^2 values of less than ten percent. Compare that to how much of a difference there is at less than 77%.
sorry, bit of a tangent there. Anywho.
I'm not an expert in Atmospherics, so you're going to have to shoot me some links so that I can check the peer-reviewed articles regarding such phenomena. But if I follow you correctly, riddle me this: have you ever hit a mirror with a high-powered laser? Greenhouse gasses function as such by reflecting energy back to the earth. While they may absorb some of that energy, the amount would have little effect compared to the energy that they reflect, which is then absorbed by the oceans or landmass below.
True, Earth does go through natural cycles, and 99 point something percent (sorry I don't have an R^2 value for that) of all greenhouse gasses are produced naturally by volcanoes and farts. However, the small amount of greenhouse gasses that humans produce can have catastrophic second and third-order effects by pushing what may have been a normal warming trend into high gear. Doing so has the potential to release CH4 stored in the arctic tundra.
That's a very bad thing. Like "we as a species may not survive the ten years that it would take for the CH4 to work its way out of the atmosphere' bad.
As for wikileaks and other such nonscientific topics, that's not my realm, nor am I inclined to muddle in such things. I've heard of such falsification of temperature data, and IF the allegations are true, those scientists should be skullraped in no uncertain terms.
Cars: funny thing about those 'ecofriendly' 50,000 dollar cars is that they're just as ecologically unsound, if not moreso than a standard vehicle. This is where smart people need to come in and bring a garbage truck full of good ideas.
As far as profit benefits, I'm more concerned with things like having a mountain come down on my head the next time I'm sheep hunting because the permafrost has grown too weak to hold a whole mountainside up.
http://thewatchers.adorraeli.com/20...ska-june-one-biggest-ever-seen-north-america/
The above happened while I was a park ranger. NPS made a very big stink about it.
Landslide Transforms Mountain Near Matanuska Glacier | Alaska Public Media
These are happening all over the state. Not to mention that nearly every glacier is in massive retreat (except for Taku and a few other freaks), and the spruce trees are on a slow but sure march north. Things are changing, and it doesn't really matter whether we have a hand in it or not. How we deal with it does.
Here's the cost/benefit analysis that I think will underline my point.
If you are right, and we changed our habits just-in-case, we will have retooled our economy to rely less on fossil fuels. If you're right, and we do nothing, then no harm done.
If I am right, and we do something about it, then we survive. If I am right, and we do nothing, then our civilization will be *at least* severely damaged, with climate-related catastrophes wiping out massive swaths of our population
I'd personally rather stay on the cautious side when it comes to billions of lives and thousands of species. Besides, why should we not try to keep our house clean and improve our technology?
Unfortunately there is one gaping hole. In order for climate change to be caused by greenhouse gases there has to be a hotspot anywhere between 10k to 15k feet above the earths surface. Everybody agrees on this, both people who support climate change and people who don't. There have been thousands of tests and temperatures measured all throughout the world and to date nobody can find it.
Have you ever thought about what introduces energy into the system? The sun. You do realize that solar flares have been increasing in the past years which will cause an increase in the earth's temperature.
Sent from my SCH-I535
Actually we're at the peak of an 11 year cycle right now, and this peak is much lower than the last peak which was right about year 2000 - when all the hysteria really took off. So since then sunspots have been in decline, and strangely enough, Earth has cooled during that time ... hmmm.
I have been scouring the web for statistics on the arctic (north pole) and antarctic (south pole) ice sheet data. I cant find any data on what the square miles/kilometers of ice coverage there was pre 1979. Being that 1979-2000 is the benchmark and proof of ice melt. I would like to know what it was from 1949 on til 1979? I discovered on Nasa's website that the antarctic is gaining ice and the arctic is slowing down or even halted the melting of the polar ice cap, and they give the measurements in square miles. I am also perplexed by the glacier melting hysteria. Glaciers were leftover from the ice age?, I could be wrong. So they were not there before the ice age? It was warmer then? I think maybe I should have payed more attention in science and history class.
Glaciers are just like frozen rivers, they form at the headwaters and dump out somewhere. It's just really dramatic when a million ton chunk breaks off, perfect for causing hysteria. Glaciers melt, if they didn't eventually the entire planet would be covered in ice.
All this horse schitt is focused toward the 'youngsters' whom haven't been alive long enough to be able to decipher dip-shitt from shineola! All the ads are in that direction and the tenny-boppers ain't got no $$$$! Hell...we old pharts have got all the dough!!
G
Guest
Guest
Hasn't Steven Goddard been largely debunked? Further this is the same man who continues to argue with NASA scientists while hiding his identity and his own scientific degree.
I also found rumor of his death and a retraction of his claims, but I couldn't find sufficient evidence for proof.
I also found rumor of his death and a retraction of his claims, but I couldn't find sufficient evidence for proof.
G
Guest
Guest
Steven Goddard
Credentials
Bachelor of Science.
Bachelor in Electrical Engineering.
___________________________________________
At least the BS part is somewhat applicable.
Source: Steven Goddard | DeSmogBlog
Credentials
Bachelor of Science.
Bachelor in Electrical Engineering.
___________________________________________
At least the BS part is somewhat applicable.
Source: Steven Goddard | DeSmogBlog
Do you know from where? I couldn't find it from my search engine, but I'm kind of limited by a firewall for now.
G
Guest
Guest
No, and even the above claim is from his own writings. I can't find anything verifiable that makes him a real person or confirms his woefully weak credentials.
Similar threads
