Weather Acting Funny in Your Neighbourhood?


A place for the discussion of all things not closely related to the sport and its competitive side. (as always, locked for the duration of major international championship)

Postby Mennisco » Sat Apr 07, 2007 11:40 am

malmo wrote:Hopefully the Supreme Court, in all their wisdom, allows the EPA to call water vapor a pollutant so we can get down to the real root of the imaginary problem.


Vanishing trees? I admit I know next to nothing about this issue, [blushing, bowed head], and I am simultaneously curious to hear both sides of the debate. (1) If you had to play devil's advocate, how would you approach the figure you quoted on human contribution to CO2 emissions, and (2) from your perspective, how does the presentation of that statistic amount to an impartial [no pun] analysis of the situation?
Mennisco
 
Posts: 4110
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 3:43 pm
Location: Canada

Postby malmo » Sat Apr 07, 2007 12:01 pm

Mennisco wrote:
malmo wrote:Hopefully the Supreme Court, in all their wisdom, allows the EPA to call water vapor a pollutant so we can get down to the real root of the imaginary problem.


Vanishing trees? I admit I know next to nothing about this issue, [blushing, bowed head], and I am simultaneously curious to hear both sides of the debate. (1) If you had to play devil's advocate, how would you approach the figure you quoted on human contribution to CO2 emissions, and (2) from your perspective, how does the presentation of that statistic amount to an impartial [no pun] analysis of the situation?


I don't understand your question. Speak Merikan, please.
malmo
 
Posts: 4376
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Mennisco » Sat Apr 07, 2007 3:21 pm

"The primary greenhouse gas is water vapor (95 percent). Manmade CO2 is responsible for 0.117 percent of greenhouse gases. Hopefully the Supreme Court, in all their wisdom, allows the EPA to call water vapor a pollutant so we can get down to the real root of the imaginary problem."

In all sincerity, ah' have not eyeball much on dis issue. But ah' am curious, dig dis: Maybe ah' misdig it yo' point, but ain't 0.117 some kinda small number? So's why such some big fuss upside such some little number? Why all de hoopla?
Mennisco
 
Posts: 4110
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 3:43 pm
Location: Canada

Postby Mennisco » Sat Apr 07, 2007 7:00 pm

"Manmade CO2 is responsible for 0.117 percent of greenhouse gases......imaginary problem"

OK, sorry, I wasn't clear on where I was coming from in my first post a few above this. And then I used the wrong "Merickan dialect to rephrase it! :wink:

You've given us a statistic, and I am genuinely curious: It sounds to my layman's ears like man-made CO2 represents a miniscule contribution to greenhouse gases, eg., 0.117% is not much. At the risk of sounding like an airhead, I'm wondering why all the fuss [over CO2 emissions], globally, if this is the case.

I better get up to speed on this topic. It's actually somewhat embarrassing to be a teacher and know so little about it.
Mennisco
 
Posts: 4110
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 3:43 pm
Location: Canada

Postby EPelle » Sat Apr 07, 2007 10:44 pm

Often held under sunny skies in front of a full house at 20,000-seat Myers Stadium, the final day of the 80th edition of the Relays unfolded in conditions better suited for the Iditarod. Temperatures hovered in the mid- to upper 30s. There was precipitation — some of it icy. All that was lacking was snowshoes and sleds — as well as snow, which was falling elsewhere in Texas.

http://www.statesman.com/sports/content ... 7&cxcat=54

The weather has turned freezing. The course has turned into Augusta Nasty-al. The greatest players in the world have turned frantic.

In the previous 70 years of the Masters, nothing higher than even par was in front after 54 holes. Take that record and toss it into Rae's Creek.

http://www.sportsline.com/golf/tourname ... y/10114667
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby MJD » Sun Apr 08, 2007 3:10 am

"This plunge of cold air into the southern Plains will also lead to additional snow and sleet from Colorado into the panhandle of Texas. Yesterday, accumulating snow was seen through central and western Texas, with Copperas Cove receiving 4.0 inches, while over 2 inches of snow blanketed Lubbock. Even cities where snow is rarely seen saw snowflakes. Flurries where seen in Dallas, Texas, for only the fourth time in its April history."


http://tinyurl.com/ytjuen
Last edited by MJD on Sat Apr 14, 2007 3:09 am, edited 1 time in total.
MJD
 
Posts: 13402
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby EPelle » Mon Apr 09, 2007 7:44 am

Weather:s acting funny in Cleveland!

Image
Foto credit in code
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby figo » Mon Apr 09, 2007 11:12 am

gh wrote:
figo wrote:http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/04/07/ap3591203.html

Global Warming
By CAIN BURDEAU 04.07.07, 12:28 AM ET

Copyright 2007 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed


Figo--what part of that last (which was in your original post, which I cut 99% of) do you not undestand? Continue posting these articles in toto and you're banned. Period.


gh
fuck off
i'm done.
figo
 
Posts: 907
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 4:44 pm

Postby bad hammy » Mon Apr 09, 2007 11:28 am

Here, I'll help you out by removing the quote. Listen to MJD.
Last edited by bad hammy on Mon Apr 09, 2007 11:44 am, edited 1 time in total.
bad hammy
 
Posts: 10880
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby MJD » Mon Apr 09, 2007 11:38 am

figo, seriously, there are a few of us that would like to see you stick around but you better edit
that real fast. gh is right on this one.
MJD
 
Posts: 13402
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby Daisy » Mon Apr 09, 2007 11:50 am

figo your stuff is too good. Don't do it. Just give us the links and the first paragraph. that works great.
Daisy
 
Posts: 13153
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Mennisco » Mon Apr 09, 2007 1:52 pm

As one who has been down that road before, I urge you to edit your post, and take a cooling-off time-out. Don't make decisions in the heat of this kind of emotion. Think about it ok, obviously some of us care enough to say so.
Mennisco
 
Posts: 4110
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 3:43 pm
Location: Canada

Postby lonewolf » Mon Apr 09, 2007 2:03 pm

Figo,, you are the most informed, articulate contributor on the board of what I believe is the correct side of this argumen. It is my impression that more people every where are recognizing the fallibility of the gobal warming hysteria.
Don't bail on us. I urge you, just give us the link, those who care will click it.
lonewolf
 
Posts: 8814
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Indian Territory

Postby Mennisco » Mon Apr 09, 2007 2:22 pm

figo wrote:
that said, the global warmers best efforts may reduce pollution which is a serious problem.

.


Wish I had noticed that sooner. I haven't really paid attention to your posts Figo because honestly I was too lazy to go through the long amounts of data - had you posted links with a synopsis of the arguments to which they pointed, you'd have caught my attention much quicker than you caught gh's. I am genuinely curious to hear both sides of the debate, and I've indicated this further up this thread. And I admit, before I entertain hearing any more of it, I owe it to myself to learn the basics. I've been swayed by the "World's Top Scientists.....blah blah" talk, like I don't understand how electricity works but I don't question the theories underpinning it either. Not a good analogy maybe except insofar as it demonstrates how much faith we put in "science".
Mennisco
 
Posts: 4110
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 3:43 pm
Location: Canada

Postby Daisy » Tue Apr 10, 2007 12:02 am

Mennisco wrote:it demonstrates how much faith we put in "science".


And so you should!! :)

But seriously, as you know, the common thread for science, apart from the scientific method, is ignorance.
Daisy
 
Posts: 13153
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Mennisco » Tue Apr 10, 2007 4:55 am

Daisy wrote:
Mennisco wrote:it demonstrates how much faith we put in "science".


And so you should!! :)

But seriously, as you know, the common thread for science, apart from the scientific method, is ignorance.


You're TOO funny! :lol: :lol: :lol:
Mennisco
 
Posts: 4110
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 3:43 pm
Location: Canada

Postby MJD » Sat Apr 14, 2007 3:08 am

Too funny. Our ski club made a bad call deciding to close Easter after those two warm days. My problem with this debate is that everytime you see a report like this, people say "That's proves the global warming case." Or, maybe, everything is just reverting to the mean.

/"O.CON.KBUF.WS.A.0004.070415T0300Z- 070416T2200Z/ MONROE-WAYNE-NORTHERN CAYUGA-GENESEE-WYOMING-LIVINGSTON- ONTARIO- CATTARAUGUS-ALLEGANY- INCLUDING THE CITIES OF...ROCHESTER... NEWARK...FAIR HAVEN... BATAVIA... WARSAW...GENESEO...CANANDAIGUA... OLEAN...WELLSVILLE 336 AM EDT SAT APR 14 2007

...WINTER STORM WATCH REMAINS IN EFFECT FROM THIS EVENING THROUGH MONDAY AFTERNOON...

A WINTER STORM WATCH REMAINS IN EFFECT FROM LATE TONIGHT THROUGH MONDAY AFTERNOON.

SNOW IS EXPECTED TO OVERSPREAD THE REGION LATE TONIGHT AND SUNDAY MORNING AND CONTINUE THROUGH MONDAY. THE SNOW MAY BE MIXED WITH OR EVEN CHANGE TO RAIN FOR A TIME DURING THE DAYLIGHT HOURS SUNDAY BUT CHANGE BACK TO ALL SNOW SUNDAY NIGHT. IN ADDITION TO THE SNOWFALL... NORTHERLY WINDS WILL INCREASE SUNDAY NIGHT AND MONDAY WITH SUSTAINED WINDS OF 20 TO 25 MPH AND GUSTS TO NEAR 40 MPH POSSIBLE."
MJD
 
Posts: 13402
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby SQUACKEE » Sat Apr 14, 2007 3:21 am

If Al Gore and his energy sapping mansion were buried under 100 feet of ice he would say , "Global warming is unpredictable".

It certainly is Al , it certainly is. :lol:
SQUACKEE
 
Posts: 12885
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Heaven-In front of stereo listenin to re-mastered Beatles

Postby MJD » Sat Apr 14, 2007 4:39 pm

They have downgraded the report above from a Winter Storm Watch to a Winter Weather Advisory. A distinction without a difference:

"TOTAL ACCUMULATIONS BY MONDAY EVENING MAY REACH 5 TO 8 INCHES WITH THE GREATEST AMOUNTS EXPECTED ACROSS HIGHER ELEVATIONS. IN ADDITION TO THE HEAVY SNOWFALL...NORTH WINDS WILL INCREASE SUNDAY NIGHT AND MONDAY WITH SUSTAINED WINDS OF 20 TO 25 MPH AND GUSTS TO 35 MPH. THE COMBINATION OF HEAVY WET SNOW AND GUSTY WINDS MAY RESULT IN SOME ISOLATED POWER OUTAGES."
MJD
 
Posts: 13402
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby bad hammy » Sat Apr 14, 2007 4:45 pm

It rained today in sunny CA. Does that count??
bad hammy
 
Posts: 10880
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby lonewolf » Sat Apr 14, 2007 6:06 pm

Apparently the weather gods have not been clued in to global warming..;last weekend was cold, rain and sleet..worst weather in my 55 years of Texas Relays.. this weekend ditto for Jacobs Relays at Univ Okla.. best weather of the year was at Fayetteville for Indoor NCAA. in early March..
lonewolf
 
Posts: 8814
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Indian Territory

Postby Mennisco » Sat Apr 14, 2007 6:26 pm

MJD wrote:They have downgraded the report above from a Winter Storm Watch to a Winter Weather Advisory. A distinction without a difference:

"TOTAL ACCUMULATIONS BY MONDAY EVENING MAY REACH 5 TO 8 INCHES WITH THE GREATEST AMOUNTS EXPECTED ACROSS HIGHER ELEVATIONS. IN ADDITION TO THE HEAVY SNOWFALL...NORTH WINDS WILL INCREASE SUNDAY NIGHT AND MONDAY WITH SUSTAINED WINDS OF 20 TO 25 MPH AND GUSTS TO 35 MPH. THE COMBINATION OF HEAVY WET SNOW AND GUSTY WINDS MAY RESULT IN SOME ISOLATED POWER OUTAGES."


I fully expect Osaka to be snowed out this year. Forgot your WC, IAAF. You'll be scrambling at the last minute to build that covered facility I want, with windless races and a set dew point.

Image Image

Heed my call, or be prepared for Athletics to have a new image:

Image
Mennisco
 
Posts: 4110
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 3:43 pm
Location: Canada

Postby MJD » Sun Apr 15, 2007 2:13 am

Snow on the ground here this morning.

http://sirocco.accuweather.com/nx_mosai ... aSIRNE.gif
MJD
 
Posts: 13402
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby MJD » Wed Apr 18, 2007 4:28 am

I am basically agnostic on this debate and haven't even got that familiar with the arguments and the reason I haven't is because there is a very similar debate going on about energy which I do spend a lot of time paying attention to(and they are related to an extent). Every day, I will read articles from some very smart people quoting some other very smart people that say we either are going to freeze in the dark so go long on oil or that we are awash in the stuff and you better get out of the commodity. All the people on both sides of the debate are much smarter than Al Gore so I refuse to take anything he says seriously. Here is a guy today that says we are swimming in the stuff and he always takes this position. Problem is that he never mentions consumption. He is so shrill about it, my guess is that he has a short position:

"Mr. Skinner describes this supply-demand mismatch as "the true inconvenience" of our time, perhaps more ominous than climate change. By blocking access to easy oil, he says, despotic governments could force the democratic world to rely on difficult oil -- a scenario in which "peak oil" proponents could momentarily win their wagers for the wrong reason. In fact, you could reasonably bet on it."

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ ... iness/home
MJD
 
Posts: 13402
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby tafnut » Wed Apr 18, 2007 4:57 am

MJD wrote:we are awash in the stuff and you better get out of the commodity.


The only way we're not going to run out of fossil fuels in the very near foreseeable future (50 years) is if nuclear plants start popping up everywhere, which Europe is starting to do, but we (USA - biggest consumers thereof) are dragging our NIMBY feet.
tafnut
 
Posts: 26684
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Lost at C (-minus)

Postby SQUACKEE » Wed Apr 18, 2007 5:52 am

First 2 weeks of April colder than the first 2 weeks of Jan. :shock: in Connecticut
SQUACKEE
 
Posts: 12885
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Heaven-In front of stereo listenin to re-mastered Beatles

Postby MJD » Sun Apr 22, 2007 1:34 am

"Q Did you watch Al Gore get his Academy Award?

A No! Bad enough I watched his movie.

Q He would appear to have the support of the majority of your scientific colleagues.

A Not really. This is an issue that has hundreds of aspects. The very thought that a large number of scientists all agree on everything is inconceivable. Among my colleagues, I would say, almost no one thinks that Gore's movie is reasonable. But there will be differences. Some believe it is possible that warming could be a serious problem. Others think it's very unlikely. People are all over the place."

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news ... 233e96&p=2
MJD
 
Posts: 13402
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby tandfman » Sun Apr 22, 2007 3:37 am

Unfortunately, in too much of what I've seen on this issue, the debate over how likely global warming is to be a problem is often intertwined with the questions of what is causing global warming and what, if anything, can be done to prevent it or slow it down.

They're really two different issues. If there's even a reasonable chance that gw will cause big problems, it shouldn't be ignored and we should be looking seriously about what to do about it, even if it's more likely than not that problems will not occur. Too many people are saying that because there's lots of evidence that gw won't happen or won't be a serious problem, we should just ignore it.

I can't buy that. I don't know what my cut-off point is on probability, but it's certainly below 50%, given the potential consequences.
tandfman
 
Posts: 15041
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby tandfman » Sun Apr 22, 2007 3:38 am

Unfortunately, in too much of what I've seen on this issue, the debate over how likely global warming is to be a problem is intertwined with the questions of what is causing global warming and what, if anything, can be done to prevent it or slow it down.

They're really two different issues. If there's even a reasonable chance that gw will cause big problems, it shouldn't be ignored and we should be looking seriously about what to do about it, even if it's more likely than not that problems will not occur. Too many people are saying that because there's lots of evidence that gw won't happen or won't be a serious problem, we should just ignore it.

I can't buy that. I don't know what my cut-off point is on probability, but it's certainly below 50%, given the potential consequences.
tandfman
 
Posts: 15041
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby MJD » Sun Apr 22, 2007 3:48 am

You must feel strongly about the issue!
MJD
 
Posts: 13402
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby tandfman » Sun Apr 22, 2007 4:08 am

My point is that there are TWO issues!
tandfman
 
Posts: 15041
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby Pego » Sun Apr 22, 2007 4:31 am

My approach to this is pretty simple. We all agree on two things.

1. There are climactic changes happening ( multiple causes).
2. We are polluting the planet.

We have no control over changes such as planetary variations.
We can control the pollution.
Pego
 
Posts: 10198
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Postby bad hammy » Sun Apr 22, 2007 5:14 am

MJD wrote:"The very thought that a large number of scientists all agree on everything is inconceivable."

Really? I think we have most of them on board with the ideas that the earth is not flat and that the earth revolves around the sun . . .
bad hammy
 
Posts: 10880
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby MJD » Sun Apr 22, 2007 10:06 am

I suspect that these guys aren't interested in the subtleties of the debate:

http://www.thestar.com/images/assets/215397_3.JPG

http://www.thestar.com/News/article/205975
MJD
 
Posts: 13402
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby Mennisco » Sun Apr 22, 2007 7:36 pm

Pego wrote:My approach to this is pretty simple. We all agree on two things.

1. There are climactic changes happening ( multiple causes).
2. We are polluting the planet.

We have no control over changes such as planetary variations.
We can control the pollution.


That sums it up quite neatly for me too Pego.
Mennisco
 
Posts: 4110
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 3:43 pm
Location: Canada

Postby MJD » Mon Apr 23, 2007 1:01 am

Pego wrote:2. We are polluting the planet. We can control the pollution.


But isn't it true that we are doing a much better job at that than we were? The Great Lakes were basically dead at one time.
MJD
 
Posts: 13402
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby Pego » Mon Apr 23, 2007 4:58 am

MJD wrote:
Pego wrote:2. We are polluting the planet. We can control the pollution.


But isn't it true that we are doing a much better job at that than we were? The Great Lakes were basically dead at one time.


Yes, we do. We also have to continue and that means globally.
Pego
 
Posts: 10198
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Postby MJD » Mon Apr 23, 2007 5:11 am

And if you believe the guy in the article above, we are actually increasing our tree coverage. By the way, don't for a minute think that I am "pro-pollution".
Last edited by MJD on Mon Oct 29, 2007 9:41 am, edited 1 time in total.
MJD
 
Posts: 13402
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby Mennisco » Mon Apr 23, 2007 5:53 am

MJD wrote:
Pego wrote:2. We are polluting the planet. We can control the pollution.


But isn't it true that we are doing a much better job at that than we were? The Great Lakes were basically dead at one time.


This first link is somewhat dated, though my very limited understanding is that the Great Lakes are now cleaner than 10 or more years ago:

http://www.igreens.org.uk/great_lakes_g ... leaner.htm

This site should prove useful to anyone interested in more sources:

http://www.waterkeeper.ca/content/indus ... php?page=3

The Yangtze River may be close to dead, however:

http://tinyurl.com/yq9ez8

China is going to have massive difficulties in not becoming a much more serious polluter as her economy continues to grow like a teenager hitting puberty.
Mennisco
 
Posts: 4110
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 3:43 pm
Location: Canada

Postby bad hammy » Mon Apr 23, 2007 8:57 am

Pego wrote:We can control the pollution.

Although this article focuses on eliminating the filling and development of the SF Bay, part of the efforts also help ensure that it is no longer a dump and a sewer. It does show that grassroots efforts can have very real and positive effects.

San Francisco Bay was growing steadily smaller. Its primary use, other than shipping, was for sewage and garbage disposal. On the afternoon breeze in Berkeley you could whiff the persistent "East Bay stink" -- the aroma from untreated sewage.

At night you could see the bay on fire where garbage was dumped in the shallows and set ablaze. The bay was being filled for airports, harbor facilities, freeways, factories, salt production, shopping malls and subdivisions.

The city of Berkeley had plans to double its size by filling 2,000 acres offshore. Other cities had similar intentions. If all the plans went forward, most of this superlative body of water would disappear.


http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... 01&sc=1000
bad hammy
 
Posts: 10880
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

PreviousNext

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests