| Columns Retired Columns & Blogs |
February 5, 2010 - 1:28pm
#1
UP TO 30" OF SNOW FOR DC AREA; MATCH BIGGEST STORM ON RECORD
| Loudspeakers Amplification Digital Sources | |
Analog Sources Accessories Featured | |
Music Columns Retired Columns | |
Show Reports | |
Features Latest News Community | |
Resources Subscriptions |
© 2024 StereophileAVTech Media Americas Inc., USA
All rights reserved
Ouch. You guys are still suffering from the increased chaos in the weather, I guess.
Out here, we had a record warm January.
You guys, on the other hand, are getting the same weather I recall from mid Ohio as a kid.
Sorry about that, really. No fun.
My boy is doing research at the Univ. of Maryland. He and his wife and 2 babies are right in the middle of this stuff.
Good to see you back, Lamont.
Love to see politicians shoveling all that Global Warming...
Weather v. climate v. long term trends
Yes increased chaos - we have entered that phase here also. Things getting out of hand.
Right where I am we have had a "normal" winter for the first time in 20 years.
But seen in the news that other areas around my remote corner have had chaos conditions also. Similar to that report.
Perhaps should be called Global Weirding.
Well, when you add energy to a system that is a chaotic attractor, which is the best hope for a nonlinear system like a weather system, it gets nuttier.
This is really standard mathematics.
Also, 'adding more energy' means what, boys and women?
The great global warming collapse
Anthony Jenkins/The Globe and Mail
As the science scandals keep coming, the air has gone out of the climate-change movement...
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/the-great-global-warming-collapse/article1458206/
When one makes up the science, bullies folk who disagree, and cannot live up to the predictions, a cult dies.
J_J, you walked into one of JIMV's three Koolaid topics.
But it's fun pushing the button and watching the facts-filtered-through-world-view rant that results.
Wow, you give him too much credit - "facts?"
More like walking up to a parrot and hearing the same phrases over and over.
Uh, two more beers before you get the nerve to ask her out?
And add El Nino/La Nina to this it becomes very interesting, there is currently an active El Nino (been active for several months now) that is impacting on global weather patterns.
Also cloud seeding may have a global effect when done on the large scale as seen in China and Russia.
Got to love the weather and the associated mathematics and physics.
But for me, when it comes to extreme weather nothing is more beautiful and yet at times saddening than the formation and behaviour of tornados.
I guess hurricanes look beautiful from a satellite picture as well, shame all of these are so destructive.
Cheers
Orb
I was too subtle with my "facts-filtered-through-world-view" phrase.
I have dealt with many on this issue. They appear to be exposed to information, but it doesn't get through - due to the polarized filter. The topic of evolution brings out the same behavior in some.
One tell-tale is citation to op-ed pages and blogs as support of their position.
Conservatives as a group do not accept anthropogenic global warming; liberals, do. This is ridiculous.
Either there is substantial evidence for a hypothesis or there is not. This is not an issue of political belief.
That's largely the way I see it. There is so much evidence and so much data out there that it is possible with even minimal attempts at finding the data one searches for, and not even remotely trying to ignore contrary data..that one can form a seemingly workable database and position that runs the gamut from no warming of any kind... to all the way down the road at...alien intervention.
I think you meant, "[Selective] conservatives [collectively] do not accept the idea of "man-made" global warming based on data that was thrown away and no longer exists to support the pro-man-made-scientists who feel sorry for single-mother Eskimos on welfare..."
And yes, I did type that correctly. Joseph Heller would be proud!
You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows...
The only 'fact' that matters is the fact of folk fleeing the cult as fast as possible...
There is enormous evidence for global warming.
There is extensive, easily duplicated evidence for the behavior of CO2 in a radiative cooling system. Ditto Methane and CFC's.
There is, however, less proof that in fact CO2 levels are the primary driver.
So GW is clear, AGW not so clear.
What's amazing is the koolaid drinkers who think every cold day is proof it's not happening. They are almost as annoying as the deluded who point out every warm day as evidence of warming.
It's weather, folks, the noise level is enormous, and pulling out trends is not so easy.
Well, the denial cult could do us a lot of damage in the next 10 years. Of course, if the el nino sticks, Peru is in deep **** and the american southwest might actually get some rain.
Yeah, its the El Nino thing. That's the ticket. I suppose El Nino is man-made as well?
Really? You think so? There's a conspiracy between the Masons and the pacific high pressure ridge now?
Who could have imagined!
One of the most common questions I get from readers these days is why are the Canadian media ignoring the growing global controversy over the credibility of climate change research and in particular, of the UN
JJ: Lamont was making a windmill, hoping someone would tilt at it.
"To those who don't know, there have been bills in both houses of congress pertaining to weather modification without public oversight. One was sponsored by a Democrat, the other by a Republican."
"What I do know is that weather modification is not science fiction, but has been with us since at least the 1960s, when the Ho Chi Minh Trail was flooded out by US forces during the Vietnam War."
That ain't the half of it.
Yes, I agree, the global warming deniers have been thoroughly debunked.
Y'think? I hope I looked JUST a touch sarcastic there.
ETA: A quote from a REAL weather scientist here
from http://cliffmass.blogspot.com/
Exactly.
Thank you, j_j
And where is this enormous evidence? Next to the enormous evidence for Darwin I presume?
[quote} Next to the enormous evidence for Darwin I presume?
I wasn't aware that anyone disputed the existence of Darwin.
Oh, he existed. Like Al Gore. BTW, where is Al this winter?
Hey, Lamont.
Tell us how you know gravity is real.
Evolution is about on par with gravity.
Gravity is a myth.
The Earth Sucks!
<whew>
Here I thought you were positing an metaphysical question and claiming that Darwin did not exist, perhaps because you have not personally experienced him.
As Buddha indicates, evolution is so well founded as to not merit discussion. Any decent college library will keep one busy for a lifetime if you want to study the subject.
On the other hand, having dealt with the issue many times, the only people I have run into that deny evolution are creationists, usually young earth creationists.
Creationists reject evolution as a matter of religious belief, facts be damned (so to speak).
Interestingly however, even the very conservative Pope John Paul, II (a/k/a J2P2) accepted evolution as does the Roman Catholic church.
While I can easily discuss and counter every creationist "criticism" to evolution (including those proposed by the Design Institute, Answer in Genesis, Pat Robertson's ACLJ etc.) there is no benefit in doing so as the creationist has already decided - as a matter of unshakable personal belief - that evolution does not exist.
While this is akin to closing one's eyes and denying that the sun will not rise tomorrow, I can't dispute the personal conviction; people believe what they choose to believe.
The sun 'rises,' eh?
Probably somewhere out here on the left coast enjoying the heat wave.
Hey, don't go picking one intertial framework over another, now, Buddha!
As the Jesuit priest said in our theology class: of course evolution is correct.
It is god's way of creating man.
Those pesky Jesuits can think their way out of anything
Shit hit the fan when I asked about the "enormous" pile of shit to support man-made global warming not to mention that Darwin is set in stone so no point in discussion. Lets not forget Darwin went to his grave cryng because people kept asking for something tangible. I can't even begin to count the different ego-defense mechanisms at play here ...
But the number 1 top 10 is the sucking each others' dicks mechanism.
We still got zero shit in the fossil record. Zero. We call that below the Mason-Dixon, "Don't add up to dry shit".
Actually, gravity blows!
Einstein got the sign wrong, as he said he might have.
Gravity is a push.
Actually, as usual, you're full of it. Coprologic examinations have taught us quite a bit.
You're due for another hydro cholonic examination.
Again, zero.
And you, sir, are prove of the fact that humanity evolved from simians.
To sir, with love.
Oh, great, "inertial frame equivalency."
William James is spinning in his grave.
Personally, I don't swing that way.
I thought this would be a more comfortable reference for those that still believe the earth is the center of the universe.
If all you need is fossilized poop visit just about any science museum; they have the stuff for sale. Kids love it.
BTW, nothing wrong with believing in creationism as long as one understands this is a religious position, not a question of science.
Exactly.
There is a great deal of unfossilized coprolitic material in this thread, isn't there?
The old Arthur C. Clark quote on 'advanced science being indistinguishable from magic', that one cuts both ways.
As we advance in science we are now manipulating the genetics of many a creature, plant, etc,and that of ourselves.
So the psychological stretch (a very minor stretch, not even remotely a stretch, in these days) into scientific possibility becoming science fact is one of where the genetics of what 'became' man, may have been manipulated into what it is today, by an interventionist 'hand' of - whatever nature. After all, we now do this, in multiple ways, every day.
And the fossil records as they stand, even into the most recent adventures and speculations of such a scientific nature -still allow (nay, it enlarges the probability and possibility-every day it becomes more viable) for this, as the gaps and sudden shifts in the fossil record allow for this explanation to work. Besides my point (and separate thread) about the fossil record showing that man was NOT here first, and what would be a more ADVANCED form of man being here EARLIER.
I specifically warned you that if reading that thread, your mind, in it's efforts to protect the ego and it's position would SPECIFICALLY make you forget the existence of this part of the IRREFUTABLE fossil record, of there being a more advanced form of man in the fossil record from a minimum of ~10,000 years back. So, I'm reminding you now - and I can almost see the hackles of the ego being raised in each of your minds, individually, as you again struggle with this point, that your minds so conveniently made you forget that you read.***
This goes under one of the 13 Aristotelian fallacies(Sophistical Refutations), and this one being where the communication and mindset of the two camps aren't quite on the same mental page with regard to understanding the full aspect of the differing arguments.
The religious argument is coming 'round to seeing that the base argument of divine intervention may have indeed been that of a creationist race of beings from that older time period, and the science shows the possibilities in the fossil/historical record and of the known current and projected (near future-and now, in some private and secretive scientific labs and circles) scientific capacities to do so.
So now that the scientific reality of allowance for such a scenario is on the table, BOTH camps need to re-asses their positions and come to the understanding of what the definition of god means with regard to interventionist handling of the human race, as a question and/or specific reality.
*** This suddenly puts other 'questions' of fundamental real possibility and 'full potential to exist'--on the table. It slaps them down on the table pretty hard, so you can't look way and not consider.
This is an issue that the subconscious/unconscious mind, where all thoughts arise from the uconcious and emotional mind... and via hypnosis, and bypassing the divide between the two, this can (and does) raise the mind's overall IQ to that of approximately 200. This point brings the thought that, if this about the fossil record of a far more intelligent version of man existed and it genetically manipulated what we have here today, ie, US, if these genetic consideration of HOW our minds are arranged, with regard to how we conduct our mental selves, and can be blocked from clarity via the emotions,and manipulating the emotions is a shortcut that bypasses the intellect..well..was this built into us PURPOSELY? For it does not fulfill Darwinian rules about self preservation of the whole entire mechanism and does not advance the race. Quite the contrary. It limits it at a certain and specific level. Mengele and others in Germany (30's, 40's...and then all imported into US black ops at the end of the war) and other places were working on manipulating these specific aspects of the mind and mental construction of the vehicle we call 'man'. Many, many other laboratories and questionable corporations and groups (gov, etc) have ventured DEEP into such territories and mental/mind/body manipulation of people (individuals) and group control mechanisms. So the record of possibility and fundamental techniques and successes are there in spades.
As an example, it is this exact and specific point that is the heart of political con jobs (which is all we have today, no truth, just this low level manipulation) and is the core of advertising, and at least a trillion dollars has been thrown at that aspect, in all it's varying manifestations.
Pages