Posts by GrimJack

And some more:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07/03/goddard_polar_ice/

What the green fraudsters do is give you winter ice data from one year, and summer data from the next.
They'll use that as "proof" that the pole is melting, when of course it's warmer there in summer than it is in winter and thus in summer there's less ice than there is in winter.

In reality the ice coverage is pretty constant when taking yearly averages.

When ever i respond to any of your posts, i think I am going to highlight your spurious ad hominem attacks.

Now the response - note the dates on the pictures - the dates are identical but 20 years apart. What you are looking at is the disappearance of a significant amount of sheet ice. You can actually follow it over time as it will update daily. If you want to play

And that's the reason some of us here discuss certain subjects in the abstract rather than presenting endless displays of data connected and resolved into relationships that cannot be proven...it's subjective and there's always going to be half the people that see opposite viewpoints.

I would like to point out that you did not bother to read the article but just scanned it for what you wanted to see (or so it appears to me). This leads me to believe that you do not look for information but look for support for your beliefs. I could be wrong.

So, coming at this from a logical, rather than scientific or emotional viewpoint, let's look at models and what they represent. Now, among other languages, I was once proficient in lisp, a basic AL compiler. With that background as a baseline, logically it makes no sense that, within current software capabilities, a model could have been built that 1) predicts weather in the past or 2) predicts a believable evidential track for human intervention in planetary weather patterns. The engine is too large for us to desribe yet. The earth, along with its gravity well, forms an enormous energy potential and isn't that easy to compromise.

I am sorry but your background in programming does not offer any proof or support for the conclusions you are offering.

Remember that the data for the last 50-60 years is still gathered by weather balloon in many cases - we still can't tell the difference …

You're not going to believe this page.Pretty fun, although the website you choose drastically affects the challenge- graphics become "buildings" you cannot enter, while text is just background you can walk over. Metafilter, being graphics-deprived, is large but simple; Google, being small and minimal, is even easier. Try a site with a mix of large and small graphics- Yahoo wasn't too bad, any other suggestions?

Controls: The Last Guy follows your cursor. If you hold down the left mouse button, he runs (depleting stamina). Z and X (or the mouse wheel) zoom, C gathers all the people you have into a ball (good if your conga line's gotten out of hand). Most importantly, Space shows you where people are, but hides zombies- use judiciously!

The power-ups give you Energy (half your stamina back) and High Energy (all your stamina back). If you have more than 100 people in your line, your max stamina increases; it does so again if you have more than 200 people.

Well, I found this map site and though this might be a good place to put a link.

Hey - they learned from George that regime change in the name of oil is a good thing.

Oh, yeah! congratulations!

The very fact that you are asking the question here leads me to believe that you have a lot to learn.
Do you plan on building from ground up?
Own the land or lease it?
In the city, the 'burbs, on a lonely stretch of road where you will live with your mother (oops, that is a motel - never mind)?
Buy an already built hotel? New or refurbished? will it be a hotel hotel or a hostel or a casino hotel?
will it be a destination hotel or recreational hotel? there are more questions but when you can answer these, then you might be closer to how much it will cost.

On Google map the whole place is simply blank! Why is this place so important?

There are only 2 pipelines out of the huge Central Asian oil fields - one goes through Dagestan and Chechnya to Novorossisk, the other west to the Georgian port of Supsa. I have added a map of Georgia and a map of oil pipelines so you can see what Russia is fighting for (the port of Supsa is the key). In the works are plans for 5 more oil pipelines; China is willing to build one all the way to China, paying all the expenses. Russia wants one through it, the west wants another one through Georgia. The cheapest route is through Iran as it already has an extensive pipeline system but US sanctions block this idea. If Afghanistan ever settles down, that is another possible route.

Russia has already shutdown the pipelines it controls as punishment against one of the old Soviet breakaway states which also cut Europe off. As you might imagine, Europe does not think giving Russia more control of their energy is a good idea.

Why not post what you found?

Probably more effective than drilling a bunch of holes offshore. I always thought Siemens of Germany was the largest producer of wind turbines. Too bad that one of our troubled car makers doesn't get into that business.

I just visited T. Boone Pickens' Energy Plan site and found it very interesting.
http://www.pickensplan.com/?c=Google&a=Pickens-Keywords&k=pickens

Even an oil multibillionaire like him has seen the light, and wants to do something for his country. Very noble and smart.

Very smart but not 'noble' - he is heavily invested in natural gas and windfarm manufacture. I am not dis'in' him - making money in a 'good cause' is a good thing, but let's not canonize him just yet.

I like his plan and his wind map is pretty and pretty interesting. I remember reading the other day that no place on earth has as many tornadoes as 'tornado alley' (we need to export more trailers, I think). Looking at the maps, it looks like Russia and the US would be the major players in land-based wind farms.
Take a look at the 2nd picture - that is a cool idea but would it be considered an 'attractive nuisance'?

I find it strange that McCain doesn't even know how many houses he owns.

When he was called on this - he said "I was a prisoner and tortured". This is becoming the equivalent of Rudy Giuliani's working '9/11' into every conversation.

We could start a drinking game - take a drink every time McCain or his cronies mention POW, torture, or the equivalent/

I was pleased when I hit 666.

I thought that was so funny that I used that line at a party"
"Have you heard about all the military activity in Georgia - The Russians moved in and got withing 10 miles of the capital - bombs were dropping, it was terrible"
<<beat,beat>>
"I just got an email from a friend in Atlanta and he has not seen any tanks or heard any bombs?"

Took them a minute to change gears and laugh.

When growing up on the farm during 1950's and 60's we had a cow and never had pasterized milk. Mom just ran it through a strainer to get all the dirt out then chilled it. My parents also took milk sames to a local diary to have tested for diseases, none ever found that I know of. As for home-grown vegies -- we had lots of it, and only washed it to get the dirt off.

Germs?? we had lots of those too, working around farm animals we tend to get a lot of germs on our hands, feet, and nearly every other part of our bodies. I can't count the number of times I've stepped in cow and pig shit. And I suspect farmers do the same even today.

But the germs you had were not salmonella nor E. coli. I grew up in Montana and fully understand the importance of eating locally. i also think that more kids should be allowed to eat dirt, poke dead animals, disturb ant's nests, and so on but find there is a difference between local germs and corporate germs (heh,heh)

There is an interesting theory about farm animals and European dominance but rather than go through all that - take a look at an earlier post - sort of in the middle of the paragraph.

Never was safe. I recall in 1962 when my family was in France, we were told to wash any fruits or vegetables that didn't get peeled in water with bleach. Were the big bad corporations messing with our food then and there?

Perhaps so many have grown up in a pasteurized, sanitized, hermetically sealed lifestyle, our bodies have no resistance to the stuff that's always been around.

Do real farmers ever get sick from all the germs on food?

You were in France, I am talking about the US. Who told you to wash any fruits or vegetables? Were there any stories of hundreds of people getting sick and many people dying? That was 45 years ago and that is the only counter example you can come up with? My DW and I used to run down to Mexico all the time and eat tacos and stuff from those guys on the corner with grills (we never drank the water - DW wasn't paying attention and washed the grapes in the sink and she was sick for a week, sigh). Farmers generally eat their own food products - not the products of corporate America.

Our bodies do not develop resistance to salmonella or E. coli - you might be able to immunize yourself to these bugs but more than likely the attempt would kill you.

In all those cases it's bacteria, poor sanitary practices, not poisons the corporation put in there!

So bacteria and poor sanitary practices are okqy? "In the context of biology, poisons are substances that can cause damage, illness, or death to organisms, usually by chemical reaction or other activity on the molecular scale, when a sufficient quantity is absorbed by an organism." Cattle do not normally carry the deadly form of E. coli but when they are fattened in feed-lots using grain, their stomachs can not handle the rich grains and the deadly E. coli is produced. All the feed lots would have to do to keep E. coli out of the food supply would be to feed the cattle with grass for 24 hrs. The slaughter process get E. coli from the fecal matter on to the carcass -- and so on. The Dept of Agriculture is supposed to test the beef entering our food supply but they have 'out-sourced' that to the companies to self-test for contaminants.

Produce is supposed to be tested for contaminants before it is introduced into the food supply; the FDA is supposed to test the produce but they have out-sourced it to the companies to self-test.

The most recent example is the peppers that came in from Mexico - that particular company had 14 shipments turned back at the border for salmonella contamination. That company should have been banned from ever shipping produce into the US until it was inspected by FDA …

Cook your hamburger all the way through.
No runny eggs.
Wash your vegetables.
Peel your fruit.

Soon if you get sick eating something, it will be your fault not the corporation's that introduced the poisons into the food supply.

Does anyone remember when our food supply was safe?

There was going to be a rant here but I think I am giving up, sigh!

According to my boyfriend the String Theory is simply a unifying mathematical model for all physical phenomenon.

String theory seems to explain many phenomena from quarks on up; unfortunately, it does not offer much in the way of predicting anything so testing of the theory is limited (there are some physicists who are starting to think that string theory is a dead end).

Sorry, but I heard its egg shapped.

[/edit]But these Nasa pictures clear show a round Earth.[/edit]

Oblate spheroid actually.

No you cannot [forecast] a typhoon/tsunami can travel upto 30 miles in 5 minutes.

Category 5 hurricanes (typhoon, tropical storm, cyclonic storm, tropical depression and simply cyclone) have winds around 155 mph and travel as fast as 60mph. Tornadoes have wind speeds up to 318 mph and travel up to 70mph. Tsunamis on the other hand "On the open ocean, tsunami waves approach speeds of 500 mph".

In 1984, the director of NOAA Pacific Marine Environmental Labs came up with a method of for giving tsunamis warnings around 25 minutes in advance. The problem has been disseminating warnings. In Asia, when warnings are issued the folks all head for high ground. In the US when there is a warning, folks head for the coast to see it. Sigh! Fortunately, the continental US has not had a serious tsunami - Hawaii has had them.

Russia issued Russian passports to anyone in South Osetia who wanted one, then armed them, then sent in 'militia' - when Georgia responded, Russian sent in their army to protect all their 'citizens'. Probably similar to when the Germans went into Poland (etc) to protect the ethnic Germans. The homes of non-South Osetians have been burned and run over by tanks so that there is no possibility of recovery. The area has essentially been 'cleansed' of Georgians.

Note the sabre-rattling that Russia has been vocalizing wrt the Ukraine - look for a move in that direction within the next couple years (months?).

WE call it Georgia, they probably still call it by their own name.

http://www.remss.com/msu/msu_data_description.html#intro (inserted by me as the URL doesn't show for some reason on the thread)

Yes, I consider this a reputable site. Here's part of an abstract for one of their analysis of the MSU data:

Over the period from 1979 to 2001, tropospheric trends derived from a widely cited analysis of the Microwave Sounding Unit (MSU) temperature record show little or no warming, while surface temperature trends based on in situ observations show a pronounced warming of ;0.2 K decade21. This discrepancy between trends at the surface and in the upper atmosphere has been a source of significant debate. Model predictions of amplification of warming with height in the troposphere are clearly inconsistent with the available observations, leading some researchers to question the adequacy of their representation of the water vapor greenhouse feedback.

And here is the rest of the abstract:

A reanalysis of the MSU channel 2 dataset, with the objective of providing a second independent source of these data, is described in this paper. Results presented herein show a global trend of 0.097 +/- 0.020 K decade21, generally agreeing with the work of Prabhakara et al. but in disagreement with the MSU analysis of Christy and Spencer, which shows significantly less (0.09 K decade21) warming. Differences in the various methodologies are discussed and it is demonstrated that the principal source of these discrepancies is in the treatment of errors due to variations in the temperature of the MSU hot calibration target.

This seems pretty clear …

Actually if you stand by the ocean you can see a slight curve so its actually more like pringle shaped.

That is just the horizon - you can't actually see the curvature until about 60,000 feet

All hail joshSCH
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/45/Mooning.jpg

In my youth, me and bud sang most of the words to "help I am a Rock" from Frank Zappa's Freak Out album then went into a double inverse moon (directions - drop you pants and stand back to back to someone else who has, lock elbows and bend over - this lifts your partner up onto your back with her legs straight up and her crack lined up with mine). Unfortunately, there was no youtube or internet so we never became famous.

This site is just EEEEeeeewwwwww! <<blush>> I have actually been checking in occasionally over the last 3 or 4 years and did not see much change.

and that's your idea of a fair dialog?

I read this:

Originally Posted by zeroth View Post

This "scientific" article is an example of the "proof" of the Theory that we are arguing against? It's conclusion, as you can plainly read in the last entry, here, I'll repeat it:

"stratospheric cooling and tropospheric warming are intimately connected"

doesn't make sense. What tropospheric warming??

and I forgot that I had read the complete site - I followed the entire argument but pointed you midway into the discussion (and I mentally inserted an 'is' after your 'what'). Here is a much more data-oriented site(cite)

Guy, I've never disputed any data from a reputable source, just the interpretation of same. I contributed data in the form of temperature & CO2 history derived from the study of ice cores. In any case, no matter how you slice the numbers, temperature is on a cooling trend since the present interglacial began ~18K BP, according to any vetted data you choose.

zeroth

0th, I hope you will accept the above link as data from a reputable source - I will get more of the longer range data later - right now I just found the weirdest site.

Josh, heh,heh - what a gas! Your argument against defines any scientist who disagrees with you to be in the pay of Democrats; then you take a shot at Al Gore for not being a scientist (and call him a moron - not a particularly intellectual or apt description) - sigh!

I don't need to argue about Al Gore - he has a Nobel prize and I don't so let's stick with the topic.

ah, you didn't say that, no you didunt

I am referring specifically to NOZE I in Antarctica, 1986(http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=6856609), unfortunately the real documentation is not available but it is obvious that this expedition created an extreme turn of events. Also, from what I understand, it wasn't necessarily arguing back and forth that created this turn of events but old fashion hard work and until that same level of quality is put towards "Global Warming" all you have is the same colorful graphs that people have been desensitized to and continuous arguing back and forth.

Did you look at any of my links?

I dont have the time to watch, although i do like events on the gymnastics side of thing. people are more likely to fall and trip in front of million in these events. And that just gives me a weird feeling of embarassment for the person while actually laughing my a55 off (am i allowed to say that, hmmmm better safe then sorry).

That is like NASCAR - most people watch for the flaming crashes.

I remember when the 'crack' came around during the 50s (well, not very well but...) There were pictures in the newsrags of butt cracks and pubic hair - it just took longer for the look to come back around. Oh, and there is an on-line merchant that sells extra long t-shirts that they call 'crack spackle' - heh,heh

Remember that while the Beatles were famous so were all those bubblegum top 40 songs. If you looked around you might find some good music. Try this hipster web-comic - There are a lot of references to Indy groups

Pretty darned good - the New Yorker does similar stuff from New York's point of view.

GrimJack, I have read your references and the first is exactly that (http://www.atmosphere.mpg.de/enid/20c.html). It goes through some temperature statistics and some graphs and at the end assumes that you assume that CO2 is the main cause when I don't see any references to any experiment isolating CO2 as the true cause.

I was trying to spare you but if you want more than pretty pictures, here it is. You will have to understand the difference between the troposphere and the stratosphere - you might want to start at the top of the page.

When I mentioned chlorofluorocarbon it was to show a comparison of the scientific work done with it compared to the scientific work done with CO2. I can reference several articles talking about experiments that have been done with chlorofluorocarbon to prove that the ozone hole is a direct effect. I cannot find the same thing with CO2 causing global warming.

When I responded to your mention, it was to show that when you look back 30 years you will see that it was not just a couple of scientists wrote a couple of papers and the world was wowed and stopped producing the evil CFCs. It was a struggle from the day that a grad student noticed an odd cycle in the ozone data - it would drop down to '5' repeat there then climb back to a normal looking cycle. With a little digging, he discovered that the person who wrote the …

This "scientific" article is an example of the "proof" of the Theory that we are arguing against? It's conclusion, as you can plainly read in the last entry, here, I'll repeat it:

"stratospheric cooling and tropospheric warming are intimately connected"

doesn't make sense. What tropospheric warming??

Do you know what the troposphere is? I hope you know what the stratosphere is. If you do not know what the troposphere is I don't think you will be able to follow the argument very well.

It's obvious, at least from this example, that no matter what data global warming folks consider, they are so biased that the conclusions always come out in their favor...

Wow, we look at the same data and see different things - no matter what data anti-global warming folks consider, they are so biased that the conclusions come out in their favor.

Computer models can't predict future climate because we don't yet understand enough about certain processes in the atmosphere. Look closely and you'll see that most of the studies done by proper scientists offer a disclaimer somewhere in their paper stating clearly that some climactic processes are not fully understood. Can you at least agree with that statement? And if that statement is true, then a model is only predicting part of the story?

I am not sure what to do with this paragraph. It implies that only perfect knowledge is acceptable for scientific research. What I have pointed out and referenced before in this thread, current …

What other purposes would you do in a church?

Ever listen to the full version of Alice's Restaurant -- if you party in the belfry, you can sweep an incredible amount of garbage down the hole. Was (er still is) an Arlo Guthry song that goes on to him getting his draft notice. It is another hoot

Homo sapiens sapiens is the only mammal that does not sneeze through its nose.

Room temperature nuclear fusion does seem rather far fetched but I have been reading about 'silane' (a single silicon atom with four hydrogen atoms to form a molecular hydride) for room temperature superconductivity, unfortunately they substitute high pressure for low temperatures. There has also been some experiments with 'striping' in 2D fluctuating superconductivity in a high-temperature superconductor but these guys have a different idea of 'high-temp' than I - it could range from -270 to ??.

The point being that 'room temperature' superconductivity could lead to room temperature fusion.

JW - same old rant - you ignore anything anyone says, don't look at any of the links posted, rant about their religious point of view, you repeat the same rant time after time as if repeating it will make it so. I have posted numerous links wrt the science/art of weather modeling and how they proof their models but you ignore that also.

I wish you would actually respond in an articulate, rational manner rather than rely on a few rather shallow logical fallacies, including but not limited to:
ad hominem attacks
appeal to ridicule
begging the question
strawman (just a little)
If you need help with your fallacies look here.

The alarmists all rely on the same few computer models.
Computer models that have been shown conclusively to yield catastrophic warming no matter what the input data is (in other words, they've been deliberately programmed to show that specific output).
Computer models that can't predict historical weather even if given the exact weather conditions for the time they are told to yield output.

Alarmists also tell deliberate lies, on the presumption that that's what is needed to get people to give in to their demands of economic suicide and human extinction (which is what their ideology would inevitably lead to).

They're a religious movement, their ideology based on how evil humans are and that they need to be punished for the sin of simply living.
Of …

Well, Denver has been on the phone with Beijing to see how they got rid of their riff-raff for the Olympics. The Twin-Cities are on the party line listening in.

This I found funny.

Of course you did - the acting sucked, the attempt at satire was pretty lame - they should've hung signs on the 'actors' to let us know who they were supposed to be. What a load.

My bumper sticker
"DRUG TEST WELFARE RECIPIENTS"

My bumper sticker:
DRUG TEST EVERYONE WHO DEMANDS OTHERS GET DRUG TESTED

Oops - the bumpersticker thread is over here

Theobroma cacao, the tree from which seeds chocolate is made has the highest number of insect pests of any tree species.

The average chocolate bar contains at least 6 insect legs. Bon appétit!

If only insect content were the only problem:
Because of the high capacity of cocoa bean shells to adsorb lead, contamination from leaded gasoline emissions may occur during the fermentation and sun-drying of unshelled beans at cocoa farms. This mechanism is supported by similarities in lead isotopic compositions of cocoa bean shells from the different farms (206Pb/207Pb = 1.1548-1.1581 ; 208Pb/207Pb = 2.4344-2.4394) with those of finished cocoa products (206Pb/207Pb = 1.1475-1.1977 ; 208Pb/207Pb = 2.4234-2.4673) . However, the much higher lead concentrations and larger variability in lead isotopic composition of finished cocoa products, which falls within the global range of industrial lead aerosols, indicate that most contamination occurs during shipping and/or processing of the cocoa beans and the manufacture of cocoa and chocolate products(1)

The reference is "Uncle John's Unstoppable Bathroom Reader, 16th Edition". According to it, the cam paper was issued to frontline scouts, because the Viet Cong had a habit to easily spot the white paper sticking out of the droppings. How is that for Yankee ingenuity!

Uncle John's readers are a REALLY poor source for information, they mostly repeat Urban Legends as fact.

John McCain came to the Sturgis Bike Rally. I don't think Obama could find Sturgis. Even with Google Maps.

Pretty stupid comment - no content, just negativity. Not even humorous.

On our way to Montana we met many bikers on their way to Sturgis - amazingly, the only bikes we saw were Harleys - i think the rice-burners were hiding.

On the way back, we met another batch. I commented on how well packed his bike was packed - he laughed and said it was the only time his wife could see over his back.

Originally Posted by scru View Post

You know what disturbs me as I watch this argument unfold? The people who argue against global warming seem to fall in 1 of these 2 categories:

1. People who don't have their facts right.
2. People who seem to be emotionally opposed not to global warming per se, but a certain group of people who argue for it.You're right, maybe I don't have my facts right, could you point me in the right direction to get those facts that say that humans are causing the globe to warm. Show me where I can find a real science experiment that proves this and maybe I just might change my view.

I don't know which group I fall under, don't think it is number one since I have yet to see any facts. I must fall under number 2 and the only group that I have a problem with is the government.

I have been force fed this trash since I was a little kid and yet in all that time I still have yet to see any evidence. I will say that if there were, people would change. If you remember the discovery that chlorofluorocarbon was destroying the ozone, since then several laws have been passed regulating this chemical. I'm pretty sure that the same thing would happen if there was real proof about what humans were doing to cause global warming.

I thank you for bringing up CFCs - that argument …

Here we go again!!

only too true!

scru, in your self-admitted "disturbed" state, you've got your "emotional" argument aimed at the wrong group. I'm not emotionally involved with your movement to convince everyone that "global warming" exists. In fact, I'm saying there ARE NO FACTS backing up the claim. Your "evidence" isn't "accepted" by the majority of scientists. The "global warming" folks are emotionally scarred by anyone that would dare to blaspheme against their sacred (religions rely on faith rather than facts as well) beliefs that such a phenomenon does exist, which again, has not be proven.

So far, I have yet to see any study that concludes, with a doubt<<heh,heh>>, that there is any global climate change going on. Until then, you should be citing your ideas as part of the THEORY of Global Warming. And that's where your emotions come from...you can't prove it! It's a theory.

It is a theory! Yes it is - do you have a problem with theories? Have you heard of the theories of General and Special Relativity? Do you understand the theory of Gravity? How about the theory of Evolution? Somehow you don't appear to understand what the word theory means. Your particular vitriol against Climate Change/Global Warming seems pretty emotional. I note that you use certain 'emotionally loaded' words that have no place in an intellectual discussion. You don't seem to have anything to add to the discussion but your own rant.

Here's another emotional proponent telling JWenting, whom I KNOW …

And some more:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07/03/goddard_polar_ice/

What the green fraudsters do is give you winter ice data from one year, and summer data from the next.
They'll use that as "proof" that the pole is melting, when of course it's warmer there in summer than it is in winter and thus in summer there's less ice than there is in winter.

In reality the ice coverage is pretty constant when taking yearly averages.

I am going to guess that you did not even look at the pictures I linked to.

I looked at your link and it was to some some quotes and links that did not actually prove anything or look at any data; just points to some articles.

Why isn't 11 pronounced onety one?

Oneteen, twoteen, threeteen, fourteen.

The fusion cycle start with hydrogen to helium and ends with iron - the production of iron, instead of releasing energy, absorbs energy (about 3,000,000,000 degs Kelvin); this reverses the expansion pressure which becomes compression and the sun collapses and the heavier elements are produced - overly simplified.

A different form of energy is the energy of cavitation; the surface temperatures produced as the bubbles collapse are incredible. In one experiment, a hydrogen atom was encased in a bubble which was painted with a beam of infra-red energy and the bubble split into 2 bubbles. Work that one through -- it makes my head spin.

The temperature inside a collapsing bubble in concentrated sulfuric acid approaches 20,000 degs k, even higher at the core of the bible - some predict the ability to produce neutrons from inertial confinement fusion.

but I digress and babble a bit.

Every year the sun burns up 360 million tons of its mass to keep us globally warm.

The amount of energy earth receives from the sun is equivalent to 1.96 calories per minute per square centimeter, or 1366 watts per square meter (W/m²). I could actually translate this into pounds per square inch but every one laughs when I do (e=mcc).