Jump to content

bobjohnsonforthehall

Members
  • Posts

    68
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by bobjohnsonforthehall

  1. That's one of the greatest things I've ever seen
  2. Is that the pause that has been shown in some of the more aggressive modeling in terms of qpf? That group of about 30-40% that seems to remain in place south of Long Island while the rest depart for the coast of Maine?
  3. Six hours ago this model had our storm taking a selfie at the Eiffel Tower.
  4. Perhaps. But the NAM is in a good range for what happens 12 hours+ before the storm reaches our area. Those Dynamics are crucial to what happens in our area and the NAM showed them to be very favorable.
  5. With the way that the trough goes negative there is zero chance of the low taking that track. It's just the GFS chasing convection at the surface. It will come around.
  6. Definitely agree with your last paragraph whole heartedly and am glad to hear it. I appreciate your candor. What is ageism is defining a group of people in a certain way based on a view, perceived or real, within that group. Some of your recent posts were clearly in that category, even while you attributed misogynistic meanings to others. Self awareness would like to have a little chat. Warming of 2 degrees may take 100-150 years, even if the ever-incorrect climate models are to be believed. In that time, human adaptability will be well beyond anything that you or I can currently begin to comprehend. This is true looking back even 50 years. I have zero problem with finding alternative technologies for the replacement of fossil fuels. That is what progress is all about. I am just not prepared to throw the baby out with the bathwater and junk everything in order to try to frantically come up with something that we just might not be ready to produce yet.
  7. Gah! That sucks. Basically says that climate reconstructions based on coral cores from Palmyra show that the most intense ENSO activity seems to have taken place in the mid-seventeenth century. Hardly driven by the greed of the fossil fuel industry at that point in time, no? Also points to the likely cyclical nature that has absolutely zero to do with co2.
  8. Holy crap really? First you see something out your window and automatically "climate change", then you throw around Russia as a bugaboo and assume that America's farms will soon not be viable? Based on what? They are more viable now than at any point in history for cripes sake. This is exactly what i am talking about. Say what you will about "climate deniers" who don't want to listen to science, but my goodness. Look in a mirror.
  9. Perhaps because those who want to "be on the safe side" want to bring the economies of the western world to a screeching halt? They want to put an end to the single economic system that has done more to bring the world out of poverty than any other? In doing so, they seem to want to lower the population of the earth and recreate it into a utopia that never has existed, and never will exist to their satisfaction? I mean...that could be it. You know?
  10. You said that the "rate of warming is virtually without precedent". This is inaccurate and misleading. The rate of warming is not linear. You're citing it in such a way as to make anyone who disagrees with you out to be a dinosaur who knows nothing about the subject. That's pretty much the very definition of ageism, but again, you do you. And the only way that these future "costs" ever come to bare is if all of the doomsday projections come to pass. Even the IPCC does not believe that. What's your view on nuclear power? China? India?
  11. No it's not. That's an inaccurate interpretation of ENSO climate pattern. The rate of warming is not linear. But you do you.
  12. That is certainly very ageist of you. Where does that rank on the victimhood hierarchy? I'm guessing it's below misogyny so thus is ok for you to say without fear of retribution. "Denialists" as you call them, seem to be uninterested in engaging in scientific curiosity. I could say the same for many millions on your side of the debate. They hear what they want to hear. Are told over and over by the media what the media wants them to hear. And they spew things that are scientifically garbage but remain popular tropes that are spilled over and over which I suppose somehow makes them true in their minds. Polar bear population being one of the biggies. Go to an event and uninformed people believe the polar bear population is plunging due to global warming. It's not. But what can you do? Can I say that the young and uninformed are too impressionable by people who purport themselves to be experts in a field but are actually activists uninterested in scientific rigor? Or would that be ageist as well? I'm confused. "Imprison the world in an unsustainable status quo". That's an interesting take. I would love to hear you expound on that one. What exactly is "unsustainable" and exactly which "backward policy goals" need to be "suffered through"? I'm quite curious to learn.
  13. It's not that sudden. Relax. Parts of the world have warmed and cooled throughout human history. That shouldn't surprise you. The attempts that we are currently making to rewrite climatic history nothwithstanding of course. The idea of one global temperature is laughable. The idea that we are even now measuring the temperature of the entire earth in an accurate way is, again, laughable. The idea that a trace gas, that has shown to be a lagging indicator and not a leading one, can cause global temperatures to react in the way that you seem to believe, is what it is I suppose. CO2 has been higher during our planet's history, and at times when temperatures were lower. The climate is more complex than today's scientists can possibly understand. Good for them for trying. It is what they should do. But they should not pretend that they know the answer with certainty. They do not. Oh, and the vitriol and attempt to squash debate is unnecessary and pretty much aligns with my previous thoughts regarding something else besides science looking to silence critique.
  14. 1. Peer reviewed = that which cannot be questioned. Good to know. 2. Or...and hear me out here...science is itself not something that lends itself to the branding of those who question it. Science itself, and more precisely scientists, should not ever believe that something is "settled". Scientists must constantly be ready to challenge and to be challenged. Unless of course there is something else going on. The reason that those who question the supposed consensus are constantly vilified by people such as yourself. Common scientific belief has changed throughout history. Those who would use current scientific belief to brand those who question it as "heretics" (or in this case "deniers") generally do not hold up to the scrutiny of posterity. Thus there is something beyond science at work here to shut down debate - about the most anti-scientific thing one can imagine.
  15. Misogynistic. Lol. That's rich. It's as if you have never seen a political opponent shown in an unflattering picture before. When it happens to be a female that makes it misogynistic? Just stop. By the way. Deniers = unbelievers correct? Let me know when the stonings begin so that i can prepare. many thanks!
  16. The main pieces of energy have yet to be well sampled. The models are just guessing at this point. I will start noticing trends from 00z overnight to 12z tomorrow and not before. And I'm not rooting for snow. Hoping that it doesn't snow actually. But realistically Miler A setups shouldn't be taken seriously or have white flags waived until you start seeing definitive trends within 72 hours of the storm. Just my opinion anyway.
×
×
  • Create New...