bobjohnsonforthehall

31 degrees and just started raining in Flemington 

10 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

maybe if we weren't meddling in parts of the world we have no business being in we wouldn't need a national security budget of that size.

Amen to that. But we also shouldn't being paying for their national security. Let them do it themselves.

Just now, eduggs said:

All you have to offer is "government is bad." That's not a viewpoint. It's just pure ignorance. You don't even know what government is, why we have it, or what its role or purpose is. You don't even know all the ways in which government benefits you. You are just childish and simple. How can there be a debate if you are not capable of advancing a rational viewpoint?

Advanced rational viewpoint? Like yours? 

Yes master. Whatever you say sir. I will stay silent and let you do and say as you please because you know what is best for me. 

You are an arrogant know it all POS keyboard warrior who thinks you know better than everyone else. You keep thinking that. It's working great for your side. 

I'll enjoy my popcorn as you and your ilk continue your slide into irrelevancy.

However, since I am all for more speech being better, I would like to hear your thoughts on what will fix some of these problems specifically. Heck I may even agree with you on some. I think we both see what is happening. We just disagree on on how to fix it.

7 minutes ago, eduggs said:

Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and Finland have effective and efficient governments. People believe in government and strive to make it work. People living in those countries also have an extremely high quality of life on average.

Russia has an ineffective and inefficient government. Money and power are concentration in the hands of a few ruling elites. People don't believe in government and they don't try to make it work. Government is used by the elites to protect their power and control the masses (corrupt justice system, no freedom of press etc).

The Trump-Musk government wants to model us after Russia. Which system would you prefer?

Ah yes. The world is all sunshine and rainbows when you can maintain a national security budget the size of my left nut because someone else is paying the tab.

2 minutes ago, eduggs said:

I'd bet everything I have that you are an uninformed ideologue. You literally couldn't be more wrong if it was your goal to post something incorrect. I dare you to post something intelligent on any subject. We have too many people like you who think they understand things that they actually know nothing about. It's all buzz phrases with you. Simple black and white. Completely unable to grasp subtlety or nuance.

Buzz phrases? You post as if you have all of the answers. You speak of nuance yet seem ill prepared to listen to an opposing point of view. Not very nuanced of you if I do say so myself. You post with all the subtlety of a ball peen hammer...which no doubt you would like to use on those who stand in the way of you and your utopia.

Government gets involved in education. Prices explode. Government gets involved in healthcare. Prices explode. 

The answer apparently is...more government? 

Sure. Makes sense.

Just saw that in the February thread.

"Elon Musk's takeover".

Lol.

Not enough popcorn in the world for me right now.

2 minutes ago, eduggs said:

Most government agencies need more staff, higher prestige, higher caliber of applications, higher salaries. Efficiency could also be increased by not having 1 of 2 major political parties actively sabotaging government for 50 years.

Also what we don't need is $20,000 CT scans, $4000 ultrasounds, $1000 basic blood work etc. We are all sharing these exorbitant costs. Private college education system is fcked too.

We need a paradigm shift in health care, child care, elderly care, and our college education system. Privatization and the constant push for bigger profits are bleeding us dry. Attacking and dismantling the government is the completely wrong focus. Obviously perpetuated by greedy or stupid people. Quality of life is much higher in other western countries. The model being pushed on us is Russia.

What?

10 minutes ago, forkyfork said:

aww you think it won't be on the chopping block

Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. Maybe it is going to be restructured into something more efficient at another agency. Maybe it remains in some sleeker format. You don't know and I don't know. Your apparent assumption seems to be that the entire thing is going away and will never be replaced by anything in any way shape or form and oh my goodness the sky is falling.

Good luck with that.

4 minutes ago, Rjay said:

Sure, nothing to see here, right?  

Speculation disguised as a news story does nobody any good. Most especially when the author doesn't have the intellectual or journalistic curiosity to do anything but parrot talking points of a singular point of view.

19 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

For an update on the situation at the NOAA:

https://abcnews.go.com/US/doge-now-access-noaas-systems-reviewing-dei-program/story

Interesting read. Lots of speculation and scare and little in terms of actual knowledge of what is actually happening.  Certainly wants the reader to feel a certain way without any actual facts though so I guess if that was the point of the story then...mission accomplished?

5 hours ago, donsutherland1 said:

There's a lot more than just the models being at risk. NWS forecasting jobs, research, digital content, etc., could all be at risk. There's also the possibility that a lot of what is public could be privatized. Already, the Musk team has made a move in that direction by eliminating the IRS's free e-file platform.

Buuuuuuuuuut the free e-file program still exists. Link below. Although I'm not entirely sure why someone would trust the IRS to make sure that you pay as little in taxes as possible. 

https://www.irs.gov/filing/irs-free-file-do-your-taxes-for-free

3 minutes ago, nycsnow said:

 

That's one of the greatest things I've ever seen

20 minutes ago, Franklin0529 said:

 

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?

Six hours ago this model had our storm taking a selfie at the Eiffel Tower. 

5 minutes ago, jm1220 said:

Can't trust either the RGEM or NAM yet. Looking forward to hopefully an improvement on the GFS. Doesn't have to show a bomb quite yet but definitely want an improvement. 

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.

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. 

Redeveloping off the coast?

Just now, Rjay said:

 I disagree.  I think although there were some positives, the trough goes negative quicker than the 18z run which negates those positives. 

ULL gets that far into Georgia...I don't see how it can run that track.

1 minute ago, HeadInTheClouds said:

I think the silence says it all. Another crappy run. 

Upper levels on GFS do not agree with this assessment.

First flakes falling in Flemington

That weak low down near the Bahamas will have some effect on our Thursday/Friday AM system, no?

3 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

Rate of warming in a geological scale. Even as cyclical fluctuations occur, the climate record is unambiguous: the 2010s were warmer than the 2000s, the 2000s were warmer than the 1990s, etc.

That the climate denial movement would be comprised of a larger share of people who hold sympathetic views toward that movement's positions is not "ageism." The notion that it would be comprised of a disproportionate share of people who recognize AGW would be far-fetched. Based multiple surveys, and I provided one of the more recent polls, the climate denial movement would be expected to be largely male and older. 

Even if warming is held to somewhere close to 2°C, there will be some significant adverse impacts. One need not have the worst-case warming scenario to see materially adverse consequences/costs.

As for nuclear power, I support it. I realize some others don't, but at least for now, it is among the practical alternatives available. China, India, etc., are experiencing large increases in fossil fuel emissions. That's an issue that needs to be addressed. Through diplomacy, trade, technology-sharing, etc., there's a lot that can probably be done to change their fossil fuel trajectories while allowing their economies to continue to develop. Indeed, the realities of pollution are already making it imperative that they begin to address the causes of that pollution, so opportunities for engagement exist.

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. 

1 minute ago, LibertyBell said:

Access options

Subscribe to Journal

Get full journal access for 1 year

$199.00

only $3.83 per issue

 

We're just talking about super el ninos here, starting with 1982-83.... what occurred during the 1700s wasn't subject to any kind of scientific measurement.

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.

2 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

it has to do with the unprecedented type of weather that has been occurring on a large scale.  Looks like Russia loves it because they're about to open Siberia for farming and will be feeding the world since America's bread basket will become unviable for farming.

 

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.