Welcome to American Weather


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About FloridaJohn

Profile Information

  • Four Letter Airport Code For Weather Obs (Such as KDCA)
  • Gender
  1. I have reviewed the movie and could not find any specific prediction that corresponds to your comments. Could you elaborate on the prediction you are referring to? Thanks.
  2. What, specifically, was this prediction? I can't seem to find any reference to it.
  3. Which predictions turned out to be false? I haven't gone back and re-watched the movie to catalog all the predictions, but since it appears you have, I am curious about which ones were wrong. Also, please do not accuse people of calling others names when you are doing the same thing. Try to rise above. Thank you.
  4. Check out the price of property insurance along the coastline of of Florida. That's the early warning sign. Right now, it's not an issue because those properties are mainly owned by rich people. But at some point in the future, those property owners will be forced to self insure. Then you might see some good deals.
  5. The point of this topic, however, is that neither of those things actually happened. One guy had a problem with some office politics, and wrote on his personal blog his dissatisfaction. The climate change deniers took that post and created a completely inaccurate story that was not based on the guy's original problem. He even later clarified that those stories were inaccurate.
  6. I guess you got your answer!
  7. Here is Dr. Muller's reasoning behind his change of mind from being skeptical to joining the scientific consensus: The Conversion of a Climate-Change Skeptic by RICHARD A. MULLER "CALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause."
  8. For comparison, we can see here that Lamar Smith makes $174,000 per year.
  9. Here's an interesting article that talks about the money climate scientists make and how they get that money. If climate scientists are in it for the money, they’re doing it wrong "So, are there big bucks to be had in climate science? Since it doesn't have a lot of commercial appeal, most of the people working in the area, and the vast majority of those publishing the scientific literature, work in academic departments or at government agencies. Penn State, home of noted climatologists Richard Alley and Michael Mann, has a strong geosciences department and, conveniently, makes the department's salary information available. It's easy to check, and find that the average tenured professor earned about $120,000 last year, and a new hire a bit less than $70,000. " "If they really wanted to make money at Penn State, they'd be coaching football or basketball. If they wanted to make money doing the sort of data analysis or modeling of complex systems that climatologists perform all the time, of course, they should go to Wall Street. "
  10. With all due respect, I have explained my understanding of the physics. You have disagreed, which is fine. But you failed to explain why my interpretation is in error and why your's is correct. More than one poster has written detailed explanations to you and the most response we can get from you is the equivalent of a "no it isn't". You rely on others to interpret what you are saying, and then disagree with their interpretation without providing one of your own. Your arguments are unsupported by references, links or documentation. You are not participating in this discussion in good faith.
  11. Please explain those real-world physics, please.
  12. Let's try this. How about you write up a description on how you think this experiment will work, and what the physics are behind it? Try to be as detailed as possible and assume we don't know anything. This will eliminate the problem of us trying to interpret what you mean from your posts. I think this is leading to confusion both your and our parts. Thanks.
  13. The bucket is not constant pressure. When you restrict the size of the hole in the bottom, the incoming water raises the level of the water in the bucket, therefore increasing pressure. I refer you back to this picture I posted earlier: With a different level of water in the bucket, you have a different pressure acting on the hole in the bottom. Different pressure = different flow characteristics. If there was no incoming water to the bucket, the water pressure at the hole would drop as the water drains out. Eventually, you would not have enough pressure to overcome the resistance from the restriction in the hole, and the flow would stop. If the hole is small enough, the flow would stop while there is still water in the bucket. Putting your finger over the hole, does increase the velocity, but only for a short while. As the level of the water decreases, the pressure differential between the water in the bucket and the water leaving the bucket decreases, and then the flow rate decreases. Then the water being pouring into the bucket increases the depth of the water, which increases the water pressure at the hole, which increases the flow rate. This happens until the flow rate into the bucket reaches equilibrium with the depth of the water in the bucket and flow rate out of the bucket.