|
Post by slh1234 on Aug 16, 2010 22:41:56 GMT
I don't believe you think that I think that I've not made a valid point. So is that all you have?
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Aug 16, 2010 21:48:33 GMT
Explain to me why your argument doesn't equally apply to biologists and particle physicists. I think I've made a valid point. The argument that scientists are in it for the money could apply to any field. Explain why climate is different. I don't believe you think you've made a valid point. You're smarter than that. You've tried to take an argument that I made about human nature (IE, your argument does not mean that they are pure as the wind driven snow) and you've twisted that to try to say that my argument means that all scientists are corrupt. That's not a real attempt. Try again.
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Aug 16, 2010 21:44:07 GMT
What does this tell us? That in all these cases and more the scientists are probably lying just to secure funding for their colliders and labs? I suggest it actually tells us nothing, and therein lies the beauty of the claim. It's unfalsifiable. Total strawman argument. Make a real attempt and a meaningful argument and maybe we'll have something to respond to.
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Aug 16, 2010 1:53:32 GMT
"Federal Employees Receive Twice Private Sector" Federal employees covers a lot more than academics and what applies to one group doesn't necessarily to a subset. "Median annual earnings of environmental scientists were $47,600 in 2002. The middle 50 percent earned between $36,820 and $62,400. The lowest 10 percent earned less than $29,920, and the highest 10 percent earned more than $78,200." www.jobbankusa.com/career_employment/environmental_scientists_geoscientists/salary_wages_pay.htmlOn their website: "Congress venues are rotated throughout the Asia-Pacific region, and have been held in such locations as Bangkok, Sydney, Beijing, Tokyo, Vancouver, Khabarovsk, Seoul, and San Francisco." Why highlight Tahiti and not say San Francisco? Wasn't a scientific conference, it was politicians. Yeah to do research The full grant figure is irrelevant without the budget breakdown it's subcomponents to see how much of it goes towards salary of the workers involved. Sometimes it's zero because the university pays the salaries of the researchers and they get none of the grant money personally. Two basic things I will call out: You can highlight San Francisco the same way as you would Tahiti. San Francisco is a huge vacation spot. Every one of those cities listed are huge vacation spots. I've worked in several of them and would do extra work for the opportunity to pull another engagement in pretty much any of them. There would be competition among my colleages if we had a chance to go to pretty much any of them (I'd win for San Francisco, though, since it is my home ). The argument about the money going toward research and not salaries misses what the grant money means to those trying to get it: Job security. It doesn't matter whether someone is making 10G or 10M/year, they protect their livelihood. As such, the argument about the people not getting paid well, or the argument about money not going toward salaries misses the point. People will still fudge if they think that gives them job security (In the form of additional business, or additional time to research, or whatever they like to do). It may not be true of every individual, but it is of people in general.
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Aug 13, 2010 5:17:43 GMT
How are the Californian wind farms these days? I heard they maintain them just so they spin to keep up appearances but they're not actually hooked up to the electricity grid. Even in a direct discussion with a politician, I couldn't get a straight answer about how much power is produced by those things. Maybe it should be "Especially in a discussion with a politician ... " I have not been able to find ANY references to how much electricity those windmills produce. I drove from Sacramento back to the Bay Area today via 580 past a lot of those windmills. Only about 1/4 of the ones that are visible from the road were spinning. That's about the norm when I drive through there. Sometimes it's more and sometimes it's less. I really doubt there's any truth to them not being hooked up to the grid, but I also doubt they produce very much electricity just because if they did, every politician would be putting up the numbers as justification for building more.
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Aug 12, 2010 14:23:24 GMT
If I was here more than 2 days, I would have. I was rushed in, and will be rushed out today.
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Aug 12, 2010 3:58:02 GMT
I'm in scpg02's neighborhood for 2 days this week. I lived in Sacramento about 20 - 25 years ago so I remember well the heat of the summer in California's Central Valley.
Today, when driving back to the hotel after work, the car showed the temperature at 80 F. Weather Underground shows the high at 76 degrees which is 16 degrees below the average high for this date, and it was not overcast today - it was sunny. Yesterday was 7 degrees below average and tomorrow is forecast to be about 7 degrees below average.
About a month ago, when I drove through here, it was hot like I remember. Today, I'm trying to remember if I've ever seen a day in the 70's in August in Sacramento - I can't remember one.
I won't be here long enough to try to establish a trend, but it is interesting to me, especially since my perception of everywhere I've been on the west coast this year is that is is much cooler than normal.
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Aug 8, 2010 3:32:52 GMT
I disagree with this part of what was posted in Archibald's article: The numbers I remember from North Korea's starvation in the late 1990's were about 2 million, but it looks like there might be some dispute about that: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korean_famineI seem to remember dire stories from Ethiopia from about that time period as well. Their problems were political more than anything else, but it doesn't change the fact that there has been mass starvation much more recently than what is quoted as the "last time the world witnessed mass starvation." I realize he's saying that this will be a supply issue rather than a political issue, but I just wanted to point out that remark.
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Aug 5, 2010 19:14:48 GMT
LOL you really believe that? They are all puppets of the same puppet master. Congress is duplicitous in this. Your only hope is to elect people who are not beholden to the powers that be and the system is rigged to prevent that. Really the states need to start standing on the 10th amendment and take back the power stolen by the feds. I don't see that happening either. "Your only hope is to elect people who are not beholden to the powers that be and the system is rigged to prevent that."That is the new flavor of Congress that is needed - and 'the system' would be under threat if it happened. "Really the states need to start standing on the 10th amendment and take back the power stolen by the feds"The same arguments are going on in Europe (lending weight to the 'global governance concerns) where unelected agencies under the European Commission are issuing directives that take no note of the 'subsidiarity' intentions of the initial EU (almost the equivalent of the 10th Amendment). The European Parliament is a rubber stamping organization with no power to control the European Commissioners (mostly out to grass politicians who will not upset the bureaucrats that actually run the EU). I don't think it matters who is in office so long as we have the same set of little kings wearing judicial robes and being accountable to nobody.
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Aug 5, 2010 19:04:08 GMT
All the deviations from highs that I posted were done by me looking at the actual high and the average high for those dates and doing the arithmetic in my head as I wrote them down,I don't know why you should be doing that. NOAA has already calculated the daily deviations out for you on their site as well as the average temperature. Because I have a habit of actually doing my own work, and with a source I am familiar with. But once again, you are on a tangent. is there a problem with doing what I did? if not, then take what I said for what it's worth and concentrate on the point. If I made a mistake, then post it. You may notice, though, that what I posted based on the data from Weather Underground differs pretty significantly from what you posted. So maybe there is merit in doing what I did. "warm" day is usually defined by people in our culture in terms of the high, or how hot it is - not on average temperature for a day. [/i] Guess what, over here we have the same convention, anything with a high above 25C is a "hot day"! [/quote] so then there is no excuse for missing the point as you have. But you may have missed the point Sigurdur actually makes no objections to using the average temperature as the metric -- he's only conjuring up some strange "sub climate" zones that only apply to him personally. The NOAA statistics show the temperature had been average for a month and a half already before Sigurdur said ND (a.k.a "us") have finally (sic) returned to 'normal' values. That's an undisputable fact. Where did he say "normal" values? The best I can tell, that is you changing the words and attributing that to him. I refer back to above. You purposefully missed the point, changed the wording to be something you could argue with. Strangers climate zones are correct. The site you posted is not.Sigurdur you may then want to take elements in the U.S. administration to court for messing up the ND climate zones, may you not? Perhaps this is one cunning conspiracy against the people? Where are the "Strangers climate zones" drawn for us to see? Nowhere. Who is this researcher Strangers? There's no such person. There must be a limit to your bog grade denialism somewhere! That is a ridiculous assertion. There is no one officially defined set of "climate zones." Once again, you are disagreeing just to disagree. You make no point, but you are again good with misusing words and throwing around names like a school child. Are you mature enough to discuss the substance rather than thrown names around, twist words and try to play word games? How about mature enough to admit that there may be errors or room for discussion in data sets like NOAA? I haven't seen it yet. If you are, then why not do it? Just because it is so much easier to throw out a childish name like "denialist?" (I can't help but remember back to what you said about people who resort to name calling or personal attack. Does that apply to you as well?)
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Aug 5, 2010 5:55:41 GMT
So you are suggesting that the map icefisher posted was forged as well? Let's take Junes' temp deviations at Grand Forks, ND from NOAA: -4 -6 -3 1 2 -2 0 1 -7 0 -12 -1 -2 -4 1 2 5 -4 0 5 6 6 2 5 4 5 1 -7 -6 2 There has been a coldish period in the beginning of the month, but towards the end of the month the temps rose, and the monthly average was very slightly below the normal value, by -0.3F. When Sigurdur wrote here that the "temps have returned near their 'normal' values", the temps had in reality been at their normal values for a month and a half already!! Could it be that ND is experiencing below-normal temps while Finland and Russia etc just the opposite?This is simply not the case! The temps in ND have been average, while here and in the European Russia they have been madly above the average. Touko I assume that when you say Sigurdur was saying temps have finally returned to normal, you are referring to this: We have finally been warm for a few days in a row. Temp now is 72, but I can live with that as 80's are spose to come back. We have now switched to drier, and are in need of rain. First, if that is the one, then you are not being faithful to what you are claiming he is saying, but I've noticed a habit of you (I believe purposefully?) missing the point in posts, or changing directions or sources depending on where you are in that particular argument, so I try to get context before even starting on anything you are saying. But I think I can see where Sigurdur is coming from. He posted that on July 11. If I look at the first 11 days of July, which takes us to the time of his posting, I get this as the deviation from the average daily high ( based on: www.wunderground.com/history/airport/KGFK/2010/7/4/MonthlyHistory.html ): 14 12 11 2 3 -2 -1 -1 5 10 -6 That's an average of 4.27 degrees F from average. But if I go back to the month of June, and look at that ( www.wunderground.com/history/airport/KGFK/2010/6/4/MonthlyHistory.html ), I get this as the deviation from the average daily high: -9 -6 -2 0 2 -5 0 -6 -12 -19 -11 -11 -4 -3 -5 2 1 -12 -4 3 0 3 0 5 0 3 -2 -9 -6 2 That is an average of -3.5 degrees F. A "warm" day is usually defined by people in our culture in terms of the high, or how hot it is - not on average temperature for a day. It also has nothing at all to do with the "normal" high for that day - it is just a relative term. So the first thing I can see is that strictly in our vernacular, what Sigurdur is saying is correct when he says: "finally been warm for a few days in a row" However; there is no way I can find a way for it to have matched what you claim here when you are contradicting him: "had in reality been at their normal values for a month and a half already!!" That's either an exaggeration, a purposeful distortion of meaning of the statistics, or just word play on your part (since what you're claiming isn't really contradicting what Sigurdur is saying anyway). Look at the number of consecutive "warm" days and define them any way other that "a few in a row." If I go back to May, which is not really necessary, I find this for the deviation from average highs ( www.wunderground.com/history/airport/KGFK/2010/5/4/MonthlyHistory.html ) -9 -14 -15 -5 -20 -18 -25 -13 -8 -9 -17 -11 -16 5 9 1 9 11 10 11 11 1 0 -5 -3 -1 10 7 19 -9 2 That's an average of -2.97 F for the month, but the early part of the month was well below average. I haven't farmed since I was a boy, but going into May and April, looking at absolute temps, I begin to see temps that would have concerned us about putting crops in the ground. Since it has been so long, I'll have to ask someone else about the temps and when the crop would have been planted, and whether that means the crop is late, or in danger. (Have you ever farmed, Tuoku? Ever? If you can answer that first hand, then go ahead.) It looks to me that you are trying to play word games just to be contentious. But I'm finding that what Sigurdur is saying (the part I have time to check out) to be very plausible. Maybe you can explain a little better what your word games are intended to illustrate. (All the deviations from highs that I posted were done by me looking at the actual high and the average high for those dates and doing the arithmetic in my head as I wrote them down, so it is possible I have an error. Feel free to check me out.)
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Jul 27, 2010 14:12:11 GMT
On the flight over the Sierra and Rocky Mountain ranges, it looks like the Sierras in California have about as much snow on the eastern slopes as they did last year (just unscientific observation and my memory), but there doesn't look like there is much snow left on the Rocky Mountains. From my hotel window, I can see the eastern side of Pike's Peak, and I cannot see any snow (I'm told by the local residents that it is not unusual for the eastern slope to be snow free this time of year). I'm planning to make up to the top of Pike's Peak later today if the afternoon thunderstorms the local folks warn me of don't prevent me.
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Jul 26, 2010 16:41:48 GMT
That, combined with wind, seems to fully explain the low extent.Did the Sun shine at all in the Arctic in the summer of 2007? Did someone block the oceanic waterways to the Arctic as well that year? "Fully explains the melt" Ha-ha! Touko Nobody can miss the point that badly unless it is intentional. But why do it? That's what I don't get.
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Jul 12, 2010 15:06:56 GMT
Looking at your weather.com link, what I see for Minot is a forecast of 81F (27C) for today. Weather Underground has the forecast at 79F (26F). Nowhere near 91F Check out this date from the link: Fri Jul 16 Sunny Sunny 91°63° Touko And Weather Underground has that day forecast as 85F. Sounds like a modelling challenge . And that goes back to a question of how errors are counted in models. How often does the forecast change from the time it is the 5th day of a 5 day forecast until it is tomorrow on a 5 day forecast? Are those counted as errors in the model that produced the forecast? Weather Underground is what I use to decide how to pack when I travel. I've found them to be pretty reliable. But regardless of which one you choose, the fact remains that ND has been below average, and may get a little above average later this week. Edit: After re-reading your post, the conclusion is drawn from your wording, so you can explain whether it was intentional or not: You're talking about "tomorrow" and "the same ... " There is no mention of dates other than "tomorrow", so your wording says you are comparing the same dates.
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Jul 12, 2010 14:45:11 GMT
|
|