| |
| |
| |
|
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71
<OcDoc> inanimate
<pilgrim`> 1944 was the coldest winter in modern record. Probably global warming...all those hot Nazis ont eh Russian Steppes did it
<JanetB> Disbelief NOT here they didn't
<Disbelief> JanetB - you sure they said that?
<JanetB> try reading
<Disbelief> well
<Disbelief> well you said nothing about the landfall qualifier til now.
<OcDoc> pilgrim: god making it rough on the bad guys
<JanetB> oh my God
<Lithium-> pilgrim`: you must not be familiar with global warming, because it does not say the winters will get warmer
<pilgrim`> of course if you go back to the 17th cent you find Hans Christen Andersen's source material; kids ice skating in Holand....
<OcDoc> Lithium: what DOES is say?
<FreeTrade> 1918 saw one of the worst hurricanes ever measured by pressure, though we beat it this year there is no time consistancy to them
<Lithium-> OcDoc: greater extremes
<FreeTrade> there is no correlation of time.
<OcDoc> Lithium: so an extreme winter would be?
<RustyFord> Drop Dead legs!
<RustyFord> WOoo hoooo!
<Lithium-> OcDoc: colder, yes
<pilgrim`> then again, if you go back to the records of Hadrian in Britanium it mentions the famous wines grown there....Wine grapes? England?
<FreeTrade> in 1886 we had one of our most powerful
<FreeTrade> up there close to Katrina
<OcDoc> Lithium: and where are you quoting this "global warming" from?
<FreeTrade> Actually not katrina it was this one I think ? I am using different measurements though
<FreeTrade> one measurement is pressure
<Disbelief> hahah this "global warming"
<FreeTrade> another is windspeed
<pilgrim`> then again, if you look at 1815 you see the effects of Tamboura and the largest single eruption in recorded history; The "year with no summer"
<FreeTrade> There is no dateline correlation between hurricane intensity
<Lithium-> OcDoc: wiki it or something, its not like there's only one article about it
<Disbelief> is there anybody here that disputes the warming trend, regardless of alleged cause ?
<JanetB> I think I am gonna eat a pay day candy bar.. so some kid here will not get a candy bar hehe
<FreeTrade> Its distributed fairly randomly through history
<OcDoc> Lithium: I see .. so you claim those as authoritative for the scientists' claims?
<lumpy> you're giving aay full sized bars?
<JanetB> yes
<lumpy> nice
<JanetB> I always do
<lumpy> wow
<Lithium-> OcDoc: huh?
<FreeTrade> OcDoc, my source exclusively has been the NOAA
<Disbelief> sans razor blades?
<JanetB> I go so Sam's and buy a about 6 cases
<alh> pilgrim`: people ice skate in holland every year...
<FreeTrade> Rank Hurricane Year Category
<FreeTrade> (at landfall) Minimum
<FreeTrade> Pressure (mb) Minimum
<FreeTrade> Pressure (in)
<FreeTrade> 1 Unnamed (FL Keys) 1935 5 892 26.35
<Lithium-> OcDoc: no global warming scientist will tell you that everything will just get hotter
<FreeTrade> 2 Camille (MS, SE LA, VA) 1969 5 909 26.84
<FreeTrade> 3 Andrew (SE FL, SE LA) 1992 5 922 27.23
<pilgrim`> alh indeed. rinks are everywhere
<FreeTrade> 4 TX (Indianola) 1886 4 925 27.31
<FreeTrade> A small sample
<FreeTrade> look at the dates
<JanetB> pay day. hershery, snickers, milkyway, and butterfinger
<pilgrim`> not on the main water in the canals
<FreeTrade> they are all over the map
<FreeTrade> and this year would be included in that data if it was historical
<alh> pilgrim`: on natural ice
<OcDoc> Lithium: oh, I believe your version implicitly
<Lithium-> FreeTrade: you're forgetting we had 2 this year
<FreeTrade> so the biggest storms we had were in 1886 1935 1969 1992 and 2005
<FreeTrade> No we didnt have 2 cat 5 this year
<JanetB> and for the parents that perfere no sweetes.. I have fruit rolls ups!!
<FreeTrade> if do where ?
<FreeTrade> And even if so it still wouldnt prove any theories you have about it.
<FreeTrade> Its still from the data we have completely random
<OcDoc> Free: is that the greatest category during their lives or the category when they hit land?
<FreeTrade> Here is a small sample of category 4 hurricanes
<Katey> OcDoc, that I couldn't tell from the site
<FreeTrade> TX (Indianola) 1886 4 925 27.31
<Katey> I was curious about that as well
<FreeTrade> 5 Unnamed (FL Keys, S TX) 1919 4 927 27.37
<FreeTrade> 6 Unnamed (Lake Okeechobee FL) 1928 4 929 27.43
<FreeTrade> 7 Donna (FL, Eastern U.S.) 1960 4 930 27.46
<FreeTrade> 8 Unnamed (New Orleans LA) 1915 4 931 27.49
<FreeTrade> 8 Carla (N & Cent. TX) 1961 4 931 27.49
<FreeTrade> 10 LA (Last Island) 1856 4 934
<JanetB> tomorrow... I get to go and get my casket.. from the mortuary here in town :D
<OcDoc> it's important, since they go up and down ... if we only know by what they are when they hit land in the old days, it could skew the data
<nomazda> OcDoc and those were based on pressure and not actual wind speed
<FreeTrade> 1886 1919 1928 1915 1961 1856 2005
<OcDoc> Katey: for example, if there were cat 5 hurricanes that didn't hit land, we'd never know
<FreeTrade> Any patterns here ?
<FreeTrade> yes there is
<FreeTrade> A pattern of randomness
<Katey> OcDoc, well, you can look at other data for that
<FreeTrade> Basically big gaps between major hurricane years
<Katey> OcDoc, for example, we've had one more "named storms" this year than the previous record setting year, 1933
<Katey> but only a few of those made landfall
<FreeTrade> This is what NOAA says it has nothing to do with global warming which they can demonstrate, and that its historical The biggest cause of these alarming hurricanes is our short memories which are about as short as most mens penis's are, not what they think they are.
<OcDoc> Katey: I'm speaking historically ... before we had satellites, aircraft and remote weather stations, no one except a sailor would have even known about some storms
<Katey> OcDoc, sure
<Katey> OcDoc, we've only reallly been keeping records for about 100 years
<FreeTrade> OcDoc, and its true there are no more Seismic events than normal either , its just that more have hit populated areas recently
<FreeTrade> another big factor is population shifts as I said earlier
<FreeTrade> people have moved south by at least factors of 10 and maybe much higher.
<FreeTrade> Since the 1960s
<lgcbmb> god bless AC
<nomazda> amen
<FreeTrade> OcDoc, Apparently we can gleam some data but its not conclusive.
<Disbelief> that hasn't influenced the number of storms, merely their potential for destruction of human life and property.
<nomazda> Disbelief i disagree
<nomazda> people in m***es are like magnets
<nomazda> and the hurricanes are drawn towards them
<Disbelief> huh?
<nomazda> :P
<Disbelief> that's just plain wrong.
<nomazda> </sarcasm>
<Disbelief> ah okay
<pilgrim`> out records of the last 30 years are just dead wrong
<Disbelief> well i was gonna say, why hasn't LA or SF been whiped out yet...why won't god slaughter those liberals already?!
<nomazda> maybe gas prices would go down
<FreeTrade> The reason why you have more monetary damage, And less death if not for New Orleans city planning. Is due to technology and greator expense from the vast numbers of people who now live in hurricane zones which have been relatively unactive until recent years.
<nomazda> hah
<DropDead> gas prices are going down
<FreeTrade> God wont slaughter SF because I live here.
<pilgrim`> the graound temp readins have always been open to fluctuation, ditto water temp, therefore, Satellite based readings have been used for 30 years to correct and corolate ground readins. Problem: The bird had an unknown (till this year) orbital fluctuation
<FreeTrade> THATS WHY
<FreeTrade> :)
<pilgrim`> this means that about 1/2 the readins and they are not sure which half, were taken in the night shadow
<DropDead> oil is an over heated market
<DropDead> oil is stupid
<pilgrim`> therefore, the corrected readings of 30 years are flat invalid and bogus data
<Disbelief> dropdead - yeah...maybe oil will go back down to $35/barrel where the Economist thinks its "natural" state is.
<DropDead> Dis yeap
<Disbelief> haah
<DropDead> actually Dis thats the most reasonable thing i have heard you ever say
<Disbelief> so you'd sell oil short in this market?
<Disbelief> hahahah
<DropDead> but really the real barrel price is 53
<DropDead> not 35
<pilgrim`> in 30 year we MAY had 30 years worth of valid data to base things on
<DropDead> 35 is completely unrealistic
<Disbelief> DropDead - no ****, thats why i used the FUTURE TENSE. did you miss that ?
<FreeTrade> Did someone think I said that more people moving to the south brought more hurricanes ? Ahem, let me make something clear, A) We dont have more or larger hurricanes that we can demonstrate, so far 1941-1950 takes the record for that, but they are much more expensive in physical property damage because of the m***es of people in the south.
<FreeTrade> There is always a collective forgetfulness about cataclsymic events.
<DropDead> Dis ohh i was ;ooking at reality
<FreeTrade> I got to run, bbiab
<Disbelief> DropDead - 35-40 is what many market-based cornucopian economists think is the natural price for oil.
<DropDead> hahaha no sir
<DropDead> 53 is the common price
<pilgrim`> natural price/ interesting concept. stupid, but interesting
<Disbelief> DropDead - the reality is that its extraordinarily doubtful that oil will ever be below $50 barrel, barring some significant event
<DropDead> although 65 drives alternative energy
<DropDead> I like 65
<pilgrim`> supply/demand. the free market determines price
<pilgrim`> and the inlfation of the currency
<DropDead> pilgrim thats the thing
Return to politics
or
Go to some related
logs:
logs netmeeting undernet
ata_piix novell
|
|