taks

hehe, camping equipment. i should get a bunch of propane, too, to run my stoves. we're geared well enough to survive the mountains in the winter, actually. the only stocks i have ever owned are in 401(k) plans - well, IRAs, my last company did a SIMPLE IRA. taks

i agree, good bourbon will lead you away from the standards quickly. i like maker's mark. taks

adapt? why is this such a difficult concept to grasp? taks

the scientists explicitly state that the models aren't useful for prediction. whether you want to call them macro predictions is up to you, but they are not useful for this purpose and have proven themselves useless. i responded to a statement that you claimed the majority of scientists think models are useful. i did not make any claim about whether scientists agree that warming is happening. sorry, but it is sufficient to state that the models have not predicted anything useful to demonstrate they are not useful. furthermore, i'm not sure what "expert" opinions you are referring to regarding models since even jim hansen says they aren't predictions. he runs GISS... sheesh. there you go reframing the question, another red herring. i said that models are inaccurate enough that an RNG would be just as useful, or as the case may be, equally useless. as i recall, the actual temperature record exhibits strong AR characteristics. again with the red herrings. first, orbital dynamics are very well understood and are periodic functions - the analogy is not even remotely appropriate, and it is quite disingenuous of you to use it (you should know better). what they do not account for is the minor perturbations which require updates over time. a TLE is only useful for a few days as a result (they are updated publicly every 7 days or so). the climate is not even remotely in the same ballpark. if minor unknowns can throw off a well understood periodic model in a few days, what happens when the fundamentals of a climate model aren't known at all over "macro" scales of decades? we're not talking about the variable effect of the solar wind on something in orbit. we're talking about floor to ceiling changes that result from tweaks in the fundamentals assumptions in the models. you need to look a little deeper into your own statements. doom and gloom arguments, particularly ones as specious as flooding bangladesh, are appeals to emotion (at the current rate, it will take several hundred years for a one meter rise) and only serve to enhance the urgency in which heretofore unproven assertions must be acted upon. what happens as a result of sea level rise has nothing to do with the validity of models or any other claim i have made. in other words, such arguments are evidence of nothing other than your personal bias. you spend all that effort explaining it away then... "OMG!!! millions of refugees!" sigh. even with insurance, there is an assumption of reasonable risks. it isn't reasonable when the pace at which such a travesty would occur is over the course of millenia. it isn't even a travesty. there won't be millions of refugees, either, unless you still clinging to the belief that these people will all stand around long enough to be up to their necks in water, even after i already pointed out how silly that sounds. if the likes of you were to become a non-issue, we might even be able to solve any such problem through our own wits. i mean, in 100 years when the seas have risen by a foot... imagine how much technology will have advanced without the hindrance of alarmism. um, i was right, you don't understand what i'm talking about. you need to look into the data itself, not the emails. couldn't resist yet another fallacy - argumentum ad hominem. the only people that think the emails are petty are those that are implicated, or those whose work is threatened, and the alarmists that support them in the face of undeniable evidence. that's the funny thing about religious beliefs, facts are easily ignored by the mind in order to continue the belief. in any case, there is much more to it than just pettiness when scientists that are in charge of data, in charge of the science that gets into the IPCC, and in charge of 10s of millions of dollars of funding every year (michael mann's group brings in $55 M, so much for the well funded skeptics) are rigging the peer review process, then scoffing that skeptical arguments haven't been peer reviewed. when they openly discuss attempts to avoid FOIA requests, they are not simply being petty, they are breaking the law (conspiracy to commit a felony is... a felony). taks

i don't think you realize what i'm saying: they cannot be used even for macro predictions. the scientists themselves say this, and the results of the models confirm this. the pieces of the puzzle that are missing are not just little things, they are the very basis of our weather and climate. without a complete understanding of the energy budget or cloud formation, you might as well draw a line on a page and say "this is it." prove "majority." maybe majority of those that get quoted for the media. furthermore, it is a red herring to say "any stochastic model inherently generates ranges of possibilities." you avoid the truth with this statement since the "range of possibilities" is large enough that falsification is impossible. just about any result is apparently within the range of possibilities, which leaves zero confidence in the results. perhaps these scientists that think such scenarios are reliable enough to use simply don't understand this simple point? certainly their stastical skills have been demonstrated as not up to the task, which leads me to the conclusion they really don't understand why the model developers refuse to call their models "predictive." which is meaningless when a simple random number generator will provide equally valid results. ah, there you go with the emotional argument. couldn't resist the fallacy, eh? btw, do you think the bangladeshis are going to stay till the water gets up to their necks? are they that stupid? please refrain from the "oh noooes! what are we going to do about the XXXXX???" type arguments. you only serve to demean your own credibility by doing so. based on what i keep reading regarding the adjustments made to the primary source of the temperature data, much of the warming does seem to be man made. you can think about that statement for a bit if you'd like. oh, and for the record, you can't average temperature in two different locations and yield a reasonable result unless they have identical atmospheric properties. this whole nonsensical idea doesn't really make any physical sense and i don't know why any legitimate scientist would agree to it. there is one, adapt. that is what we do. we will also then be prepared in the event of the reverse situation, which, contrary to popular belief, is much worse for humanity: an ice age. taks

i already pointed out that we do not monitor enough of the glaciers to make any definitive claims. there are, as well, many glaciers that are growing, in spite of the inability of such crack investigators as lare to uncover them. even the authors, you know, the guys that write the code, don't think they are very good. so why does zoraptor taks

there aren't just "inaccuracies" in climate models. to say or imply that the problems with the GCMs are simply "inaccuracies" is not just disingenuous, it is an outright ignorance of the fact or a plain fabrication. a) scientists do not understand the very fundamental energy budget, i.e., the little nuanced bit of data that is the core of all GCMs, b) scientists do not understand, at all, the mechanism that drives cloud formation, i.e., those pesky fluffy things in the sky that ultimately drive the albedo (which in turn, drives the energy budget), and c) GCMs do not even come close to representing the actual circulation of the atmosphere (the C in GCM means circulation). furthermore, the ultimate test of any model is its predictive ability, and in the case of GCMs, not only do they continually fail to demonstrate what is yet to come, the authors openly admit that the GCMs are not predictive tools. their outputs are dubbed "possible scenarios," nothing more. this little understood fact is really just an admission that GCMs are incomplete to the point they should not be used for anything other than curious laboratory investigations. oh, and in all likelihood, climate is not wholly periodic (other than some rather obvious periodicities), which implies chaos, which really can't be modeled in any realistic way anyway. the GCMs are simply tuned repeatedly to match to past climate (hindcasting), which is an assumption of periodic (or formulaic) behavior, and generally results in the rather well-known problem of overfitting. the error bars for "possible scenarios" are basically floor to ceiling, so just about any result is "consistent with the models." this is why you get outlandish claims like "cooling can result from global warming." yeah, how 'bout that bridge i just inherited in san francisco. anybody want to buy it cheap? i can't believe anyone would actually defend GCMs even deeper than what the authors of the code are willing to do themselves. i mean, they openly admit they are not predictive tools, which implies they are otherwise useless as anything other than analytical curiosities in hopes of improvement for future use, yet people like zoraptor think these things simply suffer from "inaccuracies?" wow. just... wow. taks

that's because your body does indeed absorb light which increases the kinetic energy of the molecules and hence, raises your temperature. the issue with CO2 in the atmosphere (as well as the other gases) is a bit more complicated. zoraptor is correct, but even he is missing the point somewhat. first, you can't just simply say "50% is radiated back out to space." while in general that is true, in reality, since there isn't just a single molecule layer of CO2 in the atmosphere, the process of going back to the earth and back out to space is quite a bit more complex. when wavelengths change, various molecules sometimes cannot reabsorb the radiation (CO2 only absorbs in a few limited bands), which adds yet another layer of complexity. the atmosphere does not contain a uniform distribution of CO2, either. it is densest at the surface of the earth, and varies rather wildly across the globe even at the surface (in spite of homogeneity claims). then you start to get into the fact that the atmosphere is very dynamic, best represented by a fluid flow problem. there is also the age old PV = nRT, which somehow everyone forgets. ultimately, the "solution" to what happens will need to be a combination all the simple physics - PV = nRT, absorption, radiation, etc., combined with fluid dynamics, finite element mathematics, and probably a host of other areas that i don't even know myself. models do use basic fluid flow and finite element calculations, but the grids are 100km on a side, which is hardly sufficient for the atmosphere. taks

already did, NSIDC. you were capable of going to the NSIDC to find arctic data, which i already noted as declining, but conveniently ignored antarctic data. is it that you did not realize the word "arctic" mean north pole, not global? i wouldn't be surprised... nah, given your subsequent responses you simply realized you couldn't refute me so you chose to erect a strawman, failing to note that i actually mentioned the arctic as declining (technically, the extent is sitting just below the 30 year average right now, though i don't know about its mass). i throw around common knowledge. that your cognitive dissonance won't allow you to prove things for yourself is not my problem. this incessant need to have everybody post the same damned links time and time again is a joke. but, since you choose to be intellectually lazy: http://www.grid.unep.ch/glaciers/pdfs/summary.pdf they (UNEP, data from the world glacier monitoring service) have inventoried over 100,000 (there are thought to be nearly twice that) and have measured the length of 1800, just under 2%, and the mass of 230, or only 0.23% of those inventoried. the percentages are even smaller if we consider the total number, which is nearly double what has been inventoried. from the same summary, it says there is high variability, and they stop short of actually claiming an acceleration, though they do claim "rapid." note, too, that the UN backs me up, and i find the UN to be the most dishonest organization on the planet. that's the one al gore always uses. it is rather easy to find a list of expanding glaciers. for you to suggest there aren't any simply because i didn't point out every one is even more proof of your dissonance. http://www.iceagenow.com/List_of_Expanding_Glaciers.htm not in the antarctic, it is growing. since antarctica is the largest body of ice on the planet, it serves to reason that it could easily balance out the arctic losses. i read your article fine. i said its interior is gaining mass. you should learn to read. yes, because yet again, you posted a reply about the arctic ice in response to a comment about global ice, then somehow made the leap to me being wrong. when someone repeatedly makes such fallacious claims, i begin to surmise they aren't the brightest in the lot. had you actually been more intellectually honest, i would have treated you with more respect, but instead, we get the same old ill-informed alarmist nonsense becuase it is about belief to you, not truth. everything i said is either proven, or easily provable. this debate has raged for years with the same ridiculous talking points. there's a point at which people simply need to analyze what is there, without ignoring the obvious just because it does not fit with their belief system. you have a hard time because you don't understand the basics of the physics. there is nothing wrong with that, but making the claim that "the basic physics says so" (paraphrased) is disingenuous at best. i do happen to understand the basics of electromagnetic radiation, and what happens when a molecule absorbs a photon. however, it is much, much deeper than that. for starters, an absorbed photon causes an electron to step up to a higher state, but the electron will step back down abd reradiate another photon almost instantaneously. in order to raise the temperature of a gas, some energy needs to be transferred to kinetic energy, which does not happen in the simple absorption process. something is missing from the description, even in the published literature. what complicates things further is that the atmosphere is extremely dynamic, and stored heat in the atmosphere is dominated by water vapor. this in turn is vastly overwhelmed by the massive amount of water stored in our oceans, which has, as i noted, over 3000 times the capacity. this is the physics that i am currently trying to understand myself, for the record. it needs to be explained in enough detail that someone like me with a rather extensive technical background can analyze, as well as a high enough level for the lay person to understand. so far, what has been proposed does not pass the smell test. i would assume you mean skeptical (or perhaps, i've seen it spelled sceptical). in light of that, i would recommend you not make claims you cannot back up either with your own knowledge, or that of someone else. taks

nope, at least, this has not been shown to be true. where's the math? even the IPCC report does not go into any detail. to date, nobody has actually done the math. it is an assumption that absorbing photons increases heat, one that originates with arrenhius (sic?) over 100 years ago in a paper that has since been shown to be deeply flawed. apparently there is only one choice, to do it ourselves. taks

indeed, this is the one thing nobody has ever proven to exist. all the "evidence" has shown is warming, and few argue this, but no cause-effect relationship has ever actually been uncovered (at least, none that overcomes the effect of the oceans, which have a heat capacity of over 3000 times that of the atmosphere). even the physics argument is sorely lacking (and absent from any legitimate discussions). it's usually arm-waved as "outgoing radiation is absorbed" but never goes any deeper into the process by which kinetic energy of the CO2 increases (which is required to raise the temperature). taks

it is not misleading at all if melting is used as proof of warming. for god's sake the information is available everyehwere. i cannot help it if you choose to be ignorant of basic facts. i didn't make any claim other than to agree that many that we monitor are melting (my words were about half). nice try, but let's be a little more intellectually honest in the future. no it hasn't. do you have proof. you made the claim of accelerating, prove it, hypocrite. and your point is? my only point was that kilimanjaro can be directly linked to absolute changes at its base, i.e., it is not due to "warming." are you capable of addressing what i said, or only on erecting strawmen? uh, can you read? i said that the ARCTIC is losing mass. duh. let's be smarter, please. the NSIDC has information on the antarctica mass. it's mass and extent (which are different) is growing. read your links a bit better... nothing in there contradicts what i said. greenland's coastal areas are calving ice, true, but that is because of an increase of mass in its center, i.e., because it is getting thicker. god you're an idiot. you post a link about ARCTIC sea ice extent but you replied to a comment i made about GLOBAL ice. ARCTIC means north pole, which i already said is declining. so, what you have done is post a link that agrees with what i said, so no, not false. i just checked and the GLOBAL anomaly is statistically flat, but the antarctic is statistically up, so my statement that global ice is up is incorrect. indeed, you can't even address the points i made nor did you manage to actually find anything that disagrees with me. the one point i got wrong (global ice) you didn't even catch! maroon. taks

people tend to get all bent out of shape when i post facts, so i've been quiet. taks

sigh... i suppose i should finally post something. a) the nifty thing about ice is that it melts at 32 F, so once it is warm enough to melt ice in some particular area, it will melt whether temperatures continue to rise or not (as long at it remains above freezing). i.e., melting ice is evidence of warmer, not warming. b) we only monitor a very small percentage of the known glaciers on the planet (like under 1%), and only about half are receding (not to be confused with melting). c) the glaciers began melting at the end of the last ice age, loooong before humans had any chance of a noticeable impact. in other words, once it was warm enough, glaciers affected began to melt. d) of those that are receding, not all of them are doing so because of warming. kilimanjaro, al gore's favorite example, is receding because of a drought at the base which is exaggerated by land-use changes (so man made, yes, but not warming). e) the icecaps are not both melting. the arctic ice extent is decreasing, but it is actually a combination of wind pattern changes and warming. antarctica is actually gaining mass and only a very small portion, the west antarctic ice shelf, has exhibited any decline. other than the peninsula that sticks out into the southern pacific, antarctica is never above freezing, so it can't melt. f) greenland is also gaining mass. g) overall, global sea ice is increasing. i realize you're getting your information from the news, but you need to take a deeper look at what they really say in these articles, or follow the references. the bit about the arctic/antarctica, for example, is always tucked into the details of the stories, or the story will only focus on the artic sea ice. the NSIDC has all the information on these things, btw. taks

it was awful. my buddy, a TX fan, was talking about how good each defense was. i watched the game too, it wasn't about good defense, it was about bad offense. bad play calls (unbelievable at times), very bad throwing by both QBs, failures on the line (9 sacks yet they still give up 13 points?), zero running by either team (news flash: don't run INTO the guy that wants to tackle you!). 3 hours of my life i won't get back: i watched while at copper mountain with my ski-buddy (and his family), another TX fan... i had no choice. yeah, i was up at copper all weekend. going back thursday after a foot or two of snow drops, and again saturday/sunday. joy. taks

hmm... why the need to kill? i'd gladly give up 50 lbs. of my fat to anyone that wants it. taks

he never said that intel was or was not first. the only point was that intel's last 32-bit release (well, major release) was the P4 in 2000. the P4 was ported to 64-bit with the prescott in 2004. 4 years between major releases was what gave AMD a huge lead in the market as i recall (i was using them back then, too). they have since squandered that lead, obviously (i'm back to intel). taks

funny that coyotes are your problem, GD. out here, it's deer (they eat everything), bears (they destroy everything), and mountain lions (they eat small pets). fortunately, i live far enough from the actual mountains, far enough from trees in fact, that i never see anything in my yard other than the odd fox or two running around and this pain in the ass cat that's driving mine insane. taks

i'm replacing a couple doors to the tune of $160. taks

hehe, my "job" isn't very stressful, either. that's pretty much what worked out to be my ultimate cure, too. once all the stressful events had passed, or moved on to the back of my thoughts (like my dad's death), i slowly begain to recover. ringing ears, however... grrr. taks

interestingly, NASA is saying that LCROSS did find water in the south pole of the moon, btw. taks

i was doing zoloft for anxiety attacks (and ultimately, general anxiety disorder), which was directly attributable to what one friend of mine called the "perfect storm of stress." that's the sort of thing that can, and will, go away with time as the stress eases, and a little effort on my part (if i excercised, it would have gone away quicker even). true bipolar disorder, or depression, is not in the same category. i agree, alanschu, society is generally over medicated. every body that suffers mood swings gets labeled bipolar, or has a bad day gets labeled depressed, but there are legitimate cases that need medical attention. the worst, IMO, is with kids and any one of the myriad attention deficit problems they seem to have drugs for these days. when i was a kid, it was called hyper, or bored, or simply obnoxious. a swift swat to the butt solved many of those problems quickly (my son takes the cake in this regard... he fidgets more than i ever did). taks

it doesn't seem to be doing this in the NWN (1 or 2) fashion in which you get pulled into the middle of the room and then surrounded. the forced cut-scene configurations always piss me off. taks

hoping on an anal probing? i like the futurama concept: herd the most educated of us into a group for forced mating. taks

her response is then "oh goody, i guess i won't have to put up with you pestering me for the next 6 months if you succeed." taks