myiW Current Conditions and Forecasts Community Forums Buy and Sell Services
 
Hi guest · myAccount · Log in
 SearchSearch   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   RegisterRegister 
Global cooling
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 497, 498, 499 ... 571, 572, 573  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
MalibuGuru



Joined: 11 Nov 1993
Posts: 9293

PostPosted: Wed Jul 26, 2017 12:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Exactly
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
coboardhead



Joined: 26 Oct 2009
Posts: 4303

PostPosted: Wed Jul 26, 2017 9:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mrgybe wrote:
coboardhead wrote:
Malibu

Please explain how record snowfall in the Sierra effects sea levels or even how it is related? This is curious.

Why is the melt of record snowfall any different to melting glaciers?


You're a finance guy. You've looked at the stock market graphs. Minor up and down noise is not significant. It is the overall trend that we study.

Now, if the average amount of snow, on a yearly basis, were to continue to increase decade after decade it might indicate something related to a climate change.

Malibu likes to point out every cold spell and every big Sierra storm to prove it's all weather. This is silliness. It would be like me pointing out our grass died for the first time in 20 years at 9300 feet (too warm and sunny this year) as proof of global warming.

There is also the matter of scale. 90% of the surface fresh water is stored on the Poles, Greenland and inland glaciers. Then you look at other bodies of water like the Great Lakes. You can pretty easily see that yearly fluctuations in snow and rain have very little effect on the overall distribution of fresh water.

It seems that so many will nit pick data to fit their politics or prejudices (both sides). I guess this is human nature. But, it is always good to step back across the room and look at a graph from a distance without all of the "noise" of minor variations and insignificant data points.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mrgybe



Joined: 01 Jul 2008
Posts: 5180

PostPosted: Wed Jul 26, 2017 9:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

So it seems you have answered your own questions. The melting of record snow in the Sierras does have an impact on sea levels and is related. Whether that is a temporary impact is a different matter, but your attempt to ridicule Malibu was misplaced. His statement was not at all curious.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
coboardhead



Joined: 26 Oct 2009
Posts: 4303

PostPosted: Wed Jul 26, 2017 9:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mrgybe wrote:
So it seems you have answered your own questions. The melting of record snow in the Sierras does have an impact on sea levels and is related. Whether that is a temporary impact is a different matter, but your attempt to ridicule Malibu was misplaced. His statement was not at all curious.


Huh? I never said that the record snow levels IN SOME LOCALS had an impact on sea levels. I have no idea if the yearly distribution of less than 2% of the freshwater on earth (if you consider groundwater) either effects, or is caused by sea level rises. I don't even know how much of the run off makes it to the sea, how much of the snow simply evaporates, or is absorbed by aquifers.

Malibu didn't ask a question. He made a statement that the snow increases in PARTS of the earth will cause sea levels to drop. I find this math curious.

It is impossible to discuss potential effects of global warming (or global cooling) or global non-change (Whatever it is or isn't) with people who don't understand the effects of scale and the interpretation of data. This is why I've thought it was a joke to even try and argue climate change, or not, with most on this forum. Got sucked in again.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MalibuGuru



Joined: 11 Nov 1993
Posts: 9293

PostPosted: Wed Jul 26, 2017 11:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

This beautiful machine is capable of scrubbing C02. The more we release, the more it scrubs. How can your binary models really comprehend so many variables? Far too complicated for my simple mind. You are clearly far more intelligent than me CB.

I do not jest.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nw30



Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Posts: 6485
Location: The eye of the universe, Cen. Cal. coast

PostPosted: Wed Jul 26, 2017 12:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

MalibuGuru wrote:
This beautiful machine is capable of scrubbing C02. The more we release, the more it scrubs. How can your binary models really comprehend so many variables? Far too complicated for my simple mind. You are clearly far more intelligent than me CB.

I do not jest.

The warmers accept global warming the same way the CBO (and Chuck Schumer) scores healthcare proposals, not taking unknown variables into account, like human behavior in regards to healthcare. With the healthcare proposals it's all about how many people will loose their healthcare which could endanger their health, but not considering how many people will quit their healthcare insurance in preference to paying for whatever they need, when they need it, not risking their health in the process.
With global warming, it's a linear result w/o considering all the unknown fluctuations that can and do occur, so many unknowns, here is an example of that.
https://www.iceagenow.info/sea-levels-are-falling/

Let the source bashers freak, I don't care, and read the comments after the article while you're at it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17744
Location: Berkeley, California

PostPosted: Wed Jul 26, 2017 12:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

More nonsense from the poorly educated. Now NW makes this up:
Quote:

The warmers accept global warming the same way the CBO (and Chuck Schumer) scores healthcare proposals, not taking unknown variables


Scientists and those capable of critical thinking actually look at data. That seems to give Republicans hives.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
boggsman1



Joined: 24 Jun 2002
Posts: 9118
Location: at a computer

PostPosted: Wed Jul 26, 2017 1:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm sure you applauded the CBO when it panned the Obama budgets and the Trillion dollar deficits it produced...The CBO has been around for over 40 years, and like the GAO, is one of the only mechanisms tax payers(like myself) have to help determine if we're being fleeced. Criticizing the CBO when its findings are politically inconvenient exposes your thin political bias.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nw30



Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Posts: 6485
Location: The eye of the universe, Cen. Cal. coast

PostPosted: Wed Jul 26, 2017 3:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

boggsman1 wrote:
I'm sure you applauded the CBO when it panned the Obama budgets and the Trillion dollar deficits it produced...The CBO has been around for over 40 years, and like the GAO, is one of the only mechanisms tax payers(like myself) have to help determine if we're being fleeced. Criticizing the CBO when its findings are politically inconvenient exposes your thin political bias.

People who consider the CBO as the end all of all things being accurate, are the same people who believe in big government.
Which in itself is ironic, beings that the same people who believe in big government (the democrats) are also the same people who are all of a sudden treating Russia as being the big evil empire. That same Russia has a big government, they have their hands on everything, who until Trump was elected, was the darling country of the left.
As for Obama's budget, that just showed that EVEN the CBO couldn't buy into his budget, it was that bad.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MalibuGuru



Joined: 11 Nov 1993
Posts: 9293

PostPosted: Wed Jul 26, 2017 4:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

boggsman1 wrote:
I'm sure you applauded the CBO when it panned the Obama budgets and the Trillion dollar deficits it produced...The CBO has been around for over 40 years, and like the GAO, is one of the only mechanisms tax payers(like myself) have to help determine if we're being fleeced. Criticizing the CBO when its findings are politically inconvenient exposes your thin political bias.


Their calculations do not take into account a 30% reduction in premiums. Nor, skinny plans. Nor, a tight job market....which has begun costing me big bucks. Since Trump was elected, my payroll is up 20%
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 497, 498, 499 ... 571, 572, 573  Next
Page 498 of 573

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum

myiW | Weather | Community | Membership | Support | Log in
like us on facebook
© Copyright 1999-2007 WeatherFlow, Inc Contact Us Ad Marketplace

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group