OT But BushCo says humans aren't to blame!!
 

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 14:22:33 -0400, DSK wrote:

Interesting, yes, but full of holes, so to speak. When the storm hits
an area that has weather instruments, even simple ones such as a
barometer and wind speed indicator, it is what it is.


Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
Well that's not really true for, say ten years or so ago

Oh come on. There have been accurate weather instruments
(barometer, anemometer, thermometer) for over 150 years. And
the U.S. set up a weather collecting & analyzing service
around 1885. Historical records of storm strength would as
reliable and accurate as anything nowadays. What they didn't
have was satellites to get real-time data and such a huge
plethora of data collection points.

Or reporting ocean buoys, drop sonds and Hurricane Hunters.

As to instruments, are you truly of the belief that a barometer from
1885 is the equal of, say, a barometer of 1985 vintage? Consider that
the mercury barometer wasn't correlated accurately with air pressure
changes until 1860 or there about even though mercury barometers had
been used earlier by surveyors to determine heights. The modern
aneroid barometer wasn't placed into wide use until the early 1900s
and have been improved on since.

Consider this: In 1806, (200 years ago by my reckoning) Beaufort
developed his famous scale which was based on observation of the
movement of a frigate (generally a three master) in various sea
states. The Admiralty adopted it officially in 1838, but it needed
changing again because in the change of ship's technology to motion of
waves and trees. Almost 100 years later (I think exactly, but my
memory fails and I'm too lazy to look it up) it was changed again to
more accurately reflect depth of water, fetches, states of swells and
types of trees because not all trees are effected by wind in the same
way.

I believe, and I may not be correct here, that accurate records,
albeit limited in scope, didn't start on a regular basis until 1890 in
the US.

To put paid to this part of the argument, while the Beaufort Scale was
accurate for it's time, it certainly was changed as sea science
improved and the physics of ocean currents and movements became more
exact. You can't expect a report using the scale of 1838 to be as
accurate as the scale of 1938 - it could be off be a surprising
factor. Add to that weather logs, as part of ships and station keeping
logs, were highly stylized and individual prior to Beaufort's Scale,
your assertion that the instruments of the time were all that was
needed is, while understandable, viewed with the eye of a technically
oriented age rather than the eye of a technologically limited
participant.

You also have to take into consideration building codes and locations
of major population centers for historical storms - current codes are
much safer in higher winds and water situations. Damage in, say a Cat
1 storm is hardly noticeable where in historical storms, it would be
much more severe.

That's true. In fact it kind of is a double whammy because
now coastal building are tenable in conditions that
previously would have been *obviously* unsafe. And it leads
people to build in places that are entirely unsuitable. I
mean, it's great if your house can withstand a Cat 5+
hurricane but if the land it's on washes away, where are you
then?

Good point

There is also an effect from sun spots. The current cycle has been
much more active than previous cycles and it's pretty much a proven
fact that all that energy does affect our atmosphere in extreme ways
and in ways not fully understood as of yet.

So to just patently say that storm severity and frequency is
increasing and it's global warming as a cause is not only short
sighted but lousy science.

Huh
Don't take this personally, but going by your statements in
the past your opinion about science is profoundly suspect.

Coming from you I'll take that as a compliment.

Upon reading, I can see how you might interpret that which is not how
I intended it.

Allow me to rephrase.

To wit: So to just patently say that storm severity and frequency is
increasing and THAT global warming IS THE SOLE cause is not only short
sighted but lousy science

Better now?

Hey, I was typing fast, was hanging on the phone waiting for a client
to finish another call and listening to the Deion Branch controversy
at the same time.

I'm a lousy multi-tasker. :)

Aren't you the guy who wants to take biological science back
to the 1500s?

Nope. Earlier. :)

I want to go back to the days of cabbage patches, oggy boogy magic and
fertility gods.

For another thing, I'd be very surprised if any scientists
really said that. 250 years after Newton they are still
calling gravity just a theory.

Isn't it? Seriously - isn't it still just a theory? :)

What with all the quantum nonsense they've been doing lately, it
wouldn't surprise me in the least that the only thing keeping us on
the face of the planet was really teeny tiny itsy bitsy blue and green
caterpillars.

Itsy Bitsy? Teeny?

Excuse me but those words are permanently assigned to describe just one
thing (insert weenie after teenie)................a 'Yellow Polka Dot
Bikini'!

Blasphemy!

Sing along with me.........

(Paul Vance and Lee Pockriss)

She was afraid to come out of the locker
She was as nervous as she could be
She was afraid to come out of the locker
She was afraid that somebody would see
One, two, three, four, tell the people what she wore

It was an itsy, bitsy, teenie, weenie, yellow polka-dot bikini
That she wore for the first time today
An itsy, bitsy, teenie, weenie, yellow polka-dot bikini
So in the locker she wanted to stay
Two, three, four, stick around we'll tell you more

She was afraid to come out in the open
And so a blanket around she wore
She was afraid to come out in the open
And so she sat bundled up on the shore
Two, three, four, tell the people what she wore

It was an itsy, bitsy, teenie, weenie, yellow polka-dot bikini
That she wore for the first time today
An itsy, bitsy, teenie, weenie, yellow polka-dot bikini
So in the blanket she wanted to stay
Two, three, four, stick around we'll tell you more

Now she is afraid to come out of the water
And I wonder what she's gonna do
Now she is afraid to come out of the water
And the poor little girl's turning blue
Two, three, four, tell the people what she wore

It was an itsy, bitsy, teenie, weenie, yellow polka-dot bikini
That she wore for the first time today
An itsy, bitsy, teenie, weenie, yellow polka-dot bikini
So in the water she wanted to stay
(From the locker to the blanket)
(From the blanket to the shore)
(From the shore to the water)
Yes, there isn't any more

OT But BushCo says humans aren't to blame!!
 

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 18:54:31 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:


"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
. ..
Consider this year's cycle. By the global warming model, we were all
about to be screwed, blued and tattooed - as many as 14 hurricanes and
17 named storms or some such. So far, two and seven.

I'm still waiting for the actuaries to readjust my insurance premiums
downwards as quickly as they adjusted them upwards.

Keep on waiting - I'm sure they will be adjusted shortly.

Like maybe in the next Century.

Whoever coined the phrase "what goes up, must come down" didn't know a damn
thing about gas prices nor insurance premiums.

OT But BushCo says humans aren't to blame!!
 

"NOYB" wrote in message
link.net...

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 18:54:31 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:


"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
Consider this year's cycle. By the global warming model, we were all
about to be screwed, blued and tattooed - as many as 14 hurricanes and
17 named storms or some such. So far, two and seven.

I'm still waiting for the actuaries to readjust my insurance premiums
downwards as quickly as they adjusted them upwards.

Keep on waiting - I'm sure they will be adjusted shortly.

Like maybe in the next Century.

Whoever coined the phrase "what goes up, must come down" didn't know a
damn thing about gas prices nor insurance premiums.




It is happening right now with insurance premiums. The commercial
insurance market is currently in a soft mode, meaning it is a buyers market
and your business will see a stability or reduction in pricing, especially
if you market it through your agency.

We had been in a hard market for several years since 9-11. The soft market
started late last year.

Time to market your business insurance Doc. You will be pleasantly
surprised with the new premiums being quoted. ;-)

OT But BushCo says humans aren't to blame!!
 

" JimH" not telling you @ pffftt.com wrote in message
. ..

"NOYB" wrote in message
link.net...

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 18:54:31 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:


"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
m...
Consider this year's cycle. By the global warming model, we were all
about to be screwed, blued and tattooed - as many as 14 hurricanes and
17 named storms or some such. So far, two and seven.

I'm still waiting for the actuaries to readjust my insurance premiums
downwards as quickly as they adjusted them upwards.

Keep on waiting - I'm sure they will be adjusted shortly.

Like maybe in the next Century.

Whoever coined the phrase "what goes up, must come down" didn't know a
damn thing about gas prices nor insurance premiums.




It is happening right now with insurance premiums. The commercial
insurance market is currently in a soft mode, meaning it is a buyers
market and your business will see a stability or reduction in pricing,
especially if you market it through your agency.

We had been in a hard market for several years since 9-11. The soft
market started late last year.

Time to market your business insurance Doc. You will be pleasantly
surprised with the new premiums being quoted. ;-)

I just shopped it a month ago. I'm with Cincinnati in a packaged policy
designed for dentists (professional liability and business insurance in
one). I bought the policy 7 years ago, and nobody has been able to touch
it.

OT But BushCo says humans aren't to blame!!
 

basskisser wrote:
You can include me in the stopped or cut back and pretty well stopped
catagory.

Good news.

More boats and less bull**** makes a better newsgroup.

We know for a fact that political posts, personal attack posts,
religious posts, etc just start a bunch of fights that nobody ever wins
and cast a bad smell over everything else around. Folks who aren't
trying to be a deliberately disruptive pain in the butt will exercise
restraint and avoid dumping items like that into the mix.

OT But BushCo says humans aren't to blame!!
 

Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
As to instruments, are you truly of the belief that a barometer from
1885 is the equal of, say, a barometer of 1985 vintage?

Sure, why wouldn't it? It's a very simple instrument, just
two columns of non-volatile fluid to compare ambient air
pressure to a vacuum.

Modern instruments are more sophisticated, sure. You can
accurately measure all kinds of other things that an 1885
meteorologist would barely be able to guess. Anemometers
back then were a bit kludgy, for example.




I believe, and I may not be correct here, that accurate records,
albeit limited in scope, didn't start on a regular basis until 1890 in
the US.


Sounds right to me.

.... You can't expect a report using the scale of 1838 to be as
accurate as the scale of 1938 - it could be off be a surprising
factor.

Or it could be pretty close. When you go back a bit further,
you have much wider variation in instruments and much fewer
recorded data anyway. If you go past the 1790s there is
pretty much nothing... so it ramps up and more recent is
better. On that, I'm not disagreeing. I'm just trying to
point out that they weren't cavemen back then.




Allow me to rephrase.

To wit: So to just patently say that storm severity and frequency is
increasing and THAT global warming IS THE SOLE cause is not only short
sighted but lousy science

Better now?


Yes, much, thanks... in fact I'd go a step further and say
that it isn't science at all.

The only problem I have with your statement above is that
it's a straw man. Nobody (AFAIK) is saying that hurricanes
ARE absolutely increasing in frequency & severity; and this
is caused SOLELY by global warming. It has been suggested
that the two are linked.




I'm a lousy multi-tasker. :)


Me too.



For another thing, I'd be very surprised if any scientists
really said that. 250 years after Newton they are still
calling gravity just a theory.


Isn't it? Seriously - isn't it still just a theory? :)


Actually, gravity has been disproven. Ain't no such thing!


What with all the quantum nonsense they've been doing lately, it
wouldn't surprise me in the least that the only thing keeping us on
the face of the planet was really teeny tiny itsy bitsy blue and green
caterpillars.


No, what holds us all to the ground is the invisible,
undetectable, and un-knowable residue of the slime-god of
boogers who sneezed on the shell of the primordial turtle
Bfikkly-Tog on whose back we ride across the inky sky.

Science doesn't know or care why. Science only measures and
predicts.




I don't disagree that there is impact from greenhouse gases - I don't
think I've ever actually disagreed that global warming has some effect
on the environment.


My mistake, I thought you had said in the past that global
warming wasn't happening.

However, I actually refuse to believe that global warming is the sole
cause of environmental change in terms of supposedly increased
severity and frequency of storms.

I don't believe that either.


I don't believe that one can just categorically state that global
warming is the sole cause - there are lots of different factors that
enter into the equation and we're not anywhere near being able to
model it accurately.


Wait a minute, I thought we were arguing about something
else... dammit where' my prgram... can't tell the players
without a program...

DSK

OT But BushCo says humans aren't to blame!!
 

No, what holds us all to the ground is the invisible,
undetectable, and un-knowable residue of the slime-god of
boogers who sneezed on the shell of the primordial turtle
Bfikkly-Tog on whose back we ride across the inky sky.


Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
The turtle's name is Great A'tuin and the world is supported by four
elephants - Berilia, Tubul, Great T'Phon and Jerakeen, and the whole
assemblage is circled by the small discworld sun and moon.


Blashpemy! Smite the heretic!!

DSK