Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Where are all the global warming fueled hurricanes

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: Where are all the global warming fueled hurricanes

    http://apnews.excite.com/article/200...D8KCPSL00.html

    White House Said to Bar Hurricane Report

    Sep 26, 5:40 PM (ET)

    By RANDOLPH E. SCHMID

    WASHINGTON (AP) - The Bush administration has blocked release of a report that suggests global warming is contributing to the frequency and strength of hurricanes, the journal Nature reported Tuesday. The possibility that warming conditions may cause storms to become stronger has generated debate among climate and weather experts, particularly in the wake of the Hurricane Katrina disaster.

    In the new case, Nature said weather experts at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - part of the Commerce Department - in February set up a seven-member panel to prepare a consensus report on the views of agency scientists about global warming and hurricanes.

    According to Nature, a draft of the statement said that warming may be having an effect.

    In May, when the report was expected to be released, panel chair Ants Leetmaa received an e-mail from a Commerce official saying the report needed to be made less technical and was not to be released, Nature reported.


    Leetmaa, head of NOAA's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory in New Jersey, did not immediately respond to calls seeking comment.

    NOAA spokesman Jordan St. John said he had no details of the report.

    NOAA Administrator Conrad Lautenbacher is currently out of the country, but Nature quoted him as saying the report was merely an internal document and could not be released because the agency could not take an official position on the issue.

    However, the journal said in its online report that the study was merely a discussion of the current state of hurricane science and did not contain any policy or position statements.

    A series of studies over the past year or so have shown an increase in the power of hurricanes in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, a strengthening that many storm experts say is tied to rising sea-surface temperatures.

    Just two weeks ago, researchers said that most of the increase in ocean temperature that feeds more intense hurricanes is a result of human-induced global warming, a study one researcher said "closes the loop" between climate change and powerful storms like Katrina.

    Not all agree, however, with opponents arguing that many other factors affect storms, which can increase and decrease in cycles.

    The possibility of global warming affecting hurricanes is politically sensitive because the administration has resisted proposals to restrict release of gases that can cause warming conditions.

    In February, a NASA political appointee who worked in the space agency's public relations department resigned after reportedly trying to restrict access to Jim Hansen, a NASA climate scientist who has been active in global warming research.

    Comment


    • Re: Where are all the global warming fueled hurricanes

      It's been a while, but I thought some recent news might make this applicable again. Yet again, last year was the warmest year on record. And so far, looks like 2007 is pretty balmy as well.
      http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16542693/

      Friedman had an interesting article about how Bush did good work as governer to help make Texas the biggest wind producer in the country. It's too bad he abandoned that approach as president (with a Republican congress). You know, it is interesting how presidents often do there best (or at least most remembered) work with a hostile congress. Reagan embracing disarmament (after campaigning against it for most of his career) comes to mind. So does Clinton and welfare reform. Wouldn't it be something if Bush decided to make his last couple of years really count for something and embrace energy independence? Ah to dream!

      Comment


      • Re: Where are all the global warming fueled hurricanes

        Call it what you will, but I've enjoyed the balmy winter. Today was actually a little cold.

        Comment


        • Re: Where are all the global warming fueled hurricanes

          Originally posted by Gamble View Post
          There are some things I wished I never heard and that was one of them.
          Are we going to destroy the earth entirely? NO but will we change the
          face of the earth for a very long time and it isn't a natural change either.

          UB I wish you would turn to science and not your gut to answer this
          question. Now I am not saying that global warming is the cause of
          all storms or natural disasters but the more co2 in the air the more warm it
          gets. The more warm it gets the more ice is melted. The more ice
          that gets melted the more flooding and coastal damage that will occur.

          To say this isn't happening is saying that science based on facts of
          credible researchers are in fact false. I really don't think your that bold
          to make such a claim and if you are then thats more arrogant than
          what you claim in this quote.


          Did you know you have more nerve endings in your gut than in your brain?
          That'll do.

          Comment


          • Re: Where are all the global warming fueled hurricanes

            Whether global warming existsts or not is irrelevant,we should not pollute the air anyway, global warming is just 1 of many reasons.



            P.S. i can't spell at 1 am so forgive me.
            That'll do.

            Comment


            • Re: Where are all the global warming fueled hurricanes

              Originally posted by pig norton View Post
              Whether global warming existsts or not is irrelevant,we should not pollute the air anyway, global warming is just 1 of many reasons.



              P.S. i can't spell at 1 am so forgive me.
              You're forgiven - especially since I agree 100%.

              Now if we can just figure out how to warm the world the 3-5 degrees we need it to be for optimal Human sustainability - then stop it there ...

              Either that or quit procreating.
              The poster formerly known as Rimfire

              Comment


              • Re: Where are all the global warming fueled hurricanes

                Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                Call it what you will, but I've enjoyed the balmy winter. Today was actually a little cold.
                I've always believed it balances out in the end. For every warm day we get in winter it's just another cold/cool day and later spring we'll see. Let alone some cold winter days to also balance it out. It's not like at the end of the year we look back and see the average temperature was 30 deg F above normal... if it's high at all it's a tick. But the warm days always bring out the global warming stories.

                And for those that put any faith in forecasts past the next few hours I present:



                WINTER TO COME "WITH A VENGEANCE"
                Prolonged Period of Cold and Stormy Weather Appears on the Way

                (State College, PA - January 8, 2007) - The unseasonably warm winter experienced by much of the country is likely to "turn on a dime," in the words of AccuWeather.com Chief Long-Range Forecaster Joe *******i.

                *******i said that the weather pattern from mid-January through mid-February has a chance to mimic the winters of 1965-66 and 1957-58, each of which ended cold and stormy after a warm start. A worst-case scenario would be if this winter plays out as did the winter of 1977-1978.

                Similar to this year, 1977-1978 was a winter with a waning El Nino. After a tepid start, the second half of the winter was noted for its cold and remarkable storminess, including back-to-back-to-back blizzards in the Northeast.

                "Those who think that winter 2006-2007 is going to remain mild are in for a shock," said *******i. "Winter is likely to come with a vengeance. A week from now, we'll start seeing truly cold air across much of the country, and we expect this change to last."

                Added *******i, "Whether we end up with seasonably cold weather, or something far worse, remains to be seen. There are indications that this winter could parallel severe winters of the past. Even should we not see an extremely cold and snowy conclusion to winter, you can be sure that by the end of the month, when those in the Northeast are shoveling out their driveways and sidewalks, the mild weather we're experiencing now will be a distant memory."

                Where Will Winter Go From Here?
                The first signs of change will be noticed this week. A passing shot of cold air will knock temperatures down to typical January levels in the northeastern part of the country for a few days. Temperatures will return to unseasonably warm levels by the latter part of week and last into early next week. The seeds for the more-lasting change, however, will be planted in the western part of the country.

                Arctic air from western Canada will pour southward into the Pacific Northwest, northern Rockies, and northern Plains this week, and this will mark the beginning of a true winter weather pattern that will encompass much of the nation over the next couple of weeks. The core of the coldest air by the latter part of the week will be centered in the Rockies and northern Plains, and the arrival of the cold air will mean another round of accumulating snow for Denver later this week.

                The cold air will slowly push southward and eastward from this weekend into early next week and will likely arrive in the eastern part of the country by the middle of next week. Much of the nation will then have a cold weather pattern for the second half of the month.

                Long-range forecasting expert *******i points out that it's too early to say with certainty that the change in the weather pattern will be long-lasting or produce heavy amounts of snow. However, he believes that if the weather pattern reaches its full potential, the dramatic change from warmth to cold could result in "one of the top-five coldest 30-day stretches in the past half century."

                http://wwwa.accuweather.com/pressroom.asp?pr=wx_258.htm
                Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                ------

                "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                -John Wooden

                Comment


                • Re: Where are all the global warming fueled hurricanes

                  Apparently the person who was quoted in the report had a highly offensive name lol....At least it was offensive to the forum software....

                  Comment


                  • Re: Where are all the global warming fueled hurricanes

                    Originally posted by Gyron View Post
                    Apparently the person who was quoted in the report had a highly offensive name lol....At least it was offensive to the forum software....

                    That's funny. I never noticed that!

                    His name is B@$tardi.

                    -Bball
                    Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                    ------

                    "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                    -John Wooden

                    Comment


                    • Re: Where are all the global warming fueled hurricanes

                      Originally posted by DisplacedKnick View Post
                      You're forgiven - especially since I agree 100%.

                      Now if we can just figure out how to warm the world the 3-5 degrees we need it to be for optimal Human sustainability - then stop it there ...

                      Either that or quit procreating.
                      trick is that the further we go from the equator, the larger the influence of the global warming on the average temperature. that's why the melting of ice and rise of the oceans is such a real prospect.. most researchers claim that in 50 years the temperature in the North pole could rise by as much as 10 degrees Celsius, which would change the picture dramatically.. and even if we take the ordinary European country that is Lithuania, the 4 degrees Celciuss change that is on the cards could change things really a lot. for example majority of firs (not sure if that's the right word - christmass trees) would die in here, coz it would get too warm for them. right now it's one of the most widely spread trees here. also it's pretty ammusing to know that during the Ice Age, when Parts of Lithuania were covered by ice, the average temperature was only 4 degrees Celcius lower than it is now :/
                      anyways, the current warming, which is obvious, is not only due to the CO2 emmisions, but also most probably due to the increase of suns intensity (not sure about the term). these two factors coincided with very rapid results. btw, Januarry 10th was the warmest day of January in Lithuania in the recorded hystory. I went trout fishing that day and needed no gloves, when normally at this time of year that river would be completely frozen (not to mention the snow). some trees are about to germinate, the grass is green.. we had some snow in the begining of November, but the temperature was positive ever since. what we had in december and January so far is what we normally would have in the end of October. only 15 or more years ago no one would dare to think that there can be no snow in the winter and that all waters will not freeze so you can have races on ice of the lakes. we had a lot of traditional ice races. but this year the ice can not form at all. the springs, on the other hand come later and later. it could be that the winter will take place in February and March (and it could be very cold too), who knows.. March could well be even colder than the average (like it was last year). this results in a pretty slow change of the average temperature, but the shifts are very obvious and the seasons are slowly changing their nature.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Where are all the global warming fueled hurricanes

                        Originally posted by Kestas View Post
                        trick is that the further we go from the equator, the larger the influence of the global warming on the average temperature.
                        Uh, that's the model.

                        So far, the model does not agree with empirical evidence. It's somewhat true in the N Arctic (though to a far lesser extent than the model predicts), it's untrue for the S Pole. The S Pole station records show that the temperature in the Antarctic continent is actually falling and has dropped a couple of degrees in the last decade (not the peninsula which is warming).

                        Until these guys quit making up models which aren't based on facts - and until the scientific community starts condemning them for doing it - all we'll have is crap to base decisions on.

                        The hurricane issue is a perfect example. The model used to predict that global warming would create a tremendous increase in hurricanes gave SST anomalies a .6 correlation with hurricane frequency and intensity. That correlation should actually be .1 according to Hurricane forecasters. Coriolis effects, shear, pressure systems and gradients have much more impact than SST's but because some joker decided to publish a faulty model that hadn't been properly reviewed, vetted and tested we get hysteria.

                        I don't know what's going on with global warming - and neither does anyone else. If we'd get past this blatant disregard for scientific rigor in this field we might actually find something out.

                        The ONLY thing at this time I'm willing to grant is that average temperatures have risen on a global basis over the past 30 years. There are even some holes with that but I can live with it. As to the models - not one has shown itself to be valid yet.

                        This is a huge peeve of mine. I have never seen such sloppy science as is inimical to the Global Climate Change Field. ANYTHING seems to get published.

                        These guys should be selling snake oil or preaching about miraculous healing powers in a tent in Kansas.
                        The poster formerly known as Rimfire

                        Comment


                        • Re: Where are all the global warming fueled hurricanes

                          Originally posted by DisplacedKnick View Post
                          Uh, that's the model.
                          no, that's not the model. that's my retelling (it appears to be misleading - thanks for the correction) of what I heard on the radio
                          why do you take whatever you read on some sports internet forum from some total stranger from god knows where for a scientific model is beyond me
                          and overall your post is just a bunch of generalisations.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Where are all the global warming fueled hurricanes

                            Originally posted by Kestas View Post
                            no, that's not the model. that's my retelling (it appears to be misleading - thanks for the correction) of what I heard on the radio
                            why do you take whatever you read on some sports internet forum from some total stranger from god knows where for a scientific model is beyond me
                            and overall your post is just a bunch of generalisations.
                            Gosh, I thought talking about Antarctica vs the Arctic and specific figures for faulty numbers plugged into models was pretty specific.

                            Try this - how about the Mann model which was designed to exclude from the calculations any data which was considered a variable error?

                            Guess which data was excluded as a variable error? Any figure that didn't fit the hockey stick model.

                            I could go on and did in my other post - but you seem to just want something neat and easily packaged. If I'm wrong about this, let me know. I can send some fairly interesting stuff if you really want to look at it.

                            As for what you talked about - that is one of the assumptions - and I say assumptions because they haven't held up in the face of - gasp - actual climate data - that temperature changes would be greater at higher latitudes as well as more pronounced in the winter than the summer based on the model presented at the UNCCC 8 or 10 years ago. So yes, it IS the model - or at least the assumptive, generally faulty conclusions based on the model.

                            I'm sick of having to do work based on faulty data from faulty models and having to go back and re-do it a year later because some publication couldn't be bothered to have adequate review for someone publishing trash so it would be picked up and used in "official" environmental systems calculations which we're required to use.

                            Some day they might begin to get it right. I'm beginning to doubt that'll be in my lifetime.
                            The poster formerly known as Rimfire

                            Comment


                            • Re: Where are all the global warming fueled hurricanes

                              http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/16/sc...partner=EXCITE

                              LIVERPOOL LAND, Greenland — Flying over snow-capped peaks and into a thick fog, the helicopter set down on a barren strip of rocks between two glaciers. A dozen bags of supplies, a rifle and a can of cooking gas were tossed out onto the cold ground. Then, with engines whining, the helicopter lifted off, snow and fog swirling in the rotor wash.

                              When it had disappeared over the horizon, no sound remained but the howling of the Arctic wind.

                              “It feels a little like the days of the old explorers, doesn’t it?” Dennis Schmitt said.

                              Mr. Schmitt, a 60-year-old explorer from Berkeley, Calif., had just landed on a newly revealed island 400 miles north of the Arctic Circle in eastern Greenland. It was a moment of triumph: he had discovered the island on an ocean voyage in September 2005. Now, a year later, he and a small expedition team had returned to spend a week climbing peaks, crossing treacherous glaciers and documenting animal and plant life.

                              Despite its remote location, the island would almost certainly have been discovered, named and mapped almost a century ago when explorers like Jean-Baptiste Charcot and Philippe, Duke of Orléans, charted these coastlines. Would have been discovered had it not been bound to the coast by glacial ice.

                              Maps of the region show a mountainous peninsula covered with glaciers. The island’s distinct shape — like a hand with three bony fingers pointing north — looks like the end of the peninsula.

                              Now, where the maps showed only ice, a band of fast-flowing seawater ran between a newly exposed shoreline and the aquamarine-blue walls of a retreating ice shelf. The water was littered with dozens of icebergs, some as large as half an acre; every hour or so, several more tons of ice fractured off the shelf with a thunderous crack and an earth-shaking rumble.

                              All over Greenland and the Arctic, rising temperatures are not simply melting ice; they are changing the very geography of coastlines. Nunataks — “lonely mountains” in Inuit — that were encased in the margins of Greenland’s ice sheet are being freed of their age-old bonds, exposing a new chain of islands, and a new opportunity for Arctic explorers to write their names on the landscape.

                              “We are already in a new era of geography,” said the Arctic explorer Will Steger. “This phenomenon — of an island all of a sudden appearing out of nowhere and the ice melting around it — is a real common phenomenon now.”

                              In August, Mr. Steger discovered his own new island off the coast of the Norwegian island of Svalbard, high in the polar basin. Glaciers that had surrounded it when his ship passed through only two years earlier were gone this year, leaving only a small island alone in the open ocean.

                              “We saw it ourselves up there, just how fast the ice is going,” he said.

                              With 27,555 miles of coastline and thousands of fjords, inlets, bays and straits, Greenland has always been hard to map. Now its geography is becoming obsolete almost as soon as new maps are created.

                              Hans Jepsen is a cartographer at the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland, which produces topographical maps for mining and oil companies. (Greenland is a largely self-governing region of Denmark.) Last summer, he spotted several new islands in an area where a massive ice shelf had broken up. Mr. Jepsen was unaware of Mr. Schmitt’s discovery, and an old aerial photograph in his files showed the peninsula intact.

                              “Clearly, the new island was detached from the mainland when the connecting glacier-bridge retreated southward,” Mr. Jepsen said, adding that future maps would take note of the change.

                              The sudden appearance of the islands is a symptom of an ice sheet going into retreat, scientists say. Greenland is covered by 630,000 cubic miles of ice, enough water to raise global sea levels by 23 feet.

                              Carl Egede Boggild, a professor of snow-and-ice physics at the University Center of Svalbard, said Greenland could be losing more than 80 cubic miles of ice per year.

                              “That corresponds to three times the volume of all the glaciers in the Alps,” Dr. Boggild said. “If you lose that much volume you’d definitely see new islands appear.”

                              He discovered an island himself a year ago while flying over northwestern Greenland. “Suddenly I saw an island with glacial ice on it,” he said. “I looked at the map and it should have been a nunatak, but the present ice margin was about 10 kilometers away. So I can say that within the last five years the ice margin had retreated at least 10 kilometers.”

                              Dennis Schmitt, a 60-year-old explorer, discovered an island in Greenland that had been bound to the mainland.

                              The abrupt acceleration of melting in Greenland has taken climate scientists by surprise. Tidewater glaciers, which discharge ice into the oceans as they break up in the process called calving, have doubled and tripled in speed all over Greenland. Ice shelves are breaking up, and summertime “glacial earthquakes” have been detected within the ice sheet.

                              “The general thinking until very recently was that ice sheets don’t react very quickly to climate,” said Martin Truffer, a glaciologist at the University of Alaska at Fairbanks. “But that thinking is changing right now, because we’re seeing things that people have thought are impossible.”

                              A study in The Journal of Climate last June observed that Greenland had become the single largest contributor to global sea-level rise.

                              Until recently, the consensus of climate scientists was that the impact of melting polar ice sheets would be negligible over the next 100 years. Ice sheets were thought to be extremely slow in reacting to atmospheric warming. The 2001 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, widely considered to be an authoritative scientific statement on the potential impacts of global warming, based its conclusions about sea-level rise on a computer model that predicted a slow onset of melting in Greenland.

                              “When you look at the ice sheet, the models didn’t work, which puts us on shaky ground,” said Richard Alley, a geosciences professor at Pennsylvania State University.

                              There is no consensus on how much Greenland’s ice will melt in the near future, Dr. Alley said, and no computer model that can accurately predict the future of the ice sheet. Yet given the acceleration of tidewater-glacier melting, a sea-level rise of a foot or two in the coming decades is entirely possible, he said. That bodes ill for island nations and those who live near the coast.

                              “Even a foot rise is a pretty horrible scenario,” said Stephen P. Leatherman, director of the Laboratory for Coastal Research at Florida International University in Miami.

                              On low-lying and gently sloping land like coastal river deltas, a sea-level rise of just one foot would send water thousands of feet inland. Hundreds of millions of people worldwide make their homes in such deltas; virtually all of coastal Bangladesh lies in the delta of the Ganges River. Over the long term, much larger sea-level rises would render the world’s coastlines unrecognizable, creating a whole new series of islands.

                              “Here in Miami,” Dr. Leatherman said, “we’re going to have an ocean on both sides of us.”

                              Such ominous implications are not lost on Mr. Schmitt, who says he hopes that the island he discovered in Greenland in September will become an international symbol of the effects of climate change. Mr. Schmitt, who speaks Inuit, has provisionally named it Uunartoq Qeqertoq: the warming island.

                              Global warming has profoundly altered the nature of polar exploration, said Mr. Schmitt, who in 40 years has logged more than 100 Arctic expeditions. Routes once pioneered on a dogsled are routinely paddled in a kayak now; many features, like the Ward Hunt Ice Shelf in Greenland’s northwest, have disappeared for good.

                              “There is a dark side to this,” he said about the new island. “We felt the exhilaration of discovery. We were exploring something new. But of course, there was also something scary about what we did there. We were looking in the face of these changes, and all of us were thinking of the dire consequences.”
                              -------------

                              Global warming is a fact. What happens with modeling hurricanes and such is at best an educated guess.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Where are all the global warming fueled hurricanes

                                Three stories that seem to have interesting things in common. Fist, the science:
                                http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/03/sc...rtner=homepage



                                Science Panel Says Global Warming Is ‘Unequivocal’
                                They said the world was in for centuries of climbing temperatures, rising seas and shifting weather patterns — unavoidable results of the buildup of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere.

                                But their report, released here on Friday by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said warming and its harmful consequences could be substantially blunted by prompt action.

                                While the report provided scant new evidence of a climate apocalypse now, and while it expressly avoided recommending courses of action, officials from the United Nations agencies that created the panel in 1988 said it spoke of the urgent need to limit looming and momentous risks...
                                Next, who is trying to stop us from doing anything about it.
                                http://money.cnn.com/2007/02/02/news...exxon_science/
                                Exxon linked to climate change pay out
                                Think tank offers scientists $10,000 to criticize UN study confirming global warming and placing blame on humans.
                                By Steve Hargreaves, CNNMoney.com staff writer

                                NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- A think tank partly funded by Exxon Mobil sent letters to scientists offering them up to $10,000 to critique findings in a major global warming study released Friday which found that global warming was real and likely caused by burning fossil fuels.

                                The American Enterprise Institute sent the letters to scientists offering them $10,000, plus travel and other expenses, to highlight the shortcomings in a report from the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group widely considered to be the authority on climate change science.
                                And third, the reason why.
                                http://www.usatoday.com/money/compan...xonmobil_x.htm
                                ExxonMobil amasses record $36B 2005 profit
                                By David J. Lynch, USA TODAY
                                ExxonMobil (XOM) reported the largest annual profit in U.S. corporate history Monday, a $36.1 billion jackpot that included a record-setting fourth quarter...
                                Classy stuff. Anyway, the president has said it's a problem. He has two years to prove if he is man enough to do anything about it.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X