To believe the weather forecast, the answer is "quite possibly." As of this posting, Tuesday and Tuesday night say "snow likely" with "moderate snow accumulation" which is the same language that was used before they warned us of the foot of snow that we got.
Personally, I'd love another foot of snow. Like I said last time, BRING IT ON! They're not giving a total accumulation, however. But like I said, I'd love another foot of snow.
Granted, with my last "prediction" I was the one that failed ... and in rather spectacular fashion to boot. I wasn't just "off" I was way off. But - I don't know. I'd love more snow, but I don't know how much (if any) we'll get.
I've learned to be a skeptic. But I'd love another foot. Even 6-8 inches would be nice. :)
Sunday, February 7, 2010
Article: "I thought of killing myself, says climate scandal professor Phil Jones"
The link: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7017922.ece
" THE scientist at the centre of the “climategate” email scandal has revealed that he was so traumatised by the global backlash against him that he contemplated suicide. "
While I agree that the man should be reprimanded severely, he doesn't deserve the death threats he's getting. I think we can all agree that he shouldn't have crossed the line from scientist to advocate, but he doesn't deserve death threats. Duct taping his mouth shut and keeping him away from a keyboard, possibly.
" In emails that were hacked into and seized upon by global-warming sceptics before the Copenhagen climate summit in December, Jones appeared to call upon his colleagues to destroy scientific data rather than release it to people intent on discrediting their work monitoring climate change. " (emphasis added)
Another "oops."
" THE scientist at the centre of the “climategate” email scandal has revealed that he was so traumatised by the global backlash against him that he contemplated suicide. "
While I agree that the man should be reprimanded severely, he doesn't deserve the death threats he's getting. I think we can all agree that he shouldn't have crossed the line from scientist to advocate, but he doesn't deserve death threats. Duct taping his mouth shut and keeping him away from a keyboard, possibly.
" In emails that were hacked into and seized upon by global-warming sceptics before the Copenhagen climate summit in December, Jones appeared to call upon his colleagues to destroy scientific data rather than release it to people intent on discrediting their work monitoring climate change. " (emphasis added)
Another "oops."
Article: "The Great Global Warming Collapse"
The link: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/the-great-global-warming-collapse/article1458206/
" But the claim [that the Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035] was rubbish, and the world's top glaciologists knew it. It was based not on rigorously peer-reviewed science but on an anecdotal report by the WWF [World Wildlife Fund] itself. When its background came to light on the eve of Copenhagen, Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the IPCC, shrugged it off. But now, even leading scientists and environmental groups admit the IPCC is facing a crisis of credibility that makes the Climategate affair look like small change. "
Let's distill that down: That now infamous shock claim was based on an anecdotal report, not on peer-reviewed science. The head of the IPCC (the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) shrugged it off as a one-time error, a "one-off."
" “The global warming movement proposed a complex set of international agreements involving vast transfers of funds, intrusive regulations in national economies, and substantial changes to the domestic political economies of most countries on the planet.” " said Walter Russell Mead.
Does anybody else remember Alex Jones and others talking about the global carbon tax? The intrusion of UN rules into American politics?
It turns out that this wasn't just a "one-off."
" For example, it warned that large tracts of the Amazon rain forest might be wiped out by global warming because they are extremely susceptible to even modest decreases in rainfall. The sole source for that claim, reports The Sunday Times of London, was a magazine article written by a pair of climate activists, one of whom worked for the WWF. One scientist contacted by the Times, a specialist in tropical forest ecology, called the article “a mess.”
" Worse still, the Times has discovered that Mr. Pachauri's own Energy and Resources Unit, based in New Delhi, has collected millions in grants to study the effects of glacial melting – all on the strength of that bogus glacier claim, which happens to have been endorsed by the same scientist who now runs the unit that got the money. Even so, the IPCC chief is hanging tough. He insists the attacks on him are being orchestrated by companies facing lower profits. "
" Until now, anyone who questioned the credibility of the IPCC was labelled as a climate skeptic, or worse. But many climate scientists now sense a sinking ship, and they're bailing out. Among them is Andrew Weaver, a climatologist at the University of Victoria who acknowledges that the climate body has crossed the line into advocacy. Even Britain's Greenpeace has called for Mr. Pachauri's resignation. India says it will establish its own body to monitor the effects of global warming because it “cannot rely” on the IPCC. " (emphasis (and colour) added)
Oops.
So let's review: Several of the IPCC's "shock" claims are based not on peer-reviewed science but on anecdotal reports, some of which came from the WWF, which has a conflict of interest if ever there was one.
The claim about the rain forests was made by a pair of climate activists, one of whom worked for the WWF. Another conflict of interest.
The leaked emails have shown that the global body kept contradictory evidence from being published, withheld information from skeptics, and made bad data appear to look better. All this from a body that was supposed to be based on rigorous scientific standards.
They look more like school-yard bullies.
" But the claim [that the Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035] was rubbish, and the world's top glaciologists knew it. It was based not on rigorously peer-reviewed science but on an anecdotal report by the WWF [World Wildlife Fund] itself. When its background came to light on the eve of Copenhagen, Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the IPCC, shrugged it off. But now, even leading scientists and environmental groups admit the IPCC is facing a crisis of credibility that makes the Climategate affair look like small change. "
Let's distill that down: That now infamous shock claim was based on an anecdotal report, not on peer-reviewed science. The head of the IPCC (the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) shrugged it off as a one-time error, a "one-off."
" “The global warming movement proposed a complex set of international agreements involving vast transfers of funds, intrusive regulations in national economies, and substantial changes to the domestic political economies of most countries on the planet.” " said Walter Russell Mead.
Does anybody else remember Alex Jones and others talking about the global carbon tax? The intrusion of UN rules into American politics?
It turns out that this wasn't just a "one-off."
" For example, it warned that large tracts of the Amazon rain forest might be wiped out by global warming because they are extremely susceptible to even modest decreases in rainfall. The sole source for that claim, reports The Sunday Times of London, was a magazine article written by a pair of climate activists, one of whom worked for the WWF. One scientist contacted by the Times, a specialist in tropical forest ecology, called the article “a mess.”
" Worse still, the Times has discovered that Mr. Pachauri's own Energy and Resources Unit, based in New Delhi, has collected millions in grants to study the effects of glacial melting – all on the strength of that bogus glacier claim, which happens to have been endorsed by the same scientist who now runs the unit that got the money. Even so, the IPCC chief is hanging tough. He insists the attacks on him are being orchestrated by companies facing lower profits. "
" Until now, anyone who questioned the credibility of the IPCC was labelled as a climate skeptic, or worse. But many climate scientists now sense a sinking ship, and they're bailing out. Among them is Andrew Weaver, a climatologist at the University of Victoria who acknowledges that the climate body has crossed the line into advocacy. Even Britain's Greenpeace has called for Mr. Pachauri's resignation. India says it will establish its own body to monitor the effects of global warming because it “cannot rely” on the IPCC. " (emphasis (and colour) added)
Oops.
So let's review: Several of the IPCC's "shock" claims are based not on peer-reviewed science but on anecdotal reports, some of which came from the WWF, which has a conflict of interest if ever there was one.
The claim about the rain forests was made by a pair of climate activists, one of whom worked for the WWF. Another conflict of interest.
The leaked emails have shown that the global body kept contradictory evidence from being published, withheld information from skeptics, and made bad data appear to look better. All this from a body that was supposed to be based on rigorous scientific standards.
They look more like school-yard bullies.
I Was Wrong About the Snowfall
I was. You'll recall a previous blog posting where I said we'd get an inch ... tops.
I was wrong.
I just got done using the snowblower to remove 12.5 inches of the white stuff.
Don't get me wrong, I still love snow. And, frankly, I'm tickled pink that we got it. This is one time I'm thrilled to be wrong.
The forecast now is calling for more snow Monday night, Tuesday, and Tuesday night. It says "Snow likely" but doesn't say anything about accumulation.
Personally, I'd love to get another 5-6 inches of snow. But that's just me.
I was wrong.
I just got done using the snowblower to remove 12.5 inches of the white stuff.
Don't get me wrong, I still love snow. And, frankly, I'm tickled pink that we got it. This is one time I'm thrilled to be wrong.
The forecast now is calling for more snow Monday night, Tuesday, and Tuesday night. It says "Snow likely" but doesn't say anything about accumulation.
Personally, I'd love to get another 5-6 inches of snow. But that's just me.
Thursday, February 4, 2010
What is an EMP and why should we care?
These are both good questions and both deserve good answers. Unfortunately, to correctly understand what an EMP is, you need to do a bit of reading. Links will be at the end of this posting.
What is an EMP?
EMP stands for Electro Magnetic Pulse (*1). It can be generated in a number of different ways, one is by a CME (Coronal Mass Ejection (*2)) from the sun, another is by the detonation of a nuclear weapon high in the Earth's atmosphere. A third way is by a Gamma Ray Burster (*3) that is within 8,000 light-years of the Earth and has its axis pointed at the Earth.
When a nuclear weapon is detonated it generates not only radiation, it also generates Gamma rays. This is a normal byproduct of such a detonation. But therein lies the problem.
Imagine the following scenario:
A Middle Eastern country attains both the knowledge and the money to build a nuclear weapon. These are then hidden aboard container ships bound for the United States. One arrives in Los Angeles, another in Baltimore, the third makes it into Detroit via the St. Lawrence Seaway.
The ones on the coasts get launched 200 miles into the Earth's atmosphere (and yes, a certain Middle Eastern country currently has this capability) where they detonate. The one in Detroit is also launched from the container ship.
At 200 miles, the Gamma rays create a disturbance known as the Compton Effect (*4). The effect is cumulative, sort of like a snowball being rolled and rolled until it's large enough to build the base of a snowman.
Everything that is electric gets fried. Resisters, capacitors, your computers, your car (pre-1965 vehicles might be OK but nothing past that date) everything electric gets fried.
That will, of course, bring down the power grid. Therein lies the other problem - our dependency on electricity.
You might think "OK...power's out for a while, no biggie. I've got a generator, fuel, and non-perishable foodstuffs, I'll be fine." Will you really? Exactly how long will your generator last on the fuel you've got ... and will it even work? Odds are, it might not.
Meanwhile, the food in your refrigerator spoils after several days, if your local water system is pump-fed you've got no water, and even then the wastewater treatment plant doesn't have electricity. (*5)
In 3 months, the United States is back in the Stone Age. 10% of her population is dead due to violence, the breakdown of law and order and diseases.
In one year, 90% of the U.S. population is dead. Those are the highlights. It gets much worse. (*6)
Our Government doesn't really seem to care about this threat; hell, they can't bring themselves to admit that Radical Jihadists want us dead. Remember the whitewash of the Pentagon's report on the Fort Hood mass-murder?
Instead of throwing massive amounts of money at the porkulus (aka the spendulus and the stimulus) or creating another entitlement program (Osama (er...OBAMA)Care) we should be using part of that money to harden our infrastructure. Try to get your Congressperson to admit to the problem - you'll be met with the 'deer in the headlights' look.
This really is a problem, a deadly serious problem that not many want to talk about. But it does exist and has the very real potential to kill 90% of the U.S. population after one year.
Links:
(*1) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electro-magnetic_pulse
a) Starfish Prime - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starfish_Prime
b) Soviet Test #184 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_K_Project
c) http://www.onesecondafter.com/pb/wp_d10e87d9/wp_d10e87d9.html
(*2) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coronal_mass_ejection
(*3) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma-ray_burst
a) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GRB_970508
b) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GRB_990123
c) WR-104 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WR_104 NOTE: WR-104 is within 16 degrees of axis with the Earth. If WR-104 did go off and if it did produce a GRB and if it were directly on axis, nothing on Earth would survive. Not even bacteria.
(*4) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compton_effect
(*5) Discovery Channel Program "Perfect Disaster: Solar Storm"
a) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geomagnetic_storm
b) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_storm_of_1859
c) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_1989_geomagnetic_storm
(*6) Electromagnetic Pulse Attack - http://www.coasttocoastam.com/show/2009/11/27
a) Effects of Hiroshima - http://www.coasttocoastam.com/show/2010/01/30
What is an EMP?
EMP stands for Electro Magnetic Pulse (*1). It can be generated in a number of different ways, one is by a CME (Coronal Mass Ejection (*2)) from the sun, another is by the detonation of a nuclear weapon high in the Earth's atmosphere. A third way is by a Gamma Ray Burster (*3) that is within 8,000 light-years of the Earth and has its axis pointed at the Earth.
When a nuclear weapon is detonated it generates not only radiation, it also generates Gamma rays. This is a normal byproduct of such a detonation. But therein lies the problem.
Imagine the following scenario:
A Middle Eastern country attains both the knowledge and the money to build a nuclear weapon. These are then hidden aboard container ships bound for the United States. One arrives in Los Angeles, another in Baltimore, the third makes it into Detroit via the St. Lawrence Seaway.
The ones on the coasts get launched 200 miles into the Earth's atmosphere (and yes, a certain Middle Eastern country currently has this capability) where they detonate. The one in Detroit is also launched from the container ship.
At 200 miles, the Gamma rays create a disturbance known as the Compton Effect (*4). The effect is cumulative, sort of like a snowball being rolled and rolled until it's large enough to build the base of a snowman.
Everything that is electric gets fried. Resisters, capacitors, your computers, your car (pre-1965 vehicles might be OK but nothing past that date) everything electric gets fried.
That will, of course, bring down the power grid. Therein lies the other problem - our dependency on electricity.
You might think "OK...power's out for a while, no biggie. I've got a generator, fuel, and non-perishable foodstuffs, I'll be fine." Will you really? Exactly how long will your generator last on the fuel you've got ... and will it even work? Odds are, it might not.
Meanwhile, the food in your refrigerator spoils after several days, if your local water system is pump-fed you've got no water, and even then the wastewater treatment plant doesn't have electricity. (*5)
In 3 months, the United States is back in the Stone Age. 10% of her population is dead due to violence, the breakdown of law and order and diseases.
In one year, 90% of the U.S. population is dead. Those are the highlights. It gets much worse. (*6)
Our Government doesn't really seem to care about this threat; hell, they can't bring themselves to admit that Radical Jihadists want us dead. Remember the whitewash of the Pentagon's report on the Fort Hood mass-murder?
Instead of throwing massive amounts of money at the porkulus (aka the spendulus and the stimulus) or creating another entitlement program (Osama (er...OBAMA)Care) we should be using part of that money to harden our infrastructure. Try to get your Congressperson to admit to the problem - you'll be met with the 'deer in the headlights' look.
This really is a problem, a deadly serious problem that not many want to talk about. But it does exist and has the very real potential to kill 90% of the U.S. population after one year.
Links:
(*1) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electro-magnetic_pulse
a) Starfish Prime - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starfish_Prime
b) Soviet Test #184 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_K_Project
c) http://www.onesecondafter.com/pb/wp_d10e87d9/wp_d10e87d9.html
(*2) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coronal_mass_ejection
(*3) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma-ray_burst
a) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GRB_970508
b) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GRB_990123
c) WR-104 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WR_104 NOTE: WR-104 is within 16 degrees of axis with the Earth. If WR-104 did go off and if it did produce a GRB and if it were directly on axis, nothing on Earth would survive. Not even bacteria.
(*4) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compton_effect
(*5) Discovery Channel Program "Perfect Disaster: Solar Storm"
a) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geomagnetic_storm
b) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_storm_of_1859
c) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_1989_geomagnetic_storm
(*6) Electromagnetic Pulse Attack - http://www.coasttocoastam.com/show/2009/11/27
a) Effects of Hiroshima - http://www.coasttocoastam.com/show/2010/01/30
Forecast: 5 - 7 inches of snow
...but only if you believe the Weather Service. Personally, I don't.
Don't get me wrong, I'd love to have snow. I'd be happy with a foot of snow, if not more. Two feet of snow? BRING IT ON!!
But, frankly, the Weather Service's forecasts for our area have been abysmal at best. They've been laughable at worst.
Granted, predicting how much snow is going to fall and where it's going to fall (and when) is a difficult science at the best of times. Frankly, we don't understand a great deal of what goes on in the upper atmosphere. The short-range forecasts are usually somewhat reliable (except for precipitation for our area which they always seem to miss (and usually in rather spectacular fashion)) in terms of temperature and for cloudiness.
But then we come to precipitation. The past few years when the weather service has said we're about to get blasted by snow, I've said: "Yeah, right. I'll believe it when I see it."
Out of fourteen times I've been wrong twice.
Twice. Lesse ... 2/14 = 0.14285714285714285714285714285714 or 14.29% of the time I've been wrong.
So this time when they're saying we'll get five inches of snow (in some places up to seven) I'm putting out ... before the storm strikes this time ... that we'll get two inches total. Tops. At best. My personal forecast? Some scattered snow showers with little if any accumulation. And this is through Sunday night.
Currently, they're saying snow Friday through Saturday morning. The last number of times they've given time frames they've been forced to push them back. For example, the last time they said Friday through Saturday morning, it became Saturday and Saturday night, then Sunday and then only a dusting of snow.
Don't get me wrong, I'd LOVE two feet of snow. Heck, at this point I'd be happy with five inches.
But we won't get it.
I'd LOVE to get blasted by two feet of snow.
But it won't happen this time.
I'd LOVE to get hit with between five and seven inches of snow.
But we won't get that either. Don't get me wrong, I'd LOVE to be wrong and get blasted by a massive blizzard.
But odds are I'll be right again.
And it sucks, because I love snow.
Don't get me wrong, I'd love to have snow. I'd be happy with a foot of snow, if not more. Two feet of snow? BRING IT ON!!
But, frankly, the Weather Service's forecasts for our area have been abysmal at best. They've been laughable at worst.
Granted, predicting how much snow is going to fall and where it's going to fall (and when) is a difficult science at the best of times. Frankly, we don't understand a great deal of what goes on in the upper atmosphere. The short-range forecasts are usually somewhat reliable (except for precipitation for our area which they always seem to miss (and usually in rather spectacular fashion)) in terms of temperature and for cloudiness.
But then we come to precipitation. The past few years when the weather service has said we're about to get blasted by snow, I've said: "Yeah, right. I'll believe it when I see it."
Out of fourteen times I've been wrong twice.
Twice. Lesse ... 2/14 = 0.14285714285714285714285714285714 or 14.29% of the time I've been wrong.
So this time when they're saying we'll get five inches of snow (in some places up to seven) I'm putting out ... before the storm strikes this time ... that we'll get two inches total. Tops. At best. My personal forecast? Some scattered snow showers with little if any accumulation. And this is through Sunday night.
Currently, they're saying snow Friday through Saturday morning. The last number of times they've given time frames they've been forced to push them back. For example, the last time they said Friday through Saturday morning, it became Saturday and Saturday night, then Sunday and then only a dusting of snow.
Don't get me wrong, I'd LOVE two feet of snow. Heck, at this point I'd be happy with five inches.
But we won't get it.
I'd LOVE to get blasted by two feet of snow.
But it won't happen this time.
I'd LOVE to get hit with between five and seven inches of snow.
But we won't get that either. Don't get me wrong, I'd LOVE to be wrong and get blasted by a massive blizzard.
But odds are I'll be right again.
And it sucks, because I love snow.
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Article: "Scientists broke the law by hiding climate change data"
The link: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1246661/New-scandal-Climate-Gate-scientists-accused-hiding-data-global-warming-sceptics.html
" Scientist at the heart of the 'Climategate' email scandal broke the law when they refused to give raw data to the public, the privacy watchdog has ruled.
" The Information Commissioner's office said University of East Anglia researchers breached the Freedom of Information Act when handling requests from climate change sceptics.
" 'All we are trying to do is make the scientists follow their own professional rules by being open, transparent and honest,' he said. 'We are not trying to show that human beings don't affect the climate, but to show that the science is not settled.' "
That last sentence is telling, probably, at least to me, the most telling. "We are not trying to show that human beings don't affect the climate, but to show that the science is not settled."
Indeed, the science isn't settled, except to those with an agenda, or those who are going to make money through cap and trade or carbon tax schemes. These leaked emails really do contain several "smoking guns," all you need to do is read them with an open mind and without an agenda.
But I guess that an "open mind" only applies to certain people, right? It certainly seems that way to listen to some politicians and to some people on the far-left and the far-right.
And here I thought we were supposed to listen to all viewpoints.
Or was I wrong?
" Scientist at the heart of the 'Climategate' email scandal broke the law when they refused to give raw data to the public, the privacy watchdog has ruled.
" The Information Commissioner's office said University of East Anglia researchers breached the Freedom of Information Act when handling requests from climate change sceptics.
" 'All we are trying to do is make the scientists follow their own professional rules by being open, transparent and honest,' he said. 'We are not trying to show that human beings don't affect the climate, but to show that the science is not settled.' "
That last sentence is telling, probably, at least to me, the most telling. "We are not trying to show that human beings don't affect the climate, but to show that the science is not settled."
Indeed, the science isn't settled, except to those with an agenda, or those who are going to make money through cap and trade or carbon tax schemes. These leaked emails really do contain several "smoking guns," all you need to do is read them with an open mind and without an agenda.
But I guess that an "open mind" only applies to certain people, right? It certainly seems that way to listen to some politicians and to some people on the far-left and the far-right.
And here I thought we were supposed to listen to all viewpoints.
Or was I wrong?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
