Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"Now you suddenly think you are an expert since you read "PlanetSave"?"
Sorry, but you and I both know that is not the case. Think what you will, have a nice life. I responded to your post crying BS, trying to get clarification from you. I still don't have that clarification, but you are shifting the posts to personal and distortion. I'm grown up and I don't play those games, so talk to the hand.
See this source shows the the NHC has had the error cones be with in 200 mi of the actual path predict up to 36 hrs before for 100% of the storms since 2011
Care to explain how that is "wrong most of the time"?
None of the graphs covered central pacific.
As the person who watches the storms comes in and prepares when they say they are going to hit (and don't) I didn't keep records. Heck, even our weather men joke that if you are anywhere OUTSIDE of the cone you are in greater danger then where they predict.
__________________ ____________________________________________
My posts as a Mod will always be in red.
Be sure to review Terms of Service: TOS
And check this out: FAQ
Moderator: Relationships Forum / Hawaii Forum / Dogs / Pets / Current Events
As the person who watches the storms comes in and prepares when they say they are going to hit (and don't) I didn't keep records. Heck, even our weather men joke that if you are anywhere OUTSIDE of the cone you are in greater danger then where they predict.
Ah I see, so climate scientists are correct everywhere except the central pacific and this disproves anthropogenic climate change. Got it makes total sense.
"Now you suddenly think you are an expert since you read "PlanetSave"?"
Sorry, but you and I both know that is not the case. Think what you will, have a nice life. I responded to your post crying BS, trying to get clarification from you. I still don't have that clarification, but you are shifting the posts to personal and distortion. I'm grown up and I don't play those games, so talk to the hand.
You don't deserve the benefit of clarification until you admit your were wrong. You have been repeatedly proven wrong in this thread and never admit it or retract your statements. You make endless claims like the one three posts ago where you claim FeX were stopped (which is not correct) and in order to make money for some sort of scientific conspiracy (??). Admit that is crap and you will prove you actually are interested in intellectual discourse. But anyone who cannot admit when they are wrong is not worth the effort.
Besides what would you understand about what shifts in Calanus vs Acarctia populations mean for primary production, oxygen production and recruitment of larval fish? It's complicated and yet still boring science. Every step you would expect me to provide sources you could look up yourself, would never admit when you were wrong, and at the end of the all of that you still would not have the academic integrity to make a decision based on actual science. What is the point?
I mean you're the same person who in the same sentence claims to be a "grown up" and then says "talk to the hand".
Ah I see, so climate scientists are correct everywhere except the central pacific and this disproves anthropogenic climate change. Got it makes total sense.
But they're not. I can see your mind is set though.
__________________ ____________________________________________
My posts as a Mod will always be in red.
Be sure to review Terms of Service: TOS
And check this out: FAQ
Moderator: Relationships Forum / Hawaii Forum / Dogs / Pets / Current Events
But they're not. I can see your mind is set though.
So you are going to make proclamations and not support them?
You stated they were "always wrong about hurricanes" when that was shown to be categorically false, you have now tried to claim you were talking about central pacific storms only. And given the nature of storms in this area, you would expect models to be less accurate.
And even if modeling if every storm on the central pacific was 100% wrong it does not remotely say anything about climate science as a whole especially not on a global scale. That's like saying because you can't run a 6 min mile no one can.
Which of those groups is responsible for always being wrong about our hurricanes?
(at least I'll learn something. )
No, this is what I said. ^^^^^
My main point is the scientists don't really know what's going on when it comes to climate change. As always, we have to wait and see if they were right.
__________________ ____________________________________________
My posts as a Mod will always be in red.
Be sure to review Terms of Service: TOS
And check this out: FAQ
Moderator: Relationships Forum / Hawaii Forum / Dogs / Pets / Current Events
My main point is the scientists don't really know what's going on when it comes to climate change. As always, we have to wait and see if they were right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikala43
Which of those groups is responsible for always being wrong about our hurricanes?
(at least I'll learn something. )
Backpedal all you like the fact that you think the accuracy of hurricane prediction (for which you have provided ZERO evidence btw) in one area, dominated by a dedecal oscillation, is somehow indicative of a global problem is idiocy.
You have yet to explain why predicting hurricanes in one location says anything about global climatology. Why? Because you can't. You can't even provide proof for your claims.
Why exactly do you think anyone should take you seriously?
As I understand the intent of the seeding with iron, it was designed to increase the phytoplankton population, primarily to take what were ocean waters with little life, create blooms that would be overpopulating, then as phytoplankton died, result in masses of it sinking to the ocean floor in a similarly "dead" zone, sequestering the carbon that had been absorbed, with no harm no foul.
The point is not whether seeding has the appearance of being effective, it is whether it is a good idea for us to create mitigations for all the wrongs that we submit this planet to rather than not doing the wrongs to begin with. The iron-seeding approach is like saying - "smoking is OK because we have good treatments for lung cancer, so smoke away and we'll deal with the consequences later with our wonderful technological fixes, and if we don't have a fix for your cancer, I am sure we can come up with one because we are so inventive."
Personally I would like to see humanity treat this planet as a precious and fragile resource and not as something to be exploited and polluted.
Backpedal all you like the fact that you think the accuracy of hurricane prediction (for which you have provided ZERO evidence btw) in one area, dominated by a dedecal oscillation, is somehow indicative of a global problem is idiocy.
You have yet to explain why predicting hurricanes in one location says anything about global climatology. Why? Because you can't. You can't even provide proof for your claims.
Why exactly do you think anyone should take you seriously?
You must be so MUCH fun at parties.
__________________ ____________________________________________
My posts as a Mod will always be in red.
Be sure to review Terms of Service: TOS
And check this out: FAQ
Moderator: Relationships Forum / Hawaii Forum / Dogs / Pets / Current Events
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
makes total sense.
)
