If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Omaha World Herald)   Two weeks ago, there were a couple of inches of snow on the ground in Omaha. Today, it hit 100º. THANKS, OBAMA   (omaha.com) divider line 180
    More: Scary, Omaha, Great Plains, snow, National Weather Service  
•       •       •

4207 clicks; posted to Main » on 14 May 2013 at 6:57 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



180 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-05-15 08:51:18 AM

redslippers: I moved from south Florida to north Iowa last September. All I can say is that my in laws weren't kidding when they'd condescendingly tell me I didn't know what cold was. I did not, until this winter.


we've had very mild winters here in the upper midwest for the past few years. normally, in february, you'll see actual air temps of -20 or lower. not wind chills, mind you - actual air temperatures (with wind chills in the -40s). but we haven't had that for a while.

but, yeah - i've lived in finland and i've lived in west africa. i've never lived anyplace hotter or colder than nebraska/iowa.
 
2013-05-15 09:23:25 AM
Oh, stop complaining. Once the polar ice caps finish melting, we won't GET those late spring snows, and you can have a nice, consistently hot, arid climate. We'll be growing cactus in Saskatchewan!
 
gja [TotalFark]
2013-05-15 09:46:40 AM

Shakin_Haitian: gja: cameroncrazy1984: prjindigo: back to normal weather pattern

it was hotter in 1878 than it was in 2008 and 1938

Interesting cherry picking.

OK, so here's the thing:
When you view the weather on earth as a purely statistical and numeric value, remove all emotion and bias, and proceed to produce statistic trends only on the math much if not all of global warming becomes an unproven and small bump in the smoothline of it all.

As an exercise I used an EWMA calculation (for short-term and daily temps) and regressed it against a long-term calculation via a Shewart style calculation chart (which is more useful for non-process-mean numbers and is more suited to expressing larger deltas in a QC-esque manner).
Lacking the time, money, and computing cluster to feed all temps ever recorded into for a transform and a resultant output I will however say that the numbers for the period I fed in did not set off alarms (visually comparing YOY and YAY deltas).

I will admit, I am viewing it all as dead-simple numbers and have little or no atmospheric/meteorologic training so that may in fact color the entire transaction.
Not sure, no data to go on as far as that goes.

In short, many here like to spout off about "the science!", but likely have no damned idea how that really works.
Then, there are us engineers who typically sit by quietly and chuckle at the ignorance of most people where large-number calculations are concerned.
We choose to sit by because when we speak up BOTH sides get sand in their collective reproductive canals, as-it-were. And that is tiresome.

Just a guy who knows science/numbers/that-kinda-crapola

/ymmv

Next, you should show us how 9/11 was an inside job because a cup of kerosene can't melt chicken wire with a cinder block on top.


ROFLOL. You get the boobie prize fella.
What has the towers got to do with this discussion.
Pro-tip: ANYone who thinks the towers fell as a result of deliberate internal action needs to put the crack-pipe down.
/747-400 can hold some 140+ tonnes of fuel, burn all that at once in an enclose space and your day damned sure gets ruined
//physics.....its a biatch
 
2013-05-15 09:55:53 AM

Louisiana_Sitar_Club: Uncle_Sam's_Titties: Louisiana_Sitar_Club: Uncle_Sam's_Titties: I'm calling 'leader' right now for the militia that defends our freshwater against all those southern bastards..

You know, when ignorance combined with global warming causes them to dry up all their lakes and they come a-lookin' for ours.

Ha ha ha.  It's cute the way you think we won't be able to take what we want and leave you with a dusty hole in the ground.   My super soaker.....cold dead hands.

FOR EVERY ONE OF OUR LAKES THAT YOU CAPTURE, WE WILL KILL ONE HUNDRED OF YOUR MEN!!1one

I'm sorry, I didn't quite hear you.  I was in the middle of something.
[s21.postimg.org image 558x906]


But it's already capitalized. I can't capitalize it any further.

And joke's on you, we dilute our pee and store it in water jugs. We call it the "ol' honeypot".
 
2013-05-15 10:01:28 AM
They must have global warming devices hidden somewhere.  Quick, send forth the army
 
2013-05-15 10:02:24 AM
Or global cooling.  Works either way.

GWD

or

GCD

Gozer the Gozerian tells you to choose
 
2013-05-15 10:12:56 AM
Well, make up your minds. Either the USA can be the world's policeman and use the military to enforce anti-AGW regulations on nations that will not comply under any lesser threat than military occupation, or we can abdicate that role to the UN, which essentially puts Putin in charge of deciding who has to cut their industry to meet the regulations (hint: the US will be reduced to a pre-industrial population before any controls whatsoever are put on Russia, China, or India).

Either way, you aren't going to stop climate change without soaking your hands in blood clear up to your armpits. So, is it really worth that to you?

/i'd rather declare war on terror than war on weather
 
2013-05-15 10:25:15 AM

gja: Shakin_Haitian: gja: cameroncrazy1984: prjindigo: back to normal weather pattern

it was hotter in 1878 than it was in 2008 and 1938

Interesting cherry picking.

OK, so here's the thing:
When you view the weather on earth as a purely statistical and numeric value, remove all emotion and bias, and proceed to produce statistic trends only on the math much if not all of global warming becomes an unproven and small bump in the smoothline of it all.

As an exercise I used an EWMA calculation (for short-term and daily temps) and regressed it against a long-term calculation via a Shewart style calculation chart (which is more useful for non-process-mean numbers and is more suited to expressing larger deltas in a QC-esque manner).
Lacking the time, money, and computing cluster to feed all temps ever recorded into for a transform and a resultant output I will however say that the numbers for the period I fed in did not set off alarms (visually comparing YOY and YAY deltas).

I will admit, I am viewing it all as dead-simple numbers and have little or no atmospheric/meteorologic training so that may in fact color the entire transaction.
Not sure, no data to go on as far as that goes.

In short, many here like to spout off about "the science!", but likely have no damned idea how that really works.
Then, there are us engineers who typically sit by quietly and chuckle at the ignorance of most people where large-number calculations are concerned.
We choose to sit by because when we speak up BOTH sides get sand in their collective reproductive canals, as-it-were. And that is tiresome.

Just a guy who knows science/numbers/that-kinda-crapola

/ymmv

Next, you should show us how 9/11 was an inside job because a cup of kerosene can't melt chicken wire with a cinder block on top.

ROFLOL. You get the boobie prize fella.
What has the towers got to do with this discussion.
Pro-tip: ANYone who thinks the towers fell as a result of deliberate internal action needs to put the crack-pipe down.
/747-400 can hold some 140+ tonnes of fuel, burn all that at once in an enclose space and your day damned sure gets ruined
//physics.....its a biatch


Your statistical analysis is as rigorous as the kerosene test. It's sad that I have to explain this to you, grand engineer.
 
gja [TotalFark]
2013-05-15 10:39:52 AM

Shakin_Haitian: gja: Shakin_Haitian: gja: cameroncrazy1984: prjindigo: back to normal weather pattern

it was hotter in 1878 than it was in 2008 and 1938

Interesting cherry picking.

OK, so here's the thing:
When you view the weather on earth as a purely statistical and numeric value, remove all emotion and bias, and proceed to produce statistic trends only on the math much if not all of global warming becomes an unproven and small bump in the smoothline of it all.

As an exercise I used an EWMA calculation (for short-term and daily temps) and regressed it against a long-term calculation via a Shewart style calculation chart (which is more useful for non-process-mean numbers and is more suited to expressing larger deltas in a QC-esque manner).
Lacking the time, money, and computing cluster to feed all temps ever recorded into for a transform and a resultant output I will however say that the numbers for the period I fed in did not set off alarms (visually comparing YOY and YAY deltas).

I will admit, I am viewing it all as dead-simple numbers and have little or no atmospheric/meteorologic training so that may in fact color the entire transaction.
Not sure, no data to go on as far as that goes.

In short, many here like to spout off about "the science!", but likely have no damned idea how that really works.
Then, there are us engineers who typically sit by quietly and chuckle at the ignorance of most people where large-number calculations are concerned.
We choose to sit by because when we speak up BOTH sides get sand in their collective reproductive canals, as-it-were. And that is tiresome.

Just a guy who knows science/numbers/that-kinda-crapola

/ymmv

Next, you should show us how 9/11 was an inside job because a cup of kerosene can't melt chicken wire with a cinder block on top.

ROFLOL. You get the boobie prize fella.
What has the towers got to do with this discussion.
Pro-tip: ANYone who thinks the towers fell as a result of deliberate internal action needs to put the crack-pi ...


Ah, you are obviously vastly superior to me. I guess I should grovel at your awesomeness......

/troll harder loser
 
2013-05-15 10:48:14 AM
cwolf20:

Or global cooling. Works either way.

GWD

or

GCD

Gozer the Gozerian tells you to choose


You know, I'm terribly curious about this whole global cooling thing. Would you mind terribly telling us what you know about it? You sound informed, please do tell.
 
2013-05-15 10:58:59 AM
I've kinda wondered why it all of a sudden became "Climate Change" instead of "Global Warming."  I just figured the scientist just didn't have the data that would prove "warming" or even that they understood what was going on, but they were politically committed and need to keep their grant money coming so they just changed the talking points to "Climate Change."  Which is MUCH easier to prove, because in any chaotic system there is always some change.
 
2013-05-15 11:24:48 AM

MonoChango: I've kinda wondered why it all of a sudden became "Climate Change" instead of "Global Warming."  I just figured the scientist just didn't have the data that would prove "warming" or even that they understood what was going on, but they were politically committed and need to keep their grant money coming so they just changed the talking points to "Climate Change."  Which is MUCH easier to prove, because in any chaotic system there is always some change.


The Bush administration did that.

Climate change is a more appropriate term anyway because a lot of people don't understand that the global average temperature increasing doesn't mean that it gets hotter everywhere permanently.
 
2013-05-15 11:26:05 AM

gja: Shakin_Haitian: gja: Shakin_Haitian: gja: cameroncrazy1984: prjindigo: back to normal weather pattern

it was hotter in 1878 than it was in 2008 and 1938

Interesting cherry picking.

OK, so here's the thing:
When you view the weather on earth as a purely statistical and numeric value, remove all emotion and bias, and proceed to produce statistic trends only on the math much if not all of global warming becomes an unproven and small bump in the smoothline of it all.

As an exercise I used an EWMA calculation (for short-term and daily temps) and regressed it against a long-term calculation via a Shewart style calculation chart (which is more useful for non-process-mean numbers and is more suited to expressing larger deltas in a QC-esque manner).
Lacking the time, money, and computing cluster to feed all temps ever recorded into for a transform and a resultant output I will however say that the numbers for the period I fed in did not set off alarms (visually comparing YOY and YAY deltas).

I will admit, I am viewing it all as dead-simple numbers and have little or no atmospheric/meteorologic training so that may in fact color the entire transaction.
Not sure, no data to go on as far as that goes.

In short, many here like to spout off about "the science!", but likely have no damned idea how that really works.
Then, there are us engineers who typically sit by quietly and chuckle at the ignorance of most people where large-number calculations are concerned.
We choose to sit by because when we speak up BOTH sides get sand in their collective reproductive canals, as-it-were. And that is tiresome.

Just a guy who knows science/numbers/that-kinda-crapola

/ymmv

Next, you should show us how 9/11 was an inside job because a cup of kerosene can't melt chicken wire with a cinder block on top.

ROFLOL. You get the boobie prize fella.
What has the towers got to do with this discussion.
Pro-tip: ANYone who thinks the towers fell as a result of deliberate internal action needs to put the crack-pi ...

Ah, you are obviously vastly superior to me. I guess I should grovel at your awesomeness......

/troll harder loser


Show your work.
 
gja [TotalFark]
2013-05-15 11:38:11 AM

Shakin_Haitian: Show your work.


Nice try. NO.I  doubt the admins would take too kindly to me using this site to distro for this type of thing.
 
2013-05-15 11:39:23 AM

gja: Shakin_Haitian: Show your work.

Nice try. NO.I  doubt the admins would take too kindly to me using this site to distro for this type of thing.


AKA "My dog ate it."
 
2013-05-15 11:44:35 AM

Shakin_Haitian: MonoChango: I've kinda wondered why it all of a sudden became "Climate Change" instead of "Global Warming."  I just figured the scientist just didn't have the data that would prove "warming" or even that they understood what was going on, but they were politically committed and need to keep their grant money coming so they just changed the talking points to "Climate Change."  Which is MUCH easier to prove, because in any chaotic system there is always some change.

The Bush administration did that.

Climate change is a more appropriate term anyway because a lot of people don't understand that the global average temperature increasing doesn't mean that it gets hotter everywhere permanently.


I thought it was because the hottest yearly average was 1998 so after about 5-10-15 years of being cooler than it was in 98 you can't really say it's getting hotter all the time.  But it IS changing!  all the time it is doing something going up or down, I can't predict it but... Fear Change!  By the way I need another $2,500,000 to study the atmospheric changes on the beaches in ... Fiji .. yeah Fiji would be nice... I mean, They are like down wind from China or something and well, China bad!
 
2013-05-15 11:44:48 AM

Damnhippyfreak: DesertDemonWY: Hollie Maea: DesertDemonWY: cameroncrazy1984: gja: When you view the weather on earth as a purely statistical and numeric value, remove all emotion and bias, and proceed to produce statistic trends only on the math much if not all of global warming becomes an unproven and small bump in the smoothline of it all.

In what respect, charlie? What degree of warming would you consider a "small bump"? Keep in mind that a very very small change in the average temperature induces a change in the climate.

Perhaps it is YOU who does not understand the science here.

guess we're farked then

[www.hprcc.unl.edu image 688x531]


You need to do a bit more work there on the whole "average" thing both spatially and temporally.

how's this?
[models.weatherbell.com image 850x637]


Better, but not by much. You need to understand that by only selecting bits of winter and spring in the Northern Hemisphere means you will tend to get lower temperatures. This is of course, completely expected.


You said this same thing a couple of threads ago, and it's probably the dumbest thing I've heard you say. Come on man, you're smarter than that!
I don't think you understand what "departure from normal" means. Using your logic, the summer months should be above normal, and completely expected. But we all know that anytime, anywhere there is a heat wave, the alarmists are shouting from the highest mountains, "OMG GLOBAL WARMING, SEE?!!"
For the record, the cold spring was not at all expected, at least by NOAA:
images.bimedia.net
 
gja [TotalFark]
2013-05-15 11:53:57 AM

Shakin_Haitian: gja: Shakin_Haitian: Show your work.

Nice try. NO.I  doubt the admins would take too kindly to me using this site to distro for this type of thing.

AKA "My dog ate it."


No, more like "I do not freely give away some things that I consider to be my I.P. (specifically the eWma myself and 3 others worked on during our quant work as it represents many, many man-hours of tuning and they also said NO).

BTW, you can see some examples of this if you have an unlazy bone in your body. GIS it. I am not the only one to do it, not by far.
 
2013-05-15 12:13:54 PM

maxheck: cwolf20:

Or global cooling. Works either way.

GWD

or

GCD

Gozer the Gozerian tells you to choose

You know, I'm terribly curious about this whole global cooling thing. Would you mind terribly telling us what you know about it? You sound informed, please do tell.


I'm not well informed about either. I just wanted to cover all the bases since someone would rant at me about the warming aspect.  There, cooling and warming is covered in my cheesy decongestant driven insanity.
 
2013-05-15 12:17:15 PM
Now bring me a beer
 
2013-05-15 12:24:46 PM
gja

maxheck: The difference being, with one you have to show your work.

THIS is why science can be used to save ourselves. And I mean that in a literal sense, not in an altruistic sense.

But the science needs to be clean/pure, not rushed to conclusion and needs to be very well examined.

I worry this has not truly happened in the vein of this threads matter of discussion.

Neither, though, am I of the m


You claim to be an an engineer. Mind if I ask what discipline?


I ask because you want clean and pure, so that sort of rules out some of them that deal with real "as builts."
 
2013-05-15 02:09:13 PM

DesertDemonWY: Damnhippyfreak: DesertDemonWY: Hollie Maea: DesertDemonWY: cameroncrazy1984: gja: When you view the weather on earth as a purely statistical and numeric value, remove all emotion and bias, and proceed to produce statistic trends only on the math much if not all of global warming becomes an unproven and small bump in the smoothline of it all.

In what respect, charlie? What degree of warming would you consider a "small bump"? Keep in mind that a very very small change in the average temperature induces a change in the climate.

Perhaps it is YOU who does not understand the science here.

guess we're farked then

[www.hprcc.unl.edu image 688x531]


You need to do a bit more work there on the whole "average" thing both spatially and temporally.

how's this?
[models.weatherbell.com image 850x637]


Better, but not by much. You need to understand that by only selecting bits of winter and spring in the Northern Hemisphere means you will tend to get lower temperatures. This is of course, completely expected.

You said this same thing a couple of threads ago, and it's probably the dumbest thing I've heard you say. Come on man, you're smarter than that!
I don't think you understand what "departure from normal" means. Using your logic, the summer months should be above normal, and completely expected.



I'm not sure you understand what "departure from normal" means in this context. I believe that NCEP products, such as the RAP model prediction runs (which is what is plotted on your graph) appear to be given as anomalies from the entire 1981-2010 period,no, not just the subset of each year corresponding to what is plotted. Just to be clear:"normal" in this case is defined as the average temperature from 1981-2010, all year, every year. If you're finding something different, let me know.

What this means is that yes, summer months would tend to be above normal, and are completely expected. This sort of thing happens when you select only part of a year - you of course get seasonal signals. If you wish to make the case that this spring is colder than normal, you're using the wrong kind of data.


DesertDemonWY: But we all know that anytime, anywhere there is a heat wave, the alarmists are shouting from the highest mountains, "OMG GLOBAL WARMING, SEE?!!"


While the inferences from one event are very, very limited, one can talk about departures from the normal for that period. This isn't the sort of data you're presenting, however.

Maybe you're getting hung up on the idea that what is "normal" changes depending on the context?


DesertDemonWY: For the record, the cold spring was not at all expected, at least by NOAA:


Well, we would have to compare the prediction to actual temperatures for that period to make that determination.


All this aside, if you wish to make the case that this spring has been colder than average, a better way to go about it would be to grab, say, the  GISTEMP data set and plot the months you wish over time. This has the advantages of looking at a global scale, getting an idea of historical variability, being able to look much further back, and of course relying on actual temperatures instead of compilations of meteorological predictions. I can help you with this if you're interested.
 
gja [TotalFark]
2013-05-15 02:37:07 PM

maxheck: gja

maxheck: The difference being, with one you have to show your work.

THIS is why science can be used to save ourselves. And I mean that in a literal sense, not in an altruistic sense.

But the science needs to be clean/pure, not rushed to conclusion and needs to be very well examined.

I worry this has not truly happened in the vein of this threads matter of discussion.

Neither, though, am I of the m

You claim to be an an engineer. Mind if I ask what discipline?

EE

I ask because you want clean and pure, so that sort of rules out some of them that deal with real "as builts."
I Realize that placing constraints such as clean/pure is very limiting, and might actually be counter to the best discipline for meteorological stat calcs, but then my approach was only as an exercise in mathematical exploration and the application of something I worked on that was directly dev'd and used to track numeric values that often had external influences and anomaly not avoidable and very difficult to account for (stock market data and trends).
And that's how I view the weather/climate. Full of anomalies, nearly impossible to predict/fathom, and often bewildering to deal with. In many ways, just like the street. Just when you THINK you have it figured out............
 
2013-05-15 02:46:08 PM
Cool. Electrical engineering was my minor.
 
gja [TotalFark]
2013-05-15 02:54:52 PM

Damnhippyfreak: DesertDemonWY: Damnhippyfreak: DesertDemonWY: Hollie Maea: DesertDemonWY: cameroncrazy1984: gja: When you view the weather on earth as a purely statistical and numeric value, remove all emotion and bias, and proceed to produce statistic trends only on the math much if not all of global warming becomes an unproven and small bump in the smoothline of it all.

In what respect, charlie? What degree of warming would you consider a "small bump"? Keep in mind that a very very small change in the average temperature induces a change in the climate.

Perhaps it is YOU who does not understand the science here.

guess we're farked then

[www.hprcc.unl.edu image 688x531]


You need to do a bit more work there on the whole "average" thing both spatially and temporally.

how's this?
[models.weatherbell.com image 850x637]


Better, but not by much. You need to understand that by only selecting bits of winter and spring in the Northern Hemisphere means you will tend to get lower temperatures. This is of course, completely expected.

You said this same thing a couple of threads ago, and it's probably the dumbest thing I've heard you say. Come on man, you're smarter than that!
I don't think you understand what "departure from normal" means. Using your logic, the summer months should be above normal, and completely expected.


I'm not sure you understand what "departure from normal" means in this context. I believe that NCEP products, such as the RAP model prediction runs (which is what is plotted on your graph) appear to be given as anomalies from the entire 1981-2010 period,no, not just the subset of each year corresponding to what is plotted. Just to be clear:"normal" in this case is defined as the average temperature from 1981-2010, all year, every year. If you're finding something different, let me know.

What this means is that yes, summer months would tend to be above normal, and are completely expected. This sort of thing happens when you select only part of a year - you of co ...


Hey DHF, is there any way to get/request a dataset that includes all daily means in a table/flatfile for all time? Or is that likely to get an "are you nuts?" response from GIS?
 
2013-05-15 04:17:47 PM
Good to see that the satellite is working properly.
 
2013-05-15 06:36:29 PM

MonoChango: Shakin_Haitian: MonoChango: I've kinda wondered why it all of a sudden became "Climate Change" instead of "Global Warming."  I just figured the scientist just didn't have the data that would prove "warming" or even that they understood what was going on, but they were politically committed and need to keep their grant money coming so they just changed the talking points to "Climate Change."  Which is MUCH easier to prove, because in any chaotic system there is always some change.

The Bush administration did that.

Climate change is a more appropriate term anyway because a lot of people don't understand that the global average temperature increasing doesn't mean that it gets hotter everywhere permanently.

I thought it was because the hottest yearly average was 1998 so after about 5-10-15 years of being cooler than it was in 98 you can't really say it's getting hotter all the time.  But it IS changing!  all the time it is doing something going up or down, I can't predict it but... Fear Change!  By the way I need another $2,500,000 to study the atmospheric changes on the beaches in ... Fiji .. yeah Fiji would be nice... I mean, They are like down wind from China or something and well, China bad!


Only if you consider atmospheric temperature only...
 
2013-05-15 06:44:54 PM

gja: Shakin_Haitian: gja: Shakin_Haitian: Show your work.

Nice try. NO.I  doubt the admins would take too kindly to me using this site to distro for this type of thing.

AKA "My dog ate it."

No, more like "I do not freely give away some things that I consider to be my I.P. (specifically the eWma myself and 3 others worked on during our quant work as it represents many, many man-hours of tuning and they also said NO).

BTW, you can see some examples of this if you have an unlazy bone in your body. GIS it. I am not the only one to do it, not by far.


Too shy to collect your nobel prize?
 
gja [TotalFark]
2013-05-15 06:56:54 PM

Shakin_Haitian: gja: Shakin_Haitian: gja: Shakin_Haitian: Show your work.

Nice try. NO.I  doubt the admins would take too kindly to me using this site to distro for this type of thing.

AKA "My dog ate it."

No, more like "I do not freely give away some things that I consider to be my I.P. (specifically the eWma myself and 3 others worked on during our quant work as it represents many, many man-hours of tuning and they also said NO).

BTW, you can see some examples of this if you have an unlazy bone in your body. GIS it. I am not the only one to do it, not by far.

Too shy to collect your nobel prize?


You're as funny as pancreatic cancer. Keep your day job.
 
2013-05-15 07:19:14 PM

gja: Too shy to collect your nobel prize?

You're as funny as pancreatic cancer. Keep your day job.


He raises a valid point.  If you have uncovered that all the climate scientists are wrong and can prove it, it would be one of the biggest stories of the past couple of decades.  Why haven't you done so?  Modest?  You like to see conflict? You want people to waste money?

Or is it that at the end of the day you argument basically boils down to the tired and old "climate's changed before"?
 
Displayed 30 of 180 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report