Science & Technology News

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jimbunyard

100 miles, 2-3 (almost 3-4) catagories off, timing? --- close enough,. I guess.

In the same thread, no less...

Interesting you disable the ability to easily go to the quoted post to see that you are not being truthful I m sure I added in depending on solar activity. And a solar storm did hit cause the hurricane to intensify rapidly .

As to location I was well within error range .

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Incorrect as usual that bet was on the temp and I didn't post anymore on that thread until I was asked to.

I believe the figures I just gave are "temp".

The person you made the wager with did not invite you to resume posting. That person is the only one who could release you from your promise.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by SailOar

I believe the figures I just gave are "temp".

The person you made the wager with did not invite you to resume posting. That person is the only one who could release you from your promise.

Actually he did in person and on the thread.

I can tell I am living rent free in your mind due to the personal attacks you and Jim continue to post .


But me posting the truth and not the MMGWC party line and altered data well I suppose I will continue to get these personal attacks. Snow is a thing of the past right ???

BTW we got 55 inches of snow here in the high passes last weekend . But it's a thing of the past .

Where is the MMGWC prediction that was made and has supposed to have already happened? There aren't any are there.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by SailOar

I believe the figures I just gave are "temp".

The person you made the wager with did not invite you to resume posting. That person is the only one who could release you from your promise.

The temperatures according to the UAH . Not the MMGWC. RSS is .14 above UAH in lockstep

Winter is coming and will be a cold one for the US and most of Europe.

It is cooling .

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by newhaul

The temperatures according to the UAH . Not the MMGWC. RSS is .14 above UAH in lockstep

No, the discussion was clearly about global temperature, not troposphere temperature.

Originally Posted by newhaul

Climate change is real and 90% natural 10%+/- man influenced (so negligible effect) the climate is cyclical and dependant on solar activity.
bet you 2019 will be cooler than 2018 and 2020 will be even cooler .
Steak dinner?

"Chronically Wrong" should be your middle names.

[jimbunyard]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Interesting you disable the ability to easily go to the quoted post to see that you are not being truthful I m sure I added in depending on solar activity. And a solar storm did hit cause the hurricane to intensify rapidly .

As to location I was well within error range .

Nope, nope and nope.

The only one guilty of lying here is you, as you've repeatedly demonstrated. Your post is #2475, and it is quoted in its entirety; I only added the red highlight to illustrate your incorrectness.

There is no 'error range' for hurricanes; what is most important is where one is in relation to where the eye makes landfall, followed closely by the size and wind speed and field profile. As Marsh Island was 100 miles to the west of the eye and the most intense winds of the storm were very close to the eyewall, Marsh Island likely had little wind over 60 k, and it was almost entirely offshore during the most severe part of the storm, limiting storm surge to probably less than 5 feet there. What was most interesting about Ida was that it actually contined to intensify, in respect to the size of its' wind field, well after making landfall, which was a direct result of its passage just to the west of Lakes Ponchartrain and Maurepas... notwithstanding dubious 'solar storm inputs'.

At least now we know your 'predictive ability' for hurricanes is on par with that of what you seem to believe is the 'climate'...

As further confirmation of your faulty memory, you did add in a later post the ridiculous, unsupported and unsupportable claim that a 'solar storm' was going to, somehow, cause the storm to intensify. Conveniently after the NHC upped their forecast, if I remember correctly...

As for my disabling the 'return to post' feature, I, as I assume do others, tire of your incessant histrionics, among other things, and disable that feature in the (unverified) hope that it also disables the notification feature, thus limiting your unhelpful-at-best responses. Though it doesn't seem to be working...

[jimbunyard]

Originally Posted by newhaul

...Winter is coming and will be a cold one for the US and most of Europe...

Now there's a 'climate' prediction for ya, worthy of the Old Farmers Almanac.

Winter is gonna be cold. Who'da guessed?

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jimbunyard

Nope, nope and nope.

The only one guilty of lying here is you, as you've repeatedly demonstrated. Your post is #2475, and it is quoted in its entirety; I only added the red highlight to illustrate your incorrectness.

There is no 'error range' for hurricanes; what is most important is where one is in relation to where the eye makes landfall, followed closely by the size and wind speed and field profile. As Marsh Island was 100 miles to the west of the eye and the most intense winds of the storm were very close to the eyewall, Marsh Island likely had little wind over 60 k, and it was almost entirely offshore during the most severe part of the storm, limiting storm surge to probably less than 5 feet there. What was most interesting about Ida was that it actually contined to intensify, in respect to the size of its' wind field, well after making landfall, which was a direct result of its passage just to the west of Lakes Ponchartrain and Maurepas... notwithstanding dubious 'solar storm inputs'.

At least now we know your 'predictive ability' for hurricanes is on par with that of what you seem to believe is the 'climate'...

As further confirmation of your faulty memory, you did add in a later post the ridiculous, unsupported and unsupportable claim that a 'solar storm' was going to, somehow, cause the storm to intensify. Conveniently after the NHC upped their forecast, if I remember correctly...

As for my disabling the 'return to post' feature, I, as I assume do others, tire of your incessant histrionics, among other things, and disable that feature in the (unverified) hope that it also disables the notification feature, thus limiting your unhelpful-at-best responses. Though it doesn't seem to be working...

Ok technically cone of probability 5 days out .
You at least post about more than jjst mmgwc stuff .

Now I take offense to your red inking implying that I do not k ow what I am doing wrt marine repairs and the fishing fleets here that I made my living till retiring on . keep your comments directed at the subject of discussion . I dont attack your boat repair business or abilities here on an open forum .
Not even implied accidentally.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jimbunyard

Now there's a 'climate' prediction for ya, worthy of the Old Farmers Almanac.

Winter is gonna be cold. Who'da guessed?

Really you may want to check your attitude that is called a long term weather prediction.
And I mean there will be several periods where the temperature will be well below normal for the season.
Exactly opposite of the predictions of the mmgwc influenced NOAA

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by SailOar

Where do you come up with the idea that all(?) models suggest that global population will decline rapidly after mid to late 21st century?

OK, I should have been slightly less definitive. Nearly all models predict a peak and decline sometime in the coming 50 to 80 years. All the data I've seen on current population trends track with the earlier predictions. But of course, no one knows the future with certainty, and things could change. But that would buck a trend that is now many decades old (the declining rate of increase).

The point being, over-population is not the most significant contributor to our global ecological problems. The high intensity of resource use by the few (of us) is the issue we should be focused on. It's not them, it's us.

[jimbunyard]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Ok technically cone of probability 5 days out .
You at least post about more than jjst mmgwc stuff .

Now I take offense to your red inking implying that I do not k ow what I am doing wrt marine repairs and the fishing fleets here that I made my living till retiring on . keep your comments directed at the subject of discussion . I dont attack your boat repair business or abilities here on an open forum .
Not even implied accidentally.

Oh, good lord --- knew I shoulda left those worms in the can...

Originally Posted by newhaul
Ok here goes a hurricane cat 1 or 2 is highly likely to come ashore in Louisiana in the vicinity of Marsh Island. On Sunday at approximately 1800 UTC.

I know not the PNW or marine repair or fishing fleets but I am confident in this .

Seems to me the statement, "I know not the PNW or marine repair or fishing fleets but I am confident in this" itself states that you don't know the PNW, marine repair or fishing fleets.

If you meant to say, " I know that this isn't the PNW, marine repair or fishing fleets (thereby implying that those are things you do know about), but I'm confident in this", then that is what you should have said.

Or, you could have just used two commas, thusly. "I know, not the PNW or marine repair or fishing fleets, but I'm confident in this.

Either way, I'd have probably only highlighted the 'I'm confident in this' part; at any rate no slighting of your experience with the PNW, or your knowledge of marine repair or fishing fleets was intended nor should be implied.


Nevertheless, it's beside my point, which is and was to show that, contrary to your repeated assertions, you are quite often demonstrably incorrect about science matters.

In other words, when someone makes a a three-condition 'prediction', and states that they are confident in its' accuracy, and then 2 of the three conditions are substantially wrong, to the point of being dangerous if believed, that statement of confidence is highly significant.


The same holds for when a scientist or statistician says they have 'x' percentage confidence in the validity of a prediction or statement, as in when climate scientists say they have 95% confidence that the current CC crisis is virtually entirely anthropogenic.

Which, for layman, should be taken as 100%.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Ok technically cone of probability 5 days out ....

Are you talking about the “cone of uncertainty”?


IIRC, the NHC expects an Atlantic Basin tropical cyclone’s centre to remain within the cone roughly 60-70% of the time, based on the historical forecast error, over the previous five-year period. At 120 hours [5 days] out, the cone currently has a diameter of 200 nm.
Should the forecasts get better, in the future, the cone would shrink [as it has done, in the past], accordingly.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Are you talking about the “cone of uncertainty”?


IIRC, the NHC expects an Atlantic Basin tropical cyclone’s centre to remain within the cone roughly 60-70% of the time, based on the historical forecast error, over the previous five-year period. At 120 hours [5 days] out, the cone currently has a diameter of 200 nm.
Should the forecasts get better, in the future, the cone would shrink [as it has done, in the past], accordingly.

Yes thank you for the correction to my thoughts .

[newhaul]

https://www.soest.hawaii.edu/soestwp...imate-changes/

[SailOar]

The Cost of Insuring Expensive Waterfront Homes Is About to Skyrocket

• In the U.S. flood insurance is generally purchased through FEMA, a government agency
• All properties in a 100-year flood zone with a federally-backed mortgage are required to carry flood insurance
• In the past insurance rates have poorly reflected either property value or flood risk
• Starting October 1, rates will start being adjusted more fairly, with premiums for some properties decreasing, while increasing for others
• By law, rates can only increase by a maximum of 18% per year
• Some properties will takes as long as 20 years for premiums to reach a fair valuation -- possibly increasing by 20 times
• This new policy will help make clear to wealthy homeowners who live in high-risk areas that they can no longer be subsidized by public money
• Unsurprisingly, homeowners facing steep rate increases are howling to their Congressional representatives
• I guess socialized flood insurance for the wealthy is more palatable to them than socialized health insurance for the poor