T1B

Tomorrow
Feb 16

Clear

Hi: 80°
Lo: 44°

Dinsdale wrote:And hey...you'll never guess what profession I wanted to go into as an adolescent? I'll give you a hint -- it might have been meteorology. Just might be an area I've studied more than most.

Haaaaaaang on a sec. The person who didn't know WTF latent heat was... you know... one of the most BASIC foundations of meteorology, claims meteorology bode? Fucking hilarious. What makes it even more funny is the dropping of 'convection' smack... you know, convection... that 'thing' that provides good ol' latent heat.

trev wrote:Tomorrow

Stop it.

RadioFan wrote:Wags,

Using your logic, there were absolutely no tornadoes in May 2005 in Oklahoma, therefore, this whole notion about tornadoes in Oklahoma is all a bunch of bullshit.

umm, what do these tornadoes in May 2005 have to do with me freezing my ass off in KCMO in Feb. of 2007?

It's 19 degrees here in Texas. Brrrrr, some?

BSmack wrote: But you can see smoky mouse, broad-toothed rat, powerful owl, spotted tree frog and she-oak skinks.

But be careful. They're threatened species mate.

If you are talking about these Aussie Fags ...



... don't let them shower with you either.

Roach wrote:I heard someone the other day say the wine from Napa Valley is ruined and no good now due to climate change, of course caused by our evil industrial ways. He is a metrosexual college professor with a phd. And full of shit I think.

Probably it's more like ice ages coming and going.


Rack this thread.

Definitely full of shit. They had a record harvest in CA this year (2006).

It's assholes like that the really piss me off. There is a lot of science pointing toward global warming and a lot to indicate that it is influenced by human activities. But it's not causing catastrophic grape failures or tornadoes this year. These people think they are so smart and superior that they feel it's alright to exaggerate the effects of something that will most likely be bad enough eventually, just to convince people that there's a problem. It makes the whole issue look like bullshit.

edit: OK I was wrong. It was the third largest harvest in history. 2005 was the record.

You're as full of shit as Roach's guy with the phud is, just the other end of the spectrum.

Mikey wrote: edit: OK I was wrong. It was the third largest harvest in history. 2005 was the record.

Nevermind that there's more acres of vinyard now than there was years ago...might have something to do with it...since grapes are, as a general rule, cropped at a certain yield per acre. I'm sure the harvest-per-acre figures have remained fairly constant.

A hex on whoever was spewing that crap, though. I assume the person making those statements someone "heard" was referring to the cold snap in california a few weeks back? Someone might want to tell the guy that grape vines could freeze over, and hit -50, and...they're still dormant for the winter. Very few things you can do to an established grape vine that have any æffect before budbreak. You can spray the fuckers with Roundup while they're dormant, and it doesn't matter (a procedure that many will do around here very soon, to get rid of all the grass that grows up under the vines).


Unless dude was talking about the actual wine itself, getting too cold in storage, which can cause tartrates and what not to precipitate from solution...although that still doesn't "ruin" wine, it makes it a tougher sell with a bunch of gook in the bottom that creates the need for careful decanting. If that's the case, they have these things called "heaters" that are pretty æffective at increasing the temperature of an enclosed building. I'd have to blame a scenario such as that on human-lack-of-local-warming, ratrher than any sort of global climate-change.

It would have to get a whole bunch warmer to render Napa Valley unfit for growing the varietals of grapes that they're known for. Those same grapes are grown with great success in hotter places than Napa. If it really did get radically warmer, they'd graft more zinfandel on to the existing rootstock, which would probably love a little more heat later into the season.


That story smells an awful lot like bullshit.

Down here (in Temecula) they're been growing more and more sangiovese, which thrives in a hot dry climate. It's originally a Tuscan grape that's the main component of Italian Chianti, but makes an excellent varietal as well.

You know, I don't claim to know any more about this subject than anyone, but I work in a place populated with climatologists, meteorologists, atmospheric chemists and the like. The Denver area has gotten something like 5 or 6 feet of snow this winter, which is a relatively high total for this time of year. Most of the scientists aren't saying anything about global warming* for this year, they're blaming it on being an El Nino year.
If you're not familiar with El Nino, here's a good intro. About 1:40 in.









*Of course, being academics funded by grants from universities and the NSF, they're all saying that they must have more funding to study the "global warming threat" which, according to them, is undeniably taking place on a larger scale.

And there's the thing...even if human causes are at the root of all of this...is it really a "threat"?

Icecaps, ice sheets, and glaciers melt, which causes the ocean level to rise. More ocean volume and suface area = more habitat for phytoplankton and other "CO2 eaters." It also reduces the amount of landmass, which would radiate less heat to the atmoshere at the local level. The increased CO2 makes a better environment for "CO2 eaters."


Wouldn't that make the "crisis" a self-repairing situation?

Dinsdale wrote:And there's the thing...even if human causes are at the root of all of this...is it really a "threat"?

Icecaps, ice sheets, and glaciers melt, which causes the ocean level to rise. More ocean volume and suface area = more habitat for phytoplankton and other "CO2 eaters." It also reduces the amount of landmass, which would radiate less heat to the atmoshere at the local level. The increased CO2 makes a better environment for "CO2 eaters."

Wouldn't that make the "crisis" a self-repairing situation?

That presupposes that the increased water volume is not rendered uninhabitable by man made pollution.

mvscal wrote:

BSmack wrote:That presupposes that the increased water volume is not rendered uninhabitable by man made pollution.

Good thing we don't inhabit water.

Would it be asking too much for you to READ what I was replying to before making an ass out of yourself? Or better yet, let me know the next time you see plankton kicking it at the Galleria.

Uhhhh....assuming the pollution level remains constant or continues a reasonably extrapolated progression, wouldn't that dilute the pollution?


Here, I'll save you some time --

The answer is "yes."

Dinsdale wrote:Uhhhh....assuming the pollution level remains constant or continues a reasonably extrapolated progression, wouldn't that dilute the pollution?

Here, I'll save you some time --

The answer is "yes."

Yea, because we all know that developing countries have the highest environmental standards.

Dinsdale wrote:And there's the thing...even if human causes are at the root of all of this...is it really a "threat"?

Icecaps, ice sheets, and glaciers melt, which causes the ocean level to rise. More ocean volume and suface area = more habitat for phytoplankton and other "CO2 eaters." It also reduces the amount of landmass, which would radiate less heat to the atmoshere at the local level. The increased CO2 makes a better environment for "CO2 eaters."


Wouldn't that make the "crisis" a self-repairing situation?

If you look at it in the long term (really long term) it's definitely self-repairing. Man makes earth uninhabitable for man, man dies off, earth eventually reverts back to where it was before man got here. You can be sure that the cockroaches, mvscals and Argentine ants will survive.

Did you ever do the drosophila experiment in 7th grade science?

BODE earth.

mvscal wrote:Better yet let me know when we start building the thousands of factories needed to render all that water "uninhabitable".

Better still, shove all your chicken little bullshit straight up your ass. It's getting very tiresome.

What is getting tiresome is your ability to turn a simple statement of fact into an excuse for yet another homoerotic rant.

Dinsdale wrote:And there's the thing...even if human causes are at the root of all of this...is it really a "threat"?

Icecaps, ice sheets, and glaciers melt, which causes the ocean level to rise. More ocean volume and suface area = more habitat for phytoplankton and other "CO2 eaters." It also reduces the amount of landmass, which would radiate less heat to the atmoshere at the local level. The increased CO2 makes a better environment for "CO2 eaters."


Wouldn't that make the "crisis" a self-repairing situation?

how the fukk else has life been sustainable on this rock for countless millions of years? It is either a self regulating system or an old dude with a long white beard up in the clouds doing it.

I'll go with the former.

BSmack wrote:Or better yet, let me know the next time you see plankton kicking it at the Galleria.

Sorry....... the kids were off two days for snow and now have a four day weekend for President's day and I'm starting to lose my mind

Apparently so, since you tried to hotlink a tripod image.

War Wagon wrote:umm, what do these tornadoes in May 2005 have to do with me freezing my ass off in KCMO in Feb. of 2007?

In the context of your thread, absolutely nothing -- and the entire fucking point.

e wrote:

War Wagon wrote:My dogs are cold.

actually, the temperature six feet under stays pretty constant all year long.

Worth another RACK