Sandy
- Thread starter thomas
- Start date
- 21 May 2003
- 14,310
- 4,404
I would not want to be an insurance company.
The damage in New York and New Jersey will cost billions to repair.Some places down south got 3 feet of snow in the high elevations.
Uncle Frank
The damage in New York and New Jersey will cost billions to repair.Some places down south got 3 feet of snow in the high elevations.
Uncle Frank
- 5 Apr 2012
- 438
- 46
It did not bring big gamage in DC area. My friends in NYC did not
have harm too, but seems it was much heavier here. No big damage
in Boston, my daughter is here.
My fearless doggie was sitting all day under chair, because scary
sounds made by wind. There will be no internet connection till
saturday at my house
Life is good.
have harm too, but seems it was much heavier here. No big damage
in Boston, my daughter is here.
My fearless doggie was sitting all day under chair, because scary
sounds made by wind. There will be no internet connection till
saturday at my house
Life is good.
- 21 May 2003
- 14,310
- 4,404
I'm a believer in global warming.
Here in Maine we always had a lot of snow on the ground in November. By Xmas , there was usually 3 feet or more of snow. Now days , we don't get heavy snow until January usually. Last year I only had to snow blow twice. We used to fill our 275 gallon oil tank twice if not 3 times a winter. The last few years , we only use about 1 tank of oil. Today is the last day of October and I have not turned the heat on yet, just put on a sweater.
The past 5 years or so have been really strange weather out west and to the south of us that never took place years ago.
Uncle Frank
Here in Maine we always had a lot of snow on the ground in November. By Xmas , there was usually 3 feet or more of snow. Now days , we don't get heavy snow until January usually. Last year I only had to snow blow twice. We used to fill our 275 gallon oil tank twice if not 3 times a winter. The last few years , we only use about 1 tank of oil. Today is the last day of October and I have not turned the heat on yet, just put on a sweater.
The past 5 years or so have been really strange weather out west and to the south of us that never took place years ago.
Uncle Frank
- 5 Apr 2012
- 438
- 46
He-he, the problem is, everybody are beleivers, even scientists who adhere that theory. There are no
strict scientific base for that theory. All conclusions are made on the base of measurements, which were
taken not so long ago, so this is not a place where standard statictical methods applicable. There are no
physical model for that process too. So, every conclusion here contains biig chunk of speculation.
BTW, history shows that similar warming periods were on that planet before, and some of them were
much worser.
strict scientific base for that theory. All conclusions are made on the base of measurements, which were
taken not so long ago, so this is not a place where standard statictical methods applicable. There are no
physical model for that process too. So, every conclusion here contains biig chunk of speculation.
BTW, history shows that similar warming periods were on that planet before, and some of them were
much worser.
It's not because you are unaware of any scientific base for global warming, that it doesn't exist 
The basis of the effect is actually rather simple.
*Gas molecules consisting of different types of atoms (hetero-atomic) in the atmosphere get energetically excited by absorbing certain types of radiation (mostly infrared) coming from the earth's surface.
*After excitation, they lose this radiation by re-emitting it, in a random direction.
The netto effect: infrared radiation that would otherwise be unidirectionally emitted into space, partly becomes redirected back to the surface. In other words: some energy gets recycled.
This is a linear effect, per type of gas: double a certain type of hetero-atomic gas in the atmosphere and this recycling effect accounting for this molecule doubles too.
So for example carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4) and hydrogen sulfide (H2S) are examples of greenhouse gases, while oxygen gas (O2) or nitrogen gas (N2) are not.
So, thermodynamically speaking, if the total energy level of the atmosphere is higher because the concentration of greenhouse gases is higher, then this leads to an increased level of chaos (entropy is the scientific term). Statistically, this means the chances increase of getting extreme weather phenomena.
So no single storm could be attributed to global warming, that is correct. But you could compare this to throwing dice. Throwing a six-sided die gives a lower chance of getting (e.g.) a five-or-higher result than throwing an eight-sided die. Even though no one will be able to tell you what the next throw is going to be for either one.
Climate sceptics play on this last fact: you cannot predict the future with a reasonable accuracy, especially when it comes to a complex system like the atmosphere. But statistics are in fact against them.
The basis of the effect is actually rather simple.
*Gas molecules consisting of different types of atoms (hetero-atomic) in the atmosphere get energetically excited by absorbing certain types of radiation (mostly infrared) coming from the earth's surface.
*After excitation, they lose this radiation by re-emitting it, in a random direction.
The netto effect: infrared radiation that would otherwise be unidirectionally emitted into space, partly becomes redirected back to the surface. In other words: some energy gets recycled.
This is a linear effect, per type of gas: double a certain type of hetero-atomic gas in the atmosphere and this recycling effect accounting for this molecule doubles too.
So for example carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4) and hydrogen sulfide (H2S) are examples of greenhouse gases, while oxygen gas (O2) or nitrogen gas (N2) are not.
So, thermodynamically speaking, if the total energy level of the atmosphere is higher because the concentration of greenhouse gases is higher, then this leads to an increased level of chaos (entropy is the scientific term). Statistically, this means the chances increase of getting extreme weather phenomena.
So no single storm could be attributed to global warming, that is correct. But you could compare this to throwing dice. Throwing a six-sided die gives a lower chance of getting (e.g.) a five-or-higher result than throwing an eight-sided die. Even though no one will be able to tell you what the next throw is going to be for either one.
Climate sceptics play on this last fact: you cannot predict the future with a reasonable accuracy, especially when it comes to a complex system like the atmosphere. But statistics are in fact against them.
- 5 Apr 2012
- 438
- 46
Sorry, it is very noticeable that Your knowledge in physics are on the 'Cosmopolitan' magazine lever.
You are trying to create objective model based on set of random selected terms, which You read from
that magazine, and apparently, You does not know meaning of some. That's why I am calling that 'beleiving'.
You know, to illustrate Your theory You may use simple terms like temperature, pressure, and, may be
notice something from bolzmann, things which You should know from school, but You preferred using
chaos and enthropy, definitely, You are repeating somebody else phrases. Usually, when person can not
describe problem in simple and clear terms - that person does not know topic.
Sorry, may be I wrote something offensive, but it is a true.
Just trying to keep things simple for readers (like you) who don't know about Boltzmann's entropy distribution formula, thermodynamic potentials and their behaviour, or Maxwell's differential relations.
Simply trying to explain what entropy really means, can be difficult. But calling the effect of it "chaos" is not at all a stretch. Definitely clearer than "the amount of molecular situational possibilities".
You know, ***-uming about others you don't know anything about, is going to get you into problems sooner rather than later.
Funniest part of your post? That you don't even bother addressing my point: that you are wrong. Just keep attacking the messenger instead of the message, that's going to get you far in this life.
Simply trying to explain what entropy really means, can be difficult. But calling the effect of it "chaos" is not at all a stretch. Definitely clearer than "the amount of molecular situational possibilities".
You know, ***-uming about others you don't know anything about, is going to get you into problems sooner rather than later.
Funniest part of your post? That you don't even bother addressing my point: that you are wrong. Just keep attacking the messenger instead of the message, that's going to get you far in this life.
- 5 Apr 2012
- 438
- 46
google rulez, You just proved that ... ewww... :wawe:
Of course, but it is my problem, not Yours. Same to You: spreading B/S has the same consequences.
Continue to prove yourself an unworthy participant on this forum. That way, your true colours are clear for all to see.
Go on and live in your precious little uninformed bubble. I care not.
-
To all those affected by Sandy: I wish you strength and nothing but the best. If anyone wants to talk about it, I'm always open for that. I know; you don't know me at all - it's just a suggestion.
I hope the rebuilding effort will go as planned or better.
Go on and live in your precious little uninformed bubble. I care not.
-
To all those affected by Sandy: I wish you strength and nothing but the best. If anyone wants to talk about it, I'm always open for that. I know; you don't know me at all - it's just a suggestion.
I hope the rebuilding effort will go as planned or better.
OoTmaster
先輩
- 23 Oct 2012
- 738
- 122
The areas that were hit the hardest are very populous areas. So it is likely that rebuilding will go well. I expected that I would have seen more of it where I am. But hurricanes really start to disipate once they reach land. All we got here was a bunch of wind and a little bit of rain.