He's likely to respond that that is not really the weather. Weathermen basically are guessing and hoping their probability system is correct.
Global Warming is a bit larger than weather. I agree with you on the lying there.
Yet I also get what @zool237 is getting at that weathermen are not intentionally telling you the wrong weather report. If they kept reporting the news wrong intentionally they likely wouldn't be in business long.
You and I look towards the horizon and say "Hmmm... chance of rain".
They do the same with other tools...
Yet sometimes the wind changes and rain doesn't happen.
The weather though is likely near impossible for us to currently predict. Unless we're making the weather. If we have some tech to make the weather then our odds would be significantly higher. :)
yeah..that's right...aliens.
I've been educating my self about climate for the last decade or so.
Climate is a complex thing. In fact it's a chaotic system controlled by a large number of variables.
Nothing so simple as fertilizer for plants.
one thing for sure..what the enemedia is telling us is NOT true.
Yeah.. I've been aware of Weather and Climate being super complex since I took a Stochastics class (studying chaos) back in 1993 when Fractals and Chaos were simply becoming popular.
As you study those things which are complex, you gain a huge respect for just how complex weather and climate are. Far more complex than those things.
That was also around the time the "Butterfly Attack" was becoming a popular phrase. Let's see what the butterfly bombing of Syria leads to... (that's what I'm listening to various live feeds on now)
Is it? I don't discuss that normally though I'd still say you're wrong, either way. The records suggest greenhouse gases that industry and agriculture generate and deforestation hardly helps combat are unfortunately forever seeming to rise these days. These gases (eg. CO2) trap heat in a greenhouse. It's not a good idea for CO2 levels to rise too high, the world over. Global average temperatures will rise as a consequence (and are doing).
I prefer anthropogenic climate change anyway. That's the more important related scientific term. Ice caps are melting. Ocean currents diverted. Weather systems fucked with. When was the last time you broke the record for the number of hurricanes the US experienced during hurricane season? Or did the media lie there about the hurricanes?
And the selfish twats that we are polluting the air and the seas (etc) as we chase those dollars driving species we may need later to extinction as we do so, some will happily pretend like we and our ways are good for the planet's nature.
records suggest greenhouse gases that industry and agriculture generate and deforestation hardly helps combat are unfortunately forever seeming to rise these days. These gases (eg. CO2) trap heat in a greenhouse. It's not a good idea for CO2 levels to rise too high, the world over. Global average temperatures will rise as a consequence (and are doing).
no they don't. Global temps are decreasing. The sea levels are no longer rising. A little bit of research will show you that. I could go into a detailed explanation to explain why but you wouldn't listen. (I've done it before)
As the level of technology increases it becomes more efficient and thus less polluting.
but once again..you don't want to hear about that.
You seem to know me very well or is it you're referring to my my kind when you're claiming I wouldn't listen. (And if we're being honest, I'm confident a fair few people will have said that about you. A little more justifiably, too.)
Technologies, less polluting? Let me guess, you'd include HEP dams (that flood vast areas in their construction but produce green energy thereafter) and wind turbines in that. We'll pretend like Fukushima never happened, shall we? The wind turbines that the world's ubermaniac (Mr Trump) is against? Did he really use the expression, 'ugly industrial' in describing them? But then he calls coal beautiful, clean coal, doesn't he? I'm pretty sure he'll be the first person on the planet to have described coal in such favourable terms. With coal - as I'm sure you know, you dig it and you burn it. Hardly high-tech, would you say? You create eyesore killer slag heaps and then your chimneys bellow out black smoke?
Is that progress?
I think you're being a little optimistic, even if these new technologies you speak of (without going into) are so clean and green. You think everyone will get behind them? Even capitalistic pigs whose bottom line is usually profit? There'll be no swines cutting corners, cutting through red tape to sneakily cheat the system to gain on their competitors? That's so unlike man, isn't it! :D The technology will be shared the world over and the developing world will be helped (in an ethical sense, not the euphemistic sense) to embrace it? Because until everyone gets on board (an impossible dream, I'd say, unfortunately, the way things stand), the battle to save life on earth can't really get started. Can it?
Deep down, I'm expecting you know and will agree with half of what I've written. Maybe you've just given up and don't really care about the future of the planet beyond your own lifetime. I just hope you're not 'bitter and twisted' and rejecting greener views for that reason. I'm sure you won't be, though.
If we really do wish to address environmental issues, we'll need to alter our approach considerably and consider other fronts, not just the technological one. We're almost certainly going to have to up our game socially and politically, also.
Remember Paris? And was it Pittsburgh? ;) It's a good idea to start electing sane politicians once more. Would you not say?
Incidentally, apologies that the thread's gone off on something of a tangent, @dwinblood. It was hardly my intention.
He's likely to respond that that is not really the weather. Weathermen basically are guessing and hoping their probability system is correct.
Global Warming is a bit larger than weather. I agree with you on the lying there.
Yet I also get what @zool237 is getting at that weathermen are not intentionally telling you the wrong weather report. If they kept reporting the news wrong intentionally they likely wouldn't be in business long.
You and I look towards the horizon and say "Hmmm... chance of rain".
They do the same with other tools...
Yet sometimes the wind changes and rain doesn't happen.
The weather though is likely near impossible for us to currently predict. Unless we're making the weather. If we have some tech to make the weather then our odds would be significantly higher. :)
weathermen are not intentionally telling you the wrong weather report
if that were only true.
when the so called 'weathermen' ALWAYS say it's a heat wave
no matter how briefly the hot weather.
Yet they ALWAYS say
it's a cold snap
No matter how long the cold weather lingers.
They're lying.
It could be ALIENS messing with the outcome. ;)
I thought of giving you that meme again. Just sayin'. Of course I'm just messing with you.
yeah..that's right...aliens.
I've been educating my self about climate for the last decade or so.
Climate is a complex thing. In fact it's a chaotic system controlled by a large number of variables.
Nothing so simple as fertilizer for plants.
one thing for sure..what the enemedia is telling us is NOT true.
Yeah.. I've been aware of Weather and Climate being super complex since I took a Stochastics class (studying chaos) back in 1993 when Fractals and Chaos were simply becoming popular.
As you study those things which are complex, you gain a huge respect for just how complex weather and climate are. Far more complex than those things.
That was also around the time the "Butterfly Attack" was becoming a popular phrase. Let's see what the butterfly bombing of Syria leads to... (that's what I'm listening to various live feeds on now)
you took a course in 1933?
My GAWD how Old ARE YOU?
oops...that would be 1993...my bad.
Hahaha.... If I took it in 1933 I'd be the inventor of the topic. Actually I'd predate the inventor of that topic. :)
Is it? I don't discuss that normally though I'd still say you're wrong, either way. The records suggest greenhouse gases that industry and agriculture generate and deforestation hardly helps combat are unfortunately forever seeming to rise these days. These gases (eg. CO2) trap heat in a greenhouse. It's not a good idea for CO2 levels to rise too high, the world over. Global average temperatures will rise as a consequence (and are doing).
I prefer anthropogenic climate change anyway. That's the more important related scientific term. Ice caps are melting. Ocean currents diverted. Weather systems fucked with. When was the last time you broke the record for the number of hurricanes the US experienced during hurricane season? Or did the media lie there about the hurricanes?
And the selfish twats that we are polluting the air and the seas (etc) as we chase those dollars driving species we may need later to extinction as we do so, some will happily pretend like we and our ways are good for the planet's nature.
When we're so obviously not.
You surely don't dispute this last bit?
records suggest greenhouse gases that industry and agriculture generate and deforestation hardly helps combat are unfortunately forever seeming to rise these days. These gases (eg. CO2) trap heat in a greenhouse. It's not a good idea for CO2 levels to rise too high, the world over. Global average temperatures will rise as a consequence (and are doing).
no they don't. Global temps are decreasing. The sea levels are no longer rising. A little bit of research will show you that. I could go into a detailed explanation to explain why but you wouldn't listen. (I've done it before)
As the level of technology increases it becomes more efficient and thus less polluting.
but once again..you don't want to hear about that.
You seem to know me very well or is it you're referring to my my kind when you're claiming I wouldn't listen. (And if we're being honest, I'm confident a fair few people will have said that about you. A little more justifiably, too.)
Technologies, less polluting? Let me guess, you'd include HEP dams (that flood vast areas in their construction but produce green energy thereafter) and wind turbines in that. We'll pretend like Fukushima never happened, shall we? The wind turbines that the world's ubermaniac (Mr Trump) is against? Did he really use the expression, 'ugly industrial' in describing them? But then he calls coal beautiful, clean coal, doesn't he? I'm pretty sure he'll be the first person on the planet to have described coal in such favourable terms. With coal - as I'm sure you know, you dig it and you burn it. Hardly high-tech, would you say? You create eyesore killer slag heaps and then your chimneys bellow out black smoke?
Is that progress?
I think you're being a little optimistic, even if these new technologies you speak of (without going into) are so clean and green. You think everyone will get behind them? Even capitalistic pigs whose bottom line is usually profit? There'll be no swines cutting corners, cutting through red tape to sneakily cheat the system to gain on their competitors? That's so unlike man, isn't it! :D The technology will be shared the world over and the developing world will be helped (in an ethical sense, not the euphemistic sense) to embrace it? Because until everyone gets on board (an impossible dream, I'd say, unfortunately, the way things stand), the battle to save life on earth can't really get started. Can it?
Deep down, I'm expecting you know and will agree with half of what I've written. Maybe you've just given up and don't really care about the future of the planet beyond your own lifetime. I just hope you're not 'bitter and twisted' and rejecting greener views for that reason. I'm sure you won't be, though.
If we really do wish to address environmental issues, we'll need to alter our approach considerably and consider other fronts, not just the technological one. We're almost certainly going to have to up our game socially and politically, also.
Remember Paris? And was it Pittsburgh? ;) It's a good idea to start electing sane politicians once more. Would you not say?
Incidentally, apologies that the thread's gone off on something of a tangent, @dwinblood. It was hardly my intention.