Balta1701

QUOTE (Tex @ Dec 16, 2009 -> 01:57 PM) looking for Balta's post? Why the hell do we keep him around? I'm at a conference, I've been in talks and poster sessions all morning. Anyway...what's interesting here is that for decades it's been really difficult to image the upwellings under places like Hawaii or Yellowstone that we think are there. But as our data quality improves, we're now suddenly able to see it. THere are still people out there who don't think that what we consider to be Mantle Plumes actually exist because its been so hard to image them. But the seismologists and modelers are starting to get there and its really interesting. The Yellowstone plume in particular is really cool, because it happens to come up right next to a subducting plate (the cascadia subduction zone, the Juan De Fuca plate is subducting below Washington and Oregon). And it certainly looks in some images like the Yellowstone plume has literally punched its way through the downngoing plate and given rise to a whole set of volcanic rocks in the western U.S. because of that interaction. I'd also, in the end, be surprised if the Yellowstone plume doesn't extend much farther down than just the 670 km discontinuity, which is I think where these guys are putting it; we just can't image that far yet. It wouldn't surprise me at all if it rooted very close to the core mantle boundary, about 4 times as deep.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 16, 2009 -> 01:30 PM) On a geological time scale? No. But for any given decade or two? Yes. And they all three effected the weather in a big way. IIRC the only one that really shows up in the climatic signal at all was Pinatubo.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Dec 16, 2009 -> 02:08 PM) You must note I said "warming trend", that very data shows what I said was in fact, factually correct. Based on the 1990's, as the years went on, the temp tended to rise -- peaking in the early 00's and going back down, hence why 2008 was ranked near the bottom since the early 90's. I didn't say it wasn't hotter -- I said the trend of rising temps stopped, and it did. Cutting out 2005 and 1998, being odd years, the trend reverses itself, as shown by 2002, 2003, 2006, 2007, being in order of decreases. If you look at the 90's data, they are almost always on the rise as the years progress. So you're actually attributing that much significance to individual years but you're ignoring the moving average?

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 16, 2009 -> 12:57 PM) I remember the uproar when Bush won this. I think (could be wrong) that this isn't intended to be necessarily a good thing - just that the person had the biggest or most interesting world effect. For that description, I think Bernanke is in the discussion at least. He had a bigger impact in 2008 than in 2009.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 16, 2009 -> 08:30 AM) That doesn't bother me as much as them looking at a very short time frame, and oh-by-the-way one which included major volcanic events like Pinatubo, Surtsey and St. Helen's. So, duh, the lower level atmosphere didn't warm. Further, what the temperatures are doing at 30,000' or 60,000' or 100,000' may be interesting, but even if those altitudes are NOT warming, that doesn't undo what damage is being done closer to the surface. It may, possibly, help slow the warming process - that might be worth studying. But its the temps near the surface that effect us the most. That is where ice melts, where freezes change, etc. Surtsey and St. Helens were not major volcanic events. Pinatubo really wasn't that big either.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Dec 16, 2009 -> 10:06 AM) The 90's showed a clear warming trend -- FACT. The 00's did not -- FACT. You can twist this all you want with responses to questions that weren't asked, but those two facts remain. Factually incorrect. You are hanging everything on the single year, 1998, El Nino year record which we're going to break this year or next year, and which I think was broken in 1 of the 3 main temperature recording models anyway. On average, the 2000's were significantly warmer than the 1990's. 8 of the 9 warmest years in recorded history were from 2001-2008, the only other year near the top is 1998. The remaining years in the 1990's are in the next group.

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Dec 16, 2009 -> 01:45 AM) While trading Pujols would indeed suck, imagine the haul you'd get. If Pujols is demanding something like $30 million, the Yankees/Red Sox could legitimately give it to him and the Cardinals might not be able to

We ought to sacrifice those pajamas to Pelee.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Dec 15, 2009 -> 12:38 PM) With the same 'massaged' data. The sad thing is...the data set for the Hacked emails...is the most conservative of the available data sets as it excludes most of the polar data sets which show the largest warming. The other independent data sets show that things are even worse.

QUOTE (chunk23 @ Dec 16, 2009 -> 12:00 AM) I think it'd pretty much just be a faster freefall. Blue line = Herbert Hoover and the proposal of the 2009 Republican party. /discussion

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Dec 15, 2009 -> 08:59 PM) Arlen Specter is a s***head for switching parties and losing against a republican instead of a democrat. That's at least my partisan side's feeling. He's also terrible because hes a bad senator and when he does lose I'll be happy that he's gone. Joe Lieberman is just a rotten little who is stooping below even politicians standards for self promotion at the expense of legislature. Which is worse, the guy who switches parties to save his own skin, or the guy who is willing to oppose things he thought weeks ago would benefit the people of this country seemingly entirely for spite?

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Dec 15, 2009 -> 08:35 PM) Yet, you all love Arlen Spector. Whatever. They're all (yes, NSS, ALL) pieces of s*** who get paid by the highest bidder whenever they are on the "fringe" of any issue. Lieberman saw what Landfill (Landreiu (sp)) got and now he wants his state paid as well, while mentioning that CT is hugely insurance based. Arlen Specter is voting 100% with the Dems because otherwise he'll be slaughtered in a Dem primary.

Hmmm, 92-96 ≠ 101-102. Maybe there's a reason why we're not there.

I wonder if Kenny's talk might not indicate that he wants flowers to see some time at DH. Anyway...sign a DH and this offseason's a wrap to me.

QUOTE (Pants Rowland @ Dec 15, 2009 -> 05:32 PM) Under the radar today. Time to reawaken the hordes.

QUOTE (SoxFan562004 @ Dec 15, 2009 -> 10:51 AM) it's one of those things where I imagine the Cards have to have a lot in place before Pujols even seriously talks extension with them. I think one of the things they'd have to have in place is an idea of Pujols's extension demands, because the one thing that I wouldn't do in that franchise is to sign Holliday to a contract that would prevent me from meeting Albert's extension demands...or a contract that would have me paying big money to Holliday after I've had to trade Albert or let him walk.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Dec 15, 2009 -> 04:40 PM) McCain and Cantwell propose resurrecting Glass-Steagall to break up Wall Street I'd have no problem with it.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Dec 15, 2009 -> 05:47 PM) Well there was a time when people actually thought he took his job as a senator seriously and that statement more or less applied. But...at the time that statement was made...it was already factually incorrect, if you'd paid attention to his behavior the previous few years. The only reason that he could make that statement at the time (pre 2006 election) was that the Dems couldn't push anything of their own that Lieberman would matter on. But he was simultaneously undermining this country in other ways well before that.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Dec 15, 2009 -> 05:18 PM) Another reason he should be booted from the caucus. He's not even pretending to be part of the party anymore, why should he get the benefit of party seniority? "He's with us on everything but the war"

Who did KW deal for in 2006 only to have it turned down at the last moment? That's right, our DH next year is Soriano.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Dec 15, 2009 -> 05:33 PM) I'll say this, a DH of Kotsay/Jones would be an epic disaster. Unless the Andruw Jones of 2005 suddenly reappears, I think it's going to be hard to find anyone who disagrees with that.

Well, add a DH and at least it's a complete roster.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 15, 2009 -> 07:15 AM) LOL. The sad thing is...everything in their data has been redone, probably a dozen times over.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Dec 15, 2009 -> 10:32 AM) BJ Upton's offensive upside is not .300/.350. It's not even close to that. In 2008 he put up .273/.383/.401/.784. In 07 he put up .300/.386/.508/.894. BJ Upton's upside is to the friggin moon. If he hits what he's capable of hitting, he's a .850-.900 OPS bat that would be good enough to hit cleanup in some teams' lineups, and he'd be hitting leadoff here. His split stats last year are similar to Randy Winn, but he's also more than 10 years younger than Randy Winn too. Randy Winn is falling off and is going to be a 4th outfielder or retired within the next 2-3 years whereas Upton still has the capability of being one of the top 10 players in all of baseball. But you gotta come back to...what are the odds of him actually making himself into a 900 OPS guy? When you look at his full stat line, he has some serious issues that show up. He's in the top 10 in strikeouts every year. That one year where he hit .300 he had to put up a .393 BABIP to do so; while that certainly can mean he was raking the ball, he's put up more reasonable numbers from .310-.340 in his other years. For him to put up an .850-.900 OPS with the number of times he strikes out, he really needs to have everything he hits be a solid line drive. It certainly seems to me like these high strikeout guys that teams are using to lead off (Sizemore, Granderson, Upton) are turing out to be very prone to long-term slumps that can take their team down with them.

QUOTE (knightni @ Dec 15, 2009 -> 01:21 AM) It gets better. http://sports.yahoo.com/golf/pga/news?slug...p&type=lgns If Woods was Bondsing, I think with the number of women seemingly out there, we'd probably have heard something random about acne or the size of his endowment or something like that.