StrangeSox

QUOTE (iamshack @ Oct 31, 2012 -> 03:22 PM) Great costume, Sqwert!

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Oct 31, 2012 -> 01:34 PM) Yeah, again, tell me where i'm denying global warming would have any effect. I'm saying it's not the end of the world prophecy that was predicted. Edit: And feel free to ignore my post on this very page in which I said my point wasn't to deny the impact, but to poke fun at the overreaction. But stronger storms are becoming the norm. Your post was a bit of overreaction itself. I was wrong to say earlier that the frequency of hurricanes has increased. It hasn't, but the frequency of intense hurricanes has.

Here is a 2004 paper that examined the hurricane data from 1970-2003: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/309/5742/1844.full They specifically chose 1970 as that's when satellite tracking began, so it eliminated the under-reported potential bias. What they could not eliminate was the possibility that hurricanes fluctuate on a greater-than-30-years cycle, though I don't believe there's any proposed mechanism for how that would happen. Still, given that caveat, they found that the intensity of hurricanes over the past 30 years has increased globally, and that this is consistent with the predictive models that project even more increases in the future. *What they've also found is that the total number of hurricanes outside of the North Atlantic basin has actually decreased. So we have less storms per year, but these storms are stronger. The absolute maximum intensity has also remained static.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Oct 31, 2012 -> 01:29 PM) And please cite to where I denied global warming could increase these sorts of things. I never said anything like that.

This is just awful: http://www.salon.com/2012/10/31/cop_used_t...0_year_old_boy/

QUOTE (MexSoxFan#1 @ Oct 31, 2012 -> 12:48 PM) Stick a fork in him... Both candidates pulled out. There was a pretty big event that affected Massachusetts recently.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Oct 31, 2012 -> 11:57 AM) You pointed me to some storms in the last 10 years. That doesn't say anything abut (1) how those storms compare to each other, (2) how those storms compare to a few decades ago. That can all be explained by better reporting/data gathering. No, I gave you links to (press releases for) a couple of papers that examined the mechanisms that would increase intensity and frequency. Actually, they know that it plays a part in increased intensity and they have a decent understanding of the actual mechanisms. What they can't know, like I said earlier, is direct causation for any individual storm. Just like you can't know that any particular smoker got lung cancer from their cigarettes. If you want to say that some peoples' reaction is a little hyperbolic, ok, but you were denying that global warming could even increase these sorts of things and said some ignorant stuff yourself. Your own link says otherwise.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Oct 31, 2012 -> 11:47 AM) Give me some data that shows the frequency and intensity has increased as compared to a hundred years ago or 50 years ago. And NOT just because the reporting of those events has gotten better and i'll concede that you're right. I already gave you multiple links, to which you replied "It's called weather!"

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Oct 31, 2012 -> 11:40 AM) Katrina 2005, Sandy 2012. Um, no. And, given that it's a called Global Warming for a reason, it's silly to focus only on storms that happen to hit the US. 2011 was a relatively calm year (there were pretty massive tornado outbreaks here), but 2010 was most definitely not. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_25%E2%8...ornado_outbreak http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Joplin_tornado

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Oct 31, 2012 -> 11:37 AM) Wake me when Katrina happens annually as was previously predicted but never came true. We've had horrific storms in the past, and we'll have them in the future. To claim this stuff happens annually on such a massive scale is ludicrous. Yeah, s*** happens around the globe, and that's been happening for hundreds of thousands of years. It's called weather! Man, if only people could use math and science to see if intensity and frequency are increasing. I guess we'll never know! No one has predicted annual Katrinas that I know of. What they've observed and predicted is increased intensity and frequency in weather systems worldwide because there's more energy in the system. This is really, really basic science and you look pretty silly saying "it's called weather!" and posting South Park clips.

(my 'resource' is www.google.com )

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Oct 31, 2012 -> 10:54 AM) And it wasn't on a scale like this at all. And what was the big storm in 2010? And 2009? And on and on. These storms happen every few decades or longer. You're buying into that bulls*** Inconvenient Truth hype that more storms and stronger storms would become the norm. That's not denying that global warming exists. It's denying that humans can change weather patterns to the degree you're suggesting. More energy (warmer) = bigger, stronger, more frequent storms. That's pretty basic. http://www.sciencedaily.com/videos/2008/02..._hurricanes.htm http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/...70830105911.htm http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=110825 etc. Make sure you're not focusing exclusively on the US! For 2010, there was this in Mexico: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Atlantic_hurricane_season there were also the major floods in Pakistan: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Pakistan_floods As with any individual case of lung cancer and smoking, you can't prove direct causation for any given storm or event. NOAA has a good resource for worldwide weather events http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/reports/weather-events.html

QUOTE (Jake @ Oct 31, 2012 -> 09:24 AM) That's true. The interesting thing here is that normally polls will reflect a tightening race as we get closer to election day, but to my eyes it appears (at least in battleground states) it is simply moving towards Obama. That may be an artifact of the race tightening so drastically after the first debate and things fading from that.

He updates in the evening or at night based on his Monte Carlo sims of the polls released that day, at least as far as I understand it. RCP lists the polls as they're released if you want to find out exactly what came out.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 31, 2012 -> 08:57 AM) He could have gotten A LOT more on this free agent market... In terms of years, and dollars per year. Oh absolutely he gave the Sox a deal.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 30, 2012 -> 09:48 PM) That is exactly what I expected from Peavy. To be fair, he's still going to get $33M more dollars from the White Sox over the next several years. That makes it relatively easy to say "I don't care about the money." Definitely glad he's signed. That would have left a gaping hole in the rotation.

wow Tom Skilling was on Chicago Tonight last night and went over some of the meteorological science behind Sandy and why it's unique http://chicagotonight.wttw.com/2012/10/30/...hurricane-sandy

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Oct 30, 2012 -> 08:53 PM) LOL/// LOLZZZZZZZZ/// Bush Obama lied, people died. Sure. It's always different. LOLERZZZ/ Obama didn't lie us into a war, so that doesn't really make sense.

He wasn't really left behind, that doesn't make sense

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 30, 2012 -> 06:26 PM) Probably. Might be a fun thread right after the election, to have discussions of who the likely 2016 candidates are for both parties. I'll take the cyanide, please.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Oct 30, 2012 -> 05:06 PM) Parts of my family go through this s*** every 5-6 years living within a few miles of the Mississippi. I see no good reason why this can't be handled on a state/local level. These are hundred year storms we're talking about. Save a little here and there and over 100 years you'd have plenty of money to pay for everything that needs to be handled. I see no good reason that it should be handled at a state/local level primarily. Planning 100 year budgets is absurd and useless if you get a run of bad years.

HMS Bounty edit: apparently a friend-of-a-friend was on the HMS Bounty. I don't know him, but he was one of the ones rescued.

So glad that I happen to not be scheduled to travel anywhere this week.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Oct 30, 2012 -> 01:35 PM) Why should I be responsible for paying for someone to live on the coast where s*** like this happens every now and again? Why is it so bad that state and local governments should be responsible, for, you know, state and local problems? Edit: And for the record, since we all love truth in politics, he never said he'd get rid of FEMA, he said he'd shift some of those responsibilities to states or the private sector. I know, I know, what a a horror and all that, but it's not the same as ending the program altogether. The same reason people on the coast are responsible when a devastating tornado rips through the midwest--because we're one country. Mitt advocated block-granting FEMA to the states. This would give each state a fixed budget regardless of their need each year and may leave them unprepared to deal with certain disasters.