Subject: Temperature Predictions 816,400% Off!
Date: Tue Jan 22 11:18:06 2008
User: Songcutter
Message:The day the Packers beat the Seahawks, the meteorologists predicted the game day temperature in Green Bay for the Giants game would be 7 degrees.
Bear in mind, this is tiny Green Bay, Wisconsin, a predictable place in January. They didn't have to account for averaging differences between mountain ranges and deserts, El Nino, or deal with complex computer models. Just predict the temperature in one place seven days out.
The next day, they revised their forecasts to 6 degrees. Hmmm, I thought, that's a 14% change in only one day. The second day they said 5 degrees. Well, now we're 29% from 48 hours ago.
These revisions continued daily. The temperature reached 4 degrees below zero during the game. That's 157% off in just seven days!
These guys love to talk about the temperature in 100 years. 157% wrong in one week is 8164% wrong in 1 year and 816,400% wrong over the course of 100 years.
You Neo-Coms still think you can predict the temperature within 1/2 of a degree 100 years from now?
Over 100 years, I'll put the Farmers Almanac up against you guys.
Date: Tue Jan 22 11:36:32 2008
User: ix
Message:in the unlikely event that you are actually serious try doing the calcs in Kelvin. god i hope you're joking
Date: Tue Jan 22 12:26:24 2008
User: TNmountainman
Message:As I'm sure you know, in terms of percentages, the correct way to judge such a thing would be in degrees Kelvin. I'll take your word that the quotes you provide were accurate as stated. And the fact that it reached -4(F) *during* the game shouldn't be considered, unless the original predictions were stating the lowest temperature to be reached *during* the game (which wasn't the case). As I was watching it (going back and forth between it and that hate-network CBS's show "The Age of Warming"), I believe at game time it was 3 degrees (F). (I could possibly be wrong about that exactly.) So......from an original prediction of 7(F) down to 3(F), is ~2(K) difference (actually, slightly less, so about .47 x 4 = 1.89, rounded). 1.89/280 = .00674, or a less than 0.7% difference.
That being said, we all know that sometimes it's easier to predict long-term trends and changes than short-term events, but that's unpredictable in and of itself. (So I'm not claiming that's true in this case.)
Nevertheless, I'll go out on a limb, and say that the maximum temmperature in Chicago, where O'Hare Airport used to be (at that time) on July 16, 2108, will be 314(K).
Link below is to the Yahoo news version of the beginning of "Age of Warming", which aired on CBS instead of "60 Minutes" this past Sunday. For those of you who for whatever reason have refused to, or not gotten around to, watching "An Inconvenient Truth", this will give a bit of like data (and more). It also shows VERY clearly how insistent bush's administration has been in editing scientific reports about climate change, and supressing anything which would show how bankrupt their positions have been. I would call it immoral, actually. The scientists interviewed, and these weren't lightweights, complimented the skeptics for making them look even deeper, and making the data even that much better. ....And I don't think Al Gore is mentioned in the entire show, but can't be sure of that because the game was pretty riveting, too.
Those who would choose to criticize this program without listening to (or watching it), please do as another poster requested earlier, and chop down a shrub with a fish first (paraphrasing the Python, or Python-esque quote).
Seriously, though, this program tells it like it is. Listen to Hansen's warning about a tipping point maybe as short as ten years from now. Go to the link below, and click on "The Age of Warming". That will only give the first 2:12. I think you have to then go and click on the other segments to see more of the program. Alternatively, and actually better, here is the link to the Quick-time audio podcast of the entire show, without commercials:
http://audio.cbsnews.com/2008/01/20/audio3733263.mp3
I STRONGLY URGE anyone who doesn't know about these things to give that a listen.
Link: "The Age of Warming"
Date: Tue Jan 22 12:28:03 2008
User: TNmountainman
Message:ix, I was already composing the above response, and hadn't seen yours before posting mine. Yes, I think he's joking, but he *still* is on the wrong side of the science of this issue.
Date: Tue Jan 22 12:57:15 2008
User: Songcutter
Message:Oh gee, did they specifically predict the temperature at the exact start of the game or the lowest possible temperature it might reach during the game...What about the start of the third quarter...did they say exactly what it would be at the very second the whistle blew? Well, then you're way off. Oh, Bush is immoral. The world will end in ten years. Have you seen An Inconvenient Truth? Listen to this or that....oh, you're not talking Kelvin...Just watch or read programs that support my point of view, then maybe you'll come around to how immoral Bush is... Blah, blah, blah Do you guys ever listen to yourselves?
You are simply unable to answer the point directly.
The meteorologists forecasts seven days in advance were way, way, way off. Seven days in a row your boys were wrong! Nothing you can do about it. It's in the books.
They revised their predictions each day leading up to the game. In reality, that says, "Yesterday I said this and now I realize that that was wrong, so, today, I'm saying this." So, there was never even a one day period of being correct. Guys, if they can't come within one degree in 24 hours...and never get it right seven days in a row! Come on.
If anyone gives me poor, inaccurate information seven times in a row, they're not to be believed.
Date: Tue Jan 22 14:41:53 2008
User: Songcutter
Message:hehehe
Hey, Bush is immoral. That's gonna be my answer to everything, just like the neo-coms.
My stock went down today. Yeah, well, that's cause Bush is immoral.
My wife has a headache. Obviously, that's because Bush is immoral. Cheney, too!
I have a hangnail. That's because Bush is immoral. Republicans all suck!
The reason the temperature was so low at the game? Bush is immoral.
Gee, you guys are on to something here. This answers everything.
Date: Tue Jan 22 15:24:28 2008
User: tbirdie98TNmtn.man
Message:The Bible urges us to be truthful. One of the Ten Commandments is to not bear false witness. In our courts of law, we take an oath to "tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth." bush/cheney have violated ALL these things *in toto*. Yet he claims to be a Christian. I can be no judge of that, but these actions clearly are not Biblical. So, yes, those things are immoral.
Philip Cooney, who was formerly a lobbyist at the American Petroleum Institute, was made chief of staff for the White House Council on Environmental Quality. (Yes, yet another case of the fox watching the hen house.) He was one of the main ones whose duty it was to "edit" and censor scientific puplications. Now he works for Toxxon/Mobil. Here's what that good Republican John McCain had to say about that:
JOHN McCAIN: "I’m shocked, shocked that such a thing should be happening. I also noticed that he immediately went back to work with ExxonMobil. Maybe he should have waited a month or two."
Songcutter, there was only a 29-minute gap between my post and yours. Not *nearly* enough time to have listened to the program. Come on, listen to the facts.
At least you didn't argue with my math......
Link: Phil Cooney
Date: Wed Jan 23 10:45:20 2008
User: Songcutter
Message:I have nineteen doctorate degrees in every hard science. I have sub specialties in physics, math, meteorology, education and theology. Bush is immoral.
I am a liberal, so I am obviously smarter than anyone else. Bush is immoral.
The war started because Bush was behind 9-11. Bush is immoral.
The moon landing was a Spielberg production. Immoral Bush was behind it all. I'm pretty sure his daddy financed it with stolen oil money.
Bush shot Kennedy. He was the shooter on the grassy knoll. Think about it. Bush IS from Texas! He could have been there. Bush is immoral.
Everyone in this corrupt administration is evil and a liar. Why? Because Bush is immoral, as are they all. The only people who are not immoral are liberals.
Global warming is indisputable science, no part of which can even be seriously debated by intelligent people, which will cause us all to die horrible deaths either next week or the week after. I predict February 6th, 9:41:05 am, EST. Any intelligent person agrees with me. Bush knows that this is the absolute, undeniable truth. He even caused it. Yet, he will not act to save the poor innocent children of the Earth. Why? He is immoral. He lives to see people die so he can make billions of oil dollars. Bush is an immoral criminal. And, he's stupid. And, he has mental problems. And, he can't pronounce "nuclear."
Bush started these wars for his own personal evil. He loves war and death. Simple as that. Bush is immoral. Bush is stupid. Those terrorists didn't do anything to America that America didn't deserve. Maybe I'll burn a flag or two today. America is the most corrupt nation on the planet.
The price of a barrel of oil is down $13. Why? Obviously, because Bush and Cheney own or control all of the world's oil. So, they made it cheaper for everyone. Oh, wait. That doesn't quite make sense. Oh, well. Stupid, criminal Bush and Cheney are behind it for some evil reason...Bush is immoral.
Bush is not a true Christian. No Republicans can be true Christians. Like Bush, they're all immoral. Jesus was a liberal. Bush is immoral.
These things needed to be said.
PS Bush is immoral. Pass it on...
Date: Thu Jan 24 14:22:08 2008
User: WRAC
Message:Songcutter, I think you have a valid point - that forecasting the future is prone to error - but you undermine your argument with a poor analogy and some voodoo mathematics.
First, the analogy. Forecasting LOCAL temperatures in the NEAR future is done by estimating the position of various fronts and taking into consideration such things as snow cover and expected amount of sunlight. Everyone knows this is far from an exact science. However, forecasting GLOBAL temperatures in the FAR future is done by examining a different set of variables, such as sunspot activity and atmospheric carbon levels. It's not an exact science either, but to say it's wrong because local forecasting isn't accurate is like saying you can't predict the time of sunset because you can't predict the stock market. Apples and oranges.
Second, the mathematics. If you're going to do percentage comparisons, you need to have a valid zero point. On the Fahrenheit scale, 0 doesn't mean the absence of any heat. For that, you need the Kelvin scale. Consider the following football analogy. You may know that Dan Marino set the season record for touchdown passes with 48 in 1984. That record has since been broken by Peyton Manning, with 49 in 2004, and Tom Brady, with 50 in 2007. Using your logic of an arbitrary zero point, I could say that, of the quarterbacks who threw more than 48 TD passes in a season, Brady was twice as effective as Manning because he threw twice as many TD passes once each player had reached 48. That's pure nonsense, of course, but it's the same reasoning you're using when you base your percentages on the Fahrenheit scale. If that doesn't convince you, note that, using your method, 1 degree F is infinitely warmer than 0 degrees F. If the forecast was for 0, but the temperature was 1, would you call that an infinite percentage error?
Also, just my opinion, but you don't do anything for your cause when you respond to constructive rebuttal by turning the discussion into a silly joke.
Date: Thu Jan 24 14:47:45 2008
User: ninjamouse
Message:WRAC for President!
Date: Thu Jan 24 14:58:21 2008
User: kangaroo
Message:Thanks for putting that original nonsense straight WRAC.
Date: Thu Jan 24 15:35:36 2008
User: Songcutter
Message:Okay. I'll try to be very, very, very serious.
Oh, Man, it's all my calculator's fault. I entered the number 7. Then, I subtracted 14% and got 6 (actually 6.02). I didn't know I had one of them dang Republican calculators. So, silly me, I figured the difference between the numbers 7 and 6 was around 14%. That there ain't right, huh?
On them left-handed calculators, when you subtract 14% from the number 7, what answer do you get?
Shoot, everyone knows communists can predict the weather. They can predict sunspots. It's 'cuz they're so moral. (You'd have to read through a million threads to fully understand where all this is coming from...)
By the way, WRAC, the discussion was a silly joke long before I started making fun of it.
Date: Thu Jan 24 15:50:41 2008
User: Kaos
Message:When I was a kid of 10, we joind a club and started swimming. One of the teenage swimmers could do two lengths underwater. I tried to go width-wise but only made it half way. A week later, with practice, I could do a full width (a 100% improvement) underwater. By the end of the summer (12 weeks later), I could do a full length (a 500% improvement) underwater. Regretably, I stopped swimming. But, my calculator tells me if I'd kept it up, I'd be able to swim the entire breadth of the universe more than a googleplex number of times (4.31 x 10^112 to be exact) underwater.
Date: Thu Jan 24 15:56:34 2008
User: Songcutter
Message:Oh my...
Just to clear the record...
I WAS KIDDING!!!! I WAS JOKING!!! I WAS MAKING FUN OF HOW YOU LEFTIES THINK!!!!
JOKE!! FUNNY!! HA HA!!
Note to self: Liberals do not understand humor...Do not try to be funny with their religion.
Date: Thu Jan 24 16:10:01 2008
User: Kaos
Message:For the record, I'm not a lefty but an independent.
And, of course, I was being completely serious :)
Date: Fri Jan 25 01:13:53 2008
User: tbirdie98TNmtn.man
Message:For the record, if anyone cares, I also am an independent, but with strong anti-Republican sentiment, which they have well-earned.
Date: Fri Jan 25 06:30:22 2008
User: WRAC
Message:Songcutter wrote: "I WAS KIDDING!!!! I WAS JOKING!!!"
Okay, I'll take your word for it. But why then were you making fun of the arguments used by people who think global warming is bunk? I thought that was your position on the subject.
Date: Fri Jan 25 10:00:02 2008
User: Songcutter
Message:My underlying joke was the irony in predicting how far off the meteorologists would be (816,400%) using, what I see, as essentially similar illogic to how they come up with their predictions. Taking short term data and projecting it out into a ridiculous time frame is perhaps silly. But, if it's silly for me, then it's silly for them, too. Thus, my mockery. I knew the post would bring hoots. That's why I wrote it.
My case example is true, though, that they were so far wrong merely seven days away, then corrected by one degree (by the way, the predictions were in Fahrenheit) each day and finally were off, even on game day. You can argue Fahrenheit and Kelvin, but, you can't argue that that is still a high percentage error rate for folks who claim to able to predict temperature globally 100 years from now. In reality, their 100 year predictions may not be off by more than 816,399%. (That's humor again. I don't really mean that I seriously believe they'll be wrong by that much.)
The global warming theory relies heavily on iffy computer models and meteorologists (and others), none of which can accurately forecast the temperature for an hour from now (see, that hour thing was sarcasm). Do you not see the absurdity of a religious belief in these precise 1/2 to 1 degree forecasts that some of these same meteorologists make for 100 years, 200 years and more from now? Even most lefties will agree that the meteorologist cannot accurately predict tomorrow's weather, yet they are fervent in the same meteorologist's predictions for 100 years from now. That's illogical to me.
I agree with you that the meteorologist must work with different data in studying long term global climate trends. True, it is, in a way, apples and oranges, as you say. Still, his weather forecasting history does not exactly give him a boat load of credibility, does it? Is he really that much more accurate in one time frame than the other? And, do you believe that the meteorologist's accuracy actually increases along with the time frame?
Finally, should we allow ourselves to be compelled to radically change our economy, how we live, how we think, based on the long range forecasts of some folks who are wrong more often than they're right?
Date: Fri Jan 25 13:54:37 2008
User: birdhaus
Message:gosh, is songcutter really me? Is that what I sound like?
Date: Mon Jan 28 19:46:17 2008
User: TNmountainman
Message:Songcutter:
"Finally, should we allow ourselves to be compelled to radically change our economy, how we live, how we think, based on the long range forecasts of some folks who are wrong more often than they're right?"
--- Let me point out that our economy changes daily, and entire industries come in and fade away, as the needs and desires of the population dictate. I suspect songcutter is trying to scaremonger readers into thinking that cleaning up the environment somehow hurts the economy. In actuality, the reverse is true. New industries are created; money is saved from cleanup; waste is not created; the overall health of everyone is raised; etc., etc..... Yes, some people would lose their jobs. That happens when any there is any change in the product mix of the marketplace. Should we still be worrying about job security in the buggy whip industry? Reducing greenhouse gas emissions will be a good thing - in more ways than we can even know.
Date: Tue Jan 29 08:01:57 2008
User: Songcutter
Message:You're calling me a scaremonger as you're running around screaming that the sky is falling?
Date: Tue Jan 29 11:14:56 2008
User: TNmountainman
Message:I agree with Gore (in that movie you didn't see), which is a message of hope. There is still time to reverse things. I also think God created a world with incredible damping capabilities, which we already know. I also think the world will end as the Bible tells us, and God has final control and authority over same. However.............I think it behooves us to be good stewards of what we've been given, and that the quality of life for earth's citizens would be greatly enhanced and/or preserved if steps were taken to reduce greenhouse gases, as well as make our environment cleaner in a multitude of ways. How's that?
Date: Tue Jan 29 11:23:31 2008
User: GodToldMeTo
Message:God told me to call Songcutter a scaremonger.
In case you hadn't noticed, Songcutter, the CURRENT temperature fluctuates a heck of a lot more than the AVERAGE temperature.
In fact, the temperature of bulk matter is itself an average, related to the energy of each atom or molecule making up the matter. For example, in a glass of water at 70 degrees Fahrenheit, SOME of the water molecules have much lower energies than the average and SOME have much higher energies.
From Wikipedia:
"On average, the molecules do not have enough energy to escape from the liquid, or else the liquid would turn into vapor quickly. When the molecules collide, they transfer energy to each other in varying degrees, based on how they collide. Sometimes the transfer is so one-sided that one of the molecules ends up with enough energy to be considered past the boiling point of the liquid. If this happens near the surface of the liquid it may actually fly off into the gas and thus 'evaporate'."
In a similar fashion, some places on the earth are generally hotter, others are colder. It's generally colder at night than in the day. It's generally colder in higher latitudes than at the equator. It's generally colder during the winter season in your hemisphere than it is during the summer season. And so forth.
Just like the average temperature of the water has very little to do with the temperature of a single water molecule measured at a single time, the average temperature of the earth has very little to do with a temperature reading taken at one specific place on the earth at a single time.
This is one reason why people are making fun of your "weather forecasters can't even forecast one temperature a week in advance, so why should we believe them about years from now?" argument.
The other reason is that you are far overstating the error of the weather forecasters. (Less than 1% error, according to TNmountainman's calculation -- which is far better than yours.) And we expect MUCH GREATER errors for a localized single-point forecast than we do for forecasts of average temperature. Averaging smooths out a lot of the effects of temperature variation due to night/day cycles, seasonal cycles, latitude differences, and hard-to-predict short-term weather patterns. Tracking average earth temperature (as shown on the linked page) is more focused on the big picture of how much energy enters the earth-centered system, and how much escapes. The short-term fluctuations because of night vs. day, summer vs. winter, the ice storm hitting Buffalo vs. being a near-miss, etc. simply don't matter when we're talking about average earth temperature.
Your argument simply doesn't demonstrate anything one way or the other. It's completely irrelevant to the issue at hand.
GodToldMeTo
Link: http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-1.htm
Date: Tue Jan 29 11:49:05 2008
User: Songcutter
Message:Okay, let me see if I understand everything now.
The sky really is falling.
I am a scaremonger.
The difference between +7 and -4 is less than 1%
I can't fall back on the buggywhip industry if the music thing doesn't work out.
Do I qualify as an enlightened liberal now?
Date: Tue Jan 29 13:16:40 2008
User: 2ndHappyHappyHappy
Message:Naw, you forgot the bit about it is all in the Bible how the world is going to end. You know, the book that starts with Adam, then God plucked a rib from Adam and made Eve (proof that Bush is a sexist), and the evil snake slithered around the Garden of Eden (the snake was probably Bush), and how Eve and then Adam (further proof that Bush is a sexist) ate the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge, and on and on until we are told how the world will end (again, Bush will be responsible). You might want to check the Brothers Grimm book of fairy tales for the advanced course.
Date: Tue Jan 29 13:19:35 2008
User: GodToldMeTo
Message:"The sky really is falling."
Not in a literal sense. The sky -- in the sense of the atmosphere -- is mostly gaseous and is in a complex state of dynamic equilibrium.
If you mean something more metaphorical, I guess you'll have to make a more specific statement that we can evaluate.
"I am a scaremonger."
Yes, but your impact is minimal, because your arguments don't hold water.
"The difference between +7 and -4 is less than 1%"
No, it's about 2.4%. (When I said less than 1%, I was talking about TNmountainman's calculation -- as I made clear -- and he was working with somewhat different numbers.)
Let's try your example, so you can learn how to do it yourself and stop asking others.
Step 1. Go to Google.
Step 2. Enter a search of: "7 fahrenheit in kelvin" (note the result)
Step 3. Enter a search of: "-4 fahrenheit in kelvin" (note the result)
Step 4. Find the difference between the two kelvin values from steps 2 and 3.
Step 5. Divide the difference by whichever of those two you think is the original forecast temperature.
Step 6. Multiply by 100 to determine the answer in percent (%).
Here's what I got:
7 degrees Fahrenheit = 259.261111 kelvin
(-4) degrees Fahrenheit = 253.15 kelvin
difference = 6.111111
result of division = 0.023571259786817776924515300715501
percentage is roughly equal to 2.36%
Try it yourself! See if you get the same answer! Fun for the whole family!
"I can't fall back on the buggywhip industry if the music thing doesn't work out."
That seems like a personal choice rather than a question of fact. The buggywhip industry is slightly less hot these days than the traditional music industry, but I have no idea whether you're any good at either of those professions.
"Do I qualify as an enlightened liberal now?"
Let's try the simple math education first, and worry about advancing your political education later.
GodToldMeTo teach you arithmetic related to temperature measurement
Date: Tue Jan 29 13:38:14 2008
User: TNmountainman
Message:As I originally stated, the -4(F) should not be used, as that was the low during the game, thus comparing icicles and igloos. If the original forecast had mentioned "low at some point during the game", then that would be a valid comparison.
Songcutter:
"The day the Packers beat the Seahawks, the meteorologists predicted the game day temperature in Green Bay for the Giants game would be 7 degrees."
.....and later:
"Oh gee, did they specifically predict the temperature at the exact start of the game or the lowest possible temperature it might reach during the game...What about the start of the third quarter...did they say exactly what it would be at the very second the whistle blew?"
--- So, you tell us. You were the one doing the original reportage.
(But yes, as I mentioned way up above, I knew you were joking.)
And as far as being an enlightened liberal, don't forget the part about "bush is immoral" (and cheney of course, too).
p.s. - the sky does tend to "fall" with high pressure. Songcutter gave us no data on the b.p. during the game.
Date: Tue Jan 29 13:45:26 2008
User: Songcutter
Message:Let's try the simple math again based on the Farenheit scale, which, incidently, is what the meteorologists making the forecasts were using. Now, what do you get?
Date: Tue Jan 29 13:51:19 2008
User: TNmountainman
Message:And here I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.........
Date: Tue Jan 29 14:41:19 2008
User: Songcutter
Message:Darn, I forgot to mention Bush and Cheney being immoral. Well, my liberalism is a work in progress. You'll have to be patient with me.
Date: Tue Jan 29 14:46:00 2008
User: TNmountainman
Message:I was referring to your math/physics skills.
Date: Tue Jan 29 14:51:17 2008
User: TNmountainman
Message:....but maybe that's a "work in progress" as well.....
Date: Tue Jan 29 14:58:21 2008
User: GodToldMeTo
Message:Songcutter:
I used the Fahrenheit scale, and then I converted Fahrenheit temperatures to kelvins as one does when one does not wish to repeat your completely unscientific and heinous mistake.
You see, the Kelvin scale is one where zero is physically meaningful. The zero point represents an absence of thermal energy, just like a zero balance in a financial account represents an absence of any credit or debit items.
Fahrenheit has a zero point that has some (convoluted) historical significance, but it is mostly a matter of convenience. It does not actually represent a physically meaningful origin point for thermal measurements.
Thus, if you want to answer questions like "How much more (or less) thermal energy is represented by one temperature compared to another, in percent?" you use the Kelvin scale, not the Fahrenheit scale.
Keep protesting all you want, but everyone who actually understands elementary physics or chemistry KNOWS you are in childish denial.
GodToldMeTo give you the unvarnished truth
Date: Tue Jan 29 15:09:23 2008
User: GodToldMeTo
Message:To be more precise:
The zero point represents an absence of thermal energy, just like a zero balance in a financial account represents an absence of any NET CREDIT OR DEBIT.
Date: Tue Jan 29 15:21:37 2008
User: GodToldMeTo
Message:Here's another analogous example:
TNmountainman and Songcutter run a race of 100 meters. We time each of them, and we find that TNmountainman finished the race at the 12.1 second mark, while Songcutter didn't cross the finish line until 14.0 seconds.
Of course, we were using a scale where "0 seconds" was pegged at the starting gun. Songcutter took 1.9 seconds longer, or 15.7% longer than TNmountainman.
Well, just for the sake of argument, let's call the starting time "-12 seconds." Now, we can say TNmountainman finished at the 0.1 second mark, while Songcutter crossed the finish line at 2.0 seconds.
In this case, using Songcutter's "temperature logic," we would say that Songcutter took 1.9 seconds longer, or 1900% longer than TNmountainman's 0.1 seconds.
Nobody would be fooled by this in timing a race, because "everybody knows" that the natural zero point is at the starting gun. Just because we're used to "zero degrees Fahrenheit" or "zero degrees Centigrade" does NOT mean those are natural zero points.
The natural zero point for temperature (thermal energy) is at the starting gun. Thermal energy *starts* at absolute zero, and that is the correct baseline for ratiometric comparisons.
Zero degrees F and zero degrees C are convenient reference points for everyday use and even for some scientific purposes. However, they fail as natural *physically meaningfully* zero points. That's why scientists *invented* the Kelvin scale (and other "thermodynamic temperature" scales with similar characteristics, like the Rankine scale).
GodToldMeTo try to simplify this issue for Songcutter
Date: Tue Jan 29 15:27:26 2008
User: TNmountainman
Message:I *wish* I could still do 12.1 (not sure I ever quite got there). I'd be lucky to break 13.5 at this age (and degree of knee damage). But thanks for the mental image.......
Date: Tue Jan 29 16:04:56 2008
User: GodToldMeTo
Message:.giggle TNmountainman
You are more than welcome. I guess you can take some comfort from Songcutter being logically obligated to either learn something or admit that his (?) race time in the story is 1900% slower than yours.
GodToldMeTo have a laugh with friends
Date: Tue Jan 29 16:19:54 2008
User: mrbuck
Message:Hey GodToldMeTo, here is a new strap on for you to try:
mrbucktoldmetostopkillinggoldfish.
mrbuck
viva che
Date: Tue Jan 29 21:27:40 2008
User: StarGazer
Message:~hmmmm~ just why did the Packers beat the Seahawks and then lose to the Giants.
I think the games are fixed.
SG
Date: Wed Jan 30 17:58:35 2008
User: mrbuck
Message:not this time
buck
Date: Thu Jan 31 15:28:37 2008
User: GottaLuvIt
Message:TNm said:
Date: Jan 22 12:28
User: TNmountainman
Message:
ix, I was already composing the above response, and hadn't seen yours before posting mine. Yes, I think he's joking, but he *still* is on the wrong side of the science of this issue.
At least he admits there are two sides to the science.
Global Warming is just a bunch of Global propaganda. In reality it is a Governmental fund raiser.
They will tax, regulate, mandate, fees and fines.
We have already experienced this in our car registration, smog check, and local sanitation district and many more.
What better way to fix the national debt problem? Tax the people to death.
If you want to know what it is going to look like just study what is happening in the EU and UN. Companies, factories, car dealers, refineries and all products must comply or else.
http://www.awakeningmind.org/pages/open_letter_2005.php
http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?p=r&user=11thhouraction&page=3
http://www.iso.org/iso/store.htm
Link: http://www.epeat.net/Docs/EPEAT%20FAR%20interim%20final%20rule.pdf
Date: Thu Jan 31 16:04:58 2008
User: birdhaus
Message:you need help, GottLuvIt.
Date: Thu Jan 31 17:03:32 2008
User: TNmountainman
Message:Amen. GLI - all this was cleared up back in the ""Chemtrails" hoax" thread, and the global warming topic was over-discussed, to put it mildly, back in the "Global Warming - U.N. Report" thread. If you choose to not believe those of us who are capable of evaluating this stuff, then that is your prerogative, but don't keep trying to open up the same can of worms with no new 'evidence'.
If people are using more than their fair share of the world's resources, and/or polluting more than their fair share, then yes, "compliance" is a good thing. That's why we have laws. Not everyone on earth believes in the "Golden Rule".
Please - get help.
Date: Thu Jan 31 18:53:12 2008
User: GottaLuvIt
Message:bird & TNm
Denial is a sad thing.
You both need to wake up.
You are either completely oblivious, or very aware.
I posted a picture today on the chemtrail operations going on in my county.
Thats all the evidence I need, just open your eyes and look up.
Date: Thu Jan 31 18:55:49 2008
User: birdhaus
Message:who on this site would you listen to?
Date: Thu Jan 31 21:08:08 2008
User: tbirdie98TNmtn.man
Message:GLI - prove to me that it was a (so-called) "chemtrail", and not just a contrail. Please. How can you do that? When I open my eyes and look up, I can see contrails. You say that's "all the evidence I need". Why do you think they're not normal contrails? I linked you sites that showed you that's all they are. What did you not understand?
Date: Fri Feb 1 05:43:55 2008
User: malr
Message:Yeah - but the cheerleaders.
How hot were they?
;-)
Post follow-up