Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

@okie,

Quote:

even though all those rolling blackouts were happening because of electric heaters being used

That's not why the rolling blackouts happened. This is inaccurate and lazy.

Quote:

it was all peoples imagination, it was actually warm outside.

It was below freezing for a week at my brother's house in Dallas and my parents house in Houston for almost a week. So, yeah; not people's imagination.

Parados' entire point - which you really should review - is that you can't claim a data set is inaccurate and then turn around and use it as evidence when its' convenient to your position.

I have to say that this 'oh it's cold outside, there's no such thing as climate change!' idiocy you are pulling is disappointing. It is the opposite of science.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
even though all those rolling blackouts were happening because of electric heaters being used
That's not why the rolling blackouts happened. This is inaccurate and lazy.

Oh is that right? All I know is that I pulled into a gas station and had to wait for a rolling power outage came back to get my credit card to work, to fill my car, as everybody else was doing. Later at a motel, the report was that probably overuse of things like electric heaters were contributing to the power outages. I did not research it any further than that, because it seemed reasonable.

Quote:

Parados' entire point - which you really should review - is that you can't claim a data set is inaccurate and then turn around and use it as evidence when its' convenient to your position.
Cycloptichorn

Parados's entire point is illogical. First of all, I pointed out that inaccurate temperature readings that might have inaccuracies of a tenth or tenths of a degree, up to a maximum of 3 to 5 degrees off at times, depending upon other conditions, would not be logical to use to draw a conclusion of the world temps rising or falling a fraction of a degree. Yet, Parados argues that I cannot use those same climate reporting stations that might be off on average a fraction of a degree, or perhaps a degree or two, to point out that the state has experienced record cold. Secondly, the error in the temperature readings are probably on the high side, so if they were off on the high side during this record cold, perhaps it was even colder than reported?

In short, the ability or pattern of logic by parados, and apparently by you, is extremely poor to nonsensical, cyclops. You both are apparently so devoted to the global warming agenda that you simply refuse to be logical. Parados will go to any extreme to nitpick anything that does not fit his liberal agenda, even the most logical of points. The intellectual dishonesty is utterly disgusting.

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:
even though all those rolling blackouts were happening because of electric heaters being used
That's not why the rolling blackouts happened. This is inaccurate and lazy.
Oh is that right? All I know is that I pulled into a gas station and had to wait for a rolling power outage came back to get my credit card to work, to fill my car, as everybody else was doing. Later at a motel, the report was that probably overuse of things like electric heaters were contributing to the power outages. I did not research it any further than that, because it seemed reasonable.

How can that seem reasonable? You think that a few electric heaters are enough to crash Texas' entire power grid?

It had a lot more to do with freezing pipes.

Quote:

The Electric Reliability Council of Texas, which manages the state’s primary electricity grid, ordered the rolling blackouts Feb. 2 when about 50 generators went offline because of a winter storm.

More than 80 of the state’s 550 generators were eventually affected by the storm.

The outages were blamed on frozen and broken equipment at several generators, including some of the state’s newer coal-fired facilities.

Complicating the problem was that some gas-fired plants didn’t have enough natural gas to generate electricity because company officials had chosen contracts that allowed their deliveries to be interrupted.

http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/austin/politics/entries/2011/02/15/blackout_hearing_to_move_fast.html

5 seconds of Googling something. That's all it took to get the facts right.

Quote:

Parados' entire point - which you really should review - is that you can't claim a data set is inaccurate and then turn around and use it as evidence when its' convenient to your position.
Cycloptichorn

Parados's entire point is illogical. First of all, I pointed out that inaccurate temperature readings that might have inaccuracies of a tenth or tenths of a degree, up to a maximum of 3 to 5 degrees off at times, depending upon other conditions, would not be logical to use to draw a conclusion of the world temps rising or falling a fraction of a degree. Yet, Parados argues that I cannot use those same climate reporting stations that might be off on average a fraction of a degree, or perhaps a degree or two, to point out that the state has experienced record cold.[/quote]

Well, if you don't think it's accurate, how can you use the data?

Quote:

Secondly, the error in the temperature readings are probably on the high side, so if they were off on the high side during this record cold, perhaps it was even colder than reported?

Probably on the high side? Based on what, exactly?

Crap like this is the opposite of science. It's the same thing as what you did above. Something SOUNDS good, so you just run with it.

In a post where you unapologetically admit that you don't look things up or do research before commenting on them, you really shouldn't accuse others of intellectual dishonesty.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

How can that seem reasonable? You think that a few electric heaters are enough to crash Texas' entire power grid?

It had a lot more to do with freezing pipes.

How about a little common sense, cyclops? There are more than a few electric heaters. You talk about a few seconds of googling. I did that and found out power demand set records in Texas. What do you suppose people were using electricity for? Have you not heard of high power demand during heat waves in the summer in some areas due to high usage of air conditioners? Extreme cold can bring about similar high demand due to higher use of electrical devices. You mention pipes freezing. Duh, I think people use things like electric heaters to try to keep pipes from freezing too, cyclops.

You mention power plants failing, but higher demand places additional stress upon equipment, so it might be debatable whether the power plant failures were a cause or a symptom of what was going on. Look, I don't know the exact answer, but I am only telling you what I saw on the news down there, which made sense at the time. I would guess it was a combination of several factors, and one of them was higher electrical demand, probably to try to keep warm and keep pipes from freezing. You haven't noticed that electric heaters are being sold big time in hardware stores? Maybe you never go to a hardware store, cyclops, or maybe they don't have any in Berkeley?

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
How can that seem reasonable? You think that a few electric heaters are enough to crash Texas' entire power grid?

It had a lot more to do with freezing pipes.
How about a little common sense, cyclops? There are more than a few electric heaters. You talk about a few seconds of googling. I did that and found out power demand set records in Texas. What do you suppose people were using electricity for? Have you not heard of high power demand during heat waves in the summer in some areas due to high usage of air conditioners? Extreme cold can bring about similar high demand due to higher use of electrical devices. You mention pipes freezing. Duh, I think people use things like electric heaters to try to keep pipes from freezing too, cyclops.

The pipes were freezing at the goddamn power plants, Okie! Read the ******* articles before commenting!

Quote:

You mention power plants failing, but higher demand places additional stress upon equipment, so it might be debatable whether the power plant failures were a cause or a symptom of what was going on.

It's not debatable. The plants didn't fail because of a super-high load placed on them. The article I linked to directly discussed this point, which was released after an investigation by the Public Utilities commission in TX.

You are making this up. And if you aren't, prove it by linking to some data.

Quote:

Look, I don't know the exact answer, but I am only telling you what I saw on the news down there, which made sense at the time. I would guess it was a combination of several factors, and one of them was higher electrical demand, probably to try to keep warm and keep pipes from freezing. You haven't noticed that electric heaters are being sold big time in hardware stores? Maybe you never go to a hardware store, cyclops, or maybe they don't have any in Berkeley?

Ridiculously poor work here, Okie. Just admit that you were wrong and move on.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Ridiculously poor work here, Okie. Just admit that you were wrong and move on.
Cycloptichorn

Who cares, cyclops? Why are you getting hysterical over it? I only relayed what the talking head or heads said, probably in the breakfast buffet area of the motel. I doubt if it was Fox News.

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Ridiculously poor work here, Okie. Just admit that you were wrong and move on.
Cycloptichorn
Who cares, cyclops? Why are you getting hysterical over it? I only relayed what the talking head or heads said, probably in the breakfast buffet area of the motel. I doubt if it was Fox News.

Hysterical? I'm just truly blown away by your inability to discuss issues, even trivial ones, without resorting to extreme dishonesty. You don't do research and you don't admit when you were wrong.

It's exasperating to have to talk to you like a child, do you know that? I basically treat you the same way that I would treat a teenager in discussions. You seem to be missing basic segments of logic and honesty and have made up for it with extra helpings of willful idiocy.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cyclo wrote:

Quote:

...with extra helpings of willful idiocy.

I think you'd better look in the mirror, cyclo. You're feeding this idiot with food every day.

0 Replies

@okie,

They really get excited, almost religious fervour, if people dont believe in their Mother Nature God. They are the High Priests and how dare we not just believe...

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

you can't claim a data set is inaccurate and then turn around and use it as evidence when its' convenient to your position.

Just answer the question...is it accurate or isnt it ? Can it be used or cant it ?

It is really poor form to argue to someone that it is accurate and then when it is used to show cooling you claim it cant be used because it is inaccurate.

Did you want to convince okie it was accurate or not ?

2 Replies

@Ionus,

Quote:

It is really poor form to argue to someone that it is accurate and then when it is used to show cooling you claim it cant be used because it is inaccurate.

But no one argued it couldn't be used because it shows cooling. That is your straw man that you keep beating. It's an idiotic argument when you made it the first time. It's still an idiotic argument.

The argument made was that cooling in OK doesn't prove anything about the globe because while OK was cooling large parts of Canada were warming. You have to use the whole globe to talk about average global temperatures. The other argument made was that okie's use of the data contradicts his earlier claim that the data can't be used because it is inaccurate. Okie's logic fails because he wants to use data he already claimed is false to prove something. The failure of his argument has nothing to do with how others view the data.

1 Reply

@parados,

Quote:

But no one argued it couldn't be used because it shows cooling. That is your straw man that you keep beating. It's an idiotic argument when you made it the first time. It's still an idiotic argument.

You told okie he had previously said the data was inaccurate. You tried to convince him it was accurate. He uses it to prove cooling and you think it is a strawman ?

How is the Global Average determined whilst eliminating the natural warming due to exiting from the Ice Age, weather variation, and the positioning of weather stations ? How do you allow for such an extremely small period of trending when everything else that involves the changing of climate takes thousands of years ?

Quote:

The argument made was that cooling in OK doesn't prove anything about the globe

Where are the majority of weather stations? Have they been set up with a view to measuring climate or weather ?

Why do you persist with these idiotic contradictions ? Isnt there a tree you can hug, or an unwashed hippy you can sing "goombaya" with ? You have a religion called Mother Earth and you are a brainwashed Thuggee. Everything Green must be true.

Grow a brain.

2 Replies

@Ionus,

At least our only serious fusion reactor is back on the job - we're less likely to freeze / starve than we were a few days ago:
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/sunearth/news/News021411-xclass.html

Quote:

The sun emitted its first X-class flare in more than four years on February 14 .....X-class flares are the most powerful of all solar events..

http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/516921main_x2flare.gif

1 Reply

@Ionus,

Ionus,
It's your argument that is the strawman. Okie didn't prove global cooling by showing temperatures for 1 month in less than 0.5% of the global surface. He only showed he doesn't understand the concept of global. That coupled with the fact that he has argued the temperatures he claims show cooling are the very data he claims can't be trusted. Okie's argument isn't a strawman. It fails on other counts.

Quote:

Grow a brain.

Not only did I grow one, I actually use mine.

1 Reply

@parados,

Quote:

by showing temperatures for 1 month in less than 0.5% of the global surface.

So tell me, oh mighty wizard of destruction, what would be a significant surface area to measure over what period of time ?

Quote:

Quote:
Grow a brain.
Not only did I grow one, I actually use mine.

Brings a tear to my eye to think of how bravely you struggle....what an optimistic little soul you are... Crying or Very sad

0 Replies

@High Seas,

Thats one impressive photo, isnt it ? But you do know the standard argument for why the sun cant be warming our planet....look at all the planets and how they get colder the further out you go.....hmmm...on second thought...

1 Reply

@Ionus,

Ionus wrote:

Quote:
you can't claim a data set is inaccurate and then turn around and use it as evidence when its' convenient to your position.
Just answer the question...is it accurate or isnt it ? Can it be used or cant it ?

It is really poor form to argue to someone that it is accurate and then when it is used to show cooling you claim it cant be used because it is inaccurate.

Did you want to convince okie it was accurate or not ?

Their idea of honest debate is a one way street, Ionus.

Also, what the libs here do not get is that I posted the map of cold temps in Oklahoma, mainly to tweak them and get them all riled up. I did not post it to prove any grand conclusion, that the earth was getting much colder for example. Their responses were predictable, and funny too. They can use short term data and slightly inaccurate data to justify warnings of impending doom based upon a fraction of one degree Centigrade, but the same cannot be used to cast further doubt upon an already doubtful theory. The same is true with anecdotal evidence, they can use it but skeptics cannot.

1 Reply

@okie,

You can make up all the "facts" you want okie. It doesn't change anything.
1. You used data you said is inaccurate.
2. You used OK temperatures for one month to show the globe wasn't warming.
3. You now attempt to accuse the other side of what you did. If you have evidence of me ever using a single month's temperature to prove warming then please post a link. Otherwise, I think we can all agree that you are just talking out your ass because you don't have anything else that supports your statement.

2 Replies

@parados,

Your logic and reasoning is silly, parados.

First of all, inaccurate data that might be a fraction of a degree off is indeed useless to calculating world climate data, but it probably is not at all useless to learning that temps in Oklahoma were close to record lows. It is not me trying to prove global cooling with slightly inaccurate data, it is you and your friends claiming you can use questionable data to prove a world wide calamity is pending due to global warming of less than a degree Centigrade. The two purposes are not to be compared, unless of course you are illogical, which you are.

1 Reply

@parados,

Quote:

You used data you said is inaccurate.

Is the data accurate or not ? Answer the question.

Quote:

You used OK temperatures for one month to show the globe wasn't warming.

What would be an appropriate amount of time to prove global change ?

Quote:

If you have evidence of me ever using a single month's temperature to prove warming

Why do you think the climate is based on the human life span ? Ten years is the same as a month...you are measuring weather. Do you think ten year droughts are climate or weather ? What would be an appropriate amount of time ?

1 Reply

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know