Page 2 of 64 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 1585
  1. #26
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    At the beach
    Posts
    11,787
    Quote Originally Posted by digitaldeath View Post
    you know Volvo is chinese now right?
    So, you've always been a dope. Does it matter in the big picture???
    Quote Originally Posted by leroy jenkins View Post
    I think you'd have an easier time understanding people if you remembered that 80% of them are fucking morons.
    That is why I like dogs, more than most people.

  2. #27
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    2,857
    When shitheads claim "There can't be global warming cuz it snowed a lot last month," we properly point out that weather is not climate.

  3. #28
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    EWA
    Posts
    14,525
    Quote Originally Posted by iceman View Post
    If it's been the same temp for a week I think your thermometer is busted.
    Ha-ha. I made that one a nice slow pitch, no?

  4. #29
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    7,546
    Caught a nice thunderstorm and temps are back down in the mid 50's where they belong. Normally, this would be about the hottest day of the year... betting it won't be though. 80 degrees, here we come.
    Quote Originally Posted by Hugh Conway View Post
    Hugh Conway sucks
    Quote Originally Posted by Meadow Skipper View Post
    I guess stfu might be right about steel toed boots
    Quote Originally Posted by pedoherp69 View Post
    I know actual transpeople.
    Quote Originally Posted by rokjoxx View Post
    We is got a good military, maybe cause some kids get to shooting sports early here.

  5. #30
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    cordova,AK
    Posts
    2,631
    ocean temps here are 3 degrees above normal. Not good for the salmon. Fish this year are the smallest on record for the Copper River.
    off your knees Louie

  6. #31
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    2 hours from anything
    Posts
    7,948
    Quote Originally Posted by BFD View Post
    ocean temps here are 3 degrees above normal. Not good for the salmon. Fish this year are the smallest on record for the Copper River.
    Warmer pacific ocean temps, the continuation of the Ridiculously Rigid Ridge bringing hotter and dryer weather bringing desertification...

    This trend seems to be strengthening.

  7. #32
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    EWA
    Posts
    14,525
    Ugh.... day 6 of sweltering 100+ degree weather and the 10 day forecast shows more of the same. All the animals, including the birds that come to my feeders, are off their feed. I've been living on cereal, salads and fruit - too hot to bar-b-que let alone have the energy to cook something and clean up after a day of working outside in the heat (and unfortunately where I live there are no close restaurants or delivery).

    We've blown all our heat/dryness/consecutive days of triple digits records out of the water and this is just the 1st day of July. I'm afraid to think what is in-store for the rest of the month let alone August.

  8. #33
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    7,546
    ^ totally feel your pain KQ... Currently 56 here... Every window in the house is open and I still can't comfortably wear even my lightest puffy. Seriously considering putting the down clothing away until at least late august.
    Quote Originally Posted by Hugh Conway View Post
    Hugh Conway sucks
    Quote Originally Posted by Meadow Skipper View Post
    I guess stfu might be right about steel toed boots
    Quote Originally Posted by pedoherp69 View Post
    I know actual transpeople.
    Quote Originally Posted by rokjoxx View Post
    We is got a good military, maybe cause some kids get to shooting sports early here.

  9. #34
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    General Sherman's Favorite City
    Posts
    18,136
    Quote Originally Posted by liv2ski View Post
    DD, try and keep up.

    Nice. Pegged.
    I still call it The Jake.

  10. #35
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    2 hours from anything
    Posts
    7,948
    Quote Originally Posted by Jamespio View Post
    When shitheads claim "There can't be global warming cuz it snowed a lot last month," we properly point out that weather is not climate.
    Yes but when you have the first five hottest months on record then set daily, monthly, and all time heat records in many locations around the world, it kinda looks like it's hot.

  11. #36
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    At the beach
    Posts
    11,787
    Quote Originally Posted by neufox47 View Post
    Yes but when you have the first five hottest months on record then set daily, monthly, and all time heat records in many locations around the world, it kinda looks like it's hot.
    Welcome to the new normal. One of my ski buddies (mr scientist) keeps telling me the Global Warmingz are BS and in fact we are in the beginnings of a cooling of the Earth cycle Whatever, all I know is if this shit keeps up, people will have to migrate where it is a bit more temperate and where there is plenty of water. Now just where the fuck is that?
    Quote Originally Posted by leroy jenkins View Post
    I think you'd have an easier time understanding people if you remembered that 80% of them are fucking morons.
    That is why I like dogs, more than most people.

  12. #37
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Golden
    Posts
    3,376
    Quote Originally Posted by BmillsSkier View Post
    Nice. Pegged.
    155 mph...and 5 mpg....nice! But twice the fun of my 10 mpg F-250 with the camper at 75 mph.

  13. #38
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Golden
    Posts
    3,376
    Quote Originally Posted by KQ View Post
    Section of Highway 2 melts near Stevens Pass

    WSDOT is getting ready to repave a portion of highway 2, between Gold Bar and Monroe, after it started melting due to the extreme heat and heavy traffic in early June. Maintenance crews temporarily put chip seal on the road before it was set to be repaved. The weather and heat caused the chip seal to fail and until the asphalt gets a new look in a few weeks, it will have a few bumps in the road.

    As if road base preparation and drainage have nothing to do with frost heaves and road degradation. Only temps. Come on DOT, we all know better.

    Randy Gossler is an employee at a local fruit stand just off Highway 2 in the small town of Startup, between Gold Bar and Monroe. He was not surprised when the road started melting at the beginning of June.

    "I can understand it, yes, with the amount of traffic and the amount of heat that we've had this year that the road would start breaking down," Gossler said. "There's a heavy flow of traffic here seven days a week during the summer."

    Gossler said for the people heading to Stevens Pass Highway 2 is pretty much their only option.

    "You've got all your festivals that go everywhere from Leavenworth all the way to the Okanogan to Wenatchee all Spring, Summer, Fall, and Winter, so basically 12 months a year it's busy out here," Gossler said. "I joke with people that I moved out here simply to get away from city traffic, but city traffic is here."

    WSDOT said that even though traffic is heavy this type of problem you just can't predict. They said drivers do not need to worry about their safety being at risk, they said if there was a legitimate concern they would shut down the roadway. They plan to repave the highway after the 4th of July.

    Trevor Burrell lives just off the Highway and he said the difference has been noticeable since the melting started to take place.

    "I've had people message me on my phone and were like 'What happened to your road', and I'm like I don't know," Burrell said. "It doesn't look right. It's got all these holes in it. It almost looks like someone jabbed the road up."

    Burrell said he's looking forward to a permanent fix so traffic can travel smoothly once again.

    "I actually will drive on the lines to just stay off the bumps."
    This is nothing that proper road base prep and drainage wouldn't solve. But WSDOT blames it on temps.

  14. #39
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    a poop plant
    Posts
    2,854
    Quote Originally Posted by liv2ski View Post
    Welcome to the new normal. One of my ski buddies (mr scientist) keeps telling me the Global Warmingz are BS and in fact we are in the beginnings of a cooling of the Earth cycle Whatever, all I know is if this shit keeps up, people will have to migrate where it is a bit more temperate and where there is plenty of water. Now just where the fuck is that?
    My boss has a PHD in some sciency shit and he claims the same. He says it's all about $ for researchers. People want the answer they want so they pay for researches to give them them the answer they want. There's no money in saying GW is not happening. Don't know if he's right, but he was a researcher for good 20 years, so I do put a little stock in it.

  15. #40
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    OREYGUN!
    Posts
    13,953
    http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog...ukewarmer.aspx


    by Matt Ridley

    I am a climate lukewarmer. That means I think recent global warming is real, mostly man-made and will continue but I no longer think it is likely to be dangerous and I think its slow and erratic progress so far is what we should expect in the future. That last year was the warmest yet, in some data sets, but only by a smidgen more than 2005, is precisely in line with such lukewarm thinking.
    This view annoys some sceptics who think all climate change is natural or imaginary, but it is even more infuriating to most publicly funded scientists and politicians, who insist climate change is a big risk. My middle-of-the-road position is considered not just wrong, but disgraceful, shameful, verging on scandalous. I am subjected to torrents of online abuse for holding it, very little of it from sceptics.
    I was even kept off the shortlist for a part-time, unpaid public-sector appointment in a field unrelated to climate because of having this view, or so the headhunter thought. In the climate debate, paying obeisance to climate scaremongering is about as mandatory for a public appointment, or public funding, as being a Protestant was in 18th-century England.
    Kind friends send me news almost weekly of whole blog posts devoted to nothing but analysing my intellectual and personal inadequacies, always in relation to my views on climate. Writing about climate change is a small part of my life but, to judge by some of the stuff that gets written about me, writing about me is a large part of the life of some of the more obsessive climate commentators. It’s all a bit strange. Why is this debate so fractious?
    Rather than attack my arguments, my critics like to attack my motives. I stand accused of “wanting” climate change to be mild because I support free markets or because I receive income indirectly from the mining of coal in Northumberland. Two surface coal mines (which I do not own), operating without subsidies, do indeed dig coal partly from land that I own. They pay me a fee, as I have repeatedly declared in speeches, books and articles.
    I do think that coal, oil and gas have been a good thing so far, by giving us an alternative to cutting down forests and killing whales, by supplying fertiliser to feed the world, by giving the global poor affordable energy, and so on. But instead of defending the modern coal industry I write and speak extensively in favour of gas, the biggest competitive threat to coal’s share of the electricity market. If we can phase out coal without causing too much suffering, then I would not object.
    Besides, I could probably earn even more from renewable energy. As a landowner, I am astonished by the generosity of the offers I keep receiving for green-energy subsidies. Wind farm developers in smart suits dangle the prospect of tens of thousands of pounds per turbine on my land — and tens of turbines. A solar developer wrote to me recently saying he could offer more than a million pounds of income over 25 years if I were to cover some particular fields with solar panels. Many big country houses have installed subsidised wood-fired heating to the point where you can hear their Canalettos cracking. I argue against such subsidies, so I don’t take them.
    I was not always a lukewarmer. When I first started writing about the threat of global warming more than 26 years ago, as science editor ofThe Economist, I thought it was a genuinely dangerous threat. Like, for instance, Margaret Thatcher, I accepted the predictions being made at the time that we would see warming of a third or a half a degree (Centigrade) a decade, perhaps more, and that this would have devastating consequences.
    Gradually, however, I changed my mind. The failure of the atmosphere to warm anywhere near as rapidly as predicted was a big reason: there has been less than half a degree of global warming in four decades — and it has slowed down, not speeded up. Increases in malaria, refugees, heatwaves, storms, droughts and floods have not materialised to anything like the predicted extent, if at all. Sea level has risen but at a very slow rate — about a foot per century.
    Also, I soon realised that all the mathematical models predicting rapid warming assume big amplifying feedbacks in the atmosphere, mainly from water vapour; carbon dioxide is merely the primer, responsible for about a third of the predicted warming. When this penny dropped, so did my confidence in predictions of future alarm: the amplifiers are highly uncertain.
    Another thing that gave me pause was that I went back and looked at the history of past predictions of ecological apocalypse from my youth – population explosion, oil exhaustion, elephant extinction, rainforest loss, acid rain, the ozone layer, desertification, nuclear winter, the running out of resources, pandemics, falling sperm counts, cancerous pesticide pollution and so forth. There was a consistent pattern of exaggeration, followed by damp squibs: in not a single case was the problem as bad as had been widely predicted by leading scientists. That does not make every new prediction of apocalypse necessarily wrong, of course, but it should encourage scepticism.
    What sealed my apostasy from climate alarm was the extraordinary history of the famous “hockey stick” graph, which purported to show that today’s temperatures were higher and changing faster than at any time in the past thousand years. That graph genuinely shocked me when I first saw it and, briefly in the early 2000s, it persuaded me to abandon my growing doubts about dangerous climate change and return to the “alarmed” camp.
    Then I began to read the work of two Canadian researchers, Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick. They and others have shown, as confirmed by the National Academy of Sciences in the United States, that the hockey stick graph, and others like it, are heavily reliant on dubious sets of tree rings and use inappropriate statistical filters that exaggerate any 20th-century upturns.
    What shocked me more was the scientific establishment’s reaction to this: it tried to pretend that nothing was wrong. And then a flood of emails was leaked in 2009 showing some climate scientists apparently scheming to withhold data, prevent papers being published, get journal editors sacked and evade freedom-of-information requests, much as sceptics had been alleging. That was when I began to re-examine everything I had been told about climate change and, the more I looked, the flakier the prediction of rapid warming seemed.
    I am especially unimpressed by the claim that a prediction of rapid and dangerous warming is “settled science”, as firm as evolution or gravity. How could it be? It is a prediction! No prediction, let alone in a multi-causal, chaotic and poorly understood system like the global climate, should ever be treated as gospel. With the exception of eclipses, there is virtually nothing scientists can say with certainty about the future. It is absurd to argue that one cannot disagree with a forecast. Is the Bank of England’s inflation forecast infallible?
    Incidentally, my current view is still consistent with the “consensus” among scientists, as represented by the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The consensus is that climate change is happening, not that it is going to be dangerous. The latest IPCC report gives a range of estimates of future warming, from harmless to terrifying. My best guess would be about one degree of warming during this century, which is well within the IPCC’s range of possible outcomes.
    Yet most politicians go straight to the top of the IPCC’s range and call climate change things like “perhaps the world’s most fearsome weapon of mass destruction” (John Kerry), requiring the expenditure of trillions of dollars. I think that is verging on grotesque in a world full of war, hunger, disease and poverty. It also means that environmental efforts get diverted from more urgent priorities, like habitat loss and invasive species.
    The policies being proposed to combat climate change, far from being a modest insurance policy, are proving ineffective, expensive, harmful to poor people and actually bad for the environment: we are tearing down rainforests to grow biofuels and ripping up peat bogs to install windmills that still need fossil-fuel back-up. These policies are failing to buy any comfort for our wealthy grandchildren and are doing so on the backs of today’s poor. Some insurance policy.
    To begin with, after I came out as a lukewarmer, I would get genuine critiques from scientists who disagreed with me and wanted to exchange views. I had long and time-consuming email exchanges or conversations with several such scientists.
    Yet I grew steadily more sceptical as, one by one, they failed to answer my doubts. They often resorted to meta-arguments, especially the argument from authority: if the Royal Society says it is alarmed, then you should be alarmed. If I want argument from authority, I replied, I will join the Catholic Church. “These are just standard denialist talking points” scoffed another prominent scientist, unpersuasively, when I raised objections — as if that answered them.
    My experience with sceptical scientists, many of them distinguished climatologists at leading universities, was different. The more I probed, the better their data seemed. They did not resort to the argument from authority. Sometimes I disagreed with them or thought they went too far. I have yet to be convinced, for example, that changes in the output of the sun caused the warming of the 1980s and 1990s — an idea that some espouse. So for the most part, I found myself persuaded by the middle-of-the-road, “lukewarm” argument – that CO2-induced warming is likely but it won’t be large, fast or damaging.

  16. #41
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    OREYGUN!
    Posts
    13,953
    contuniued

    Then a funny thing happened a few years ago. Those who disagreed with me stopped pointing out politely where or why they disagreed and started calling me names. One by one, many of the most prominent people in the climate debate began to throw vitriolic playground abuse at me. I was “paranoid”, “specious”, “risible”, “self-defaming”, “daft”, “lying”, “irrational”, an “idiot”. Their letters to the editor or their blog responses asserted that I was “error-riddled” or had seriously misrepresented something, but then they not only failed to substantiate the charge but often roughly confirmed what I had written.
    I have seen bad-tempered polarisation of scientific debates before, for example during the nature-nurture debates of the 1970s and 1980s between those who thought genes affected behaviour and those who thought upbringing was overwhelmingly important. That debate grew vicious. What caused the polarisation, I realised then, was not just that people on one side read the articles they agreed with, reinforcing their prejudices, but something more. They relied on extreme distortions of their enemies’ arguments, written by self-appointed guardians of the flame on their own side, so they were constantly attacking straw men.
    It’s the same here. Most of the people who attack me seem to think I am a “denier” of climate change because that’s what a few hyperventilating bloggers keep saying about me. It’s not, of course, true. It’s these flame guardians who polarise such debates.
    The most prolific of them is a man named Bob Ward. Although employed at the London School of Economics, he is not a researcher or lecturer, but policy and communications director, somebody whose day job is to defend the climate orthodoxy in the media. Some might call him a spin doctor. It appears to me that he feels compelled to write something rude about me every time I publish on this topic and although his letters to editors are often published, he throws an online tantrum if they are not. He is hilariously obsessed with my peerage, lovingly reciting my title every time he attacks me, like a Bertie Woosterish snob.
    As an example of playing the man and not the ball, Ward and Lord Deben, chairman of the government’s official committee on climate change, are both wont to mock the fact that my Oxford DPhil thesis in 1983 was on the behaviour of birds. Good luck to them but I notice they don’t mock the fact that the DPhil thesis of Lord Krebs was also on birds, earned in the very same research group as me: the Edward Grey Institute of Field Ornithology. Lord Krebs is the chairman of the adaptation subcommittee of the committee on climate change.
    John Krebs, a fine scientist and superb lecturer, was the internal examiner of my thesis, which he praised at the time, after telling me to correct a couple of silly mistakes he had spotted in the calculation of a probability result. I did so. Imagine my surprise when he recently told several separate people (who reported it to me) that I should not be listened to on climate change because my DPhil thesis, all those years ago, contained mathematical errors. Lord May even used this argument against me in a debate in the House of Lords: that because I got a number wrong in a calculation 31 years ago, I cannot ever be right again. This is the kind of hilarious thing that happens to you if you come out as a lukewarmer.
    Talking of the committee on climate change, last year Lord Deben commissioned an entire report to criticise something I had said. Among other howlers, it included a quotation from the IPCC but the quote had a large chunk cut from the middle. When this cut was restored the line supported me, not Lord Deben. When I pointed this out politely to Lord Deben, he refused to restore the excision and left the document unchanged on the committee’s website. Presenting quotations so they appear to mean something different from what they do is quite a sin in journalism. Apparently not in Whitehall committees.
    I suppose all this fury means my arguments are hitting home. If they were easily demolished they would demolish them rather than try to demolish me. Many of the things that I was abused for saying have since proved to be right. I was one of the first to write an article in the mainstream media (in The Wall Street Journal in 2012) arguing that the latest data supported much lower estimates of climate sensitivity (the amount of warming induced by a doubling of carbon dioxide levels) than those being assumed by the models used by the IPCC.
    This produced the usual vituperation online from about a dozen high-profile science commentators with nothing better to do. Since then four papers (the latest being this one) have appeared in the scientific literature, authored by very prominent climate scientists, giving low estimates of climate sensitivity, some even lower than I had said. I am waiting for my critics to acknowledge that my story was sound.
    I have never met a climate sceptic, let alone a lukewarmer, who wants his opponents silenced. I wish I could say the same of those who think climate change is an alarming prospect.

    Update:
    Marlo Lewis has provided a handy list of the range of opinions that come under the "lukewarmer" label. I subscribe to each of these in some form or to some degree:
    "In general, I would describe a ‘lukewarmer’ as someone who:
    - Thinks anthropogenic climate change is real but very far from being a planetary emergency
    - Takes due notice of the increasing divergence between climate model predictions and observations and the growing body of scientific literature challenging IPCC climate sensitivity estimates.
    - Regards the usual pastiche of remedies — carbon taxes, cap-and-trade, renewable energy quota, CO2 performance standards – as either an expensive exercise in futility or a ‘cure’ worse than the alleged disease (depending how aggressively those policies are implemented).
    - Is impressed by — and thankful for — the immense albeit usually unsung benefits of the CO2 fertilization effect on global agriculture and green things generally.
    - Recognizes that poverty remains the world’s leading cause of preventable illness and premature death.
    - Understands that plentiful, affordable, scalable energy (most of which comes from CO2-emitting fossil fuels) is essential to poverty eradication and progress towards a healthier, safer, more prosperous world."

  17. #42
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    OREYGUN!
    Posts
    13,953
    ...and again
    Update 2:
    The main point of my article was to draw attention to how ad-hominem, vicious and personal the attacks on lukewarmers now are from the guardians of the flame of climate alarm. Though I had a huge and overwhelmingly positive response, I could not have wished for a better example of my point than some of the negative reactions to this article. An egregious example was the death threats I received from a Guardian contributor and Greenpeace "translator", Gary Evans.
    On 21 January The Guardian published an article by Dana Nuccitelli, specifically criticizing me. The article was illustrated with a picture of the severed head of a zombie. Beneath the article appeared the following comment from “Bluecloud”:
    “Should that not be Ridley's severed head in the photo?”
    Bluecloud was challenged by another commenter with:
    “Do you recommend that for all people that have a different world view than you?”
    Bluecloud replied:
    “We would actually solve a great deal of the world's problems by chopping off everyone's heads.
    Why are you deniers so touchy? Mere calls for a beheading evolve such a strong response in you people.
    Ask yourself a simple question: Would the world be a better place without Matt Ridley? Need I answer that question?”
    This showed that Bluecloud had not been misunderstood in his death threat. It occurred a few days before the beheading of a Japanese hostage in Syria.
    At this stage a number of comments below the article had already been censored or deleted, including one from Professor Richard Tol of Sussex University, which read as follows:
    “Dr Ridley claimed that his writings inspire others to write about what he wrote. To illustrate his point, Ken Rice, Greg Laden and Dana Nuccitelli write about Ridley’s writings.
    Dr Ridley claimed that there have been more attempts on his character than on his arguments. To underline this point, Pitchfork Anonymous smears his name.
    Anyone who points out the irony of all this receives the same treatment.”
    This was “removed by a moderator because it didn’t abide by our community standards”, though how it caused offence is hard to imagine. This shows that Bluecloud’s comment could have been removed by moderators had they wished.
    Another commenter, “Adamke", then pointed out that Bluecloud is Gary Evans, an environmental activist who works with Greenpeace and writes occasionally for the Guardian (where his profile states clearly that he posts as Bluecloud).
    Incredibly, this comment, outing Mr Evans, was then removed by the moderators, because apparently it was more offensive to the Guardian community than the recommendation that I be beheaded.
    Astonished by this turn of events, I wrote to Alan Rusbridger, the editor of The Guardian, complaining of the extraordinary double standard. He replied that the zombie picture had now been changed and the beheading comments removed. He said that he was “of course” sorry if I had been distressed. He refused to answer my question as to whether he had contacted Mr Evans with a view to finding out how serious his threat was, and refused to say whether the Guardian would in future use Mr Evans as a contributor. He said I should now appeal to the “readers’ editor” if I was unhappy with his reply.
    I did so. I also drew Greenpeace’s attention to the actions of their associate and they issued a statement that read as follows: “The content and tone of the comments are completely at odds with the principle of non-violence written into our organisation's DNA, and we would never condone that kind of language from someone working for Greenpeace or indeed from anyone else."
    No such statement emerged from the Guardian. Chris Elliott, the readers’ editor, took eleven days to reply to my email. He referred to the death threat as a “joke” and defended some of the actions of the Guardian, though said they should not have used that picture or allowed the death threats to go undeleted. Eventually, he published an article in which the Guardian apologised to me for not deleting the beheading tweet sooner, and quoting Mr Evans as apologising "for any trouble this may have caused to anyone involved". This was approximately three weeks after the original comments had appeared.
    This episode began with me noting that anybody who refuses to subscribe to the view that climate change is a very dangerous threat is treated as some kind of heretic to be persecuted, rather than a sceptic to be debated. The reaction has confirmed my point precisely.

  18. #43
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    17,979
    It's too hot for me. I just called to get an estimate for getting central air installed in my house. The earliest they can even get out for the estimate is July 31st. It used to be people didn't think a/c was necessary in Seattle. The last few summers have changed many peoples' minds it would seem.

  19. #44
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Imaginationland
    Posts
    3,703
    Quote Originally Posted by The AD View Post
    It's too hot for me. I just called to get an estimate for getting central air installed in my house. The earliest they can even get out for the estimate is July 31st. It used to be people didn't think a/c was necessary in Seattle. The last few summers have changed many peoples' minds it would seem.
    Definitely appears our eastern desert weather is creeping over there lately. Be glad you're not over 90 at 10 in the morning. I've never seen so many 100 degree days in a row in June in my life. I'm ready for winter.

  20. #45
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Central OR
    Posts
    4,933
    ^^^ we didn't have a winter last year; fingers crossed.

  21. #46
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    EWA
    Posts
    14,525
    Quote Originally Posted by NW_SKIER View Post
    Definitely appears our eastern desert weather is creeping over there lately. Be glad you're not over 90 at 10 in the morning. I've never seen so many 100 degree days in a row in June in my life. I'm ready for winter.
    Oh it was 90 at 10 yesterday here in EWA.

    I have a GF in Woodinville who has AC - has had it for years, turns it on as soon as it is 70 degrees and runs it all day/night till September. Funny thing is, she's from Las Vegas by way of Norman, OK. You'd think she wouldn't need AC in WWA. Sometimes I think it is more of a mental thing for her, Summer=AC.

  22. #47
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Imaginationland
    Posts
    3,703
    Quote Originally Posted by KQ View Post
    Oh it was 90 at 10 yesterday here in EWA.

    Summer=AC.
    I work outdoors so I get to watch that temp skyrocket on my thermometer everyday here in the the Yakima Valley furnace.

    Your friend has the right idea.

  23. #48
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Golden
    Posts
    3,376
    Quote Originally Posted by GiBo View Post
    My boss has a PHD in some sciency shit and he claims the same. He says it's all about $ for researchers. People want the answer they want so they pay for researches to give them them the answer they want. There's no money in saying GW is not happening. Don't know if he's right, but he was a researcher for good 20 years, so I do put a little stock in it.
    I've been saying that for years. What scientist would want to put themselves out of a job?

    First Peoples show on Public Broadcasting last night talked about the first people to migrate into Australia. A few thousand years after they got there the ice age set in. This caused more water to be frozen at the poles and glaciers and caused severe drought and heat in Australia.

    Today there are reports of record ice in the Antarctic though some glaciers are melting. And coinciding reports of volcanic activity under those glaciers. Molten magma = melted glacier. Duh!

    If things were so bad why would NASA and NOAA keep revising old temperature records downward causing a larger than previously reported difference between today's temps and those in the past?

    Computer models are just that...'models'. How about simply reading thermometers and averaging things using real math?

  24. #49
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Golden
    Posts
    3,376
    Quote Originally Posted by KQ View Post
    Oh it was 90 at 10 yesterday here in EWA.

    I have a GF in Woodinville who has AC - has had it for years, turns it on as soon as it is 70 degrees and runs it all day/night till September. Funny thing is, she's from Las Vegas by way of Norman, OK. You'd think she wouldn't need AC in WWA. Sometimes I think it is more of a mental thing for her, Summer=AC.
    Some people dig the white noise of an AC. And it removes moisture that is way different in WWA than in LV.

  25. #50
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    17,979
    Quote Originally Posted by goldengatestinx View Post
    How about simply reading thermometers and averaging things using real math?
    So you've figured out a way to use a thermometer to measure future temperatures?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •