Hurricane Harvey

[heydaralon]

I thought the Hurricane was punishment for the all the Hillary voters in that state

Awwwww snap! Next up, the article where Heydaralon is terminated from Arby's.

Arby's is a Free Speech Space as long as I tweeted it from their wifi. They wouldn't be able to keep that grill running without me tbh.

[TheReal_ND]

How did a person who lives in their van get stuck this shit?

Several of us called him and told him he should drive. He's just stubborn. But now he can really focus on building the best Fallout 4 overpass settlement ever.

Everything is fine. Is just water.

[heydaralon]

How did a person who lives in their van get stuck this shit?

Several of us called him and told him he should drive. He's just stubborn. But now he can really focus on building the best Fallout 4 overpass settlement ever.

Everything is fine. Is just water.

At least it didn't flood!

[TheReal_ND]

it didn't

Getting out of there was tough though. I'm in brenham now

[The Conservative]

I remember talking heads on fake news saying that, but not climate scientists. I do remember climate scientists predicting stronger hurricanes. A brief search of articles from around ten years ago confirms this. For instance, I linked one article from NaGeo that discusses this.

It's interesting to me that they did not predict fewer hurricanes overall. That seems like a pretty big glaring hole in their model that makes me doubt the model's accuracy even if it was accurate about the more intense storms.

And, really, it's not such a stretch to predict stronger hurricanes resulting from warmer ocean temps. The models should have been able to predict the lower frequency.

If they weren't using papers with doctored numbers, they probably would have.

The heavy cooking of the data and retroactive "adjustments" seems to have began less than ten years ago when the actual data coming in didn't match the predictions at all. There always exist some baseline level of data-cooking in scientific research -- it's a perennial problem in academia -- but the craziness in climate data adjustments really took off relatively recently. Fifteen years ago I think they were comfortable enough with their shared belief in this phenomena to remain relatively un-tempted to fabricate or distort data.

The problem seems to be the case that the climate scientists rather than the engineers or even computer scientists control the modeling projects. I don't get the sense they understand the problem with constantly amending things to get the results you want. The model should stem straightforwardly from your collection of core hypotheses. If it doesn't pan out, then ensure your model faithfully reproduced and modeled those hypotheses first, and if you found no mistakes in implementation, then you really need to emend your hypotheses. They are not doing that. It's bad science.

Imagine what would happen if somebody modeling financial markets for automated trading did that. They could keep altering it until it accounted for all the past data, but the core hypotheses could be wrong, and the thing could very well not make valid predictions in the future.

You mean like weathermen?

On that note, yes doctoring is expected. A rounding on a 100th of a decimal or something of the sort to make it manageable, but not while numbers.

[The Conservative]

Actually if anything, I remember them saying we'd see more of them, and those being more violent. "Cat 1 - 3" would be the rarity instead of common place.

I remember talking heads on fake news saying that, but not climate scientists. I do remember climate scientists predicting stronger hurricanes. A brief search of articles from around ten years ago confirms this. For instance, I linked one article from NaGeo that discusses this.

It's interesting to me that they did not predict fewer hurricanes overall. That seems like a pretty big glaring hole in their model that makes me doubt the model's accuracy even if it was accurate about the more intense storms.

And, really, it's not such a stretch to predict stronger hurricanes resulting from warmer ocean temps. The models should have been able to predict the lower frequency.

They did. And they weren't entirely right about it. See my NOAA link - the frequency of short-lived storms is actually increasing steadily.

We only pay attention to the big ones that hit land in the US. There's a lot more going on than that.

Your NOAA link showed shit. Mine showed facts. So far you are batting a 1000% in bullshit posting.

[Penner]

University of Tampa fires professor who blamed Harvey on GOP vote

TAMPA, Fla. -- The University of Tampa has fired a visiting assistant professor who suggested in a tweet that Hurricane Harvey's destruction is "instant karma" for Texas because it voted Republican.

Sociology professor Kenneth L. Storey posted the tweet and two responses on Sunday before removing the entire thread and his profile photo, the Tampa Bay Times reports.

The original post, captured by conservative websites before it was removed, read, "I dont believe in instant karma but this kinda feels like it for Texas. Hopefully this will help them realize the GOP doesnt care about them." . . .

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kenneth-st ... -gop-vote/

That is one *shocked* professor.
You know he's walking around in a daze right now and muttering "WTF?!?!" to himself.
He's probably still trying to figure out why he can't tweet the same sort of stuff that he and his peers say in class every day.

Wait they fired him for his opinion? I mean what about James Damore and Google? Edit: /s If anyone didn't get it.

[Speaker to Animals]

Looks like GCF's hateful fake news already collapsed:

https://newstalk1130.iheart.com/feature ... Y.facebook

[TheReal_ND]

Sad!

[Alexander PhiAlipson]

Looks like GCF's hateful fake news already collapsed:

https://newstalk1130.iheart.com/feature ... Y.facebook

I hope you're not waiting for some sort of mea culpa.