| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/16/2012 11:39:44 PM · #26 |
| If they need another 174,000, makes you wonder how many rounds they've expended in the normal course of their duties so far... |
|
|
|
08/17/2012 12:01:28 AM · #27 |
How many hollow points does it take to put down an irate senior citizen??? This calc's to 278+ rounds per officer! How many times in a budget cycle are SSA officers firing at citizens to protect their offices and conduct their investigations??? I have not heard one news report ever of shots fired by SSA officers!!! It really does smell of something unpleasant!! Either the agency has too much money budgeted that it has to use or lose, or something else is going down... south of the border, that is!
|
|
|
|
08/17/2012 12:58:10 AM · #28 |
Originally posted by EL-ROI:
This calc's to 278+ rounds per officer! |
Yawn. If the officers are required to take even quarterly target practice and use 50 rounds per session, there's 200 right there. "Hollow-point bullets are one of the most common types of civilian and police ammunition, due largely to the reduced risk of bystanders being hit by over-penetrating or ricocheted bullets, and the increased speed of incapacitation." It would not surprise me in the least if the agency was required to buy that type and quantity for standardization and mandated training. |
|
|
|
08/17/2012 10:00:05 AM · #29 |
Anecdotally, the national park near me has made some changes in the past year.
1. Park security rangers carry firearms and tasers. This is the first year for tasers. That would be lethal and less-lethal weaponry on their belt. I guess they will have a choice in the event of bighorn sheep attacks.
2. Open carry of firearms by the public in the national park is allowed and legal.
3. Volunteers in the park, like me, are forbidden from carrying any firearms.
It's a strange world we live in.
|
|
|
|
08/17/2012 10:58:52 AM · #30 |
I think volunteers should be able to carry....
All national parks now allow open carry....
|
|
|
|
08/17/2012 11:03:17 AM · #31 |
This is so simple.
The whole country is in drought conditions. The NWS plan is to shoot holes in the bottoms of the clouds to make it rain.
|
|
|
|
08/17/2012 11:06:47 AM · #32 |
Originally posted by MelonMusketeer:
This is so simple.
The whole country is in drought conditions. The NWS plan is to shoot holes in the bottoms of the clouds to make it rain. |
Awesome response. |
|
|
|
08/17/2012 12:31:28 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by MelonMusketeer:
This is so simple.
The whole country is in drought conditions. The NWS plan is to shoot holes in the bottoms of the clouds to make it rain. |
You're closer than you think.
"Cloud seeding is the process of burning silver iodide through an ice nucleus generator that is carried up into the clouds to stimulate the precipitation process."
Continued drought = water shortage and then food shortage. Desperate governments do desperate things.
 |
|
|
|
08/17/2012 01:03:51 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by hahn23:
Continued drought = water shortage and then food shortage. Desperate governments do desperate things. |
Except do anything about the real problem.
Kyoto, coal plants, urban sprawl, fuel emissions, ..... |
|
|
|
08/17/2012 01:18:35 PM · #35 |
They were experimenting with the silver iodide approach in the 1960's to try and control hurricanes.
Project Stormfury
Message edited by author 2012-08-17 13:21:20.
|
|
|
|
08/17/2012 01:45:39 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by Venser:
Except do anything about the real problem.
Kyoto, coal plants, urban sprawl, fuel emissions, ..... |
Fuel emissions? Coal plants? How is that causing droughts? Global warming, as you're suggesting, would contribute to more rain. At least that's what the story was back in early 2011. I think global warming has become a scape-goat for just about anything abnormal.
It's the same issue that caused the droughts in the 50s... La Nina.
Message edited by author 2012-08-17 13:45:56. |
|
|
|
08/17/2012 02:06:35 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by JamesDowning:
Fuel emissions? Coal plants? How is that causing droughts? Global warming, as you're suggesting, would contribute to more rain. |
??? Heating up a desert doesn't magically make it rain there. Rising temperatures creates flooding in some areas and drought in others, as always, but more extreme and in different areas. |
|
|
|
08/17/2012 02:13:08 PM · #38 |
For the water shortage, just sighn the damn Kyoto treaty.
They wouldn't need bullets if they just used the headbutt technique :)
|
|
|
|
08/17/2012 02:15:00 PM · #39 |
Sure it gets its fair share of blame, but climate change is something we should at least try to do something about. Regardless if you believe the endless research on the subject, it shouldn't take much convincing that playing with the environment is akin to Pascal's wager, except with real consequences. We can choose to be proactive, rather than reactive, while it's not too late.
Originally posted by jagar:
For the water shortage, just sighn the damn Kyoto treaty. |
Canada left Kyoto earlier this year. Harper also got rid of the round table on the environment because they were a nuisance about oil pipelines being constructed through Alberta. |
|
|
|
08/17/2012 02:44:00 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by JamesDowning:
Fuel emissions? Coal plants? How is that causing droughts? Global warming, as you're suggesting, would contribute to more rain. |
??? Heating up a desert doesn't magically make it rain there. Rising temperatures creates flooding in some areas and drought in others, as always, but more extreme and in different areas. |
I was basing my comment on the La Nina/El Nino effects. La Nina means less rain, El Nino means more. La Nina is lower sea temperatures (less convection), El Nino is higher sea temperatures (more convection).
Originally posted by Venser:
Sure it gets its fair share of blame, but climate change is something we should at least try to do something about. Regardless if you believe the endless research on the subject, it shouldn't take much convincing that playing with the environment is akin to Pascal's wager, except with real consequences. We can choose to be proactive, rather than reactive, while it's not too late. |
Are you sure that WE are what is causing climate change? The earth goes through natural cycles. Day/Night temperatures, Summer/Winter temparatures. Modern facilities of measuring true global heat energy has only been a very recent development. You're trying to convince an already energy challenged economy that cheap energy shouldn't be used based on relatively few data points (on the global scale (time and geography wise)).
It's a fact that the earth changes climates drastically. Look at the Sahara. It has been proven that as little as 6000 years ago, it was a green and fertile area. Fossil fuels had nothing to do with that transformation. It's part of a natural cycle. In fact, the Arctic has gone through two periods of glaciation, 35 and 15 million years ago. We're actually at a relatively low global mean temperature, with regards to historical earth temperatures. If the data we have does have a long term trend to it, maybe it's part of earth's natural process?
I'm just skeptical that the data we have collected actually points to anything yet. There are a lot of reasons to be skeptical. Should we force stricter, more expensive regulations than we already have upon an already difficult economy? Tough sell. As is, all I see is politics, and it's getting muddied with pseudoscience. |
|
|
|
08/17/2012 02:56:21 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by JamesDowning:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by JamesDowning:
Fuel emissions? Coal plants? How is that causing droughts? Global warming, as you're suggesting, would contribute to more rain. |
??? Heating up a desert doesn't magically make it rain there. Rising temperatures creates flooding in some areas and drought in others, as always, but more extreme and in different areas. |
I was basing my comment on the La Nina/El Nino effects. |
You were basing your global warming comment on something that isn't global warming, but a regional ocean temperature effect that still creates flooding in some areas of one continent and drought in others? Sorry, that still doesn't help you. |
|
|
|
08/17/2012 03:14:27 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by JamesDowning:
Are you sure that WE are what is causing climate change? The earth goes through natural cycles.. |
Yes, we are causing climate change. In countless studies, no combination of natural cycles come anywhere close to accounting for the observed climate changes while manmade greenhouse gas releases match perfectly. The mountain of data collected on the subject is indisputable on this point, and the denial skeptics employ is based entirely upon disinformation and ignorance of basic fact.
Message edited by author 2012-08-17 15:17:51. |
|
|
|
08/17/2012 03:43:31 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by jagar:
... if they just used the headbutt technique :) |
Your recent comments lead me to speculate that perhaps you have engaged this technique a time or two too often ... ;-) |
|
|
|
08/17/2012 03:59:00 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by JamesDowning:
I'm just skeptical that the data we have collected actually points to anything yet. There are a lot of reasons to be skeptical. Should we force stricter, more expensive regulations than we already have upon an already difficult economy? Tough sell. As is, all I see is politics, and it's getting muddied with pseudoscience. |
Yes the situation is certainly muddled with pseudo-science, bought and paid for by the relevant industries which fear being regulated would be bad for their profitability. If you were around when the question of if cigarettes caused cancer was the debate of the day, then you would remember the tactics, hire anyone you can to muddy the waters of causality, and scream about how any legislation will cost jobs.
All you may see is politics, but countries like the Netherlands and the Maldives who will be most hard hit by rising ocean levels are spending billions to survive what they see headed towards them.
With the unprecedented migration patterns of fauna and the massive buildup of evidence of climate shift even the most skeptical of true scientist are coming to realize that the hard scientific facts are beyond the ability of lobbyist and payed for pundits to deny. |
|
|
|
08/17/2012 04:11:35 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by JamesDowning:
I'm just skeptical that the data we have collected actually points to anything yet. There are a lot of reasons to be skeptical. Should we force stricter, more expensive regulations than we already have upon an already difficult economy? Tough sell. As is, all I see is politics, and it's getting muddied with pseudoscience. |
I look at it this way. If we take action to fix global climate change and it turns out to be wrong, oh well, not that big of a deal. If we DON'T take action, and it turns out to be right, hundreds of millions of people will be displaced, millions could die. Far more if food shortages occur.
We have every reason to take action, and very little reason not too. Depending on how we confront the situation it could even provide jobs for hundreds of thousands of laborers. Similar to what happened during the New Deal. |
|
|
|
08/17/2012 04:16:10 PM · #46 |
I just spent some time reading the //berkeleyearth.org results, and honestly, it doesn't look particularly conclusive to me when compared to any past data I've seen.
They do not seem to show their source for the red line on their graph. They say it is a "simple fit of C02 concentration and volcanic activity". Combining these two items into a single data stream would be quite complex. It isn't a 1:1 ratio. Everything I have found state that volcanic activity increases the CO2 content of the atmosphere. Here, they show massive decreases in their CO2 line due to "volcanic activity". So right there makes me question the validity of their "conclusive red line".
Lets look at the larger picture of our recent past 800k years, below. Maybe we should take into account the fact that we are looking at natural processes that occur at extremely large scales. We are looking at a relatively very high resolution of data and drawing conclusions that I'm not yet convinced can be made.
If we could somehow graph historic CO2 content to the above graph, would there be any correlation? Maybe so. Maybe the atmospheric CO2 content follows temperature? Could be. Is there any evidence to the contrary? Maybe animals naturally increase output of CO2 as a function of temperature. I'm just saying, you can throw any sort of theory at it.
Either way, the fact is, the US's CO2 emissions are at a 20 year low, per the EPA. //www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jiAA4g1Rux_vlMhI1dxbazNbGneg?docId=da1399edab7b42ef9f0269ea5a3ca224 So can we stop worrying so much? :) |
|
|
|
08/17/2012 04:27:20 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by JamesDowning:
If we could somehow graph historic CO2 content to the above graph, would there be any correlation? Maybe so. Maybe the atmospheric CO2 content follows temperature? Could be. Is there any evidence to the contrary? Maybe animals naturally increase output of CO2 as a function of temperature. I'm just saying, you can throw any sort of theory at it.
Either way, the fact is, the US's CO2 emissions are at a 20 year low, per the EPA. //www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jiAA4g1Rux_vlMhI1dxbazNbGneg?docId=da1399edab7b42ef9f0269ea5a3ca224 So can we stop worrying so much? :) |
First, the red line data that you question is a mathematical model that predicts the temperature based upon CO2 and Volcanic activity (CO2 traps heat in the atmosphere, volcanic activity causes cool-downs because of increased albedo.)
Secondly, the data is well correlated by ice cores and tree rings that go back surprisingly far, the model is good, maybe a few percent off in some cases, but it's more accurate than most people understand, especially on a long-term basis.
Third, the CO2 emissions are at a 20 year low, but they are still much higher than the earth is absorbing that CO2 back into carbonsinks, like limestone and peat bogs.
Fourth, methane emissions have not fallen, and methane is a FAR more effective greenhouse gas.
I'm glad that you're doing the research, but the fact is that it takes years of education to understand the complexity of this system and it's feedback mechanisms.
And yes, I am a geologist, so I do have at least a partial understanding of this issue. Global warming is real, we are causing it, and it will bite us in the ass very soon. I'd suggest you take the time to learn about methane clathrates, and why they're about the scariest thing we face in terms of climate change.
ETA: You're right that we might want to stop worrying about stopping it though - frankly we're way past that point, it's gonna take millions of years for the atmosphere to return to pre-industrial conditions, and lots of very "interesting" things happen before that point in terms of climate change.
Message edited by author 2012-08-17 16:29:22. |
|
|
|
08/17/2012 04:31:53 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by jadin:
Originally posted by JamesDowning:
I'm just skeptical that the data we have collected actually points to anything yet. There are a lot of reasons to be skeptical. Should we force stricter, more expensive regulations than we already have upon an already difficult economy? Tough sell. As is, all I see is politics, and it's getting muddied with pseudoscience. |
I look at it this way. If we take action to fix global climate change and it turns out to be wrong, oh well, not that big of a deal. If we DON'T take action, and it turns out to be right, hundreds of millions of people will be displaced, millions could die. Far more if food shortages occur.
We have every reason to take action, and very little reason not too. Depending on how we confront the situation it could even provide jobs for hundreds of thousands of laborers. Similar to what happened during the New Deal. |
The big deal is spending money we don't have on further reducing emissions that are (relative to earlier industrial times) much cleaner than they were.
My understanding of the global temperature is that higher temperatures should not, by themselves, hurt food production. I've seen the inverse relationship made. Higher temperatures could help global food production.
There's also a great amount of jobs in oil and coal production. If you want jobs, don't hinder the market with regulations. Reducing coal production only puts the whole of WV out of work.
Linking more jobs to higher energy regulation is a false truth. True job creation is driven by free market, not government regs.
Message edited by author 2012-08-17 16:35:01. |
|
|
|
08/17/2012 04:34:31 PM · #49 |
| What Cory said, and we can't pin this on volcanoes. Anyway, this lunatic fringe topic is a digression from the lunatic fringe topic at hand. Start another thread if you want to continue so we can limit the crazy to one at a time. |
|
|
|
08/17/2012 04:41:23 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by JamesDowning:
Whoah there. You're drawing a lot of conclusions on temperature.
First, the big deal is spending money we don't have on further reducing emissions that are (relative to earlier industrial times) much cleaner than they were.
My understanding of the global temperature is that higher temperatures should not, by themselves, hurt food production. I've seen the inverse relationship made. Higher temperatures could help global food production.
There's also a great amount of jobs in oil and coal production. If you want jobs, don't hinder the market with regulations. Reducing coal production only puts the whole of WV out of work.
Linking more jobs to higher energy regulation is a false truth. True job creation is driven by free market, not government regs. |
I want you to read the post before this, since I maintain that you need years of education to understand this issue.
But, just to prove that point, I'm going to take a couple of your close-but-critically-wrong items here to task:
Emmisions may be cleaner, but that is in terms of pollutants like nitrous oxides and sulphur dioxide, which are irritants and cause smog, acid rain and other issue that are visible on a short-term basis, but disappear much faster from the atmosphere than CO2. Clean does not equal safer in terms of greenhouse gases, you can't burn a carbon based fuel and not get carbon dioxide as a result, it's simply not possible...
Higher temperatures do not mean decreased yields, but wacky weather does, when the deserts are wet and the farmland is dry, temperature means nothing.
The point of this is not job creating, it's saving the human race, because believe me, the Earth will be just fine, we can't destroy it even with all of our technology, but human life is pretty tenuous, study up on predator / prey cycles, and compare it to the human population graph, tell me if you see anything interesting, because I certainly do.
...
You can see exactly why having a bunch of uneducated people talking about this doesn't do anything but muddle the discussion... Trust the scientists, we've spent years of hard work to lay the foundations that are required to understand this stuff, without that, your understanding will always be limited, and even with it, our understanding is limited - but darn sure better than the layman's.
Message edited by author 2012-08-17 16:42:51. |
|
