Devastating Weather - thanks fuckhead denier conks - SMFH

[93henfan]

Considering oil companies made $123 billion profit in one year alone (2007), I'd call that small potatoes over the 20 year period referenced.

Oil makes four times as much in one year as the US Government puts into climate research over 20 years combined. Wow. That's perspective.

So, are you implying that the oil companies spend ALL their profits on defeating global warming science?

Of course not ALL of it. Gotta pay for the 24k gold shower curtains, corporate jets, and lavish trips all over the globe with some of it.

[kalm]

Not sure what is so confusing.



http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2 ... -hysteria/

Do all those billions and billions and billions of research dollars equate to "limited operating budgets" to you?

Considering oil companies made $123 billion profit in one year alone (2007), I'd call that small potatoes over the 20 year period referenced.

Oil makes four times as much in one year as the US Government puts into climate research over 20 years combined. Wow. That's perspective.

Not to mention that comparison was between the spending of enviro groups/activists and oil companies not gov. and oil companies.

[D1B]

Dumb fucking conks.

[GannonFan]

Nice back peddalin, limp dick.

Your argument essentially is, the science and scientists referenced in 2 issues of TIME magazine from the 70's is generally the same as the science and scientists of today, 2013.

The computer models and easy access to information alone has changed the game. Weather is a big part of my business. If you watch NOAA's forecasts on a daily basis like I do, you'll find it's highly accurate in both short term and seasonal forecasting. If you live in Tornado Ally, paying close attention to their science might also save your life.

Interesting, though, in light of the tenor that started this thread, that the NOAA has data going back to the 1950's and they say the number of stronger tornadoes has not increased since then, and the main increase in tornado reporting is due predominately to the large rise in EF-0 tornadoes and that is mostly attrtibutable to both people actually living in more parts of the country now and the rise in doppler radar, basically meaning that they may have always been that frequent but no one was there to see them.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/sev ... ml#history

With increased national Doppler radar coverage, increasing population, and greater attention to tornado reporting, there has been an increase in the number of tornado reports over the past several decades. This can create a misleading appearance of an increasing trend in tornado frequency. To better understand the variability and trend in tornado frequency in the U.S., the total number EF1 and stronger, as well as strong to violent tornadoes (EF3 to EF5 category on the Enhanced Fujita scale) can be analyzed. These are the tornadoes that would have likely been reported even during the decades before Doppler radar use became widespread and practices resulted in increasing tornado reports. The bar charts below indicates there has been little trend in the frequency of the stronger tornadoes over the past 55 years.

[Baldy]

Considering oil companies made $123 billion profit in one year alone (2007), I'd call that small potatoes over the 20 year period referenced.

Oil makes four times as much in one year as the US Government puts into climate research over 20 years combined. Wow. That's perspective.

Not to mention that comparison was between the spending of enviro groups/activists and oil companies not gov. and oil companies.

That's right, and all that money the defense department spends goes to the US government's fighter jet, tank, small arms weapons, and artillery production facilities. General Dynamics, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, etc. get absolutely nothing.

[D1B]

The computer models and easy access to information alone has changed the game. Weather is a big part of my business. If you watch NOAA's forecasts on a daily basis like I do, you'll find it's highly accurate in both short term and seasonal forecasting. If you live in Tornado Ally, paying close attention to their science might also save your life.

Interesting, though, in light of the tenor that started this thread, that the NOAA has data going back to the 1950's and they say the number of stronger tornadoes has not increased since then, and the main increase in tornado reporting is due predominately to the large rise in EF-0 tornadoes and that is mostly attrtibutable to both people actually living in more parts of the country now and the rise in doppler radar, basically meaning that they may have always been that frequent but no one was there to see them.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/sev ... ml#history

With increased national Doppler radar coverage, increasing population, and greater attention to tornado reporting, there has been an increase in the number of tornado reports over the past several decades. This can create a misleading appearance of an increasing trend in tornado frequency. To better understand the variability and trend in tornado frequency in the U.S., the total number EF1 and stronger, as well as strong to violent tornadoes (EF3 to EF5 category on the Enhanced Fujita scale) can be analyzed. These are the tornadoes that would have likely been reported even during the decades before Doppler radar use became widespread and practices resulted in increasing tornado reports. The bar charts below indicates there has been little trend in the frequency of the stronger tornadoes over the past 55 years.

How was Sandy, Asshole?

[AZGrizFan]

Considering oil companies made $123 billion profit in one year alone (2007), I'd call that small potatoes over the 20 year period referenced.

Oil makes four times as much in one year as the US Government puts into climate research over 20 years combined. Wow. That's perspective.

Not to mention that comparison was between the spending of enviro groups/activists and oil companies not gov. and oil companies.

Well, sure it was. Why include the Gov't spending when you're trying to skew a statistic to make a flawed point?

[GannonFan]

Interesting, though, in light of the tenor that started this thread, that the NOAA has data going back to the 1950's and they say the number of stronger tornadoes has not increased since then, and the main increase in tornado reporting is due predominately to the large rise in EF-0 tornadoes and that is mostly attrtibutable to both people actually living in more parts of the country now and the rise in doppler radar, basically meaning that they may have always been that frequent but no one was there to see them.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/sev ... ml#history

How was Sandy, Asshole?

So I'm confused, are you agreeing with or disagreeing with the factual findings of the NOAA as it relates to tornadoes?

[AZGrizFan]

How was Sandy, Asshole?

So I'm confused, are you agreeing with or disagreeing with the factual findings of the NOAA as it relates to tornadoes?

He doesn't even know what NOAA is, but he's pretty sure its full of dumbfuck conk assholes, thus the personal attack as a deflection for his stupidity.

[andy7171]

Nice backpeddal limp dick.

So I'm confused, are you agreeing with or disagreeing with the factual findings of the NOAA as it relates to tornadoes?

Does that unconfuse you?

[GannonFan]

So I'm confused, are you agreeing with or disagreeing with the factual findings of the NOAA as it relates to tornadoes?

He doesn't even know what NOAA is, but he's pretty sure its full of **** conk assholes, thus the personal attack as a deflection for his stupidity.

Oh, I don't doubt it. Although I share his disdain when right-leaning folks claim the climate isn't changing and, to some extent, mankind is responsible for some of that, I also have a disdain for left-leaning folks who see any weather-related disaster and start claiming climate change is the cause, as if we've never had tornadoes or hurricanes before. When the NOAA says nothing has changed in terms of the number of significant tornadoes in 50+ years of tracking it, we should at least acknowldge that they have some expertise in the area.

[AZGrizFan]

He doesn't even know what NOAA is, but he's pretty sure its full of **** conk assholes, thus the personal attack as a deflection for his stupidity.

Oh, I don't doubt it. Although I share his disdain when right-leaning folks claim the climate isn't changing and, to some extent, mankind is responsible for some of that, I also have a disdain for left-leaning folks who see any weather-related disaster and start claiming climate change is the cause, as if we've never had tornadoes or hurricanes before. When the NOAA says nothing has changed in terms of the number of significant tornadoes in 50+ years of tracking it, we should at least acknowldge that they have some expertise in the area.

Well that's be cause WE (you and I) are reasonable centrists willing to objectively review and consider all pertinent, available data while HE (D1B) is a looney, leftist wingnut who has his lips firmly planted on Barry Sortero's scrotum.

[BDKJMU]

Not sure what is so confusing.



http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2 ... -hysteria/

Do all those billions and billions and billions of research dollars equate to "limited operating budgets" to you?

Considering oil companies made $123 billion profit in one year alone (2007), I'd call that small potatoes over the 20 year period referenced.

Oil makes four times as much in one year as the US Government puts into climate research over 20 years combined. Wow. That's perspective.

That before or after taxes?

[D1B]

He doesn't even know what NOAA is, but he's pretty sure its full of **** conk assholes, thus the personal attack as a deflection for his stupidity.

Oh, I don't doubt it. Although I share his disdain when right-leaning folks claim the climate isn't changing and, to some extent, mankind is responsible for some of that, I also have a disdain for left-leaning folks who see any weather-related disaster and start claiming climate change is the cause, as if we've never had tornadoes or hurricanes before. When the NOAA says nothing has changed in terms of the number of significant tornadoes in 50+ years of tracking it, we should at least acknowldge that they have some expertise in the area.

Let me give you two conk fucks a few minutes to get your dicks out of each others' mouths......

Ok, now let's rap. There is some valid logic to your NOAA citation. I may be mistaken, but does their data track tornados that are two fucking miles wide? Perhaps it does.

The Sandy crack ( ) was to underscore that tornados are just part, and like Z's limp dick - a small one at that, of the picture.

If you find yourself needing canvas ass flaps in the near future, talk to Z. He has a connection.

[AZGrizFan]

Oh, I don't doubt it. Although I share his disdain when right-leaning folks claim the climate isn't changing and, to some extent, mankind is responsible for some of that, I also have a disdain for left-leaning folks who see any weather-related disaster and start claiming climate change is the cause, as if we've never had tornadoes or hurricanes before. When the NOAA says nothing has changed in terms of the number of significant tornadoes in 50+ years of tracking it, we should at least acknowldge that they have some expertise in the area.

Let me give you two conk fucks a few minutes to get your dicks out of each others' mouths......

Ok, now let's rap. There is some valid logic to your NOAA citation. I may be mistaken, but does their data track tornados that are two fucking miles wide? Perhaps it does.

The Sandy crack ( ) was to underscore that tornados are just part, and like Z's limp dick - a small one at that, of the picture.

If you find yourself needing canvas ass flaps in the near future, talk to Z. He has a connection.

Oh, I don't doubt it. Although I share his disdain when right-leaning folks claim the climate isn't changing and, to some extent, mankind is responsible for some of that, I also have a disdain for left-leaning folks who see any weather-related disaster and start claiming climate change is the cause, as if we've never had tornadoes or hurricanes before. When the NOAA says nothing has changed in terms of the number of significant tornadoes in 50+ years of tracking it, we should at least acknowldge that they have some expertise in the area.

Well that's be cause WE (you and I) are reasonable centrists willing to objectively review and consider all pertinent, available data while HE (D1B) is a looney, leftist wingnut who has his lips firmly planted on Houndawg's scrotum.

[D1B]

Let me give you two conk fucks a few minutes to get your dicks out of each others' mouths......

Ok, now let's rap. There is some valid logic to your NOAA citation. I may be mistaken, but does their data track tornados that are two fucking miles wide? Perhaps it does.

The Sandy crack ( ) was to underscore that tornados are just part, and like Z's limp dick - a small one at that, of the picture.

If you find yourself needing canvas ass flaps in the near future, talk to Z. He has a connection.

Well that's be cause WE (you and I) are reasonable centrists willing to objectively review and consider all pertinent, available data while HE (D1B) is a looney, leftist wingnut who has his lips firmly planted on Houndawg's scrotum.

You snickered at "Sandy crack"

[AZGrizFan]

You snickered at "Sandy crack"

No. I didn't get it.

[GannonFan]

Oh, I don't doubt it. Although I share his disdain when right-leaning folks claim the climate isn't changing and, to some extent, mankind is responsible for some of that, I also have a disdain for left-leaning folks who see any weather-related disaster and start claiming climate change is the cause, as if we've never had tornadoes or hurricanes before. When the NOAA says nothing has changed in terms of the number of significant tornadoes in 50+ years of tracking it, we should at least acknowldge that they have some expertise in the area.

Let me give you two conk **** a few minutes to get your dicks out of each others' mouths......

Ok, now let's rap. There is some valid logic to your NOAA citation. I may be mistaken, but does their data track tornados that are two **** miles wide? Perhaps it does.

The Sandy crack ( ) was to underscore that tornados are just part, and like Z's limp dick - a small one at that, of the picture.

If you find yourself needing canvas ass flaps in the near future, talk to Z. He has a connection.

Yes, the NOAA records do track the intensity and size of tornadoes. And they still don't think there's been a change in quantity or intensity in the past 50 years. Here's their web site http://www.noaa.gov, I'm sure they'd love to have you detail for them how they're wrong. They're big on open dialogue.

[Gil Dobie]

All this tornado bullshit started in the Wizard of Oz in 1939. It's FDRs fault. Asshole.

Thomas Jefferson started it when he sent the Lewis and Clark Expedition into survey the Louisiana Purchase, now known as Tornado Alley. The LP, as Lewis and Clark called it , is actually shaped somewhat like a Tornado with a Louisiana boot kicking ass, as evidence of Jefferson's intentions for future residents.

[D1B]

Let me give you two conk **** a few minutes to get your dicks out of each others' mouths......

Ok, now let's rap. There is some valid logic to your NOAA citation. I may be mistaken, but does their data track tornados that are two **** miles wide? Perhaps it does.

The Sandy crack ( ) was to underscore that tornados are just part, and like Z's limp dick - a small one at that, of the picture.

If you find yourself needing canvas ass flaps in the near future, talk to Z. He has a connection.

Yes, the NOAA records do track the intensity and size of tornadoes. And they still don't think there's been a change in quantity or intensity in the past 50 years. Here's their web site http://www.noaa.gov, I'm sure they'd love to have you detail for them how they're wrong. They're big on open dialogue.

50 years huh?

[GannonFan]

Yes, the NOAA records do track the intensity and size of tornadoes. And they still don't think there's been a change in quantity or intensity in the past 50 years. Here's their web site http://www.noaa.gov, I'm sure they'd love to have you detail for them how they're wrong. They're big on open dialogue.

50 years huh?

58 years to be exact - their graph was showing data from 1954 through 2012. But I'm sure you're right and they're wrong. Damn scientists and their data.

[D1B]

50 years huh?

58 years to be exact - their graph was showing data from 1954 through 2012. But I'm sure you're right and they're wrong. Damn scientists and their data.

Hurricane forecast: Another busy Atlantic season

COLLEGE PARK, Md. (AP) -- Federal forecasters are predicting yet another busy hurricane season.

Thursday's outlook calls for 13 to 20 named storms, 7 to 11 that strengthen into hurricanes and 3 to 6 that become major hurricanes.

The prediction by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is more than what's considered an average Atlantic season.

Last year was the third-busiest on record with 19 named storms. Ten became hurricanes and were two major storms, with winds over 111 mph.

That included Sandy, which caused $50 billion in damage even though it lost hurricane status when it made landfall in New Jersey.

The last time a major hurricane made landfall in the United States was Wilma in 2005. The seven year U.S. landfall drought is the longest on record.

The six-month season starts June 1.

[AZGrizFan]

The last time a major hurricane made landfall in the United States was Wilma in 2005. The seven year U.S. landfall drought is the longest on record.
The six-month season starts June 1.

[kalm]

The last time a major hurricane made landfall in the United States was Wilma in 2005. The seven year U.S. landfall drought is the longest on record.
The six-month season starts June 1.

So severity only counts if they hit land?

[AZGrizFan]

So severity only counts if they hit land?

Hell, Sandy wasn't even a hurricane when it hit. Fuckin' EC(b) pussies.