Scientists say more snow will be the norm.... for a while

[dlague]

Lets just have a look shall we?

This is taken directly from forbes top 15 richest in America.

DEMOCRATS
D-Bill Gates 56 Billion
D- Warren Buffett $50.0 billion:
D- Lawrence Ellison $39.5 billion
D- Jim Walton 20.1 billion
D- Alice Walton 20 billion
D- S. Robson Walton 20 billion
I- Michael Bloomberg 18 billion (was a D for 20 yrs then became a RINO and is now an I):
D- Larry Page – Google – 15 billion
D- Sergey Brin – Google – 15 million

D to R – Sheldon Adelson – 14.7 billion is now 23 billion


D- George”Spooky Dude” Soros – Crime Inc,.14.2 billion
D- Mark Zuckerberg $13.5 billion
D- Dustin Moskovitz $2.7 billion
D- Sean Parker $1.6 billion
D- Peter Thiel $1.6 billion
D- Yuri Milner $1 billion
D- Eduardo Saverin $1.6 billion
REPUBLICAN
R- Michael Dell 14 billion
R- Charles Koch 21.5 billion
R- David Koch 21.5 bllion

What? You mean there are far more uber wealthy democrats than Republicans? NO Say it isn't so.


Examine this as well: 7of the top ten richest people in congress are ...... you guessed it. Democrats.

And they plan in keeping it that way by oppressing our culture and making people dependent on government!

 

[yeggous]

Actually that data is very encouraging! Of the top ten snowiest years 4 of them are within the past 20 years. In fact of the top 25 snowiest years about half are in the past 21 years. The second highest snowfall amount was 2010-2011 (also the peak for the most skier/snowboarder visits) and the second lowest snow fall year was 2011-2012 (which we regrettably remember) . Interestingly the data ranges prior to the sixties were actually pretty consistent/boring then the data range widened up a lot. Eighties were boring as well!

View attachment 12836

I'm not sure how much faith I would put in those numbers due to changes in how we measure snow. Way back in the olden days snowfall measurements were taken as a storm total where the snow was allowed to settle and compact under its own weight. Practices gradually changes to the modern standard of clearing the board and taking a new measurement every 6 hours. Unfortunately this transition was inconsistently applied across the country from the 1970s to 1990s and there is no way to account for settling other than perhaps to take the liquid equivalent measurements for snow storms (and make some assumptions about constant water ratios).

It seems very likely that the trend is at least partially because of this change in measurement practices. This is almost certainly a major cause of the increased variability later in the record.

 

[Puck it]

I think you're missing the point. Let's frame this in terms of the physical interpretation:

The correlation is a measure of the percentage of the variance that is explained by the trend. What that R^2 means is that 15% of the total variance is explained by the upward trend. That does not mean the trend is not real.

The p-value says that there is a 0.002% chance that the trend is from random chance.

This is illustrated using the idealized case below with a trend plus some variability.

> x <- 1:100
> y <- x/100 + sin(x)
View attachment 12835
> reg <- lm(y~x)
> summary(reg)

Call:
lm(formula = y ~ x)

Residuals:
Min 1Q Median 3Q Max
-1.04535 -0.69689 0.00216 0.73422 1.03857

Coefficients:
Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)
(Intercept) 0.058347 0.144154 0.405 0.686542
x 0.008819 0.002478 3.559 0.000576 ***
---
Signif. codes: 0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1

Residual standard error: 0.7154 on 98 degrees of freedom
Multiple R-squared: 0.1144, Adjusted R-squared: 0.1054
F-statistic: 12.66 on 1 and 98 DF, p-value: 0.0005764

I did not say the trendline was not real. The correlation is not strong.

 

[BenedictGomez]

But seriously here, anybody with even a minor interest in the flow of money into politics, and how it all works in our post Citizens United, "Tea Party" candidate world has known about the Koch bros since at least the 2010 election cycle. Freedomworks.....Americans for Prosperity.....etc. Give people a little more credit dude.

First off, congratulations and thank you for mentioning the "Tea Party", I'm not sure how I failed to leave that left-wing Boogeyman off my list.

Secondly, you're not reading carefully enough and failed to grasp the point. The point is/was, that there has been a relatively recent full-court press with significant funding behind it by liberal groups and DNC strategists to create a boogeyman out of the Koch Brothers. Because of this, now even people who watch "Dancing With the Stars" know who they are.

For all of you talking about the Koch Brothers and their political agenda for the right. The left has even a smarier one.


George Soros. He should be the poster child for all of what the liberals hate. But he is the backer of pretty much everything liberal.

Correct, except it's incorrect to call Soros "similar" to the Koch Brothers in terms of relative power & donations, because while they do have a similar net worth, Soros gives WAY more money to liberal causes than the Koch Brothers give to conservative causes.

And THAT'S the great irony and hypocrisy of the liberals recent "Koch Brothers Boogey Man campaign".

You'll also note that while Soros funds "pretty much everything liberal", you almost NEVER hear his name mentioned on MSNBC, CNN, etc...... and certainly not NEARLY as often as the less influential Koch Brothers. Soros' name is typically unmentioned like Voldemort on left-leaning networks. Why? Because the hypocrisy is palpable, and media liberals dont want voting liberals to know just how much power and $$$$ a "rich elitist white guy" has over the Democratic Party. Because that would be exactly why they tell common voters to vote Democrat rather than Republican. Irony.

What? You mean there are far more uber wealthy democrats than Republicans? NO Say it isn't so.

Examine this as well: 7of the top ten richest people in congress are ...... you guessed it. Democrats.

To be fair, BOTH parties have over-expressed "rich folk" representation in Congress, but yeah, another irony is that the above probably only comes as a shock to the average Democrat voter.

 

[bigbog]

Unfortunately for the majority of the Congressional votes, the under-the-table rich(es) are the only things they seem to study the most.....either side.

 

[witch hobble]

First off, congratulations and thank you for mentioning the "Tea Party", I'm not sure how I failed to leave that left-wing Boogeyman off my list.

Secondly, you're not reading carefully enough and failed to grasp the point. The point is/was, that there has been a relatively recent full-court press with significant funding behind it by liberal groups and DNC strategists to create a boogeyman out of the Koch Brothers. Because of this, now even people who watch "Dancing With the Stars" know who they are.

.

Hey bubble boy, connecting the dots between between Freedomworks and Americans for Prosperity to the "tea party" takes no outside the box cognitive skill.

I fully grasped your point.....there is a new expose movie about the Kochs. Tar and feather job. Big whoop. That type of movie, with a conservative slant about Hilary, is what brought us the Citizens United SCOTUS ruling in the first place. Try to step out in the light and realize that just because you are being called out, doesn't mean that your entire belief system is. Just your silly tactics.

And although I was already familiar with the brothers Koch, I must say that Maks and Meryl's artistry this season was on another level. Anyone who can't appreciate that is likely Cro-magnon.

 

[witch hobble]

And they plan in keeping it that way by oppressing our culture and making people dependent on government!

Yeah! Like Cannon skiers!!!

 

[BenedictGomez]

I fully grasped your point.....there is a new expose movie about the Kochs. Tar and feather job. Big whoop.

While I'm not convinced you "fully grasped" my point, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. At any rate, you are certainly helping to prove my point.

I wasn't even aware there was an anti-Koch Brothers smear movie coming out, so chock another one up for the far-left propaganda machine. Hope the liberal mind-lemmings enjoy the buttery popcorn and Mike and Ikes.

 

[Puck it]

Yeah! Like Cannon skiers!!!

Leave us out of this. I pay for an out of state season pass.

 

[fbrissette]

First off, while we're getting crazy with the hyperbole, it's probably a good time to point out that there aren't "thousands" of "climate scientists" on the entire planet.

Wrong. There are a few hundreds in Canada only.

And it's the politicians and the IPCC who are pulling the strings, not individual scientists.

Thanks for pointing out that individual scientists are not a bunch of fraudulent crazy lunatics, despite what you've been implying in many of your previous posts.

none of that changes the fact that their models have failed miserably for the better part of 2 decades now, nor the fact that CO2 has risen even more than they predicted (i.e. they were wrong about that too) and the earth has not warmed as much as it should have given that fact.

If it is so evident, so simple, why is it that the very large majority of climate scientists (the individual scientists not connected to the fraud), all disagree with you ? The models have failed miserably ? Considering the amount of parameterization and computational grid size, I would say that the model have done admirably ! Those who know nothing about climate models expect them to be perfect, whereas those who know climate models fully expect them to be flawed.

ENTER: The oceans are absorbing much more heat than we thought! Because god knows, the hypothesis cannot possibly be wrong.

The problem is that all other hypothesis (i.e. natural variability, solar cycles, etc...) have been soundly investigated and rejected. And if you would bother reading the literature you would find that there are lots of evidence pointing to the role of the oceans. Science will be moving on, no matter what the Al Gore and Koch brothers of this world think.

 

[witch hobble]

While I'm not convinced you "fully grasped" my point, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. At any rate, you are certainly helping to prove my point.

Now you're grasping, because aside from my overt love for the brutal, gulag style base lodge architecture found at state run ski areas, I don't wear my politics on my sleeve.

 

[witch hobble]

Leave us out of this. I pay for an out of state season pass.

Thank you for your contribution. Please consider buying some liquor and cigarettes while you are here. Perhaps go for dinner and drinks. Buy a vacation home here. Start a business.

thanks again!

 

[Puck it]

Thank you for your contribution. Please consider buying some liquor and cigarettes while you are here. Perhaps go for dinner and drinks. Buy a vacation home here. Start a business.

thanks again!

Always buy my booze in NH. Love the rest stops on the way back from skiing. I don't smoke. We love the Common Man and Tuscan Kitchen and others. Planning on buying after my so called rich ass pays for two college education. I doubt about starting a business though. Drive a groomer, hell yes.

 

[deadheadskier]

I wasn't even aware there was an anti-Koch Brothers smear movie coming out, so chock another one up for the far-left propaganda machine. Hope the liberal mind-lemmings enjoy the buttery popcorn and Mike and Ikes.

plenty of shills on your side of the aisle too; sucking the koolaide from the teets of hannity, Limbaugh, savage and beck

It's goes both ways

 

[AdironRider]

Except you dont have Senate majority leaders focusing on them on the senate floor when they should be doing real govt stuff.

It doesnt exactly go both ways, but in the end, you are arguing over a douche or a turd sandwich.

 

[Cannonball]

And the climate change denier crowd finds success again! A thread that started with the word "scientist" has been successfully diverted on to a comedy of tired political stereotypes. No need to worry about reality anymore, back to your regularly scheduled nightly fluff.

 

[BenedictGomez]

The models have failed miserably ? Considering the amount of parameterization and computational grid size, I would say that the model have done admirably ! Those who know nothing about climate models expect them to be perfect, whereas those who know climate models fully expect them to be flawed.

Then "those who know" REALLY must not be shocked in the least bit.

The problem is that all other hypothesis (i.e. natural variability, solar cycles, etc...) have been soundly investigated and rejected. And if you would bother reading the literature you would find that there are lots of evidence pointing to the role of the oceans. Science will be moving on, no matter what the Al Gore and Koch brothers of this world think.

That's horse-hockey. Solar cycle, flame, variability, has not be studied to its' termination, any more so than the man-made Global Warming theory has.

And frankly my guess is it holds some promise.

I mean.... call me crazy but I think it's more likely (and less arrogant) of a hypothesis to assume that that giant burning ball of flame in the sky that controls such "insignificant" events such as Day and Night, Summer and Winter, and Hot and Cold, perhaps has a bit more to do with our warming (or cooling) planet than humans churning CO2 etc... I'm at least open-minded to the idea anyway, which is more than can be said for some.

Except you dont have Senate majority leaders focusing on them on the senate floor when they should be doing real govt stuff.

It doesnt exactly go both ways, but in the end, you are arguing over a douche or a turd sandwich.

Correct on both counts.

For every insignificant and non-powerful, low-level House Republican that nobody has heard of and will likely (thankfully) only serve 1 two-year term and possesses some bat-**** crazy idea, you have a legitimately powerful left-wing extremist Senate/House Democrat who frighteningly actually do possess some national power. I'm lookin' at you Nancy Pelosi.

 

[Cannonball]

Then "those who know" REALLY must not be shocked in the least bit.

Do you ever even try to think for yourself before you simply repost from the same old blogs over and over? http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/02/95-of-climate-models-agree-the-observations-must-be-wrong/ I mean, If you aren't going to present your own thinking at least let us know who is doing the thinking for you.

 

[deadheadskier]

Yeah really. We do have no tolerance plagiarism policy here on AZ.

 

[steamboat1]

http://mycountdown.org/Other/Winter/