Hows your global warming?

Have the people you’ve replied to in this thread complained about internet use wasting energy?

 

It'd be interesting to see just how much energy is required to run the internet. Obviously it'd be best to break it down by use case such that we can see how much just the backbone of the internet takes separate from how people are using it. Obviously mining Bitcoin or Ethereum requires huge amounts of energy, but I'd rather not have those included in the stats. I just want to want to how much energy is used for the most minimal support to make the internet work and to get you online.

 

I doubt that.

 

Is there anything at all that the left is honest about ? Just one thing ? Can anyone come up with one thing ?

 

And, of course, the "Global" part in the term "Global Warming" refers to west Chicago, right?

 

no 10 char

 

Do you live in FL? If not you don’t see half of it. The models show every path and finally a day before it hits they are sometimes accurate. They can’t predict Diddlysquat. THey were wrong for over a decade and the ****ed up last year big time.

 

So no one?

 

77 degrees (Fahrenheit) in London today. Hottest April since 1949.

 

Ayuh,..... The Ultimate progressive wet-dream,....... To Tax the air We breathe,.......

 

It's unfortunate that the phenomenon was labeled global warming because every time a day is too cold it gives the idiots among us a reason to scoff at 'global warming' and make ignorant negative comments. It would be simpler to just call it weather change.

 

Im enjoying this. No no one...thats the point.

 

I track just about every tropical cyclone there is even in the West Pacific, East Pacific, and Indian Ocean basins in addition to the Atlantic basin and I'd say I see nearly 100% of it. And I'm telling you that are you very likely misinterpreting something you saw. In fact, I suspect what you saw was what's called a spaghetti model chart. If that's the case, and highly suspect it is, then what you saw was a bunch of lines that were going everywhere like you say. Of those lines only a handful at most actually represent a track that forecasters consider. The others are from models or statistical techniques that have specific purposes other than predicting the cyclone's track. For example, as many as a dozen of those tracks you saw came from what are called Beta Advection Models. The BAM variations are not used for operational track forecasting. They are used by experts to infer things about the cyclone under hypothetical scenarios. This provides the forecasters useful insights into the dynamics of that particular cyclone. Then some of those lines are statistical. For example, one or more lines might represent the track of a set of cyclones that occurred in the past and which happen to be colocated with the cyclone in question at some point in their lifecycle. This gives the forecaster information about how past cyclones that happened to have occurred nearby behaved. When it's all said and done there are actually only 4 lines on that chart that actually matter for real operational track forecasts. 3 of those are the world's best models each of which is independently developed by different institutions. And the final one, the one and only one that matters, is labeled TVCN and is a blend of the previous 3. That one line and only that line is considered to be THE model forecast.

And since you live in Florida I want you to read this official review of Hurricane Irma. The reality is that forecasting for Irma was quite good. The forecasts were so good, in fact, that they were 30-40% better than the NHC's average skill over the last 5 years. And that's saying a lot because that cone at 5 days spans less than 5 degrees of the total 360 degrees that a cyclone could track. So if "everywhere" is 100% of the 360 degrees then the NHC actually narrows that down to about 1% or less. And that's at 5 days. And at no time did Irma track outside of the NHC's cone of uncertainty.

 

Well, no one except for you. Odd that you would complain about internet use wasting energy.

 

hahah. odd is it? Its not odd at all if you are capable of reading and comptehension. lol Jesus.

 

You seem easily confused.

 

lol...Im not the one that failed the thread.

 

I assume if it's nothing more than weather change, then we don't need to worry about carbon taxes or such?

 

Liberals trot out the man-made-global-warming hoax when the weather suits them

Now so do we when the weather makes liberals look foolish

Remember, any game you can think of we can learn to play

 

hahah so true. Its weather when the hurricanes hit....now its back to not weather.

 

It's not global warming, it's global climate change.

 

No they don’t.

 

I'm not a silly European, I'm a smart one; I get by by wearing my sun glasses/shades inside (as well as outside) because it's bright & mine its nice and bright and it's 81F and I haven't seen a cloud all week.
People in Europe tend to take off their shades in doors - not this guy. - It's F'n' bright.

 

So funny, right? Like every time a day is too warm, it gives the idiots among us a reason to hyperventilate about "global warming", and make ignorant comments. right?

And since we are on the subject, the reason it was labeled global warming is because that is what the models were being developed to demonstrate to us, the rapid rise in global temps. Now, because those models have been generally discounted as being generally unable to predict accurately, the community of AGW faithful had to rebrand, and simply call it climate change. Seems you're on board with that as well.

For the faithful, colder, hotter, it all is anthropogenic meaning that somehow we can tax whatever the perceived "threat" is to generate revenue for their pet projects. And that, really, is the depth of it.