Sciencemadness Discussion Board
Not logged in [Login ]
Go To Bottom

Printable Version  
 Pages:  1    3  ..  9
Author: Subject: Say Goodbye to Global Warming
Rosco Bodine
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 6334
Registered: 29-9-2004
Member Is Offline

Mood: analytical

[*] posted on 17-6-2011 at 00:41
Say Goodbye to Global Warming


http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2011/02...

Evidently the climate change forecast for the next half century is cooler with increasing cloud cover.

Solar minima in progress .......

an inconvenient truth?
View user's profile View All Posts By User
albqbrian
Hazard to Self
**




Posts: 73
Registered: 26-5-2011
Member Is Offline

Mood: Alternatingly paranoid or pi**ed

[*] posted on 17-6-2011 at 01:02
No remember...


It's no longer Global Warming since it is no longer warming.

Now it's Climate Change :o Let's cover all the bases shall we.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Rosco Bodine
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 6334
Registered: 29-9-2004
Member Is Offline

Mood: analytical

[*] posted on 17-6-2011 at 01:31


The latest projection is that the world is headed for a Maunder minimum encore.

Climate change.....yeah that sounds about right.
Folks should point to the sun and tell all the governors and regulators,

regulate this :)

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/14/all-three-of-these-lin...

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/14/the-major-aas-solar-an...

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/06/110614-sun-h...

There is already "junk science" being published in response by the global warming crowd using skewed models trying to nullify the collateral multipliers that apply to diminished irradiance as well as claiming falsely that greenhouse gases cause an effect outstripping the real effects of a solar minimum. I for one have had it with the hysterics and propagandists. Nobody knows for certain what will occur,
and anyone should be dubious especially of those who claim to have some insight based upon obviously faulty and skewed models which serve a political agenda.

[Edited on 17-6-2011 by Rosco Bodine]
View user's profile View All Posts By User
trb456
Unregistered




Posts: N/A
Registered: N/A
Member Is Offline


[*] posted on 17-6-2011 at 04:54


Against my better judgment, I'm posting this. So much for a quiet morning...

You know, I really enjoy this site, but every so often we get posts like this and all science goes out the window. I know the people on this site know science does not guarantee certainty. I know people on this site realize that a scientific theory is not required to answer all questions about the theory. Just because people whose political agenda you dislike (yes, I know, Al Gore is fat...) happen to have science on their side is no reason to deny the current scientific consensus. Yes, climate change is the current consensus. It could be wrong (vitalism used to be the consensus in organic chemistry), and if you think it is, go write that Nobel Prize-winning paper!

You do realize that global warming deniers use exactly the same tactics as evolution deniers, right? Any evolution deniers here? If you want do science, do an experiment and write a paper. Don't point to some shiny object and yell "but what about THIS..." Single exceptions do not invalid a scientific consensus, and I KNOW you all know this. Everyone paying attention gets that this is a highly uncertain problem. That doesn't render science inapplicable. BTW, "scientists do bad things" is another science-denying tactic (e.g. the whole East Anglia non-scandal).

I DO agree that the global warming problem is very statistically noisy (BTW, math & stats are my areas of expertise, not chemistry, quite obviously). The best argument "against" human-influenced climate change (which is the key issue) is that the data are too noisy to draw a conclusion strong enough that says we need to act NOW. This, of course, is the main political argument. It's not about liberals wanting to control your lives (as a liberal, I asked every other liberal on the planet and can confirm that we don't want to control your lives), it's about non-liberals not wanting to pay for the possibility of an uncertain future contingency. Now I can actually respect that (without agreeing), because it's not a scientific argument. But opponents need to admit THAT is what they care about. Instead, they use science-denying tactics to discredit the science, which is exactly what evolution-deniers do.

If you don't want to pay for the possibility that you are wrong, say so. If you really think science has gone off the skids, write that paper. But please stop pointing at single data points and yelling "gotcha!" If any side has an obvious political and financial agenda, it's the deniers, who don't want to spend any money, or worse, want to protect the fossil fuel economy. Again, you have a right to say how your money is spent and made. Just admit that's your motive and stop degrading science.

/rant :cool:
Rosco Bodine
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 6334
Registered: 29-9-2004
Member Is Offline

Mood: analytical

[*] posted on 17-6-2011 at 05:44


I don't think science has gone off the skids, but I do think a lot of people who claim to be scientifically objective are either not honest or are delusional.
A concensus of people who are wrong doesn't make a right.

Nobody is pointing at single data points or degrading science so get off your high horse.

The first Maunder minimum occurred during a period of global warming and upset it, but there is uncertainty if volcanic activity during the same period was not more significant.

Maybe we shall soon see. Maybe not. You don't know so don't pretend you do.







View user's profile View All Posts By User
trb456
Unregistered




Posts: N/A
Registered: N/A
Member Is Offline


[*] posted on 17-6-2011 at 06:08


>>>I don't think science has gone off the skids, but I do think a lot of people who claim to be scientifically objective are either not honest or are delusional.

If one is really concerned about the scientific method, then I don't care what they think. I care what they can show empirically. They have a right to think what they want--that's different. Science is not about opinion.

>>>A concensus (sic) of people who are wrong doesn't make a right.

Yes, like my vitalism example. A formerly respectable theory that was completely wrong. Write your paper and pick up that Nobel.

>>>Nobody is pointing at single data points or degrading science

You're kidding, right? How would you describe your post?

>>>so get off your high horse.

I'm not the one oversimplifying--you are...

>>>The first Maunder minimum occurred during a period of global warming and upset it, but there is uncertainty if volcanic activity during the same period was not more significant.

...as this answer clearly shows. This is an unreasonably strong claim, stated with certainty (first clause, not the second). Unless there's a paper coming! And no, I'm not mocking you--writing papers is how we do that science thingy.

>>>Maybe we shall soon see. Maybe not. You don't know so don't pretend you do.

Did you even read what I wrote?

Quote: "I DO agree that the global warming problem is very statistically noisy ... The best argument "against" human-influenced climate change (which is the key issue) is that the data are too noisy to draw a conclusion strong enough that says we need to act NOW."

Yup, clearly I am claiming to know everything. I actually read what you wrote AND checked the link.

The only thing I know is that I was asking for it, bothering to post in the first place. But I did ask for it.
starman
National Hazard
****




Posts: 318
Registered: 5-7-2008
Location: Western Australia
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 17-6-2011 at 06:25


To quote from the article Roscoe linked "Researchers are still struggling to understand the connection" This in reference to the liitle ice age of th 17th century and solar minimum
Cilmatology is far from an exact science,we don't even know how many significant parameters there are,or if we are correctly interpreting data selected as the core of these theories.The earth has been both far warmer and far colder than it is today.Are those here that contend we fully understand the causes of thes events?
What then is our confidence in computer models that can't accurately account for events of the past but proclaim with virtual statistical certainty what is to come.
I for one am wholeheartedly tired of being branded a 'science denier' by some idiot that in most instances couldn't explain the difference between an isobar and an isotherm.Suddenly everybody's a meteorologist.




Chemistry- The journey from the end of physics to the beginning of life.(starman)
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Rosco Bodine
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 6334
Registered: 29-9-2004
Member Is Offline

Mood: analytical

[*] posted on 17-6-2011 at 06:28


You are correct my sentence structure there should more objectively read a period of global warming was upset during the Maunder minimum, but it is uncertain if volcanism did not play a more significant role.

I'm not writing a paper to pick up a Nobel. Recently it would seem that a Nobel is more of a political plum than any award for excellence.

I would describe my post as pointing out some breaking science news.

Science was the nature of the breaking news, on the planet where I live.





View user's profile View All Posts By User
Megamarko94
Hazard to Self
**




Posts: 68
Registered: 31-12-2010
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 17-6-2011 at 06:34


didn't they say there is gonna be a solar maximum when sun is most active????
View user's profile View All Posts By User
trb456
Unregistered




Posts: N/A
Registered: N/A
Member Is Offline


[*] posted on 17-6-2011 at 07:07


Oh come on, starman. I can tell you know better. Please listen to what I am actually saying.

>>>Cilmatology (sic) is far from an exact science...

NO science is an exact science! Exactitude is not a requirement, or even the goal, of science. Lack of exactitude, in contrast, is frequently the tactic used by deniers.

>>>The earth has been both far warmer and far colder than it is today.Are those here that contend we fully understand the causes of thes (sic) events?

Yes. No. And?

>>>What then is our confidence in computer models that can't accurately account for events of the past but proclaim with virtual statistical certainty what is to come.

I know of no such models, or any respectable scientist who would use the term "virtual statistical certainty" with respect to a model. Anyone who does is likely a bad/non scientist.

>>>I for one am wholeheartedly tired of being branded a 'science denier' by some idiot that in most instances couldn't explain the difference between an isobar and an isotherm.Suddenly everybody's a meteorologist.

You may need to get used to it if you keep answering like this. But I agree with you about the "Suddenly everybody's a meteorologist" comment. Lots of bad weather does not equal climate change. That's bad science. And thanks for implying that I'm an idiot.

The scientific consensus DOES NOT SAY says that climate change is a virtual statistical certainty. Conversely, deniers frequently use the lack of such certainty as a way to deny the current science, like evolution deniers.

I'm trying to make a bigger point here. The scientific method is useful precisely because it attempts to minimize gut checks and biases. It's not perfect at this, because people aren't perfect. But part of why the scientific method is useful is because, if it is followed, it makes us more (not completely) confident about unusual results. So rather than simply saying "that result sounds crazy, I don't believe it", science hopefully let's us say "well, that result sounds crazy, but that's where the science points to today--perhaps I need to write a paper!"

Human-induced climate change IS the current scientific consensus. There are legitimate scientific skeptics, but they are in the minority. If I agree that the scientific method is the best axiom we currently have, then I must conclude one of the following about this controversy:

1) The consensus is basically correct, but the uncertainty level is high enough that more work needs to be done. So I can accept (but not agree with) the political point that we should not spend money like this consensus is a certainty. That's one reason why we vote.

2) The consensus is wrong despite the current science, meaning that a big paradigm shift may be coming. That would be great! Why would I want the catastrophic conclusions of climate change to be correct?

3) There is a conspiracy that includes the scientific community on a large scale to hide the truth. If you believe this, we don't have much to talk about. This could be correct, but I don't believe it.

4) The skeptics are using largely non-scientific arguments under the guise of science. THIS is what I object to. I don't object to having opinions or political views. I object to denying science with non-science and claiming it deserves equal consideration. Saying "what about this uncertain case..." is NOT science. ALL science is uncertain. Saying "the current model predicts this, but the prediction fails here" IS science. More science, please.

5) The skeptics either implicitly or explicitly reject the scientific method. For example, very religious people might reject the scientific method, perhaps without realizing it. I can respect this view, but cannot agree with it, and again we won't have much to talk about going forward.

In other words, I do think that there are subsets of people in this debate with truly incompatible beliefs and assumptions. They can't talk to each other in any reasonable sense. But the people on this board, I assume, DO accept the scientific method. I'm just pointing out how some of these comments are very much against the idea and spirit of that method.
ScienceSquirrel
Super Moderator
*******




Posts: 1863
Registered: 18-6-2008
Location: Brittany
Member Is Offline

Mood: Dogs are pets but cats are little furry humans with four feet and self determination! :(

[*] posted on 17-6-2011 at 07:37


There is no doubt that carbon dioxide absorbs in the infra red and decreases pH when dissolved in water also there is no doubt that we are increasing the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and oceans.
What is open to debate is how significant a change this will have on the earth's climate and marine life.
Small changes and we carry on as normal, copable changes and we adapt, really big changes and whole countries eg Banglasdesh could disappear and the Sahara might return to being a shallow inland sea, catastrophic changes and it could be back to the early iron age at best or total extinction as a species.
I suppose it could be called the ultimate Science Madness experiment. :D
View user's profile View All Posts By User
trb456
Unregistered




Posts: N/A
Registered: N/A
Member Is Offline


[*] posted on 17-6-2011 at 08:28


>>>And trb456, you're wasting your breath!

Yeah, but I kinda knew that. Sigh.

I actually care less about climate change, which has lots of statistical uncertainties as I wrote, and more about how people reject the requirements of the scientific method. This often happens without knowing it. I realize that everyone here gets the scientific method, but it can be easy to forget what it entails when the topic at hand is controversial. It takes discipline. I'm reminding myself of this as much as anything.
starman
National Hazard
****




Posts: 318
Registered: 5-7-2008
Location: Western Australia
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 17-6-2011 at 09:17


trb456 it was not my intention to imply you were an idiot.Perhaps human catalysed redistribution of carbon really will result in catastrophic climate change.Not so long ago the scientific consensus was we lived in a brief warming of a predominately glacial climate,fortunately the world didn't bankrupt itself in preparation for internment under a kilometer of ice.



Chemistry- The journey from the end of physics to the beginning of life.(starman)
View user's profile View All Posts By User
trb456
Unregistered




Posts: N/A
Registered: N/A
Member Is Offline


[*] posted on 17-6-2011 at 09:26


Great post, starman, exactly right. I recall "global cooling." I said earlier that my areas of expertise are math and statistics (specifically, most of my careers have been about ways to measure uncertainty). Despite the uncertainty, I'd like to see some directional efforts towards addressing the current scientific consensus, short of bankruptcy. At a minimum, let's end oil subsidies (yes, we have lots of those in the US) and perhaps direct them toward research into new technologies. I have no particular "green energy" hobby horse. I'd use standard scientific procedures for allocating grant monies toward what looks most promising/interesting. That could include cleaner ways to use hydrocarbons, for example, which would be an important bridge solution in all likelihood.
argyrium
Hazard to Others
***




Posts: 121
Registered: 3-2-2008
Location: Pacific
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 19-6-2011 at 09:47


to further "muddy" the issue.
http://tinyurl.com/6dskvbh

Oh my, oh my!
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Neil
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 556
Registered: 19-3-2008
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 19-6-2011 at 13:46


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090119210532.ht...


From above-
"Scientists Agree Human-Induced Global Warming Is Real, Survey Says"



http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/glob-warm.html

From above-
"Global Warming -- a gradual increase in planet-wide temperatures -- is now well documented and accepted by scientists as fact"



The only group of scientists who as a group have staunchly argued against Climate change are the petroleum geologists. If any of you have access to science magazines from the 60-70-80's you can follow the almost verbatim arguments against climate change only they are being made against the possibility of "Acid rain".



While we can see things like Hydrogen Sulfide production from anoxic oceans and link them to mass extinction events we can not say with certainty that a mass extinction event is about to happen, or that the massive release of Hydrogen sulfide ever caused a single death.

I mean we can observe increasing ocean dead zones and we can see what appears to be a downward trend in ice coverage but we can't say for certain that these have anything to do with human activities.

If you stand on the earth slightly above sea level and in proximity to the equator you can expect that the temperature will average above 30°C. If you were to climb a magical ladder and take the temperature 1000 meters up you would expect to record a average that is cooler then the average you observed on the ground.

In fact as you climb higher and higher on this magical ladder, you would continue to observe a cooler average temperature. This clearly shows that the sun is in fact a cold body.

No? Fixating on a single data set in isolation is not going to give you an indication of the whole.


At the end of the day no matter what feels right is irrelevant when dealing with a complex and possibly lethal issue.

Does it make sense to take precautions against a explosive event when working with an unknown but possibly energetic substance? What do you lose for being cautious in comparison to what do you potentially lose if you take the substance and blow torch it while half naked and a little bit drunk?

Given the potential outcomes of climate change forecasts range in magnitude from a mass extinction event to something as relatively harmless as increased droughts and a bit more snow for England - doesn't it behoove you to lean towards actions which would decrease the chances of a catastrophic event?

If you need 100% of the available data to be and inline with and fully explanatory of a topic before you will believe in its plausibility or accept it as factor in your reality; you may want to avoid thinking about such things as Gravity, Pi, C, quarks, and purring cats.

At the end of the day; the Sun is not cold, ice cream does not cause drownings and you can not convince anyone who does not wish to change their mind.

However in a very macro and micro way it seems that with Climate Change, Pascal's wager applies.


Ps. argyrium: fox news is as authoritative as quoting David Hahn :D
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Polverone
Now celebrating 17 years of madness
*********




Posts: 3149
Registered: 19-5-2002
Location: The Sunny Pacific Northwest
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 19-6-2011 at 15:37


I note that the original NASA press release about the coming solar minimum does not actually say that changes in solar activity are going to negate or reverse warming trends on Earth.

If you want to debate the extent and risks of global warming, I expect you to use peer reviewed sources or show your work. I don't want to see diversionary non-arguments like "volcanoes emit CO2 also," "Manbearpig," or "plants need CO2 to grow." For what it's worth, I do think that climatology is limited in important ways, for example being forced to rely on computer models instead of controlled experiments since we don't have a few spare Earths to use as controls. But this is still the realm of science, even if we should note the larger error bars: astrophysics too is unable to reproduce (e.g.) a supernova in the lab, so it relies on observations of nature outside the laboratory, theories, and computer models. I welcome actual scientific discussion -- the Climate Audit blog, for example, has IMO done good in pressing for openness of sources and methods relating to climatology.

What drives me crazy is not a skeptical stance toward climate projections, but lazy skepticism or a philosophical stance that might as well be solipsism. We know, and have discussed in a hundred threads here, that newspapers, blogs, and TV stations constantly mangle scientific topics. If the opening bid is a peer reviewed article from Nature don't try to counter with an op-ed from the Wall Street Journal. If your argument for discounting a huge body of peer reviewed work is that scientists are closed-minded or conspiring together, don't bother; it doesn't make sense when Einstein-haters or Young Earth Creationists say it either.




PGP Key and corresponding e-mail address
View user's profile Visit user's homepage View All Posts By User
Rosco Bodine
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 6334
Registered: 29-9-2004
Member Is Offline

Mood: analytical

[*] posted on 19-6-2011 at 16:12


The interesting thing about an encore Maunder minimum if it indeed does occur, is that much of the population of the earth will have a front row seat to personally observe the effects. If there is an average half per cent drop in solar output for decades duration then it is probable there ought to be a noticeable cooling, possibly even a significantly worrisome cooling. The proof will be in the pudding, and there won't be anything to debate to death about models, nature will simply do whatever nature pleases. Many people will study it like investors watching the climatic stock market, and more likely than not will be humbled by how little anyone can do about it, except study it and watch.

Einstein haters? I thought everybody loved Einstein :D
NASA Announces Results of Epic Space-Time Experiment

http://science1.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2011/0...






[Edited on 20-6-2011 by Rosco Bodine]
View user's profile View All Posts By User
watson.fawkes
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 2793
Registered: 16-8-2008
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 19-6-2011 at 17:04


Quote: Originally posted by Polverone  
I note that the original NASA press release about the coming solar minimum does not actually say that changes in solar activity are going to negate or reverse warming trends on Earth.
I'm perfectly flummoxed that some otherwise smart people here seem to have thrown quantitative reasoning out the window when considering the implications of a solar output minimum. You have a heat source (Sun), a heated body (Earth), a heat sink (space), a heat absorption process, and a heat emission one. The core of the global warming argument is that (1) higher CO2 levels change the nature of the heat emission process, slowing it and causing an average temperature rise (the greenhouse effect, a piece of 19th c. science) and (2) there are ever-increasing levels of CO2 levels in the atmosphere. This version leaves out anthropogenic issues about why CO2 is increasing. The observed fact, however, is that it's been on an upward trend for the last hundred years.

So how is it that changing the heat source obviously and clearly causes a decrease in average temperature when the heat emission process is changing at the same time? That's just not even wrong. The different effects are in two different parts of the basic model. Without comparing quantitative figures, it's just impossible to say what the net effect is going to be. There's a perfectly good first-order differential equation for this kind of heat dynamics that could at least be a starting point.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Rosco Bodine
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 6334
Registered: 29-9-2004
Member Is Offline

Mood: analytical

[*] posted on 19-6-2011 at 17:15


You cannot apply two dimensional thinking to to the effect of a solar minimum.
There are known multipliers such as a cosmic ray maximum which is known to increase cloud cover .....even without volcanism to help it along as happened
during the Maunder minimum. What is unknown is were the cosmic rays more significant with regards to increasing the cloud cover ....or was the volcanism?
It may very well be possible that the world will get its increased clouds even
without the volcanism. Also it is unknown how the biosphere will respond and
what effect will be caused to the natural carbon cycle. Greenhouse effect is
going to be altered also. So the variables that can be rattled off immediately
encompass some pretty huge unknowns. Good luck to anyone modeling it.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Panache
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 1107
Registered: 18-10-2007
Member Is Offline

Mood: Green is not a creative colour

[*] posted on 29-10-2011 at 17:36


Who cares we'll all be dead before any of the really nasty stuff happens. As it is I feel no guilt eating my air freighted califorian free trade ratified cherries nor do I get all agasped at the deniers as likely they are just feeling overwhelmed by scope of the problem. It's funny we accept science when it helps us but we deny the technique if we have to curtail consumption or change some belief. There was denyer rally in Australia last month and I was amused by the entire lack of gen yers or xers. There were however in attendance a lot of annoyed looking baby boomers wanting the gravy to flow a little longer.




View user's profile View All Posts By User
argyrium
Hazard to Others
***




Posts: 121
Registered: 3-2-2008
Location: Pacific
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 1-11-2011 at 09:26


Inglobally boring or is it climate change..


http://tinyurl.com/3klwb7y

"Scientist who said climate change sceptics had been proved wrong accused of hiding truth by colleague

By David Rose
Last updated at 6:11 PM on 30th October 2011


It was hailed as the scientific study that ended the global warming debate once and for all – the research that, in the words of its director, ‘proved you should not be a sceptic, at least not any longer’." SNIP.



View user's profile View All Posts By User
Endimion17
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 1468
Registered: 17-7-2011
Location: shores of a solar sea
Member Is Offline

Mood: speeding through time at the rate of 1 second per second

[*] posted on 1-11-2011 at 14:04


Quote: Originally posted by Mr. Wizard  
...

Is it Americans you don't like or just crackpot ideas, I'm a little confused.


I'm not very fond of Americans because I don't really like their passivity which reminds me of the ladies and gentlemen aboard the RMS Titanic, drinking champagne and laughing while gliding into the cold, watery grave.
But I can't say I don't like them, that would be too harsh.

I hate crackpot ideas, though, and find their notion on SM to be ridiculous.
Global warming is a proven fact, but unfortunatelly it takes some brains to figure out why are some parts of the world sometimes colder than usual. I'd expect ordinary laymen to be unable of that, and I consider SM to be a place where ordinary people are scarce.
The guilt for global warming is another thing and today it's considered to be mainly human fault.
The remedy for human caused global warming is a third thing.
The political notions are a fourth thing, and so on.

Only the dumbest of the laymen lump everything together.




View user's profile Visit user's homepage View All Posts By User
IrC
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 2710
Registered: 7-3-2005
Location: Eureka
Member Is Offline

Mood: Discovering

[*] posted on 1-11-2011 at 14:10


"Only the dumbest of the laymen lump everything together."

You fail to mention the even dumber laymen. Those who see only through a tiny window yet think they know all things and cannot possibly be mislead.

"I'm not very fond of Americans because I don't really like their passivity which reminds me of the ladies and gentlemen aboard the RMS Titanic, drinking champagne and laughing while gliding into the cold, watery grave."

I forgot to ask. Are you a layman? After all clearly you lump all Americans together.

"Global warming is a proven fact"

Prove it while showing your work.


[Edited on 11-1-2011 by IrC]




"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" Richard Feynman
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Rosco Bodine
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 6334
Registered: 29-9-2004
Member Is Offline

Mood: analytical

[*] posted on 1-11-2011 at 14:20


There are 23 people dead and more than a million people still without power after a snowstorm in October, which has never before occurred that early in Autumn in something like four hundred years of chronicling such events without trying to go further into the past by reliance upon native american history, and maybe that should be examined also. It would certainly seem to be a coincidental anomaly
unless it is not an anomaly at all, but is part of a yet to be conclusively identified trend.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
 Pages:  1    3  ..  9

  Go To Top