Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #516744 > unrolled thread

Opinion | The Science of Monster Storms

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Opinion | The Science of Monster Storms Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-08-25 08:45 -0500
    The effect of 0.04% trace gas CO2 is exactly less than 0.04% on glow bull wumming 7 <email_at_www_at_enemygadgets_dot_com@enemygadgets.com> - 2015-08-25 14:55 +0100
    Re: Opinion | The Science of Monster Storms gilber34 <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-08-25 10:38 -0500
      Re: Opinion | The Science of Monster Storms Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-08-25 17:45 +0200
        Re: Opinion | The Science of Monster Storms gilber34 <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-08-25 11:03 -0500
          Re: Opinion | The Science of Monster Storms Margarita Cibulkova <margac@terraspace.au> - 2015-08-25 16:07 +0000
            Re: Opinion | The Science of Monster Storms Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-08-25 18:23 +0200
              1/4 noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-08-25 09:33 -0700
              Re: Opinion | The Science of Monster Storms gilber34 <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-08-25 11:44 -0500
              Re: Opinion | The Science of Monster Storms Margarita Cibulkova <margac@terraspace.au> - 2015-08-25 19:31 +0000
                Re: Opinion | The Science of Monster Storms Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-08-25 21:50 +0200
                  Re: Opinion | The Science of Monster Storms Margarita Cibulkova <margac@terraspace.au> - 2015-08-25 20:09 +0000
                    Re: Opinion | The Science of Monster Storms gilber34 <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-08-25 15:55 -0500
                      Re: Opinion | The Science of Monster Storms Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-08-26 10:45 +0200
                        Re: Opinion | The Science of Monster Storms gilber34 <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-08-27 10:44 -0500
                          Re: Opinion | The Science of Monster Storms Margarita Cibulkova <margac@terraspace.au> - 2015-08-28 12:59 +0000
                            Re: Opinion | The Science of Monster Storms Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-08-28 15:18 +0200
                            Re: Opinion | The Science of Monster Storms benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-08-28 12:11 -0400
                              Re: Opinion | The Science of Monster Storms Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-08-28 18:21 +0200
                                Re: Opinion | The Science of Monster Storms Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-08-28 18:32 +0200
                                  Re: Opinion | The Science of Monster Storms Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-08-28 10:30 -0700
                                    Re: Opinion | The Science of Monster Storms "Mike Smith" <invalid@example.com> - 2015-08-28 18:07 -0700
                Re: Opinion | The Science of Monster Storms jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-25 20:25 +0000
                  Re: Opinion | The Science of Monster Storms Margarita Cibulkova <margac@terraspace.au> - 2015-08-25 20:45 +0000
                    Re: Opinion | The Science of Monster Storms jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-25 21:13 +0000
                Re: Opinion | The Science of Monster Storms Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-08-25 23:48 +0200
                  Re: Opinion | The Science of Monster Storms Margarita Cibulkova <margac@terraspace.au> - 2015-08-28 13:01 +0000
                    Re: Opinion | The Science of Monster Storms Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-08-28 15:23 +0200
                    Re: Opinion | The Science of Monster Storms Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-08-28 15:38 +0200
    Re: Opinion | The Science of Monster Storms "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-08-26 11:32 -0700

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#517451

On Friday, August 28, 2015 at 12:32:35 PM UTC-4, Poutnik wrote:
> On 08/28/2015 06:21 PM, Poutnik wrote:
> > 
> > The name presented as real name
> > does not give higher credit than nickname,
> > especially if it is real nickname/penname as mine.
> > 
> P.S.:
> Many Usenet nymshifters change their "real name" every few days.

Those are not real names. It's funny when lying nym-shifters project
that all others are using fake aliases: {PotLuck, Kettle, Black}

The old #HowCanYourNameBeRealWhenOursCertainlyIsNot?!

> I use my nickname on internet for about 20 years,
> since internet became publicly available in my country.

A nickname is just fine, it's real. My nickname is Paul

> I do not see reason why I should change it.

Given what and how you write, do consider it -- wisely and all.

> In real life, some of my friends even know me better
> under my nickname than real name.

Does anyone really know anyone anymore?! 

Regardless, anonymous nym shifters are very eager to post Post
POST. Yet they never ever say anything worthwhile. They only,
deliberately, serve to prevent discussions: Their Unspoken Agenda.

> -- 
> Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )
> 
> Knowledge makes a great man humble, but a small man arrogant.

-- Mahipal "Me: The Sea of Ignorance is deeper than the Well of Knowledge" 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#517553

Adios, dipshit.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#516853

In sci.physics Margarita Cibulkova <margac@terraspace.au> wrote:
> Poutnik wrote:
> 
>>> You both are wrong. There are no guesses in Science. At most there are
>>> Qualified Guesses, but not much, or they HAVE to be based on rigurous
>>> Studies and Observations.
>>> 
>>> There is not much Science in Speculations.
>>> 
>> Not true. Initial idea, leading to later hypothesis and theory,
>> is often conjecture or guess.
> 
> Ideas are not Science, Put. If it were, we would be swimming in Science.

One dead dead give away for a kook is capitalizing things that should
not be capitalized, kook.


-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#516855

jimp wrote:

> In sci.physics Margarita Cibulkova <margac@terraspace.au> wrote:
>> Poutnik wrote:
>> 
>>>> You both are wrong. There are no guesses in Science. At most there
>>>> are Qualified Guesses, but not much, or they HAVE to be based on
>>>> rigurous Studies and Observations.
>>>> 
>>>> There is not much Science in Speculations.
>>>> 
>>> Not true. Initial idea, leading to later hypothesis and theory,
>>> is often conjecture or guess.
>> 
>> Ideas are not Science, Put. If it were, we would be swimming in
>> Science.
> 
> One dead dead give away for a kook is capitalizing things that should
> not be capitalized, kook.

No, jimp, it's just you, batshit crazy, weak in Science, Weak in Math and 
English. Those things has to be "capitalized" taken as domain of 
significant interest, with significant importance in that particular 
context.  

Consequently, jimp, you are babbling nonsense, as "Science" cannot be the 
same as "science". You just angry you are stupid, loosing arguments. Go 
talk somewhere else. Modern Science and Engineering is NOT you.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#516866

In sci.physics Margarita Cibulkova <margac@terraspace.au> wrote:
> jimp wrote:
> 
>> In sci.physics Margarita Cibulkova <margac@terraspace.au> wrote:
>>> Poutnik wrote:
>>> 
>>>>> You both are wrong. There are no guesses in Science. At most there
>>>>> are Qualified Guesses, but not much, or they HAVE to be based on
>>>>> rigurous Studies and Observations.
>>>>> 
>>>>> There is not much Science in Speculations.
>>>>> 
>>>> Not true. Initial idea, leading to later hypothesis and theory,
>>>> is often conjecture or guess.
>>> 
>>> Ideas are not Science, Put. If it were, we would be swimming in
>>> Science.
>> 
>> One dead dead give away for a kook is capitalizing things that should
>> not be capitalized, kook.
> 
> No, jimp, it's just you, batshit crazy, weak in Science, Weak in Math and 
> English. Those things has to be "capitalized" taken as domain of 
> significant interest, with significant importance in that particular 
> context.  

One dead dead give away for a kook is capitalizing things that should
not be capitalized, kook.

BTW, what is your first language, as it certainly can not be English, kook.


<snip remaining kook babble>

-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#516872

Dne 25/08/2015 v 21:31 Margarita Cibulkova napsal(a):
> Poutnik wrote:
> 
>> Not true. Initial idea, leading to later hypothesis and theory,
>> is often conjecture or guess.
> 
> Ideas are not Science, Put. If it were, we would be swimming in Science.
> 
>> WHAT IF ?? .... Guess can be qualified even implicitly. :-)
>> Sometimes they could be characterized as (qualified) intuition,
>> but I suppose such a term is not used.
> 
> No, Put, no. I see you never read Science. You must be believing in the 
> Divergent Matter Model as well.
> 

There is possibility of strong misunderstanding between us.

One thing is idea as hypothesis/theory starting point.
The other thing is just idea with self-confident statements.

Every scientific hypothesis and theory starts
with an idea, guess or conjecture.

But here their similarity with Divergent matter Model ends.

As DMM ends with the ideas,
while scientific theories just start with ideas.

For DMM is idea everything, while for science
idea is very important, but of not much value itself.

It must be later supported by math model,
has to pass internal logic and math consistency
and being confronted with known and future experimental results.

-- 
Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )

Knowledge makes great men humble,
but small men arrogant.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#517401

Poutnik wrote:

> Dne 25/08/2015 v 21:31 Margarita Cibulkova napsal(a):
>> Poutnik wrote:
>> 
>>> Not true. Initial idea, leading to later hypothesis and theory, is
>>> often conjecture or guess.
>> 
>> Ideas are not Science, Put. If it were, we would be swimming in
>> Science.
>> 
>>> WHAT IF ?? .... Guess can be qualified even implicitly.  Sometimes
>>> they could be characterized as (qualified) intuition,
>>> but I suppose such a term is not used.
>> 
>> No, Put, no. I see you never read Science. You must be believing in the
>> Divergent Matter Model as well.
>>  
> There is possibility of strong misunderstanding between us. 
> One thing is idea as hypothesis/theory starting point.
> The other thing is just idea with self-confident statements.

In other understandable words, you admit you've been blatantly stupid.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#517405

On 08/28/2015 03:01 PM, Margarita Cibulkova wrote:
> Poutnik wrote:
> 
>> Dne 25/08/2015 v 21:31 Margarita Cibulkova napsal(a):
>>> Poutnik wrote:
>>>
>>>> Not true. Initial idea, leading to later hypothesis and theory, is
>>>> often conjecture or guess.
>>>
>>> Ideas are not Science, Put. If it were, we would be swimming in
>>> Science.
>>>
>>>> WHAT IF ?? .... Guess can be qualified even implicitly.  Sometimes
>>>> they could be characterized as (qualified) intuition,
>>>> but I suppose such a term is not used.
>>>
>>> No, Put, no. I see you never read Science. You must be believing in the
>>> Divergent Matter Model as well.
>>>  
>> There is possibility of strong misunderstanding between us. 
>> One thing is idea as hypothesis/theory starting point.
>> The other thing is just idea with self-confident statements.
> 
> In other understandable words, you admit you've been blatantly stupid.
> 

Our own words speak for us or against us, not words of others.
And your own words do not speak for you.

-- 
Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )

Knowledge makes a great man humble, but a small man arrogant.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#517408

On 08/28/2015 03:01 PM, Margarita Cibulkova wrote:

> 
> In other understandable words, you admit you've been blatantly stupid.
> 

In other understandable words,

you are just bored by real life,
provoking everybody you can, as I can observe.

-- 
Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )

Knowledge makes a great man humble, but a small man arrogant.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#517067

On Tuesday, August 25, 2015 at 6:45:32 AM UTC-7, Sam Wormley wrote:
> The Science of Monster Storms
> > http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-science-of-monster-storms1/
> 
> > The future of hurricanes and other extreme storms is not likely to be
> > a quiet one. Rising sea levels, in combination with stronger storms
> > because of climate change, are expected to greatly increase damages.
> > Kevin E. Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research
> > warned in his 2007 article, "Warmer Oceans, Stronger Hurricanes,"
> > that "global warming is raising sea-surface temperatures. That rise,
> > in turn, will probably bolster the intensity of hurricanes, including
> > those that target the Americas." Fischetti's look back in 2013 at how
> > Superstorm Sandy impacted the northeastern U.S., "Storm of the
> > Century Every Two Years," cautions that "the chances of severe
> > flooding in New York City will be as high as one in two each year by
> > 2100."
> >
> > My forecast for the future of extreme weather: expect the
> > unprecedented.
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
> to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
> community, and physics-related social issues.

Its heat going up meeting strong cold wind add a twist to it on the way down and you have a hail stone twist we call a tornado. TreBert

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web