Can We 'Cool The Planet' Through Geoengineering?

Brian_G wrote:

<quoted text>
I think you're hysterical.

Not sure if that makes you psychotic or just delusional.

Earthling wrote:

<quoted text>Post #233, you wrote:
".....climax mitigation."

Ah..yes...yes I did .

I just can't believe this guy is for real?

Fat Canuck's inability to understand written English is world famous.
Maybe it's simply a case of him having memory issues, but whatever is discussed, he somehow manages to twist his own words to suit and at the same time, the words of his opponent, lying as he goes.
-----
Lie:
"YOU claimed that the POP meant that the chance that the entire region would get rain or the entire region would be dry."

No, I didn't make that claim.
-----
Stupid:
"A POP of 30% means that the forecast is that about 30% of the area will get rain."

Stupidly incorrect.
------
Proof of his reading issues:
"So you claim that 30% of the time it will rain in ALL of the coverage area and 70% of the time the entire area will be dry."

No, I didn't make that claim.
----------
Once more for the kiddies:

A forecast of 30%(PoP)'Probability of Precipitation' for a region covered by the forecast, simply means that there is a 30% chance it will rain somewhere in that region during the forecast period.
----------
Or as NOAA puts it:
"The "Probability of Precipitation" (PoP) describes the chance of precipitation occurring at any point you [the meteorologist] select in the area.
How do forecasters arrive at this value?

Mathematically, PoP is defined as follows:
PoP = C x A where "C" = the confidence that precipitation will occur somewhere in the forecast area, and where "A" = the percent of the area that will receive measureable precipitation, if it occurs at all."
http://www.srh.noaa.gov/ffc/...

I have high hopes that the fat, scientifically minded Canuck now has all the facts and decides not to make himself look even more stupid by continuing to pointlessly argue his untenable position.

Earthling wrote:

I just can't believe this guy is for real?

PKB

Earthling wrote:

Fat Canuck's inability to understand written English is world famous.

The ad-hominem 'fat' just shows that this isn't considered thought.

And the 'Canuck' is just too much adulation. YOu cannot be certain that I am not an American working in Canada. Can you? Or with dual citizenship... Not sure why you added that. Demagoguery? Perhaps, your 'target audience' might think it was an insult..

Earthling wrote:

Stupid:
"A POP of 30% means that the forecast is that about 30% of the area will get rain."
Stupidly incorrect.

And yet you did as shown below.

Earthling wrote:

------
Proof of his reading issues:
"So you claim that 30% of the time it will rain in ALL of the coverage area and 70% of the time the entire area will be dry."
No, I didn't make that claim.

No. As your OWN quote proves.

Earthling wrote:

Once more for the kiddies:
A forecast of 30%(PoP)'Probability of Precipitation' for a region covered by the forecast, simply means that there is a 30% chance it will rain somewhere in that region during the forecast period.
----------

here you make your claim. That it has a 30% chance of rain or NOT rain in the ENTIRE area.

Earthling wrote:

Or as NOAA puts it:
"The "Probability of Precipitation" (PoP) describes the chance of precipitation occurring at any point you [the meteorologist] select in the area.

Whereas here you quote the ACCURATE definition which I had given. If any point in the area has 30% chance of rain ( as I pointed out) then about 30% of the AREA will get rain. THAT is the definition. And your OWN references show it. Your reading and logic issues are just ludicrous when you post PROOF of your inability to read and reason in your OWN rebuttals.

Fat Canuck really has issues with quotation marks and who said what.
He has actually attributed a NOAA quote to me and yet again misinterpreted my own comment.

It's impossible to communicate with someone who has this deficiency and seriously believes rubbish like:

"If any point in the area has 30% chance of rain ( as I pointed out) then about 30% of the AREA will get rain."
------
Truth of the matter:

"A forecast of 30%(PoP)'Probability of Precipitation' for a region covered by the forecast, simply means that there is a 30% chance it will rain somewhere in that region during the forecast period."

How simple is that to understand?

NB: If you think that, "The ad-hominem 'fat' just shows that this isn't considered thought."
Why did you admit to being overweight?
And do you consider, "Dirtling" to not be an ad-hominem, plus the many other insults you regularly aim at all and sundry?

I couldn't care less where you were born or why you're in Canada, but my best guess is that you're Canadian.
I'm sure you recall writing, "Alberta is not my country."

Earthling wrote:

How simple is that to understand?

Obviously not simple enough for you or you would understand that my description and the NASA description are two ways of saying the same thing.

While your description is insane.

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:

If any point in the area has 30% chance of rain ( as I pointed out) then about 30% of the AREA will get rain.

Is that how you read NOAA's definition?

Mathematically, PoP is defined as follows:
PoP = C x A where "C" = the confidence that precipitation will occur somewhere in the forecast area, and where "A" = the percent of the area that will receive measureable precipitation, if it occurs at all."

You say, "will get rain."
NOAA says, "if it occurs at all."

Here's another 'reliable' link for you:

Studies have indicated that people in other countries [Canada?] are more likely to misunderstand the definition. In some European countries, a 60% chance of rain was even interpreted to mean that it would rain over 60% of the area.

http://weather.about.com/od/c/g/chance_of_rai...

Keep digging, I'm sure I'm not the only one laughing at you.

Earthling wrote:

<quoted text>Is that how you read NOAA's definition?

Obviously it IS what the NOAAs definition states. To simplify it enough for your childlike mind...

30% chance of being rained on for a person anywhere in the area =
- assume an even distribution of 100 people thorugh the area.
- by the definition, 30 of them will be rained on.
- ergo, it is equivalent to saying that 30% of the AREA will get rain.
Duuuuuhhhhh

<quoted text>You say, "will get rain."
NOAA says, "if it occurs at all."
Here's another 'reliable' link for you:<quoted text>
http://weather.about.com/od/c/g/chance_of_rai...
Keep digging, I'm sure I'm not the only one laughing at you.

Well yah. A forecast is not a prophecy. There is always a chance that no rain will fall because the error bars are larger than the mean. But that means dick all. It would be rare for the forecast to be THAT far off.

You know, it is better to be absent and be thought a fool than to post your mindless nonsense and remove all doubt.

Earthling wrote:

<quoted text>Is that how you read NOAA's definition?

Obviously it IS what the NOAAs definition states. To simplify it enough for your childlike mind...

30% chance of being rained on for a person anywhere in the area =

- assume an even distribution of 100 people through the area.

- by the definition, 30 of them will be rained on.

- ergo, it is equivalent to saying that 30% of the AREA will get rain.

Duuuuuhhhhh

Earthling wrote:

<quoted text>
You say, "will get rain."
NOAA says, "if it occurs at all."
Here's another 'reliable' link for you:<quoted text>
http://weather.about.com/od/c/g/chance_of_rai...
Keep digging, I'm sure I'm not the only one laughing at you.

Well yah. A forecast is not a prophecy. There is always a chance that no rain will fall because the error bars are larger than the mean. But that means dick all. It would be rare for the forecast to be THAT far off.

You know, it is better to be absent and be thought a fool than to post your mindless nonsense and remove all doubt.

There you have it, folks, a crazy Canuck trying to explain the obvious, but still getting it completely wrong.
Now what was it that, weather.about.com said:

Studies have indicated that people in other countries [Canada?] are more likely to misunderstand the definition. In some European countries, a 60% chance of rain was even interpreted to mean that it would rain over 60% of the area.

How's this for hilarious?
LessFact's now trying to tell us that, "an even distribution of 100 people through the area.
- by the definition, 30 of them will be rained on."

Even if it doesn't rain in that area????
Hey there dumbo, call me back when you find your brain.

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:

Well yah. A forecast is not a prophecy. There is always a chance that no rain will fall because the error bars are larger than the mean.

You really should have stopped after having written that accurate comment.

Instead, you couldn't resist digging yourself another hole:

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:

But that means dick all. It would be rare for the forecast to be THAT far off.

Rare???
Pull the other one.

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:

You know, it is better to be absent and be thought a fool than to post your mindless nonsense and remove all doubt.

Thereby confirming your own foolishness.

Earthling wrote:

There you have it, folks, a crazy Canuck trying to explain the obvious, but still getting it completely wrong.

See. I told you it would go over your head, even simplified enough for grade three students.

FYI:

And there is a correct way to interpret the forecast According to the NWS: "CHANCE OF RAIN 40 PERCENT" means there is a 40 percent chance that rain will occur at any given point in the area.

NOTE! However, this is not entirely accurate language. It is better expressed as: "CHANCE OF RAIN 40 PERCENT" means that on average for all of the points in the area during the specified time period (usually 12 hour periods), chance that rain will occur (on average) is 40%.

I wonder if Mr Undoubtably Spelt Fourty has managed to work out the real meaning of a PoP forecast yet.

Earthling-1 wrote:

I wonder if Mr Undoubtably Spelt Fourty has managed to work out the real meaning of a PoP forecast yet.

No, none whatsoever, he's an old dog that refuses to learn.

A leaked document from Haarp "gov. does not recognize" the use of profleurocarbons as a dispersant and among other substances for "weather modification ,etc." The substance is a pollutant. If the chem-trails are truly for reduction of global warming than why use aluminum which the process of making releases more pollutants and has the byproduct of fluoride which has been debated as an agent that can/has been used to make people more docile. Also aluminum can aid radio waves getting a wider transmission which is also something that HAARP is known for (what can it do is we are breathing it). Haarp has the capability of mind control major climate and tectonic disruption. The army and a US Bill from the 90's also states wether modification and chemtrails for weaponry! The facts are their you just have to look for them! Ive been dying to talk to someone about this ! Most people dont wanmt to know the truth and the truth is so massive and sick its hard to wrap your mind around it!

If it's unbelievable, it's usually fictional.