Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse

Firehouse.com Forum Rules & Guidelines

Forum Rules & Guidelines

Not Permitted or Tolerated:
• Advertising and/or links of commercial, for-profit websites, products, and/or services is not permitted. If you have a need to advertise on Firehouse.com please contact [email protected]
• Fighting/arguing
• Cyber-bullying
• Swearing
• Name-calling and/or personal attacks
• Spamming
• Typing in all CAPS
• “l33t speak” - Substituting characters for letters in an effort to represent a word or phrase. (example: M*****ive)
• Distribution of another person’s personal information, regardless of whether or not said information is public knowledge and whether or not an individual has permission to post said personal information
• Piracy advocation of any kind
• Racist, sexual, hate type defamatory, religious, political, or sexual commentary.
• Multiple forum accounts

Forum Posting Guidelines:

Posts must be on-topic, non-disruptive and relevant to the firefighting community. Post only in a mature and responsible way that contributes to the discussion at hand. Posting relevant information, helpful suggestions and/or constructive criticism is a great way to contribute to the community.

Post in the correct forum and have clear titles for your threads.

Please post in English or provide a translation.

There are moderators and admins who handle these forums with care, do not resort to self-help, instead please utilize the reporting option. Be mature and responsible for yourself and your posts. If you are offended by another member utilize the reporting option. All reported posts will be addressed and dealt with as deemed appropriate by Firehouse.com staff.

Firehouse.com Moderation Process:
Effective immediately, the following moderation process will take effect. User(s) whose posts are determined by Firehouse.com staff to be in violation of any of the rules above will EARN the following reprimand(s) in the moderation process:
1. An initial warning will be issued.
2. A Final Warning will be issued if a user is found to be in violation a second time.
3. A 3-day suspension will be issued if the user continues to break the forum rules.
4. A 45-day suspension will be issued if the user is found to be a habitual rule breaker.
5. Habitual rule breakers that have exhausted all of the above will receive a permanent life-time ban that will be strictly enforced. Reinstatement will not be allowed – there is no appeal process.

Subsequent accounts created in an effort to side-step the rules and moderation process are subject to automatic removal without notice. Firehouse.com reserves the right to expedite the reprimand process for any users as it is deemed necessary. Any user in the moderation process may be required to review and agree to by email the terms and conditions listed above before their account is re-instated (except for those that are banned).

Firehouse.com reserves the right to edit and/or remove any post or member, at any time, for any reason without notice. Firehouse.com also reserves the right to warn, suspend, and/or ban, any member, at any time, for any reason.

Firehouse.com values the active participation we have in our forums. Please ensure your posts are tasteful and tactful. Thank you very much for your cooperation.
See more
See less

Snow and Ice in the South

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Snow doesn't really cause THAT many problems for us in my part of North Carolina. The bigger weather-related issue that we have usually occurs in the spring and summer: severe thunderstorms (with an occasional tornado). We'll run a few extra calls when it snows. When we get a nasty storm, we won't see the station. Wrecks, power lines down, and either fighting lightning-related fires or backfilling other parts of the city that have their own fires. Never seen this place as chaotic as when a nasty boomer comes in and wallops us.

    Comment


    • #32
      I've lived in the south's hurricane alley, midwest tornado alley, California with the santa anna driven firestorms, & in the north with it's winter blizzards.
      I'll take 8 feet of snow any time over the other options. We can deal with snow.

      Comment


      • #33
        This was our day yesterday.

        Never seen anything like this in the 3+ decades I've been living here.
        Attached Files
        They told me if I voted for Hillary Clinton the president would be emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable. They were right. I voted for Hillary Clinton and got a president that is emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable.

        I'm not saying you're stupid. I'm saying you have bad luck when it comes to thinking.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by scfire86 View Post
          This was our day yesterday.

          Never seen anything like this in the 3+ decades I've been living here.
          I saw some pictures of the snow on the beach.

          That must have freaked some people out.

          And played havoc with some of the "Hollywood Types" Global warming agenda.
          Train to fight the fires you fight.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by LaFireEducator View Post
            I saw some pictures of the snow on the beach.

            That must have freaked some people out.
            It was more like a surprise. No freaking out being done that I saw.

            Originally posted by LaFireEducator View Post
            And played havoc with some of the "Hollywood Types" Global warming agenda.
            Not at all. Like most intelligent beings they believe the 97% of climatologists who believe climate change is real.
            They told me if I voted for Hillary Clinton the president would be emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable. They were right. I voted for Hillary Clinton and got a president that is emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable.

            I'm not saying you're stupid. I'm saying you have bad luck when it comes to thinking.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by scfire86 View Post
              Not at all. Like most intelligent beings they believe the 97% of climatologists who believe climate change is real.
              I think you should do some reading up on where that 97% number came from. It might surprise you and it's not accurate.

              http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014...78462813553136

              http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014...78462813553136

              These are just a couple of articles. The simple fact is the 97% figure came from a 2 question survey with 2 very vague non-specific questions. And in fact most climatologists did not even return the survey so it was an extremely small sample.
              Last edited by LaFireEducator; 03-03-2015, 05:26 PM.
              Train to fight the fires you fight.

              Comment


              • #37
                I think it is important to realize that LOCAL WEATHER events have no place in the discussion on GLOBAL CLIMATE change. Global warming has to be looked at over a period of time across the entire world. A dusting of snow in southern California is no more proof that there is NO global warming than a mild heat wave in Alaska is proof that there IS global warming. To believe so is just ignorant.

                I believe scientific opinions should be based on scientific data and not on the platform of one's chosen political party. We need to get politics out of science or we won't be able to trust the science. Because it will no longer really be science.

                The reason that the right wing refutes global warming is they want relaxed standards on pollution. It is in line with their business friendly stance. Nothing wrong with business by the way. IMO, less government is better government. But we've seen what big business will do when left entirely unchecked and it isn't pretty. Not just in the area of pollution either. Of course, it would be silly to say pollution is desirable so they have to attack the science instead. Pretty weak tactic if you think about it.

                Some will say that global warming could very well be part of a naturally occurring long range pattern. This may absolutely be accurate. But we don't have historical samples to prove it.

                Nobody can yet say that carbon emissions are fully responsible for a permanent change to global climate. But even if it's just a likelihood or a possibility, it sure makes sense to do something about it if we can. Can anyone make the case that pollution is good? Or even slightly acceptable? Does anyone think that the air pollution just goes harmlessly out into space?

                Comment


                • #38
                  ^^^^^^
                  How dare you respond with common sense and science to argue against politicians and their toadies
                  what is this forum coming to??????

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by captnjak View Post
                    I think it is important to realize that LOCAL WEATHER events have no place in the discussion on GLOBAL CLIMATE change. Global warming has to be looked at over a period of time across the entire world. A dusting of snow in southern California is no more proof that there is NO global warming than a mild heat wave in Alaska is proof that there IS global warming. To believe so is just ignorant.

                    I believe scientific opinions should be based on scientific data and not on the platform of one's chosen political party. We need to get politics out of science or we won't be able to trust the science. Because it will no longer really be science.
                    Thank you. LAFE needs to stick to something he knows something about. Which is anyone's guess.

                    So far it looks like he is good at railing against government while going on junkets at taxpayer expense.
                    They told me if I voted for Hillary Clinton the president would be emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable. They were right. I voted for Hillary Clinton and got a president that is emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable.

                    I'm not saying you're stupid. I'm saying you have bad luck when it comes to thinking.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by captnjak View Post
                      I think it is important to realize that LOCAL WEATHER events have no place in the discussion on GLOBAL CLIMATE change. Global warming has to be looked at over a period of time across the entire world. A dusting of snow in southern California is no more proof that there is NO global warming than a mild heat wave in Alaska is proof that there IS global warming. To believe so is just ignorant.

                      I believe scientific opinions should be based on scientific data and not on the platform of one's chosen political party. We need to get politics out of science or we won't be able to trust the science. Because it will no longer really be science.

                      The reason that the right wing refutes global warming is they want relaxed standards on pollution. It is in line with their business friendly stance. Nothing wrong with business by the way. IMO, less government is better government. But we've seen what big business will do when left entirely unchecked and it isn't pretty. Not just in the area of pollution either. Of course, it would be silly to say pollution is desirable so they have to attack the science instead. Pretty weak tactic if you think about it.

                      Some will say that global warming could very well be part of a naturally occurring long range pattern. This may absolutely be accurate. But we don't have historical samples to prove it.

                      Nobody can yet say that carbon emissions are fully responsible for a permanent change to global climate. But even if it's just a likelihood or a possibility, it sure makes sense to do something about it if we can. Can anyone make the case that pollution is good? Or even slightly acceptable? Does anyone think that the air pollution just goes harmlessly out into space?
                      The line about snow in southern CA was meant as sarcasm.

                      The statement about the great "97% Myth" was meant in total seriousness. It refers to a questionnaire that was sent out several years ago with 2 very generic questions regarding the warming of the world since 1800 with No reference at all in the questions to man-made warming or the effects of human activity on global warming. Very few true climatologists replied to the survey, resulting in a very low number of entries into the data pool.

                      That is where the magical "97%" number has come from, and it's quite bogus given both the lack of reference to manmade warming or human activity generated warming as well as the very low participation rate by true climatologists.

                      I would suggest you do some research yourself, and that way, you can find out how bogus the 97% myth actually is.

                      By the way, the earth has cooled since 1997.
                      Train to fight the fires you fight.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by captnjak View Post
                        Some will say that global warming could very well be part of a naturally occurring long range pattern. This may absolutely be accurate. But we don't have historical samples to prove it.
                        That is my take, although I do agree that mankind has had some effect as well.

                        Politics notwithstanding, blaming the whole of climate change on mankind is a human conceit. Krakatoa had a bigger effect on the climate of the earth in a day or two than mankind has had over the past century.
                        Opinions my own. Standard disclaimers apply.

                        Everyone goes home. Safety begins with you.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by LaFireEducator View Post
                          The line about snow in southern CA was meant as sarcasm.

                          The statement about the great "97% Myth" was meant in total seriousness. It refers to a questionnaire that was sent out several years ago with 2 very generic questions regarding the warming of the world since 1800 with No reference at all in the questions to man-made warming or the effects of human activity on global warming. Very few true climatologists replied to the survey, resulting in a very low number of entries into the data pool.

                          That is where the magical "97%" number has come from, and it's quite bogus given both the lack of reference to manmade warming or human activity generated warming as well as the very low participation rate by true climatologists.

                          I would suggest you do some research yourself, and that way, you can find out how bogus the 97% myth actually is.

                          By the way, the earth has cooled since 1997.
                          I don't really care about one survey that says 97% of climatologists believe global warming is real. One survey is not enough of a sample to be considered reliable. You say it's a bogus survey. Fine. But that is not evidence that global warming is a myth. No doubt there are climatologists who believe it is real.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by LaFireEducator View Post
                            The line about snow in southern CA was meant as sarcasm.

                            The statement about the great "97% Myth" was meant in total seriousness. It refers to a questionnaire that was sent out several years ago with 2 very generic questions regarding the warming of the world since 1800 with No reference at all in the questions to man-made warming or the effects of human activity on global warming. Very few true climatologists replied to the survey, resulting in a very low number of entries into the data pool.

                            That is where the magical "97%" number has come from, and it's quite bogus given both the lack of reference to manmade warming or human activity generated warming as well as the very low participation rate by true climatologists.

                            I would suggest you do some research yourself, and that way, you can find out how bogus the 97% myth actually is.

                            By the way, the earth has cooled since 1997.
                            Furthermore, why 1997? Picking one year as a reference point is unreliable. We can't look at small geographic areas and we can't look at short time periods. Global climate is a long range world wide study. Picking one year and using it to bolster your opinion is not scientifically reliable. When dealing with the scientific method, you don't pick a small amount of data and use it to SUPPORT your opinion; you look at a massive amount of data and use it to FORM an opinion.

                            The trend since about 1850, when reliable record keeping began, is toward a warmer average global climate. It has gone up about 1.5 degrees Farenheit since then. The 2000's were warmer as a decade then the 1990's, which were warmer as a decade then the 1980's. Average ocean temperature seems to be increasing too, which is much more significant since the oceans pretty much control global climate.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by captnjak View Post
                              Furthermore, why 1997? Picking one year as a reference point is unreliable. We can't look at small geographic areas and we can't look at short time periods. Global climate is a long range world wide study. Picking one year and using it to bolster your opinion is not scientifically reliable. When dealing with the scientific method, you don't pick a small amount of data and use it to SUPPORT your opinion; you look at a massive amount of data and use it to FORM an opinion.

                              The trend since about 1850, when reliable record keeping began, is toward a warmer average global climate. It has gone up about 1.5 degrees Farenheit since then. The 2000's were warmer as a decade then the 1990's, which were warmer as a decade then the 1980's. Average ocean temperature seems to be increasing too, which is much more significant since the oceans pretty much control global climate.
                              1996 was the last year that an increase in global temperatures was recorded.

                              The ice caps have increased in size since that time. The number of hurricanes and typhoons have decreased as well as the average intensity since the mid 90's as well. There are several markers that indicate that the period of warming has stopped since the mid-90's.
                              Train to fight the fires you fight.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                There were more hurricanes in the 2000's than there were in the 1990's. More in the 90's than the 80's. More in the 80's than the 70's.

                                Why 1996? Is it because you did not want to mention that 1995 was tied for the third most active season on record?

                                1999 had the most category 4 storms on record.

                                September 2002 tied the record for most named storms in any September.

                                August 2004 tied the record for most named storms in any August.

                                2005 was the most active and costliest season on record. Also the most category 5 storms on record for one year.

                                2008 was the fifth most active season on record.

                                2010, 2011 and 2012 are tied for the third most active hurricane season on record.

                                Everything I posted today was pulled from various weather and climate related web-sites. I'm starting to wonder where some of the other info we are seeing posted comes from.

                                Comment

                                300x600 Ad Unit (In-View)

                                Collapse

                                Upper 300x250

                                Collapse

                                Taboola

                                Collapse

                                Leader

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X