User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
|
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
For wholesale prices on baseball gifts and equipment, check these stores out! |
Page rendered in 0.8231 seconds
53 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Yeah, but those guys handle 15 feet of snow like people in NYC handle 2 inches.
Also, as far as central NY, it's like the storm knew we wouldn't even care, so it got nervous and went around us.
This is a feature, not a bug.
CNN was saying the official estimate is anywhere from 14 hours to 4 days.
That would not surprise me. Where did you see this quoted? I am bouncing around the tubes between twitter, WYNC, ect, and I haven't read that yet. They did not count on 7 tunnels flooding, and saltwater is nasty ####.
Edit: No timetable
I know Stuy Town flooded. Anyone got a link for some good pics?
Elmo on Brian Lehrer is a huge WTF right now.
It's rarely as long as the initial estimates.
They're still in damage assessment at this point. We're in "no map for this territory" territory today-- they won't know until they get in there and see what actually got damaged. That's a lot of water in places that aren't supposed to have any.
Ha.
Roughly 90,000 customers in WV without power as of 7:45 this morning, according to APCO. I only had 3-4 inches at the hokie house, but no power. Reports of 6-8 inches in the lower mountains with over a foot in the higher elevations. 48 more hours of snow are expected in the mountains. I live down in the low lands, so it's suppose to warm up sometime soon and rain this afternoon and then switch back to snow when the evening comes in. Still looks like a blizzard out right now though.
EDIT: First Energy, another utility provider, just reported an additional 110,000 customers without power. Over 200,000 total now across the state. And I just heard there is 2ft of snow in some higher elevations.
Technically, they were talking about the spent fuel, not the reactor itself. The spent fuel is stored in pools to keep it cool, and there are numerous options to deal with it in the event they lose their heat exchangers.
Nuclear power plants have paid 10's of billions of dollars to the federal government, who is supposed to develop a long term storage solution. The Yucca Mountain project in Nevada was close to becoming operational when Senator Reid basically ####-canned about 5 billion dollars of work over NIMBY issues. There are no current plans underway to deal with this issue. It actually is a great private sector opportunity, if someone were to have the guts and money to wade into the regulatory and approval quagmire required to permit an interim facility.
Also, the planning of nuclear power plants considers extreme environmental events and designs engineered controls for these events. However, they don't design for every conceivable act - probably up to about a 1 in 10,000 occurrence - designing for everything would be prohibitively expensive. There is an assumption of risk acceptance in the design, as there is in everything we purchase. This is an approach that has generally worked very, very well.
Being in Chicago but with most of our executives based in the NY office, I am rather enjoying the peace, quiet, and absence of poor decisions being made at moment... take all the time you need to get things cleaned up. All week would be just fine.
Are you going to keep all the bread?
It does not sound good in New Jersey, some type of levee or dam broke and there are three towns being overrun...
By zombies?
My wife used to work in a place called "Bound Brook". She didn't think much about the name until one of these big storms hit - Isaac? She realized it had rained a lot where she lived but as she approached her workplace she kept wondering about the lake she'd never seen. Of course, it turned out to be where she was headed.
I think it's funny (not haha) how we all forget the terraforming that has been done where we live.
It's amazing -- I'm an extremely long way from the storm, and yet it's still causing a minor amount of havoc along the lakefront.
The other thing is that all of our nuclear plants are of a very, very old design. They've been remarkably safe, and newer designs are supposed to improve on that a lot.
Bound Brook is one of Jersey's worst flood areas, and that's saying something.
I'm back in business at work.
lost power at home last night at around 8:15 pm - shortly after the Mrs finished off a glass of wine, opened the 4th-floor condo balcony door, and shouted, "HEY SANDY, IS THAT ALL YOU GOT? BRING IT!"
oddly, the building suffered no damage and there is no flooding. the gods were merciful, imo.
94th to 105th was flooded on 1st.
90th is on a downslope so can't quite flood.
I live at 100th.
Managed not to lose power though.
It dragged all the trash outside our building into the middle of the street. Including a couch. So, that was interesting. And gross.
Huh?? What exactly is it that you think caused this "superstorm"?
Yankee Stadium was rather firmly inland. Citi Field's surrounding areas apparently were flooded though, because, well, Mets.
Oil. Global warming. And lack of universal health care.
It shouldn't take a genius to see how rising sea levels make flooding during storms like this one a much more serious problem. That's without even getting into the more complicated stuff.
Eight inches in the last hundred years. And now that we're past the tipping point, it's not going to stop increasing.
Same here. As someone just a few miles off the south shore, we got the full thrust of those winds. I can't believe the trees in my yard are still standing, considering how hard (and for how long) the wind was blowing, and it hadn't slowed down by the time I left for work this morning. I never imagined a hurricane could be felt 900 miles inland.
What was it that Jon Stewart called it?
Oh right.
The War on Terra!
Considering that sea levels are rising about a millimeter to two millimeters a year this serious problem should have been a serious problem for decades and decades instead of just now becoming a problem.
Pathetic.
Of course, what I've never quite gotten has been this: clearly the whole environment argument for alternative energies hasn't worked, but there are plenty of other reasons to go to wind, water and solar- namely that they are A) Not foreign oil and B) Not human-health-hurting coal.
I don't think that's true, a storm is a singular event. I think it's more like saying "Pablo Sandoval had the most home runs of any World Series game ever."
Except unless somehow solar becomes extremely efficient it will always be a very minor energy source or it will hurt the globe and humanity. Solar panels give off a lot of heat and if we ever tried to use enough of them to actually power our economies it would turn the world into a sauna.
Water is great but you are talking about radically altering the globe to harness enough energy to power the world's economies. Wind is great but it requires huge amounts of resources to build those turbines and operate them and they are even more susceptible than our current energy sources to extreme weather.
Our civilization has advanced to the point that we cannot rely on nature to power our economies. We have to manufacture our energy.
Don't include Puck's post in that. That guy was right on as far as the science linking increased hurricane landfalls and climate change. It's not as simple as "climate change = OMG Sandy". I work for a company that models, among other catastrophes, hurricanes. If you talk to our meteorologists - who are not, by the way, climate change deniers - you'll find that's just the state of the science. As the last line of the article itself states:
This is spot on, IMO. Climate change is a real thing, and our actions are part of that - but the causal links between that and hurricane landfalls aren't yet well understood. Nature - actually pretty complex, it turns out.
It's not meaningless. What are you talking about, Ray?
Yeah, it's not like that at all. You may have the scrapings of a point somewhere here, but it didn't find its way to light via this horrid analogy.
Well, what is now New York was below the sea for much of its geologic history, so we can assume that the flooding was much worse, although the massive earthquakes and lava flows of 450 million years ago might have been more unpleasant. As long as there isn't a lava flow fifteen miles wide, no one should be complaining.
Hurricane Ike was incredible in 2008. My mom had a bunch of maple trees snap 800 miles inland, which is when it dawned on me that Bobby Savoy could've been making baseball bats out of our backyard trees when I was a kid.
So, Ray, when people here make arguments for a "best," people who argue against offer names and stats. What are your HOF storms hitting the NYC? Not New England, or Long Island (that's like giving Ichiro! credit for NPB), but NYC.
You're overstating the heating from solar panels. Because of their low albedo they do create heating, but only slightly more than the raw heat generated by burning coal, and coal of course also gives off greenhouse gases. So that's a short-term wash and a long-term win for pholtovoltaic. But, yes, photovoltaics aren't efficient enough to be anything more than a niche power source for the foreseeable future.
That said, the future for solar is in concentrated solar power, which generates power through old-fashioned steam turbines (that also work in the dark; you store sunlight energy in the form of melted rock salts). The problem here is that we have tech now that will make very good CSP plants but we don't have adequate transmission technology. We could probably make a Manhattan Project-level investment and build enough plants in Arizona to power the US, but we couldn't get that energy from there to anywhere very far away simply because our current power grid technology is so lossy. And if that power grid tech ever appears, it'll be incredibly expensive to replace the whole US grid. Point is that I expect that in my lifetime concentrated solar will be producing a good chunk of the power in the Southwest and southern California, but who knows beyond that.
Wouldn't the series be in DC at this point? Nats Park could be pumped dry by tomorrow.
A massive hurricane hit Rhode Island at some point between 1295 and 1407, so you might actually be right.
Except for us knowing how to do so.
If it were possible to use these sources in a way that didn't both suck other resources dry and contribute their own environmental problems, we'd have done so. Not having implemented these yet is not some big conspiracy, it's a lack of technical know-how. Now, not doing more research along these lines may be due to conspiracy, I don't know.
Basically, if it worries you, turn off your AC/heater and stop burning fuel/splitting atoms to ##### about it on the internet.
(Note: I'm not a denier. The climate is changing and human activity is a plausible explanation for, at least, part of it. That doesn't mean we automatically know how to maintain our society without the energy sources we've used to build that society).
I'm not in New York, so I can't say for certain, but I don't think they were getting Game 5 in last night.
Perhaps. But it's the turning over control to compromised bodies which have strong Marxist and Malthusian ideas.
I might even be fine with the first one, but the latter is too dangerous to put any level of trust or responsibility in.
Link.
And C) To stimulate many rich and connected liberals' investments
What, you think my snark isn't well researched?
Petrol from air sounds nice, but the problem is that you have to put energy in to get this energy out. Every joule of energy derived from this is going to cost more than a joule of energy from some other source. At best it's a way of ditching Middle Eastern oil in favor of domestic and friendly-sourced coal/nuclear/renewables. That's a worthy goal, but irrelevant and even maybe counterproductive in terms of the "energy crisis".
I guess it could also be useful as a way of moving energy away from a concentrated solar plant (or whatever) like I mention in #557. Use the solar to run an air petrol plant, and then truck or pipe it elsewhere. (EDIT: Or as a way to run cars off of nuclear power, without having to deal with the limitations of batteries.) Still, this is probably just an interesting sideshow.
Are you suggesting that conservatives aren't smart enough to invest it as well?
It's worth noting that predictions of the amount of energy produced by renewable sources over the last 20 years have been short of the mark every single time.
In 2000, the IEA predicted it would take until 2020 for 3% of our energy to be produced via renewable means. We surpassed that mark in 2008. There are many other examples, all underestimating the amount of renewable energy the world will produce.
Solar energy production is growing exponentially. It's doubled in just the past two years. It promises to provide 10% of our energy by 2018, that's just six years away.
I'm sure if they had the knowledge of such investment opportunities and political opportunity to perform such corruption of public spending priorities, they would.
I was under the impression that conservatives were smart with their money, so you think they would have diversified their corruption and pork projects to include some "green initiative" investments.
If you want to stop burning fossil fuels in 2013, you're going to have to turn most electrical units off. It's that simple.
It is pretty meaningless. That's what I'm talking about.
It's a 150 or 200 year span out of 4.5 billion. Please do the math. When you do, you will find that the answer is that Andrew Cuomo's lifespan in which he has "never seen anything like this in his life" is a pimple on an elephant's ass compared to the lifespan of the planet.
(Yes, I know that that really doesn't fit the definition of "peak", but I thought it was worth mentioning)
Why would you compare something like this on that scale? If you do that, almost nothing we ever see would be signficant at all, ever - and if something did happen that would be significant on that scale, you and I wouldn't be here to talk about it anyway.
At several points in the last 4.5 billion years the entire world was tropical. At other points much of it was frozen. At other points the atmosphere was poison and sulfur rained from the sky. Therefore, unless New York is a mangrove swamp, covered by an ice sheet three miles thick, or pelted by fire and brimstone, everything is just a statistical blip?
Thing is, if you're building a new coal-fired power station now, it doesn't just impact fossil fuels being burned in 2013, it also impacts them being burned in 2033. The energy supply profile of any nation takes a long, long time to turn around, which is why eschewing investment in renewable energy research in the 1990s because the sea levels weren't rising a great deal yet was pretty silly logic. But I've long given up hope that anyone in power will admit to learning a lesson from that.
In the same manner, deciding not to invest in tax-free savings for your retirement at 30 because you don't feel old is not a good solution to pension planning. Nor is avoiding quitting smoking until you get diagnosed with lung cancer.
And no, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't build new fossil fuel plants now; we have to. We missed the window 10-15 years ago to avoid needing them now. But we should acknowledge missing that window, and learn a lesson from it.
So....Pittsburgh?
Perhaps. However, the conservative investor would be simply be piggybacking off the investments made by the corrupt liberals who had complete knowledge of the very corruption they were orchestrating. And, as such, could not be leading the corrupt of public spending priorities. Unless you are suggesting they failed to block it because they were in on the green scam.
I don't think that's true, a storm is a singular event. I think it's more like saying "Pablo Sandoval had the most home runs of any World Series game ever."
What Jose said. But also... My understanding is that the pressure of the storm is among the lowest when reaching landfall; the extensive nature of the system is among the widest recorded, meaning many rain bands for a lengthy period; the high storm surge coincided with a low tide, which is not statistically likely; the increased density of population would make it likely that more people are affected in ways large and small; the damage to the city infrastructure is still being tallied but is likely to be among the highest ever, even adjusting for inflation; there is an ongoing economic impact as the city returns to normal.
Given all these factors, any of which *could* be used to argue for "worst storm" status, what is your justification for an outright declaration of "meaningless"? I count myself among those on this site who do not understand the "statistical concepts" you claim to be employing.
Well, to be fair, 9/11 and the rising costs of oil have changed the playing board. If oil had remained cheap or had been cheaper than what it was we would never have seen the growth in alternative energy that we did see.
Shale gas (although obviously not a renewable fuel) has also positively impacted the US' emissions, if you believe the more mainstream calculations, which I tend to. As a transitional technology during a time of a) recession, b) rising energy costs and c) developing renewable tech, it's been an almost perfect fit for the US. As long as it doesn't prop up some childish notion that fossil fuels can endlessly just turn up whenever we need them without consequence, it's generally been a very positive outcome.
It's also worth reminding ourselves that, all other things being equal, fossil fuel costs will always rise, because they're finite. Oil prices rising in a macro sense, along with coal prices and gas prices, isn't a random event, it's an expected outcome on a long-enough timescale. In micro terms, only global recession is keeping oil prices as low as they are currently.
More or less.
So climate change is normal? I get it now.
FWIW, Ray, there is a field called paleotempestology that looks at sediment records to identify and date historical storms, so the track record for determining recurrence intervals isn't 350 years, it's more like 2000. Given how fast climate regimes change, that's not a pimple on the ass of determining probability under our current regime, at least, the climatologists don't think so. Additionally, probability/recurrence can be constrained with modeling. There's a team out of FSU doing just that (guy named Hart). Long and Short of it is that this is a 500-1000 year storm. And risig sea levels has nothing to do with that, despite the dreams of Pinko McIgnorant who was posting up thread.
All energy production give off excess heat, so I assume you are just saying solar will give off more? Problem is much of this exess heat from the 20% efficiency of solar cells is energy that normally would have been absorbed by the planet and captured by the atmosphere when re radiated. in the end there will be a slight cooling effect from solar vs coal (as coal has ineffective cites too 20-45% depending on the age of the plant) . We must look at the entire energy balance, not just the energy balance that makes us happy.
As for CSP, I work in CSP, and economically it's doomed unless there is serious government subsidies foanother least 10+ years, which I don't see happening. If one or two companies stay afloat and continue to get the marginal Govt funding that is there, maybe it could be a large portion of the grid in 15-20 years. it's a very frustrating industry.
More or less
Those are amazing photographs. It wasn't for no reason that Pittsburgh was long called "The Smoky City".
And of course there were plenty of Ray-Rays back then, spouting the same sort of crap that our Ray-Ray is spouting today. One of the pet cliches then was "When I see all that smoke, all I see is JOBS!!!"
I'm saying it isn't a solution for a world economy that is growing and not shrinking.
265,000 customers in WV without power (not sure about VA, TN, or NC). Dozens of accidents, down live power lines, and road closures.
Snowfalls between 15-20" in places of moderate elevation (1,500-2,000), over 2ft so far in the higher elevation spots. Charleston, according to the weather service, has had 8 inches of measurable snow. Charleston sits in a valley just a few hundred feet above sea level. Average seasonal snow is only around 32", and the most extreme month I could find via Google was 39.5" of snow in January (the previous extreme for October was 2.8" of snowfall). We are already 25% of the way to the average snow for the season, and it's not even Halloween.
And it's still coming down, with blizzard and winter storm warnings until tomorrow morning or night depending on elevation. It appears that even in the valley, it's not going to get warm enough to switch to rain or wintery mix until who knows when.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Your wish is our command.[/url] (smile)
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main