Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
LOL! Since you are so very s m r t maybe you can tell me why vikings were growing wheat in Iceland a thousand years ago but Icelanders today cant?
Because Europe and the North Atlantic experienced a regional warming just like Texas did this year. You must think there's an important point here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ferd
we have Anthropogenic Global warming now but the vikings were suffering from what? to many whales breathing CO2 into the atmosphere?
LOL! you guys are a hoot.
No scietist has ever said the climate doesn't vary due to natural phenomenon. The idiots out there claim that is the only cause of climate variation. We call that denial. It's one of the stages of grief. Fortunately the current administration is not a stupid as the last one and will take action.
And if the Arctic were the only place warming we wouldn't have a global phenomenon. It would be Arctic Warming, but we would still be concerned.
The Arctic is showing signs of warming and loss of ice because of naturally occurring weather and wind patterns, and who knows, maybe some oceanic currents and under water geological warming.
Because Europe and the North Atlantic experienced a regional warming just like Texas did this year. You must think there's an important point here.
No scietist has ever said the climate doesn't vary due to natural phenomenon. The idiots out there claim that is the only cause of climate variation. We call that denial. It's one of the stages of grief. Fortunately the current administration is not a stupid as the last one and will take action.
interesting. (and actually only part of texas experienced a wamer trend this year. I guess we call that sub-regional?)
As for the Medieval Warm Period being just a regional phenomena it was a pretty large region (like half the stinking globe at the very least)
I suppose you are still holding on to Mann's hockeystick?
Speaking of Mann, I was reading National Geographic from August this year and the article was about a Kamir empire in what is now Cambodia.
They admitted to the existance of stress from the "Little Iceage" which is kind of wierd considering National Geographic are proponents of AGW.
and AGW folk like to point to the Mann hockey stick to deny both the Midieval Warm period and the Little Iceage.
funny how that works.
What AGW folk fail to do is show how this warm period is different than any that existed before. even your graph of CO2 rise is only shown seperately from the temperature trend because overlaying them shows the temperature always precedes CO2 rise!
How about answering this one for me, why did the earth have a 60,000 part per million concentration of CO2 AND at the same time have a global Ice Age 750 Million years ago when today we are wringing our collective hands over 340 PPM?
if CO2 concentration is the silver bulllet of green house gas, how in the devil did the earth become a ball of ice with that level of CO2?
Your AGW theory has more holes than the strainer I use to pour water off my mac-n-cheese.
According to US weather/temp maps the USA had some different weather extremes. A few of the deep south states( Texas, Louisiana, Florida) had warmer than average temps this summer, while the Mid Atlantic ( Pa, NJ, Md, De, NY) New England( Vt, Conn, Mass, RI, Maine, NH.)and the midwest (Oh, Ill, Iowa, ND, SD, Mich, Minn,) had cooler than average temps. The Pacific Northwest( California, Oregon, Washington) had warmer than average temps also. The south was about average to slightly below( NC, Virginia, SC, Georgia)
interesting. (and actually only part of texas experienced a wamer trend this year. I guess we call that sub-regional?)
As for the Medieval Warm Period being just a regional phenomena it was a pretty large region (like half the stinking globe at the very least)
You guys have that El Nino making things warm. But the cooling is more then local, even in Australia they have had unusually cool weather.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ferd
I suppose you are still holding on to Mann's hockeystick?
Speaking of Mann, I was reading National Geographic from August this year and the article was about a Kamir empire in what is now Cambodia.
They admitted to the existance of stress from the "Little Iceage" which is kind of wierd considering National Geographic are proponents of AGW.
Tell me about it. The National Geographic Channel would do a documentary on Bigfoot, and the last 10 minutes would be propagnda on how man-made global warming is affecting Bigfoot.
I was watching one documentary on the little ice-age, and the narrator was going on about how wonderful the climate was during the Medieval Warming period, extolling the benign weather, the wonderful conditions for farming, and the huge explosion in populations all across the globe, all due to above normal temps. Then of course they went into how terrible things were once the weather turned cold, which was only 1.5 degrees cooler then today.
Then at the end of the documentary they completely contradicted everything they said in the first 20 minutes of the documentary, as they spewed AGW propaganda about how terrible things will be with global warming. Funny how the warmer then current cliamte temps of the Medieval Warming period were portrayed as almost Eden-like, was transformed into hell on Earth, just to spin AGW.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ferd
and AGW folk like to point to the Mann hockey stick to deny both the Midieval Warm period and the Little Iceage.
funny how that works.
What AGW folk fail to do is show how this warm period is different than any that existed before. even your graph of CO2 rise is only shown seperately from the temperature trend because overlaying them shows the temperature always precedes CO2 rise!
How about answering this one for me, why did the earth have a 60,000 part per million concentration of CO2 AND at the same time have a global Ice Age 750 Million years ago when today we are wringing our collective hands over 340 PPM?
if CO2 concentration is the silver bulllet of green house gas, how in the devil did the earth become a ball of ice with that level of CO2?
Your AGW theory has more holes than the strainer I use to pour water off my mac-n-cheese.
The arguments by the global warming alarmists are mostly clouded in half truths, omissions and flat out lies.
interesting. (and actually only part of texas experienced a wamer trend this year. I guess we call that sub-regional?)
As for the Medieval Warm Period being just a regional phenomena it was a pretty large region (like half the stinking globe at the very least)
I suppose you are still holding on to Mann's hockeystick?
Speaking of Mann, I was reading National Geographic from August this year and the article was about a Kamir empire in what is now Cambodia.
They admitted to the existance of stress from the "Little Iceage" which is kind of wierd considering National Geographic are proponents of AGW.
and AGW folk like to point to the Mann hockey stick to deny both the Midieval Warm period and the Little Iceage.
funny how that works.
What AGW folk fail to do is show how this warm period is different than any that existed before. even your graph of CO2 rise is only shown seperately from the temperature trend because overlaying them shows the temperature always precedes CO2 rise!
How about answering this one for me, why did the earth have a 60,000 part per million concentration of CO2 AND at the same time have a global Ice Age 750 Million years ago when today we are wringing our collective hands over 340 PPM?
if CO2 concentration is the silver bulllet of green house gas, how in the devil did the earth become a ball of ice with that level of CO2?
Your AGW theory has more holes than the strainer I use to pour water off my mac-n-cheese.
Simple Ferd- A good hypothesis will be supported by the evidence, while a bad hypothesis will not.
You know what I don't get? What do the people who are barking about global warming think I'm going to get or get away with because I don't believe there is a huge man-made component? I have nothing to do with the oil industry. As mentioned before, I live a 'green' life based on loving a clean environment and hating waste.
What is there to be 'gained' by not believing in this theory?
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. Just line up and pay your new $1800 tax like a good little sheep.
Not to mention the Unions control over all of the "green jobs" which are nothing more than trades jobs to retrofit your home to meet the new energy standards. How convenient is that considering that the president is so close and well liked by the unions...probably just a coincidence...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
