PDA

View Full Version : Global Warming



RWGR
02-21-2015, 11:12 AM
Great Lakes “likely to have the most ice since records began"

http://iceagenow.info/2015/02/great-lakes-likely-ice-records-began-meteorologist/

Westender 3
02-21-2015, 01:52 PM
For the first two weeks of February, while chilly weather enveloped the northeastern U.S. and record snow buried New England, practically the entire western half of the nation was seeing phenomenal, record warmth.

How warm? So far this month, there have been 4,074 records set for warm temperatures —- mostly in the West — and only 236 records for cold temperatures, the NCDC reported.

Records for warm temperatures have been set in Seattle, San Jose, Las Vegas, Reno, Salt Lake City and Butte, Mont.

In Salt Lake City, the average temperature in February is a whopping 16.4 degrees above average, AccuWeather said. Other warm spots include Boise (12.2 degrees above average) and Phoenix (8 degrees above average).

http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2015/02/16/warm-winter/23510107/

Barry Morris
02-21-2015, 04:35 PM
Poof, gone!!!

RWGR
02-23-2015, 04:08 PM
I agree, Barry, the global warming scam is going...going...GONE!

Barry Morris
02-23-2015, 06:09 PM
I agree, Barry, the global warming scam is going...going...GONE!

See post #2.

Can you??

No comments??

Nah!!

RWGR
02-23-2015, 07:04 PM
See post #2.

Can you??

No comments??



"The USA isn't the world"
-Barry


:) :) :)

Barry Morris
02-23-2015, 08:23 PM
"The USA isn't the world"
-Barry


:) :) :)

Now THAT'S funny. I certainly would have thought so if I believed your OP. But no, you just flip and flop like a fish outa water!!

Frrrreakin' hilarious!!!

RWGR
02-24-2015, 09:56 AM
I used a quote of yours to win an argument with you...apologies, kind sir :)

Barry Morris
02-24-2015, 10:52 AM
Argument implies communication and addressing the points raised.

When evidence is provided that negates your posts, ignoring them does not make you a winner. My turn to apologize! :) :) :)

RWGR
02-24-2015, 11:04 AM
I did not ignore anything. I used a common rebuttal of yours.

You can't have it both ways: ignore weather patters in the US when it implies global warming is a farce, yet accept weather patterns in the US if it may imply it is not a farce.

Barry Morris
02-24-2015, 01:56 PM
I did not ignore anything. I used a common rebuttal of yours.

You can't have it both ways: ignore weather patters in the US when it implies global warming is a farce, yet accept weather patterns in the US if it may imply it is not a farce.

If YOU didn't want it both ways, you'd never post about the cold. Yer lookin' silly 'bout now!!! :) :) :)

Anapeg
02-24-2015, 03:12 PM
Simply glancing at the supplied, undeniable graph shows the wild fluctuations in the short span covered. When trying to 'control' my blood my doctors had me going into Life Labs weekly for blood tests. Reacting to changing INR levels on a weekly basis was a pain keeping track of how many pills I should take. I suggested once a month and my vet disagreed. "We have to get this under control". I started, on my own, going on the last Monday of the month and inside of 5 or 6 weeks all was well. The moral? Numbers from a short time period do not constitute and 'average', time between the numbers makes a better more natural, trustworthy average. Go back a thousand years, or better yet, 10,000 years and figure the average and one may well be surprised. What we see now as a problem may be part of a normal ebb and flow.
There is little doubt things are changing. I question is it as bad as some paint it to be? Whether or not man had any effect is of little consequence and serves only to muddy the waters and deflect minds that would be better used looking to solutions if need be. It is not about who caused the mess, rather can we have an effect or do we seek ways to live with the changes occurring. Are the changes similar to events 10,000 or 100,000 years ago or is this something new, never witnessed in the billions of years the earth has been here? Running about beating our breasts screaming "It is all our fault" does nothing. Some say we can effect change starting now, others decry it is too late, yet others say we have time to think. Histrionics simply raises hackles and causes the majority to turn off the offending messages.
Some here are fine examples of the "We are all gunnna die" crowd. Each and every time these threads have come up I have asked what we need do. Silence. Nada, nothing. So if simply admitting we screwed up will settle things down, "We did it", there. If there is nothing we can do, why bother discussing the matter at all?

RWGR
02-24-2015, 04:47 PM
[QUOTE=Barry Morris;761848]If YOU didn't want it both ways, you'd never post about the cold. [\QUOTE]

Totally, absolutely lost me on this one

Barry Morris
02-24-2015, 07:13 PM
[QUOTE=Barry Morris;761848]If YOU didn't want it both ways, you'd never post about the cold. [\QUOTE]

Totally, absolutely lost me on this one

Au naturallment!!

Barry Morris
02-24-2015, 07:15 PM
... What we see now as a problem may be part of a normal ebb and flow....

I certainly agree. Though I wish I could get some feedback on some of my questions.

Like our releasing of megatons of carbon from millions of years ago.

Anapeg
02-24-2015, 07:22 PM
I certainly agree. Though I wish I could get some feedback on some of my questions.

Like our releasing of megatons of carbon from millions of years ago.

It is by most accounts counterproductive, I believe. Is there an alternative that will not break the bank? It is proven as well pesticides and fertilizers are suspect. If we go organic across the board, who gets to pick who eats and who does not?

The Left Sock
02-24-2015, 08:03 PM
Here is a good look at the prominent theories re: climate change.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GISSTemperature/giss_temperature2.php

The earth, it seems, was headed for a natural cooling trend, but man-made influences interrupted this cycle.

The overall conclusion is, that man is winning the global taffy pull, and the earth is warming up. Not one region on earth, not all regions on earth, but the average temperature taken across the planet, is rising. Which, coincidentally, totally throws some people for a loop, and allows them to remain in denial.

RWGR
02-25-2015, 12:15 PM
To believe man can change earth's natural cycles is so egotistical it baffles the mind

Barry Morris
02-25-2015, 02:47 PM
To believe man can change earth's natural cycles is so egotistical it baffles the mind

To be absolutely sure he can't without a shred of evidence, in the face of information showing average temperature rise is, well, where da heck is that ostrich picture??

RWGR
02-25-2015, 02:54 PM
To be absolutely sure he can't without a shred of evidence, in the face of information showing average temperature rise is, well, where da heck is that ostrich picture??

The earth has cooled and warmed periodically through its existence. Natural disasters (volcanic eruptions) have thrown much more C02 into the atmosphere over billions of years than industrialized man has in two hundred years.

Think of that: 99.99% of all the C02 thrown into the atmosphere since time began has come from volcanoes. Yet the earth still cycled between cool and warm periods. Now all of the sudden man is throwing warming into overdrive, though his industrial phase has been around a mere fraction of the time that volcanoes have?

Anapeg
02-25-2015, 02:54 PM
To be absolutely sure he can't without a shred of evidence, in the face of information showing average temperature rise is, well, where da heck is that ostrich picture??

You two set up one Hell of a dust cloud arguing semantics. The fact of the matter it is, it is happening and it matters not one whit as to who is at fault, it is possibly man, possibly nature. What needs be argued is do we need do anything, firstly. If the answer is no, go chew on another bone. If there is something needs be done, can we do it. If the answer is yes then lets have at 'er. If not then sit back and ride it out. That which goes up, must come down.

RWGR
02-25-2015, 02:57 PM
You two set up one Hell of a dust cloud arguing semantics. The fact of the matter it is, it is happening and it matters not one whit as to who is at fault, it is possibly man, possibly nature. What needs be argued is do we need do anything, firstly. If the answer is no, go chew on another bone. If there is something needs be done, can we do it. If the answer is yes then lets have at 'er. If not then sit back and ride it out. That which goes up, must come down.

Strawman argument.

No one is saying don't do anything. Lots of people are saying we don't need to totally restructure First World economies, which is what the radicals who have taken over the environmental movement want.

Anapeg
02-25-2015, 03:02 PM
Strawman argument.

No one is saying don't do anything. Lots of people are saying we don't need to totally restructure First World economies, which is what the radicals who have taken over the environmental movement want.

That is precisely the stance I took in another thread. So the problem then, as I see it is one of discovery, diagnosis, then and only then a discussion on remedial action if and only if, it is necessary.

The Left Sock
02-25-2015, 10:31 PM
"Think of that: 99.99% of all the C02 thrown into the atmosphere since time began has come from volcanoes. Yet the earth still cycled between cool and warm periods. Now all of the sudden man is throwing warming into overdrive, though his industrial phase has been around a mere fraction of the time that volcanoes have?"

Well, one is cyclic (volcanoes), where the earth can naturally recover.

The other is constant (emissions), and once a critical mass is reached, things start to head in a singular direction.

It makes perfect sense, unless you don't want it to.

Barry Morris
02-26-2015, 05:26 AM
"Think of that: 99.99% of all the C02 thrown into the atmosphere since time began has come from volcanoes. Yet the earth still cycled between cool and warm periods. Now all of the sudden man is throwing warming into overdrive, though his industrial phase has been around a mere fraction of the time that volcanoes have?"

Well, one is cyclic (volcanoes), where the earth can naturally recover.

The other is constant (emissions), and once a critical mass is reached, things start to head in a singular direction.

It makes perfect sense, unless you don't want it to.

Especially now that mans emissions outdo volcanoes somewhere like a hundred to one.

RWGR
02-26-2015, 11:17 AM
"Think of that: 99.99% of all the C02 thrown into the atmosphere since time began has come from volcanoes. Yet the earth still cycled between cool and warm periods. Now all of the sudden man is throwing warming into overdrive, though his industrial phase has been around a mere fraction of the time that volcanoes have?"

Well, one is cyclic (volcanoes), where the earth can naturally recover.

The other is constant (emissions), and once a critical mass is reached, things start to head in a singular direction.

It makes perfect sense,

It certainly does...and you're on the wrong side on this one

The Left Sock
02-26-2015, 03:22 PM
Well, if you mean that I am on the wrong side of your reality, then my only recourse is to concur.

RWGR
02-26-2015, 03:38 PM
Oh, you certainly are that :)

The Left Sock
02-27-2015, 07:00 AM
Oops, there is that non-existent global warming, rearing its ugly head again!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/02/24/the-remote-alaskan-village-that-needs-to-be-relocated-due-to-climate-change/

For the first time (but by no means the last), Americans will have to relocate, due to global warming.

But hey, we've had a really cold winter here, so there should be no problem up in Alaska, right?

After all, if it is colder in one region, it must be colder everywhere, and that means global warming is just a hoax conspiracy by power-hungry environmentalist pinko commies, right?

RWGR
02-27-2015, 11:04 AM
One small Alaskan village has to relocate, due to thinning ice, and all of the sudden America is on the move?!?!

This is comedy gold!

There is no proof it is linked to man-made global warming.

Thanks, Sock, for reminding us the earth goes in cycles of warmth and coolness

RWGR
02-27-2015, 11:12 AM
head south, Eskimos! There's plenty of ice down yonder, thanks to Global warming!1

When Arctic sea ice extent dips to its yearly low, Antarctic sea ice extent climbs to its yearly high. Recent years have brought record low summer sea ice extents to the Arctic and record high winter extents to the Antarctic. In September 2014, Arctic sea ice reached its sixth-lowest extent in the satellite era. But on October 7, 2014, the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) reported that Antarctic sea ice extent set a new record high for daily extent: 20.11 million square kilometers (7.76 million square miles).

http://climate.gov/news-features/featured-images/antarctic-winter-sea-ice-extent-sets-new-record-2014

Barry Morris
03-03-2015, 12:20 PM
Ocean temps off the charts.

http://www.theweathernetwork.com/news/articles/oceans-are-warming-so-fast-that-readings-are-now-off-the-chart/44205/

Barry Morris
03-03-2015, 12:22 PM
2014 hottest recorded.

http://www.theweathernetwork.com/insider-insights/articles/its-official-nasa--noaa-confirm-that-2014-was-the-hottest-year-on-record/43779/

Barry Morris
03-03-2015, 12:23 PM
Australia??

http://www.theweathernetwork.com/news/articles/australias-record-2013-heat-virtually-impossible-without-climate-change-says-report/45212/

RWGR
03-03-2015, 12:24 PM
...since records began in 1888



NEWS FLASH: 99.999999999% of the years the earth has been in existence don't count when looking at global warming trend / pattern!

how convenient :) :) :)

Barry Morris
03-03-2015, 12:26 PM
...since records began in 1888



NEWS FLASH: 99.999999999% of the years the earth has been in existence don't count when looking at global warming trend / pattern!

how convenient

I just won a bet!!! :) :) :)

RWGR
03-03-2015, 12:27 PM
I just won a bet!!! )

About time, because I've become rather rich off your reactions in that sense :) :) :)

Barry Morris
03-03-2015, 02:18 PM
About time, because I've become rather rich off your reactions in that sense :) :) :)

I believe the word you're looking for is "ripe".

RWGR
03-03-2015, 02:58 PM
Care to explain why 99.9999999% of the earth's history is inconsequential when talking about the global warming pattern?

Anapeg
03-03-2015, 06:57 PM
2014 hottest recorded.

http://www.theweathernetwork.com/insider-insights/articles/its-official-nasa--noaa-confirm-that-2014-was-the-hottest-year-on-record/43779/

"Recorded" being the operative word. On a planet billions of year old we have records going back how far?

Barry Morris
03-03-2015, 07:22 PM
Care to explain why 99.9999999% of the earth's history is inconsequential when talking about the global warming pattern?


"Recorded" being the operative word. On a planet billions of year old we have records going back how far?

So, here both of you have basically asked the same question. And here is an answer. Care to discuss it??

Millions of years ago, a LOT of the worlds finite supply of carbon was deposited in areas we now know as oil, shale, and natural gas fields.

Man is now releasing that into the atmosphere by the billions of tons.

The question is, when has that EVER happened before in all those years before records??

The answer: never.

Is man unbalancing the atmosphere in ways that have NEVER happened before?? YES!!!

KDawg
03-03-2015, 08:23 PM
It's amazing to me how the largest source of heat in our solar system -- the sun, by some, is relegated to a footnote when discussing global warming.

Believe it or not, the sun runs through cycles of cooling and warming. Did I mention it's the largest source of heat in our solar system? Perhaps it affects warming and cooling on planet earth?

Hans
03-03-2015, 10:30 PM
You don't receive as much heat from the sun as you would think.

KDawg
03-03-2015, 10:38 PM
You don't receive as much heat from the sun as you would think.
What does that mean? The sun is still our largest source of heat, by many magnitudes.

RWGR
03-04-2015, 10:30 AM
So, here both of you have basically asked the same question. And here is an answer. Care to discuss it??

Millions of years ago, a LOT of the worlds finite supply of carbon was deposited in areas we now know as oil, shale, and natural gas fields.

Man is now releasing that into the atmosphere by the billions of tons.

The question is, when has that EVER happened before in all those years before records??

The answer: never.

Is man unbalancing the atmosphere in ways that have NEVER happened before?? YES!!!

Then what accounts for the earth having warm and cold cycles in its history?

Huggy85
03-04-2015, 09:27 PM
If global warming doesn't stop soon, we're all going to freeze to death!

Huggy85
03-04-2015, 09:36 PM
http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-blogs/anderson/great-lakes-ice-update/43239598

I find the first graph to be quite interesting. Seems that the highest coverage years come in pairs, followed by a dramatic drop in coverage the following year. I'm very curious to see what happens next winter.

Barry Morris
03-04-2015, 10:12 PM
If global warming doesn't stop soon, we're all going to freeze to death!

You could move to Australia.

Barry Morris
03-04-2015, 10:15 PM
Then what accounts for the earth having warm and cold cycles in its history?

All kinds of happenings.

For instance, the year without a summer, when a volcano put dust into the atmosphere. But that was a short change. And as we know, the actions of a volcano aren't a patch on what we are doing.

Now there have obviously been changes in the climate, from ice ages to evidences of tropical plants up snowy mountains.

But, like Anapeg, you have no direct reply to my contention - again!! :) :) :)

Barry Morris
03-04-2015, 10:21 PM
What does that mean? The sun is still our largest source of heat, by many magnitudes.

And maybe that's at least part of the reason for long term climate changes.

RWGR
03-05-2015, 11:55 AM
All kinds of happenings.

For instance, the year without a summer, when a volcano put dust into the atmosphere. But that was a short change. And as we know, the actions of a volcano aren't a patch on what we are doing.

Now there have obviously been changes in the climate, from ice ages to evidences of tropical plants up snowy mountains.

But, like Anapeg, you have no direct reply to my contention - again!! :) :) :)

Barry, you need to know the difference between a reply to your comment and a reply to your comment you'd like to see.

Again, notice who is trying to start a fire here.

Barry Morris
03-05-2015, 11:56 AM
Barry, you need to know the difference between a reply to your comment and a reply to your comment you'd like to see.

Again, notice who is trying to start a fire here.

Hey, it's a question I have never seen an answer too. That's all.

RWGR
03-05-2015, 11:57 AM
Hey, it's a question I have never seen an answer too. That's all.

Where? Maybe I missed it.

Heading off to lunch in a bit, but should have time to respond later this afternoon

Barry Morris
03-05-2015, 02:22 PM
What does that mean? The sun is still our largest source of heat, by many magnitudes.

Of course it is.

Now what happens when we add to that??

Anapeg
03-05-2015, 04:12 PM
Of course it is.

Now what happens when we add to that??

I am sure, in the recent past I have said/admitted man has made matters worse. In the same breath I asked for viable things to correct the problem. I also noted it was a waste of band width laying blame. Who and what has caused the problem is unimportant. Slowing, stopping, and or reversing the problem is what needs be discussed. This part of my many posts gets passed by, ignored as does the preceding message in my post.

Barry Morris
03-05-2015, 06:59 PM
I am sure, in the recent past I have said/admitted man has made matters worse. In the same breath I asked for viable things to correct the problem. I also noted it was a waste of band width laying blame. Who and what has caused the problem is unimportant. Slowing, stopping, and or reversing the problem is what needs be discussed. This part of my many posts gets passed by, ignored as does the preceding message in my post.

I agree completely. But "Slowing, stopping, and or reversing the problem is what needs be discussed." won't happen if the merest possibility of climate change due to man's influence is ignored.

KDawg
03-05-2015, 08:00 PM
Of course it is.

Now what happens when we add to that??
The same thing that happens when I take a leak into Lake Superior... technically I've raised the water level but it's so negligible it's not worth considering, let alone spending time, energy and money to do something about it.

RWGR
03-05-2015, 08:28 PM
The same thing that happens when I take a leak into Lake Superior... technically I've raised the water level but it's so negligible it's not worth considering, let alone spending time, energy and money to do something about it.

I don't know about that.

I once held a pee from Marquette to the Brimley, drinking beer all the way. when I finally got a chance to relieve myself in the big lake I'm pretty sure scientists noticed a notable uptick in water levels.

KDawg
03-05-2015, 08:39 PM
I don't know about that.

I once held a pee from Marquette to the Brimley, drinking beer all the way. when I finally got a chance to relieve myself in the big lake I'm pretty sure scientists noticed a notable uptick in water levels.
Congratulations RWGR for possessing the Cadillac of bladders.

RWGR
03-05-2015, 08:39 PM
Congratulations RWGR for possessing the Cadillac of bladders.

{bows}

Barry Morris
03-05-2015, 10:14 PM
The same thing that happens when I take a leak into Lake Superior... technically I've raised the water level but it's so negligible it's not worth considering, let alone spending time, energy and money to do something about it.

KDawg, I would appreciate your comments on the information at this site.

https://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/06/19/volcanic-co2/

Those who continue to claim that volcanic activity puts more CO2 into the atmosphere than human activity (including Ian Plimer) have been corrected — many times — by those who actually do the research. Yet the claim, like a zombie, refuses to die.

Anapeg
03-06-2015, 06:09 AM
I don't know about that.

I once held a pee from Marquette to the Brimley, drinking beer all the way. when I finally got a chance to relieve myself in the big lake I'm pretty sure scientists noticed a notable uptick in water levels.

Certainly an increase in saline levels would have been measurable if nothing else.

Barry Morris
03-14-2015, 01:00 PM
A thread to laugh at, for global warming believers!!!

Anapeg
03-14-2015, 01:12 PM
A thread to laugh at, for global warming believers!!!

If it is in fact laughable it is only because those heralding the earths demise insist on arguing what got us here while ignoring the problem of what needs be done to reduce at least or reverse if possible our common problem. What got us here is not nearly as important as to what it will take to at least mitigate the effects.

RWGR
03-14-2015, 02:37 PM
A thread to laugh at, for global warming believers!!!

do tell!!

Barry Morris
03-14-2015, 02:44 PM
do tell!!

At the responses ie lack of!!! :) :) :)

RWGR
03-15-2015, 08:20 AM
At the responses ie lack of!!! :) :) :)

Three pages is a "lack of responses"?

Barry Morris
03-15-2015, 10:16 AM
Three pages is a "lack of responses"?

Well, yes, it's obvious you have no response to my statements regarding carbon release from ancient sources. .

RWGR
03-15-2015, 11:19 AM
So, here both of you have basically asked the same question. And here is an answer. Care to discuss it??

Millions of years ago, a LOT of the worlds finite supply of carbon was deposited in areas we now know as oil, shale, and natural gas fields.

Man is now releasing that into the atmosphere by the billions of tons.

The question is, when has that EVER happened before in all those years before records??

The answer: never.

Is man unbalancing the atmosphere in ways that have NEVER happened before?? YES!!!

And that in no way rejects the fact that one volcanic eruption can dwarf what man can put into the atmosphere.

Again, the earth has been around approximately 4.5 billion years. Man's industrial age has been around about 200 years.

To say the earth is so fragile that something that has happened for 0.000004% of its existence will suddenly send temps skyrocketing and change the entire ecosystem is so absurd it is laughable.

RWGR
03-15-2015, 11:20 AM
Well, yes, it's obvious you have no response to my statements regarding carbon release from ancient sources. .

voila!

:) :) :)

Hans
03-15-2015, 07:01 PM
And that in no way rejects the fact that one volcanic eruption can dwarf what man can put into the atmosphere.

Again, the earth has been around approximately 4.5 billion years. Man's industrial age has been around about 200 years.

To say the earth is so fragile that something that has happened for 0.000004% of its existence will suddenly send temps skyrocketing and change the entire ecosystem is so absurd it is laughable.

Not really. If a bucket of 100 gallons is almost full, 1 drop can cause it to flow over.
It is not so much what we can or cannot put in the air. It is about where we are at in the warming curve.
It is perfectly possible a small contribution could tip the scale over.

RWGR
03-15-2015, 07:07 PM
Not really. If a bucket of 100 gallons is almost full, 1 drop can cause it to flow over.
It is not so much what we can or cannot put in the air. It is about where we are at in the warming curve.
It is perfectly possible a small contribution could tip the scale over.

No, because the earth has been warm before. Then it cools. Then it warms. Then it cools. Then ...

Barry Morris
03-16-2015, 12:02 AM
And that in no way rejects the fact that one volcanic eruption can dwarf what man can put into the atmosphere.

.

This has been refuted so many times, it's laughable. Also mentioned above.

We know who would believe it.

Barry Morris
03-16-2015, 12:02 AM
voila!

:) :) :)

Chaching!!!

Hans
03-16-2015, 07:21 AM
No, because the earth has been warm before. Then it cools. Then it warms. Then it cools. Then ...

But has it warmed before with the addition of human made conditions?

Barry Morris
03-16-2015, 10:03 AM
But has it warmed before with the addition of human made conditions?

Difficult to get a response, especially as the error continues that volcanoes put out more than man does.

RWGR
03-16-2015, 10:31 AM
Difficult to get a response, especially as the lie continues that volcanoes put out more than man does.

Let's try to set your great anger aside for a second, and see you prove the volcanic theory is a "lie"

Barry Morris
03-16-2015, 12:59 PM
Let's try to set your great anger aside for a second, and see you prove the volcanic theory is a "lie"

I'll post it again for you "not" to see.

https://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/06/19/volcanic-co2/

" In fact, present-day volcanoes emit relatively modest amounts of CO2, about as much annually as states like Florida, Michigan, and Ohio."

RWGR
03-16-2015, 01:01 PM
Blinded by rage at this point.

Hopefully things cool down in the next day or two

Barry Morris
03-16-2015, 01:08 PM
Indeed. That's one way to avoid the truth.

RWGR
03-16-2015, 01:09 PM
Indeed. That's one way to avoid the truth.

Agreed.

Hoping things cool down

Barry Morris
03-16-2015, 01:13 PM
Agreed.

Hoping things cool down

Sure.

No response.

We know.

RWGR
03-16-2015, 01:57 PM
Good.

Glad you all know.

Whomever you are.

:) :) :)

The Voice
03-16-2015, 02:11 PM
Sure.

No response.

We know.


It is still markedly cooler than is was 1000 years ago until you are ready to put things into context your opinion means about as much as any other warming alarmist.

Barry Morris
03-16-2015, 02:28 PM
It is still markedly cooler than is was 1000 years ago until you are ready to put things into context your opinion means about as much as any other warming alarmist.

We were (not) looking at this site.

https://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/06/19/volcanic-co2/

Any thoughts??

RWGR
03-16-2015, 02:54 PM
We were (not) looking at this site.

https://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/06/19/volcanic-co2/

Any thoughts??

First of all, that's a blog on "Word Press". You and I can start a blog on Word Press if we want. All you do is sign up for a page.

You'll need a more credible source.

Meanwhile...

Exactly how much CO2 passes through the magmatic vents in our crust might be one of the most important questions that Earth science can answer. Volcanoes may have been overtaken in the carbon stakes, but in order to properly assess the consequences of human pollution, we need the reference point of the natural background. And we're getting there; the last twenty years have seen huge steps in our understanding of how, and how much CO2 leaves the deep Earth. But at the same time, a disturbing pattern has been emerging.

In 1992, it was thought that volcanic degassing released something like 100 million tons of CO2 each year. Around the turn of the millennium, this figure was getting closer to 200. The most recent estimate, releasedthis February, comes from a team led by Mike Burton, of the Italian National Institute of Geophysics and Volcanology – and it’s just shy of 600 million tons. It caps a staggering trend: A six-fold increase in just two decades.

http://www.livescience.com/40451-volcanic-co2-levels-are-staggering.html

RWGR
03-16-2015, 02:59 PM
So let's take a very low estimate: let's say volcanoes emit 300 million tons of CO2 each year.

Multiply that by 4,500,000,000

4,500,000,000 x 300,000,000

135,000,000,000,000,000,000 tons of CO2 put in the atmosphere by volcanoes.

And here we are.

Official Cat of Soonet
03-16-2015, 03:20 PM
So let's take a very low estimate: let's say volcanoes emit 300 million tons of CO2 each year.

Multiply that by 4,500,000,000

4,500,000,000 x 300,000,000

135,000,000,000,000,000,000 tons of CO2 put in the atmosphere by volcanoes.

And here we are.

I would snatch up WordPress.com/rwgr pronto.

RWGR
03-16-2015, 03:24 PM
I would snatch up WordPress.com/rwgr pronto.

Already did

dancingqueen
03-16-2015, 06:03 PM
So let's take a very low estimate: let's say volcanoes emit 300 million tons of CO2 each year.

Multiply that by 4,500,000,000

4,500,000,000 x 300,000,000

135,000,000,000,000,000,000 tons of CO2 put in the atmosphere by volcanoes.

And here we are.

Wouldn't this be only part of the story?
sure lots and lots of CO2 emissions are caused by volcanic activity, how many tons of CO2 emissions are caused by human activity? Is it really possible to tell?
Are CO2 emissions the only cause of climate change?
Anyone with access to a book can know that the Earth is constantly warming and cooling and has been doing so since as far back as we can tell, but are human beings expediting this process?
Climate change is real, there is no denying it, but what causes it, and what we can do to slow down the process is about all we can try to do. Don't get me wrong, I am not a global warming alarmist, human beings are a clever bunch, I do have faith that life will go on, though I don't care much because i will be long gone by the time this happens.

Anapeg
03-16-2015, 06:49 PM
Why are the global climate changers so transfixed by what/who created the problem? In my kitchen I don't ask who made the mess, I clean the damn thing up. THEN I hunt down the little pot licker and make him pay. Not really, I exaggerate for effect. Does it matter how it got to where it is or should we do what needs be done. Priorities, you can argue semantics until the last bee perishes and the last frog croaks, sorry, i could not resist, or lay down some plans required to fix things up.

RWGR
03-16-2015, 07:52 PM
The natural CO2 flux to and from oceans and land plants amounts to approximately 210 gigatons of carbon annually. Man currently causes about 8 gigatons of carbon to be injected into the atmosphere, about 4% of the natural annual flux

It is ten times as likely that atmospheric CO2 is coming from natural sources, namely the warming ocean surface, as it is likely that it is coming from anthropogenic sources. The changes in CO2 track ocean surface temperature, not global carbon emissions. Burning fossil fuels is not increasing atmospheric CO2. Recovery from the Little Ice Age, driven by the sun, is causing the oceans to release CO2. It is temperature driving CO2 release, not the other way around. Just as it has always been.

- See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2013/03/02/most-of-the-rise-in-co2-likely-comes-from-natural-sources/#sthash.ZrUWr64L.dpuf

Barry Morris
03-16-2015, 09:26 PM
"...Is it not possible that the natural component could stabilise/fall, but the man-made component would increase,..""

Seems this way to me.

RWGR
03-17-2015, 09:16 AM
Possible.

But then again that really doesn't lend itself to the fear-mongering, 'woe-are-we' tactics by many people over the issue.

Again, the issue was hijacked by political people with a clear agenda.

Barry Morris
03-17-2015, 10:11 AM
"The natural CO2 flux to and from oceans and land plants amounts to approximately 210 gigatons of carbon annually. Man currently causes about 8 gigatons of carbon to be injected into the atmosphere, about 4% of the natural annual flux"

Man's input is not part of the "natural" flux. It is extra.

RWGR
03-17-2015, 10:16 AM
"The natural CO2 flux to and from oceans and land plants amounts to approximately 210 gigatons of carbon annually. Man currently causes about 8 gigatons of carbon to be injected into the atmosphere, about 4% of the natural annual flux"

Man's input is not part of the "natural" flux. It is extra.

Yes, it is. But on a scale so small it does not equate with the hysteria associated with the issue.

Do we have to ditch industrialization, and totally remake First World economies? Of course not.

Barry Morris
03-17-2015, 04:34 PM
Yes, it is. But on a scale so small it does not equate with the hysteria associated with the issue.

Do we have to ditch industrialization, and totally remake First World economies? Of course not.

If I have a balance beam, and add a mere four percent to one side, it goes down.

The argument is about how much effect that will have.

There are those who think that man can do anything at all, and it will have no effect. Then there are those who belive that a mere 4 percent will be the "greenhouse cliff".

We wait to see the results!!!

RWGR
03-17-2015, 06:16 PM
If I have a balance beam, and add a mere four percent to one side, it goes down.

The argument is about how much effect that will have.

There are those who think that man can do anything at all, and it will have no effect. Then there are those who belive that a mere 4 percent will be the "greenhouse cliff".

We wait to see the results!!!

What was that you were saying about "simplistic" in another thread?

KDawg
03-17-2015, 08:22 PM
Possible.

But then again that really doesn't lend itself to the fear-mongering, 'woe-are-we' tactics by many people over the issue.

Again, the issue was hijacked by political people with a clear agenda.
And that's the most important point in the global warming issue.

Politicians all over the globe want to tax us into oblivion to save us from ourselves. Ontario's corrupt premier Wynne is proposing a carbon tax as we speak.

Barry Morris
03-17-2015, 10:55 PM
What was that you were saying about "simplistic" in another thread?

Is it simple??? Or isn't it??

Who knows enough to tell???

I'm not too worried about it all.

When it comes down to the nitty-gritty, no one will vote enough tax dollars to fix the problem. Any more than we vote enough for great roads or excellent education.

Barry Morris
04-06-2015, 10:30 AM
While the east has snow up to their eyeballs....

http://www.vice.com/en_ca/video/watch-our-hbo-report-on-texas-worst-drought-in-history-815

RWGR
04-06-2015, 12:21 PM
In other words, there is no "global warming"

Barry Morris
04-06-2015, 12:50 PM
In other words, there is no "global warming"

Oh?

Let me use small words.

Higher global temperatures cause A: droughts B: More moisture in the atmosphere. More moisture means more snow.

Simple. Got it now?

No.

Official Cat of Soonet
04-06-2015, 12:54 PM
I got it. Global warming causes droughts and precipitation

RWGR
04-06-2015, 03:18 PM
I got it. Global warming causes droughts and precipitation

LOL...exactly!!

:) :) :)

The Voice
04-10-2015, 09:02 AM
The Global Warming Alarmists claim that every weather phenomenon is a result of global warming.

At the same time they COVER their ears and go La La La La La I can't hear you when you point out to them that it is still COOLER than it was 1000 years ago.

The Voice
04-10-2015, 09:06 AM
Global warming is a Myth.

Further to that anyone who buys into the Myth is a gullible follower of the cult of global warming.

Everyone bow down to David Suzuki.

Nihilistic Heathen
04-10-2015, 12:44 PM
The Global Warming Alarmists claim that every weather phenomenon is a result of global warming.

At the same time they COVER their ears and go La La La La La I can't hear you when you point out to them that it is still COOLER than it was 1000 years ago.

Actually the opposite is true, the global ave temperature is higher now than it was 1000 years ago. It is the science deniers that keep spouting the stuff they read in op-ed's and plug their ear's like you said when confronted with the science.

RWGR
04-10-2015, 12:52 PM
Actually the opposite is true, the global ave temperature is higher now than it was 1000 years ago.

Source? Link?

The Voice
04-10-2015, 12:54 PM
Actually the opposite is true, the global ave temperature is higher now than it was 1000 years ago. It is the science deniers that keep spouting the stuff they read in op-ed's and plug their ear's like you said when confronted with the science.


Ya sure it wasn't warmer Like I said Deny Deny Deny.

http://archaeology.about.com/od/vikings/qt/eastern_settlement.htm

The Voice
04-10-2015, 01:20 PM
Global warming pundits base their position on spotty historical temp data that is not any older than 150 years.

There is plenty of evidence flora and otherwise that suggests that it was markedly warmer 1000 years ago.

The Voice
04-10-2015, 01:22 PM
Quick show of hands. Has anyone ever heard of the Mini Ice Age?

Nihilistic Heathen
04-10-2015, 01:31 PM
http://www.skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-period-intermediate.htm

I'm think you are referring to the little ice age. (http://www.skepticalscience.com/coming-out-of-little-ice-age-basic.htm)

RWGR
04-10-2015, 01:59 PM
http://www.skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-period-intermediate.htm

I'm think you are referring to the little ice age. (http://www.skepticalscience.com/coming-out-of-little-ice-age-basic.htm)

Surely there is a better source than "skeptical science"??

Nihilistic Heathen
04-10-2015, 02:17 PM
I'm pretty sure that skeptical science is a more credible source on climate change than the about.com link provided by The Voice on viking settlements in Greenland. If you want to dispute that go ahead, I'll let you do all the talking.

RWGR
04-10-2015, 02:19 PM
I'm pretty sure that skeptical science is a more credible source on climate change than the about.com link provided by The Voice on viking settlements in Greenland. If you want to dispute that go ahead, I'll let you do all the talking.

You worry about Voice, I am worried about your source.

Can Mad Magazine be far behind?

;)

Nihilistic Heathen
04-10-2015, 02:30 PM
Nah I was just pointing out the fact that The Voice used an archeology.about.com article on Viking settlements that mentions climate change in passing to bolster his argument. I provided a link on climate change that refutes his point and does reference research.

He is the one that claims people are plugging their ears, I am not plugging my ears. I am not blind and can read and understand topics. The topic is climate change not Viking settlements.

RWGR
04-10-2015, 02:36 PM
Nah I was just pointing out the fact that The Voice used an archeology.about.com article on Viking settlements that mentions climate change in passing to bolster his argument. I provided a link on climate change that refutes his point and does reference research.

He is the one that claims people are plugging their ears, I am not plugging my ears. I am not blind and can read and understand topics. The topic is climate change not Viking settlements.

Well, to be fair, there is a relational element

The Voice
04-10-2015, 02:54 PM
I'm pretty sure that skeptical science is a more credible source on climate change than the about.com link provided by The Voice on viking settlements in Greenland. If you want to dispute that go ahead, I'll let you do all the talking.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period

Nihilistic Heathen
04-10-2015, 02:54 PM
Well, to be fair, there is a relational element

Is it rational to claim that it was warmer 1000 years ago because Greenland was warmer, even though the science shows that some parts of the world did have warmer temps and some parts had cooler temps and overall the global averages are lower then than they are now?

The Voice
04-10-2015, 02:54 PM
http://dailycaller.com/2015/01/21/scientists-fear-another-little-ice-age-is-on-the-way/

Hmmm? Sunspot activity?

The Voice
04-10-2015, 02:59 PM
So they used a COMPUTER MODEL to support their claim rather than Flora evidence that would dispute it.

Looks like the Global Warming Industry will tell you anything and you will believe it.

Show me some studies of Flora Evidence that will support your claim.

The Voice
04-10-2015, 03:03 PM
From Your Own Link NH.

"Looking at the temperature graph for the MWP, it shows that it wasn't 1 degree warmer. Infact it shows it's average. Which to me means that the graphs that relate to earlier times are not accurate at all. it doesn't make sense to me that just the northern hemisphere would be warmer than everywhere else. For that to happen it seems that the earth would have to tip over on it's axis pointing the northern hemiphere directly at the sun.
And I sure wouldn't give Mann much credibility due to his "hockeystick graph" as a global temperature, which no other scientist was able to reconstruct.
Needless to say, I don't have much faith in the science lately. There's too much money at stake for a bias not to be considered. Is there any science organizations that are not recieving government funds that have come to the conclusion that the warming of the planet is man-made?"

Nihilistic Heathen
04-10-2015, 03:13 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period

I'm not sure how this helps your argument...


The Medieval Warm Period (MWP), Medieval Climate Optimum, or Medieval Climatic Anomaly was a time of warm climate in the North Atlantic region that may also have been related to other climate events around the world during that time, including China[1] and other areas, [2][3] lasting from about AD 950 to 1250.[4] It was followed by a cooler period in the North Atlantic termed the Little Ice Age. Some refer to the event as the Medieval Climatic Anomaly as this term emphasizes that effects other than temperature were important.[5][6]

Despite substantial uncertainties, especially for the period prior to 1600 for which data are scarce, the warmest period of the last 2,000 years prior to the 20th century very likely occurred between 950 and 1100, but temperatures were probably between 0.1 °C and 0.2 °C below the 1961 to 1990 mean and significantly below the level shown by instrumental data after 1980. Proxy records from different regions show peak warmth at different times during the Medieval Warm Period, indicating the heterogeneous nature of climate at the time.[7] Temperatures in some regions matched or exceeded recent temperatures in these regions, but globally the Medieval Warm Period was cooler than recent global temperatures.[4]

Nihilistic Heathen
04-10-2015, 03:17 PM
From Your Own Link NH.

"Looking at the temperature graph for the MWP, it shows that it wasn't 1 degree warmer. Infact it shows it's average. Which to me means that the graphs that relate to earlier times are not accurate at all. it doesn't make sense to me that just the northern hemisphere would be warmer than everywhere else. For that to happen it seems that the earth would have to tip over on it's axis pointing the northern hemiphere directly at the sun.
And I sure wouldn't give Mann much credibility due to his "hockeystick graph" as a global temperature, which no other scientist was able to reconstruct.
Needless to say, I don't have much faith in the science lately. There's too much money at stake for a bias not to be considered. Is there any science organizations that are not recieving government funds that have come to the conclusion that the warming of the planet is man-made?"

I did a search, this is from a comment in the comment section.

Nihilistic Heathen
04-10-2015, 03:19 PM
http://dailycaller.com/2015/01/21/scientists-fear-another-little-ice-age-is-on-the-way/

Hmmm? Sunspot activity?

I get criticized for my links and this is acceptable.

Nihilistic Heathen
04-10-2015, 03:21 PM
So they used a COMPUTER MODEL to support their claim rather than Flora evidence that would dispute it.

Looks like the Global Warming Industry will tell you anything and you will believe it.

Show me some studies of Flora Evidence that will support your claim.

Show me that the computer model doesn't use data from flora and I'll humor you.

The Voice
04-10-2015, 03:44 PM
I get criticized for my links and this is acceptable.

I didn't criticize your links.

Honestly there is very little evidence that is sustainable for either argument.

The Voice
04-10-2015, 03:52 PM
Through retrieval and isotope analysis of marine cores and examination of mollusc growth patterns from Iceland, Patterson et al were able to reconstruct a mollusc growth record at a decadal resolution from the Roman Warm Period through the Medieval Warm Period and into the Little Ice Age.

Although the skeptics will say will say that this is only evidence of local warming. In reality it is one of the only areas in the world that has seen a study this comprehensive.

The Voice
04-10-2015, 04:02 PM
I can't find a link right now but I know I have seen flora studies from northern Europe that support that this warm period was widespread. Not just in Greenland.

I also know that I have seen it suggested that the Little Ice Age affected a wide area from Constantinople to Greenland at least.

The Voice
04-10-2015, 04:03 PM
I did a search, this is from a comment in the comment section.

I didn't say it wasn't.

Barry Morris
04-10-2015, 07:04 PM
Voice, all your evidence is localized. And northern Europe area to boot.

Like RW complaining last winter about the cold, while Australia had to add more numbers to the tops of their charts to show record hot spells, we have no idea what the global average temperature was 1000 years ago.

Nihilistic Heathen
04-10-2015, 11:42 PM
I didn't criticize your links.

Honestly there is very little evidence that is sustainable for either argument.

I didn't say you did, or mean to imply it. I just find it odd that the level of scrutiny aimed at a link in one of my posts is not conveyed in the same manner toward your links by the same poster.

Nihilistic Heathen
04-10-2015, 11:45 PM
I can't find a link right now but I know I have seen flora studies from northern Europe that support that this warm period was widespread. Not just in Greenland.

I also know that I have seen it suggested that the Little Ice Age affected a wide area from Constantinople to Greenland at least.

It was widespread in regions and it even says that in the links I posted. Just not widespread enough to support your premise because there were also regions that were cooler resulting in a lower average global temperature

http://www.livescience.com/21624-tree-rings-global-warming.html

http://www.global-climate-change.org.uk/3-3.php

Nihilistic Heathen
04-10-2015, 11:49 PM
I didn't say it wasn't.

Why post a comment from an anonymous poster in the link I provided and claim it came from my link without stating that fact?

RWGR
04-11-2015, 10:28 AM
Voice, all your evidence is localized. And northern Europe area to boot.

Like RW complaining last winter about the cold, while Australia had to add more numbers to the tops of their charts to show record hot spells, we have no idea what the global average temperature was 1000 years ago.

But yet you are saying the earth is "Warming"

Interesting.

RWGR
04-11-2015, 10:30 AM
And the fact is we do indeed know what the weather was like. Between 1050 and 1300 Europe went through a warming period. The spring and fall were so warm it sparked an agricultural revolution, where the growing season was prolonged, which in turn sparked a huge population rise.

Barry Morris
04-11-2015, 03:37 PM
And the fact is we do indeed know what the weather was like. Between 1050 and 1300 Europe went through a warming period. The spring and fall were so warm it sparked an agricultural revolution, where the growing season was prolonged, which in turn sparked a huge population rise.

And the weather in Australia was....was....???

RWGR
04-13-2015, 10:28 AM
And the weather in Australia was....was....???

You just made my point. Thank you! :) :) :)

Official Cat of Soonet
04-13-2015, 11:12 AM
Of course he chooses Australia to talk about warming. Let's pick one of the southernmost continents that have been having severe droughts since at least the 1700's.

RWGR
04-13-2015, 11:58 AM
Of course he chooses Australia to talk about warming. Let's pick one of the southernmost continents that have been having severe droughts since at least the 1700's.

It's his go-to move

Barry Morris
04-13-2015, 02:11 PM
Lots of words, never any answers.

RWGR
04-13-2015, 05:09 PM
Exactly.

The Voice
04-13-2015, 10:18 PM
Lots of words, never any answers.


Do you have any evidence to tell us what the weather was in Australia during this period?

Barry Morris
04-14-2015, 10:12 AM
Do you have any evidence to tell us what the weather was in Australia during this period?

Nope?? So why do you cite evidence of weather patterns in Europe, as though they apply to the whole world???

RWGR
04-14-2015, 10:26 AM
Nope?? So why do you cite evidence of weather patterns in Europe, as though they apply to the whole world???

Ummm..you don't see how this can be turned right around on you??

Barry Morris
04-14-2015, 10:33 AM
Ummm..you don't see how this can be turned right around on you??

Duh!!!! You can do that if you want.

Thinking people consider ALL the evidence.

RWGR
04-14-2015, 10:34 AM
in Asia historical sources report that the margin of cultivation of citrus fruits was never as far north as in the 13th century. Accordingly, it must have been warmer at the time about 1 ° C than today

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/29/the-medieval-warm-period-a-global-phenonmena-unprecedented-warming-or-unprecedented-data-manipulation/

RWGR
04-14-2015, 10:34 AM
Duh!!!! You can do that if you want.

Thinking people consider ALL the evidence.

Then what explains your MO?

RWGR
04-14-2015, 10:36 AM
an important new Science paper examining 10,000 years of layered fossil plankton in the western Pacific Ocean. The paper finds that several significant past climate ups and downs — including the medieval warm period and little ice age — were global in scope, challenging some previous conclusions that these were fairly limited Northern Hemisphere phenomena.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/31/new-paper-shows-medieval-warm-period-was-global-in-scope/

RWGR
04-14-2015, 10:41 AM
‘More than 700 scientists from 400 institutions in 40 countries have contributed peer-reviewed papers providing evidence that the Medieval Warm Period was real, global, & warmer than the present’

http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/03/08/more-than-700-scientists-from-400-institutions-in-40-countries-have-contributed-peerreviewed-papers-providing-evidence-that-the-medieval-warm-period-was-real-global-warmer-than-the-present/

Barry Morris
04-15-2015, 12:01 AM
By damn, responses!!! And links, too!!!

Did you find one to consider the possible effect of the millions of tons of pollutants that go into the atmosphere NOW??

RWGR
04-15-2015, 10:05 AM
By damn, responses!!! And links, too!!!

Did you find one to consider the possible effect of the millions of tons of pollutants that go into the atmosphere NOW??

Nope, because you are moving the goalposts now.

You wanted proof the medieval warming period was global, and not just euro-centric.

voila!! :) :) :)

RWGR
04-15-2015, 10:23 AM
Barry's last two posts:



Nope?? So why do you cite evidence of weather patterns in Europe, as though they apply to the whole world???


Did you find one to consider the possible effect of the millions of tons of pollutants that go into the atmosphere NOW??

Classic example of moving the goalposts.

Barry Morris
04-15-2015, 10:28 AM
Nope, because you are moving the goalposts now.

You wanted proof the medieval warming period was global, and not just euro-centric.

voila!! :) :) :)

It was a simple question, not a goalpost move. But you can't understand, always needing translation, so we'll forget it till next time.

Barry Morris
04-15-2015, 10:29 AM
Barry's last two posts:




Classic example of moving the goalposts.

Poor Winger, always has to win.

RWGR
04-15-2015, 10:33 AM
Poor Winger, always has to win.

Nope, just pointing out your MO here, which is not conducive to constructive or productive dialogue.

Barry Morris
04-15-2015, 03:41 PM
Nope, just pointing out your MO here, which is not conducive to constructive or productive dialogue.

Sure, if it makes you happy.

The Voice
04-18-2015, 06:39 PM
Nope?? So why do you cite evidence of weather patterns in Europe, as though they apply to the whole world???



BECAUSE you don't have any evidence to dispute it, yet you believe that only your OPINION is RELEVANT.


Very telling indeed.

Barry Morris
04-18-2015, 08:51 PM
BECAUSE you don't have any evidence to dispute it, yet you believe that only your OPINION is RELEVANT.


Very telling indeed.


I read, I form opinions.

That's all.

The Voice
04-19-2015, 03:37 AM
I read, I form opinions.

That's all.

Except that you cannot supply any evidence that it was not warmer 1000 years ago.

So that opinion is not from what you read, but seemingly on what you imagined.

Barry Morris
04-19-2015, 09:38 AM
Except that you cannot supply any evidence that it was not warmer 1000 years ago.

So that opinion is not from what you read, but seemingly on what you imagined.

That's fine.

RWGR
04-19-2015, 12:40 PM
You read what supports your pre-conceived notions.

Big difference.

The Voice
04-19-2015, 02:08 PM
Like I said before the Global Warming Alarmist Cult will only believe evidence that supports their position.

After all what is 100 years of spotty evidence when compared to 10,000 years.

It's all about context Barry or the lack thereof.

Have it however you want it.

Barry Morris
04-19-2015, 03:16 PM
Interesting. I'd call the 10,000 years "spotty evidence" especially as compared to modern measurements.

What effect has mans removing from the ground the carbon that was there for millions of years and putting it into the air had on global warming?

Barry Morris
04-19-2015, 03:18 PM
You read what supports your pre-conceived notions.

Big difference.

Odd, I already KNOW that's what you do. AND ignore anything in opposition posted here.

But you are, as usual, quite wrong. I am open to all possibilities, and I'm not here just for the argument.

Official Cat of Soonet
04-19-2015, 03:44 PM
I am open to all possibilities, and I'm not here just for the argument.

You are here only under the guise as someone who is not here for the argument.

Barry Morris
04-19-2015, 03:48 PM
You are here only under the guise as someone who is not here for the argument.

Oh..

RWGR
04-19-2015, 04:49 PM
Odd, I already KNOW that's what you do.

The "I know you are but what am I" comeback.

Mature.

Barry Morris
04-19-2015, 07:13 PM
The "I know you are but what am I" comeback.

Mature.

And in response....??? :) :) :)

RWGR
04-19-2015, 07:41 PM
First person to translate that wins a free two-night stay at Bay Mills Resort and Casino

Barry Morris
04-19-2015, 08:40 PM
First person to translate that wins a free two-night stay at Bay Mills Resort and Casino

You did it!!!

Thanks!!

I WIN!!! :) :) :)

Bluesky
06-20-2015, 07:28 PM
Hmmm, the new Pope has disagreed with RWGR on the issue of Global Warming.. umm err.. climate change. I felt the earth move.
RW?? Are you there? Hello?? Care to respond?

http://www.christianitytoday.com/gleanings/2015/june/pope-francis-persuade-evangelicals-environment-encyclical.html

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/06/15/us-pope-environment-leak-idUSKBN0OV2JC20150615

Westender 3
06-20-2015, 07:50 PM
Hmmm, the new Pope has disagreed with RWGR on the issue of Global Warming.. umm err.. climate change. I felt the earth move.
RW?? Are you there? Hello?? Care to respond?

http://www.christianitytoday.com/gleanings/2015/june/pope-francis-persuade-evangelicals-environment-encyclical.html

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/06/15/us-pope-environment-leak-idUSKBN0OV2JC20150615

He already did. He's going with political party over faith. And something about cafeterias.

RWGR
06-21-2015, 12:12 PM
Hmmm, the new Pope has disagreed with RWGR on the issue of Global Warming.. umm err.. climate change. I felt the earth move.
RW?? Are you there? Hello?? Care to respond?

http://www.christianitytoday.com/gleanings/2015/june/pope-francis-persuade-evangelicals-environment-encyclical.html

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/06/15/us-pope-environment-leak-idUSKBN0OV2JC20150615

I already responded on another thread.

and I'm not going to lie...watching Protestants finally acknowledge the Pope as the an authority figure has been just wonderful to behold!

Catholicism wins!! :) :) :)

Barry Morris
06-21-2015, 01:43 PM
Naturally. But Roman Catholicism, like any other denomination, doesn't go to heaven.

People do.

But not all.

Bluesky
06-21-2015, 03:13 PM
I already responded on another thread.

and I'm not going to lie...watching Protestants finally acknowledge the Pope as the an authority figure has been just wonderful to behold!

Catholicism wins!! :) :) :)

Link to your response please?

RWGR
06-22-2015, 05:55 PM
Link to your response please?

sheeesh...someone's got a case of the lazies :)

http://www.soonet.ca/showthread.php?52928-Official-Global-Warming-thread&p=765861#post765861

Bluesky
06-22-2015, 06:00 PM
sheeesh...someone's got a case of the lazies :)

http://www.soonet.ca/showthread.php?52928-Official-Global-Warming-thread&p=765861#post765861

Yup.

Barry Morris
06-22-2015, 06:31 PM
Yup.

A very satisfactory answer indeed!!!

RWGR
06-23-2015, 12:07 PM
A very satisfactory answer indeed!!!

awwww...trying so hard :) :) :)

Barry Morris
06-23-2015, 12:56 PM
You get points for trying.