Results 141 to 150 of 186
-
10-11-2009, 08:06 PM #141
Didn't I say something about a survey size? Yes, I think I did... I'm pretty sure I did, at least. You're trying to prove it being cyclical, which is just fine. I could say:
"Ummm, Mike, it's been a whole ten years, and we still haven't gone through a cycle. What's going on?" Then you'd say, "Well, Dave, these things take time. The earth is, indeed, over 4 billion years old."
-
-
10-11-2009, 08:27 PM #142
I didn't realize that humans were around warming the earth that long!
According to Al Gore and others, humans are only accountable for warming the earth for the past 50 years. So, 11 of 50 years is a good sum.
Here are plenty of models that Al Gore and his friends are using:
Looks like we are fine with the average.
Why is the temperature trending up when we are at solar minimum? Should it not be going down? If anything, this graph proves my point.
-
10-11-2009, 08:36 PM #143
Honestly, this argument is mute. I could show you that it was cooling for the last hundred years and you would still tell me that global warming is being caused by my SUV. I have no problem with you believing is junk science, but I wish you and your Democratic politicians would stop reaching into my pocket to pay off cousins and uncles.
Why is the temperature trending up when we are at solar minimum? Should it not be going down? If anything this, graph proves my point.
You do know how to read the chart, correct? We have YET to even reach the 3,000-year average temp and that chart doesn't even go to the year 2000. And with he article I posted shows we are not warming.
I really hate having to point out the obvious all the time!
-
-
10-11-2009, 08:45 PM #144
You are ignoring my point. If the sun is putting out less radiation, the temperature should not be going up. You are looking at old information also. As for a 3000 year trend, Yanks point is true. I would like to see a graph with CO2 levels and temperature trends over the history we have from the geology record. Do you have this?
Please read this whole article.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...-temp-and-co2/
-
10-11-2009, 08:54 PM #145
I would like to see a graph with CO2 levels and temperature trends over the history we have from the geology record. Do you have this?
I'm not trying to be mean, but you guys obviously have done little research to be such supporters of global warming. If you haven't even researched CO2 levels and temperature trends, yet are for cutting CO2 levels, you are showing that you are a complete partisan regarding this argument. This is like me saying that Thailand is a terrible place to live, but never actually visiting the place. I think you have asked a dozen time for more data on this thread alone!
This once again proves my point that Democrats are all for spending billions on something they know little about. When the BBC supports my point I'll call it "checkmate" for my argument. The sad fact is that there are so many Kool-Aid drinkers out there that will simply ignore the BBC articles while they watch an inconvenient truth for the 5th time.
-
-
10-11-2009, 09:00 PM #146
Please continue the accusations. I have stated that the one thing we do not know is the magnitude of our effect. As for your BBC article, why have you not address my questions about it? Once again, what is the difference between the simulations? Are they programmed differently? Is there any difference in the data? Please do the research on your evidecne before making accusations that I do not research.
The BBC article had a desenting opinion in it. This is why I do not trust the media, because they do not explain all of the evidence to people.
-
10-11-2009, 09:04 PM #147
global warming where ya at buddy?
-
-
10-11-2009, 09:05 PM #148
"Checkmate" really?
Same Article:
In addition, say Met Office scientists, temperatures have never increased in a straight line, and there will always be periods of slower warming, or even temporary cooling.
What is crucial, they say, is the long-term trend in global temperatures. And that, according to the Met office data, is clearly up.
Later on in the same article:
...he believes that this cooling will be temporary, before the overwhelming force of man-made global warming reasserts itself.
So what can we expect in the next few years?
Both sides have very different forecasts.The Met Office says that warming is set to resume quickly and strongly.
It predicts that from 2010 to 2015 at least half the years will be hotter than the current hottest year on record.
So the article you are using to make the argument that global warming DOESN'T exist says...
a)the earth is getting warmer
b)man-made global warming is the reason
c)the next 5 years will be warmer than it has EVER BEEN ON EARTH because of global warming.
As usual one of your sources has both sides covered and you only choose to look at one side.Please feel free to message me here about my electronic bay & COMC listings
Find me at maccards44
I can cut you Deals
Primarily Selling Right Now
I will trade for Tom Brady (Anything, base is fine)
& Some - Red Sox, Patriots & Celtics refractors/xfractor/prizms, etc.
I generally don't want base & low-end inserts please.
-
10-11-2009, 09:10 PM #149
-
10-11-2009, 09:17 PM #150
The BBC article had a desenting opinion in it. This is why I do not trust the media, because they do not explain all of the evidence to people.
Yes, because we all know the BBC is a conservative media outlet. :) This would be the equivalent of Fox News endorsing President Obama.
Both sides have very different forecasts.The Met Office says that warming is set to resume quickly and strongly.
It predicts that from 2010 to 2015 at least half the years will be hotter than the current hottest year on record.
So, my local weather man can't predict the weather tomorrow with any real accuracy, but these guys can predict that Global Warming is "pausing" and will resume in 2010?
Sounds like something to bet the house on. :)
-
Originally Posted by mikesilvia 
