 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Toyota / Toyota Cars / April 2009{OT} Celebrating Earth Day
I was wondering what I could do to celebrate Earth Day when, after driving 25 miles at 70MPH the oil pooled in the valve stem seals and let out a great big fart of blue smoke on the next start-up! Happy Earth Day!!! >I was wondering what I could do to celebrate Earth Day when, after driving > 25 miles at 70MPH the oil pooled in the valve stem seals and let out a > great big fart of blue smoke on the next start-up! > > Happy Earth Day!!! Ate Slyders last night so I could celebrate Earth Day today. I hereby declare today Erth Barton Day instead. I know Erth Barton exists. It's a nice little ruin that has existed since the 500's in Cornwall. It's the ancient seat of the Bond family, the REAL Bond family, the ones with NON SUFFICIENT ORBIS written around their family crest. I hope to be able to visit it one day before I die. Charles Grozny Hachiroku $B%O%A%m%/(B wrote: >I was wondering what I could do to celebrate Earth Day when, after >driving 25 miles at 70MPH the oil pooled in the valve stem seals and >let out a great big fart of blue smoke on the next start-up! > >Happy Earth Day!!! How do they know that day is Earth's birthday? > Hachiroku $B%O%A%m%/(B wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > How do they know that day is Earth's birthday? How can you say,with any exactitude, the day and year of Christ's birth? Or why the prime meridian is where it is? Or why an hour has 60 minutes. Or why water boils at 212 degrees F? Or why water boils at 100 degrees C? TAK >> Hachiroku $B%O%A%m%/(B wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > TAK Sure can! >>> Hachiroku $B%O%A%m%/(B wrote: >>> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Sure can! citation? >>>> Hachiroku $B%O%A%m%/(B wrote: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >> > citation? I just can! Me. I can! >>>>> Hachiroku $B%O%A%m%/(B wrote: >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > I just can! Me. I can! Sure--you have about as good a grip as you do on climate change. >>>>>> Hachiroku $B%O%A%m%/(B wrote: >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >> >Sure--you have about as good a grip as you do on climate change. He has a great handle on 'climate change'....  SignatureScott in Florida >>>>>>> Hachiroku $B%O%A%m%/(B wrote: >>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > He has a great handle on 'climate change'.... And a great "handle" on the economy, foreign policy, immagration, toyotas, and more. Gee, maybe he'll have enough "handles" to build himself a raft when the time comes to sink or swim. >>>>>>>> Hachiroku $B%O%A%m%/(B wrote: >>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] >and more. Gee, maybe he'll have enough "handles" to build himself a raft >when the time comes to sink or swim. I'd trust his 'life raft' a hell of a lot more that yours.... SignatureScott in Florida >>>>>>>>> Hachiroku $B%O%A%m%/(B wrote: >>>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > I'd trust his 'life raft' a hell of a lot more that yours.... You won't need to trust anybody's raft, Scottie, you live in Florida, it'll be over for you folks in a matter of minutes. Location, location, location as they say. >>>>>>>>>> Hachiroku $B%O%A%m%/(B wrote: >>>>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > be over for you folks in a matter of minutes. Location, location, location > as they say. You mean, when Florida's one of the only states not covered in an ice sheet? >>>>>>>>>>> Hachiroku $B%O%A%m%/(B wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > You mean, when Florida's one of the only states not covered in an ice > sheet? Right, and you can use that SRT to record it for posterity. ;-P >>>>>>>>>>>> Hachiroku $B%O%A%m%/(B wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] >> > Right, and you can use that SRT to record it for posterity. ;-P OK. That's better. I don't think any of us will be here by that time... Now working on a digital camera. Film is good, and developing is fast, but some things I want to get home and see it now. I'll put the best film cameras aside and take them with the digital, and use the others as 'beaters'. I have a Konica and a Ricoh and an Olympus besides. >>>>>>>> Hachiroku $B%O%A%m%/(B wrote: >>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > and more. Gee, maybe he'll have enough "handles" to build himself a raft > when the time comes to sink or swim. I don't plan on sinking. >>>>>>>>> Hachiroku $B%O%A%m%/(B wrote: >>>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > I don't plan on sinking. Right, sh.t floats. >>>>>>>>>> Hachiroku $B%O%A%m%/(B wrote: >>>>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] >> > Right, sh.t floats. Thanks, tak. Thought you had a sense of humor. Occasionally, I'm wrong. I guess that was one of the times... >>>>>>>>>>> Hachiroku $B%O%A%m%/(B wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > > Occasionally, I'm wrong. I guess that was one of the times... You brought it "up" so to speak. >>>>> And a great "handle" on the economy, foreign policy, immagration, >>>>> toyotas, [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >> > You brought it "up" so to speak. I gots both oars in the Melting Ice Cap, dude... >>>>>> And a great "handle" on the economy, foreign policy, immagration, >>>>>> toyotas, [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > I gots both oars in the Melting Ice Cap, dude... Check this--http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/dinosaurslivedinthearctic >>>>>>> And a great "handle" on the economy, foreign policy, immagration, >>>>>>> toyotas, [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >> > Check this--http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/dinosaurslivedinthearctic No, they didn't. It wasn't the arctic then. But, to make things interesting: http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1203/1129229193_8c442e3638.jpg?v=0 >>>>>>>> And a great "handle" on the economy, foreign policy, immagration, >>>>>>>> toyotas, [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > It wasn't the arctic then. "Even accounting for continental drift, the dinos lived at more than 70 degrees of latitude north, well above the Arctic Circle." > But, to make things interesting: > > http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1203/1129229193_8c442e3638.jpg?v=0 >>>>>>>>> And a great "handle" on the economy, foreign policy, immagration, >>>>>>>>> toyotas, [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > "Even accounting for continental drift, the dinos lived at more > than 70 degrees of latitude north, well above the Arctic Circle." Notice the title: http://ellygator.deviantart.com/art/Why-Don-t-You-Prove-It-17035156?offset=20 >> But, to make things interesting: >> >> http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1203/1129229193_8c442e3638.jpg?v=0 >>>>>>>>>> And a great "handle" on the economy, foreign policy, immagration, >>>>>>>>>> toyotas, [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > http://ellygator.deviantart.com/art/Why-Don-t-You-Prove-It-17035156?offset=20 Are you really a 13 year old just pretending to be a middle aged loser? With responses like that, your frequent lapses into leet-speak, and your inability to grasp simple concepts, I'm beginning to wonder. Anyway, the researchers know where they found the fossils and the age of the fossils, and since geologists have mapped out plate movements with quite a bit of detail, it's a pretty simple matter to determine where that point was when the dinosaurs were alive. >>> But, to make things interesting: >>> >>> http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1203/1129229193_8c442e3638.jpg?v=0 >>>>>>>>>>> And a great "handle" on the economy, foreign policy, immagration, >>>>>>>>>>> toyotas, [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > into leet-speak, and your inability to grasp simple concepts, > I'm beginning to wonder. I have no problem with simple concepts. You, on the other hand: If it didn't come from Al Gore or some politically-charged organization, it's poo-poo. Idiots like you ignore millions of years of past history, physics and climatology and focus on what Politicians and 'scientists' with agendas (and gov't funding) have to say. Think they're going to bite the hand that feeds them? Go talk to someone out there who isn't on the dole and get some real info. > Anyway, the researchers know where they found the fossils > and the age of the fossils, and since geologists have mapped > out plate movements with quite a bit of detail, it's a pretty > simple matter to determine where that point was when the > dinosaurs were alive. And that was somewhere around South Dakota at the time. Even first-year historical geology students know that. It's covered in the first semester. Nothing new. They were finding dinosaur remains in the arctic 30 years ago when I was a first semester geology student. >>>> But, to make things interesting: >>>> >>>> http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1203/1129229193_8c442e3638.jpg?v=0 >>>>>>>>>>>> And a great "handle" on the economy, foreign policy, immagration, >>>>>>>>>>>> toyotas, [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > > Go talk to someone out there who isn't on the dole and get some real info. And if you had even the slightest clue about the science, you'd know that "millions of years of past history, physics and climatology" are vitally important and are being studied in great detail. I am certainly not ignoring them, nor are the thousands of scientists out there who are researching climate change. >> Anyway, the researchers know where they found the fossils >> and the age of the fossils, and since geologists have mapped [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >>>>> >>>>> http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1203/1129229193_8c442e3638.jpg?v=0 >> I have no problem with simple concepts. You, on the other hand: If it >> didn't come from Al Gore or some politically-charged organization, it's [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > the thousands of scientists out there who are researching > climate change. They sure are if they think 100PPM CO2 can overcome the temperature drop caused by some physical change in the Earth. >>> I have no problem with simple concepts. You, on the other hand: If it >>> didn't come from Al Gore or some politically-charged organization, it's [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > They sure are if they think 100PPM CO2 can overcome the temperature drop > caused by some physical change in the Earth. And just what "physical change" might that be? You won't be able to answer that question in any but the vaguest fashion, but unlike you those scientists actually have a pretty good understanding of what causes the glacial/ interglacial cycle. >> They sure are if they think 100PPM CO2 can overcome the temperature drop >> caused by some physical change in the Earth. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > have a pretty good understanding of what causes the glacial/ > interglacial cycle. Nobody really does. They may act like they do. The glacial cycle is still a mystery as to what actually triggers it. You can pretend you know, but there really isn't enough information yet to determine the cause. There's a lot of theories, but nothing solid. If it's CO2, why doesn't the warming continue? Why is it a regular cycle? > >> They sure are if they think 100PPM CO2 can overcome the temperature drop > >> caused by some physical change in the Earth. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > If it's CO2, why doesn't the warming continue? Why is it a regular cycle? did you happen to catch al gore testimony, it was rebroadcast on CSPAN. What a bullshitter. When asked some tough questions he went belly up. Of course, the dimmies ask those cream puff questions, you know, the ones that al gore writes down and passes out before the testimony starts. Then, we have the Republicans who ask the tough questions that al gore can't answer or knows the answer won't be in accordance with his line of bullshit so he stumbles and tries to brush off the Republican with some smart-assed response like "you know there are still people who believe the first moon landing took place in Arizona". Answering honest tough questions like that is an admission that he is full of bullshit and can barely keep a straight face with his lies. Signature"It's deja vu all over again" Yogi Berra >> >> They sure are if they think 100PPM CO2 can overcome the temperature drop >> >> caused by some physical change in the Earth. [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > tough questions like that is an admission that he is full of bullshit > and can barely keep a straight face with his lies. I'm beginning to think Lucius is Al Gore's nym on the internet. He dodges the tough one, too. They seem to be cut from the same cloth. Of course, we have first hand knowledge Gore is a blithering idiot. > >> They sure are if they think 100PPM CO2 can overcome the temperature drop > >> caused by some physical change in the Earth. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > If it's CO2, why doesn't the warming continue? Why is it a regular cycle? Because it gets colder in the winter and warmer in the summer. It's called "seasons." You should read up on it in your science textbook (or any 3rd grade science textbook). Jeff >> >> They sure are if they think 100PPM CO2 can overcome the temperature drop >> >> caused by some physical change in the Earth. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Jeff We're talking about the 100,000 year glacial cycle here. Ice core samples have shown rising levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, and still over 1/3 of the globe pretty much freezes solid after a spike in temperature. On a 100,000 year cycle. Like the one that's just ending now. >>>>>>> And a great "handle" on the economy, foreign policy, immagration, >>>>>>> toyotas, [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >> > Check this--http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/dinosaurslivedinthearctic Interesting. According to your article, the artic was substantially warmer than it is now. Hmm. Signature"The rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God." -- John F. Kennedy >>>>>>>> And a great "handle" on the economy, foreign policy, immagration, >>>>>>>> toyotas, [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Hmm. Which should allow Hachi yet another avenue of denial. >>>>>>>>> And a great "handle" on the economy, foreign policy, immagration, >>>>>>>>> toyotas, [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] >> > Which should allow Hachi yet another avenue of denial. I don't think it's Hachi who's in denial here. Signature"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great Nation was founded not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ.” -- Patrick Henry >>>>>>>>>> And a great "handle" on the economy, foreign policy, immagration, >>>>>>>>>> toyotas, [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > I don't think it's Hachi who's in denial here. Stick with him, Sot, Chuck, and Dooby but wear your highwater pants. Maybe even get into Dinosaur extinction caused by over hunting by cavemen ;-P >>>>> this--http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/dinosaurslivedinthearctic >>>> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Stick with him, Sot, Chuck, and Dooby but wear your highwater pants. Maybe > even get into Dinosaur extinction caused by over hunting by cavemen ;-P A non sequitur. Signature"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great Nation was founded not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ.” -- Patrick Henry >>>>>> this--http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/dinosaurslivedinthearctic >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > A non sequitur. Not in at least one case (person). Cathy >>>>>>> this--http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/dinosaurslivedinthearctic >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Not in at least one case (person). So a discussion about climate change, and how the arctic was warmer then than it is now, and what that means to the theory of global warming is somehow tied to hunting and dinosaurs? Thanks for explaining that. Signature"The rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God." -- John F. Kennedy >>>>>>>> this--http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/dinosaurslivedinthearctic >>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Thanks for explaining that. You are relatively new to the Sot and company world view. It consists of denying science, empirical evidence, etc. concerning climate change, evolution, etc. So save your snide repartee, we have enough weird science observations from the "group" that we don't spend much time with them. Like their politics, they are a one trick pony per topic. > >>>>>>>> this--http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/dinosaurslivedinthearctic > >>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > observations from the "group" that we don't spend much time with them. Like > their politics, they are a one trick pony per topic. The world presents our dearest friend "Tak"!!! Tak, dearest friend, you sound like you are in defense? I wish you well dear friend and hope the kool-aid does not contain alcohol or some other form of algore aphrodisiac LOL!! Cheers my friend!!! Signature"It's deja vu all over again" Yogi Berra >> >>>>>>>> this--http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/dinosaurslivedinthearctic >> >>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > > Cheers my friend!!! Ah, Dooby, Time to expand on your absurdity that Temperature Rainforests don't exist? LOL >>> >>>>>>>> this--http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/dinosaurslivedinthearctic >>> >>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > Ah, Dooby, Time to expand on your absurdity that Temperature Rainforests > don't exist? LOL Oh, please! That thread is burned in my memory! ;-P We're studying Brazil & the Amazon Rain Forest in Soc. St. at the moment. I was explaining to the kids that although people often think "tropical" or "jungle' when they hear "rain forest", that the temperate/non-tropical sort also exists. And of course dbu's resistance against such an idea popped - unbidden - into my brain. ;-) Which then leads to this tangential topic: what about deserts? Do they have to be hotter than all get-out, or will arid land be enough to go on?? What about the Gobi? Or is the Sahara the gold (& only) standard? <eg> Cathy >>>> >>>>>>>> this--http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/dinosaurslivedinthearctic >>>> >>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 67 lines] > > Cathy When you mention barren wasteland, Dooby does come to mind. (as well as when rainforests come up in conversation) :-) You must be gearing up for the homestretch at school?? >>>>> > On 2009-04-26 14:09:52 -0700, "Cathy F." >>>>> > <clfr@adelphiadotdeedot.net> [quoted text clipped - 77 lines] > > You must be gearing up for the homestretch at school?? Yep! I sure am! And, it's going to be hotter than hell in there tomorrow. Will bring an extra fan in, if I remember. Cathy >>>>>> > On 2009-04-26 14:09:52 -0700, "Cathy F." >>>>>> > <clfr@adelphiadotdeedot.net> [quoted text clipped - 84 lines] > > Cathy 83-86 degrees perdicted here for Monday. No A/C ? <snipped> >>> You must be gearing up for the homestretch at school?? >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> > 83-86 degrees perdicted here for Monday. No A/C ? Exactly. The only rooms in the building with A/C are the offices & interior rooms w/no windows. The latter of which I think is a mandated/code deal. Oh, and any Spec. Ed. rooms which have kids who need A/C for health reasons. The rest of us... roast. Cathy > <snipped> >>>> You must be gearing up for the homestretch at school?? [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Cathy http://www.air-n-water.com/portable-air-conditioners.htm >> <snipped> >>>>> You must be gearing up for the homestretch at school?? [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > http://www.air-n-water.com/portable-air-conditioners.htm Wouldn't load for me. But... who's going to pay for it? Me? With the current economic climate (ha - pun!) & threats of state funding cuts, we were given no budget at all for requistioning classroom supplies for next year (can you say "out of pocket expenses"?), & the new teaching contract calls for an absolutely flat line for next year - no raises, not even for step - before raises (approx. 2% of one's salary) kick in, in years 2 & 3 of the contract. Cathy >>> <snipped> >>>>>> You must be gearing up for the homestretch at school?? [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > Cathy Shoot! Global Warming's a bummer, eh? Sorry...couldn't resist again... ;p > >>>> In article <kt4Jl.90459$0%2.27...@newsfe22.iad>, > [quoted text clipped - 96 lines] > > Cathy I can't wait for my class that goes from 2:00 PM to 3:00 PM. I am sure that the kids will enjoy the room, especially because the windows are being replaced and the A/C removed about 5 weeks ago. They can't wait. Jeff On Apr 26, 8:12 pm, "Cathy F." <c...@adelphiadotdeedot.net> wrote: > "tak" <jki...@frontiernet.net> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 112 lines] > > Cathy I can't wait for my class that goes from 2:00 PM to 3:00 PM. I am sure that the kids will enjoy the room, especially because the windows are being replaced and the A/C removed about 5 weeks ago. They can't wait. Jeff ========= Yeah, fun, fun. There's an A/C unit sitting right outside one of my windows. Part of the ceiling in my room was dismantled for its installation a couple of years ago - I had to work around a ladder & other construction stuff the week before school started while I was getting the classroom ready for the upcoming year. But... that A/C unit is for a tiny room adjoining mine - one which is an interior room. I'd like to punch a hole high up on the common wall, install a little fan in the hole, & get some of that cool air wafted in to my room! Cathy > On Apr 26, 8:12 pm, "Cathy F." <c...@adelphiadotdeedot.net> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 131 lines] > > Cathy The workers put new windows in the rooms down the hall. I hope that means my room will be soon. And the A/C follows soon after. It takes a long time to replace all the windows when the workers can only work from about 4:00 to 8:00 PM. There's scaffolding around the building. At least one of the kids crawled out of the window and onto the scaffolding. The room next to mine is the detention room. I could imagine the kids trying to come into my room from the outside. Fortunately, they put bars the window apparatus limiting the movement of the windows, so that it is harder for kids to get out. Jeff On Apr 26, 10:01 pm, "Cathy F." <c...@adelphiadotdeedot.net> wrote: > "Jeff" <jeff....@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 147 lines] > > Cathy The workers put new windows in the rooms down the hall. I hope that means my room will be soon. And the A/C follows soon after. It takes a long time to replace all the windows when the workers can only work from about 4:00 to 8:00 PM. There's scaffolding around the building. At least one of the kids crawled out of the window and onto the scaffolding. The room next to mine is the detention room. I could imagine the kids trying to come into my room from the outside. Fortunately, they put bars the window apparatus limiting the movement of the windows, so that it is harder for kids to get out. Jeff ========= Yikes. All of our older windows were replaced during a capital project a couple of years ago, but the majority of the work was done during the summer. Cathy > At least one of the kids crawled out of the window and onto the > scaffolding. The room next to mine is the detention room. I could [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > couple of years ago, but the majority of the work was done during the > summer. Too bad they didn't wait! Was it "Shovel-ready"? Sorry...couldn't resist... >> At least one of the kids crawled out of the window and onto the >> scaffolding. The room next to mine is the detention room. I could [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Sorry...couldn't resist... Actually, it was mostly covered by state aid; as a result of an annexed district years ago, aid was still (just) available for the project. Cathy >> At least one of the kids crawled out of the window and onto the >> scaffolding. The room next to mine is the detention room. I could [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Sorry...couldn't resist... If kids were taught to respect their elders, they wouldn't have to put bars on the f***ing windows. But thanks to the NEA and the libs, kids aren't taught to have any respect to any authorities, including parents, teachers, principals, cops, etc. When I was growing up, we FEARED authority with a good fear. Cathy the NEA shill will say that's bad, of course. She's so young she's been fully indoctrinated in the liberal bullcrap. Charles Grozny > The workers put new windows in the rooms down the hall. I hope that > means my room will be soon. And the A/C follows soon after. Tsk-tsk. Just think of the extra energy needed to cool your classrooms. People genuinely concerned with man-made global warming should put their collective feet down and refuse to further harm the environment by putting extra demand on the electrical grid, no matter the energy source used for generation. Signature"Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the Foundation of the Redeemer's mission upon earth? That it laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity?" -- John Q. Adams >> The workers put new windows in the rooms down the hall. I hope that >> means my room will be soon. And the A/C follows soon after. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > by putting extra demand on the electrical grid, no matter the energy > source used for generation. So if it's wind power, that's a no-no, too? I like living a more modern life. We need more nukes. >>>>>> > On 2009-04-26 14:09:52 -0700, "Cathy F." >>>>>> > <clfr@adelphiadotdeedot.net> [quoted text clipped - 84 lines] > > Cathy HEY CATH!!!! Don't forget to bring an extra fan!!! >>>>>>> > On 2009-04-26 14:09:52 -0700, "Cathy F." >>>>>>> > <clfr@adelphiadotdeedot.net> [quoted text clipped - 94 lines] > > HEY CATH!!!! Don't forget to bring an extra fan!!! Am putting one next to my school tote tonight... Cathy >>>> >>>>>>>> this--http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/dinosaurslivedinthearctic >>>> >>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] > to be hotter than all get-out, or will arid land be enough to go on?? What > about the Gobi? Or is the Sahara the gold (& only) standard? <eg> I sincerely hope you aren't serving them Global Warming flavored K00l-Aid... > Cathy >>>>> > On 2009-04-26 14:09:52 -0700, "Cathy F." >>>>> > <clfr@adelphiadotdeedot.net> [quoted text clipped - 77 lines] > I sincerely hope you aren't serving them Global Warming flavored > K00l-Aid... Huh? I informed them that rain forests don't have to be hot/in the tropics to be rain forests - they merely need to be forests which get tons of rain. And that deserts don't need to be hot - they merely need to be arid. If dbu - an adult in his 60's - can associate "rain forests" with -only- the tropical sort, then I wanted to make sure these 8 yr. olds had more of a clue, early on. Cathy >>>>>> > On 2009-04-26 14:09:52 -0700, "Cathy F." >>>>>> > <clfr@adelphiadotdeedot.net> [quoted text clipped - 86 lines] > > Cathy I'll never admit in public this made me chuckle... > >> >>>>>>>> this--http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/dinosaurslivedinthearcti > >> >>>>>>>> c [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > Ah, Dooby, Time to expand on your absurdity that Temperature Rainforests > don't exist? LOL Dear Tak, you talking about the jungle?? Have you drank your spiked kool-aid today? LOL!! Signature"It's deja vu all over again" Yogi Berra >> >> > On 2009-04-26 14:09:52 -0700, "Cathy F." >> >> > <clfr@adelphiadotdeedot.net> [quoted text clipped - 63 lines] > > Have you drank your spiked kool-aid today? LOL!! Still stuck in your own befuddlement, Dooby? > >> >> > On 2009-04-26 14:09:52 -0700, "Cathy F." > >> >> > <clfr@adelphiadotdeedot.net> [quoted text clipped - 65 lines] > > Have you drank your spiked kool-aid today? LOL!! > Still stuck in your own befuddlement, Dooby? I keep wondering dear Tak, how you can continue to promote this man made global warming idea and keep a straight face. Maybe you're laughing on the inside?? In that case, I laugh with you...Cheers dear friend Tak!! Signature"It's deja vu all over again" Yogi Berra >>>>>>>>> this--http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/dinosaurslivedinthearctic >>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > observations from the "group" that we don't spend much time with them. Like > their politics, they are a one trick pony per topic. Perhaps you've mistaken me for someone who needs your permission to post snide remarks. If so, and only if so, you can f.ck right off. Signature"The Christian religion is the religion of our country. From it are derived our nation, on the character of God, on the great moral Governor of the universe.” -- Abraham Lincoln >>>>>>>>>> this--http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/dinosaurslivedinthearctic >>>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > > If so, and only if so, you can f.ck right off. You can save it in the sense that it has all been said already, so bite me. >> Perhaps you've mistaken me for someone who needs your permission to post >> snide remarks. >> >> If so, and only if so, you can f.ck right off. >> > You can save it in the sense that it has all been said already, so bite me. Bet you thought that one up all by yourself. Signature“I like to believe we are living today in the spirit of the Christian religion. I like also to believe that as long as we do so, no great harm can come to our country." -- SCOTUS Chief Justice Earl Warren, 1954 >>> Perhaps you've mistaken me for someone who needs your permission to post >>> snide remarks. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Bet you thought that one up all by yourself. How nice of you note that it wasn't one of your "cut and paste" urls >>>> Perhaps you've mistaken me for someone who needs your permission to post >>>> snide remarks. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >> > How nice of you note that it wasn't one of your "cut and paste" urls Keep going. You're on a roll. Signature“This is a Christian Nation.” -- SCOTUS (Church of the Holy Trinity vs. The United States, 1892) >>>>> Perhaps you've mistaken me for someone who needs your permission to post >>>>> snide remarks. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Keep going. You're on a roll. Who are you calling a Tro...er, never mind... >> So a discussion about climate change, and how the arctic was warmer then >> than it is now, and what that means to the theory of global warming is [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > You are relatively new to the Sot and company world view. It consists of > denying science, empirical evidence, etc. concerning climate change, Dude, you have this SOOOO backwards!!! The Global Warming 'scientists' are the ones ignoring science and empirical data. All the 'empirical' data tells us there's another ice age coming. >>> So a discussion about climate change, and how the arctic was warmer then >>> than it is now, and what that means to the theory of global warming is [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > All the 'empirical' data tells us there's another ice age coming. Would you care to enlighten us with some of that "'empirical' data"? Let me guess: your chart, right? >>>> So a discussion about climate change, and how the arctic was warmer then >>>> than it is now, and what that means to the theory of global warming is [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Would you care to enlighten us with some of that "'empirical' data"? > Let me guess: your chart, right? That chart is only 3-4 years old. There's plenty of data prior to that. If you'd get your nose out of Gore's a.s you might learn something. >> Hachiroku ???? wrote: >>> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > That chart is only 3-4 years old. There's plenty of data prior to that. If > you'd get your nose out of Gore's a.s you might learn something. I wouldn't be suprised if Luke the Assius turns out to be AlGoreSoreLoserMan's Step'n Fetchit. Charles Grozny >>> Hachiroku ???? wrote: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Charles Grozny Or Gore himself. There's got to be a reason why he's ignoring a million year's worth of Geologic history and focusing on 100PPM of CO2. Maybe he's being paid. >>>>> So a discussion about climate change, and how the arctic was warmer then >>>>> than it is now, and what that means to the theory of global warming is [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > That chart is only 3-4 years old. There's plenty of data prior to that. If > you'd get your nose out of Gore's a.s you might learn something. Okay, educate me. Produce some of that data. >>>>>> So a discussion about climate change, and how the arctic was warmer then >>>>>> than it is now, and what that means to the theory of global warming is [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Okay, educate me. Produce some of that data. This is an excellent place to start. http://product.half.ebay.com/Holmes-Principles-of-Physical-Geology_W0QQtgZinfoQQ prZ946942 I'll suggest more when you get through this. >> Hachiroku ???? wrote: >>> [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > I'll suggest more when you get through this. I am just WAITING to see how Mr Assholious twists this one. . . . He will never ever admit that he's wrr, ah Wrrrrrrr. Charles Grozny >>>>>>> So a discussion about climate change, and how the arctic was warmer then >>>>>>> than it is now, and what that means to the theory of global warming is [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > I'll suggest more when you get through this. Okay, so you have nothing. I though so. >> This is an excellent place to start. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Okay, so you have nothing. I though so. You really need to start with a basic Physical Geology book. Really. Get one on Historical Geology as well. Read the physical first, and remember the stuff about plate tectonics and warming/cooling trends when you read the Historical book. Things will be less of a mystery to you then... > we have enough weird science > observations from the "group" that we don't spend much time with them. Amen to that! Imagine, 100 millionth of a part causing the Earth to fry... tsk, tsk... >>>>>>>> this--http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/dinosaurslivedinthearctic >>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Thanks for explaining that. Okay, so how about if you explain to us what you think a warmer arctic 65+ million years ago means to the theory of global warming. >> So a discussion about climate change, and how the arctic was warmer >> then than it is now, and what that means to the theory of global [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > warmer arctic 65+ million years ago means to the theory > of global warming. I've got a much better idea. Instead of me proving a negative, why don't you tie it into how it proves global warming? Signature"Religion and good morals are the only solid foundation of public liberty and happiness." --Samuel Adams >>> So a discussion about climate change, and how the arctic was warmer >>> then than it is now, and what that means to the theory of global [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > I've got a much better idea. Instead of me proving a negative, why > don't you tie it into how it proves global warming? I told you!! MASTADON FARTS!!!!!!!!! >>> So a discussion about climate change, and how the arctic was warmer >>> then than it is now, and what that means to the theory of global [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > I've got a much better idea. Instead of me proving a negative, why > don't you tie it into how it proves global warming? I don't think anyone had mentioned a potential link between a warmer arctic and global warming until you did in your post: "...the arctic was warmer then than it is now, and what that means to the theory of global warming..." I was merely curious as to what you thought it might mean. If you don't care to share your thoughts, that's fine with me. >>>> So a discussion about climate change, and how the arctic was warmer >>>> then than it is now, and what that means to the theory of global [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > mean. If you don't care to share your thoughts, that's > fine with me. I didn't cite the article, but I did repeat what it said about the arctic being warmer then. If it's wrong, please explain why. Signature"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great Nation was founded not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ.” -- Patrick Henry >>>>> So a discussion about climate change, and how the arctic was warmer >>>>> then than it is now, and what that means to the theory of global [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > If it's wrong, please explain why. I have no quibbles with the article - it's well known that the arctic (and the rest of the earth as well) was indeed quite a bit warmer then. Hachiroku's the one that didn't believe the article. "Uh oh, a scientist said it - it must be a lie!" >>>>>> So a discussion about climate change, and how the arctic was warmer >>>>>> then than it is now, and what that means to the theory of global [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > one that didn't believe the article. "Uh oh, a > scientist said it - it must be a lie!" Are you stoned or stupid? 65M years ago, the 'arctic' wasn't at the arctic. It was in the middle of the ocean in what is now somewhere around S. Dakota. Remember Plate Tectonics? Oh, I'm sorry...Al Gore doesn't talk about that, so it can't be! >>>>>>> So a discussion about climate change, and how the arctic was warmer >>>>>>> then than it is now, and what that means to the theory of global [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > the ocean in what is now somewhere around S. Dakota. Remember Plate > Tectonics? What are you talking about? The arctic is the region of the earth north of the arctic circle. Continents may drift into and out of the arctic, but the location of the arctic doesn't change with respect to the earth's axis. (Well, that's not entirely true: variation in the earth's axial tilt causes the arctic circle itself to expand and contract a bit, but it's always centered on the north pole. And before you start jabbering about polar drift - that's the magnetic pole that drifts, not the geographic pole (which actually does wobble a few meters, but that's it).) So no, the arctic was never near "what is now somewhere around S. Dakota". 65 million years ago, the arctic was centered upon the north pole, just as it is now. The land masses within the arctic circle have moved, but the arctic has not. > Oh, I'm sorry...Al Gore doesn't talk about that, so it can't be! You certainly seem to care a lot more about what Al Gore has to say than I do. > So no, the arctic was never near "what is now somewhere > around S. Dakota". 65 million years ago, the arctic was > centered upon the north pole, just as it is now. The > land masses within the arctic circle have moved, but the > arctic has not. Stop being obtuse. You know what I mean. Everyone else understood it. I guess you have to have it spelled out for you. Let me know if you really need it explained. Glad to be of assistance for people who don't understand Earth history. >> So no, the arctic was never near "what is now somewhere >> around S. Dakota". 65 million years ago, the arctic was [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Let me know if you really need it explained. Glad to be of assistance for > people who don't understand Earth history. I doubt that everyone else understood it. They probably just don't give a damn. Anyway, I think I know what you meant, but if so, then you don't know the difference between the geographic pole and the magnetic pole, or the difference between the arctic and the north pole. >>> So no, the arctic was never near "what is now somewhere >>> around S. Dakota". 65 million years ago, the arctic was [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > between the geographic pole and the magnetic pole, or the > difference between the arctic and the north pole. The shifting of the land mass PLACED the land bearing dinosaur remains under the arctic circle. The land mass was in S. Dakota 65M years ago when the dinosaurs died, and then moved due to plate tectonics to the arctic circle. I even gave you a .GIF that showed the movement based on collected data. >>>> So no, the arctic was never near "what is now somewhere >>>> around S. Dakota". 65 million years ago, the arctic was [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > I even gave you a .GIF that showed the movement based on collected data. That contradicts what you said earlier: 65M years ago, the 'arctic' wasn't at the arctic. It was in the middle of the ocean in what is now somewhere around S. Dakota. Remember Plate Tectonics? So 65 million years ago, the land mass that the dinosaurs were on (which is now northeastern Russia) was actually the middle of the ocean near what is now South Dakota? The dinosaurs were swimming, perhaps? Sorry, but you're wrong. 65 million years ago, both the Eurasian and the North American plates were not terribly far from where they are now. They have certainly moved a bit since then, but not nearly that much. The biggest change in the intervening years was the collision of the Indian plate with the Eurasian plate about 40 or 50 million years ago. > So 65 million years ago, the land mass that the dinosaurs > were on (which is now northeastern Russia) was actually > the middle of the ocean near what is now South Dakota? > The dinosaurs were swimming, perhaps? You really don't have a clue what I'm trying to tell you, do you? I even gave you a .GIF aimed at kiddies to help you, and it still went over your head like a 767... Come back after you've read a Principles of Geology book. >> So 65 million years ago, the land mass that the dinosaurs >> were on (which is now northeastern Russia) was actually [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Come back after you've read a Principles of Geology book. Went over his head like a B-52, more like. Charles Grozny >>> So 65 million years ago, the land mass that the dinosaurs >>> were on (which is now northeastern Russia) was actually [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Charles Grozny PS. I think you'd have to drop the whole load from a Big Ugly Fat F***er to dent his bullshit worldview. Charles Grozny >>> So 65 million years ago, the land mass that the dinosaurs >>> were on (which is now northeastern Russia) was actually [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Charles Grozny SR-71: Twice as high, twice as fast... >>>> So 65 million years ago, the land mass that the dinosaurs >>>> were on (which is now northeastern Russia) was actually [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > SR-71: Twice as high, twice as fast... Yeah, but I'd think you'd need to hit him with the full 80,000 lbs of ordiance to dent that thick head of his. Charles Grozny >> So 65 million years ago, the land mass that the dinosaurs >> were on (which is now northeastern Russia) was actually >> the middle of the ocean near what is now South Dakota? >> The dinosaurs were swimming, perhaps? > > You really don't have a clue what I'm trying to tell you, do you? I know perfectly well what you were trying to tell me and it was wrong. 65 million years ago, northeastern Russia was not where South Dakota is now. Pull out your old textbook from your rocks-for-jocks class, find the section on plate tectonics, and look at the map of the continents as they were 65 million years ago. Even if all you were trying to say was that 65 million years ago the fossil site was at the latitude of South Dakota, you were still wrong. From the article: "accounting for continental drift, the dinos lived at more than 70 degrees of latitude north." Last time I looked at a map, South Dakota was pretty far south of 70 degrees north, like around 45, plus or minus a few degrees. > I even gave you a .GIF aimed at kiddies to help you, and it still went > over your head like a 767... > > Come back after you've read a Principles of Geology book. >>>>>>>>> this--http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/dinosaurslivedinthearctic >>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > warmer arctic 65+ million years ago means to the theory > of global warming. Nothing. It wasn't the arctic back then http://www.enchantedlearning.com/cgifs/Continentaldrift.gif >>>>>>>>>> this--http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/dinosaurslivedinthearctic >>>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > http://www.enchantedlearning.com/cgifs/Continentaldrift.gif So the net result of this exchange is: Dinosaurs lived in the arctic, but it wasn't the arctic. Okay, fine. SignatureUpon exiting the Constitutional Convention, Benjamin Franklin was asked, "What kind of government have you given us?" He replied, "A Republic, if you can keep it." >>>>>>>>>>> this--http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/dinosaurslivedinthearctic >>>>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > > Okay, fine. LOL! Pretty much. They were living on the land mass that was the arctic, but, as I said, it was somewhere around Nebraska then. ANd it was VERY warm. But there wasn't Man to create CO2. Must have been Mastadon farts... >> So the net result of this exchange is: >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Must have been Mastadon farts... Ties in nicely with cow farts at the present time. If so, we've been hornswoggled by scientists blaming our beef herds. Mastadons started this whole disaster! Signature"Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.” -- SCOTUS Chief Justice John Lay, 1816 >>> So the net result of this exchange is: >>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > If so, we've been hornswoggled by scientists blaming our beef herds. > Mastadons started this whole disaster! Sorry, your timeline's a little off. Mastadons didn't make the scene until about 60 million years later. >>>> So the net result of this exchange is: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Sorry, your timeline's a little off. Mastadons didn't > make the scene until about 60 million years later. But well before cow farts were becoming a cause. Signature"The rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God." -- John F. Kennedy >>>>> So the net result of this exchange is: >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > But well before cow farts were becoming a cause. It's all the same. What our learned friend seems to forget is the gasses escaping from a roiling sea, and heat to beat the band. And there was STILL glacial periods. 100PPM of CO2 is NOT going to upset the Apple cart. But you can't tell this to these Appleheads that swallow the poison from the IPCC and Al Gore. >>>>>>>> this--http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/dinosaurslivedinthearctic >>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > than it is now, and what that means to the theory of global warming is > somehow tied to hunting and dinosaurs? One of the naysayers re: climate change/global warming & people's impact on our atmosphere also happens to think that people & dinosaurs co-existed, IIRC that the earth is about 6,000 years old, etc. He doesn't believe in science/scientific evidence. That was the link. > Thanks for explaining that. Maybe you weren't here yet during those threads? Cathy > >>>>>>>> this--http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/dinosaurslivedinthearctic > >>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > Cathy Excuse me, but I have to burst out laughing......This is so funny. Signature"It's deja vu all over again" Yogi Berra >> >>>>>>>> this--http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/dinosaurslivedinthearctic >> >>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > > Excuse me, but I have to burst out laughing......This is so funny. Yeah, it is - in its own way. It's also pretty pathetic. Both IMO, of course. Cathy >>>>>>>>> this--http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/dinosaurslivedinthearctic >>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > Maybe you weren't here yet during those threads? No, I wasn't. But I still fail to see the connection whatsoever. Signature"The rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God." -- John F. Kennedy >>>>>>>> this--http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/dinosaurslivedinthearctic >>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > Thanks for explaining that. The Arctic wasn't warmer than it is now. It wasn't in the Arctic. It was somewhere around the midwest. The movement of plates caused that land mass to move north, just like California is right now. There is going to be another major earthquake somewhere very soon. There is a lot of shuddering around the world, and a lot of volcanic activity. This could be a big one. Think of it this way: take a plate and hit it with a hammer so it breaks into roughly similar sized pieces. Take the two largest and tightest fitting pieces and force them together with a lot of pressure, and then add a sideward movement to that pressure. Keep adding pressure until the pieces slide. It'll do it with a far amount of sudden force. That's about what's happening. Our little example is oversimplified and will create 'results' much more magnified than real plate tectonics, but with the earth all the plates interact, so the result isn't as pronounced. Same idea, though. >>> Which should allow Hachi yet another avenue of denial. >> >> I don't think it's Hachi who's in denial here. >> > Stick with him, Sot, Chuck, and Dooby but wear your highwater pants. Maybe > even get into Dinosaur extinction caused by over hunting by cavemen ;-P Boy, I wish we could be around to see. It's going to take about 100 years to prove who's right. Trending should start to set in in about 25 years. Maybe if I had stopped smoking 15 years ago I'd see it. >>>>>>>>> And a great "handle" on the economy, foreign policy, immagration, >>>>>>>>> toyotas, [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >> > Which should allow Hachi yet another avenue of denial. I already gave it to you. The 'North Pole' wasn't *AT* the North Pole then. It was somewhere around Nebraska. >>>>>>>>>> Hachiroku $B%O%A%m%/(B wrote: >>>>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] >> >Right, sh.t floats. depends...... SignatureScott in Florida >>>>>> Hachiroku $B%O%A%m%/(B wrote: >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >> > Sure--you have about as good a grip as you do on climate change. I have an excellent grip on climate change. It's completely natural. >>>>>>> Hachiroku $B%O%A%m%/(B wrote: >>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > It's completely natural. right, the solo artist. >>>>>>>> Hachiroku $B%O%A%m%/(B wrote: >>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] >> > right, the solo artist. Pretty much. It's hard to tell from any data, past or present, if CO2 leads or follows rises in temperature. The sad thing is, the so-called 'experts' know this. A lot more scientists are jumping OFF the GW bandwagon and starting to think it's part of the cycle. The truly brave are admitting they really don't know if it's CO2 levels, or the ending of a cycle as in the chart I have posted here so often in the past. I think since they really started examining ice core samples they ar beginning to believe we are at the end of a cycle of warming and cooling, and heading towards cooling. Who knows for sure? It will take hundreds of years before the truth is known! But I can tell you one who really hasn't a clue, and his initials are Al Gore. > >>>>>>>>>I was wondering what I could do to celebrate Earth Day when, after > >>>>>>>>>driving 25 miles at 70MPH the oil pooled in the valve stem seals and [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > known! But I can tell you one who really hasn't a clue, and his initials > are Al Gore. Evidence to back your claims, please. I see nothing about this in _Science_ and the other scientific literature I read >> >>>>>>>>>I was wondering what I could do to celebrate Earth Day when, after >> >>>>>>>>>driving 25 miles at 70MPH the oil pooled in the valve stem seals and [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > > Evidence to back your claims, please. <YAWN> > I see nothing about this in _Science_ and the other scientific > literature I read Find somethin without an agenda. >>>>>>>> Hachiroku $B%O%A%m%/(B wrote: >>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] >> > right, the solo artist. Interesting. You got me thinking: Ice core samples go back ~700,000 years. The Earth is 4B years old. Where's the rest of the ice? If they took the sample from the center of the ice, was 700,000 'years' as far down as they could go and get a sample? Was there more ice below that? Here's the question: if not, WHY not? There must have been some cataclysmic event that melted the ice accumulated prior to that. Here's a hint: It wasn't man-made Global Warming... >>>>>>>>> Hachiroku $B%O%A%m%/(B wrote: >>>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > Ice core samples go back ~700,000 years. The Earth is 4B years old. About 800,000 and about 4.5 billion, but you're close enough. > Where's the rest of the ice? > > If they took the sample from the center of the ice, was 700,000 'years' as > far down as they could go and get a sample? Was there more ice below that? There was more ice below that. They drilled two miles to get the ice core that dated back 800,000 years: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5314592.stm But, yeah, there have certainly been times in the past when there has been little or no polar ice. You should read about the PETM - it's quite fascinating. The Wikipedia entry isn't terribly detailed, but it's a good place to start and you can follow some of the citations if you're interested in learning more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene-Eocene_Thermal_Maximum > Here's the question: if not, WHY not? There must have been some > cataclysmic event that melted the ice accumulated prior to that. > > Here's a hint: It wasn't man-made Global Warming... No one ever claimed that it was, so what's your point? >> Where's the rest of the ice? >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene-Eocene_Thermal_Maximum Thanks, on both counts. I will sure read these. >> Here's the question: if not, WHY not? There must have been some >> cataclysmic event that melted the ice accumulated prior to that. >> >> Here's a hint: It wasn't man-made Global Warming... > > No one ever claimed that it was, so what's your point? So why is it now? 100PPM CO2? Don't think so. >>> Where's the rest of the ice? >>> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > Don't think so. An extremely rapid increase of 107 ppmv over pre-industrial levels of 280 ppmv. An increase which is continuing at the rate of about 2 ppmv per year. The radiative forcing effect of that increase in CO2 alone is far greater than any of the primary effects that led to the glacial/interglacial periods of the last few million years. >>>> Where's the rest of the ice? >>>> [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > primary effects that led to the glacial/interglacial periods > of the last few million years. Climate is not causing the glacial periods. Before you fall off your chair laughing, think about it. Of course, this is my opinion, and can't really be proved. But, then again, neither can Global Warming... >>>>> Where's the rest of the ice? >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > But, then again, neither can Global Warming... Well, no, not at all like global warming, which is backed up by the research of thousands of scientists all over the world, unlike your hunch. You see, scientists, when they have a hunch, test it to see if it has any validity. Like when Charles Keating thought, "I'll bet the fossil fuel we're burning may be increasing atmospheric CO2 levels." So he initiated the periodic CO2 measurements that produced the famous Keating Curve. At the very least they will read the relevant literature to see if their hunch makes sense given current observations. My guess, though, is that you've not read up on any of the relevant science to see if your hunch is at all reasonable. But please, present your thoughts on the real cause of the glacial periods. Or is it just your old "rising temps cause the CO2 level to increase to a point at which, through some unknown mechanism, it brings on the ice"? >>>>>> Where's the rest of the ice? >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > world, unlike your hunch. You see, scientists, when they > have a hunch, test it to see if it has any validity. And, how do they test it? > Like > when Charles Keating thought, "I'll bet the fossil fuel [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > cause the CO2 level to increase to a point at which, > through some unknown mechanism, it brings on the ice"? I have, many times. You aren't that naieve. I'm pretty sure you know the real deal, but for some unknown reason side with Al Gore and the Alarmists. How much are you getting in grants? >>>>>>> Where's the rest of the ice? >>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > > And, how do they test it? By gathering evidence of current and past conditions, improving climate models, etc. >> Like >> when Charles Keating thought, "I'll bet the fossil fuel [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > I have, many times. You aren't that naieve. I'm pretty sure you know the > real deal, but for some unknown reason side with Al Gore and the Alarmists. Yeah, I know the real deal. I've dug pretty deeply into the science and you know what? From the times when I've heard what he has to say, Al Gore may be a little overly broad in his generalizations, and he may get a detail wrong now and then, but for the most part, he gets the science right. So, what's your hunch? Enlighten us. > How much are you getting in grants? While I know a few scientists in the field, I'm not one of them, so I'm getting no grants. >>>>>>>> Where's the rest of the ice? >>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > By gathering evidence of current and past conditions, > improving climate models, etc. I'd say their track record isn't really very good. For some reason they keep missing the data from the ice core sample chart I keep throwing out here. And I heard someone has said there was a flaw in one of the models that was predicting Global Warming. As a matter of fact, it's simply a computer program. We all know programmers never make mistakes, or write programs to conclude an intended outcome. Especially in this case. So we ignore a million years of history based on a computer. >>> Like >>> when Charles Keating thought, "I'll bet the fossil fuel [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > wrong now and then, but for the most part, he gets the > science right. Earth In The Balance was a stellar work! I haven't laughed so hard in years! Judging from what I read, what little science he bothered with he got horribly wrong. > So, what's your hunch? Enlighten us. We're going to all have to move to Florida. It'll make Japan look spacious. >> How much are you getting in grants? > > While I know a few scientists in the field, I'm not one > of them, so I'm getting no grants. Must be getting a kickback of some kind. Need carbon credits for something? >>>>>>>>> Where's the rest of the ice? >>>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > keep missing the data from the ice core sample chart I keep throwing out > here. Not at all. As I have pointed out here repeatedly, no one is ignoring your precious chart. The data behind the chart are very important and relevant. The chart illustrates very clearly the importance of CO2 as a secondary feedback mechanism. The variations of the Milankovitch cycle are not enough to account for the glacial/inter-glacial cycle. They act as a trigger that unleashes various secondary feedback effects. CO2 is one of the most important of those. > And I heard someone has said there was a flaw in one of the models that > was predicting Global Warming. As a matter of fact, it's simply a computer > program. We all know programmers never make mistakes, or write programs to > conclude an intended outcome. Especially in this case. Oh, I'm sure there are flaws in all of them. None of them are perfect. More often than not, though, the tendency of the models has been to underestimate the effects of climate change. But they're continually being tested and improved. Here's an article about one area where the models were wrong: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/05/070501-arctic-ice.html > So we ignore a million years of history based on a computer. No one is ignoring millions of years of history. Historical data are of great importance in both building and validating the models. One indication of their reliability is their ability to accurately model the past. >>>> Like >>>> when Charles Keating thought, "I'll bet the fossil fuel [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > years! Judging from what I read, what little science he bothered with he > got horribly wrong. I haven't read it. As I've said, I don't really care about Gore. Most of what I've heard him say is accurate, but I haven't gone out of my way to read everything (or anything, really) that he's written. However, given your level of scientific literacy, I'm not sure that I would trust you as a judge of his accuracy. If you'd like to post a quote or two from the book (in context) that you consider particularly egregious, please do so. >> So, what's your hunch? Enlighten us. > > We're going to all have to move to Florida. It'll make Japan look spacious. What? That's your hunch about what causes glacial periods? >>> How much are you getting in grants? >> >> While I know a few scientists in the field, I'm not one >> of them, so I'm getting no grants. > > Must be getting a kickback of some kind. Need carbon credits for something? > Hachiroku ãƒãƒãƒã‚¯ wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > primary effects that led to the glacial/interglacial periods > of the last few million years. My dearest Lucius, this is all hogwash, and you, being a very smart person knows this. Signature"It's deja vu all over again" Yogi Berra >> Hachiroku ãfãfãfã,¯ wrote: >> > [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > My dearest Lucius, this is all hogwash, and you, being a very smart > person knows this. And again I've blocked Luke the Nacho off the list because he swallows the arguments of the Left completely. Probably drinks the Kook-Aid, too. No matter how much you tell him the truth, he's going to keep spouting the Lies of the Left. AlGoreSoreLoserMan is probably his hero. The shooting war's going to start soon now. Charles Grozny > > In article <ofIIl.56150$Ji5.16...@newsfe21.iad>, > [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > > Charles Grozny Let's see: noble prize, a few books, a BIG house, lots of money to speak. Some loser. >> And again I've blocked Luke the Nacho off the list because he swallows the >> arguments of the Left completely. Probably drinks the Kook-Aid, too. No [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Let's see: noble prize, a few books, a BIG house, lots of money to > speak. Some loser. Doesn't follow his own advice, makes others recite pledges he won't take himself. Yup. A loser. Why do you suppose he doesn't follow his own advice? >>> And again I've blocked Luke the Nacho off the list because he swallows >>> the [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Yup. A loser. Why do you suppose he doesn't follow his own advice? He may be a 'winner' by Luke the Nacho's standards, but by God's eternal standards, he's a LOSER, and so is Luke the Nacho. Charles Grozny >>>> And again I've blocked Luke the Nacho off the list because he swallows >>>> the [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Charles Grozny I think anyone who swallows anything Al Gore says is a definite loser. Gore's a hypocrite; do as I say, not as I do. There has to be a reason why he doesn't take his own advice. Could be money. Maybe when he starts dealing some of those carbon credits he'll fix his house up so he doesn't look like such a hypocrite. > I think anyone who swallows anything Al Gore says is a definite loser. > Gore's a hypocrite; do as I say, not as I do. There has to be a reason why > he doesn't take his own advice. > > Could be money. Maybe when he starts dealing some of those carbon credits > he'll fix his house up so he doesn't look like such a hypocrite. Gore is nothing unusual among left-wing elitists. It's always what YOU should do to benefit <fill in the blank>, but they're not subject to their own desired laws, rules, or taxes. I expect some idiot will now defend him in lieu of knowing or caring about the, ahem, carbon footprint of Al Gores residence and lifestyle. Signature“This is a Christian Nation.” -- SCOTUS (Church of the Holy Trinity vs. The United States, 1892) >Hachiroku ???? wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] >primary effects that led to the glacial/interglacial periods >of the last few million years. Plant a tree. 'Problem' solved. SignatureScott in Florida Scott in Florida wrote: >> Hachiroku ???? wrote: >>> [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > 'Problem' solved. How many trees do you suppose we'd have to plant to mitigate the 30 billion tonnes of CO2 that we produce annually by burning fossil fuels? <snipped> >>>> Sure--you have about as good a grip as you do on climate change. >>> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Here's a hint: It wasn't man-made Global Warming... Tangential to this conversation... whenever we get a cold snap, the "it can't be global warming, or at least none of it is caused by people's actions" people pop up & say, "See, what global watrming? It's colder than all get-out today!" And others, who seem to be more rational/logical in this regard, point out that individual instances don't count, but trends do. But now that we're in the middle of a heat wave here in the NE - mid/high 80's today in April, & either tying or breaking the day's record for temp, but I don't see anyone posting about it. Huh...not surprising?? ;-P Cathy >> Ice core samples go back ~700,000 years. The Earth is 4B years old. >> Where's the rest of the ice? [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > all get-out today!" And others, who seem to be more rational/logical in > this regard, point out that individual instances don't count, but trends do. DING! Cathy gets the star!! Let's see how the trend continues. For about 7 years, the temp's been dropping... > >> Ice core samples go back ~700,000 years. The Earth is 4B years old. > >> Where's the rest of the ice? [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Let's see how the trend continues. For about 7 years, the temp's been > dropping... Nope. http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/climatechange/?section=today# and http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/features/temptracker/ Scroll down to where it says, "Global Surface Temperature." There a good graph there, as well. The earth's average temperature is continuing to increase. Jeff >> >> Ice core samples go back ~700,000 years. The Earth is 4B years old. >> >> Where's the rest of the ice? [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/features/temptracker/ Thanks! Around 1970, some scientists suspected Earth was entering a period of global cooling. Decades prior, the brilliant Serbian mathematician Milutin Milankovitch had explained how our world warms and cools on roughly 100,000-year cycles due to its slowly changing position relative to the Sun. Milankovitch's theory suggested Earth should be just beginning to head into its next ice age cycle. To their surprise, Hansen's team found that the warming effect of all those gases added together is comparable to the warming effect of carbon dioxide alone. All of this data has been gathered since 1975. If the Milankovitch cycle is correct, then we are nearing the end of a warming cycle and will soon be entering a cooling cycle. But, we don't like to talk about that, do we? You need to get more data about the Milankovitch cycle, and how long it's been since the last cooling cycle. And how the earth warms up prior to the beginning of a severe drop in temperature. Here's a hint: it's been about 100,000 years... > Scroll down to where it says, "Global Surface Temperature." There a > good graph there, as well. > > The earth's average temperature is continuing to increase. > > Jeff >>>>> Ice core samples go back ~700,000 years. The Earth is 4B years old. >>>>> Where's the rest of the ice? [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > But, we don't like to talk about that, do we? Nonsense, we talk about it quite a bit. I've mentioned Milankovitch cycles here several times. > You need to get more data about the Milankovitch cycle, and how long it's > been since the last cooling cycle. And how the earth warms up prior to the > beginning of a severe drop in temperature. Here's a hint: it's been about > 100,000 years... You should read (and try to understand) the full article rather than skimming for the occasional out-of-context quote. It has a lot of useful information. You would learn that the forcing effects of the Milankovitch cycle are smaller than the effect of the additional atmospheric CO2. >> Scroll down to where it says, "Global Surface Temperature." There a >> good graph there, as well. >> >> The earth's average temperature is continuing to increase. >> >> Jeff >>>>>> Ice core samples go back ~700,000 years. The Earth is 4B years old. >>>>>> Where's the rest of the ice? [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > Nonsense, we talk about it quite a bit. I've mentioned > Milankovitch cycles here several times. You have, but Al Gore etc ignore them. >> You need to get more data about the Milankovitch cycle, and how long it's >> been since the last cooling cycle. And how the earth warms up prior to the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > cycle are smaller than the effect of the additional > atmospheric CO2. I don't think so. If the earth moves further away from the sun in it's orbit, based on the swings in past cycles, Scott will be able to go cross-country skiing without going too far. There are mountains in Georgia, besides. OK, that's an exaggeration. The last icing cycle only went as far as Virginia or so. This one will probably stop around Pennsylvania, thanks to Global Warming. >>> Scroll down to where it says, "Global Surface Temperature." There a >>> good graph there, as well. >>> >>> The earth's average temperature is continuing to increase. >>> >>> Jeff >>>>>>> Ice core samples go back ~700,000 years. The Earth is 4B years old. >>>>>>> Where's the rest of the ice? [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > orbit, based on the swings in past cycles, Scott will be able to go > cross-country skiing without going too far. But we know what the orbital variations are and we can calculate the forcing effects of those variations. We also know the forcing effect of the added CO2. It's a simple matter of comparing one number with another. It is simply a known fact that the CO2 we've added to the atmosphere has swamped any effect of the Milankovitch cycle. You may think the earth is going to move unpredictably farther from the sun, but that thought has no basis in reality. > There are mountains in Georgia, besides. > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >>>> >>>> Jeff >>>>>>>> Ice core samples go back ~700,000 years. The Earth is 4B years old. >>>>>>>> Where's the rest of the ice? [quoted text clipped - 65 lines] > unpredictably farther from the sun, but that thought > has no basis in reality. I never said that. All it has to do is move as far as it did the last time. The cycles are fairly regular with little variation. If they could drill another mile maybe there's information confirming one trend or the other. As a whole, the universe is trying to shed heat and reach a stasis, and that temperature is very, very cold. One would expect from that that ice ages are going to be getting colder, not warmer. As far as CO2, we're dealing with parts per million. 100 PPM is not really a drastic change. It is when you compare it with 287PPM from the last one, but it's still only 300 millionths of the gases comprising the atmosphere. Get real. >> There are mountains in Georgia, besides. >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >>>>> >>>>> Jeff >>>>>>>>> Ice core samples go back ~700,000 years. The Earth is 4B years old. >>>>>>>>> Where's the rest of the ice? [quoted text clipped - 68 lines] > The cycles are fairly regular with little variation. If they could drill > another mile maybe there's information confirming one trend or the other. But we know how far away it moved last time and we know the effect of that move. It would cool the planet less that the additional CO2 is warming it. We know the numbers. The additional CO2 essentially makes the Milankovitch cycle irrelevant. > As a whole, the universe is trying to shed heat and reach a stasis, and > that temperature is very, very cold. One would expect from that that ice > ages are going to be getting colder, not warmer. Thanks for the laugh. The universe isn't "trying to shed heat"; it is "trying" to maximize entropy: to reach thermal equilibrium. And that's a process whose time scale is on the order of 10^100 years. It's not something that needs to be considered here. Especially since we don't get our heat from "the universe"; we get it from the sun, whose output is relatively constant on any time scale that we're concerned with. > As far as CO2, we're dealing with parts per million. 100 PPM is not really > a drastic change. It is when you compare it with 287PPM from the last one, > but it's still only 300 millionths of the gases comprising the atmosphere. > > Get real. And yet we know the radiative forcing effect of that additional CO2. It can be calculated given the basic properties of the molecule. There may not be much of it relative to the rest of the atmosphere, but it has a definite measurable effect. >>> There are mountains in Georgia, besides. >>> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >>>>>> >>>>>> Jeff >> As far as CO2, we're dealing with parts per million. 100 PPM is not really >> a drastic change. It is when you compare it with 287PPM from the last one, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > relative to the rest of the atmosphere, but it has a > definite measurable effect. So, when the deep freeze starts again, it's not going to get as cold? Ice will only cover as far as Michigan? >>> As far as CO2, we're dealing with parts per million. 100 PPM is not really >>> a drastic change. It is when you compare it with 287PPM from the last one, [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > So, when the deep freeze starts again, it's not going to get as cold? Ice > will only cover as far as Michigan? Your intentional stupidity is getting old (I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming it's intentional and you're just trying to annoy). This really isn't that complicated. With current CO2 levels, the deep freeze cannot start again through the mechanism of Milankovitch cycles. I've explained why over and over, so I'm not going to bother again. But if you think a glacial period is imminent, please explain how the forcing effect of the Milankovitch cycle is going to overcome the much larger forcing effect of the CO2. >>>> As far as CO2, we're dealing with parts per million. 100 PPM is not really >>>> a drastic change. It is when you compare it with 287PPM from the last one, [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > the benefit of the doubt and assuming it's intentional > and you're just trying to annoy). And your ignorance is getting irritating. Take the blinders off, talk to someone who is NOT employed by the IPCC and therefore has nothing to lose, and get an education in "Man made Global Warming". It belongs on the shelf next to "The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe". Or perhaps, "Earth in the Balance". Choose your fiction. > This really isn't that > complicated. With current CO2 levels, the deep freeze > cannot start again through the mechanism of Milankovitch > cycles. How high are you? CO2 DOES NOT CAUSE OR PREVENT THE ICING CYCLE! Whew. > I've explained why over and over, so I'm not > going to bother again. But if you think a glacial period > is imminent, please explain how the forcing effect of the > Milankovitch cycle is going to overcome the much larger > forcing effect of the CO2. OK, Al. K00L-Aid anyone? >>>>> As far as CO2, we're dealing with parts per million. 100 PPM is not really >>>>> a drastic change. It is when you compare it with 287PPM from the last one, [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > How high are you? CO2 DOES NOT CAUSE OR PREVENT THE ICING CYCLE! Okay then, explain how the relatively small effect of the Milankovitch cycle is going to overcome the much larger forcing effect of the CO2. What is the flaw in this paper? http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005/2004GC000891.shtml Not "oh, they've obviously drunk Al Gore's koolaide", but what in their science is wrong? > Whew. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > K00L-Aid anyone? >> How high are you? CO2 DOES NOT CAUSE OR PREVENT THE ICING CYCLE! > > Okay then, explain how the relatively small effect of the > Milankovitch cycle is going to overcome the much larger > forcing effect of the CO2. Easy. Whatever is causing the cycle will make a large part of the Earth freeze. You have to be a lunatic. You're ignoring 1M years of history based on what people with an agenda have to offer. According to the chart you ignore so much, the average *rise* in temp is about 2.5 Degrees C. The average DROP is about 6-7 degrees C. latest ice core samples show a decline in temp. Whatever is causing up to an 8 degree C drop isn't going to be influenced much by 100PPM CO2. Are you Al Gore or something? You're not making sense. >>> How high are you? CO2 DOES NOT CAUSE OR PREVENT THE ICING CYCLE! >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Whatever is causing up to an 8 degree C drop isn't going to be influenced > much by 100PPM CO2. Are you Al Gore or something? You're not making sense. Yeah, I'll grant you that I'm not making sense to you. No matter how simply I try to explain this, you just can't understand it. It's not me that's ignoring history, it's you. You bring out your chart every chance you get, but you haven't a clue as to what caused the changes the chart illustrates, other than some vague notion of variation in the distance between the earth and the sun. In order to fully understand your chart you'll need to do a little reading up on that history that you accuse others of ignoring. Start by reading about the mechanisms behind those temperature fluctuations you mentioned. What caused them? How are they linked to the Milankovitch cycle? Are the variations of the Milankovitch cycle adequate to explain the full range of temperature variation? If not, what accounts for it? Until you've got a basic understanding of the science, it's pointless to continue this discussion. >> Whatever is causing up to an 8 degree C drop isn't going to be influenced >> much by 100PPM CO2. Are you Al Gore or something? You're not making sense. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > than some vague notion of variation in the distance between > the earth and the sun. Well, why don't you explain it, then? I'll bet it doesn't have a lot to do with CO2 levels. The chart is so close that it's hard to tell if CO2 is causing warming, or warming is causing CO2. My bet is the latter. Problem is, the people blowing the Global Warming whistle DON'T KNOW EITHER! There's a correlation, but they don't really know which is leading and which is trailing. At all. And there are plenty of real scientists not being paid to promote GW that say temperature is the leading factor, too. How do YOU explain the sudden DROP in temperature in the chart, even though CO2 levels were high enough to sustain further warming? Must have been something causing CO2 levels to rise? At REGULAR INTERVALS? What was that? How did it stop? Why wasn't it self sustaining? If CO2 causes such drastic warming, how did the trend reverse itself at such high CO2 levels? Of course, the simple answer is Temp leads CO2. When the temp drops, CO2 drops. Not vice-versa. >>> Whatever is causing up to an 8 degree C drop isn't going to be influenced >>> much by 100PPM CO2. Are you Al Gore or something? You're not making sense. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Well, why don't you explain it, then? Because I already have, over and over again to the point of exhaustion. > I'll bet it doesn't have a lot to do with CO2 levels. Actually, it has a great deal to do with CO2 levels. > The chart is so close that it's hard to tell if CO2 is causing warming, or > warming is causing CO2. My bet is the latter. It's both. > Problem is, the people blowing the Global Warming whistle DON'T KNOW > EITHER! There's a correlation, but they don't really know which is leading > and which is trailing. At all. Just because you're clueless doesn't mean everyone is. > And there are plenty of real scientists not being paid to promote GW that > say temperature is the leading factor, too. Temperature is, in some cases, the initial trigger. > How do YOU explain the sudden DROP in temperature in the chart, even > though CO2 levels were high enough to sustain further warming? First let's get our terminology straight. What do you mean by "sudden"? Look at the chart and see what the time scales are that we're dealing with. These are changes that occurred over periods of centuries to millennia. Next, excepting the last century, CO2 levels topped out at about 300 ppmv over the last million years. If you think that's "high enough to sustain further warming", then what do you think of the current 387 ppmv? Or the 450 ppmv that it will be in a few decades? > Must have been something causing CO2 levels to rise? At REGULAR INTERVALS? > What was that? How did it stop? Why wasn't it self sustaining? If CO2 > causes such drastic warming, how did the trend reverse itself at such high > CO2 levels? All questions with well understood answers, which I've gone into at length here before. Dig up and reread my old posts if you're that interested. > Of course, the simple answer is Temp leads CO2. When the temp drops, CO2 > drops. Not vice-versa. And the simple answer is wrong. The correct answer is a bit more complicated, and you're apparently unable to understand it. >>>> Whatever is causing up to an 8 degree C drop isn't going to be influenced >>>> much by 100PPM CO2. Are you Al Gore or something? You're not making sense. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Because I already have, over and over again to the > point of exhaustion. You've merely parroted IPCC. It's not been proved. It can't be. >> I'll bet it doesn't have a lot to do with CO2 levels. > > Actually, it has a great deal to do with CO2 levels. Then why does the temperature drop with increasing levels of CO2? If CO2 is causing warming, WHY DOES THE TEMPERATURE DROP SUDDENLY? >> The chart is so close that it's hard to tell if CO2 is causing warming, or >> warming is causing CO2. My bet is the latter. > > It's both. Utter complete nonsense. >> Problem is, the people blowing the Global Warming whistle DON'T KNOW >> EITHER! There's a correlation, but they don't really know which is leading >> and which is trailing. At all. > > Just because you're clueless doesn't mean everyone is. Good response. How so? Give me some proof. >> And there are plenty of real scientists not being paid to promote GW that >> say temperature is the leading factor, too. > > Temperature is, in some cases, the initial trigger. Um. Yeah. Sure. Not what you've said in the past. It's all CO2, remember? >> How do YOU explain the sudden DROP in temperature in the chart, even >> though CO2 levels were high enough to sustain further warming? [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > the current 387 ppmv? Or the 450 ppmv that it will > be in a few decades? On a scale of a hundred thousand years, a 1,000 year period is 'sudden'. If you buy that book I pointed you to, you may understand that. 100PPM is nothing. 150PPM is nothing. >> Must have been something causing CO2 levels to rise? At REGULAR INTERVALS? >> What was that? How did it stop? Why wasn't it self sustaining? If CO2 [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I've gone into at length here before. Dig up and > reread my old posts if you're that interested. All you've done is parroted the IPCC. >> Of course, the simple answer is Temp leads CO2. When the temp drops, CO2 >> drops. Not vice-versa. > > And the simple answer is wrong. The correct answer > is a bit more complicated, and you're apparently > unable to understand it. You just said it was both. How can it be one way, and the other way? Seems the fact is, you really don't know what you're talking about at all and get your info from blogs, the IPCC and a few 'scientists' with agendas and grants to back them up. You weren't able to even make an attempt to answer a single question I posed to you, but attempted to baffle us with bullshit and doubletalk. Respond when you get your a.s out of the Global Warming bandwagon. >>>>> Whatever is causing up to an 8 degree C drop isn't going to be influenced >>>>> much by 100PPM CO2. Are you Al Gore or something? You're not making sense. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > It's not been proved. It can't be. Mathematics deals with proofs, science doesn't. That said, the causes of the glacial/interglacial periods are reasonably well understood. Not by you of course, but by the scientists who research such things. Look, even the global warming skeptics don't dispute the basic mechanics of the glacial cycle. If you had the slightest knowledge of the subject, you'd know that. But no, you keep arguing over points that that are universally accepted. >>> I'll bet it doesn't have a lot to do with CO2 levels. >> >> Actually, it has a great deal to do with CO2 levels. > > Then why does the temperature drop with increasing levels of CO2? If CO2 > is causing warming, WHY DOES THE TEMPERATURE DROP SUDDENLY? Calm down, no need to shout. Decreasing insolation, due to the Milankovitch cycle, triggers increasing sequestration of CO2, lowering temperature still further. It's the same feedback loop that causes warming, run in reverse. Also, the starting point of 280-300 ppmv is not all that high. >>> The chart is so close that it's hard to tell if CO2 is causing warming, or >>> warming is causing CO2. My bet is the latter. >> >> It's both. > > Utter complete nonsense. Not at all, but explaining it to you yet again is pointless. >>> Problem is, the people blowing the Global Warming whistle DON'T KNOW >>> EITHER! There's a correlation, but they don't really know which is leading [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Good response. How so? Give me some proof. I've explained the process over and over again, and pointed you to primary sources. You refuse to consider any evidence that contradicts your point of view, no matter how widely accepted it is. >>> And there are plenty of real scientists not being paid to promote GW that >>> say temperature is the leading factor, too. >> >> Temperature is, in some cases, the initial trigger. > > Um. Yeah. Sure. Not what you've said in the past. It's all CO2, remember? No, that's exactly what I've said in the past. Triggers and feedback loops, remember? >>> How do YOU explain the sudden DROP in temperature in the chart, even >>> though CO2 levels were high enough to sustain further warming? [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > If you buy that book I pointed you to, you may understand that. I know that, I just wanted to make sure you did too. Given that you seem to think we're all going to wake up tomorrow morning to find glaciers on our front lawns, I had my doubts. > 100PPM is nothing. 150PPM is nothing. It's a lot more than the effects of orbital and solar variation. >>> Must have been something causing CO2 levels to rise? At REGULAR INTERVALS? >>> What was that? How did it stop? Why wasn't it self sustaining? If CO2 [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > All you've done is parroted the IPCC. All I've done is given you the science. If that happens to coincide with what the IPCC is saying, then good for the IPCC. >>> Of course, the simple answer is Temp leads CO2. When the temp drops, CO2 >>> drops. Not vice-versa. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > You just said it was both. How can it be one way, and the other way? Easy, feedback loops. > Seems the fact is, you really don't know what you're talking about at all > and get your info from blogs, the IPCC and a few 'scientists' with agendas > and grants to back them up. > > You weren't able to even make an attempt to answer a single question I > posed to you, but attempted to baffle us with bullshit and doubletalk. I've answered every question you posed. Well, some I've answered so many times in the past that I didn't bother yet again. If you thought my responses were "bullshit and doubletalk", perhaps it's because you simply don't have the intellectual capacity to understand. I've been trying to keep my responses fairly simple and easy to understand, but apparently I've failed. But if you didn't understand my answers, it's pretty easy to look up the information for yourself, if you're at all interested. But you're not. You'd rather just be lazy and snipe at all the global warming "koolaid drinkers" without having the slightest clue as to what you're talking about. At the very least, you should skim through some of the skeptics' websites. They usually get it wrong, but a few of them have at least a tenuous grasp on the science. It could potentially improve your arguments beyond mere name-calling. > Respond when you get your a.s out of the Global Warming bandwagon. >>>>>> Whatever is causing up to an 8 degree C drop isn't going to be influenced >>>>>> much by 100PPM CO2. Are you Al Gore or something? You're not making sense. [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > you'd know that. But no, you keep arguing over points that > that are universally accepted. Only because you say, No they aren't. >>>> I'll bet it doesn't have a lot to do with CO2 levels. >>> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > feedback loop that causes warming, run in reverse. Also, > the starting point of 280-300 ppmv is not all that high. So, why are we going to fry this time? This is what all the 'scientists' are telling us. >>>> The chart is so close that it's hard to tell if CO2 is causing warming, or >>>> warming is causing CO2. My bet is the latter. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > that contradicts your point of view, no matter how widely > accepted it is. Political Correctness is not the answer I'm looking for. It is not 'widely accepted' and if you'd stop looking at the IPCC and blogs and Al Gore, you might see this. There is PLENTY of dissent. >>>> And there are plenty of real scientists not being paid to promote GW that >>>> say temperature is the leading factor, too. [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > up tomorrow morning to find glaciers on our front > lawns, I had my doubts. Tomorrow? When did I say that? In the grand scheme of things, 1000 years is the blink of an eye. 100 years is 100mS. Yes, it is going to be 'sudden'. In terms of Earth science. >> 100PPM is nothing. 150PPM is nothing. > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > to coincide with what the IPCC is saying, then good for > the IPCC. The IPCC is a political organization. No agendas there! >>>> Of course, the simple answer is Temp leads CO2. When the temp drops, CO2 >>>> drops. Not vice-versa. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Easy, feedback loops. And they seem to occur fairly regularly, don't they? >> Seems the fact is, you really don't know what you're talking about at all >> and get your info from blogs, the IPCC and a few 'scientists' with agendas [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > without having the slightest clue as to what you're > talking about. I have plenty of clues as to what I'm talking about. Like a Democrat, since my viewpoint disagrees with yours, I'm wrong. There is only one way, and that is the Politically Correct way! Problem is, the Earth doesn't understand Political Correctness. It does what it does and nothing will stop it. Short of a catastrophe, of course. And 100PPM CO2 is not a catastrophe. At the very least, you should skim > through some of the skeptics' websites. They usually > get it wrong, but a few of them have at least a tenuous > grasp on the science. It could potentially improve your > arguments beyond mere name-calling. I could say the 'scientists' at the IPCC are the ones with a tenuous grasp, since they pretty much ignore a million year's worth of data. >> Respond when you get your a.s out of the Global Warming bandwagon. >> Hachiroku ???? wrote: >>> [quoted text clipped - 198 lines] > >>> Respond when you get your a.s out of the Global Warming bandwagon. And I want to know from Mr Naccius, why is there Global Warming on Mars if the global warming here is man-made? Of course, stupid (bleep) that he is, he can't answer the question unless there's something in it in his crib notes from GetOffMyAss.org. Charles Grozny >> I could say the 'scientists' at the IPCC are the ones with a tenuous >> grasp, since they pretty much ignore a million year's worth of data. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > And I want to know from Mr Naccius, why is there Global Warming on Mars if > the global warming here is man-made? The Mars Rover, of course. We introduced a foreign body to Mars and the planet is trying to rid itself of it. It IS, after all, an All Terrain Vehicle, and we know how bad THOSE are for the environment!! Also, the other vehicles we've placed (or crashed) on Mars are slowly releasing their deadly CO2 into the atmosphere. It really was an evil experiment coordinated by NASA to see what would happen if 100PPM of CO2 were released into the Martian atmosphere... >>> I could say the 'scientists' at the IPCC are the ones with a tenuous >>> grasp, since they pretty much ignore a million year's worth of data. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > experiment coordinated by NASA to see what would happen if 100PPM of CO2 > were released into the Martian atmosphere... Lucius Noxious would have to smoke a lot of blunts to get that stoned. . . . That's all I've got to say. Charles Grozny >>> Hachiroku ???? wrote: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 172 lines] > > Charles Grozny The main factor determining climate on Mars is variation in albedo, due to surface changes caused by dust storms. Here's an abstract for a recent paper in Nature that talks about it: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v446/n7136/abs/nature05718.html And another interesting paper from JGR: http://www.gps.caltech.edu/uploads/File/People/mir/Szwast_JGR2005JE002485.pdf I assume that the implication of your question is that the warming on Mars is due to solar variation and the same variation is responsible for the warming we've been seeing here on Earth. Sorry, but unfortunately that's not borne out by the data. Generally when making that assertion, skeptics point to this paper: http://www.mps.mpg.de/dokumente/publikationen/solanki/c153.pdf which finds a strong correlation between sunspot number (as a proxy for solar irradiation) and global mean temperature. What the skeptics neglect to point out however is the final paragraph of the paper: Note that the most recent warming, since around 1975, has not been considered in the above correlations. During these last 30 years the solar total irradiance, solar UV ir- radiance and cosmic ray flux has not shown any significant secular trend, so that at least this most recent warming episode must have another source. >>>>>>> Whatever is causing up to an 8 degree C drop isn't going to be influenced >>>>>>> much by 100PPM CO2. Are you Al Gore or something? You're not making sense. [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Only because you say, No they aren't. Huh? I have no idea what you're trying to say. What am I saying aren't? Aren't what? >>>>> I'll bet it doesn't have a lot to do with CO2 levels. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > So, why are we going to fry this time? This is what all the 'scientists' > are telling us. Fry? I don't think I've heard a single scientist use the word "fry" in this context. If you're asking why a glacial period isn't going to be triggered, that's simple, and it's a question I've answered repeatedly. The initial effect that triggers the initiation of the feedback loops that result in the glacial period is of a relatively small magnitude. The effect of the additional atmospheric CO2 is measurably greater. >>>>> The chart is so close that it's hard to tell if CO2 is causing warming, or >>>>> warming is causing CO2. My bet is the latter. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > It is not 'widely accepted' and if you'd stop looking at the IPCC and > blogs and Al Gore, you might see this. There is PLENTY of dissent. It is widely accepted. By scientists, certainly. And by the skeptics that actually have some clue about science. I read various skeptics blogs occasionally to see if they've got anything interesting. The basics of the glacial cycle are not in dispute. >>>>> And there are plenty of real scientists not being paid to promote GW that >>>>> say temperature is the leading factor, too. [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > is the blink of an eye. 100 years is 100mS. Yes, it is going to be > 'sudden'. In terms of Earth science. You're constantly making cracks about the necessity to have warm clothing for the coming ice age. >>> 100PPM is nothing. 150PPM is nothing. >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > The IPCC is a political organization. No agendas there! It's a political and scientific organization. And if the IPCC has said the same things I'm saying, then good for them, because they got the science right. >>>>> Of course, the simple answer is Temp leads CO2. When the temp drops, CO2 >>>>> drops. Not vice-versa. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > And they seem to occur fairly regularly, don't they? Of course. Because the triggers happen fairly regularly. Remember the Milankovitch cycle? >>> Seems the fact is, you really don't know what you're talking about at all >>> and get your info from blogs, the IPCC and a few 'scientists' with agendas [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > since my viewpoint disagrees with yours, I'm wrong. There is only one way, > and that is the Politically Correct way! You're sounding like a bad caricature of a liberal: "My viewpoint is just as valid as yours!" Sorry, but that's not how it works. You're wrong neither because your viewpoint disagrees with mine, nor because it's politically incorrect; you're wrong because your viewpoint disagrees with the facts. Science isn't some nebulous, politically correct, touchy-feely thing where everyone's viewpoint is equally valid and they all get gold stars just for trying. If your viewpoint is laughable, then it's going to be laughed at. > Problem is, the Earth doesn't understand Political Correctness. It does > what it does and nothing will stop it. Short of a catastrophe, of course. > And 100PPM CO2 is not a catastrophe. Okay, then, in that case quantify it. The Milankovitch cycle is very predictable. Determining the forcing effect of the cycle is fairly straightforward. Likewise the forcing effect of that additional 107 (and climbing) ppmv can also be calculated. What are the numbers? >> At the very least, you should skim >> through some of the skeptics' websites. They usually [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I could say the 'scientists' at the IPCC are the ones with a tenuous > grasp, since they pretty much ignore a million year's worth of data. And you once again illustrate your ignorance. No one is ignoring a "million year's worth of data". Studying that million years of data (and many millions more besides) is what paleoclimatologists do. And what they learn informs everyone else that's researching climate change. It's integral to understanding current processes and to modeling past and future changes. Ask anyone involved in climate research of any kind, and I can assure you, their grasp of climate history will be far superior to yours. >>> Respond when you get your a.s out of the Global Warming bandwagon. > Tangential to this conversation... whenever we get a cold snap, the "it > can't be global warming, or at least none of it is caused by people's [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > 80's today in April, & either tying or breaking the day's record for temp, > but I don't see anyone posting about it. Huh...not surprising?? ;-P It's rather amusing to look at the neo-con web sites like that of the Heritage Foundation. On the one hand, they finally do acknowledge what all the scientists agree on in terms of the human impact on global warming, but they just can't resist throwing in things like "2008 was cooler." In any case, it's good to see that the "global warming is a myth" junk science kooks have been discredited, and now the debate has now moved on to a) how much of the warming is caused by humans?, b) what, if anything, should be done about it?, and c) how much will it cost? There aren't any remaining scientists that are denying the human contribution to global warming. >> Tangential to this conversation... whenever we get a cold snap, the "it >> can't be global warming, or at least none of it is caused by people's [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > warming, but they just can't resist throwing in things like "2008 was > cooler." It's actually been cooler for a couple years now. The high point was 2003-2004. > In any case, it's good to see that the "global warming is a myth" junk > science kooks have been discredited, You kind of need to look again. There is more and more evidence the Global Warming K00L-Aid drinkers are the K00Ks. > and now the debate has now moved on > to a) how much of the warming is caused by humans?, b) what, if > anything, should be done about it?, and c) how much will it cost? > > There aren't any remaining scientists that are denying the human > contribution to global warming. You don't look too hard, do you? Stop going to the IPCC for information. >>> Tangential to this conversation... whenever we get a cold snap, the "it >>> can't be global warming, or at least none of it is caused by people's [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > It's actually been cooler for a couple years now. The high point was > 2003-2004. No it wasn't. In fact, 2005 was warmer than either 2003 or 2004. >> In any case, it's good to see that the "global warming is a myth" junk >> science kooks have been discredited, > > You kind of need to look again. There is more and more evidence the Global > Warming K00L-Aid drinkers are the K00Ks. "more and more evidence" you say, and yet you never present a shred of it here. >> and now the debate has now moved on >> to a) how much of the warming is caused by humans?, b) what, if [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > You don't look too hard, do you? So why don't you list a couple of them and give us a brief summary of their arguments. > Stop going to the IPCC for information. The IPCC is a pretty good starting point for information, even though they did have to water down their report for political reasons. >> Stop going to the IPCC for information. > > The IPCC is a pretty good starting point for information, > even though they did have to water down their report for > political reasons. This is the best joke I've heard in years! >>> Stop going to the IPCC for information. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > This is the best joke I've heard in years! As reported in the right-wing New York Times and conservative Los Angeles Times. Signature"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great Nation was founded not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ.” -- Patrick Henry >>>> Stop going to the IPCC for information. >>> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > As reported in the right-wing New York Times and conservative Los > Angeles Times. Was it? Perhaps it was. I heard it from one of the scientists on the panel. >>>>> Stop going to the IPCC for information. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Was it? Perhaps it was. I heard it from one of the > scientists on the panel. That explains a lot. Ask him what he'd be doing for a living if he weren't paid by the IPCC with grants. >>>> Stop going to the IPCC for information. >>> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > As reported in the right-wing New York Times and conservative Los > Angeles Times. Guess he forgot the "I" stands for Intergovernmental... >>>>> Stop going to the IPCC for information. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Guess he forgot the "I" stands for Intergovernmental... As of January 20th, that applies to both NY and LA Times are in that circle, as well as overlapping into intragovernmental. Signature"The highest glory of the American Revolution was this: 'It connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity.' " -- John Adams >>>>>> Hachiroku $B%O%A%m%/(B wrote: >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >> > Sure--you have about as good a grip as you do on climate change. Haven;t you ever heard of pole shifting? Pole Shift & Pole Reversal in 2012 In 2012 the next polar reversal will take place on earth. This means that the North Pole will be changed into the South Pole. Scientifically this can only be explained by the fact that the earth will start rotating in the opposite direction, together with a huge disaster of unknown proportions. In my books I reveal the immense cataclysm that is going to torment the earth in the near future. It is presently assumed by most people and the general scientific world at large, that the rotation of the Earth is stable, however, as expounded in my previous works on this subject, this is not the case. The gruesome reports of the previous catastrophes should, hopefully, be clear to all. The historical exploration of cosmology in previous books is founded on the translation of hieroglyphs, cracking of codes, unveiling of the magnetic reversal of the sun, study of old maps, decoding of astronomical clues, geological research, and the discovery of the most exciting archaeological find in modern times. Considering these I came to the following conclusions: 1. With clock-like regularity, sudden reversals and pole shifts are natural to the Earth. The result is worldwide destruction, and is supported by paleo-magnetic evidence and early manuscripts. 2. The reversal of the poles is attributed to the harmonic cycle of the magnetic fields of the sun. 3. Polar reversals can be calculated precisely on the basis of the sunspot cycle theory or the magnetic field theory, which the Maya and the Old Egyptians were privy to. These secrets are contained in the Labyrinth of Hawara, a huge complex consisting of three thousand rooms. Ooops. Bad example. That guy's K00Kier than Al Gore. Must be an April Fool's joke...I hope... This is a little more believable: North Magnetic Pole Is Shifting Rapidly Toward Russia Brian Vastag for National Geographic News December 15, 2005 Santa better check his compass, because the North Pole is shifting—the north magnetic pole, that is, not the geographical one. New research shows the pole moving at rapid clip—25 miles (40 kilometers) a year. Over the past century the pole has moved 685 miles (1,100 kilometers) from Arctic Canada toward Siberia, says Joe Stoner, a paleomagnetist at Oregon State University. At its current rate the pole could move to Siberia within the next half-century, Stoner said. "It's moving really fast," he said. "We're seeing something that hasn't happened for at least 500 years." Now, what might you think happen when the pole changes position. If you said, "Gee, it get warmer in some areas and colder in others!" you'd be on the right track. Furthermore: Not a Reversal The shift is likely a normal oscillation of the Earth's magnetic field, Stoner said, and not the beginning of a flip-flop of the north and south magnetic poles, a phenomenon that last occurred 780,000 years ago. Such reversals have taken place 400 times in the last 330 million years, according to magnetic clues sealed in rocks around the world. Each reversal takes a thousand years or more to complete. "People like to think something special is happening in their lifetimes, but despite the dramatic changes, I don't see any evidence of it," Stoner said. "It's probably just a normal wandering of the pole." Here's more: History and archeological evidence reminds us that the North pole was once warm and warm areas were once cold. Of course the last ice age (disappeared 10,000 years ago) made most of the planet cold. A shift in the North pole towards the Himalayas is one scenario. Pole wander- mantle shift, name it and calaim it. If the events of 2012 (galactic crossing) prove themselves out as many scientists think, then we have a totally different planet. Of course the moving of the North pole as above, moves the South pole moves North and West. We wind up with a warmer Scotland and a much warmer Canada where crops can be planted. Ooops. Sorry. Another K00K. This one makes Al Gore look intelligent... Try this: The magnetic poles have been in and out of the news over the last couple of years. This time, the story is the north magnetic pole—it's quickly moving away from North America towards Siberia, where it will end up within 50 years should current trends continue. It is unknown whether this is just part of its normal oscillation, or if the shifting is the beginning of a more dramatic pole-swap. Typically these swaps occur once every 250,000 years or so—we are about 530,000 years overdue for one. Well, this one's a little more believable... Still more believable: Explanation: A magnetic compass does not point toward the true North Pole of the Earth. Rather, it more closely points toward the North Magnetic Pole of the Earth. The North Magnetic Pole is currently located in northern Canada. It wanders in an elliptical path each day, and moves, on the average, more than forty meters northward each day. Evidence indicates that the North Magnetic Pole has wandered over much of the Earth's surface in the 4.5 billion years since the Earth formed. The Earth's magnetic field is created by Earth's partially ionized outer core, which rotates more rapidly than the Earth's surface. Indicated in the above picture is Ellef Ringnes Island, the location of Earth's North Magnetic Pole in 1994. http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap040919.html So, it seems once again the North Pole (magnetic) is on the move. The geographic pole remains the same, but the shifting of the magnetic pole has an effect on weather patterns. And, you used the term 'climate change'. That term came into being when the Alarmists began to realize that it might just be a normal cycle and didn't want to look totally foolish. >>>>>>> Hachiroku $B%O%A%m%/(B wrote: >>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > Haven;t you ever heard of pole shifting? snip You know, and I apologize in advance, but you may have more in common with Chuckie than you might care to admit. Meanwhile, next time you go googling, check out Plate Tectonics. >>>>>>>> Hachiroku $B%O%A%m%/(B wrote: >>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > Meanwhile, next time you go googling, check out Plate Tectonics. I know about plate tectonics. I wrote a 12 page paper about it. But PT doesn't have anything to do with either the magnetic pole or the geographic pole movement. The geographic pole is the actual pole (axis) the earth spins on. The plates can move, but they don't take the axis pole with them. The magnetic pole wanders all the time, but usually only a kilometer or two at a time. Again, has nothing to do with the position of the plates. It DOES have to do with the magnetic field of the earth, and the magnetic field moving can have drastic effects. The fist snippet I posted, the guy's a little overboard (trying to match the different ancient calendars such as the Mayan calendar and the pole swap with the end on Life As We Know It all abruptly halting on Whatever 21st, 2012. Think he listens to his Rice Krispies too much...) but pole swaps have happened in the past. Don't think I want to be around when one of those happens. This time, the magnetic pole looks like it's on a relocation mission. Those have happened before, too. At one time, between PT and polar wander the mag. NP was somewhere in Nebraska. The poles were aligned fairly closely in recent history, and recordable history at that. The observation that it's wandering so far seems to indicate an actual relocation. >>>>>>>>> Hachiroku $B%O%A%m%/(B wrote: >>>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > his Rice Krispies too much...) but pole swaps have happened in the past. > Don't think I want to be around when one of those happens. Let me make sure I understand you correctly. When you say above "but pole swaps have happened in the past", are you referring to the geographic pole? I wouldn't have though so, but just below you mention magnetic pole movement and then say "those have happened before, too" as if to differentiate from the previous polar swap you were talking about. > This time, the magnetic pole looks like it's on a relocation mission. > Those have happened before, too. At one time, between PT and polar wander > the mag. NP was somewhere in Nebraska. The poles were aligned fairly > closely in recent history, and recordable history at that. The observation > that it's wandering so far seems to indicate an actual relocation. >> The magnetic pole wanders all the time, but usually only a kilometer or >> two at a time. Again, has nothing to do with the position of the plates. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >> This time, the magnetic pole looks like it's on a relocation mission. >> Those have happened before, too. I was differentiating between pole wandering and pole relocation. >>>>>>>>> Hachiroku $B%O%A%m%/(B wrote: >>>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > I know about plate tectonics. I wrote a 12 page paper about it. Good, then you can appreciate multiple theories for various phenomena such as evidence for mild climates at current ice cap locations. There are lots of theories "floating" around for lots of stuff. > But PT doesn't have anything to do with either the magnetic pole or the > geographic pole movement. The geographic pole is the actual pole (axis) [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > closely in recent history, and recordable history at that. The observation > that it's wandering so far seems to indicate an actual relocation. screw "earth day"!! It is a bunch of political rhetorical bullshit, propaganda aimed at little kids for the purpose of brainwashing them. Signature"It's deja vu all over again" Yogi Berra > > screw "earth day"!! It is a bunch of political rhetorical bullshit, > propaganda aimed at little kids for the purpose of brainwashing them. I participated in the first Earth Day. Back then it was not littering. Interesting how a few years ago at an Earth Day celebration they had to hire a crew to come in and clean the place up afterwards... On Apr 23, 7:56 am, "badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolfer...@gmail.com> wrote: > >I was wondering what I could do to celebrate Earth Day when, after > >driving 25 miles at 70MPH the oil pooled in the valve stem seals and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > How do they know that day is Earth's birthday? The same way we know December 25 is Christ's birthday - we made it up. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.