Reply With Quote
I totally agree.
I totally agree.
About which part???
This part.
See how historic CO2 levels and Global Temperature so evenly track!
The correlation is INDISPUTABLE!
Interesting chart. Where'd you get it? Is it in Yoni's original link?
It's a combination of work done by Scortese and Bemer...
Whats funny is.. look at this...
http://www.greenhouse.sa.gov.au/PDFs...ate_Change.pdf
This website COMPLETELY mucked it up to make it SUPPORT current ideology... notice how they switch graphs after the Jurrasic?
You can go to the Prof's individual sites though and confirm the data.
Edit: didnt go to Yoni's link.. no.. I found it here.. www.geocraft.com
Under Articles... Climate and the Carboniferous Period
Last edited by Sec24Row7; 03-12-2007 at 04:06 PM.
What's indisputable is that CO2 concentrations follow temperature changes by roughly 800 years, not the other way around -- as is claimed by priests of the Church of Global Climate Change.
There may be a correlation but, temperature is not being driven by CO2 levels -- it's the other way around.
There's a closer correlation between solar activity and temperature and rises and falls in temperature actually track after increases and decreases in solar activity.
You're so ing blind it's stupid Yonivore...
Think for yourself instead of spueing out Channel 4 UK do entary facts to me.
Look at the graph I posted and see if the statement you copied from me makes sense...
Can you read a graph?
Now... Tell me...
Was I being sarcastic?
That was just as big a Dumb move as NbaDan or Boutons would pull.
LOOK at the data before spewing partisan political bull .
THINK first.
If you're going to insult me, you might try being a little more intelligible.
Timing of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic Temperature Changes Across Termination III
Nicolas Caillon,12* Jeffrey P. Severinghaus,2 Jean Jouzel,1 Jean-Marc Barnola,3 Jiancheng Kang,4 Volodya Y. Lipenkov5
1 Ins ut Pierre Simon Laplace/Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l'Environnement, Commissariat à l'Energie Atomique/CNRS, L'Orme des Merisiers, CEA Saclay, 91191, Gif sur Yvette, France.
2 Scripps Ins ution of Oceanography, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093-0244, USA.
3 Laboratoire de Glaciologie et Géophysique de l'Environnement, CNRS, BP96, 38402, Saint Martin d'Hères, France.
4 Polar Research Ins ute of China, Pudong, Shanghai, 200129, People's Republic of China.
5 Arctic and Antarctic Research Ins ute, Beringa Street 38, 199397 St. Petersburg, Russia.
* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: [email protected]
ROFL... if that wasn't intelligible you need to learn to read more better good.
Okie dokie.
Exactly!
ing Johnny Depp. We MUST stop the release of PoC III (whether it is GW related or not)
Perfectly .... facetious.
This doesnt take into account the little ice age (carribbean pirate explosion) or the midieval warm period (vikings).
Too bad people can't even agree.
However, ice core samples do not go past 800,000 years ago, so that data is pure speculation. This is the only concrete thing:
Which, although there is a large short-term variation, it isn't significantly different from the norm over the speculated data -- yet. It is very off from recent (half million years).
A North Pole expedition meant to bring attention to global warming was called off after one of the explorers got frostbite...
We must stop global warming!
Last edited by Sportcamper; 03-13-2007 at 01:18 PM. Reason: ...
The correlation between the number of pirates and global temperature was quite intriguing.
I'm also happy that someone brought up the Little Ice Age and the warm spells that sandwiched it. Greenland used to be well-settled, but it and the viking settlements at Labrador had to be abandonned when the climate cooled and it got too cold.
George Will had a great article about it recently: the religion of Global Warming is based on a few premises, only one of which is undeniably true (1) that the earth is indeed warming. Of course, we'd have to also agree that (2) we're the cause of it, (3) irreversable and catastrophic damage will happen because of it, ala "Waterworld, (4) if we impose CO2 and CH4 controls, we can reverse it, or at least stop it, and (5) we have the capability to stop it.
Sorry, I'm not a believer. Does this make me a heretic, and a bad person?
Katrina- from a category two to a category 5 over night. Need I say more? Don't make me pull up Gore's graph on yoazzz
Is that sarcasm?
I think I am in a position to talk intelligently about Katrina, if you'll indulge me.
First, I wrote that the only undisputed fact is that the climate is indeed warming. 0.9% deg in 100 years. It's the other 4 premises that are problematic. I don't believe them, anyway.
As for the 2005 hurricane season, it was pretty active. After I evacuated New Orleans before Katrina, I ran into Wilma and then Rita. I know there were some folks out there chalking it up to global warming, but it's not like the data is anywhere near conclusive that there have been more hurricanes today than there were before the Industrial Revolution. Shoot, Galveston was destroyed by more than one hurricane -- 1900 and ... 1912? The 1930s were very active. And we don't even have good records before about 1880.
So let's not go crazy here. Katrina happened. It sucked. I'm still in a trailer because of her. But we are thankful that the 2006 hurricane season was very quiet. We didn't hear much from the global warming crowd last summer.
wasn't katrina a 3 by the time it hit NOLA?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
