NickW + 2,714 NW February 19, 2019 1 minute ago, skeptic said: where is your evidence man can control weather, wind, rainfall or climatr? The 1940 - 1970 'cool period' has been attributed towards Anthropogenic emissions of aersols such as Sulphur Dioxide Evidence (here are a few of many) https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0850.1 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17739641 https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2016GL071941 http://www.pas.va/content/dam/accademia/pdf/sv106/sv106-ramanathan.pdf 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Illurion + 894 IG February 19, 2019 11 minutes ago, Red said: Can you please translate that into English. You taking a sentence and cutting off the end is not very bright... As for translating something into English, what good what that do, as you do not seem to understand English, since you question what everyone posts, no matter how well written it is... 1 3 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Michael Marble + 5 February 19, 2019 OK....A: For every tree cut down they plant 2. B: These trucks are the exception, not the rule. They are obviously not using highway diesel. C: Please show me the catastrophic flooding due to global warming, and tornados have continued to fall in amount and intensity. D: Explain why under the melting glaciers in Greenland are exposing Viking homes. Meaning Greenland was green 500 years ago. E: at that time, England was the big wine producer, not France. Conclusion: The climate goes in varying cycles, regardless of our pollution. We have made great strides to reduce pollution, and will continue to. It is not, though, causing the end of the world. That thinking process though makes great movies. 1 2 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Illurion + 894 IG February 19, 2019 10 minutes ago, skeptic said: where is your evidence man can control weather, wind, rainfall or climate? get ready Skeptic, he will now respond with a whole bunch of silly links to alleged peer-reviewed garbage that has been debunked... 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Red + 252 RK February 19, 2019 2 minutes ago, Illurion said: You taking a sentence and cutting off the end is not very bright... As for translating something into English, what good what that do, as you do not seem to understand English, since you question what everyone posts, no matter how well written it is... Ok, how about you copy the sentence again and prove that I did what you claim. As to your other point, I cannot meaningfully respond to nonsense without calling it nonsense, and Rodent does not like that. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skeptic + 6 pn February 19, 2019 (edited) If I must explain... I;m skeptical man can control, affect, the weather which includes rainfall, wind, heat, storms, hurricanes etc,., and certainly not the climate Edited February 19, 2019 by skeptic typo 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Red + 252 RK February 19, 2019 6 minutes ago, Michael Marble said: Conclusion: The climate goes in varying cycles, regardless of our pollution. We have made great strides to reduce pollution, and will continue to. It is not, though, causing the end of the world. That thinking process though makes great movies. Climate science has published extensively on climate cycles - nothing new there. However, the present cycle of warming goes against what would be otherwise termed "natural variation." That thinking process seems to be missing in action from reviewing many posts at this site. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NickW + 2,714 NW February 19, 2019 3 minutes ago, Michael Marble said: OK....A: For every tree cut down they plant 2. B: These trucks are the exception, not the rule. They are obviously not using highway diesel. 😄 Please show me the catastrophic flooding due to global warming, and tornados have continued to fall in amount and intensity. 😧 Explain why under the melting glaciers in Greenland are exposing Viking homes. Meaning Greenland was green 500 years ago. E: at that time, England was the big wine producer, not France. Conclusion: The climate goes in varying cycles, regardless of our pollution. We have made great strides to reduce pollution, and will continue to. It is not, though, causing the end of the world. That thinking process though makes great movies. A. Very good B. See my previous comment C. One for Red D. On the coastal Margins whereas the interior has been covered in km's of ice for 100,000s years. The Icelandic Greenland settlements had been abandoned by the 15th Century so those homes were somewhat older than 500 years. The reasons for a milder climate affecting the coastal margins are well known - wind patterns and ocean circulation E. Yes - because transport costs made transporting wine prohibitively expensive. Once transport costs fell the commerical viability of large scale English viticulture diminished. I suspect france has always been a major wine producer - I will assign your comment on that to OP.com hokum. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NickW + 2,714 NW February 19, 2019 9 minutes ago, Illurion said: get ready Skeptic, he will now respond with a whole bunch of silly links to alleged peer-reviewed garbage that has been debunked... Perhaps you can show the evidence it has been debunked as Garbage then. Happy to see the evidence to back this claim up. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Red + 252 RK February 19, 2019 6 minutes ago, skeptic said: If I must explain... I;m skeptical man can control, affect, the weather which includes rainfall, wind, heat, storms, hurricanes etc., "Affect" is not "control" - climate science is about affects. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Old-Ruffneck + 1,245 er February 19, 2019 1 hour ago, NickW said: Incorrect. The bulk of that carbon particulate has aerodynamic diameters of less than 1 micron which means its very mobile with a longer residence time in the atmosphere. Its also a great carrier for a variety of nasties in diesel exhaust - Aldehydes, PAH's, VOC's heavy metals etc. From a health effect perspective this means it easily gets into the respirable zone of the lungs and can potentially cross the blood brain barrier where those nasties can do their work. http://courses.washington.edu/cive494/DieselParticleSize.pdf Okay NickW, I read the article. The black soot out of those trucks what I as referring too doesn't fit the narrative in the pdf. Those two semi's are dumping about 4 times plus amount of fuel, we call em smokers, and is mostly unburned fuel very large particle size, obviously as you can see it. Black Carbon soot. Normal diesel trucks just running down the interstates the particulates are collected on some trucks and burned off later. Some use DEF to subdue the nitrous oxide from diesel but now they are starting to figure out it is putting out different pollutants. Hard to change internal combustion diesel without consequences. YouTube rolling coal, amusing.. 1 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Illurion + 894 IG February 19, 2019 1 hour ago, Red said: Climate science has published extensively on climate cycles - nothing new there. However, the present cycle of warming goes against what would be otherwise termed "natural variation." That thinking process seems to be missing in action from reviewing many posts at this site. there is no "current cycle of warming" , and the "alleged" cycle of warming (aka: hockeystick) that was earlier written about in various studies is said to have ended almost 10 years ago according to recent articles from NASA and NOAA... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Illurion + 894 IG February 19, 2019 1 hour ago, Red said: "Affect" is not "control" - climate science is about affects. irrelevant... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Red + 252 RK February 19, 2019 1 minute ago, Illurion said: there is no "current cycle of warming" , and the "alleged" cycle of warming (aka: hockeystick) that was earlier written about in various studies is said to have ended almost 10 years ago according to recent articles from NASA and NOAA... You consistently make claims without any rational basis. Here's one of many charts from a climate science authority: 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Illurion + 894 IG February 19, 2019 1 hour ago, NickW said: Perhaps you can show the evidence it has been debunked as Garbage then. Happy to see the evidence to back this claim up. well, lets see, here are some: http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/11/20/massively-altered-german-professor-examines-nasa-giss-temperature-datasets/ http://www.climatedepot.com/2019/02/18/no-climate-change-is-not-wiping-out-the-worlds-insects-most-oft-quoted-study-turns-out-to-be-flawed-to-the-point-of-uselessness/ http://www.climatedepot.com/2019/02/18/nasa-hides-page-saying-the-sun-was-the-primary-climate-driver/ http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/11/19/whistleblowers-claim-noaa-rushed-contentious-pause-buster-study-despite-reservations/ http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/11/18/noaagate-now-has-whistleblowers-house-threatens-to-subpoena-commerce-secretary/ http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/11/18/flashback-1948-west-antarctic-ice-sheet-was-rapidly-melting-remarkable-thinning-considerably-reduced/ http://www.climatedepot.com/2019/02/16/climate-swamp-green-new-deal-accepts-climate-junk-science-seeks-decarbonization-as-national-policy/ http://www.climatedepot.com/2019/02/14/analysis-finds-oceans-have-become-less-acidic-with-rising-co2-challenging-the-acidification-narrative/ http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/11/18/oops-sea-level-rise-from-antarctic-collapse-may-be-slower-than-suggested/ and if i wanted to, i could post hundreds of others........ But what good would it do........ FACTS MEAN NOTHING TO YOU........ You and Pink often quote your "97% of Scientists Support Global Warming" statistic despite that numerous articles, and polls have stated that it is NOT TRUE... You are believers of the CULT of Global Warming.... That is fine......... Believe what you want...... But please stop harassing all of us that are not part of your cult......... 2 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Illurion + 894 IG February 19, 2019 15 minutes ago, Red said: You consistently make claims without any rational basis. Here's one of many charts from a climate science authority: fake 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Illurion + 894 IG February 19, 2019 (edited) 34 minutes ago, Red said: You consistently make claims without any rational basis. Here's one of many charts from a climate science authority: Easy proof of the falseness, and obviously fake and biased manipulation of the data is the current MILD TEMPERATURES IN THE SAME AREA AS THE 1930'S "DUST BOWL" DISASTERS.... The temperatures were far hotter then than they are now, causing massive crop losses and damage.... YET YOUR FAKE CHART SHOWS THE TEMPERATURE INCREASE DURING THAT MID 1930'S DISASTER ARE "HALF OF WHAT THE "ALLEGED TEMPERATURE INCREASES ARE TODAY." excuse me, but i do not read anywhere about another "DUST BOWL" going on in the Midwest that is twice as bad as the 1930's.................! This chart is absolute garbage.... I have a minor in accounting, and my Professors used to call this kind of crap "LS"... which means: "LIARS STATISTICS" ...... Edited February 19, 2019 by Illurion 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Illurion + 894 IG February 19, 2019 (edited) 2 hours ago, Red said: "Affect" is not "control" - climate science is about affects. wrong......... climate science isn't real science........ what is called "climate science" is merely the arrangement of raw data statistics..... the resulting statistics can be interpreted in any way that you want to interpret them depending on how you arrange and compute the statistics....... In the end, it is just an algorithm, and means whatever you want it to mean........ Now, BIOLOGY, THAT IS SCIENCE.......... ASTRONOMY IS SCIENCE.......... THE WEATHER MAN IS STILL JUST GUESSWORK.......... Edited February 20, 2019 by Illurion Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Red + 252 RK February 19, 2019 1 minute ago, Illurion said: Easy proof of the falseness, and obviously fake and biased manipulation of the data is the current MILD TEMPERATURES IN THE SAME AREA AS THE 1930'S "DUST BOWL" DISASTERS.... The temperatures were far hotter then than they are now, causing massive crop losses and damage.... YET YOUR FAKE CHART SHOWS THE TEMPERATURE INCREASE DURING THAT MID 1930'S DISASTER ARE "HALF OF WHAT THE "ALLEGED TEMPERATURE INCREASES ARE TODAY." excuse me, but i do not read anywhere about another "DUST BOWL" going on in the Midwest that is twice as bad as the 1930's.................! This chart is absolute garbage.... I have a minor in accounting, and my Professors used to call this kind of crap "LS"... which means: "LIARS STATISTICS" ...... If you want to make a claim, then prove your point. Climate is a global issue, so your references to weather effects in the USA are of no relevance. You have never been able to substantiate your claims in relation to climate matters. You epitomise the community that deny climate science while having no idea what it entails. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Illurion + 894 IG February 19, 2019 6 minutes ago, Red said: If you want to make a claim, then prove your point. I just did....... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Red + 252 RK February 19, 2019 26 minutes ago, Illurion said: You and Pink often quote your "97% of Scientists Support Global Warming" statistic despite that numerous articles, and polls have stated that it is NOT TRUE... One of your many continuing themes of FALSE claims. AGW theory exists irrespective of consensus. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Red + 252 RK February 19, 2019 2 minutes ago, Illurion said: I just did....... I have read all your linked articles. Not a single one explains why the planet is continuing to warm when natural variation should have had it cooling. You provided nothing meaningful. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Old-Ruffneck + 1,245 er February 19, 2019 12 minutes ago, Red said: I have read all your linked articles. Not a single one explains why the planet is continuing to warm when natural variation should have had it cooling. You provided nothing meaningful. who says the planet is continuing to warm? The same scientists we are all suppose to believe because they say so? Natural variation should have it cooling? Prove it's not. What you feel is meaningful to me is pure garbage. Drill baby Drill. Stoke them coal plants with cheap coal. I think the world could use about 5+ degrees in the Midwest USA. Might be able to get 2 sets of corn in per season. 1 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Illurion + 894 IG February 20, 2019 21 minutes ago, Red said: AGW theory exists irrespective of consensus. LOL...... In other words, you are admitting that there is NO CONSENSUS ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING.... you say THE THEORY EXISTS REGARDLESS OF WHETHER ANYONE BELIEVES IT IS CORRECT OR NOT......! What silly stuff...... You remind me of the old Star Trek episode about the computer that uses mind control on the human population.... LANDREU................. Once the computer was destroyed, the people were free to think...... Well, when Trump is through draining the swamp, which is the equivalent of destroying the computer, and the liars statistics of global warming are destroyed, and the perps exposed, then the people will be free to think, BUT THEY WILL HAVE ACTUAL DATA TO THINK ABOUT THAT IS VERIFIED AND TRUE............... NOT MANIPULATED GARBAGE LIKE NOW........... i look forward to that..... 2 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Illurion + 894 IG February 20, 2019 30 minutes ago, Red said: I have read all your linked articles. Not a single one explains why the planet is continuing to warm when natural variation should have had it cooling. You provided nothing meaningful. Thats because the planet isn't warming.......... 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Most Active Members
Recently Online
Popular Members
Most Active Members
Recently Online
Popular Members
