The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Gun Dog Broker
Page 28 of 45 FirstFirst ... 18262728293038 ... LastLast
Results 271 to 280 of 442

Thread: Speaking of Global Warming

  1. #271
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Detroit Lakes, MN
    Posts
    1,372

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by road kill View Post
    I did indeed cut and paste the wrong article.
    My BAD!!!
    Though it appears the Antarctic is even more robust than the arctic.
    I still didn't post 3 links all referencing the same PBS article!

    http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/10/...ice-over-2012/

    Yet you still insist the globe is warming.

    I couldn't possibly have a legit point becuase, well becuase you are a true believer, so you must be right.

    After all, I listened to Rush once, so I couldn't know anything!
    I posted four links. One was a PBS story. In your previous post you said I referenced it 2 times, now it is 3 times. Can't count, can't spell, and started this all by posting the wrong story. Were you drinking early today? How bout those Packers and Badgers!

    The climate depot article is a nice weather report. Funny how you cling to a single year rebound well below the long term average (6th lowest extent on record) as proof that things are not trending downward. http://www.natureworldnews.com/artic...6th-lowest.htm and

  2. #272
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,910

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by road kill View Post
    Hey, Global Warming enthusiats......didn't Al Gore tell us in '07 that the arctic circle would be GONE by '13??


    In fact, hasn't the arctic circle actually grown by 30% since then??
    "Settled science" and all.



    Just askin'............
    You ought to spend more time readin' and understandin' and less time "just askin'.........."
    Try readin' and understandin' your entire source. Focus on the 2nd to last paragraph

    Then tell us what it REALLY means

  3. #273
    Senior Member Gerry Clinchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    6,169

    Default

    Keep reading the climate change stuff, but saw one commentary in one article that was quite thoughtful: all the models proposed have been able to tell us what happened in the past, but they have not been really good about telling us what will happen in the future.

    A recent article in American Thinker (I think) also reviewed history WRT climate conditions and found that agriculture and civilization, in general, fared better in warming trends and fared worse in cooling trends.

    It could mean that man simply adapts and migrates to those areas of the planet that are most hospitable and beneficial to their needs. I'd say that homo sapiens is pretty adaptable. We know that Greenland was once arable land, and is now mostly ice. Humans seem to have adjusted to the change.

    The big issue in all of this is whether it is man's increasing CO2 that is causing this ... or not. There was certainly very solid evidence for our combatting acid rain and ozone. I'm not yet convinced that CO2 is in that same kind of category.

    As an aside, I stumbled across one of those slide shows on some site ... it had maybe 100 luxury homes of rich people, mostly Hollywood types ... homes in Hollywood, Malibu and some other high-ticket areas. I flipped through them quickly and on only one of those homes did I see any solar panels (and I'm not sure they really were solar panels) Aren't these the same people who want us to save the planet from CO2? Don't they have any social conscience when it comes to their own carbon footprint? How many solar panels on Al Gore's residence(s)? The POTUS is putting solar panels on the White House. Wonder if he will spend some of his own money to put them on his home(s)? God knows, he's got plenty of friends in the business.
    G.Clinchy@gmail.com
    "Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

    ​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

  4. #274
    Senior Member road kill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    New Berlin, WI
    Posts
    10,196

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Henry V View Post
    I posted four links. One was a PBS story. In your previous post you said I referenced it 2 times, now it is 3 times. Can't count, can't spell, and started this all by posting the wrong story. Were you drinking early today? How bout those Packers and Badgers!

    The climate depot article is a nice weather report. Funny how you cling to a single year rebound well below the long term average (6th lowest extent on record) as proof that things are not trending downward. http://www.natureworldnews.com/artic...6th-lowest.htm and


    Hey Henry V,
    I tried to post something on my smart phone and royally screwed it up.
    The smart phone out smarted me.

    My point was that in 2007 Al Gore predicted the Arctic ice shelf would be gone by 2013.
    It actually grew in the last year, did it not?

    Henry, I respect that you stay on topic and never issue any personal insults or attacks.
    We just happen to disagree on HOW the climate is changing and what the reasons are!

    I bow to your superior "cut & paste" skills!

  5. #275
    Senior Member Brad Turner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    539

    Default

    Gerry,
    I would have to disagree with your statement that we are pretty adaptable. In particular your example of the Norse in Greenland. The Norse settled Greenland during an unusually warm period, so their European lifestyle was applicable at first. Shortly after settlement, the temperatures cooled to the "normal" conditions. This made raising livestock (cattle, sheep, etc.) unsustainable. They refused to adopt the practices of the inuit natives whom they would have, undoubtedly, observed hunting seals, whales, and fishing. Excavations in Greenland show a surprising lack fish bones. Archaeological evidence shows that the original Norse settlers simply vanished. There is no record of what happened to them, but we know they did not stay in Greenland.
    For more information on the Norse and other peoples throughout history that have perished, I would refer you to "Collapse" by Jared Diamond. He also wrote "Guns, Germs, and Steel," which is also quite informative.
    Mioaks Southbound Sammy JH
    Leatherwood's Here's Your One Chance Fancy

    "Luck is the residue of design"- Branch Rickey

  6. #276
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,910

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by road kill View Post
    Hey Henry V,
    I tried to post something on my smart phone and royally screwed it up.
    The smart phone out smarted me.

    My point was that in 2007 Al Gore predicted the Arctic ice shelf would be gone by 2013.
    It actually grew in the last year, did it not?

    Henry, I respect that you stay on topic and never issue any personal insults or attacks.
    We just happen to disagree on HOW the climate is changing and what the reasons are!

    I bow to your superior "cut & paste" skills!
    Hey Stan, it seems that whenever anyone posts any study or source that isn't in lockstep with the echo chamber members of POTUS, that the study gets dismissed as false and part of a "liberal MSM agenda"

    It's sort of confusing in light of your blunders on the posting of your study and your errors in the critiquing of Henry V's sources; However I believe that you did finally get your study posted. It contained this blurb that you may have overlooked:


    "Moreover, the mere extent of sea ice does not necessarily say something about the volume of the ice, because that also depends on the thickness of the frozen layer. And the vast majority of the Antarctic ice mass is located on the Antarctic continent – and there the ice has decreased in recent years as a whole, particularly in West Antarctica."

    I'm Assuming you finally got it right & that quote is from your source and not from a source with a "liberal Mainstream Media agenda". If so then how do you interpret that part of your source, and what does your source actually tell us relative to climate change?

  7. #277
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Pac NW
    Posts
    4,057

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mjh345 View Post
    Hey Stan, it seems that whenever anyone posts any study or source that isn't in lockstep with the echo chamber members of POTUS, that the study gets dismissed as false and part of a "liberal MSM agenda"

    It's sort of confusing in light of your blunders on the posting of your study and your errors in the critiquing of Henry V's sources; However I believe that you did finally get your study posted. It contained this blurb that you may have overlooked:


    "Moreover, the mere extent of sea ice does not necessarily say something about the volume of the ice, because that also depends on the thickness of the frozen layer. And the vast majority of the Antarctic ice mass is located on the Antarctic continent and there the ice has decreased in recent years as a whole, particularly in West Antarctica."

    I'm Assuming you finally got it right & that quote is from your source and not from a source with a "liberal Mainstream Media agenda". If so then how do you interpret that part of your source, and what does your source actually tell us relative to climate change?
    Marc - You're supposedly a smart guy though I don't believe practicing law gets you into the science realm. So I'll post a few things of my own.

    1) I don't get any money for this so that would make me unbiased

    2) Many of the studies touted were done for money, you might ask Paul Johnson (a very bright guy) who used to be on here on occasion what happens when you don't get the result the folks were paying you for.

    3) Weather changes we can see that, that's why many of us are skeptical, not because of our political persuasion.

    4) Too many supposed climate enthusiasts have been found to be cooking the books & excluding solid data that makes their theory suspect. Real scientists do not do that , they go back & study what they have to see what is wrong.

    5) Universe time is infinite, our time here is infinitesimal - I've been in this area for about 60 years, the weather patterns have changed - Earlier I mentioned the La Brea Tar Pits, the Saber tooths, Mastodons & dire wolves they are mining out of excavation are thought to have existed 10,000 years ago. What caused them to go extinct?

    There is no need to go into name calling - enough information is available, some from dubious sources, that one could jump on any band wagon they want & have supporters. Some of us who are independent thinkers believe strongly that too much money is being invested in a scheme that is unproven & possibly unprovable.
    __________________________

    Marvin S

    Everyone's friend is No One's friend

    Someday your life will flash before your eyes. It's your responsibility to make sure it's worth watching!

  8. #278
    Senior Member Gerry Clinchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    6,169

    Default

    http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/05/re...lobal-cooling/
    Some German scientists feel that cooling will continue through the 21st century, and some pretty big-time cooling, too.
    German scientists found that two naturally occurring cycles will combine to lower global temperatures during the 21st century, eventually dropping to levels corresponding with the “little ice age” of 1870.


    “Due to the de Vries cycle, the global temperature will drop until 2100 to a value corresponding to the ‘little ice age’ of 1870,” write German scientists Horst-Joachim Luedecke and Carl-Otto Weiss of the European Institute for Climate and Energy.


    Researchers used historical temperature data and data from cave stalagmites to show a 200-year solar cycle, called the de Vries cycle.


    They also factored into their work a well-established 65-year Atlantic and Pacific Ocean oscillation cycle. Global warming that has occurred since 1870 can be attributed almost entirely to both these factors, the scientists argue.


    According to the scientists, the oft-cited “stagnation” in rising global temperatures over the last 15 years is due to the Atlantic and Pacific Ocean oscillation cycle, which lasts about 65 years. Ocean oscillation is past its “maximum,” leading to small decreases in global temperature.


    The de Vries solar cycle is currently at its “maximum,” explaining why temperatures have risen since 1870, but leveled off after 1998. However, this means that as solar activity starts to decrease, global temperatures will follow.


    “Through [the de Vries solar cycle's] influence the temperature will decrease until 2100 to a value like the one of the last ‘Little Ice Age’ 1870,” the scientists wrote.
    I begin to think that the recent discoveries of NG and oil are going to come in handy for heating homes in this cooling period.

    G.Clinchy@gmail.com
    "Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

    ​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

  9. #279
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,910

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marvin S View Post
    Marc - You're supposedly a smart guy though I don't believe practicing law gets you into the science realm. So I'll post a few things of my own.

    1) I don't get any money for this so that would make me unbiased

    2) Many of the studies touted were done for money, you might ask Paul Johnson (a very bright guy) who used to be on here on occasion what happens when you don't get the result the folks were paying you for.

    3) Weather changes we can see that, that's why many of us are skeptical, not because of our political persuasion.

    4) Too many supposed climate enthusiasts have been found to be cooking the books & excluding solid data that makes their theory suspect. Real scientists do not do that , they go back & study what they have to see what is wrong.

    5) Universe time is infinite, our time here is infinitesimal - I've been in this area for about 60 years, the weather patterns have changed - Earlier I mentioned the La Brea Tar Pits, the Saber tooths, Mastodons & dire wolves they are mining out of excavation are thought to have existed 10,000 years ago. What caused them to go extinct?

    There is no need to go into name calling - enough information is available, some from dubious sources, that one could jump on any band wagon they want & have supporters. Some of us who are independent thinkers believe strongly that too much money is being invested in a scheme that is unproven & possibly unprovable.
    Marvin, I had no idea you knew what my undergrad background was in

    My question was pretty simple and relates to Stan's cited study, not to any alleged "bogus studies funded from dubious sources".
    So it appears that Stan won't reply to what his study means; so please use your scientific background and tell me what you think it tells us. Or in the alternative use your scientific chops and tell us whether you think Stan's cited study is from a "bogus source"

  10. #280
    Senior Member coachmo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    857

    Default

    I'm wondering with all of the horrors of global warming how can plenty of places be experiencing record snow fall this year? Just curious.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •