rushmc 18 #701 April 21, 2014 and now this from AP QuoteA $500,000 study paid for by the federal government and released Sunday in the peer-reviewed journal Nature Climate Change concludes that biofuels made with corn residue release 7 percent more greenhouse gases in the early years compared with conventional gasoline."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,622 #702 April 21, 2014 rushmcand now this from AP QuoteA $500,000 study paid for by the federal government and released Sunday in the peer-reviewed journal Nature Climate Change concludes that biofuels made with corn residue release 7 percent more greenhouse gases in the early years compared with conventional gasoline. Yep. Corn is a poor choice for fuel.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #703 April 21, 2014 kallend***and now this from AP QuoteA $500,000 study paid for by the federal government and released Sunday in the peer-reviewed journal Nature Climate Change concludes that biofuels made with corn residue release 7 percent more greenhouse gases in the early years compared with conventional gasoline. Yep. Corn is a poor choice for fuel. It is not corn But I do agree with your statement"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #704 April 22, 2014 Good thing the study wasn't paid for by Heartland. Otherwise, the conclusion would be scientifically impossible. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 383 #705 April 23, 2014 Or reported by FOX. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 383 #706 April 27, 2014 kallend ***I didn't WRITE anything, I quoted the climate scientists at NOAA. As I have already pointed out, the relevant post made no mention of North America. By all means continue to grasp at straws. And I wrote: "As usual, brenthutch confuses the contiguous USA with the world and one month's weather with climate. " And your cut and pasted passage is clear indication of this.Continue to wriggle. Apparently I must include a Venn diagram anytime I include any data on North America to preclude a boggling of Kallend's mind. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #707 April 27, 2014 brenthutch ******I didn't WRITE anything, I quoted the climate scientists at NOAA. As I have already pointed out, the relevant post made no mention of North America. By all means continue to grasp at straws. And I wrote: "As usual, brenthutch confuses the contiguous USA with the world and one month's weather with climate. " And your cut and pasted passage is clear indication of this.Continue to wriggle. Apparently I must include a Venn diagram anytime I include any data on North America to preclude a boggling of Kallend's mind. Awwe - don't be so hard on Hodor.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 383 #708 April 28, 2014 I will type slowly and not include any confusing data. Global CO2 at an unprecedented 400 ppm, while the YTD, global land/sea temperatures are cooler !?!? than they were 16 years ago. Who is confused now? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #709 April 28, 2014 brenthutchI will type slowly and not include any confusing data. Global CO2 at an unprecedented 400 ppm, while the YTD, global land/sea temperatures are cooler !?!? than they were 16 years ago. Who is confused now? Maybe he will get it then.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #710 April 28, 2014 QuoteGlobal CO2 at an unprecedented 400 ppm, while the YTD, global land/sea temperatures are cooler !?!? than they were 16 years ago. Why do you pick 16 years ago? How did they compare to temperatures 17 years ago, or 15? - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,391 #711 April 28, 2014 >Why do you pick 16 years ago? How did they compare to temperatures 17 >years ago, or 15? Ssshhh, that data doesn't show what he wants it to show. You have to be very careful with what data you post. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 383 #712 April 29, 2014 Pick your own data set and or date range. While you are at it, reconcile it with CO2 levels. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,622 #713 April 29, 2014 brenthutch ******I didn't WRITE anything, I quoted the climate scientists at NOAA. As I have already pointed out, the relevant post made no mention of North America. By all means continue to grasp at straws. And I wrote: "As usual, brenthutch confuses the contiguous USA with the world and one month's weather with climate. " And your cut and pasted passage is clear indication of this.Continue to wriggle. Apparently I must include a Venn diagram anytime I include any data on North America to preclude a boggling of Kallend's mind. No need for that. Just a little intellectual honesty will suffice.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #714 April 30, 2014 Amazon***Getting their asses kicked by a record low rate of tornados? http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2013/05/09/quiet-tornado-season/2148075/ Give it time.. as things warm up for the year... its still snowing in places and spring is running a wee bit late for lots of the country. It won't be long now and things kick off real nice... What was the cost to our country with the western droughts and arctic East??? http://www.theatlanticcities.com/jobs-and-economy/2014/03/no-relief-sight-drought-ravished-california/8696/ http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/bs-bz-polar-vortex-utility-bills-20140323,0,3457391.story What was the total death toll... it was already at 21 on 8 Jan... http://www.foxnews.com/weather/2014/01/08/polar-vortex-blamed-for-at-least-21-deaths/ HMMMMM looks like things warmed up with a LOT of energy in the system now.... Hope that tornado "drought" prognosticating does not kill a hell of a lot more http://www.bing.com/search?q=2014+tornado+outbreak&qs=AS&sk=AS5&pq=2014+tornado+&sc=8-13&sp=6&FORM=QBLH&cvid=d1cdf36cf6ff4b67b0b878c101432e5b Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,391 #715 April 30, 2014 >Pick your own data set and or date range. See previous diagram. You have to be VERY careful to avoid seeing the long term trends when you are a denier. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #716 April 30, 2014 billvon>Pick your own data set and or date range. See previous diagram. You have to be VERY careful to avoid seeing the long term trends when you are a denier. My long term is about 200,000 years. Show me the data.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,391 #717 April 30, 2014 >My long term is about 200,000 years. My long term is the term of human civilization, since it's unlikely we had anything to do with any climate change before that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #718 April 30, 2014 billvon>My long term is about 200,000 years. My long term is the term of human civilization, since it's unlikely we had anything to do with any climate change before that. I figure the first 1.4M years don't really count . . . . . . But, if you want to disagree with the Smithsonian, you must be better than the scientists there.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #719 April 30, 2014 turtlespeed***>My long term is about 200,000 years. My long term is the term of human civilization, since it's unlikely we had anything to do with any climate change before that. I figure the first 1.4M years don't really count . . . . . . But, if you want to disagree with the Smithsonian, you must be better than the scientists there. And if you don't like THAT reference . . . Here is the one I was thinking of when I wrote the post you responded to.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,391 #720 April 30, 2014 >I figure the first 1.4M years don't really count . . . The earth is MUCH warmer than it was 5 billion years ago. By several hundred degrees. Warming. Case closed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #721 April 30, 2014 billvon>I figure the first 1.4M years don't really count . . . The earth is MUCH warmer than it was 5 billion years ago. By several hundred degrees. Warming. Case closed. You set the parameters - i stepped up and represented - now you want to change them? Typical liberal.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #722 April 30, 2014 Shocking what the more complete picture shows, right? Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,391 #723 April 30, 2014 >You set the parameters - i stepped up and represented - now you want to >change them? No, you actually chose the parameters, then you complained when I widened them. (And I know how carefully you have to cherrypick your data to make your point.) Takes a lot of work to be a denier. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #724 April 30, 2014 livendive Shocking what the more complete picture shows, right? Blues, Dave I'm just wondering why a monthly world weather almanac is being called "climate." Here's why: either side will pull out weather events and say it supports that side. Two years ago when there was a brown Christmas and uncommon warmth, Europe and Australia didn't matter to the alarmists like it did the deniers. Now, the matter has switched and the alarmists minimize North America as much as they maximized it two years ago. And the deniers do the same thing. So now NOAA publishes it's monthly weather review (and calls it climate - despite it being 1/180th of the time period necessary for "climatically significant." Then they point out certain events in March weather, leaving out others. So specific as to refer to a cyclone in Madagascar and record high in Latvia. And this is what is called "climate." Let's take the 4th highest March average temperature in Denmark and call it "big picture" and "climate." My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #725 April 30, 2014 I agree, at least insomuch as specific regions and monthly time windows are not individually representative of climate. You have to consider them in context, which is available at the very top of the page I linked. That said, discrete regional and temporal data are important as the small bits that are consolidated to form the bigger picture. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
