http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5525933/Crops-under-stress-as-temperatures-fall.html
Gosh, does this put a hole in Al Gores global warming theory??? Tell me it ain't so.
Where's it colder at? Someone blow a little of that cold air into NW Okie. We hardly even have winter anymore.
Exactly! I have sat in heat indexes this week at 100 degrees. Clearly people don't understand that global warming not only makes things hotter, but it effects all weather to the extremes - even cold. How many hurricanes should I look forward to this year since the Gulf of Mexico has been unusually warm in recent history. These back to back hurricanes are not a fluke in the weather systems. There is a real reason why we are having so many. And why is there no snow in the southern states when there used to be? So many people here talk about the snow they used to get when they were little - this is going back to the 40's through the 60's. The record snow storms that the North East has seen is another example of the change in weather patterns. I remember as a child having "lake effect" snow until Thanksgiving because Lake Erie wasn't frozen until then. Now the lake barely freezes over and there is lake effect snow throughout the season. This is where the 3 foot snow falls (at one time) come into play in OH, PA, NY, and the New England states.
This has very little to do with Al Gore. If you don't want to hear his very informative take on it, fine. But please go educate yourself.
Kimmi, I have educated myself. There are a lot of scientists that say we are acually cooling down, not heating up. For some silly reason they are not being listened to. It could be because Al baby got a nobel peace prize for his work in global warming or some other reason. I will not quote anything on here because some of you just put it and me down and don't except any data that does not agree with their opinion. But you can google global cooling or go to the university of texas science dept and inquire there. Probably you could inquire at about any college science dept. or science think tanks. I do not appreciate you telling me again that I do now know what I am saying or know. You are the one who is ignorant. If you disagree with me, fine, there really is no reason to make it personal and put me down for what I think. After all I am always saying it is JMO. I don't try to come off as some guru who knows it all. I am smarter than that kid.
It is very odd for me to have only had the a/c on three days by the middle of June in Kansas. Also, it is the middle of June and no devastating tornadoes in Kansas, truly unheard of. I have been thinking on the weather patterns myself, and I BELIEVE, I MY OPINION that it appears that the areas of hot and cold maybe changing. It seems that Kansas except for the giant snow a little while back has been moving toward a more even temperature all year long. I can go out and look at my hot weather plants and see we are not hotter here.
Perhaps there is a subtle shifting in the poles of the planet, re-aligning the hot and cold areas of the earth.
I myself noticed that things started changing after Mt. St. Helens blew. Our winters are warmer with less snow and our summers are cooler with more rain. We also have had less tornados per season. Just an observation.
If there is a pole reversal, it will make global warming look like child's play.
I worry more about the increase in asthma and other lung problems.
There was a movie made several years ago about pole reversal. It was quite dramatic. Fictional, but dramatic.
Here's another example of all of the old bitties jumping on the bandwagon after finding an article that says what they want to believe rather than the truth. Perhaps you'd like to subscribe to some of Christopher Booker's other views as well...he claims that white asbestos is chemically identical to talcum powder and poses no risk to humans so feel free to breath all you'd like. Likewise with second hand smoke...he claims that there is no scientific evidence to support the notion that it causes cancer so I don't want to hear you bitch about it. And don't worry about that pesky mad cow's disease, Booker says that there's no connection between it and Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease so you can all rest a little easier.
Of course, he believes in Intelligent Design as well, ironically claiming that Darwinians "rest their case on nothing more than blind faith and unexamined a priori assumptions". Wow!
LMFAO! Back to the trough, sheep. :rolleyes:
Scientifically speaking... I do believe that humans are leaving a huge negative footprint, that one of these days the Earth will get a belly full of and stomp out.
One of the biggest worries all along should have been all the warmongering and bombs going off, and the debris floating around the planet.
The disappearing green is also a major concern. Green calls the rain, and when the green is gone, so is the rain.
But what is the Gweinies (Green Weinies) answer to all this... Planting gargantuan windmills everywhere to drive all the wildlife insane, and to color the horizon with flashing red lights in the evenings.
We already have a vast desert area where the Gweinies could build huge power grids, powered by their fave "alternative" energy, and not be destroying the rest of the planet they "claim" to care about.
Quote from: Freethinker on June 15, 2009, 10:47:07 AM
Scientifically speaking... I do believe that humans are leaving a huge negative footprint, that one of these days the Earth will get a belly full of and stomp out.
One of the biggest worries all along should have been all the warmongering and bombs going off, and the debris floating around the planet.
We actually agree on something?!?! Mark your calendar...
QuoteThe disappearing green is also a major concern. Green calls the rain, and when the green is gone, so is the rain.
LMFAO! Really? Is this 'scientifically speaking' as well? You might want to do a little reading on photsynthesis...it really is a fascinating process.
QuoteBut what is the Gweinies (Green Weinies) answer to all this... Planting gargantuan windmills everywhere to drive all the wildlife insane, and to color the horizon with flashing red lights in the evenings.
We already have a vast desert area where the Gweinies could build huge power grids, powered by their fave "alternative" energy, and not be destroying the rest of the planet they "claim" to care about.
You should have quit while you were ahead.
They don't call them rain forests for nothing, bub.
QuoteLMFAO! Really? Is this 'scientifically speaking' as well? You might want to do a little reading on photsynthesis...it really is a fascinating process.
First describe to me how photosynthesis works... not artificially, btw. Let's see, uhhhh... are plants involved? LMFAOAU
And scientifically speaking, can you explain to me how all those gargantuan windmills are NOT leaving a heinous footprint, considering the low percentage of energy they produce as compared to like... natural gas?
I eagerly await your learned response -- and hope it is not gratuitous propaganda.
Quote from: Freethinker on June 15, 2009, 11:52:35 AM
They don't call them rain forests for nothing, bub.
So it's your position that it rains more in the rain forests because there is more flora and not that there is more flora because it rains more? Are you serious?
QuoteFirst describe to me how photosynthesis works... not artificially, btw. Let's see, uhhhh... are plants involved? LMFAOAU
I have neither the time nor the inclination to educate you about photosynthesis but am terribly interested in what you mean by 'artificially'? WTF is artificial photosynthesis? Are you implying, for example, that for plants grown in hydroponic medium under artificial lighting photosynthesis is somehow a different process?
QuoteAnd scientifically speaking, can you explain to me how all those gargantuan windmills are NOT leaving a heinous footprint, considering the low percentage of energy they produce as compared to like... natural gas?
I eagerly await your learned response -- and hope it is not gratuitous propaganda.
I know that you're so fixated on wind power as the only alternative to nuclear power that it'll be difficult for you to wrap your tiny little brain around this but I'll humor you nonetheless...
The solar energy industry is currently making significant advances and as it does so, the cost (unlike nuclear energy) is quickly decreasing. The output of new solar factories is projected to increase to 5GW in 5 years meaning that solar power will install the equivalent of several new nuclear power plants each year at a lower cost and, in sunny areas like the southwestern U.S., will be at grid parity (same cost) with other sources of power in those areas. If a nuclear power plant went online today with a half life sometime during the 2030's (at which time, the power it is providing will certainly be significantly more expensive than renewable sources of energy), how is it an economically feasible long-term alternative?
Quote from: Freethinker on June 15, 2009, 10:47:07 AM
Scientifically speaking...
. . . Green calls the rain, and when the green is gone, so is the rain.
No, not even close to true.
Considering that precipitation forms due to water vapor given off to the atmosphere by the planets oceans and fresh water lakes, in reality the lion's share of precipitation is created by the water on the planet, not the plants. Water vapor that results due to plant respiration does contribute, but not at the level this statement would seem to indicate. . . Remove the green and eventually we will starve, but there will still be rain. . .
QuoteSo it's your position that it rains more in the rain forests because there is more flora and not that there is more flora because it rains more? Are you serious?
OMG, did you just post that? ROTF! And you think you're on the side of science. Oh, boy. LOL.
Many things come into play during the water cycle, including photosynthesis, altering the elements in the atmosphere, and of course, evaporation as well.
Much moisture does evaporate from our oceans, and rains down upon the lands, leeching the land of various elements as it flows back to the oceans.
However, it is more likely to rain in heavily green areas, than it is in deserts... and this is no fluke. You're stuck in the chicken or the egg dilemma, when there isn't one on the natural order of things.
Areas of land become barren because of overuse of the land, like running a lot of farm animals acrossed it, cultivation and deforestation, and then it is less like to rain.
I use the the saying "green calls the rain," but scientifically speaking, green plays a most helpful role in the process.
QuoteI have neither the time nor the inclination to educate you about photosynthesis but am terribly interested in what you mean by 'artificially'? WTF is artificial photosynthesis? Are you implying, for example, that for plants grown in hydroponic medium under artificial lighting photosynthesis is somehow a different process?
You're the scientist. You should already know about artificial photosynthesis. Sheesh. Use your imagination. That should get your part of the way.
Now, as for solar energy....
QuoteThe solar energy industry is currently making significant advances and as it does so, the cost (unlike nuclear energy) is quickly decreasing. The output of new solar factories is projected to increase to 5GW in 5 years meaning that solar power will install the equivalent of several new nuclear power plants each year at a lower cost and, in sunny areas like the southwestern U.S., will be at grid parity (same cost) with other sources of power in those areas. If a nuclear power plant went online today with a half life sometime during the 2030's (at which time, the power it is providing will certainly be significantly more expensive than renewable sources of energy), how is it an economically feasible long-term alternative?
I am a big advocate of changing the building codes universally to force the installation of solar panels and wind cages on all buildings and homes, to make each building more self-sufficient, and less needy of energy being transported...
BUT, because both solar and wind energy are dependent on nature, most folks will need some transported energy available.
As for mass solar panels being set-up, I guess that would fine in desert areas, so long as the GWEINIES account for the hazardous trash they are creating. Really, the same thing goes for putting solar panels on homes and buildings. You are creating more trash... more trash IMO than just sticking with natural gas. But since natural gas, though plentiful now, is a depletable resource, we will have to make exceptions.
QuoteNo, not even close to true.
Considering that precipitation forms due to water vapor given off to the atmosphere by the planets oceans and fresh water lakes, in reality the lion's share of precipitation is created by the water on the planet, not the plants. Water vapor that results due to plant respiration does contribute, but not at the level this statement would seem to indicate. . . Remove the green and eventually we will starve, but there will still be rain. . .
So according to your "scientific" renderings, Death Valley gets as much rain as a rain forest... It just doesn't have any green stuff.
This is why I abandoned my association with Gweinies some time ago.
Next you'll be explaining to me how burning trashy cooking oil or cow poop is better for the atmosphere than one of the cleanest burning fuels, natural gas.
Quote from: Freethinker on June 15, 2009, 01:19:29 PM
OMG, did you just post that? ROTF! And you think you're on the side of science. Oh, boy. LOL.
I am but I appreciate your illustrating to the entire forum just exactly how much of a buffoon you are. I couldn't have done a better job if I tried.
QuoteMany things come into play during the water cycle, including photosynthesis, altering the elements in the atmosphere, and of course, evaporation as well.
Much moisture does evaporate from our oceans, and rains down upon the lands, leeching the land of various elements as it flows back to the oceans.
However, it is more likely to rain in heavily green areas, than it is in deserts... and this is no fluke. You're stuck in the chicken or the egg dilemma, when there isn't one on the natural order of things.
Certainly there is. The flow of air over the planet generally moves from the poles toward the equator carrying moisture with it. The heat at the equator causes that moisture laden air to rise, cool and then condense into water creating rain. Plant life flourishes in tropical areas because it rains more, not the other way around although I'd love to see any source you can supply that says otherwise.
QuoteI use the the saying "green calls the rain," but scientifically speaking, green plays a most helpful role in the process.
Say it anyway you like; it's still bullshit. The value of the rain forests lie in their ability to convert carbon dioxide into oxygen through photosynthesis, not in some magical power to do a rain dance for the rest of the world.
Quote from: Freethinker on June 15, 2009, 01:30:28 PM
So according to your "scientific" renderings, Death Valley gets as much rain as a rain forest... It just doesn't have any green stuff.
This is why I abandoned my association with Gweinies some time ago.
Next you'll be explaining to me how burning trashy cooking oil or cow poop is better for the atmosphere than one of the cleanest burning fuels, natural gas.
LMFAO! There you go again trying, (very unsucessfully I might add), to put words into my mouth.
Guess you must've been sleeping it off during Earth Science class huh?! :rolleyes:
Show me where I said such a thing!
The earth's surface consists of 71% saltwater, of the dry surface area only 4.71 % of it supports permanent vegetation. Only 40% of that surface area supports seasonal crops worldwide. . .
So it is
your "genius" mind that is trying to tell everyone that 4.71% of the earth generates the lion's share of rain? :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin:
I've got some nice land in Florida to sell you for your retirement from society when you are ready. . . :biggrin:
QuoteI am but I appreciate your illustrating to the entire forum just exactly how much of a buffoon you are. I couldn't have done a better job if I tried.
If that makes you feel better, then hide behind your testosterone-laced rhetoric.
There are many desert areas that were once covered with plants and vegetation, and when civilizations began to take up residence and farm and strip the lands, problems ensued with the natural order of things. Livestock contained too long tromple down the banks of streams. If they are allowed to graze until even the young sprouts are taken, then you have a barren territory... and eventually the rains will be sparse as well.
There is NOTHING magical about any of this. Also, the humidity levels do not make it more likely to rain in now-barren areas. That type of humidity mostly has to do with pollution... Furthermore, the levels of pollution are making it hard for the areas with green to compensate the atmospheric conditions.
Also, scientifically speaking, the level of testosterone is NOT directly proportionate to the level of intelligence.
Quote from: Freethinker on June 15, 2009, 02:50:58 PM
. . .
There are many desert areas that were once covered with plants and vegetation, and when civilizations began to take up residence and farm and strip the lands, problems ensued with the natural order of things. Livestock contained too long tromple down the banks of streams. If they are allowed to graze until even the young sprouts are taken, then you have a barren territory... and eventually the rains will be sparse as well.
There is NOTHING magical about any of this. Also, the humidity levels do not make it more likely to rain in now-barren areas. That type of humidity mostly has to do with pollution... Furthermore, the levels of pollution are making it hard for the areas with green to compensate the atmospheric conditions.
I don't know about anyone else, but doesn't this posting reek of "Green Wienie" :biggrin:
You're fluent in GW aren't yah?! :biggrin:
Quote from: Freethinker on June 15, 2009, 02:50:58 PM
Also, scientifically speaking, the level of testosterone is NOT directly proportionate to the level of intelligence.
As you demonstrate with each post, genius. . . :rolleyes: :biggrin:
:yes: ;D :biggrin: ;) :) :yes:
QuoteLMFAO! There you go again trying, (very unsucessfully I might add), to put words into my mouth.
Guess you must've been sleeping it off during Earth Science class huh?! Show me where I said such a thing!
The earth's surface consists of 71% saltwater, of the dry surface area only 4.71 % of it supports permanent vegetation. Only 40% of that surface area supports seasonal crops worldwide. . .
So it is your "genius" mind that is trying to tell everyone that 4.71% of the earth generates the lion's share of rain?
I've got some nice land in Florida to sell you for your retirement from society when you are ready. . .
There is much being used from underground aquifiers already in place, and in many areas these have no hope of being replaced when these have been depleted. If rain were plentiful for crops, we'd not see fancy irrigation systems pumping out.
QuoteAs you demonstrate with each post, genius. . .
The testosterone remark was made in solidarity with the "old biddies" at the board, of which I am one.
Quote from: Freethinker on June 15, 2009, 02:59:58 PM
There is much being used from underground aquifiers already in place, and in many areas these have no hope of being replaced when these have been depleted. If rain were plentiful for crops, we'd not see fancy irrigation systems pumping out.
The magic of human intervention. Las Vegas, Nevada. Desert since recorded history, yet magically transformed via human engineering and intervention.
Same theories support crop growth in naturally dry environments around the globe as a means to provide for those who haven't the ability or desire to move closer to the source for the items required to support life.
So now you are saying if we'd stop cutting grass and harvesting trees, all the deserts would magically disappear due to the vast increase in annual rainfall it would drive?
Put the pipe down and step away from the keyboard. . .
Quote from: Freethinker on June 15, 2009, 03:02:13 PM
The testosterone remark was made in solidarity with the "old biddies" at the board, of which I am one.
Damage Control! Damage Control! :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin:
Quote".....desert since recorded history."
Oh yeah... that explains it. ROTFLMAO.
Quote
Transpiration is the evaporation of water into the atmosphere from the leaves and stems of plants. Plants absorb soilwater through their roots and this water can originate from deep in the soil. (For example, corn plants have roots that are 2.5 meters deep, while some desert plants have roots that extend 20 meters into the ground). Plants pump the water up from the soil to deliver nutrients to their leaves. This pumping is driven by the evaporation of water through small pores called "stomates", which are found on the undersides of leaves. Transpiration accounts for approximately 10% of all evaporating water.
University of Illinois article on transpiration (http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/guides/mtr/hyd/trsp.rxml)
:wink:
Quote from: Locutus on June 15, 2009, 03:12:27 PM
University of Illinois article on transpiration (http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/guides/mtr/hyd/trsp.rxml)
:wink:
Exactly. But the Old Biddie Green Wienie (OBGW) will not read it. . .
While it is more likely to rain in green areas, of course it is only partially due to transpiration. Because the plants need water anyway for the photosynthesis process, the percentages would eventually dwindle down to nothing, without water from an outside source... a source moving across the planet from the oceans.
QuoteSo now you are saying if we'd stop cutting grass and harvesting trees, all the deserts would magically disappear due to the vast increase in annual rainfall it would drive?
No Palehorse, that's not what I'm saying. You can't replace the rainforests. Once you've deforested the areas, that's it. It would take a major catastrophe to refertilize the earth again and start over.
And moving water via pipeline to desert areas to create a gambler's paradise is not the answer either, because you are depleting another area's aquifiers, and will eventually leave them without water, too.
Dear Testosterone Posters -- WHERE did I attribute rain to transpiration only?
LOL.
Quote from: Freethinker on June 15, 2009, 10:47:07 AM
. . .
The disappearing green is also a major concern. Green calls the rain, and when the green is gone, so is the rain. . .
Right here!
Quote from: Palehorse on June 15, 2009, 03:07:31 PM
So now you are saying if we'd stop cutting grass and harvesting trees, all the deserts would magically disappear due to the vast increase in annual rainfall it would drive?
Put the pipe down and step away from the keyboard. . .
That's exactly what she's saying...the scary part is that she really thinks it's true!
Quote from: Freethinker on June 15, 2009, 03:20:53 PM
While it is more likely to rain in green areas...
No, you dolt; areas where it rains are more likely to be green.
No Palehorse, saying that the green calls the rain was in no way saying that transpiration is the cause.
I explained in detail the processes that are involved, and I said the green aids in that process, altering the atmospheric conditions.
NOW....
Look at East versus West Texas.... or East versus Western Oklahoma.... Where does most of the rain dump?
In the green side of the state. Is that because East Texas or East Oklahoma are closer to the equator?
Where it has gone barren, you have dry lines develop and sometimes some fairly nasty winds and weather, and yes, you will get some heavy rains at times... but the bulk of the rains pass over and dump in the green areas. We're talking a 2 to 1 ratio or more.
Quote from: Freethinker on June 15, 2009, 04:03:50 PM
No Palehorse, saying that the green calls the rain was in no way saying that transpiration is the cause.
I explained in detail the processes that are involved, and I said the green aids in that process, altering the atmospheric conditions.
NOW....
Look at East versus West Texas.... or East versus Western Oklahoma.... Where does most of the rain dump?
In the green side of the state. Is that because East Texas or East Oklahoma are closer to the equator?
Where it has gone barren, you have dry lines develop and sometimes some fairly nasty winds and weather, and yes, you will get some heavy rains at times... but the bulk of the rains pass over and dump in the green areas. We're talking a 2 to 1 ratio or more.
Quote from: Exterminator on June 15, 2009, 03:45:32 PM
No, you dolt; areas where it rains are more likely to be green.
Go swab the deck and leave the navigating to those able and willing to read the instruments then. . .
You do realize what "Las Vegas" means don't you? The Meadows; named by Rafael Rivera. In the 1800's the area contained vast green areas. . .
In pre-historic times the area was virtual marsh of abundant water and vegetation. The rivers that once ran at ground level are now underground due to natural erosion and because of this the marsh receded.
The discovery in 1993 of the remains of a Columbian mammoth from 8-15 thousand years ago supports this, as well as the geological record.
Quote from: Freethinker on June 15, 2009, 04:03:50 PM
I explained in detail the processes that are involved, and I said the green aids in that process, altering the atmospheric conditions.
And you're dead-assed wrong. According to you, planting trees in the desert would cause it to rain there, thereby magically transforming it into a lush forest and that simply isn't true. I asked you to provide any information that supports this claim and that was not forthcoming...because there is no evidence to support such an assinine position.
Quote from: Freethinker on June 15, 2009, 04:11:40 PM
Okay... enough, Palehorse and Exterminator...
... and I'm guessing most of the testosterone is posting on their employer's dime.
Why do you think the posts of Ex and PH are testosterone laden? I haven't seen any references to the 3 B's: boobs, butts, and blow jobs. And I certainly haven't seen that most obvious of testosterone-markers : "Here, hold my beer. I got an idea."
No 3 b's I admit. Just condensending, macho, I am better and smarter than you attitude by Ex: I can't say the same about Pale. I don't feel that PH is that way. While Ex is degrading to women that disagree with him. It really makes me wonder??????????
Quote from: mcgonser on June 15, 2009, 08:36:38 PM
... Ex is degrading to women that disagree with him...
Why do you say "women that disagree with him?" I seem to recall he is border-line toxic to Henry sometimes, too. Besides, get him out of the unmoderated section, and he the soul of gentility. You object (I think it was you, it was definitely
me, and maybe Freethinker) to people playing the race card about Obama. So why is it okay to play the gender card when someone disagrees with you? If ya can't run with the big dogs, stay on the porch.
Quote from: Exterminator on June 15, 2009, 03:43:58 PM
That's exactly what she's saying...the scary part is that she really thinks it's true!
Well my vote is to never mow grass again. I can do my part.
:biggrin:
Well-- here's the deal guys...
As long as you refer to us as "old biddies,"... I will refer to your sprays of testosterone.
Your choice.
I think you could come up with something far better than "old biddies" and "sprays of testosterone." This is the unmoderated area after all. :razz: :biggrin:
Quote from: Freethinker on June 16, 2009, 12:11:46 AM
As long as you refer to us as "old biddies,"...
In fact, he said "old bitties."
Quote from: Exterminator on June 15, 2009, 08:42:11 AM
... all of the old bitties jumping on the bandwagon ...
Palehorse said "biddies"
Quote from: Palehorse on June 15, 2009, 03:15:17 PM
Exactly. But the Old Biddie Green Wienie (OBGW) will not read it. . .
but only after Freethinker did
Quote from: Freethinker on June 15, 2009, 03:02:13 PM
The testosterone remark was made in solidarity with the "old biddies" at the board, of which I am one.
I actually thought "bitties" was kind of code for one of the three B's in an exceptionally small size, and had handed Ex a virtual attaboy for honoring my request for more creative insults. Hell, I was planning to use it myself. I think I still will. Just because I'm the only one who got it, doesn't mean I'm wrong.
OBGW is the term put forth by FT in referring to self. I am just obliging. . . :smile:
what is this, a good ole boy club. Talking in code? You can't just spit it out plain and simple? I would think you were a little old for little boy games and little girl ones too. Is this a 4th grade school yard? Sheeeeesh!
Quote from: mcgonser on June 16, 2009, 07:43:00 AM
what is this, a good ole boy club. Talking in code? You can't just spit it out plain and simple? I would think you were a little old for little boy games and little girl ones too. Is this a 4th grade school yard? Sheeeeesh!
Fourth graders say "testosterone?" Can they spell it?
Quote from: mcgonser on June 16, 2009, 07:43:00 AM
what is this, a good ole boy club. Talking in code? You can't just spit it out plain and simple? I would think you were a little old for little boy games and little girl ones too. Is this a 4th grade school yard? Sheeeeesh!
I am not required to compensate for your inability or unwillingness to figure things out for yourself. That is your job and you are failing miserably.
Everything needed to understand what has been posted is within this topic. All you have to do is exercise a little initiative, read through it, and you
should easily be capable of comprehending. :rolleyes:
Got any beer to go with them bitties? :icon_twisted:
Quote from: Palehorse on June 16, 2009, 08:01:55 AM
Got any beer to go with them bitties? :icon_twisted:
Is the sun over the yardarm? (I guess it is somewhere, right?) Okay, Corona and lime, or Amberbock?
Quote from: LOsborne on June 16, 2009, 08:12:05 AM
Is the sun over the yardarm? (I guess it is somewhere, right?) Okay, Corona and lime, or Amberbock?
I'll take the bock since yah got no Guinness! :biggrin:
Quote from: Palehorse on June 16, 2009, 08:18:11 AM
I'll take the bock since yah got no Guinness! :biggrin:
Can't do Guiness. They always put it in those long glasses with the round bottom that you are supposed to hang on the bar. I keep missing.
I'll take Corona, but hold the fruit...wait...I'm sorry this is the boys club...got carried away w/ the sight of my favorite beer...carry on :biggrin:....*backing away*
Quote from: mcgonser on June 15, 2009, 08:36:38 PM
While Ex is degrading to women that disagree with him.
I don't discriminate based on sex; if you post bullshit, I'll call you on it regardless of your equipment or lack thereof.
Quote from: Freethinker on June 16, 2009, 12:11:46 AM
Well-- here's the deal guys...
As long as you refer to us as "old biddies,"... I will refer to your sprays of testosterone.
Your choice.
Fair enough, you old biddy. :biggrin:
So, to get back on topic...
I vote for the complete and absolute mischaracterization of the hydrologic cycle, which is pretty much 5th grade science, as the most assinine thing I've ever read on these forums. Who seconds?
hey, I have only been ..breezing through the posts on this thread...so bring it down to a nutshell..
am I right or wrong, but there IS large amounts of rain in the rainforrests because of the vast amount of tree's and plants...right?
Quote from: Henry Hawk on June 16, 2009, 09:27:17 AM
am I right or wrong, but there IS large amounts of rain in the rainforrests because of the vast amount of tree's and plants...right?
No, there
are large amounts of trees and plants because there is ample precipitation (and you've just permanently lost all credibility in any discussion of global warming).
Quote from: Exterminator on June 16, 2009, 09:42:54 AM
No, there are large amounts of trees and plants because there is ample precipitation (and you've just permanently lost all credibility in any discussion of global warming).
that was JUST a question, I wanted to ask to see your answer....because you lost me on your debate from yesterday.....
ooh...you are cracking me up today!!....... ;D I am so distraught, that I have NOW lost my credibility with you!!!........gosh almighty!...........I might as well quit posting on here. :-\ :'(
Seriously, it's 5th grade science. :rolleyes:
but it does have climatic effects because of it's vast growth of vegetation, it does recycle water vapor produced by it, and it produces clouds....which produces rain.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on June 16, 2009, 09:58:23 AM
but it does have climatic effects because of it's vast growth of vegetation, it does recycle water vapor produced by it, and it produces clouds....which produces rain.
Take away all plant life and the amount of available water vapor would drop by at most, 10%. . . (Not that I am endorsing any such action mind you).
Quote from: Palehorse on June 16, 2009, 10:00:21 AM
Take away all plant life and the amount of available water vapor would drop by at most, 10%. . . (Not that I am endorsing any such action mind you).
...as is proven by the negligible effect deforestation has had on annual precipitation in those areas. It is un-freaking-believable to me that these people presume to argue about climate change when they don't even understand the most fundamental aspects of the subject.
Quote from: Palehorse on June 16, 2009, 10:00:21 AM
Take away all plant life and the amount of available water vapor would drop by at most, 10%. . . (Not that I am endorsing any such action mind you).
That sounds reasonable....I'm actually on your side of this topic....and I hate to admit with Ex....but it really is pretty simple science....but, it DOES have it's own effect, based upon it's existence.
And what would the atmosphere consist of, when you get rid of all plant life and still have water vapor? In fact, it's a stupid scenario... because there would have to be a major catastrophe for there to be no plant life... Most likely it would be something that would devastate the atmosphere, and cause most of the moisture to spew out in the process, and leave an uninhabitable planet..... with creatures from other planets sending their space missions to check and see if life ever existed on the planet Earth, and looking for evidence of water. Sound familiar?
Deforestation does cause climate change and affects in the weather patterns. When you completely deforest the area, you will future generations will see the resultant effects.
Historically, areas that lost their vegetation over 100s and 1000s of years became barren and have little rainfall.
The REAL problem here is that you are discussing weather patterns in real-time, and not looking to the future, or the future generations that will live (or maybe not even exist) because of the footprint we have left.
Quote from: Freethinker on June 16, 2009, 11:13:00 AM
. . .In fact, it's a stupid scenario... because there would have to be a major catastrophe for there to be no plant life...
Then why are you squalling about it then? You're the one using GW jargon as a scare tactic. . .
This has just gone way to far.
I thought we just were not mowing grass.
Wow. Christopher Booker again. Thought his brain had rotted years ago from stagnation.
Quote from: followsthewolf on June 17, 2009, 01:01:56 PM
Wow. Christopher Booker again. Thought his brain had rotted years ago from stagnation.
It did but that doesn't prevent him from writing articles or the clueless from believing them.
Quote from: Exterminator on June 17, 2009, 01:04:46 PM
It did but that doesn't prevent him from writing articles or the clueless from believing them.
Guess he figures if it didn't prevent Al Bore from writing it shouldn't him either. :biggrin:
Quote from: me on June 17, 2009, 01:35:15 PM
Guess he figures if it didn't prevent Al Bore from writing it shouldn't him either. :biggrin:
And I'm sure you find no difference in their credibility. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Exterminator on June 17, 2009, 01:50:48 PM
And I'm sure you find no difference in their credibility. :rolleyes:
Now, that's funny right there. :rotfl:
Quote from: Exterminator on June 17, 2009, 01:50:48 PM
And I'm sure you find no difference in their credibility. :rolleyes:
Nope. Neither one is credible IMO :razz:
Quote from: me on June 17, 2009, 02:14:50 PM
Nope. Neither one is credible IMO :razz:
Thanks for the confirmation. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Exterminator on June 18, 2009, 08:59:26 AM
Thanks for the confirmation. :rolleyes:
Any time sweet cheeks....anytime. :biggrin: