Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 10/18/2005 6:08:45 AM PDT by boris
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-23 next last
To: boris

In 90 years we'll have better air condtioners...


2 posted on 10/18/2005 6:10:20 AM PDT by Dallas59 (“You love life, while we love death.” - Al-Qaeda / Democratic Party)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: boris

Its been a nice Fall in Ohio......


3 posted on 10/18/2005 6:12:35 AM PDT by Mikey_1962
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: boris

When these guys can predict a hurricane track accurately over 5 days, then I may be interested in what they have to say about 95 years from now.


4 posted on 10/18/2005 6:12:52 AM PDT by Netheron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: boris

Overall, the United States would experience a warming trend, the study predicts.

***

That's fine by me. We had an extended summer up until about a week or so ago -- quite unusual to have 80 degrees in October around here. And I loved it. Even now, it's not too bad -- temps in the 60's.

I love to upset my global warming/greenhouse effect friends by telling them, if this is global warming, I'll take it. Don't mind it at all. Boy does that get their blood boiling.

Sorry, I don't buy all these alleged scientific theories.


6 posted on 10/18/2005 6:15:58 AM PDT by fatnotlazy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: boris

Oh and by the way...if this does turn out to be true and we are headed for disaster....

It's Bush's fault. :)


8 posted on 10/18/2005 6:17:31 AM PDT by fatnotlazy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: boris
model's efficacy by analyzing the period 1961 to 1985

That should put a multimillion year old earth in perspective. /sarcasm

9 posted on 10/18/2005 6:18:04 AM PDT by bmwcyle (We broke Pink's Code and found a terrorist message)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: boris
...published on the online edition of the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences...

The blog of a unrefereed journal. How impressive.

10 posted on 10/18/2005 6:19:02 AM PDT by facedown (Armed in the Heartland)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: boris
The model considered circumstances not fully included in previous models, such as snow which reflects energy from the sun back into space, and mountain peaks, which can stand in the way of travelling weather fronts.

I think their models have silicone implants.

11 posted on 10/18/2005 6:19:04 AM PDT by Rightwing Conspiratr1 (Lock-n-load!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: boris

2 Months of string Bikinis? Most Excellent.


13 posted on 10/18/2005 6:21:01 AM PDT by HamiltonJay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: boris
Scientists also checked the model's efficacy by analyzing the period 1961 to 1985. "The model performed admirably,"

I can make a model that would predict every election from 1961 to 1985 and have it perform 'admirably', but it still could predict 2006 worth a squat. I can't believe all these clowns calling themselves 'scientists' these days. This ain't science.

14 posted on 10/18/2005 6:21:59 AM PDT by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: boris

Well, the globalists have done a super job of emptying out the upper Midwest over the past 50 years. We have a surplus of underused infrastructure, no hurricanes, and no earthquakes.

In addition, we have lots of fresh water.

I contend that national security dictates that this country should move more of its critical economic activity to its interior.

Insurance company exposure management should also encourage folks to move away from the coast.


16 posted on 10/18/2005 6:22:14 AM PDT by Francis Joseph
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: boris

Even thought I don't buy this greenhouse gas crap I have to ask, what does this have to do with the US?? China is the worlds number one polluter as most of our manufacturing has moved to their shores. They are switching from bicycles to cars and have no "EPA" department to worry about.


17 posted on 10/18/2005 6:22:21 AM PDT by RockyMtnMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: boris

AFP = Agence France-Presse

They may have an agenda against the U.S.


19 posted on 10/18/2005 6:24:11 AM PDT by 300magnum (We know that if evil is not confronted, it gains in strength and audacity, and returns to strike us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: boris
National Academy of Sciences

Stopped reading right there.

20 posted on 10/18/2005 6:24:39 AM PDT by add925 (The Left = Xenophobes in Denial)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: boris
The model considered circumstances not fully included in previous models, such as snow which reflects energy from the sun back into space, and mountain peaks, which can stand in the way of travelling weather fronts.

But they still haven't modelled the effects of increased cloud cover that they expect. Oh yeah, I forgot, that little factor would cause cooling so we don't want to model that....

21 posted on 10/18/2005 6:24:44 AM PDT by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: boris

The Northeast, Southwest and Gulf Coast. Looks like the mid-Atlantic (Virginia) will be a good place to live.


24 posted on 10/18/2005 6:28:49 AM PDT by R. Scott (Humanity i love you because when you're hard up you pawn your Intelligence to buy a drink.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: boris

So, we'll have fifty warmer winters and then presto, ice sheets five miles thick return to all of Canada and most of North America.

Presto: illegal alien problem solved since they are now frantic to get into the Sudan.


26 posted on 10/18/2005 6:32:48 AM PDT by BIRDS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: boris

"The study, published on the online edition of the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, warned that greenhouse gases will likely swell to twice their current levels by the century's end."

Since sources of greenhouse gas attributable to mankind are a small fraction of the greenhouse gasses produced I guess that means that reducing man's contribution of greenhouse gasses is pointless.

If greenhouse hasses are going to double their current level, it's obviously not going to be the result of emissions made by man.

I'm happy that they are actually trying to test their models with known data, but it just leads me to question their model on how greenhouse gas levels will increase, because their claims make no sense.


39 posted on 10/18/2005 7:04:40 AM PDT by untrained skeptic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: boris

Oh Woe! Someone may have to experience TWO MONTHS of hot weather! (snicker snicker from the Gulf Coast of Texas)


46 posted on 10/18/2005 7:25:50 AM PDT by Ditter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: boris

Summer days in the 120's and winter nights in the -50's?


48 posted on 10/18/2005 7:38:43 AM PDT by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-23 next last

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson