Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.
Posted on 12/25/2009 4:14:30 AM PST by Brugmansian
But it looks like they count their days like the Jewish calendar does. Since the solstice was after sunset their solstice festivities were supposed to take place on the next sunrise on December 22.
The article didn't say if a real crowd showed up on the 22nd and the 21st group were just a bunch of screwups, or if the 300 on the 21st were the main crowd.
Pulled the wrong sword from the wrong stone.
The real Arthur was not so stupid.
Consider all these motions:
(1) the earth’s rotation about its axis
(2) the rotation of the earth’s axis (equinox precession)
(3) the changing of the earth’s orbit (many different
motions here: the oscillations of the orbit, the
shape of the orbit
(4) the sun enjoys a few of these as our system rotates
about/within our galaxy.
My thinking is that all of these rotations are the main
driving force for climate change. The sun is giving off
billions of rays of heat but the intensity & durations
of those rays is changing every millesecond.
Visualize a gyroscope which demonstrates pitch, yaw &
roll. Now cascade them into boxes which act like
gyroscopes. Now you see why these pseudo-experts want
to blame CO2. That’s much easier mathematically than trying to study all these motions.
Makes one dizzy when one tries to visualize all this,
doesn’t it? Your thoughts?
Yes, but it just FELT like the right day.
ROTFLOL
In fact, the effects of CO2 are much, much harder to model accurately, which is why they are so much more contraversial. Which is another way of saying, they are making it up and have no idea what they are talking about.
Quoting Red Foreman “Dumb Ass”.
Thanks so much. I just marvel at these scientists who
can interpret all these movements which have periods
of many thousands of years yet they may be limited to
say 40 years of productive research. Incredulity is an
understatement. Did Milanovich consider sunspots?
Some of these motions were known to early Greeks, I
have read.
Here’s a question for you. Many eons ago before
mammmals, the earth must have been covered in
forests, swamps, all kinds of plants as well as the
oceans with its share of plant life, sea weed etc.
That must have required massive amounts of CO2. Right?
I guess that amount of CO2 could be approximated,
could it not? How would that quantity compare with the current amount? Don’t all these volcanos dump massive amounts of CO2?
I’ll take your word that studying CO2 is almost
intractable. But these warming zealots use tons of CO2
as a first order effect. They use this as a statistic
to correlate with temperature, don’t they? BTW, hasn’t
the WH proclaimed that CO2 is a pollutant?
With your knowledge of this subject, you must work in
this area. If not, then, you probably solve string
theory problems. Thanks again.
It appears that the change in CO2 level follows, or lags rises in global temperature. The heating of the earth seems to cause CO2 to come out of solution in the ocean, cooling has the opposite effect. In fact, the current, short term warming trend precedes the increase in CO2 levels by about 100 years.
While CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the effect is very small, so scientist posit all sorts of positive feedback which amplifies the effect. The whole global warming contraversy is predicated on two things: the actual amount or effect of positive feedback and the effect(s) of a mild rise in global temperature.
I believe that the effect of positive feedback is negligible (and negative feedback may actually dominate) and the effects of a mild rise in temperature are generally beneficial. What evidence is there the current global temperature is optimum?
On Nov. 21, 1948 (if it was a Monday) my older brother, younger sister & I walked the 2.5 miles to school over the snow drifts still closing the roads to our rural school. We must have had a watch, because we knew that we were more than 20 minutes late. I was sort of surprised that classes started when we got there. Found out years later that the teacher was going to sent the kids home until we came. The addition of the three of us must have make it worthwhile to hold classes. Don't think the other kids were too happy with us.
“I believe that the effect of positive feedback is negligible (and negative feedback may actually dominate)...”
The presence of numerous Ice Ages over the years with warm periods in between would tend to support your statement. Of course it goes both ways. The earth neither “goes out of control” with the warming, or the cooling. Of course a mile of ice sitting over Seattle like last time would seem “out of control” to many, but - it’s not like the entire earth gets covered in ice never to recover again.
BTW - the last interglacial warm period was about as long as the one we are in now, and reached a higher temperature (about 5 degrees F I think). So - we really are about 5 degrees less than “normal”. And due for another major ice age if past cycles mean anything. (I think they do.)
Correlation proves causation is a logical fallacy. This is what these Al Gore fanatics fail to understand. A lagging indicator might confirm an event but in no way does it imply causation.
This is a common error or more likely an attempt by the unscrupulous to convince the uneducated masses. The latin term "cum hoc ergo propter hoc", says it well==>with this, therefor BECAUSE of this.
In spite of the insider who started climategate, I think it is now about all the money involved. Remember when a man commits a crime ===> "cerchez la femme". With the warming hoax it is ==> search for the money.
Mr Lonesome, thanks for your posts. I learned a great deal.
The Most Ancient Order of Druids -- a re-enactment group for stuff that never happened in the first place.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
