V
V-for-Vendicar
Guest
> MMMMOOOOOOORRRRRRRRROOOOOOOONNNNNNN
"Puppet_Sock" <[email protected]> wrote
> How many months in a winter there Scotty?
> Socks
On average about 1 to 1.5 months shorter than it used to be.
> MMMMOOOOOOORRRRRRRRROOOOOOOONNNNNNN
"Puppet_Sock" <[email protected]> wrote
> How many months in a winter there Scotty?
> Socks
On average about 1 to 1.5 months shorter than it used to be.
V
V-for-Vendicar
Guest
"Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote
> Stick your thermometer next to a generator or AC unit and you'll get high
> readings, too.
But you won't get high bore hole temperatures, melting ice caps, high
ocean temperatures, high satellite derrived temperatures, changes in the
time of onset of the seasons, melting glaciers world wide, and alterations
in the global weather patterns amongst other visible changes.
And not realizing this makes you a MMMMMOOOOOOOORRRRRRRROOOOONNNN
> Stick your thermometer next to a generator or AC unit and you'll get high
> readings, too.
But you won't get high bore hole temperatures, melting ice caps, high
ocean temperatures, high satellite derrived temperatures, changes in the
time of onset of the seasons, melting glaciers world wide, and alterations
in the global weather patterns amongst other visible changes.
And not realizing this makes you a MMMMMOOOOOOOORRRRRRRROOOOONNNN
V
V-for-Vendicar
Guest
>> 2007 Tied for Earth's Second Warmest Year Andrea Thompson
>> LiveScience Staff Writer
"Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote
> That's been debunked already, but that just proves the point.
It has? Someone should tell the scientific community.
MMMMMMMOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRROOOOOOONNNNNNNN
"Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote
> Why is Al going to spend 300 million bucks promoting what "all the
> experts" say is "obvious"?
>
> It's a frigging scam.
Your absolutely right. And the Grey Aliens are behind it all.
The reality of the situation of course is that you have tied your
political ideology to a sinking ship and are too stupid to abandon your
failed ideology.
You will carry it to it's end - your end - and into the garbage heap of
history.
So long Suckerss..
M
Mike Romain
Guest
V-for-Vendicar wrote:
> "Mike Romain" <[email protected]> wrote
>> OOPS, they, NASA recanted that study, they said their data was skewed. It
>> was all over the news recently.
>
> Nope, sorry. You are confusing an announcement made in the middle of last
> year that made no practical difference in global temps (recant?
> Ahahahahahahah) with the latest announcement below.
>
> Your Ignorance is Profound. You must be an AmeriKKKan.
>
Wrong.
>
> While most scientists agree the planet is warming, the trend does not
> proceed
> constantly upward year-by-year. Other factors cause hikes and dips in the
> generally trajectory of the global temperature chart, which has been mostly
> trending upward since the beginning of the 20th century.
>
>
They also haven't explained how Mars has somehow, without our influence,
warmed up 'more' than the earth in the same period.
The only theory I have heard on that is the sad fact our pollution might
actually be giving us a sunscreen slowing down 'global warming' in this
latest Solar cycle.
That is even one of the 'fixes' proposed, to add more junk to airplane
fuel to 'help' make more of this sunscreen. This is from a week long
special on the Discovery TV channel.
Mike
> "Mike Romain" <[email protected]> wrote
>> OOPS, they, NASA recanted that study, they said their data was skewed. It
>> was all over the news recently.
>
> Nope, sorry. You are confusing an announcement made in the middle of last
> year that made no practical difference in global temps (recant?
> Ahahahahahahah) with the latest announcement below.
>
> Your Ignorance is Profound. You must be an AmeriKKKan.
>
Wrong.
>
> While most scientists agree the planet is warming, the trend does not
> proceed
> constantly upward year-by-year. Other factors cause hikes and dips in the
> generally trajectory of the global temperature chart, which has been mostly
> trending upward since the beginning of the 20th century.
>
>
They also haven't explained how Mars has somehow, without our influence,
warmed up 'more' than the earth in the same period.
The only theory I have heard on that is the sad fact our pollution might
actually be giving us a sunscreen slowing down 'global warming' in this
latest Solar cycle.
That is even one of the 'fixes' proposed, to add more junk to airplane
fuel to 'help' make more of this sunscreen. This is from a week long
special on the Discovery TV channel.
Mike
L
Lloyd
Guest
On Apr 14, 10:17 am, Mike Romain <[email protected]> wrote:
> V-for-Vendicar wrote:
> > "Mike Romain" <[email protected]> wrote
> >> OOPS, they, NASA recanted that study, they said their data was skewed. It
> >> was all over the news recently.
>
> > Nope, sorry. You are confusing an announcement made in the middle of last
> > year that made no practical difference in global temps (recant?
> > Ahahahahahahah) with the latest announcement below.
>
> > Your Ignorance is Profound. You must be an AmeriKKKan.
>
> Wrong.
>
>
>
> > While most scientists agree the planet is warming, the trend does not
> > proceed
> > constantly upward year-by-year. Other factors cause hikes and dips in the
> > generally trajectory of the global temperature chart, which has been mostly
> > trending upward since the beginning of the 20th century.
>
> They also haven't explained how Mars has somehow, without our influence,
> warmed up 'more' than the earth in the same period.
>
Idiot. They have. Ever try Google?
> The only theory I have heard on that is the sad fact our pollution might
> actually be giving us a sunscreen slowing down 'global warming' in this
> latest Solar cycle.
>
The only theory you've heard is the earth is flat.
> That is even one of the 'fixes' proposed, to add more junk to airplane
> fuel to 'help' make more of this sunscreen. This is from a week long
> special on the Discovery TV channel.
>
> Mike
> V-for-Vendicar wrote:
> > "Mike Romain" <[email protected]> wrote
> >> OOPS, they, NASA recanted that study, they said their data was skewed. It
> >> was all over the news recently.
>
> > Nope, sorry. You are confusing an announcement made in the middle of last
> > year that made no practical difference in global temps (recant?
> > Ahahahahahahah) with the latest announcement below.
>
> > Your Ignorance is Profound. You must be an AmeriKKKan.
>
> Wrong.
>
>
>
> > While most scientists agree the planet is warming, the trend does not
> > proceed
> > constantly upward year-by-year. Other factors cause hikes and dips in the
> > generally trajectory of the global temperature chart, which has been mostly
> > trending upward since the beginning of the 20th century.
>
> They also haven't explained how Mars has somehow, without our influence,
> warmed up 'more' than the earth in the same period.
>
Idiot. They have. Ever try Google?
> The only theory I have heard on that is the sad fact our pollution might
> actually be giving us a sunscreen slowing down 'global warming' in this
> latest Solar cycle.
>
The only theory you've heard is the earth is flat.
> That is even one of the 'fixes' proposed, to add more junk to airplane
> fuel to 'help' make more of this sunscreen. This is from a week long
> special on the Discovery TV channel.
>
> Mike
S
Siskuwihane
Guest
On Apr 14, 11:11 am, Lloyd <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Apr 14, 10:17 am, Mike Romain <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > V-for-Vendicar wrote:
> > > "Mike Romain" <[email protected]> wrote
> > >> OOPS, they, NASA recanted that study, they said their data was skewed.. It
> > >> was all over the news recently.
>
> > > Nope, sorry. You are confusing an announcement made in the middle of last
> > > year that made no practical difference in global temps (recant?
> > > Ahahahahahahah) with the latest announcement below.
>
> > > Your Ignorance is Profound. You must be an AmeriKKKan.
>
> > Wrong.
>
> > > While most scientists agree the planet is warming, the trend does not
> > > proceed
> > > constantly upward year-by-year. Other factors cause hikes and dips in the
> > > generally trajectory of the global temperature chart, which has been mostly
> > > trending upward since the beginning of the 20th century.
>
> > They also haven't explained how Mars has somehow, without our influence,
> > warmed up 'more' than the earth in the same period.
>
> Idiot. They have. Ever try Google?
Ah yes, what a great way to prove a point, calling someone an idiot.
Vandeman has been using that same method for years with great
success.
> On Apr 14, 10:17 am, Mike Romain <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > V-for-Vendicar wrote:
> > > "Mike Romain" <[email protected]> wrote
> > >> OOPS, they, NASA recanted that study, they said their data was skewed.. It
> > >> was all over the news recently.
>
> > > Nope, sorry. You are confusing an announcement made in the middle of last
> > > year that made no practical difference in global temps (recant?
> > > Ahahahahahahah) with the latest announcement below.
>
> > > Your Ignorance is Profound. You must be an AmeriKKKan.
>
> > Wrong.
>
> > > While most scientists agree the planet is warming, the trend does not
> > > proceed
> > > constantly upward year-by-year. Other factors cause hikes and dips in the
> > > generally trajectory of the global temperature chart, which has been mostly
> > > trending upward since the beginning of the 20th century.
>
> > They also haven't explained how Mars has somehow, without our influence,
> > warmed up 'more' than the earth in the same period.
>
> Idiot. They have. Ever try Google?
Ah yes, what a great way to prove a point, calling someone an idiot.
Vandeman has been using that same method for years with great
success.
M
Mike Romain
Guest
Siskuwihane wrote:
> On Apr 14, 11:11 am, Lloyd <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Idiot. They have. Ever try Google?
>
> Ah yes, what a great way to prove a point, calling someone an idiot.
>
> Vandeman has been using that same method for years with great
> success.
>
You have to consider the source, good ol' Lloyd is a Usenet Troll from
way back. He is also a pretend scientist just like Vandeman.
Why anyone would be stupid enough to send a kid to a school that Foole
'teaches' at, amazes me.
I thought they took him off line years ago for foolishness, guess not.
Mike
> On Apr 14, 11:11 am, Lloyd <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Idiot. They have. Ever try Google?
>
> Ah yes, what a great way to prove a point, calling someone an idiot.
>
> Vandeman has been using that same method for years with great
> success.
>
You have to consider the source, good ol' Lloyd is a Usenet Troll from
way back. He is also a pretend scientist just like Vandeman.
Why anyone would be stupid enough to send a kid to a school that Foole
'teaches' at, amazes me.
I thought they took him off line years ago for foolishness, guess not.
Mike
P
Puppet_Sock
Guest
On Apr 13, 5:45 am, "V-for-Vendicar"
<[email protected]> wrote:
> > MMMMOOOOOOORRRRRRRRROOOOOOOONNNNNNN
>
> "Puppet_Sock" <[email protected]> wrote
>
> > How many months in a winter there Scotty?
> > Socks
>
> On average about 1 to 1.5 months shorter than it used to be.
On Mar 16, 9:13 pm, "V-for-Vendicar"
<[email protected]> wrote:
[snip]
> Winter is 4 months long.
So you are down to claiming 2.5 months now?
Yes Scotty, you are a moron.
Socks
<[email protected]> wrote:
> > MMMMOOOOOOORRRRRRRRROOOOOOOONNNNNNN
>
> "Puppet_Sock" <[email protected]> wrote
>
> > How many months in a winter there Scotty?
> > Socks
>
> On average about 1 to 1.5 months shorter than it used to be.
On Mar 16, 9:13 pm, "V-for-Vendicar"
<[email protected]> wrote:
[snip]
> Winter is 4 months long.
So you are down to claiming 2.5 months now?
Yes Scotty, you are a moron.
Socks
M
Mike Romain
Guest
V-for-Vendicar wrote:
> "Siskuwihane" <[email protected]> wrote
>> Ah yes, what a great way to prove a point, calling someone an idiot.
>
> Google. 2 seconds
> Mars Warming Due to Dust Storms, Study Finds
> Kate Ravilious
> for National Geographic News
>
> April 4, 2007
> Temperatures on Mars have increased slightly over a 20-year period due to
> the action of Martian winds, scientists have found.
>
> ...
>
Ah yes, it is the 'wind' on Mars and 'pollution' on earth. LOL! What
about 'our' wind and all the extra storms 'we' have had in the last 20
years, hmm...
Now this extra wind wouldn't have anything at all to do with the solar
cycle now would it.
Man oh man some folks will believe anything someone trying to make money
feeds them.
Mike
> "Siskuwihane" <[email protected]> wrote
>> Ah yes, what a great way to prove a point, calling someone an idiot.
>
> Google. 2 seconds
> Mars Warming Due to Dust Storms, Study Finds
> Kate Ravilious
> for National Geographic News
>
> April 4, 2007
> Temperatures on Mars have increased slightly over a 20-year period due to
> the action of Martian winds, scientists have found.
>
> ...
>
Ah yes, it is the 'wind' on Mars and 'pollution' on earth. LOL! What
about 'our' wind and all the extra storms 'we' have had in the last 20
years, hmm...
Now this extra wind wouldn't have anything at all to do with the solar
cycle now would it.
Man oh man some folks will believe anything someone trying to make money
feeds them.
Mike
L
Lloyd
Guest
On Apr 15, 10:01 am, Mike Romain <[email protected]> wrote:
> V-for-Vendicar wrote:
> > "Siskuwihane" <[email protected]> wrote
> >> Ah yes, what a great way to prove a point, calling someone an idiot.
>
> > Google. 2 seconds
> > Mars Warming Due to Dust Storms, Study Finds
> > Kate Ravilious
> > for National Geographic News
>
> > April 4, 2007
> > Temperatures on Mars have increased slightly over a 20-year period due to
> > the action of Martian winds, scientists have found.
>
> > ...
>
> Ah yes, it is the 'wind' on Mars and 'pollution' on earth. LOL! What
> about 'our' wind and all the extra storms 'we' have had in the last 20
> years, hmm...
>
> Now this extra wind wouldn't have anything at all to do with the solar
> cycle now would it.
>
> Man oh man some folks will believe anything someone trying to make money
> feeds them.
>
> Mike
And some idiots think they know more than scientists, when they really
have trouble tying their shoes.
> V-for-Vendicar wrote:
> > "Siskuwihane" <[email protected]> wrote
> >> Ah yes, what a great way to prove a point, calling someone an idiot.
>
> > Google. 2 seconds
> > Mars Warming Due to Dust Storms, Study Finds
> > Kate Ravilious
> > for National Geographic News
>
> > April 4, 2007
> > Temperatures on Mars have increased slightly over a 20-year period due to
> > the action of Martian winds, scientists have found.
>
> > ...
>
> Ah yes, it is the 'wind' on Mars and 'pollution' on earth. LOL! What
> about 'our' wind and all the extra storms 'we' have had in the last 20
> years, hmm...
>
> Now this extra wind wouldn't have anything at all to do with the solar
> cycle now would it.
>
> Man oh man some folks will believe anything someone trying to make money
> feeds them.
>
> Mike
And some idiots think they know more than scientists, when they really
have trouble tying their shoes.
M
Mike Romain
Guest
Lloyd wrote:
> On Apr 15, 10:01 am, Mike Romain <[email protected]> wrote:
>> V-for-Vendicar wrote:
>>> "Siskuwihane" <[email protected]> wrote
>>>> Ah yes, what a great way to prove a point, calling someone an idiot.
>>> Google. 2 seconds
>>> Mars Warming Due to Dust Storms, Study Finds
>>> Kate Ravilious
>>> for National Geographic News
>>> April 4, 2007
>>> Temperatures on Mars have increased slightly over a 20-year period due to
>>> the action of Martian winds, scientists have found.
>>> ...
>> Ah yes, it is the 'wind' on Mars and 'pollution' on earth. LOL! What
>> about 'our' wind and all the extra storms 'we' have had in the last 20
>> years, hmm...
>>
>> Now this extra wind wouldn't have anything at all to do with the solar
>> cycle now would it.
>>
>> Man oh man some folks will believe anything someone trying to make money
>> feeds them.
>>
>> Mike
>
> And some idiots think they know more than scientists, when they really
> have trouble tying their shoes.
And we feel really bad for you about that too Lloyd. You really should
have taken that basket weaving 101 course like you mommy said and maybe
you could have caught up.
Mike
> On Apr 15, 10:01 am, Mike Romain <[email protected]> wrote:
>> V-for-Vendicar wrote:
>>> "Siskuwihane" <[email protected]> wrote
>>>> Ah yes, what a great way to prove a point, calling someone an idiot.
>>> Google. 2 seconds
>>> Mars Warming Due to Dust Storms, Study Finds
>>> Kate Ravilious
>>> for National Geographic News
>>> April 4, 2007
>>> Temperatures on Mars have increased slightly over a 20-year period due to
>>> the action of Martian winds, scientists have found.
>>> ...
>> Ah yes, it is the 'wind' on Mars and 'pollution' on earth. LOL! What
>> about 'our' wind and all the extra storms 'we' have had in the last 20
>> years, hmm...
>>
>> Now this extra wind wouldn't have anything at all to do with the solar
>> cycle now would it.
>>
>> Man oh man some folks will believe anything someone trying to make money
>> feeds them.
>>
>> Mike
>
> And some idiots think they know more than scientists, when they really
> have trouble tying their shoes.
And we feel really bad for you about that too Lloyd. You really should
have taken that basket weaving 101 course like you mommy said and maybe
you could have caught up.
Mike
B
Bill Sornson
Guest
Lloyd wrote:
> On Apr 15, 10:01 am, Mike Romain <[email protected]> wrote:
>> V-for-Vendicar wrote:
>>> "Siskuwihane" <[email protected]> wrote
>>>> Ah yes, what a great way to prove a point, calling someone an
>>>> idiot.
>>
>>> Google. 2 seconds
>>> Mars Warming Due to Dust Storms, Study Finds
>>> Kate Ravilious
>>> for National Geographic News
>>
>>> April 4, 2007
>>> Temperatures on Mars have increased slightly over a 20-year period
>>> due to the action of Martian winds, scientists have found.
>>
>>> ...
>>
>> Ah yes, it is the 'wind' on Mars and 'pollution' on earth. LOL!
>> What about 'our' wind and all the extra storms 'we' have had in the
>> last 20 years, hmm...
>>
>> Now this extra wind wouldn't have anything at all to do with the
>> solar cycle now would it.
>>
>> Man oh man some folks will believe anything someone trying to make
>> money feeds them.
>>
>> Mike
>
> And some idiots think they know more than scientists, when they really
> have trouble tying their shoes.
But only the "right scientists", right? Ones that dare question the current
so-called consensus (which by definition has no place in scientific inquiry)
are labeled kooks and heretics. Google "founder of the weather channel" for
just one example.
HTH (BKIW)
> On Apr 15, 10:01 am, Mike Romain <[email protected]> wrote:
>> V-for-Vendicar wrote:
>>> "Siskuwihane" <[email protected]> wrote
>>>> Ah yes, what a great way to prove a point, calling someone an
>>>> idiot.
>>
>>> Google. 2 seconds
>>> Mars Warming Due to Dust Storms, Study Finds
>>> Kate Ravilious
>>> for National Geographic News
>>
>>> April 4, 2007
>>> Temperatures on Mars have increased slightly over a 20-year period
>>> due to the action of Martian winds, scientists have found.
>>
>>> ...
>>
>> Ah yes, it is the 'wind' on Mars and 'pollution' on earth. LOL!
>> What about 'our' wind and all the extra storms 'we' have had in the
>> last 20 years, hmm...
>>
>> Now this extra wind wouldn't have anything at all to do with the
>> solar cycle now would it.
>>
>> Man oh man some folks will believe anything someone trying to make
>> money feeds them.
>>
>> Mike
>
> And some idiots think they know more than scientists, when they really
> have trouble tying their shoes.
But only the "right scientists", right? Ones that dare question the current
so-called consensus (which by definition has no place in scientific inquiry)
are labeled kooks and heretics. Google "founder of the weather channel" for
just one example.
HTH (BKIW)
V
V-for-Vendicar
Guest
"Mike Romain" <[email protected]> wrote
> They also haven't explained how Mars has somehow, without our influence,
> warmed up 'more' than the earth in the same period.
And Uranus cooling.
MMMMMMMMMOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNNN
> They also haven't explained how Mars has somehow, without our influence,
> warmed up 'more' than the earth in the same period.
And Uranus cooling.
MMMMMMMMMOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNNN
V
V-for-Vendicar
Guest
"Siskuwihane" <[email protected]> wrote
> Ah yes, what a great way to prove a point, calling someone an idiot.
Google. 2 seconds
Mars Warming Due to Dust Storms, Study Finds
Kate Ravilious
for National Geographic News
April 4, 2007
Temperatures on Mars have increased slightly over a 20-year period due to
the action of Martian winds, scientists have found.
....
> Ah yes, what a great way to prove a point, calling someone an idiot.
Google. 2 seconds
Mars Warming Due to Dust Storms, Study Finds
Kate Ravilious
for National Geographic News
April 4, 2007
Temperatures on Mars have increased slightly over a 20-year period due to
the action of Martian winds, scientists have found.
....
V
V-for-Vendicar
Guest
> On average about 1 to 1.5 months shorter than it used to be.
> Winter is 4 months long.
"Puppet_Sock" <[email protected]> wrote
> So you are down to claiming 2.5 months now?
Yup, pretty much. It is now as if the middle 1 to 1.5 months of winter
have been erase and the starting and ending weeks of winter adjusted
accordingly.
Officially Winter is 3 months long of course, but defined in terms of first
snow an last thaw, its 4..
J
jazu
Guest
M
Mike Romain
Guest
V-for-Vendicar wrote:
> "Mike Romain" <[email protected]> wrote
>> Now this extra wind wouldn't have anything at all to do with the solar
>> cycle now would it.
>
> Absolutely nothing, for if it did, a warmig would be apparent every 11
> years.
>
> MMMMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNN
>
Not into science eh.
You might want to read a bit on The report that when there are fewer
sunspots, the earth cooled (see Maunder Minimum, Little Ice Age)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willie_Soon
Mike
> "Mike Romain" <[email protected]> wrote
>> Now this extra wind wouldn't have anything at all to do with the solar
>> cycle now would it.
>
> Absolutely nothing, for if it did, a warmig would be apparent every 11
> years.
>
> MMMMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNN
>
Not into science eh.
You might want to read a bit on The report that when there are fewer
sunspots, the earth cooled (see Maunder Minimum, Little Ice Age)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willie_Soon
Mike
V
V-for-Vendicar
Guest
"Mike Romain" <[email protected]> wrote
> Now this extra wind wouldn't have anything at all to do with the solar
> cycle now would it.
Absolutely nothing, for if it did, a warmig would be apparent every 11
years.
MMMMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNN
> Now this extra wind wouldn't have anything at all to do with the solar
> cycle now would it.
Absolutely nothing, for if it did, a warmig would be apparent every 11
years.
MMMMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNN
V
V-for-Vendicar
Guest
"Mike Romain" <[email protected]> wrote
> And we feel really bad for you about that too Lloyd. You really should
> have taken that basket weaving 101 course like you mommy said and maybe
> you could have caught up.
Idiot KKKonservative Romain remains blissfully ignorant of the fact that
the solar cycle is 22 years long.
MMMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOONNNNNNNNN
> And we feel really bad for you about that too Lloyd. You really should
> have taken that basket weaving 101 course like you mommy said and maybe
> you could have caught up.
Idiot KKKonservative Romain remains blissfully ignorant of the fact that
the solar cycle is 22 years long.
MMMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOONNNNNNNNN
M
Mike Romain
Guest
V-for-Vendicar wrote:
> "Mike Romain" <[email protected]> wrote
>> And we feel really bad for you about that too Lloyd. You really should
>> have taken that basket weaving 101 course like you mommy said and maybe
>> you could have caught up.
>
> Idiot KKKonservative Romain remains blissfully ignorant of the fact that
> the solar cycle is 22 years long.
>
> MMMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOONNNNNNNNN
>
>
For someone loose with words, you are awful dumb. You 'assume' I mean
the 'Hale' sun cycle which is 22 years.
You conveniently forget about the Gleissberg cycle which is 87 years
'or' Suess cycle which is 210 years or the Hallstatt cycle which is 2300
years or the Schwabe cycle which is 11 years.
Then there are the carbon 14 sun cycles of 105, 131, 232, 385, 504, 805,
2,241 years.
Or the Upper Permain cycle that shows 2500 year sun cycles.
Then you can get into the Milankovich earth cycles and on and on...
Yup, global warming is all man made for sure eh. LOL!
Figure we had fern trees growing at the North Pole in the Triassic
period and tell me more about this 'man made' global warming. I have
fern fossils I picked up on the shore of James Bay even.
Mike
> "Mike Romain" <[email protected]> wrote
>> And we feel really bad for you about that too Lloyd. You really should
>> have taken that basket weaving 101 course like you mommy said and maybe
>> you could have caught up.
>
> Idiot KKKonservative Romain remains blissfully ignorant of the fact that
> the solar cycle is 22 years long.
>
> MMMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOONNNNNNNNN
>
>
For someone loose with words, you are awful dumb. You 'assume' I mean
the 'Hale' sun cycle which is 22 years.
You conveniently forget about the Gleissberg cycle which is 87 years
'or' Suess cycle which is 210 years or the Hallstatt cycle which is 2300
years or the Schwabe cycle which is 11 years.
Then there are the carbon 14 sun cycles of 105, 131, 232, 385, 504, 805,
2,241 years.
Or the Upper Permain cycle that shows 2500 year sun cycles.
Then you can get into the Milankovich earth cycles and on and on...
Yup, global warming is all man made for sure eh. LOL!
Figure we had fern trees growing at the North Pole in the Triassic
period and tell me more about this 'man made' global warming. I have
fern fossils I picked up on the shore of James Bay even.
Mike