- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Scott Pruitt says carbon dioxide is not a primary contributor to global warming
Posted on 3/9/17 at 5:32 pm to NC_Tigah
Posted on 3/9/17 at 5:32 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:The issue is that even if there is no "runaway" warming, continued emissions at current levels will result in continued warming, and the temp effect of CO2 won't saturate until after 8-9°C (per AR5-WG1-FIG-12-05). As you can imagine the consequences of such warming are quite severe, starting with total ice cap meltdown (due to polar amplification) which would lock in dozens of meters of sea level rise.
So what is the issue?
This post was edited on 3/9/17 at 5:34 pm
1
Posted on 3/9/17 at 5:33 pm to Cruiserhog
quote:No moron, we don't have the ability to do so. Literally the only way we could affect the climate and even then it would only be for a short time would be to nuke half the planet.
Man cannot make the climate do what he wants....sure we can, we just dont have the global political will to do what is necessary.
quote:Did you miss the "planet doesn't care" part of the lecture?
forced migrations are a bad thing dude.
quote:Based off historical trends we have a fair idea. About 30 degrees warmer on average.
we cant, in light of the current political climate its done, the trend is up and its only going to get worse as the global average temp rises as the climate lag finally starts to catch up to our rapid increase in Co2 lvls.
the only thing we dont know is how bad its going to get.
That was always going to happen based on history, and no matter if every human being had never existed it still would at about the same pace.
Every human being on earth doing every thing you think is right, and it still will happen. At about the same pace.
You act like this has never happened before. It has.
Posted on 3/9/17 at 5:34 pm to Iosh
quote:No, you wouldn't.
The resolution in Marcott is sufficiently high that you'd see a century-scale spike like the one we have now. LINK
Not measuring temperatures the same way.
Posted on 3/9/17 at 5:35 pm to llfshoals
quote:What "historical trends" make you think GMST would be +30 degrees? That's even more than the PETM.
Based off historical trends we have a fair idea. About 30 degrees warmer on average.
Posted on 3/9/17 at 5:36 pm to llfshoals
quote:I provided a link to a statistician replicating the methods of Marcott on simulated datasets with century-scale spikes. You'll have to do better than "nuh-uh."
No, you wouldn't.
This post was edited on 3/9/17 at 5:40 pm
Posted on 3/9/17 at 5:38 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:You're going to have to do a better job asking this question because I really can't make my answer any plainer. Less emissions = slower rise. Slower rise = still enough to cancel out the natural slow fall.
In terms of predictability associated with cyclical aspects of Ice Age climate demonstrated via ice core studies, how in the world would "1900 levels" of "CO2 rise" prevent a return to glaciation?
This post was edited on 3/9/17 at 5:40 pm
Posted on 3/9/17 at 5:39 pm to Iosh
quote:I take it you haven't noticed most of the last 600 million years the hot periods are quite a bit warmer than now?
What "historical trends" make you think GMST would be +30 degrees? That's even more than the PETM.
Oh and that those hot periods are a majority of the time?
Cold periods like now by comparison are relatively brief.
Posted on 3/9/17 at 5:39 pm to upgrayedd
quote:
Water Vapor
OMG we need to ban water.
Posted on 3/9/17 at 5:41 pm to Iosh
quote:Translation they guessed
provided a link to a statistician replicating the methods of Marcott on simulated datasets with century-scale spikes. You'll have to do better than "nuh-uh."
Posted on 3/9/17 at 5:41 pm to boogiewoogie1978
quote:
Scott Pruitt says carbon dioxide is not a primary contributor to global warming
quote:
Assumed office: February 17, 2017
President: Donald Trump
You don't say?
Posted on 3/9/17 at 5:42 pm to Iosh
quote:You're guessing that the temperature should be falling.
You're going to have to do a better job asking this question because I really can't make my answer any plainer. Less emissions = slower rise. Slower rise = still enough to cancel out the natural slow fall.
Posted on 3/9/17 at 5:43 pm to llfshoals
quote:LINK
I take it you haven't noticed most of the last 600 million years the hot periods are quite a bit warmer than now?
The PETM was 15°C hotter than present and that's as hot as it gets until you start pre-dating the evolution of plants, which makes the climate system so different as to be irrelevant. (Or else why stop there, since the Earth was thousands of degrees hotter when it was first accreting and clearing its orbit.)
This post was edited on 3/9/17 at 5:47 pm
Posted on 3/9/17 at 5:44 pm to Iosh
quote:
I'm intentionally missing your questions. You've made about half a dozen replies to posts I made replying to other people, usually asking a question that's (1) easily searchable (2) not relevant to the point I was answering. I
This makes no sense and I suspect an avoidance tactic on your part.
As to your (1) question..I was was asking you. How are you views searchable on the internet?
(2) I was asking you a separate question, so how would that be relative to someone elses question?
Again...what are you afraid of that has you take such an extremist position?
Posted on 3/9/17 at 5:45 pm to Dale51
quote:You don't need to "suspect," I just told you it was. Your questions are like someone showing up to a very detailed evolution debate and shouting "if humans came from apes, why are there still apes?" The answers are so basic that they're not gonna vary from person to person. Go to SkepSci.
This makes no sense and I suspect an avoidance tactic on your part.
This post was edited on 3/9/17 at 5:47 pm
Posted on 3/9/17 at 5:48 pm to llfshoals
My SIL says the exact same things. She doesn't really understand any of this, so her responses are always the same.
Posted on 3/9/17 at 5:50 pm to llfshoals
quote:If drawing a conclusion based on thousands of proxies as well as hundreds of years of direct solar observation counts as "guessing" in your mind then I'm clearly putting in too much effort. Time for leg day.
You're guessing that the temperature should be falling.
Posted on 3/9/17 at 5:50 pm to Iosh
quote:What are the CO2 levels associated with those changes?
8-9°C (per AR5-WG1-FIG-12-05). As you can imagine the consequences of such warming are quite severe
Posted on 3/9/17 at 5:52 pm to Iosh
quote:
Your questions are like someone showing up to a very detailed evolution debate and shouting "if humans came from apes, why are there still apes?
There seems to be little similarity in your analogy.
I've read most of the thread and it doesn't seem all that detailed. Selective bits of graphs..boilerplate recited positions when the very first question would seem to be along the lines of "What are you afraid of?" A like analogy to yours may be, someone has learned to be a germ-phobic and if you ask "What are you afraid of?" they respond.."So the Black Plague was O.K. with you?!?" The two are unrelated.
Posted on 3/9/17 at 5:54 pm to Dale51
quote:
What are you afraid of?
This is not an important question. The answer could be nothing or everything, and the points would still stand.
Posted on 3/9/17 at 5:56 pm to Iosh
quote:
If drawing a conclusion based on thousands of proxies as well as hundreds of years of direct solar observation counts as "guessing" in your mind then I'm clearly putting in too much effort. Time for leg day.
How do you account for about 97% of all the climate model projections have proven to be wrong...and, after seeing those real live results, how would an actual scientist proceed? Ignore then and take more grant money for more of the same?? I don't think so.
So what do you make of that embarrassing track record of the "scientists" that devised those models?
Page 10 of 13
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News