- 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 4:26 pm to WeeWee
Posted on 3/9/17 at 4:26 pm to WeeWee
quote:
Maybe that is the problem. Maybe we need to use models that look at the entire picture or atleast more than 0.0000022% of the picture to see if there is a problem or if any potential actions or inactions would make a difference.
The general public, the layman has no comprehension for geologic time scales.
modern human civ has been around for 200 years, human agriculture for 7000.
'the best' temperature for the Earth is the average temp at which the most species can thrive in their niches. Why would we concern ourselves with geologic timescales of millions, 10's of millions of years when we need to mitigate our environment for relatively immediate context.
4
Posted on 3/9/17 at 4:36 pm to Cruiserhog
quote:
'the best' temperature for the Earth is the average temp at which the most species can thrive in their niches.
You just made that up and are now playing like it actually makes sense and grounded in science...but lets say its true.
Make your case that warmer temperatures would lessen the number of thriving species...and species of what exactly?..mammals, fish, bacteria, plants? You really don't know what you're talking about do you? It seems you can recite the catechisms but have no actual comprehension of the topic.
This post was edited on 3/9/17 at 4:45 pm
Posted on 3/9/17 at 4:46 pm to Cruiserhog
quote:The earth has shown it really doesn't notice what temperature is best for the species on it.
the best' temperature for the Earth is the average temp at which the most species can thrive in their niches. Why would we concern ourselves with geologic timescales of millions, 10's of millions of years when we need to mitigate our environment for relatively immediate context.
The reason you should care is the simple fact man cannot make the climate do what he wants.
Hence the historical migrations. Did you miss that part of anthropology?
Posted on 3/9/17 at 4:52 pm to Cruiserhog
I'll post my question again, since you must have missed it on the last page.
Could you show the research that breaks out the Earth's temperature rise associated with CO2 versus other greenhouse gases, urban heating effects, and solar activity? I believe all are factors, no?
The reason that I ask, is because, if you know the ppm levels of CO2 in the Atmosphere, and you know the volume of the atmosphere, then you should be able to accurately calculate the percentage of global warming associated with CO2 versus other greenhouse gases, increased solar radiation, and the urban heat effects.
Could you show the research that breaks out the Earth's temperature rise associated with CO2 versus other greenhouse gases, urban heating effects, and solar activity? I believe all are factors, no?
The reason that I ask, is because, if you know the ppm levels of CO2 in the Atmosphere, and you know the volume of the atmosphere, then you should be able to accurately calculate the percentage of global warming associated with CO2 versus other greenhouse gases, increased solar radiation, and the urban heat effects.
Posted on 3/9/17 at 5:27 pm to Cruiserhog
quote:
The general public, the layman has no comprehension for geologic time scales.
modern human civ has been around for 200 years, human agriculture for 7000.
'the best' temperature for the Earth is the average temp at which the most species can thrive in their niches. Why would we concern ourselves with geologic timescales of millions, 10's of millions of years when we need to mitigate our environment for relatively immediate context.
I agree with that 100% but we can't predict that accurately enough to really plan for the distant future (>50 years). Here are the issues that will affect us in < 50 years though.
1. Issue #1: Sea level rise
2. Issue #2: Food supply
3. Issue #3: Water supply
4. Issue#4: Extreme weather
5. Issue #6: Energy
The left's solutions either do not address those issues, drive the costs of addressing those issues through the roof, or they flat out make them worse. For example, Pres Obama proposed a $10/barrel tax on oil and he wanted to use the $$$ to fund solar and wind projects. Thats great but it would have made energy costs higher because obviously oil would have been higher and even with subsidies wind and solar are more expensive forms of energy. Example #2 California needs water to ease the burden of droughts, environmentalist are delaying the state's desalination projects by upto a decade with lawsuits they know they will lose and forcing California to dump a shite load of drinking water into the ocean to save the endangered algae.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News