- 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 3:40 pm to Iosh
Posted on 3/9/17 at 3:40 pm to Iosh
quote:
Multiparty emissions agreements with an external complaint adjudication mechanism are the most promising start.
Promising start to what? What will the real life, observable changes consist of? It took 100 years to raise the temp a supposed .8 of (1) degree. How fast will these temperatures fall and what are you basing that timeline on?
1
Posted on 3/9/17 at 3:41 pm to Dale51
quote:
In terms of geological time, how significant is 100 years?
To the environment in which humans, you know, us, 100 years is monumental.
you statement about geologic time is both ignorant and irrelevant, we dont think about our survival in terms of geologic time and neither do we afix climate change models to geologic time models, a paleoclimatologist might but you are not one so again, stop posting about climate change
Posted on 3/9/17 at 3:42 pm to Dale51
quote:Sure it does. Geologists can use past continental drift and predict future movement of the tectonic plates. Astrophysicists can use the light received from other stars and predict our Sun will become a red giant.
You attempting to use that established past record as an indicator of what the future will be.
Science doesn't work like that,
Posted on 3/9/17 at 3:42 pm to Iosh
quote:Now see, here we go. As a polite and restrained gentleman, I will forgo the ocean of laughter GIFs I initially pulled up and invite you to further consider the implications of 'interglacial maximum' being conceived as a specific year, decade, or even century within a .11Ma cycle.
If you think we are at an interglacial maximum of the natural cycle then by the definition of maximum we would expect cooling in the future.
Posted on 3/9/17 at 3:45 pm to Iosh
quote:Yes. At least some of us do.
We do?
Posted on 3/9/17 at 3:48 pm to Dale51
quote:Emissions controls, an arrest in temperature rise, and it would probably take several centuries absent geoengineering (based on the rate in which the CO2 could be re-absorbed from the atmosphere by deep ocean circulation and rock weathering).
Promising start to what? What will the real life, observable changes consist of? It took 100 years to raise the temp a supposed .8 of (1) degree. How fast will these temperatures fall and what are you basing that timeline on?
Posted on 3/9/17 at 3:53 pm to Gaspergou202
quote:
A few inconvenient questions that man-made climate change advocates can't answer.
Back in the old Medieval days wine grapes grew very well in England. Since it's too cold to grow them today, the logical conclusion is that it was warmer then.
1) What were the Romans, Gaules, Angles, Norse, etc doing to pump all that CO2 into the atmosphere?
Then it suddenly got colder, a lot colder! So cold in fact that smart scientist often refer to this period as the Little Ice Age.
2) What did humans do to cause this?! Did we stop exhaling CO2?
3) Why do these scientists never just propose what ever we did then, we do now?
Don't even get me started on Snowball Earth and the Carboniferous Period! Huge climate change swings predate the appearance of Homo sapiens!
you do understand that most of us that have some knowledge of climate change know the earth warms and cools
you should also know the medieval warming was local not global
you shouldnt care about snowball earth and the carboniferous, we dont live in that time so you continuing to use this in future discussions would be ignorant of the real issue.
Posted on 3/9/17 at 3:53 pm to Cruiserhog
quote:
To the environment in which humans, you know, us, 100 years is monumental.
Thats just dumb.
The supposed topic--"climate change".."global warming".."weather disruption"-- supposedly have nothing to do with the life span of a human. We must do something..for the children and their children.
It's almost like you are purposely trying to miss the context. Kinda like a religious zealot. Why do you suppose that is?
This post was edited on 3/9/17 at 3:56 pm
Posted on 3/9/17 at 3:57 pm to boogiewoogie1978
quote:Heretic! You know what they did with heretics in the Middle Ages?
Scott Pruitt says carbon dioxide is not a primary contributor to global warming
Posted on 3/9/17 at 3:59 pm to Iosh
quote:
Emissions controls, an arrest in temperature rise, and it would probably take several centuries absent geoengineering (based on the rate in which the CO2 could be re-absorbed from the atmosphere by deep ocean circulation and rock weathering).
Why bother? What are you afraid will happen?
What are some more immediate and serious problems facing mankind now and in the near future? Where does "global warming" fall on that list?
This post was edited on 3/9/17 at 4:16 pm
Posted on 3/9/17 at 4:01 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:What makes you think I'm referring to a year, decade, or century? How does .01Ma grab you?
Now see, here we go. As a polite and restrained gentleman, I will forgo the ocean of laughter GIFs I initially pulled up and invite you to further consider the implications of 'interglacial maximum' being conceived as a specific year, decade, or even century within a .11Ma cycle.
This post was edited on 3/9/17 at 4:06 pm
Posted on 3/9/17 at 4:05 pm to llfshoals
quote:
You think.
You do not know, that is the difference
except I do know,
the geologic records across the planet proves the last time the earth was at 400 ppm where we are currently...and rising mind you, I thinks its around 405 now...the oceans of the planet were 5 mtrs to 40 mtrs higher.
that rise in sea level is going to happen. Its only a matter of time now. there is no stopping it.
now you people bitch and moan about carbon credits and redistribution of wealth....
the resulting displacement and loss of economies (ie New York, New Orleans, most of the Carribean, most of SE Asia...all gone) is something you should be concerned about.
Posted on 3/9/17 at 4:06 pm to Iosh
quote:
How would 10,000 years work for you?
Why stop there? What does 100k look like?
Posted on 3/9/17 at 4:10 pm to Cruiserhog
quote:
the geologic records across the planet proves the last time the earth was at 400 ppm where we are currently...and rising mind you, I thinks its around 405 now...the oceans of the planet were 5 mtrs to 40 mtrs higher.
Making specious correlations is not very scientific. Was there anything else going on during that time period?
Posted on 3/9/17 at 4:12 pm to Cruiserhog
quote:
To the environment in which humans, you know, us, 100 years is monumental.
Ok but climate change is not just dealing with the environment that humans live in. It is dealing with the big picture of the environment and the lifespan of the planet. 100 years is a YUUUGE deal to us, but it is 0.0000022% of the lifespan of the planet. So 100 years is incredibly insignificant.
quote:
we dont think about our survival in terms of geologic time and neither do we afix climate change models to geologic time models, a paleoclimatologist might but you are not one so again,
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.
Posted on 3/9/17 at 4:12 pm to Iosh
quote:
Geologists can use past continental drift and predict future movement of the tectonic plates.
inaccurate.
Posted on 3/9/17 at 4:18 pm to Cruiserhog
quote:
that rise in sea level is going to happen. Its only a matter of time now. there is no stopping it.
We all die one day.
This post was edited on 3/9/17 at 4:19 pm
Posted on 3/9/17 at 4:23 pm to Cruiserhog
quote:
you should also know the medieval warming was local not global
Was it, though? It seemed to coincide with a massive, decades long drought that collapsed the Mayan Civilization.
The increased rains resulted in greater grass production on the Mongolian Steppe, triggering the population boom which created the Ghengis Kahn's great Hordes.
It certainly seemed to coincide with a rapid expansion of the Polynesian culture accross the Pacific.
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.
Posted on 3/9/17 at 4:28 pm to Cruiserhog
quote:
the geologic records across the planet proves the last time the earth was at 400 ppm where we are currently...and rising mind you, I thinks its around 405 now...the oceans of the planet were 5 mtrs to 40 mtrs higher.
I have a question for you. 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?
Page 7 of 13
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News