- 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 4:36 pm to Cruiserhog
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
0
Posted on 3/9/17 at 4:41 pm to Cruiserhog
quote:There was never any chance man could stop it, or make it happen either. At some point it will happen, and no one knows if this another warming spike like the Minoan warming or not.
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.
I'm guessing you stopped before you got to the Ordovician/Silurian periods where co2 levels were 4000ppm, not 400. One of the most severe glacial cooling/warming periods in history. 4000ppm very cold kills your theory. Lest you think it was just once, look at the Jurassic cooling period also.
It will take thousands of years in a worst case scenario for your dire prediction to happen. Thousands of years to adjust, by which time with any luck man is off this rock.
Fools like you are so afraid of things you can't control and shouldn't try to. Man is a very recent development on this planet, she'll manage just fine in spite of us.
Posted on 3/9/17 at 4:43 pm to Iosh
quote:It would make me thank goodness we are delaying/mitigating return to glaciation.
What makes you think I'm referring to a year, decade, or century? How does .01Ma grab you?
and you?
This post was edited on 3/9/17 at 4:47 pm
Posted on 3/9/17 at 4:45 pm to llfshoals
quote:Skeptics: Those stupid warmists always forget about the Sun!
4000ppm very cold kills your theory.
Also skeptics: *forgets about the sun*
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 4:48 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:You miss the vertical spike at the end? That's like saying setting your house on fire is good because it ensures you won't catch pneumonia.
It would make me thank goodness we are delaying/mitigating return to glaciation. Right?
Posted on 3/9/17 at 4:48 pm to Iosh
quote:The Ice Age says "Hello!"
Those stupid warmists always forget about the Sun!
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 4:52 pm to Iosh
quote:I never forget about the flaming ball of gas in the sky.
Skeptics: Those stupid warmists always forget about the Sun!
Also skeptics: *forgets about the sun*
It's the one in charge.
Posted on 3/9/17 at 4:54 pm to Iosh
quote:No, didn't see you post every few years data in that either to show the spikes and troughs.
You miss the vertical spike at the end? That's like saying setting your house on fire is good because it ensures you won't catch pneumonia.
Time has a way of smoothing out the graph.
Posted on 3/9/17 at 4:54 pm to jrodLSUke
all that is readily available on the internet.
here is natural influences vs man made
this is observed vs predicted with the atypical natural cylclic variation in Co2 conc.
here is Ghgs
here is solar activity vs temp
solar output just came out of mini, the temp trend is up regardless
urban heating would be hard to quantify in terms of contributing to the overall global temp anomaly
yes all are factors but the major component is our external vs natural contribution to ghg's
here is natural influences vs man made
this is observed vs predicted with the atypical natural cylclic variation in Co2 conc.
here is Ghgs
here is solar activity vs temp
solar output just came out of mini, the temp trend is up regardless
urban heating would be hard to quantify in terms of contributing to the overall global temp anomaly
yes all are factors but the major component is our external vs natural contribution to ghg's
This post was edited on 3/9/17 at 4:55 pm
Posted on 3/9/17 at 4:55 pm to jrodLSUke
You want FIG. 8-17 from AR5-WG1. Discussion and sources can be found in the associated chapter ( massive PDF)
Posted on 3/9/17 at 4:55 pm to Iosh
quote:
You miss the vertical spike at the end?
Yes..that spike at the end. Looks like it's actually less than .8 degrees. Might mean that we actually were in an unusual cooling period and are approaching what was long ago.
Why should I find this disturbing?
This post was edited on 3/9/17 at 4:59 pm
Posted on 3/9/17 at 4:58 pm to Dale51
quote:There's nothing unusual about the cooling period. It's what you'd expect given the glacial cycles as shown by the ice cores. The spike is the unusual part.
Yes..that spike at the end. Looks like it's actually less than .8 degrees. Might mean that we're actually in an unusual cooling period and hare approaching what was long ago.
Posted on 3/9/17 at 4:59 pm to Iosh
quote:No.
You miss the vertical spike at the end?
Nor did I miss the exaggeration of it.
Regardless, insofar as your graph intimates a mitigation of future glaciation, how in the world could that be a bad thing?
Posted on 3/9/17 at 4:59 pm to jrodLSUke
quote:
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.
are you waiting to get me with the haha humans contribute 3 percent to global warming.
you should watch this video, this claim was REALLY popular on this poliboard about a month ago.
are humans contributing only 3 percent to global warming
Posted on 3/9/17 at 5:01 pm to llfshoals
quote:Then why do you think the O-S climate disproves anything? The Sun was considerably weaker 450mya, therefore higher concentrations of CO2 compared to the present would not necessarily yield higher temperatures compared to the present.
I never forget about the flaming ball of gas in the sky.
It's the one in charge.
Posted on 3/9/17 at 5:04 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:Because the rate matters more than the direction. Negative change on a 100,000 year scale would be considerably easier to adapt to than positive change on a 100 year scale.
Regardless, insofar as your graph intimates a mitigation of future glaciation, how in the world could that be a bad thing?
This post was edited on 3/9/17 at 5:05 pm
Posted on 3/9/17 at 5:05 pm to llfshoals
quote:
The earth has shown it really doesn't notice what temperature is best for the species on it.
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?
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.
forced migrations are a bad thing dude.
again, I think you guys on here believe im arguing we can do something about climate change.
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.
Parts of Iraq last year reached a heat index of 160 degrees with a dewpoint of 96 degrees F. Humans cannot survive in that. Incidences like the above are going to propagate not abate.
This post was edited on 3/9/17 at 5:09 pm
Page 8 of 13
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News