Started By
Message

re: True or False: climate change

Posted on 3/13/17 at 3:09 pm to
Posted by Iosh
Bureau of Interstellar Immigration
Member since Dec 2012
18941 posts
Posted on 3/13/17 at 3:09 pm to
quote:

Graph seems pretty accurate
My gut thinks so too. I only post gut-reviewed literature.
Posted by CptBengal
BR Baby
Member since Dec 2007
71661 posts
Posted on 3/13/17 at 3:11 pm to
quote:


Another pleb incapable of answering a true or false question



no. you posted a deranged hypothetical based on absurd assumptions.

you deserve to feel stupid for failing to understand basic relationships.
Posted by BobBoucher
Member since Jan 2008
16721 posts
Posted on 3/13/17 at 3:16 pm to
False.

If humans can pollute on a micro scale (rivers, city air quality, etc), why would it be implausible to think we could on a macro scale?

Furthermore, burning tons of fossile fuels releases CO2 instantly in geologic time, that the earth spent millions of years removing from the atmosphere. Anyone who is remotely objective would say ok, there's a good chance that's going to have consequences.

This post was edited on 3/13/17 at 3:43 pm
Posted by bmy
Nashville
Member since Oct 2007
48203 posts
Posted on 3/13/17 at 3:18 pm to
quote:



no. you posted a deranged hypothetical based on absurd assumptions.

you deserve to feel stupid for failing to understand basic relationships.


Of course it's hypothetical. That doesn't make it useless. I'll rephrase and give you another stab at it..

"If humans quadrupled the amount of greenhouse gases and water vapor in Earth's atmosphere would there be any change in Earth's climate?"
This post was edited on 3/13/17 at 3:19 pm
Posted by CptBengal
BR Baby
Member since Dec 2007
71661 posts
Posted on 3/13/17 at 3:18 pm to
quote:

Of course it's hypothetical. That doesn't make it useless.


it does if the assumptions are so far from reality they have no applicable basis.

but thanks for trying again.
Posted by bmy
Nashville
Member since Oct 2007
48203 posts
Posted on 3/13/17 at 3:20 pm to
quote:


If humans can pollute on a micro scale (rivers, city air quality, etc), why would it be implausible to think we couldn't on a macro scale


I agree this seems reasonable. I'm looking at climate change which isn't necessarily a byproduct of pollution though
Posted by bmy
Nashville
Member since Oct 2007
48203 posts
Posted on 3/13/17 at 3:21 pm to
quote:


it does if the assumptions are so far from reality they have no applicable basis.

but thanks for trying again


I figured you wouldn't answer. We both know it's false.. but cognitive dissonance is a real bitch to get around
Posted by CptBengal
BR Baby
Member since Dec 2007
71661 posts
Posted on 3/13/17 at 3:26 pm to
quote:



I figured you wouldn't answer.


This from the clown who said Fukushima was solved a week after the incident.

fricking moron.
Posted by Haughton99
Haughton
Member since Feb 2009
6124 posts
Posted on 3/13/17 at 3:44 pm to
quote:

Raw data shouldn't be difficult to find. I'm basically just asking..


It's extremely easy to find the raw data but wingnuts bury their head in the sand and ignore it because it may challenge their strongly held but majorly flawed beliefs on the subject. They like to say "show me the unbiased studies" but if you show them one they'll claim it's biased if it disagrees with them. See how that works.
Posted by bmy
Nashville
Member since Oct 2007
48203 posts
Posted on 3/13/17 at 3:45 pm to
quote:


This from the clown who said Fukushima was solved a week after the incident.

fricking moron


And yet you still won't answer a very simple hypothetical question. We all know why.

Its fair to say things like "you are using ridiculous numbers" ... but you can't even admit that at those ridiculous numbers there would be an observable effect on weather patterns/ climate... sad tbh.. for your types it has more to do with agenda and less with reality
This post was edited on 3/13/17 at 3:47 pm
Posted by RobbBobb
Matt Flynn, BCS MVP
Member since Feb 2007
27895 posts
Posted on 3/13/17 at 3:56 pm to
And the reason Mars is experiencing rapid climate change? (psst, there is no life there, of any kind)
Posted by Haughton99
Haughton
Member since Feb 2009
6124 posts
Posted on 3/13/17 at 3:58 pm to
quote:

(psst, there is no life there, of any kind)


We don't know that for sure and there is a great chance (supported by scientific evidence) that there was life there in the past.
Posted by CptBengal
BR Baby
Member since Dec 2007
71661 posts
Posted on 3/13/17 at 4:02 pm to
quote:

there is a great chance (supported by scientific evidence) that there was life there in the past.



so ghosts are now causing martian climate change?

Posted by Haughton99
Haughton
Member since Feb 2009
6124 posts
Posted on 3/13/17 at 4:05 pm to
quote:

so ghosts are now causing martian climate change?


Yes.. That's exactly what I was saying.

Posted by Gaspergou202
Metairie, LA
Member since Jun 2016
13494 posts
Posted on 3/13/17 at 4:07 pm to
quote:

I'm obviously going with false.

So in your simplified what if, you left off strength of stellar radiation reaching said planet. How much radiation is being expelled and how far away the planet is from it's star, and what are the planetary conditions.

So for example after pumping all that " massive amounts of green house gasses, water vapor, CO2 etc.. over hundreds of years. " on Pluto the atmosphere would be identical since it would all freeze out on the surface. On Mars the polar ice caps would increase in an immeasurable way. On Mercury it would disappear into space. And on Venus, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune it would be unnoticed in the vast atmospheres. An atmosphere like ours can only exist with photosynthetic life, and life changes everything.

Terraforming is easy in Sci-Fi books and movies. But this is not fiction.

Because of life, a metallic core that creates a powerful magnetic field, liquid water, and plate tectonics, Earth would experience negligible change. All of these "pollutants" occur naturally and in very large amounts on earth. All of these chemicals are involved in natural geological/biological cycles that take them from the surface to underground and back again.

Let's look at CO2. Man introduced carbon comes from fossil fuels. This was all part of the biosphere! Coal came from plants that grew so fast that they were "sequestered" before decay organisms could recycle them. Oil and natural gas come from single called organisms that got buried on the sea floor before they can be recycled. Oil and natural gas naturally leak in very significant amounts and life recycles it. Coal seams weather away and are recycled, and ancient buried carbon is pumped to the surface in volcanic eruptions that occur daily worldwide. Finally most of the American West and Florida are built on limestone that was laid down as coral and carbon rich shells! Most of the carbon would be absorbed into the biota of the planet because of increased plant growth. More limestone, oil and gas deposition -"sequestered"!

Finally, let's look at real world terraforming. Oxygen producing life began spewing out billions of tons of poisonous O2 about 2.7 billion years ago, but free atmospheric oxygen did not appear until 2.45 billion years ago. That took 250 million years for the incredible amount of tons of chlorophyll equipped life forms to overcome the absorbtive capacity of the Earth!

Hundreds of years? Good luck with that!
This post was edited on 3/13/17 at 4:12 pm
Posted by Dale51
Member since Oct 2016
32378 posts
Posted on 3/13/17 at 4:09 pm to
Definitely not a cult.
Posted by Iosh
Bureau of Interstellar Immigration
Member since Dec 2012
18941 posts
Posted on 3/13/17 at 4:09 pm to
quote:

Let's look at CO2. Man introduced carbon comes from fossil fuels. This was all part of the biosphere!
Emphasis on "was."
Posted by Machine
Earth
Member since May 2011
6001 posts
Posted on 3/13/17 at 4:10 pm to
i'm not saying that anybody that doesn't believe humans impact climate is an idiot...

wait...yes i am. scratch that.
Posted by Gaspergou202
Metairie, LA
Member since Jun 2016
13494 posts
Posted on 3/13/17 at 4:13 pm to
quote:

Emphasis on "was."

Emphasis on "will be again in a relatively quick time"!
Posted by RobbBobb
Matt Flynn, BCS MVP
Member since Feb 2007
27895 posts
Posted on 3/13/17 at 4:14 pm to
quote:

We don't know that for sure

Yes, we do know that for sure
quote:

May, 2016: Scientists find evidence of global warming on Mars

The research was conducted using an instrument on board the NASA Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter that allowed an unprecedented examination of “the most recent Martian ice age recorded in the planet’s north polar ice cap,” according to a NASA press release. Research was led by planetary scientist Isaac B. Smith at the Southwest Research Institute in Boulder, Colorado.
quote:

there was life there in the past.

Holee shite!! WTF would that have to do with current climate change?
first pageprev pagePage 2 of 9Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram