- 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
Posted on 3/13/17 at 3:11 pm to bmy
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 on 3/13/17 at 3:16 pm to bmy
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.
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 on 3/13/17 at 3:18 pm to CptBengal
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 on 3/13/17 at 3:18 pm to bmy
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 on 3/13/17 at 3:20 pm to BobBoucher
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 on 3/13/17 at 3:21 pm to CptBengal
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 on 3/13/17 at 3:26 pm to bmy
quote:
I figured you wouldn't answer.
This from the clown who said Fukushima was solved a week after the incident.
fricking moron.
Posted on 3/13/17 at 3:44 pm to bmy
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 on 3/13/17 at 3:45 pm to CptBengal
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 on 3/13/17 at 3:56 pm to bmy
And the reason Mars is experiencing rapid climate change? (psst, there is no life there, of any kind)
Posted on 3/13/17 at 3:58 pm to RobbBobb
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 on 3/13/17 at 4:02 pm to Haughton99
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 on 3/13/17 at 4:05 pm to CptBengal
quote:
so ghosts are now causing martian climate change?
Yes.. That's exactly what I was saying.
Posted on 3/13/17 at 4:07 pm to bmy
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 on 3/13/17 at 4:09 pm to Gaspergou202
quote:Emphasis on "was."
Let's look at CO2. Man introduced carbon comes from fossil fuels. This was all part of the biosphere!
Posted on 3/13/17 at 4:10 pm to bmy
i'm not saying that anybody that doesn't believe humans impact climate is an idiot...
wait...yes i am. scratch that.
wait...yes i am. scratch that.
Posted on 3/13/17 at 4:13 pm to Iosh
quote:
Emphasis on "was."
Emphasis on "will be again in a relatively quick time"!
Posted on 3/13/17 at 4:14 pm to Haughton99
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?
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News