- 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: True or False: climate change
Posted on 3/14/17 at 4:10 pm to Dale51
Posted on 3/14/17 at 4:10 pm to Dale51
quote:Guessing your source is about 10-15 years old. LINK It's 406 ppm as of today. It was 383 ppm 10 years ago. And you're gonna have to give me a name and not just say "an estimated" because that estimate sounds pretty dumb. It was 280ppm before the industrial era; the rest is on us.
It's actually a little under 0.04%..about 0.038%
The point is, that volume is the total amount. Of that 0.04% an estimated 3-4% of that is do to human activity. So 3-4 % of 0,04% is the driver of catastrophe?? 0.034% of the whole?..everything is fine..totally natural and healthy. 0.038% of the whole? Horror....panic!
It's just dumb to think such a dramatic change will come from such a minuscule amount, and the science proves it to be an absurdist position.
And I just gotta chuckle at the argument from small numbers. The 280ppm of CO2 that was already in our atmosphere is the reason Earth has deserts and rainforests and the swamp-arse South instead of being a year-round frozen snowball. It's pretty intuitive that doubling that could have dramatic effects.
This post was edited on 3/14/17 at 4:11 pm
2
Posted on 3/14/17 at 4:13 pm to Iosh
quote:Dude . . . .
The 280ppm of CO2 that was already in our atmosphere is the reason Earth isn't a year-round frozen snowball.
Posted on 3/14/17 at 4:13 pm to Iosh
quote:
A treaty would also be sufficient to address global warming.
This is insanity.
Posted on 3/14/17 at 4:15 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:I remember when people argued with me instead of whatever the hell it is you and Taxing Authority are doing now. Dale51 is basic as hell but he's trying. I'll give him that.
Dude . . . .
Posted on 3/14/17 at 4:19 pm to Iosh
quote:
It was 280ppm before the industrial era; the rest is on us.
This is deflection from the point. You're back to focusing on CO2 exclusively, when the point was to gain perspective on the percentage of the atmosphere as a whole.
But seeing that you don't want to comprehend the insignificance of the percentage contributed to human activity, lets set a baseline for CO2.
What have the highest concentration of CO2 been?
Posted on 3/14/17 at 4:22 pm to Dale51
quote:You're the one who asked the question about CO2. I answered. I'm not sure what "the atmosphere as a whole" is supposed to prove since N2, O2, and argon don't absorb infrared radiation. But you're doing exactly what I said you were doing and skipping over issues I've raised while rushing to raise more of your own before the original is answered to our mutual satisfaction.
This is deflection from the point. You're back to focusing on CO2 exclusively, when the point was to gain perspective on the percentage of the atmosphere as a whole.
But seeing that you don't want to comprehend the insignificance of the percentage contributed to human activity, lets set a baseline for CO2.
quote:What is your source for this estimate?
Of that 0.04% an estimated 3-4% of that is do to human activity.
This post was edited on 3/14/17 at 4:28 pm
Posted on 3/14/17 at 4:28 pm to Iosh
quote:
Dale51 is basic as hell but he's trying. I'll give him that.
Why thank you. Maybe you can help me with the basics.
Lets start at square 1. The reason to care one way or the other.
What is it that you're afraid of? Paint a picture of what life on Earth will be like in 100 years if absolutely nothing is done about "global warming/climate change/weather disruption. Will people be starving..drowning..will the seas be boiling and the Earth plagued will disease and pestilence? Will the crops fail and law and order collapse....you know...real "Revelations" kinda stuff?
Why do religions always end up with .."You must follow my rules or_______", and ______ is always the same old crap...pestilence..starvation..chaos..crops failing and water poisoned, etc, etc?
Posted on 3/14/17 at 4:30 pm to Dale51
quote:When I accused you of galloping around and not sticking to a single issue, you told me to pick a question. I picked "what % of the atmosphere is CO2." Now that you've realized your sources are dated and/or unreliable, I come to find out the question is now "why should I care?"
Lets start at square 1. The reason to care one way or the other.
It's a question I'm asking myself right now, only in the context of this thread.
This post was edited on 3/14/17 at 4:32 pm
Posted on 3/14/17 at 4:42 pm to Iosh
quote:
. I picked "what % of the atmosphere is CO2." Now that you've realized your sources are dated and/or unreliable,
Great! You answered that question...but now have a problem with a follow up question?
I don't know if you realize it or not, but any subject has many relevant parts.
You claimed my approach was "basic"...so I agreed there may be something to that, and went back to the most basic. Why care one way or the other? There must be a reason for such a panicked worry to hold such a major part of your mind and concern for...."the children??.., so I ask, "What is it you're so afraid of?" Is this an unreasonable question to ask of someone who thinks basic human life and the survival of the planet is at stake? So again...what scares you so?
Posted on 3/14/17 at 4:44 pm to Dale51
Are you referring to this portion from your link?
EDIT: Actually I might get banned so I'll do a BLUF and then expound more later: Salby is 100% correct! Unfortunately you asked me what percentage of concentration we're responsible for and Salby is talking about emissions.
Nature is responsible for way more CO2 emission than we are. But nature is also responsible for way more CO2 uptake than we are (which is basically none).
Salby doesn't mention natural uptake because he wants to mislead you by relying on the gross and not the net. This is how we can be responsible for only a tiny fraction of the emissions, but pretty much all of the increase in concentration; in the absence of human emissions the CO2 flux would be slightly negative and CO2 concentration would be (very very slowly) falling per the glaciation cycle.
quote:I just want to be absolutely clear this is the specific part you were referring to before I address it. (Which won't be until later, it's leg day again!)
96% of CO2 emissions are from natural sources, only 4% is man-made
EDIT: Actually I might get banned so I'll do a BLUF and then expound more later: Salby is 100% correct! Unfortunately you asked me what percentage of concentration we're responsible for and Salby is talking about emissions.
Nature is responsible for way more CO2 emission than we are. But nature is also responsible for way more CO2 uptake than we are (which is basically none).
Salby doesn't mention natural uptake because he wants to mislead you by relying on the gross and not the net. This is how we can be responsible for only a tiny fraction of the emissions, but pretty much all of the increase in concentration; in the absence of human emissions the CO2 flux would be slightly negative and CO2 concentration would be (very very slowly) falling per the glaciation cycle.
This post was edited on 3/14/17 at 4:57 pm
Posted on 3/14/17 at 4:57 pm to Iosh
quote:
I just want to be absolutely clear this is the specific part you were referring to before I address it.
Thats one part..there are sources that claim less than 4%...but please respond to the context of why I find that significant. CO2 is 0.04% of the total atmosphere. (Your numbers). Man made is 4% of that...not 4% of the total volume of the atmosphere. If mankind stopped 100% of all production of CO2, it would still be insignificant. Seeing that will not happen and the demands of changes in peoples lives would be dramatic, it just seem stupid to be scared of that. As human, our most important trait is the ability to adapt. The change of a another 0.08 degree in another 100 years seems like something we could easily adapt to.
So to summarize. 0.003% of anything is a fools worry.
Posted on 3/14/17 at 5:00 pm to Iosh
quote:
Nature is responsible for way more CO2 emission than we are.
How much? Percentage of each?
Posted on 3/14/17 at 5:01 pm to Iosh
quote:Snowball earth?
instead of whatever the hell it is you and Taxing Authority are doing now
I mean a carbonless atmosphere is an obvious impossibility. But attribution of global survival to 200ppm of atmospheric CO2 with no possible substitute is wild!
Posted on 3/14/17 at 5:12 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
But attribution of global survival to 200ppm of atmospheric CO2 with no possible substitute is wild!
Why does losh want to limit or kill off the plant life on the planet Earth?? He probably wants to kill the rain forests too. What did they ever do to him? Maybe it's the people who live there...they're brown people. Maybe this whole "global warming" shtick is a way of masking his unrealized racism? I'm not saying he's racist.......but he's racist.
Posted on 3/14/17 at 5:42 pm to Dale51
quote:I have to tell you, I respect Iosh . . . a lot. I don't agree with some of his opinions, but at the least they are normally well founded and considered. He and Korkstand, and perhaps one or two others, post upper end info on climate-related topics here. The majority of other pro-AGW stuff on this board is regurgitated garbage.
Why does losh want to limit or kill off the plant life on the planet Earth?
Posted on 3/14/17 at 5:49 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
I have to tell you, I respect Iosh . . . a lot. I don't agree with some of his opinions, but at the least they are normally well founded and considered. He and Korkstand, and perhaps one or two others, post upper end info on climate-related topics here. The majority of other pro-AGW stuff on this board is regurgitated garbage.
I hope it was apparent that my post was a tongue in cheek joke? I mean..."hate the rain forest"..."brown people", etc. Just shits and giggles, man.
Posted on 3/14/17 at 5:50 pm to Iosh
CO2 is NOT a pollutant. It is a trace atmospheric gas that is required for life to exist on this planet as we know it.
If anything, too little CO2 would be a much, much more serious problem than "too much" - even if we could satisfactorily define just exactly how "much" is "too much."
If anything, too little CO2 would be a much, much more serious problem than "too much" - even if we could satisfactorily define just exactly how "much" is "too much."
Posted on 3/14/17 at 5:55 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:
even if we could satisfactorily define just exactly how "much" is "too much."
I agree. And if we could control that amount, we would be interfering with evolution of the planet. Global warming alarmists are climate evolution deniers.
Posted on 3/14/17 at 6:43 pm to bmy
quote:
I'm not against the idea of a global government.
I am definitely FOR World Government on one condition: That I am the Absolute Dictator of the Planet Earth. Other than under that condition, the idea stinks to me.
And you are a complete fool.
This post was edited on 3/14/17 at 6:44 pm
Page 8 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News