- 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: Veritasium's 13 Misconceptions on Global Warming...
Posted on 9/22/14 at 9:34 pm to Cruiserhog
Posted on 9/22/14 at 9:34 pm to Cruiserhog
quote:
explained in the video
Not the link I was looking for.
0
Posted on 9/22/14 at 9:52 pm to Cruiserhog
quote:
explained in the video
Posted on 9/22/14 at 9:54 pm to Cruiserhog
quote:Is the #1 that "it has happened before, long before fossil fuels"?
Veritasium's 13 Misconceptions on Global Warming...
Posted on 9/22/14 at 9:59 pm to Iosh
quote:
First "misconception" and I already hate this douchey motherfricker and his douchey video, because he didn't even debunk the misconception correctly.
Posted on 9/22/14 at 10:08 pm to Cruiserhog
quote:Then what is the point of posting the 6 minute video? If his best argument against the hiatus is "that's not how trendlines work, also the satellites make it better" then he is going to convince exactly zero skeptics. I'm not a skeptic and I know that argument is balls.
Veritasium is by no means a 'douchey motherfricker'...the guy puts science in the hands of lay people and actually explains it so that its easy to understand.
how bout you not be such a cocksucker simply because the guy didnt put together every fricking piece of information out there in the ether to explain the 'hiatus' in a 6 min video.
Climate science is not something you can explain in a 6 minute video, especially one that's a literal straw man where he puts on sunglasses and "pretends" to be the opposition. And from what I can tell this is his only video on AGW outside of one other video hyping the ~climate justice~ march.
Potholer54's AGW youtube series beats the brakes off this guy, because he actually quotes (usually with video clips) the skeptics, and links the actual scientific literature, with quotes, in context. Of course, he's a droning British guy with 27 10+ minute videos, because this shite is complicated. So sure, good job sinking to the same pithy level of misrepresentation as your opponents.
This post was edited on 9/22/14 at 10:08 pm
Posted on 9/22/14 at 10:43 pm to a want
quote:
You had 2 identical worlds and an infinitely accurate thermometer. One is the control and in the other world is the same except I drive my car around the block a few times.
As you know (and as it is unanimously agreed upon) that the byproduct of an internal combustion engine's combustion is carbon....in this case it is in the form of carbon dioxide. So in burning fossil fuel, we are releasing more CO2 in atmosphere 2.
It is unanimously agreed upon that carbon (including carbon dioxide) "traps heat" or it prevents heat from escaping the atmosphere. Again, these two points are not debatable. There is more CO2 in atmosphere 2.
So if you just burned fossil fuel, and put more CO2 into the atmosphere (and remember CO2 prevents heat from escaping the atmosphere) will your infinitely accurate thermometers read the same temp? No. World 2 will be warmer.
Around 71% of the Earth's surface is covered by water. Of the 29% left that is land, around 43% of that is populated by humans. Three percent of that 29% is populated by urban areas, which is probably most germane to the topic. In other words, the MMGW argument boils down to .87% of the Earth's surface is responsible for any warming that may be going on for the rest of the 99.13% of the planet.
I just can't see it.
Posted on 9/22/14 at 11:09 pm to a want
It's just that simple? Nothing else is going on? CO2 goes up and temp must go up? 
This post was edited on 9/22/14 at 11:10 pm
Posted on 9/22/14 at 11:58 pm to Iosh
quote:
Potholer54's AGW youtube series
Veristatium is not arguing anything he is simply explaining the most popular misconception in climate science and briefly explain why they are so...you are way over thinking this.
Ive been subscribed to Potholer for over five years, you think the politards on here are going to watch him...ive tried that, linked just about everyone of his videos one time or another.
He is way beyond the attention span of most on here.
Posted on 9/23/14 at 12:07 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
explained in the video
No 11
Why was there climate change in the past when we werent there to burn fossil fuels
the cyclic nature of climate change is directly related to the Malankovich cycle
and I know you know this Tigah
Posted on 9/23/14 at 4:18 am to Cruiserhog
quote:I'm aware of the theory. It accounts for elements of the pleistocene and holocene. But . . .
the cyclic nature of climate change is directly related to the Malankovich cycle
and I know you know this Tigah
how did we switch between correlation with obliquity vs eccentricity cycles?
What accounts for the 50M-yr cooling trend?
Lastly, in the past, Milankovich Cycles accounted for temperature?
Yet there is a problem. CO2 correlated exactly with these fluctuations.
Theory has it that past fluctuations were due to solar input. The solar input variances are based on orbital and axial differences. However CO2 correlated exactly with the resulting terrestrial temperature increases. CO2 correlated exactly with resulting terrestrial temperature decreases. Odd indeed.
If CO2 is an independent climate modulator at our atmospheric levels, why the exact correlation during each cycle?
As you said, it's just a 6min video.
But you can see the general problem, no?
This post was edited on 9/23/14 at 9:35 am
Posted on 9/23/14 at 6:56 am to Cruiserhog
I don't NEED to debate no steeking "science", I just need to look at who is pushing the GW mantra.
The Communists and Socialists, note yesterday's zoo of a march. Al Gore and Hollywood. People with an underlying agenda is what I am saying. They want the US to drastically change but I don't see them marching in Beijing, New Delhi or Sao Paulo. Where they DID march they left piles of garbage in the streets, not to mention the"carbon footprints" left just getting there. I wonder how many trees were planted to offset?
When all you wannabe Big Bang Theory cast members can explain how the atmosphere can differentiate between American and other CO2, and can tell the difference between taxed and untaxed CO2, maybe I will listen to you Druids and tree huggers. "Climate Change" is just another "risky scheme" to"redistribute wealth". You Libs sure have a lot of catch phrases.
Until then shut the hell up and stop trying to push your religion on the rest of us. You are actually violating the Establishment Clause you are so fond of misquoting.
The Communists and Socialists, note yesterday's zoo of a march. Al Gore and Hollywood. People with an underlying agenda is what I am saying. They want the US to drastically change but I don't see them marching in Beijing, New Delhi or Sao Paulo. Where they DID march they left piles of garbage in the streets, not to mention the"carbon footprints" left just getting there. I wonder how many trees were planted to offset?
When all you wannabe Big Bang Theory cast members can explain how the atmosphere can differentiate between American and other CO2, and can tell the difference between taxed and untaxed CO2, maybe I will listen to you Druids and tree huggers. "Climate Change" is just another "risky scheme" to"redistribute wealth". You Libs sure have a lot of catch phrases.
Until then shut the hell up and stop trying to push your religion on the rest of us. You are actually violating the Establishment Clause you are so fond of misquoting.
This post was edited on 9/23/14 at 7:07 am
Posted on 9/23/14 at 8:27 am to Cruiserhog
That's a great video. I didn't watch it last night b/c for the most part I stopped commenting in GW threads - it's gotten too political.
But I recommend that my fellow poli-board members watch. It's really pretty good.
But I recommend that my fellow poli-board members watch. It's really pretty good.
Posted on 9/23/14 at 8:34 am to a want
No.
Posted on 9/23/14 at 8:57 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
NC_Tigah
You flat-earth denier! The greatest threat to life today is real!, damned real!
*whispers* he's really, really real!
Posted on 9/23/14 at 9:48 am to NC_Tigah
quote:Orbital forcing is the trigger. CO2 is the feedback.
Lastly, in the past, Milankovich Cycles accounted for temperature?
Yet there is a problem. CO2 correlated exactly with these fluctuations.
If only there were some sort of "report" that "synthesized" the "physical science basis" of "climate change."
LINK
Posted on 9/23/14 at 9:55 am to antibarner
Your post is the essence of truthiness.
If you feel it's right it must be right.
If you feel it's right it must be right.
Posted on 9/23/14 at 10:01 am to Iosh
quote:
Potholer54's AGW youtube series beats the brakes off this guy
Yes I've posted those here before. Fantastic
This post was edited on 9/23/14 at 10:02 am
Posted on 9/23/14 at 10:03 am to Cruiserhog
it doesn't matter if climate change is manmade or not. Until there is a better solution than cap and trade or increased regulations that make electricity and fuel more expensive you will not persuade me.
Posted on 9/23/14 at 10:16 am to Iosh
quote:Synthesized with all artistry of the man-bear-pig construct above.
if only there were some sort of "report" that "synthesized" the "physical science basis" of "climate change."
quote:Yes, and . . .
Antarctic ice core data show that CO2 concentration is low in the cold glacial times (~190 ppm), and high in the warm interglacials (~280 ppm);
quote:This is the point where warmists should ask that complicated one word question . . . "Why?"
atmospheric CO2 follows temperature changes in Antarctica with a lag of some hundreds of years.
quote:This is the point where warmists should ask that complicated one word question . . . "What?"
Because the climate changes at the beginning and end of ice ages take several thousand years, most of these changes are affected by a positive CO2 feedback;
quote:and this is the point where warmists should look for another thesis.
that is, a small initial cooling due to the Milankovitch cycles is subsequently amplified as the CO2 concentration falls.
Posted on 9/23/14 at 10:30 am to WeeWee
quote:I just wish all the conservatives here would be this honest instead of playing at science.
it doesn't matter if climate change is manmade or not. Until there is a better solution than cap and trade or increased regulations that make electricity and fuel more expensive you will not persuade me.
It's really a mystery to me how this has become a core tenet of conservatism with regard to carbon dioxide. Certainly there were some cottage industries of bad science contra ozone depletion and acid rain, but they never had this sort of universal "damn the atmosphere if I have to pay one more red cent" religiosity behind them.
Fossil fuels are cheap because they treat the atmosphere as a free lunch. If carbon emissions were priced then nuclear would be cheaper and private rail would be a thing. (This would be doubly true if nuclear weren't ridiculously over-regulated and the auto industry wasn't coddled, but those are separate gripes.)
This post was edited on 9/23/14 at 10:32 am
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News