- 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: Your occasional reminder that global warming is real,
Posted on 1/13/17 at 8:05 am to LSUTigersVCURams
Posted on 1/13/17 at 8:05 am to LSUTigersVCURams
quote:
Such an idiotic comment.
congrats on the quick ad hominem, but you didn't answer the question
what will you have done with the millions upon millions who disagree?
If the crisis, and it's impending doom are upon us, we don't have several years to indoctrinate/educate all of them so that they vote the way you want. It will be too late.
So, what is your plan?
1
Posted on 1/13/17 at 8:10 am to LSUTigersVCURams
quote:How does atmospheric CO2 account for 62° temp deltas in Baton Rouge?
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 20° to 82°
Posted on 1/13/17 at 8:21 am to Crow Pie
quote:
He allows selected idiots to think man can significantly influence the climate of a planet!!
I've only met two or three people ever who believe this garbage and they were both coincidentally praying for the rapture to come
LINK
This post was edited on 1/13/17 at 8:22 am
Posted on 1/13/17 at 8:23 am to NC_Tigah
quote:You just said you understood the difference between positive feedback and runaway feedback. Yet you keep asking this question which applies only to runaway feedback. Can you briefly explain what you think the difference is?
With CO2 causing warming, resulting in further CO2 release from oceanic reservoirs, in turn further driving atmospheric concentration, causing further warming . . . what's the "off-switch"?
Hint: 0 < X < 1
This post was edited on 1/13/17 at 8:24 am
Posted on 1/13/17 at 8:24 am to LSUTigersVCURams
quote:You are tossing insults around. That implies a rational easy-to-understand claim which "willful idiots" simply refuse to hear or understand.
willful ignorance
You've asserted record low temps relate to AGW. You relate temperature deltas to atmospheric CO2. Can you cite the science involved, or is my request like asking proof of transubstantiation?
Posted on 1/13/17 at 8:25 am to LSUTigersVCURams
quote:So, after we outlaw all combustible engines how much of my money will be needed to fix the problem?
caused by human emissions of greenhouse gasses.
Posted on 1/13/17 at 8:27 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
is my request like asking proof of transubstantiation?
When a religious person claims the end of the world is near, they call him a nut.
When a secular person claims the end of the world is near, they call him an environmentalist.
Posted on 1/13/17 at 8:28 am to Oddibe
quote:
So, after we outlaw all combustible engines how much of my money will be needed to fix the problem?
Less than you pay for the industrial military complex to line their pockets
This post was edited on 1/13/17 at 8:32 am
Posted on 1/13/17 at 8:28 am to TrueTiger
quote:
millions upon millions who disagree?
Luckily, there are fewer and fewer all the time as he levels of willful, pig-headed denial necessary to just ignore all of the extremely clear evidence that it's real gives way to rational thought in more and more people. So, the answer is, you won't have to worry about getting sent to the camps with the gypsies (you are such a victim!
) because you will become numerically irrelevant very soon. Posted on 1/13/17 at 8:34 am to LSUTigersVCURams
quote:
because you will become numerically irrelevant very soon.
your incoming EPA head, Scott Pruitt, does not agree with this
Posted on 1/13/17 at 8:41 am to Peazey
quote:
What issues do they push?
Man-made GW
Posted on 1/13/17 at 8:48 am to Centinel
quote:
...and we could cut our emissions in the US to zero. And it wouldn't mean jack shite because of China and India.
Also, when the people that are telling me it's a crisis start acting like it's a crisis, I'll believe it's a crisis.
This is my take on it as well. There is not a dome over the US. So US companies go broke trying to cut emissions, yet China and India pump out shite at greater rates that affects the entire globe.
To your second point, when Leonardo DiCaprio takes a private jet to fly from the US to Europe to pick up a Climate Change award, it is not helping my thinking that it is any crisis.
Posted on 1/13/17 at 9:11 am to Iosh
quote:Sure.
With CO2 causing warming, resulting in further CO2 release from oceanic reservoirs, in turn further driving atmospheric concentration, causing further warming . . . what's the "off-switch"?
You just said you understood the difference between positive feedback and runaway feedback. Yet you keep asking this question which applies only to runaway feedback. Can you briefly explain what you think the difference is?
Hint: 0 < X < 1
We've discussed this in the past.
Cutting to the chase relative to AGW, positive feedback results in a nonlinear CO2=>Temp relationship. i.e., With increases of atmospheric CO2, there is a declination in its collective greenhouse effect.
The point being, PF would not eliminate forcing contribution at any concentration, nor of course would it reverse the effect. In other words, PF has nothing to do with "off-switch" or cooling.
With an implied progressive declination of effect, we've also previously discussed PF as undercutting of AGW alarmism.
Positive feedback is supportive of CO2 tracking temp in ice core data as well. It appears suggestive of prehistoric temps leading to atmospheric CO2 flux rather than the opposite.
This post was edited on 1/13/17 at 9:21 am
Posted on 1/13/17 at 10:57 am to LSUTigersVCURams
quote:
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 20° to 82° in the middle of January (62°). It's totally unnatural and anyone with an ounce of common sense knows it if they aren't totally blinded by political ideology or clinical denial. Get your heads out of your asses.
LINK
From 1963 to the present there have been 13 times where the month of January in Baton rouge had a temperature swing of 60 or more degrees. If we set the delta at 50 degrees it as occurred almost every January in Baton Rouge since 1963. It would be beneficial to your future arguments and save me time if you would at least Google what you believe to be a fact before using it to make a point.
Posted on 1/13/17 at 11:23 am to EA6B
I stand corrected! 
Posted on 1/13/17 at 12:15 pm to LSUTigersVCURams
quote:
Luckily, there are fewer and fewer all the time as he levels of willful, pig-headed denial necessary to just ignore all of the extremely clear evidence that it's real gives way to rational thought in more and more people. So, the answer is, you won't have to worry about getting sent to the camps with the gypsies (you are such a victim! ) because you will become numerically irrelevant very soon.
You're projecting again.
Posted on 1/13/17 at 12:49 pm to LSUTigersVCURams
Since much of the landmass on earth is frozen areas in the Northern Hemisphere, you might easily argue that global warming is a net positive. As an aside, maybe all the Yankees in Florida will move back North.
Posted on 1/13/17 at 4:41 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:Right, but actual emissions have risen exponentially. Exponential forcing + logarithmic feedback = close-to-linear rise (I say close because obviously they aren't perfect inverses).
Cutting to the chase relative to AGW, positive feedback results in a nonlinear CO2=>Temp relationship. i.e., With increases of atmospheric CO2, there is a declination in its collective greenhouse effect.
The point being, PF would not eliminate forcing contribution at any concentration, nor of course would it reverse the effect. In other words, PF has nothing to do with "off-switch" or cooling.
With an implied progressive declination of effect, we've also previously discussed PF as undercutting of AGW alarmism.
So GMST will continue to increase until we stop emitting GHGs, at which point it will coast for a few more decades on feedbacks (such as oceanic outgassing, and others such as ice-albedo) and then settle on a new baseline.
This is why I don't understand your contention that CO2 driving temperature requires the existence of some kind of "off-switch." The off switch is to stop emitting. All positive feedback means is that the rise in temperature wouldn't be arrested immediately even if we magically developed fusion power tomorrow.
Posted on 1/13/17 at 5:11 pm to GurleyGirl
quote:
Since much of the landmass on earth is frozen areas in the Northern Hemisphere, you might easily argue that global warming is a net positive. As an aside, maybe all the Yankees in Florida will move back North.
I certainly believe it could be a net positive
Posted on 1/13/17 at 5:35 pm to Iosh
quote:CO2 driving temperature doesn't "require" an off switch. Temperature characteristics within our biosphere do. The result is a plummet to glaciation. The process is repetitive, cyclical, and substantially predates any anthropogenic influence.
This is why I don't understand your contention that CO2 driving temperature requires the existence of some kind of "off-switch."
Page 13 of 14
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News