- 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: Global warming question for both sides....
Posted on 2/17/14 at 3:40 pm to RogerTheShrubber
Posted on 2/17/14 at 3:40 pm to RogerTheShrubber
Yep. It is a messed up idea for sure.
0
Posted on 2/17/14 at 3:40 pm to GoCrazyAuburn
quote:
he biggest trick they were able to pull was convincing people that being skeptical of their research is somehow "anti-science".
So much this.
Being called a 'climate-change denier' doesn't bother me because I'm not dogmatized like some are.
On another board (redd_t) the science board officially doesn't allow dissent on anthropomorphic global warming, which is hilarious, as it is the most anti-science move possible.
Posted on 2/17/14 at 3:43 pm to MagicCityBlazer
Yea, I just don't venture over there anymore. If only they would realize that questioning their findings only leads to a more accurate answer in the long run, whether AGW is true or not.
However, we know the answer to the question is not about truth, it is about money.
However, we know the answer to the question is not about truth, it is about money.
Posted on 2/17/14 at 3:47 pm to RCDfan1950
quote:
Greenland...was named 'Green Land'...for a reason, GO
Greenland was named "Greenland" by the Vikings (Erik the Red) to trick people into sailing and settling there
ETA: i don't believe in climate change
This post was edited on 2/17/14 at 3:51 pm
Posted on 2/17/14 at 3:53 pm to MagicCityBlazer
quote:
Even more to the point, how do we know that this isn't correlational instead of causational.
Come on man.....4,558,000,000 tons of coal are burned every year. 1 ton of coal burned produces 5,720 lbs. of CO2. This isn't even considering all of the other carbon-based fuels. What are you talking about correlation causation? Where do you think that CO2 goes? It's changing the atmospheric composition.
Posted on 2/17/14 at 4:03 pm to Upperaltiger06
quote:If you have to ask, you may want to read a bit more on the topic.
This isn't even considering all of the other carbon-based fuels. What are you talking about correlation causation?
quote:and?
It's changing the atmospheric composition
Posted on 2/17/14 at 4:15 pm to NC_Tigah
I understand the terms causation and correlation. What I don't understand is why you use those terms referring to the increase in CO2. Burning fossil fuels increases the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. This isn't debatable.
Posted on 2/17/14 at 4:46 pm to Upperaltiger06
quote:Perhaps you do.
I understand the terms causation and correlation
It's just not evident in your posts.
How do you relate those terms to this graph?
Posted on 2/17/14 at 4:49 pm to Upperaltiger06
quote:
I understand the terms causation and correlation. What I don't understand is why you use those terms referring to the increase in CO2. Burning fossil fuels increases the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. This isn't debatable.
Well if that were the case with no variables, wouldn't the atmosphere be almost totally full of co2? Why wouldn't it be Much Much MUCH more dense than it is if soo much is being added without being adsorbed thru trees and plants, etc?
I don't think its debatable about burning fosils causing co2 emissions, I think its very debatable how much "extra" is added to the amount sitting in the atmosphere.
Posted on 2/17/14 at 4:56 pm to NC_Tigah
Well....considering that I haven't said anything about atmospheric CO2 concentrations relating to temperature......I don't think I need to relate the two.
I have only been talking about CO2 being released from the combustion of carbon-based fuels. I haven't said anything about temperature or warming. Are you reading my posts or babbling about a debate in your head?
I have only been talking about CO2 being released from the combustion of carbon-based fuels. I haven't said anything about temperature or warming. Are you reading my posts or babbling about a debate in your head?
Posted on 2/17/14 at 5:04 pm to Upperaltiger06
quote:
Global warming question for both sides....
quote:What is your concern regarding current atmospheric CO2?
I have only been talking about CO2 being released from the combustion of carbon-based fuels. I haven't said anything about temperature or warming.
Posted on 2/17/14 at 5:13 pm to GeeOH
Your use of the word 'much' and statements in general lead me to believe that you don't understand the carbon cycle very well.
Is it really that difficult to understand that extracting carbon stores from the ground and heating those carbon materials in the presence of oxygen until they form CO2 increases the atmospheric concentration? I have said nothing about global warming or climate change. What I have stated is fact.
Is it really that difficult to understand that extracting carbon stores from the ground and heating those carbon materials in the presence of oxygen until they form CO2 increases the atmospheric concentration? I have said nothing about global warming or climate change. What I have stated is fact.
Posted on 2/17/14 at 5:19 pm to Upperaltiger06
quote:Not at all.
Is it really that difficult to understand that extracting carbon stores from the ground and heating those carbon materials in the presence of oxygen until they form CO2 increases the atmospheric concentration?
We've observed much larger increases in other trace gases.
Why the particular concern about CO2?
Posted on 2/17/14 at 5:21 pm to GeeOH
The tri state tornado was an act of God that occurred in the mid 20's and still can't be explained. Were that to happen today, it would be called an impossible event that could only be explained by climate change.
Problem is it happened 90 years ago.
Problem is it happened 90 years ago.
Posted on 2/17/14 at 5:25 pm to NC_Tigah
The unforeseen. Could be warming (you know....considering it is a greenhouse gas). It may be something we don't even anticipate.
Posted on 2/17/14 at 5:31 pm to Upperaltiger06
quote:Like agricultural improvements?
The unforeseen
quote:It could be. But then you'd have to return to those pesky graphs.
Could be warming (you know....considering it is a greenhouse gas).
quote:Then we simply bring the levels back down. Right? That potential for compensatory control is the beauty of CO2, as opposed to Trifluoromethyl Sulfur Pentafluoride, Sulfur Hexafluoride, etc.
It may be something we don't even anticipate.
Posted on 2/17/14 at 5:45 pm to NC_Tigah
You do realize that this chart you keep referencing is composed of data that has never been archived in a journal and that the data used to create that graph was collected by a scientist that believes that the globe is warming artificially?
What is the best method of extracting excessive CO2 from the atmosphere?
What is the best method of extracting excessive CO2 from the atmosphere?
Posted on 2/17/14 at 6:00 pm to Upperaltiger06
quote:No.
You do realize that this chart you keep referencing is composed of data that has never been archived in a journal
Allow me to source some of it.
Posted on 2/17/14 at 6:14 pm to Upperaltiger06
quote:Too-da-loo?
Upperaltiger06
Posted on 2/17/14 at 6:51 pm to NC_Tigah
What journal is this?
And why don't you address the rest of my post?
And why don't you address the rest of my post?
This post was edited on 2/17/14 at 6:55 pm
Page 3 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News