- 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: Earth - schematic of historical temperature data
Posted on 10/27/20 at 8:54 am to GetCocky11
Posted on 10/27/20 at 8:54 am to GetCocky11
quote:
I mean, you're arguing that deforestation isn't happening.
Actually, i said this...
quote:
Not happening. Nor is "cutting down rainforests" detrimental to the environment. Removal of overgrowth is very healthy for the planet and life. Cutting down areas of forests and then allowing those areas to grow back is beneficial to all life on this planet.
I'm arguing that it isn't happening in simple terms as you are stating. I'm arguing that yes, it has happened in the past, and like with all things, we humans have learned from it, and now apply appropriate regrowth techniques and standards. Sure more undeveloped countries don't apply by those standards, but most do. That's why i say that clearing of complete rainforests doesn't really happen. I haven't seen any news of an entire rainforest being "de-forrested" and surely, with the liberal media, they'd be screaming from the rooftops if this was happening anywhere. Especially in this country, appropriate clearing techniques are applied and utilized. WHich allows for the clearing for land/timber without impacting the sustainability of that environment. The only areas that are suffering from major deforestation is on the west coast, where proper forest management has been abandoned and wildfires consume most of the forests. Controlled burns and proper clearing would solve this, but the environmentalists so concerned with the environment short sided, and stupidly, banned controlled burns and forest clearing. Now you have problems. So no, deforestation, doesn't happen in the terms that entire forests are leveled and not mitigation techniques are applied. It certainly doesn't happen in this country. And the only places where major swaths of land are cleared, are usually in rural places in asia, to make room for more farm land or more urban areas. However, the removal of forests for urbanization is not nearly as prevalent as it is for farm land. The rice fields in asia and the displacement of the Asian elephants is a prime example of this.
This post was edited on 10/27/20 at 8:56 am
1
Posted on 10/27/20 at 8:54 am to The Mick
wait! that looks like the earth heats up then cools down then repeats that cycle?! That can't be right.
Posted on 10/27/20 at 8:57 am to BugAC
quote:Why are rising temps a bad thing? The people of Louisiana should be especially sensitive to the impact of rising sea levels. Should we ignore it until it becomes a quadrillion dollar problem?
I want to know why "immediate action" must be taken. If you buy the whole "our SUVs are killing the planet" bullshite (which i don't), warmer climate and more CO2 means life thrives. More plant life, animal life, sea life, etc... Agriculture accelerates, the soil is more fertile. Why is this a bad thing? CO2 is not a pollutant. Only the left considers it a pollutant so they can enact major tax bills.
Posted on 10/27/20 at 9:00 am to BugAC
quote:Ideally we wouldn't have to burn any non-renewable resources, right? Especially given how useful it is for other purposes.quote:What is an appropriate amount? What is "small" and what is "large"?
and burning large amounts of fossil fuels
But using something a million times faster than it is replaced is probably a "large" amount.
Posted on 10/27/20 at 9:01 am to TigerinATL
quote:
we have a vested interest in trying to control it and not have half of civilization go under water.
The media and the "scientists" have been stating that our coastal areas will be under water for 5 decades now. We are either going to be under water or freeze or burn to death. Just look at Time magazine covers since the 70s. Hell, even Al Gore predicted this in the early 2000s, that we'd all succumb to mother nature by 2012. Why hasn't it happened yet?
quote:
Headlines this week were that Solar is now cheaper than Coal.
What is cheaper? Production methods? Based on what? Because it definitely isn't on efficiency. Solar and wind is fine and all, but you have to make those things with materials from the oil and gas field. And the huge tracts of land for mining elements like Lithium does arguably more or the same amount of damage as coal mining. Solar and Wind simply are not efficient.
Posted on 10/27/20 at 9:03 am to Korkstand
quote:
The people of Louisiana should be especially sensitive to the impact of rising sea levels.
What's causing it? Could it be that climate is cyclical? Could it be that that giant nuclear reactor in space that is 109 times bigger than earth, and the Earth's rotation and tilt have more impact on the planet, than man made CO2?
And here is something you global warming hypochondriacs ignore. Water vapor is more impactful on earth's temperatures than CO2. This is fact. WHy no efforts to tax water vapor? Answer: Because the left hasn't found a way to do that yet.
Posted on 10/27/20 at 9:06 am to BugAC
quote:
I haven't seen any news of an entire rainforest being "de-forrested" and surely
I mean, you don't cut down an entire ecosystem overnight. But, if you're saying places like Haiti, Madagascar, or Borneo haven't seen the negative effects of deforestation, then you just aren't paying attention.
Also, a rainforest doesn't need "proper forest management". It needs to be left alone. It isn't a forest in California.
Posted on 10/27/20 at 9:07 am to Korkstand
quote:
But using something a million times faster than it is replaced is probably a "large" amount.
So you have no baseline. Great. So you're going to make an argument, that when asked what is a small amount or large amount of CO2 production, that the answer is "we're using something that is a bajillion times more"...
Give me the baseline. What is the baseline CO2 production we should be at? Or if that is too hard. Just give me the approprate temperature, humidity levels, wind velocity, water vapor content, CO2 level, Oxygen levels that we should be achieving, and then tell me which mitigation techniques get us to the ideal levels, and how those techniques impact each factor.
Posted on 10/27/20 at 9:09 am to The Mick
So you're saying my Weber didn't cause the last Ice Age?
Posted on 10/27/20 at 9:09 am to GetCocky11
quote:
But, if you're saying places like Haiti, Madagascar, or Borneo haven't seen the negative effects of deforestation, then you just aren't paying attention.
Give me some articles to research. I'm willing to learn.
quote:
Also, a rainforest doesn't need "proper forest management". It needs to be left alone.
Why?
quote:
It isn't a forest in California
What's the difference? Your arguments are 100% emotional based and zero on facts. Why is a forest in California, or a swamp in Louisiana, different from a rain forest in brazil? Because one appears to be more exotic to you?
Posted on 10/27/20 at 9:13 am to Korkstand
Currently the earth's atmosphere is made up of:
78% nitrogen
21% oxygen
.93% argon
.04% Co2
Apparently, these levels are too extreme. So, for the climate alarmists, what is the baseline components of Earth's atmospheric make up. What SHOULD they be for us to be in perfect harmony?
If America was to stop using fossil fuels, how would Earth's atmospheric makeup change? If we were sold carbon credits, what element of earth's atmosphere would raise/lower? Show me some correlation.
78% nitrogen
21% oxygen
.93% argon
.04% Co2
Apparently, these levels are too extreme. So, for the climate alarmists, what is the baseline components of Earth's atmospheric make up. What SHOULD they be for us to be in perfect harmony?
If America was to stop using fossil fuels, how would Earth's atmospheric makeup change? If we were sold carbon credits, what element of earth's atmosphere would raise/lower? Show me some correlation.
This post was edited on 10/27/20 at 9:15 am
Posted on 10/27/20 at 9:18 am to The Mick
Nope.
Mann at least has some experience at playing one as a “Chief Meteorologist” for a small town news paper in Bumfrick, Idaho, but his formal education was a Bachelor of Arts in Geography.
Mann at least has some experience at playing one as a “Chief Meteorologist” for a small town news paper in Bumfrick, Idaho, but his formal education was a Bachelor of Arts in Geography.
Posted on 10/27/20 at 9:18 am to AUCE05
quote:right.
I would have loved to seen east of the treeline as a first human. The old growth forest would have rivaled the Rockies in terms of beauty.
if you'd like a taste of what it might would've looked like then go to the delta national forest in mississippi,
quote:go to some of the older, more grand stands of bottomland hardwood tracts and let your eyes feast on the magnificent habitat.
By the 1980s, less than 20 percent of Mississippi River's original forested wetlands remained and much of that was in the Delta NF, a "green jewel" in the Yazoo River Basin of the Lower Mississippi Valley (LMV).
when i used to hunt it my mind would almost trick me into believing some prehistoric wood buffalo, cherokee saber tooth tiger, or band of paleo era hunter-gatherers would come out of the darkness and give me a glimpse of some, thing, that verified that i was standing in the middle of a very special, very old, very ancient place --and even then the delta nf would almost certainly pale in comparison to some of the even older old growth forests.
go read some of the original surveyors' notes on the flora and fauna of newly ceded native american lands for verification that
quote:
The old growth forest would have rivaled the Rockies in terms of beauty.
Posted on 10/27/20 at 9:20 am to BugAC
quote:Uhhhh....
What's causing it?
quote:Everyone knows it's cyclical. It's a matter of rate of change.
Could it be that climate is cyclical?
quote:Have you ever considered that perhaps these obvious sources of change have been extensively studied and accounted for?
Could it be that that giant nuclear reactor in space that is 109 times bigger than earth, and the Earth's rotation and tilt have more impact on the planet, than man made CO2?
quote:You really don't know shite about shite, do you?
And here is something you global warming hypochondriacs ignore. Water vapor is more impactful on earth's temperatures than CO2. This is fact. WHy no efforts to tax water vapor? Answer: Because the left hasn't found a way to do that yet.
Nobody ignores water vapor. There is a limit to how much water vapor the air can hold. There is no such limit for co2. And do you know the best way to control the amount of water vapor in the air? Control the temp.
Posted on 10/27/20 at 9:21 am to BugAC
quote:
What's the difference? Your arguments are 100% emotional based and zero on facts. Why is a forest in California, or a swamp in Louisiana, different from a rain forest in brazil? Because one appears to be more exotic to you?
You're asking what the difference is between a tropical rainforest, the Mediterranean forests of California, and the subtropical climate of Louisiana? This is basic, objective stuff if you ever want to learn about it.
Posted on 10/27/20 at 9:28 am to BugAC
quote:Actually you asked what is a small/large amount of burning of fossil fuels, and my baseline was zero given that it is not renewable, and it is useful for many other purposes aside from fricking burning it.
So you have no baseline. Great. So you're going to make an argument, that when asked what is a small amount or large amount of CO2 production, that the answer is "we're using something that is a bajillion times more"...
quote:Look, it's really, really fricking simple. Don't throw trash everywhere, don't kill plants and animals that you don't need to survive, and don't burn every fricking thing you find that can't be replaced. We can't be perfect on all points, but just try your best, you know?
Give me the baseline. What is the baseline CO2 production we should be at? Or if that is too hard. Just give me the approprate temperature, humidity levels, wind velocity, water vapor content, CO2 level, Oxygen levels that we should be achieving, and then tell me which mitigation techniques get us to the ideal levels, and how those techniques impact each factor.
You're acting like we can't even begin to solve a problem unless we have a global step by step plan to reach some precise yet arbitrary target numbers. Just don't be an idiot. Simple.
Posted on 10/27/20 at 9:33 am to The Mick
Looks like that chart seems to indicate that volcanic eruptions are the biggest cause of global climate change. It has always seemed to me that more global pollution, like volcanic emissions, would actually cool the Earth and not heat it up, but I'm no climate scientist like Greta.
Very interesting that the birth of Christ marks the crossing from cold to warm. Otherwise, it looks pretty cyclical.
Very interesting that the birth of Christ marks the crossing from cold to warm. Otherwise, it looks pretty cyclical.
Posted on 10/27/20 at 9:37 am to The Mick
All those cavemen burning fossil fuels smh
Posted on 10/27/20 at 9:39 am to The Mick
We need just 15 days, I mean years to flatten the curve
Posted on 10/27/20 at 9:47 am to Korkstand
quote:
Uhhhh....
Still waiting, dear. An answer is helpful when debating.
quote:
Everyone knows it's cyclical. It's a matter of rate of change.
What is the rate of change SUPPOSED to be? Because looking at all of those neat little graphs, there is no standard in change. What is the change we are experiencing, and what is the change SUPPOSED TO BE?
quote:
Have you ever considered that perhaps these obvious sources of change have been extensively studied and accounted for?
Then why isn't referenced? Why are idiots stating that this hurricane season is because of "climate change" yet ignore that this season isn't even in the top 5 of most active hurricane seasons? Because, these are inconvenient facts that get in the way of the narrative.
quote:
Nobody ignores water vapor. There is a limit to how much water vapor the air can hold.
What is that limit?
quote:
There is no such limit for co2. And do you know the best way to control the amount of water vapor in the air? Control the temp.
How do you control the temp? You aren't stating anything. You are attempting to regurgitate rehearsed lines but you aren't doing a very good job of it.
Page 3 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News