- 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: No matter what about (man influenced) climate change, those claiming it are always right.
Posted on 8/22/23 at 4:52 pm to loogaroo
Posted on 8/22/23 at 4:52 pm to loogaroo
OT Centrists all over this one.
i have no dog in this fight, other than i don’t think the government getting involved will have any positive outcome.
i have no dog in this fight, other than i don’t think the government getting involved will have any positive outcome.
0
Posted on 8/22/23 at 4:55 pm to jyoung1
quote:
How do we know more carbon dioxide isn't better for us?
On the whole, it probably would be. Eventually.
We are not killing the planet. We are not at risk of extinction.
The problem is almost 100% related to the melting of land based ice and the resulting rise in sea level and flooding of a significant percentage of the world's major cities.
It's going to cost a lot of money. Like collapsing societies amounts of money. Probably cheaper to adjust now rather than kick the can down the road. Or we could just not care about our descendents.
It might not be that bad. Maybe entire cities will just kind of slowly migrate to higher ground.
Posted on 8/22/23 at 5:00 pm to jyoung1
quote:
That by throwing material into the air we aren't altering Earth's cyclic climate, we are simply reducing the amount of heat that is introduced to the climate, temporarily.
Soot, sure. Again though, co2 isn't soot. It mixes extremely well and lingers indefinitely, until it is absorbed.
And we just keep dumping it up there.
Posted on 8/22/23 at 5:02 pm to CaptainBrannigan
quote:No.
So you don't think the greenhouse effect is real?
CO2 is not causing climate change.
Posted on 8/22/23 at 5:04 pm to Korkstand
Even if we stopped burning all fossil fuels right now there would be very little difference in sea levels in 100 years compared to gradually changing to clean energy as we develop the technology.
And certainly it would be much more detrimental both financial cost and cost to human life if we forced abrupt change to how much energy we can produce. That’s just a ludicrous assessment that it would be more expensive to adapt to rising sea levels vs the cost of a drastic decrease in energy supply.
And certainly it would be much more detrimental both financial cost and cost to human life if we forced abrupt change to how much energy we can produce. That’s just a ludicrous assessment that it would be more expensive to adapt to rising sea levels vs the cost of a drastic decrease in energy supply.
Posted on 8/22/23 at 5:05 pm to bhtigerfan
quote:quote:No.
So you don't think the greenhouse effect is real?
Now we are just denying basic irrefutable science.
Posted on 8/22/23 at 5:07 pm to Korkstand
I’m not arguing about the effect of carbon dioxide on the climate im simply refuting the statement about the effect on climate from nuclear explosions.
Posted on 8/22/23 at 5:09 pm to jyoung1
quote:
Even if we stopped burning all fossil fuels right now there would be very little difference in sea levels in 100 years compared to gradually changing to clean energy as we develop the technology.
Can you show your work? And how far along in clean energy tech do you think we would be right now without incentives?
quote:
And certainly it would be much more detrimental both financial cost and cost to human life if we forced abrupt change to how much energy we can produce. That’s just a ludicrous assessment that it would be more expensive to adapt to rising sea levels vs the cost of a drastic decrease in energy supply.
Not sure what you are talking about re energy supply and production.
Posted on 8/22/23 at 5:20 pm to Korkstand
quote:
Not sure what you are talking about re energy supply and production.
You said that it would “be cheaper to adjust now”… that’s just ludicrous it would be absurdly more expensive to abruptly and drastically decrease energy supply now rather than develop clean energy technology over time and deal with the very small difference in sea level rise in the future with a much better equipped economy as a result of efficient energy production.
Posted on 8/22/23 at 5:25 pm to BaconGrease
Finally! we get to see the origin of the "science" to which the "Gretas" keep referring to.
Posted on 8/22/23 at 5:26 pm to jyoung1
quote:
You said that it would “be cheaper to adjust now”
That's just generally how the world works. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Do you disagree?
quote:
abruptly and drastically decrease energy supply now
Yeah still don't know what the frick you're babbling about decreasing energy supply.
Posted on 8/22/23 at 5:32 pm to Korkstand
quote:
irrefutable science.
this phrase was thrown around a lot back in 2020-2021. You’ll have to excuse me if i have PTSD when it’s used on the OT.
Posted on 8/22/23 at 5:38 pm to Korkstand
quote:
Yeah still don't know what the frick you're babbling about decreasing energy supply.
By “adjusting now” what do you mean by that?
I assumed that you meant an abrupt change to clean energy aka abrupt decrease in energy supply, it’s really not that complicated sir, no need for the cursing.
Posted on 8/22/23 at 5:44 pm to Corinthians420
CO2 is .0452% of the atmosphere. Let that sink in before making another post.
Posted on 8/22/23 at 5:47 pm to Klark Kent
quote:Sorry about the PTSD but we're talking about the greenhouse effect. Do you know any greenhouse effect deniers?quote:this phrase was thrown around a lot back in 2020-2021. You’ll have to excuse me if i have PTSD when it’s used on the OT.
irrefutable science.
Posted on 8/22/23 at 5:54 pm to jyoung1
quote:I mean limit the changes we make to the environment to the extent that it's reasonable and feasible.
By “adjusting now” what do you mean by that?
quote:What do you mean by "abrupt"? IMO it will take at least 50-100 years to get anywhere close to eliminating fossil fuel use, and that'll probably be good enough.
I assumed that you meant an abrupt change to clean energy
quote:I would never suggest decreasing energy supply. Energy is everything and everything is energy. The economy and our lives revolve around it. I want to increase the energy supply.
aka abrupt decrease in energy supply
quote:You've been making assumptions and talking nonsense. It's a reflex.
it’s really not that complicated sir, no need for the cursing.
Posted on 8/22/23 at 6:03 pm to Korkstand
quote:
IMO it will take at least 50-100 years to get anywhere close to eliminating fossil fuel use, and that'll probably be good enough.
Well earlier when you said “adjust now rather than kick the can down the road” it’s a pretty reasonable assumption for me to make that your solution is something different than what we are currently doing and a more abrupt solution than that of every reasonable person in this area.
This post was edited on 8/22/23 at 6:06 pm
Posted on 8/22/23 at 6:05 pm to PureBlood
quote:
weather evolves based on plenty of factors not attributed to human existence.
Exactly. Man wasn't around during the Permian era when damn near everything was exterminated.
quote:
What caused the 'Big Five' mass extinctions? All of the 'Big Five' were caused by some combination of rapid and dramatic changes in climate, combined with significant changes in the composition of environments on land or in the ocean (such as ocean acidification or acid rain from intense volcanic activity).Nov 30, 2022
We're good for a few more millions years before we go poof.
We see the spikes in extinction rates marked as the five events:
quote:
End Ordovician (444 million years ago; mya)
Late Devonian (360 mya)
End Permian (250 mya)
End Triassic (200 mya) – many people mistake this as the event that killed off the dinosaurs. But in fact, they were killed off at the end of the Cretaceous period – the fifth of the ‘Big Five’.
End Cretaceous (65 mya) – the event that killed off the dinosaurs.
Posted on 8/22/23 at 6:12 pm to Cromulent
quote:So?
CO2 is .0452% of the atmosphere. Let that sink in before making another post.
Something like 0.1% (1,000 ppm) long term is directly detrimental to our health.
0.04% is like putting 2 drops of food coloring in a glass of water. Doesn't sound like much, but it absolutely makes the water darker. And if the water is deep enough (like as deep as the atmosphere) then zero visible light will get through. CO2 does the same thing, except it lets visible light pass through to the surface, but then it traps infrared radiation trying to leave.
Posted on 8/22/23 at 6:20 pm to Korkstand
Can anyone tell me what temperature the earth is supposed to be at? Is it supposed to be one constant temperature forever? Is it supposed to be cooler than we are now? Is it supposed tIs it supposed to be one constant temperature forever? Is it supposed to be cooler than we are now? Is it supposed to be warmer than we are now? If we want the earth to be cooler then how much cooler do we want it?
Is our goal to have the exact same weather patterns that we’ve had for the past 100 years to continue for all eternity? What is our goal? If not?
Is our goal to have the exact same weather patterns that we’ve had for the past 100 years to continue for all eternity? What is our goal? If not?
Page 4 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News