- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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
0
Posted on 6/19/14 at 2:19 pm to BobBoucher
quote:Do your own research. Forests are the only plants on the planet.
link? Its kinda hard to believe what with deforestation, urban sprawl and all...
quote:Then you do not understand the true foe in the warming equation. At all.
Plus, i dont think we're unlocking vast amounts of water vapor in to the environment that took millions of years to lock away.
Posted on 6/19/14 at 2:20 pm to CptBengal
quote:
no it doesnt. It only looks the same when you work off of an "anomaly"...an "anomaly" to what I have no idea because the Earth's temperature is always changing.
DUDE - the shape of the plot doesn't change if you change the zero point.
quote:
again, can you then explain the much higher CO2 before the last glacial maximum, and the fact that much higher CO2 than today resulted in a glacial maximum. tia.
190 ppm isn't much higher than 400 ppm.
Sorry.
quote:
your preferred graph/measurement is based on a normalization. Why is that normalization better?
Why is what normalization better than what?
Posted on 6/19/14 at 2:21 pm to catholictigerfan
quote:
I'm going to continue to come back to see if someone will suggest how devastating global warming will be. I haven't taken a science class in about 3 or 4 years it is hard for me to get back into this mindset and look at this stuff so all this arguments about co2 and it's effects goes over my head. I'm backing out for now.
Just consider the sea level rise alone.
How much land do you think Louisiana will lose if the gulf is 3 feet higher on average? I honestly don't know but I can't imagine its an insignificant piece.
2100 may seem like a world a long way off but there's a good chance that a child born today will inhabit it.
And like I said before - we have to make the transition off of fossil fuel eventually. Why continue to destroy the environment in the meantime? Its like continuing to smoke cigarettes figuring you'll just quit one day.
This post was edited on 6/19/14 at 2:24 pm
Posted on 6/19/14 at 2:23 pm to SpidermanTUba
We've had sea level rises and falls of drastic amounts pre-industrial revolution. Seems we made it through alright.
Posted on 6/19/14 at 2:24 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:
quote:
that's it.....i'm building a fricking bunker.
I would do it far above sea level then.
What about an underwater bunker
Posted on 6/19/14 at 2:25 pm to Bamadiver
quote:
Then you do not understand the true foe in the warming equation. At all.
i do understand that water vapor is much more powerful in the greenhouse effect, however it sounds as if youre asserting the real threat/source of climate change is water vapor?
care to expand?
Posted on 6/19/14 at 2:26 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:
And like I said before - we have to make the transition off of fossil fuel eventually. Why continue to destroy the environment in the meantime?
We don't have a viable alternative at the moment. Why the hell would we stop using the only option we have right now?
Posted on 6/19/14 at 2:28 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:
DUDE - the shape of the plot doesn't change if you change the zero point.
It does if your normalization is nonlinear. FAIL.
quote:
190 ppm isn't much higher than 400 ppm.
Sorry.
Wow. better check your source, champ. quote:
Why is what normalization better than what?
The fact you dont even understand what is going on with one of the axes of the graphs you continually post is troubling. The fact you then claim to know what the graph says is pathetic.
Posted on 6/19/14 at 2:28 pm to BobBoucher
quote:
care to expand?
quote:
i do understand that water vapor is much more powerful in the greenhouse effect,
quote:
however it sounds as if youre asserting the real threat/source of climate change is water vapor?
What needs expanding again?
Posted on 6/19/14 at 2:29 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:
How much land do you think Louisiana will lose if the gulf is 3 feet higher on average? I honestly don't know but I can't imagine its an insignificant piece.
hmmm, which model that is still within the 95% CI has predicted a 3ft rise? tia.
Posted on 6/19/14 at 2:29 pm to SpidermanTUba
if the sea level raises 3 feet yeah that will be a big deal but what is your evidence that is very reliable and doesn't have large questions with it that it will happen. So reliable that we should drastically change the way we live our lives, putting in government policy that forces a reduction of co2 and other harmful chemicals.
Global Warming science is shaky and not very reliable. To me there are hundreds of more pressing and important issues that what the earth may be like in 90 years.
Global Warming science is shaky and not very reliable. To me there are hundreds of more pressing and important issues that what the earth may be like in 90 years.
Posted on 6/19/14 at 2:31 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:Well Spidey by that measure, you absolutely suck
Skeptic is a GOOD thing. It was a compliment.
Denialist is a bad thing.
Posted on 6/19/14 at 2:32 pm to Bamadiver
quote:
What needs expanding again?
Water vapor isnt steadily increasing over time like CO2 because when it exceeds its capacity it rains.
Im not sure how this can be a climate change problem, or something we should be worried about.
This post was edited on 6/19/14 at 2:33 pm
Posted on 6/19/14 at 2:38 pm to GoCrazyAuburn
quote:
We've had sea level rises and falls of drastic amounts pre-industrial revolution. Seems we made it through alright.
By the year 2100, Oregon, California, Texas, Louisiana, Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, New York, New Jersey, and Massachusetts will each have literally dozens of cities which are in part or wholly below sea level.
LINK
Posted on 6/19/14 at 2:39 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:So sayeth SUperScienceSpideyTUba, the arbiter of all climate change appellation, so it shall be.
BTW - I'm going to give you the title of global warming skeptic. Most of the people claiming to be skeptics here are just denialists.
Posted on 6/19/14 at 2:41 pm to catholictigerfan
quote:
if the sea level raises 3 feet yeah that will be a big deal but what is your evidence that is very reliable and doesn't have large questions with it that it will happen.
The fact it is happening right now and the fact that it continues in line with model predictions - except at the upper end of model predictions.
Its not a rock solid prediction - it could just as well be worse than 3 feet.
quote:
So reliable that we should drastically change the way we live our lives, putting in government policy that forces a reduction of co2 and other harmful chemicals.
We aren't going to be drastically changing anything. Alternative energy technology is already, its just a matter of making it affordable. Cap&trade drives the market in that direction.
quote:
Global Warming science is shaky and not very reliable.
I'm surprised you'd say that. You seem to be convinced on pretty much every point I've made. Do you doubt our fossil fuel burning is warming the Earth?
quote:
To me there are hundreds of more pressing and important issues that what the earth may be like in 90 years.
There's a lot of big issues. This is one of them. Having to move half the world's population inland is just going to make the other issues worse.
Posted on 6/19/14 at 2:43 pm to SpidermanTUba
Like New Orleans?
Posted on 6/19/14 at 2:43 pm to CptBengal
quote:It's the kind of thing making PhD claims dubious. Frankly, it's the kind of thing leaving claims of a reputable undergrad degree dubious.
The fact you dont even understand what is going on with one of the axes of the graphs you continually post is troubling. The fact you then claim to know what the graph says is pathetic.
Call me a skeptic.
Posted on 6/19/14 at 2:44 pm to CptBengal
quote:
hmmm, which model that is still within the 95% CI has predicted a 3ft rise? tia.
Current sea level rise is in the upper range of prediction.
The upper range of IPCC prediction is ~1 m for 2100.
Page 16 of 19
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News