- 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
re: 2014 May = warmest on record.
Posted on 6/19/14 at 2:44 pm to JayDeerTay84
Posted on 6/19/14 at 2:44 pm to JayDeerTay84
quote:
Like New Orleans?
Right. Except it will be like that everywhere else, too.
0
Posted on 6/19/14 at 2:45 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:The only way we could go 500 years without learning enough to produce all the energy we need without fossil fuels would be if people like you actually take enough control of things to succeed in doing half the ignorant things you want to do.
Since best case estimates have that at around 500 years - wouldn't it make since to cut our use dramatically? I don't know about you, but I'd like civilization to endure for more than 500 years.
But in that case it is not likely civilization will endure 250 years much less 500.
Posted on 6/19/14 at 2:45 pm to SpidermanTUba
The environmentalists should all start killing themselves to lower the population and decrease CO2 emissions.
Posted on 6/19/14 at 2:47 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:
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.
I saw nothing in there that guaranteed any of that. I also saw reference to the IPCC studies and models that were not within the 95% confidence interval. Finally, we experienced more sea level rise follow the Wisconsin ice age.
So, even though this has happened before, this time it is man's fault, and it is our job to try and stop something that has been naturally occurring for thousands of years?
Posted on 6/19/14 at 2:48 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:
To me there are hundreds of more pressing and important issues that what the earth may be like in 90 years.
considering if we stopped emitting all CO2 tomorrow, it would take hundreds of years for the atmospheric concentration to return to pre-industrial levels.
How much longer would it take for temperatures to return and ice caps to re-form and lower the sea level?
So not only are we going to keep emitting tomorrow - but tomorrow were going to emit more than we did today.
I dont think anyone is advocating we all shut our cars off tomorrow. But there needs to be some awareness to begin finding alternatives so we can eventually start decreasing emission to arrive at the point where its neglegible.
There isnt much we can do about the CO2 already released. We'll have to deal with it and hope we can turn it around for our kids and their children.
This post was edited on 6/19/14 at 2:51 pm
Posted on 6/19/14 at 2:49 pm to boxcarbarney
quote:
in at least 800,000 years
who knew Koch Bros and Ford Motor operated that long ago?
Posted on 6/19/14 at 2:50 pm to CptBengal
quote:
It does if your normalization is nonlinear. FAIL.
Except in this case - it is linear. You're really on a roll today. Are you actually suggesting the graph is normalized in a way that changes the number and locations of peaks and troughs? EVIDENCE? Oh wait - nevermind, you don't do evidence.
quote:
Wow. better check your source, champ.
Why? Its not like if I provide evidence for my argument, it will actually compel you to provide evidence for your argument. That would never happen! Its because you are in the business of posing. Your main function in these threads is to tell everyone else how little they know - while providing no evidence at all of your own knowledge.
At any rate - I will do it anyway.
Last glacial maximum was 20-25k years ago.
quote:
22977 191.6
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/antarctica/vostok/co2nat.txt
There. Now go frick yourself. And while you're doing it - maybe you'd like to click that link and scroll down until you get to 400 ppm. I'd love to know how far down that is.
Thanks.
Posted on 6/19/14 at 2:52 pm to joeytiger
quote:
The environmentalists should all start killing themselves to lower the population and decrease CO2 emissions.
Omg that is so funny!
Did you think of that yourself? Have you ever thought of being, like, a comedian? I think you'd be great!
Posted on 6/19/14 at 2:54 pm to BobBoucher
quote:
considering if we stopped emitting all CO2 tomorrow, it would take hundreds of years for the atmospheric concentration to return to pre-industrial levels.
Think about it another way...
Only a percentage of the projected temperature increase is arguably attributable to "man made" CO2 loading. Remember, the Earth was warming even before the first internal combustion engine (that whole Ice Age thing...which is why there's not a mile thick sheet of ice over Chicago).
So, even if we killed every human and cease all human activities that produce CO2, the temperature is still going to go UP, and the sea level is still going to rise, based on even their models...just not as fast or as steeply.
So, what is being discussed is not preventing these outcomes, but only mitigating them by no more than 20-25%. So, instead of 3 feet, we're talking about a 2.25 foot seal level increase, but with the complete extinction of the human race.
This post was edited on 6/19/14 at 2:58 pm
Posted on 6/19/14 at 2:58 pm to udtiger
quote:
Only a percentage of the projected temperature increase is arguably attributable to "man made" CO2 loading. Remember, the Earth was warming even before the first internal combustion engine (that whole Ice Age thing...which is why there's not a mile thick sheet of ice over Chicago).
It wasn't warming that fast.
quote:
So, even fi we killed every human and cease all human activities that produce CO2, the temperature is still going to go UP, and the sea level is still going to rise, based on even their models...just not as fast or as steeply.
So, what is being discussed is not preventing these outcomes, but only mitigating them by no more than 20-25%. So, instead of 3 feet, we're talking about a 2.25 foot seal level increase, but with the complete extinction of the human race.
Right, except that's not actually true. The post glacial rise in sea level has basically been nill since before Christ even.
Posted on 6/19/14 at 3:00 pm to BobBoucher
quote:Not quite. Warm air hold more water vapor than cooler air.
Water vapor isnt steadily increasing over time like CO2 because when it exceeds its capacity it rains.
Without water vapor AGW cannot exist. The difference in heat from CO2 cannot account for a change in temperature -- not enough energy by itself. AGW only works if water vapor is a positive feedback.
This post was edited on 6/19/14 at 3:06 pm
Posted on 6/19/14 at 3:05 pm to joeytiger
quote:Nah. It's up to someone else to make the sacrifices.
The environmentalists should all start killing themselves to lower the population and decrease CO2 emissions.
quote:
I'm not turning off the AC so you can burn more gas, frick that.
Posted on 6/19/14 at 3:07 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
Nope. Warm air hold more water vapor than cooler air.
agreed. so if the average global temp rises by 1 degree for any given decade, then the atmosphere has the capacity to hold slightly more water vapor. But it doesnt necessarily mean that it will unless theres a larger and more uniform increase in global temp.
This post was edited on 6/19/14 at 3:09 pm
Posted on 6/19/14 at 3:08 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:
It wasn't warming that fast.
Ha.
Look at your "devastating" graph and draw a line of the average from 800 - 1150 (Medieval Warm Period) and carry it until 2004 (on your graph). Damned funny that the line almost hits that asterisk perfectly.
in other words, but for the anomalous "Little Ice Ace," we'd be exactly where we are. Perhaps the Earth is just playing "catch up" because the LIA may have been the result of a massive volcanic eruption in Indonesia. LINK
Posted on 6/19/14 at 3:11 pm to udtiger
quote:Indeed. It could be argued the time between was unusually cold by choosing the right base.
Look at your "devastating" graph and draw a line of the average from 800 - 1150 (Medieval Warm Period) and carry it until 2004 (on your graph). Damned funny that the line almost hits that asterisk perfectly.
This is why linear tending is a turrible way to analyze a non-linear function with strong cyclical influence. Makes a good propaganda tool though...
This post was edited on 6/19/14 at 3:12 pm
Posted on 6/19/14 at 3:28 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
Indeed. It could be argued the time between was unusually cold by choosing the right base.
This is why linear tending is a turrible way to analyze a non-linear function with strong cyclical influence. Makes a good propaganda tool though...
two things. your statement asserts the graph is ok, because we ended up where we were originally on track to be. Sure, but for us to continue to be ok, it would require the drastic rise pattern to suddenly cease and the more steady rise pattern to resume. we have no projections that are consistent with or support such a change. The drastic rise is likely to continue.
and second, history shows that the planets biology does not adapt well to sudden climate changes.
These are the types of changes that have led to the mass extictions throughout the planets history. Its never been kind to the animals at the top of the food chain.
This post was edited on 6/19/14 at 3:31 pm
Posted on 6/19/14 at 3:30 pm to BobBoucher
oh wow this is new global warming is going to cause the next mass extinction?
I'm sorry that is way to much over the top to be even possibly true.
I'm sorry that is way to much over the top to be even possibly true.
Posted on 6/19/14 at 3:33 pm to SpidermanTUba
i don't know how accurate he is but check this out. Your graph is clearly the hokey stick graph that GW advocates love to use, but apparently there are some major issues with it. I don't know enough about GW science to make comments so I will let you guys do it.
LINK
LINK
Posted on 6/19/14 at 3:36 pm to catholictigerfan
quote:
oh wow this is new global warming is going to cause the next mass extinction?
I'm sorry that is way to much over the top to be even possibly true.
Actually, its already underway although we're not thought to currently be at risk.
quote:
The researchers found that extinction rates are currently 1000 times higher than normal due to deforestation, global climate change, and the depletion of ocean fisheries.
LINK
species extinction rates is something that isnt really arguable. Perhaps the cause is debatable.
To your point, im not saying the graph points to mass extinction. Im saying that the graph points to the possibility of a rapidly changing environment, and also pointed out that throughout history, rapidly changing environments have been responsible for most (if not all) mass extictions.
This post was edited on 6/19/14 at 3:38 pm
Posted on 6/19/14 at 3:37 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:
At any rate - I will do it anyway.
Last glacial maximum was 20-25k years ago.
quote:
22977 191.6
Here's the problem champ, I said BEFORE the last glacial maximum. You really do have trouble with simple tasks....reading, understanding the axes of a graph, etc.
Page 17 of 19
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News