- 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
2
Posted on 1/7/18 at 11:34 am to olddawg26
Yeah, American politics seem to be a glorified sporting event at times. "I want my side to win at all costs and when they do I will make fun of people who supported the other side." Blind political party support is never a good thing. I lean conservative on some topics and liberal on others. Part of why I dislike the 2 party system is that not every issue is black and white and even a candidate I vote for will not likely have policies that 100% line up with my ideals.
Posted on 1/7/18 at 11:34 am to Jbird
quote:
I will ask you, how much is caused by man?
How much money do we need to save the planet?
That's kind of why we are studying it.. to figure that part out? 'Saving the planet' doesn't cost money.. it's free in the long term.
Posted on 1/7/18 at 11:36 am to SDVTiger
You want a rate number as compared to the previous warming cycle? What are you asking?
Posted on 1/7/18 at 11:38 am to SDVTiger
quote:
So still no answer on how much faster it is warming?
Shocked
"Because human-induced warming is superimposed on a naturally varying climate, the temperature rise has not been, and will not be, uniform or smooth across the country or over time."
Again, you are free to educate yourself using that NASA website I linked on the last page. If you can look at all of that objective data and still come out saying man has no impact on global climate then you are being willfully ignorant in favor of your political party's ideas. It's not a smart path to go down.
Posted on 1/7/18 at 11:40 am to tehchampion140
Then you have a problem explainjng the title.
Can not have it both ways .....
If Mann and you are correct and you say that is no longer debatable then I am forced tk say it's junk science.
Those 26 snow storms and 6 blizzards work against you.
Can not have it both ways .....
If Mann and you are correct and you say that is no longer debatable then I am forced tk say it's junk science.
Those 26 snow storms and 6 blizzards work against you.
Posted on 1/7/18 at 11:42 am to Jjdoc
Sorry, you may have missed my edit after I submitted the original post. I'll just paste it again here.
"Average U.S. precipitation has increased since 1900, but some areas have had increases greater than the national average, and some areas have had decreases. More winter and spring precipitation is projected for the northern United States, and less for the Southwest, over this century.
Projections of future climate over the U.S. suggest that the recent trend towards increased heavy precipitation events will continue. This trend is projected to occur even in regions where total precipitation is expected to decrease, such as the Southwest."
I assume this covers what you are talking about?
Also I fail to see how you correlate him being correct to being able to call it "junk science." Perhaps you can expound on that a bit more because I would imagine that data supporting the number of snowstorms and blizzards this year would only strengthen the point, not weaken it.
"Average U.S. precipitation has increased since 1900, but some areas have had increases greater than the national average, and some areas have had decreases. More winter and spring precipitation is projected for the northern United States, and less for the Southwest, over this century.
Projections of future climate over the U.S. suggest that the recent trend towards increased heavy precipitation events will continue. This trend is projected to occur even in regions where total precipitation is expected to decrease, such as the Southwest."
I assume this covers what you are talking about?
Also I fail to see how you correlate him being correct to being able to call it "junk science." Perhaps you can expound on that a bit more because I would imagine that data supporting the number of snowstorms and blizzards this year would only strengthen the point, not weaken it.
This post was edited on 1/7/18 at 11:45 am
Posted on 1/7/18 at 11:46 am to tehchampion140
I didnt miss it. That was my response to it.
One other question I have to add. Accross what time span is the climate change effect. How far back does it reach? I say back because as I understand nasa and Mann, we dont knkw the future and the effects of the cuts.
I assume it has to be a more recent history. 1850s ?? Is that when man began to alter climate?
One other question I have to add. Accross what time span is the climate change effect. How far back does it reach? I say back because as I understand nasa and Mann, we dont knkw the future and the effects of the cuts.
I assume it has to be a more recent history. 1850s ?? Is that when man began to alter climate?
Posted on 1/7/18 at 11:48 am to Jjdoc
The core samples go back millions of years. Has stayed pretty consistent until the industrial period.
Posted on 1/7/18 at 11:51 am to Jjdoc
quote:
Then you have a problem explainjng the title.
Can not have it both ways .....
If Mann and you are correct and you say that is no longer debatable then I am forced tk say it's junk science.
Those 26 snow storms and 6 blizzards work against you.
Let's take three balloons:
1) Current atmospheric composition
2) Atmospheric composition with a 10% increase in water vapor
3) Atmospheric composition with a 50% increase in water vapor
Will the balloons behave in the exact same way if they were dropped from height X under identical conditions?
Posted on 1/7/18 at 11:51 am to Jjdoc
The quote I provided earlier says that the data support climate change related to man's activities since the mid-20th century. I assume that is as far back as the data can currently say that something we were doing had a direct impact on global climate. Who knows, maybe future data will change that timeframe, but again, >95% coincidence is the research standard and represents something that you would be foolish to deny, especially since I assume you have way less experience in the field than the people who are able to make that claim. I can't stay here and continue to provide quotes but I am pulling everything from the NASA site that I linked and you can look through that entire site if you'd like and if you are actually interested in looming at objective data to change your current views on the subject.
Posted on 1/7/18 at 11:51 am to olddawg26
quote:
Has stayed pretty consistent until the industrial period
So 1870s it began to change?
Posted on 1/7/18 at 11:52 am to Jjdoc
Posted on 1/7/18 at 11:55 am to tehchampion140
Then again. You have a major issue qith the title of this thread and history.
They are at odds with your data and research.
They are at odds with your data and research.
Posted on 1/7/18 at 11:58 am to olddawg26
No... I read every link. None of it has answered nir reconciled the topic.
None.
None.
Posted on 1/7/18 at 12:00 pm to Jjdoc
Sorry but I am confused as to what point you are making. NASA's provided climate change data state an increase in precipitation events, including winter ones. It seems that that aligns perfectly with what you state in the title, but again I am not an expert and am giving the best answer I possibly can. I need to take care of some things but again I will say if you can look through that entire website and come out saying man has no effect on climate you are being willfully ignorant in favor of what your political party claims is the truth.
Posted on 1/7/18 at 12:00 pm to Jjdoc
Have you tried asking a teacher on an online course or someone at a natural history museum?
Posted on 1/7/18 at 12:04 pm to tehchampion140
quote:
Because human-induced warming is superimposed on a naturally varying climate, the temperature rise has not been, and will not be, uniform or smooth across the country or over time."
So the answer is the experts do not know
Thanks
Posted on 1/7/18 at 12:07 pm to tehchampion140
Here is your problem.
1-20th century began the change due to man made gas.
2- Mann stated that warming caused the harsh current winter.
The winter I am talking about is on record... and it predates the dates provided where man is the issue.
And its is AMERICAN HISTORY.
26 snow storms and 6 blizzards in the same area as now prior to the man made global warming thats causing climate change.
No link you have given has explained that. At all.
1-20th century began the change due to man made gas.
2- Mann stated that warming caused the harsh current winter.
The winter I am talking about is on record... and it predates the dates provided where man is the issue.
And its is AMERICAN HISTORY.
26 snow storms and 6 blizzards in the same area as now prior to the man made global warming thats causing climate change.
No link you have given has explained that. At all.
Page 6 of 11
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News