- 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: Antarctica has not warmed in 70 yrs! Scientists do pretzel twists trying to explain why.
Posted on 2/2/23 at 9:41 am to Big Gorilla
Posted on 2/2/23 at 9:41 am to Big Gorilla
quote:
Global warming is a scam.
This was obvious when they started calling it "climate change" while still discussing the exact same thing.
1
Posted on 2/2/23 at 9:46 am to Willie Stroker
quote:Well that detail actually is explainable.
I reallyneed to rethink the whole heat rises science.
Cold water is more dense.
Amongst warmists, density rises.
Posted on 2/2/23 at 9:47 am to tarzana
Air circulates around the globe. Water circulates around the globe.
Posted on 2/2/23 at 10:21 am to imjustafatkid
1a: The basic bottom line is the people who want to benefit financially from this movement are obscuring the facts intentionally, making it confusing to follow any real science (which there is not a lot of).
1b: The other bottom line is that people who TRULY believe that global warming is happening, are using climate models that do not take into account the entire set of factors the earth has at it's disposal.
NO ONE understands in any way what controls climate long-term. Anyone who wants a grant to study these things better go into it with a SLANT towards global warming or they will NOT get the $$ to do the study.
This leads to an overwhelming # of studies claiming it's happening, and happening soon - which leads to more $$ being made available for confirming that.
Looking back millions of years, we just do not understand what causes these massive long term fluctuations.
1b: The other bottom line is that people who TRULY believe that global warming is happening, are using climate models that do not take into account the entire set of factors the earth has at it's disposal.
NO ONE understands in any way what controls climate long-term. Anyone who wants a grant to study these things better go into it with a SLANT towards global warming or they will NOT get the $$ to do the study.
This leads to an overwhelming # of studies claiming it's happening, and happening soon - which leads to more $$ being made available for confirming that.
Looking back millions of years, we just do not understand what causes these massive long term fluctuations.
Posted on 2/2/23 at 10:48 am to dstone12
quote:
It’s minus 43 in portions of Antarctica right now. But…..It’s summer time down there.
I've seen some videos of scientists being stationed in Antarctica for a year at a time. They can go outside for a few minutes on most days. I'd go nuts. Same with being stationed on the crew of a submarine for a year.
Posted on 2/2/23 at 11:13 am to Penrod
quote:
If you have a critique explaining that the earth isn’t warming as much as they say (as I believe) or that something besides greenhouse gas
Look, we found an idiot...
Posted on 2/2/23 at 11:40 am to dafif
Lol, freaky Nancy was always screaming climate change and the sea is rising. Then they buy a new home on the beach in Florida.
Posted on 2/2/23 at 11:50 am to dafif
quote:
Look, we found an idiot...
Posted on 2/2/23 at 11:56 am to philter
quote:
Looking back millions of years, we just do not understand what causes these massive long term fluctuations.
fact.
its also true that short term human activities have huge impacts so big coal pointing to the 75 million years ago hot era is look squirrel! 100% irrelevant.
Posted on 2/2/23 at 12:03 pm to CelticDog
Have a question for everyone. I am but a simple caveman and I don’t understand climate, weather, geology, etc. I’m showing that Antarctica’s interior has an average temperature of -71 F. The exterior has an average temperature of 14 F. Let’s say it increased by 3-4 degrees on average, why does that matter? Everything is still frozen.
Posted on 2/2/23 at 12:10 pm to CelticDog
quote:Is it?
its also true that short term human activities have huge impacts
quote:So understanding mechanisms of prehistoric climate cycles within our current Ice Age is irrelevant?
big coal pointing to the 75 million years ago hot era is look squirrel! 100% irrelevant.
Understanding why predictive climate models have failed miserably is irrelevant?
Understanding nonclimate-related motivations of money backing the warmist movement is irrelevant too, I suppose?
This post was edited on 2/2/23 at 12:12 pm
Posted on 2/2/23 at 12:18 pm to Tigerfan1274
An interview the entire population needs to review. Mullis, the inventor of PCR, was the antagonist to the opportunistic science community and Fauci's personal nightmare.
The interview was from '96 & the AIDS debacle was discussed a lot.. you can flip the terms AIDS/AZT for COVID/mRNA vaccines & have a perpetual "a-ha moment" watching this.
Cliff's:
Scientism has taken over as our "Guiding Light" & the co-dependent population is victim to the scientific leadership's sold out agendas.
YTube: Kary Mullis destroys Scientism
The interview was from '96 & the AIDS debacle was discussed a lot.. you can flip the terms AIDS/AZT for COVID/mRNA vaccines & have a perpetual "a-ha moment" watching this.
Cliff's:
Scientism has taken over as our "Guiding Light" & the co-dependent population is victim to the scientific leadership's sold out agendas.
YTube: Kary Mullis destroys Scientism
Posted on 2/2/23 at 12:25 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
1. understanding mechanisms of prehistoric climate cycles within our current Ice Age is irrelevant?
2 Understanding why predictive climate models have failed miserably is irrelevant?
3. Understanding nonclimate-related motivations of money backing the warmist movement is irrelevant too, I suppose?
1. it would be great but since we dont its just useful to show that we dont know what forces were in play and we dont know about now either.
we dont even know how the pacific ocean la nina la nino works.
2. im with you on that one.
3. i agree 100%.
i have posted about your point one many times over the years.
do you not agree that coal burning is bad for humans to breathe?
diesel fumes are carcinogenic for 1 out of 7. address that.
This post was edited on 2/2/23 at 12:28 pm
Posted on 2/2/23 at 12:48 pm to CelticDog
These climate debates, while interesting, don't mean a whole lot big picture-wise as long as countries like China, India, and Russia (somewhere around 50% global annual carbon output) don't give a rat's arse what it's doing to the environment. This is one reason I'm skeptical of the "science." There seems to be a lot of agreement in Europe and here that there is a climate crisis that needs immediate action. But there is almost no substantive pressure being put on these countries to reduce carbon emissions. China and India especially have basically taken the stance of "We'll get right on that just as soon as we finish our already planned coal mining expansions for the next 10 years." Literal crickets from the international community. So whether the science regarding global warming due to carbon emissions is correct or not seems almost irrelevant given the fact that the biggest producers will almost undoubtedly never slow down.
Posted on 2/2/23 at 12:57 pm to tarzana
quote:Yet oddly climate doomsdayers always
There's unequal distribution of global warming due to a skewed distribution of excess gaseous carbon production between the northern and southern hemispheres.
speak about “average global temperatures”. There’s a clue there if you are smart enough to take it.
Posted on 2/2/23 at 1:01 pm to Penrod
I'm still trying to figure out why global warming would be a bad thing.
Posted on 2/2/23 at 1:16 pm to CelticDog
quote:"Coal burning" is fairly ambiguous. Diesel fumes in an enclosed space are lethal. In a wide open space, a premise that diesel fumes are carcinogenic for 1 out of 7 is dubious. Now having said that, if your question is am I opposed to trashing and/or polluting the environment? You bet. 100%. If there are better practical energy sources, or cleaner mechanisms of use, I'm all for bringing them online. But that is not what warmists intend.
do you not agree that coal burning is bad for humans to breathe?
diesel fumes are carcinogenic for 1 out of 7. address that.
Personally witnessing filth flowing out to sea from rivers such as the Saigon, Yangtze was revolting. There are less polluted sewers than some international waterways. What is being done about it?
The answer:
Well ... uh ... does it have to do with the ""Climate CRISIS""? No? Well ... uh ... if not, it's a "secondary" issue. Sorry, but we'll be sure to address it once we've "solved" global warming.
Meanwhile, we are destroying Chilean ecosystems with lithium mines so Americans and Europeans can virtue signal by driving electric cars. That's what the global warming farce brought us.
Posted on 2/2/23 at 1:45 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
So understanding mechanisms of prehistoric climate cycles within our current Ice Age is irrelevant?
Oh... look at you... big man using big words... to factually explain everything...
LoL
This post was edited on 2/2/23 at 2:04 pm
Posted on 2/2/23 at 1:48 pm to tarzana
quote:
There's unequal distribution of global warming due to a skewed distribution of excess gaseous carbon production between the northern and southern hemispheres.
It turns out 95% of excess GG's are generated north of the equator, leading to rapid warming in northern polar and subpolar regions, and glacial melts. Not so much in the south--southern subpolar lands like South Georgia, The Falklands, and Tierra Del Fuego have only warmed by a couple degrees since the 1950's, while their northern counterparts in Scandinavia, Siberia and Greenland have warmed by up to 10°F in the same time interval
This is the spin we're looking for. Bravo!
Posted on 2/2/23 at 1:52 pm to hojo
quote:
These climate debates, while interesting, don't mean a whole lot big picture-wise as long as countries like China, India, and Russia (somewhere around 50% global annual carbon output) don't give a rat's arse what it's doing to the environment. This is one reason I'm skeptical of the "science." There seems to be a lot of agreement in Europe and here that there is a climate crisis that needs immediate action. But there is almost no substantive pressure being put on these countries to reduce carbon emissions. China and India especially have basically taken the stance of "We'll get right on that just as soon as we finish our already planned coal mining expansions for the next 10 years." Literal crickets from the international community. So whether the science regarding global warming due to carbon emissions is correct or not seems almost irrelevant given the fact that the biggest producers will almost undoubtedly never slow down.
Modern climate policy has almost nothing to do with the environment. The people that claim to be the largest proponents are the most egregious violators.
This is all about control in the name of religion.
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News