- 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: are there still people who still believe the earth is warming and man caused it?
Posted on 1/7/14 at 12:43 am to catholictigerfan
Posted on 1/7/14 at 12:43 am to catholictigerfan
quote:
zach the game is tomorrow
You're wrong because Zach is never wrong. Zack learned of the game date from a TV Guide in the basement at LaTech. Don't believe him? Well he's not going to link it for you because then you'll ask again and again. Just take his word for it because he has studied game times since you were only a dirty thought in your parents' mind. Now run along and check out the net for the results of the game, which, according to Zach, by this time, has already been played.
And btw....GET OFF HIS LAWN!
0
Posted on 1/7/14 at 12:44 am to catholictigerfan
quote:
another thing zach do you know how much money one of the wind turbines cost. I have always heard that they are a money pit they are very expensive and don't create much power. Also I have heard that they can only work when the wind isn't to heavy or to light so they don't run half the time
You also heard that Kenner and Metairie were in Orleans Parish and you live in NOLA.
Posted on 1/7/14 at 1:32 am to Korkstand
quote:Ah. Ok. Got it. Now I understand where your confidence in AGW comes from. I once held the same view for the same reasons.
I am contending that, while water vapor is an important GHG, its rapid cycle makes it more difficult to appreciably accumulate barring a drastic temperature change.
The residence time of any particular molecule of water is irrelevant. For example... if you had a bathtub with the drain open, and the faucet set to the same flow rate as the drain... if you kept the flow rate the same while turning off the cold water and opening the hot water... the flux would be the same, amount of water in the tub would remain the same. But the temperature surely wouldn't.
quote:Indeed! As anyone that has attempted to model the weather can attest! But because something is difficult to measure, and difficult to model, doesn’t mean it’s contribution is irrelevant. Classic modeler’s error.
Its concentration also varies so wildly that it's difficult to measure any trends, if there are any.
Though clearly it isn't uniform or averageable™, it certainly has a large effect on surface temperatures and albedo.
quote:In fact... it must for the phenomena to exist. The concentration change from 200-400ppm of CO2 hardly changes the thermodynamic properties of air at all. A quick look a psychrometric chart will give you and idea what happens to water vapor.
would be expected to, in the long term, increase the average concentration of water vapor and contribute to a feedback effect.
quote:
You want a link to an obviously impossible experiment?
No. I don’t. The point was, no such experimentation has occurred. Your claim that the effects of CO2 have been verified by testing was probably imprecise. quote:Absolutely. But the idea that CO2 increases absorption-thus temperatures go up-is a single-variable model for the entire climate. A bit over simplistic, yes?
Because almost no experiment can be performed without having to account for variables outside of one's control.
quote:I'm not sure I understand your question. But it's probably no relevant to the point I was trying (poorly) to make. Compared to CO2... Water-vapor has the ability to transport far more heat from warmer to colder areas (both vertically and horizontally) than CO2 has to absorb heat. Given it wild variation in distribution, and directionality... is it dismissible?
Its concentration also varies so wildly that it's difficult to measure any trends...You mean the amount in water vapor, which averages out to a somewhat stable concentration?
quote:Aye. But not at equal rates.
Heat is held by everything, and everything radiates it back out.
quote:Not exactly. Water has a unique property CO2 does not share.
This kind of supports the position that adding anything to the atmosphere that holds heat will create a new, higher equilibrium temperature.
quote:Indeed. But not in the same locations.
Latent heat works both ways.
Posted on 1/7/14 at 1:35 am to oklahogjr
quote:Not to speak for "the majority of the board" but I think the AGW Evangelists sincerely believe they are right. But their surety isn't proof.
I just find it ridiculously amusing that this board thinks the majority of the scientific community is either corrupt and out to scam them or not smart enough to see the catch on to how it's all a bullshite.
Posted on 1/7/14 at 1:38 am to Korkstand
quote:
Eagle choppers
==============
Yeah, and we should start calling power lines "bird fryers", cars "bird smashers", and windows "birds-fight-themselves-to-the-death-erizers"
Posted on 1/7/14 at 1:42 am to Taxing Authority
quote:
Not to speak for "the majority of the board" but I think the AGW Evangelists sincerely believe they are right. But their surety isn't proof.
Do you guys use any sources anymore or do you just yay yap yap?
Posted on 1/7/14 at 1:47 am to catholictigerfan
Listen buster, forget climate change.
Unless we start working on the real big problem of plate tectonics, this is what the Earth is going to wind up looking like...
We need to start throwing money at this right now.
Unless we start working on the real big problem of plate tectonics, this is what the Earth is going to wind up looking like...
We need to start throwing money at this right now.
Posted on 1/7/14 at 5:30 am to catholictigerfan
quote:
are there still people who still believe the earth is warming and man caused it?
Yes, the majority of Americans and the educated world. Google "global warming poll". TD poli board is hardly representative of public opinion.
Opinion on GW usually falls into three categories around here.
1. Ignorance of statistics. This is the "it's cold in my town so GW is false" crowd. Or "it was warmer in so and so year."
2. Tinfoil hat crowd. e.g., it's a global, coordinated scheme among scientists to get funding. Al Gore, etc.
3. Armchair experts. This is the "water vapor crowd." Pointing out that most of the world's climate experts haven't considered complex things like cloud cover and sun cycles. And they even know the formulas and mathematics these poor scientists must not have learned about.
This post was edited on 1/7/14 at 6:09 am
Posted on 1/7/14 at 6:46 am to Powerman
quote:
quote:
I'm not playing dumb.
I wouldn't so freely admit that as much as you've been browbeaten by korkstand in this thread. If you aren't playing dumb it'a an admission that you ARE dumb.
How shocking that you would see it this way and name call to boot, Mister CONSERVATIVE POWERMAN!. The 'GW is real experts', in this thread; who all happen to be progressive minus the great almighty PM lol all sound like Ed Schultz.
LINK
There were scientist e-mails LEAKED not once but TWICE confirming GW/CC is a hoax but this thread will go on for another 10 pages of PM and the progressives sticking up for their cult.
quote:
Three themes are emerging from the newly released emails:
(1) prominent scientists central to the global warming debate are taking measures to conceal rather than disseminate underlying data and discussions;
(2) these scientists view global warming as a political “cause” rather than a balanced scientific inquiry and
(3) many of these scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data.
This post was edited on 1/7/14 at 7:09 am
Posted on 1/7/14 at 8:54 am to Korkstand
quote:
Warren Buffett thinks they are worth it. But I guess that doesn't mean anything since you and Zach are the brain trust around here.
more power to him if he wants to spend lots of money on those things than do it I will do nothing to stop it. I don't mind and support people trying to be more green but I don't want my government doing it because it cost lots and lots of money and there are better forms of energy.
let's invest in coal, and natural gas.
This post was edited on 1/7/14 at 8:58 am
Posted on 1/7/14 at 8:56 am to Big Scrub TX
quote:
Should we get into questions about what "you people" believe?
this has nothing to with church belief so . . .
Posted on 1/7/14 at 9:02 am to Korkstand
quote:
I mean, shite, you are using motherfricking Mars to support your political position. Do you have any idea how ridiculous that is?
To disregard it, exposes your lack of intellectual pursuit. However, scientists dont share your bias
quote:
K. I. Abdusamatov has proposed that "parallel global warmings" observed simultaneously on Mars and on Earth can only be a consequence of the same factor: a long-time change in solar irradiance."
Its a fact that both planets are warming during the same time frame, yet Mars has way, way, way more Co2 than Earth. To blame increases on Co2 on one planet and ignore the effect of the sun on both, is well, farcical.
Posted on 1/7/14 at 9:12 am to catholictigerfan
quote:Not Buffett's style.
more power to him if he wants to spend lots of money on those things than do it I will do nothing to stop it
In actuality, he'll spend your money on those things. Then he'll personally pocket any profit from the proceeds. It's otherwise known as government supplement, or in Spidylanguage, corporate welfare.
Posted on 1/7/14 at 9:15 am to NC_Tigah
so your saying that the government help Buffett pay for these things by the supplements?
Posted on 1/7/14 at 9:21 am to cajunangelle
quote:
This argument is so intriguing. You have each group using the same line of, "Anybody that still believes Man MAde Global Warming IS [IS NOT] real is ignoring reality and does not understand the facts"
If you dont believe it is happening, you are labeled a "flat earther" because it is so obvious...just look at the facts.
If you do believe it is happening, you are gullible and dont know the REAL facts.
That is the beauty of the "information age". There is SO much access to So much information, that facts are disguised
I posted this on page 1. Here we are, 14 pages later, arguing over the "facts".
I challenge either side to provide concise evidence to their argument. Stop with the bullshite. If someone posts a link with data / information and you have evidence to the contrary, provide it.
Posted on 1/7/14 at 9:23 am to catholictigerfan
quote:
so your saying that the government help Buffett pay for these things by the supplements?
quote:
President Obama winked and nodded his intention Wednesday to close tax loopholes in exchange for lower tax rates. It was just for show. One day later, the commander in chief flew Air Force One to Florida to reiterate his support for expanding tax carve-outs for his political allies.
To pull this off, the president needs to paint Big Oil as the bad guy responsible for gasoline soaring to an average $3.61 per gallon. “A century of subsidies to the oil companies is long enough,” Mr. Obama told students at the University of Miami. That gives him an excuse to reward his friends who have invested heavily in windmills and sun power as an alternative to more efficient fossil fuels. “It’s time to end taxpayer giveaways to an industry that has never been more profitable, double down on clean-energy industries that have never been more promising.”
Posted on 1/7/14 at 9:43 am to NC_Tigah
thanks NC now let's see how the GW activist spin this Posted on 1/7/14 at 9:53 am to saltybulldog
quote:It's been done many, many times in opposition to AGW-supporters here.
If someone posts a link with data / information and you have evidence to the contrary, provide it.
Literally the only person I've encountered willing to do that from a Warmist POV is Korkstand. The rest of the responses are either uninformed rote, or attempts at petty insult.
In a nutshell, you have two conflicting datasets.
One from ice core data in which CO2 fluctuates cyclically in association with temperature. Two explanations (1) CO2 is the cause of temperature changes, or (2) CO2 levels are the result of temperature changes. IAW with Laws of physics/chemistry we know #2 must be the case. Solubility of CO2 in the ocean is reduced as temperature is increased. The result is increasing atmospheric CO2. The reverse occurs as temperature drops.
The second is from agenda driven scientists collecting temporal data of various sorts and trying to work that into an AGW narrative. Temperature, CO2 levels, ice sheet recession, etc. Hallmark basis for their work is the fact that CO2 can act as a greenhouse gas. The problem is the low concentration in our atmosphere makes that scenario unlikely. In an attempt to study, and account for its effects in isolation, supporters literally make calculations regarding individual molecules in isolation, then attempt to extrapolate their results to an exceeding complicated environment. It's essentially an "in vitro" vs "in vivo" testing equation.
Posted on 1/7/14 at 10:08 am to Korkstand
quote:
Korkstand
You seem pretty knowledgeable on the climate change subject matter. Here is the Vostok Ice Core and CO2 and temperature chart (which you probably already know about):
First let's state what we know:
1.) Starting with the beginning of the chart there appears to be four ice ages and four warming periods.
2.) The the 4 ice ages and 4 warming periods appear to turn off and on pretty quickly. Almost like there is some geologic/solar/cosmic trigger.
3.) Today, the concentration of CO2 seems relatively high in correlation to temperature as compared to the previous 399,900 years.
Questions:
1.) Based on current CO2 concentrations, why isn't our average global temperature higher?
2.) What was the trigger for the first three warming periods?
3.) Do you believe CO2 concentrations lag or lead temperature?
Posted on 1/7/14 at 10:13 am to cajunangelle
quote:
How shocking that you would see it this way and name call to boot, Mister CONSERVATIVE POWERMAN!. The 'GW is real experts', in this thread; who all happen to be progressive minus the great almighty PM lol all sound like Ed Schultz.
I think you have it figured out detective, the man is conservative through and through
what about those other pretenders acting like they have intellect and observe science?
Page 14 of 16
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News