- 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: #flatearthers please check in. NYPost editorial shits all over climate change
Posted on 9/15/14 at 3:22 pm to udtiger
Posted on 9/15/14 at 3:22 pm to udtiger
quote:
a) what the "global" temperature is supposed to be (NOT what it "should" be for humans to be comfortable, but what it actually would be in the absence of any "man contributed" CO2, and considering natural cyclical changes in "global" climate);
That is a trick question as there is none. Life has adapted over the course of time, and many (if not all) of the large extinction events have coincided with something shifting the current homeostasis.
b) what the "global" CO2 atmospheric load is supposed to be without man's contribution (considering cyclical changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations);
Most likely it would be those levels seen pre industrial revolution. However, once again this is all relative. It depends upon what levels influence the climate to remain at a state in which current life forms can thrive.
quote:
c) whether the "global" temperature and CO2 concentrations have ever been higher than they are today.
Possibly, but some theories suggest that solar output was weaker during these higher CO2 times. Thus higher CO2 may have been needed to keep temperatures at higher levels.
2
Posted on 9/15/14 at 3:24 pm to Paluka
quote:
How about this? This big arse plant knows how to make its own adjustments to maintain some type of acceptable equilibrium despite whatever we do (except all out nuclear war).
If global warming is happening at the pace the hockey stick represents, its unlikely that the earths biodiversity will survive. Plants and animals evolve to changing climate over long periods of time and are at risk when there is "sudden" change (think hundreds of years versus millions).
For example, most mass extinctions have come as a result of "sudden" climate change.
Posted on 9/15/14 at 3:24 pm to Bmath
quote:
They are not denying the cyclical nature of climate change, only that they interpret the data to show that the climate has recently shifted at an unnatural rate. They correlate the rapid increase in CO2 from various anthropogenic sources to a seemingly unnatural shift in climate patterns.
but it isnt unnatural, it is not any faster than the past, and it has been higher without anthropogenic sources.
Posted on 9/15/14 at 3:26 pm to Bmath
quote:
Life has adapted over the course of time, and many (if not all) of the large extinction events have coincided with something shifting the current homeostasis.
the term is "punctuated equilibrium"
quote:
Most likely it would be those levels seen pre industrial revolution.
No it wouldnt.
quote:
Possibly,
No, it's a fact. In fact they have been several times higher than today. This is hard scientific fact, and is not debatable.
The climate goons just only veer show you part of the graph.
Posted on 9/15/14 at 3:28 pm to Bmath
A couple of big "maybes" in that answer.
Don't you think we need to be certain before we ruin entire segments of our economies and handicap our economy with a lot of taxes and BS rules and regs???
Personally, until proven otherwise I think we should go with door #1 which is adapting to changes and always taking care of our environment.
Don't you think we need to be certain before we ruin entire segments of our economies and handicap our economy with a lot of taxes and BS rules and regs???
Personally, until proven otherwise I think we should go with door #1 which is adapting to changes and always taking care of our environment.
Posted on 9/15/14 at 3:34 pm to CptBengal
Cpt., I'm not going to debate your points. However, I'll ask a question.
What is the motivation behind the AGW crowd? Are they worried that we caused climate change to accelerate, or are they conservationists that don't want to see the world as we know it ever change?
What is the motivation behind the AGW crowd? Are they worried that we caused climate change to accelerate, or are they conservationists that don't want to see the world as we know it ever change?
Posted on 9/15/14 at 3:37 pm to Bmath
quote:
What is the motivation behind the AGW crowd?
I'm a scientist, I dont randomly speculate, certainly not about the motives of others.
I will suggest that for some of the scientists who have made their career on this topic...it's tough to realize everything you've done is wrong. It could ruin a person mentally.
For the sheep like TUba, they just think it makes them sound "smart". But blind faith makes you seem the exact opposite to anyone who is actually thinking...
Posted on 9/15/14 at 3:38 pm to Mid Iowa Tiger
quote:
So why we wait for definite proof, we need to dismantle our coal industry, handicap our economy with new restrictions and rules, and raise taxes on the use of all carbon products?
We should move away from coal becuase it is a pollutant and is not renewable. Staying with it because of jobs makes no sense. The economy and energy sector will evolve and the US gov shouldnt prop it up, but instead support a transition to minimize impact.
Does the US want to lead the wold in developing new energy solutions or not?
BTW - i not a fan of carbon tax.
quote:
Whatever man's influence on climate, we are about 0.000000000001% of what that big ol' orange ball in the sky can do.
absurd statment. recall rivers catching fire? A dead-zone in the gulf the size of Massachusetts from fertilizer run-off? Smog(look at China)?
Posted on 9/15/14 at 3:40 pm to CptBengal
quote:
I'm a scientist
what field?
Posted on 9/15/14 at 3:41 pm to Hawkeye95
quote:
what field?
fields, plural.
Posted on 9/15/14 at 3:42 pm to BobBoucher
quote:
If global warming is happening at the pace the hockey stick represents, its unlikely that the earths biodiversity will survive.
A change of less than 1° on average over 100 years won't be cataclysmic. Species endure much, much greater seasonal variations, and greater year-to-year variations. Good grief.
Posted on 9/15/14 at 3:43 pm to udtiger
quote:because these questions mean that we can ignore rising temperatures & sea levels. Genius.
NOTE: Anyone who chooses to come into this thread and challenge the above must provide:
a) what the "global" temperature is supposed to be (NOT what it "should" be for humans to be comfortable, but what it actually would be in the absence of any "man contributed" CO2, and considering natural cyclical changes in "global" climate);
b) what the "global" CO2 atmospheric load is supposed to be without man's contribution (considering cyclical changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations);
Posted on 9/15/14 at 3:46 pm to CptBengal
quote:
fields, plural.
ok, fields. which ones?
Posted on 9/15/14 at 3:46 pm to Tigah in the ATL
quote:
we can ignore rising temperatures & sea levels
How much have they risen?
Posted on 9/15/14 at 3:46 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
A change of less than 1° on average over 100 years won't be cataclysmic
Is that the percent change the hockey stick model represents? Seems low to me.
Posted on 9/15/14 at 3:47 pm to BobBoucher
quote:
We should move away from coal becuase it is a pollutant and is not renewable. Staying with it because of jobs makes no sense. The economy and energy sector will evolve and the US gov shouldnt prop it up, but instead support a transition to minimize impact
Why not stay out of the way and let it die a "natural" death???
Why do anything except make sure it's mined safely and the burning of coal doesn't release too much harmful pollution into the air?
Staying with it because it saves jobs is one good reason. Another is because it's relatively cheap.
Now I have no doubt the economy will evolve, but the govt. doesn't need to interrupt the natural evolution.
Posted on 9/15/14 at 3:47 pm to Hawkeye95
oceanography and mathematical statistics.
Posted on 9/15/14 at 3:53 pm to udtiger
quote:About what they are currently.
a) what the "global" temperature is supposed to be (NOT what it "should" be for humans to be comfortable, but what it actually would be in the absence of any "man contributed" CO2, and considering natural cyclical changes in "global" climate);
quote:280-310ppm. It's currently~400
b) what the "global" CO2 atmospheric load is supposed to be without man's contribution (considering cyclical changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations);
quote:Temperature?-Yes, it's been higher. CO2? - Probably yes at some point, but not within the past megaannum as far as I'm aware.
whether the "global" temperature and CO2 concentrations have ever been higher than they are today.
Posted on 9/15/14 at 3:53 pm to CptBengal
quote:
I will suggest that for some of the scientists who have made their career on this topic...it's tough to realize everything you've done is wrong. It could ruin a person mentally.
The science was presented to me in grad school, from LSU, as being sound. Based on a figure I saw last week the majority of academia believes that AGW is true. Is it the peer review process that failed? Were conclusions jumped to, and suddenly everything began to snowball?
Posted on 9/15/14 at 3:54 pm to CptBengal
quote:
but it isnt unnatural, it is not any faster than the past, and it has been higher without anthropogenic sources.
Ding!
Page 2 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News