- 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: Glacial melt has tripled in the Amundsen Sea
Posted on 12/4/14 at 3:47 pm to LSURussian
Posted on 12/4/14 at 3:47 pm to LSURussian
quote:
And have been for the last 10,000 to 12,000 years, or IOW since the last Ice Age
How do you know?
0
Posted on 12/4/14 at 3:55 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:
Glacial retreat slowed and even reversed temporarily, in many cases, between 1950 and 1980
you know what they call singular points, or small sections, in a time series that are outside the trend?
Posted on 12/4/14 at 3:59 pm to CptBengal
quote:do you know what the word 'always' means?
Unless we're in an ice age....glaciers are always melting faster than they replenish.
Posted on 12/4/14 at 4:02 pm to SpidermanTUba
semantics?
good luck fake PhD.
good luck fake PhD.
Posted on 12/4/14 at 4:06 pm to CptBengal
Why did you use the word "always" if you didn't mean "always" ?
Posted on 12/4/14 at 4:11 pm to Iosh
quote:Iosh, as I've said previously, we may hold different views, but I do enjoy and respect your opinions on AGW.
Stuff like:
quote:
giving up modern standard of living.
Unfortunately the likes of TUba, AlGore, and Snooki (not Iosh) represent the Warmist vision.
I suspect if reasonable nonagenda driven folks got together, there is a great deal we'd agree on in terms of environmental CO2. My concern for example is the nature of nonrenewables, not CO2 per se. But it would get us to the same end re: the senselessness of issues like flaring, clean burning substrates, foreign entanglements, etc.
However, reasonable folks are not (yet) calling the shots. So when posters here, or politicians, or Exxon execs note ""giving up modern standard of living"" they are noting reality. TUba, AlGore, Snooki, BarbraStreisand, and similar nitwits would absolutely encourage unilateral US withdrawal from modern living.
AntiAGW folks are often opposed to what should be goal oriented-conservation, while warmist protagonists would happily take us back to the preindustrial age. Until more reasonable conversation takes over, we are going to be stuck with byproducts of coal and diesel, and nonrenewable waste.
It is what it is.
This post was edited on 12/4/14 at 4:42 pm
Posted on 12/4/14 at 4:14 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Unfortunately the likes of TUba, AlGore, and Snooki (not Iosh) represent the Warmist vision.
Its good you finally admit the reason you think AGW is wrong is because me and Al Gore think it isn't.
quote:
They are opposed to what should be goal oriented conservation, while warmist protagonists would happily take us back to the preindustrial age.
Funny I didn't know they had thermonuclear power plants in the pre-industrial age.
Posted on 12/4/14 at 4:32 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:
thermonuclear power plants
Do we have them now?
Posted on 12/4/14 at 4:36 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:TUba if you are indeed a PhD, you must have somehow received "special" consideration. No offense, but your inability to respond intellectually on these topics is stunning. At this stage, to be clear, you are right there with Snooki in terms of influence on my scientific views.
Its good you finally admit the reason you think AGW is wrong is because me and Al Gore think it isn't.
E.g.,
You tossed out solar output variability earlier, but refuse to return to the topic.
You address climate modelling, but when challenged you toss out a computer equation you don't understand.
Since you've chosen not to further address those IN YOUR OWN THREAD, let's try something different.
Shall we?
Address SPECIFIC findings (TDS mg/L) of Southern Ocean salinity as it pertains to Antarctic Sea Ice. It's the crux of your bitch questions with Russian. Address it.
Posted on 12/4/14 at 4:43 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Address SPECIFIC findings (TDS mg/L) of Southern Ocean salinity
actually NC, in oceanography we have all gone to Practical Salinity Units which is based on conductivity...but has no units.
Similar to ppt, close enough for 1 to 1 type comparisons.
Posted on 12/4/14 at 4:51 pm to CptBengal
quote:I thought in terms of freeze-point relative to glacier admixture, TDS might be easier for Spidy to reference. But they're peas-in-a-pod. Both nail the identical concept.
actually NC, in oceanography we have all gone to Practical Salinity Units which is based on conductivity...but has no units.
I'd just like to have an intelligent discussion on the record extent of Antarctic Sea Ice.
Posted on 12/4/14 at 5:06 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
I'd just like to have an intelligent discussion on the record extent of Antarctic Sea Ice.
dont expect one if he's involved tbh. Iosh is usually fun.
Posted on 12/4/14 at 5:08 pm to CptRusty
quote:they will come a lot quicker if carbon isnt free anymore. Or whatever the best alternative is. I think ultimately fussion will be the answer.
Do we have them now?
Posted on 12/4/14 at 5:10 pm to Iosh
quote:I suppose it depends on what the end goal is?
Stuff like:
quote:
giving up modern standard of living.
If you want to significantly reduce CO2 emissions by... say 30-40%, you ARE going to have significant shortages of fuel, electricity, and chemistry feedstocks.
In an undersupplied market... "the poor" will be priced out of the markets. I've been to places where electricity was unreliable, and fuels unaffordable, and modern products were unavailable--and seen the resulting standard of living. It was anything but modern and far from healthy.
Now... If the goal is to collect taxes, or take token action that makes some folks feel better, gives them the delusion that we are doing something, or ameliorate emotional guilt for being wealthy... then sure.... there is indeed a lot that can be "done" without giving up very much at all.
This post was edited on 12/4/14 at 5:12 pm
Posted on 12/4/14 at 5:10 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
You tossed out solar output variability earlier
I didn't toss it out. You failed to demonstrate that is what is driving the warming. Clearly if it drove the warming on an annual time scale the temperature would exhibit 11 year cycles. It does not. And if it is responsible for warming on larger timescales the 11 year average radiance would have to be increasing. It is not.
This post was edited on 12/4/14 at 5:13 pm
Posted on 12/4/14 at 5:12 pm to CptBengal
quote:FWIW, I still hold hope of the "PhD" thing manifesting at some point.
dont expect one if he's involved tbh. Iosh is usually fun.
Re: Iosh, he will engage this at some point, and I'd expect it will be an interesting discussion.
Posted on 12/4/14 at 5:30 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:
I didn't toss it out.
You did indeed toss it out => LINK ] . . . . . . . even though solar output has been going down since 87
quote:I did not address""warming"".
You failed to demonstrate that is what is driving the warming
I addressed ""variance"".
So since you are ""trying"", let's have another geaux.
You are actually acknowledging solar output to be variable??!!
Really?
Posted on 12/4/14 at 5:44 pm to SpidermanTUba
Posted on 12/4/14 at 5:58 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:Or we could do what France did 40 years ago and reduce the CO2 emissions of the electricity sector by over 50% within a decade while still drastically increasing capacity.
If you want to significantly reduce CO2 emissions by... say 30-40%, you ARE going to have significant shortages of fuel, electricity, and chemistry feedstocks.
Page 10 of 11
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News