- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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: Greenland & Antarctic ice loss
Posted on 9/2/14 at 7:31 pm to RogerTheShrubber
Posted on 9/2/14 at 7:31 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
It’s clear to Zhang and other experts who look at sea ice that the seeming paradox of Antarctic ice increasing while Arctic ice is decreasing is really no paradox at all. The Arctic is an ocean surrounded by land, while the Antarctic is land surrounded by ocean. In the Arctic, moreover, you’ve got sea ice decreasing in the summer; at the opposite pole, you’ve got sea ice increasing in the winter. It’s not just an apples-and-oranges comparison: it’s more like comparing apple pie with orange juice.
It does serve as a reminder, however, that while the planet is warming overall, largely due to human emissions of greenhouse gases, the complexity of the climate system guarantees that the changes to come won’t unfold in a completely straightforward way.
The OP isn't about sea ice.
2
Posted on 9/2/14 at 7:32 pm to mtntiger
Posted on 9/2/14 at 7:35 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:
the complexity of the climate system guarantees that the changes to come won’t unfold in a completely straightforward way.
Very unscientific way to cover one's arse when scientifically wrong
This post was edited on 9/2/14 at 7:36 pm
Posted on 9/2/14 at 7:36 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:Depend entirely on the definition of "sea ice," doesn't it?
The OP isn't about sea ice.
Posted on 9/2/14 at 7:39 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Depend entirely on the definition of "sea ice," doesn't it?
Sure, I guess if you define it to not be in the sea.
Posted on 9/2/14 at 7:41 pm to SpidermanTUba
I think you would understand better if your thought process unfolded in a completely straightforward way.
Posted on 9/2/14 at 7:45 pm to Tigah in the ATL
until scientist answer this question all global warming talk is bullshite:
How is a tax going to help the planet?
With a follow up of: What makes you so sure that China, South American countries, African nations, etc will follow the laws and not steal American jobs when they don't follow the policy?
How is a tax going to help the planet?
With a follow up of: What makes you so sure that China, South American countries, African nations, etc will follow the laws and not steal American jobs when they don't follow the policy?
Posted on 9/2/14 at 7:49 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:How much of the WAIS is "not in the sea"?
Sure, I guess if you define it to not be in the sea.
Posted on 9/2/14 at 9:17 pm to WeeWee
quote:all you guys want to jump to criticizing solutions that have nothing to do with the science. Scientists don't do taxes. Global warming is bullshite to you because you think somebody is out to get you. The reality is there will be impacts to us whether someone is out to get you or not.
until scientist answer this question all global warming talk is bullshite:
How is a tax going to help the planet?
Let's start 1st getting the deniers to understand it is real. Only then can get we get to solutions. BTW, some may be easy & cheap.
Posted on 9/2/14 at 9:34 pm to Tigah in the ATL
quote:
all you guys want to jump to criticizing solutions that have nothing to do with the science. Scientists don't do taxes. Global warming is bullshite to you because you think somebody is out to get you. The reality is there will be impacts to us whether someone is out to get you or not.
Let's start 1st getting the deniers to understand it is real. Only then can get we get to solutions. BTW, some may be easy & cheap.
If some solutions are easy and cheap then we should look into them as individuals, not a country solutions either by law or regulation. Do we need to limit human CO2 production, probably but we can do it by working on projects to eliminate congestion in cities so the average car doesn't have to run as long everyday, taking the reins off of natural gas and clean diesel.
As far as impacts go, how are we skeptics (not deniers) suppose to believe you when the computer predictions have been so far off?
Posted on 9/2/14 at 10:13 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
LINK
Story of a P-38 that landed on the ice in WW II. But was discovered. To be under 238 Feet of ice in the 1990s....
Awww.. someone doesn't get that glaciers move.
Posted on 9/2/14 at 10:19 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
How much of the WAIS is "not in the sea"?
I don't really know off the top of my head how much of it is below sea level if that's what you're asking.
Posted on 9/2/14 at 10:20 pm to WeeWee
quote:
If some solutions are easy and cheap then we should look into them as individuals,
It doesn't really work that way.
quote:
Do we need to limit human CO2 production, probably but we can do it by working on projects to eliminate congestion in cities so the average car doesn't have to run as long everyday,
Seems to me like you're picking winners.
Why not just monetize CO2 pollution rights and have the market decide the best way to reduce emissions?
This post was edited on 9/2/14 at 10:21 pm
Posted on 9/2/14 at 10:21 pm to SpidermanTUba
The question, fake scientist is how much is actually in the ocean.
Hers a hint, it's a non trivial amount.
Hers a hint, it's a non trivial amount.
Posted on 9/2/14 at 10:22 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:Yes, it does. You must be a pretty pessimistic person to think that only through coercion can the environment be saved.
It doesn't really work that way.
This post was edited on 9/2/14 at 10:23 pm
Posted on 9/2/14 at 10:23 pm to CptBengal
quote:
Hers a hint, it's a non trivial amount.
Why not impress us all with actual knowledge?
Posted on 9/2/14 at 10:24 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
You must be a pretty pessimistic person to think that only through coercion can the environment be saved.
only through coercion can my property rights be enforced.
Posted on 9/2/14 at 10:28 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:I'll ask you what I asked HempHead in the other thread: what was the "non-coercive" solution to CFCs?
Yes, it does. You must be a pretty pessimistic person to think that only through coercion can the environment be saved.
Posted on 9/3/14 at 8:28 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:basic microeconomics says you are wrong to be optimistic
You must be a pretty pessimistic person to think that only through coercion can the environment be saved.
Posted on 9/3/14 at 9:26 am to doubleb
quote:
I have a quasi-answer.
GREAT answer.
PLENTY of food for thought with regard to why we don't need the New Left Progressives to take control of Big Government for the purpose of fixing these "man-made" climate issues.
Page 3 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News