- 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
0
Posted on 6/17/17 at 2:14 am to NC_Tigah
quote:This is NASA answer to whether to whether the warming is natural or not. I don't think they give a flying fig about postinterglacialmaximum, because even if we are in one, as they explained it doesn't answer why we're warming as quickly as we are.
Oh? So what does NASA say about the probability we are nearing postinterglacialmaximum? For that matter, now exactly is NASA modeling for it?
This post was edited on 6/17/17 at 2:19 am
Posted on 6/17/17 at 2:27 am to Tyrusrex
quote:I don't either, because that is not where their funding comes from.
I don't think they give a flying fig about postinterglacialmaximum
Look for their focus to change a bit over the next few years though.
In the meantime, if as you say, they don't give a flying fig about underlying climate drivers, then how can anyone give a flying fig about their claims of variance. After all, said anomalies are varying from an unknown baseline.
Posted on 6/17/17 at 2:31 am to NC_Tigah
Why are the people y'all accuse of spreading the hoax of climate change the same ones in the lab right now creating new and improving plants and algae that help reduce co2? Why would they be wanting to help? Why would NASA's newest models show little to no ice reduction if they're in on it, and why would you believe that study and not ones that support the earth warming from the exact same source?
Posted on 6/17/17 at 2:37 am to NC_Tigah
HAHHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, Of course, the great conspiracy theory that all climatologists are just doing this just so they can make a shite ton of money. DO you know how insane that is? Do you know how little money they make? These people aren't in it for the money. They could make a ton more money selling out to the Oil and Gas Industry like Willie Soon. who we learned "In 2011, it was revealed that Soon received over $1 million from petroleum and coal interests since 2001". Or the possible new science adviser William Happer who was caught asking for a fee so that "Happer to write a report touting the benefits of rising carbon emissions. Happer asked the fee to be donated to the climate-change skeptic organization CO2 Coalition, which suggested he reach out to the Donors Trust to keep the source of funds secret; hiding funding in that way is lawful under US law. Happer acknowledged that his report would probably not pass peer-review with a scientific journal." The Big money is with the Oil and Gas Industry.
Posted on 6/17/17 at 2:40 am to olddawg26
quote:
Why are the people y'all accuse of spreading the hoax of climate change the same ones in the lab right now creating new and improving plants and algae that help reduce co2? Why would they be wanting to help? Why would NASA's newest models show little to no ice reduction if they're in on it, and why would you believe that study and not ones that support the earth warming from the exact same source?
Because according to NASA total volume of ice isn't staying the same. Sometimes. you have to get the information directly from the source (NASA) instead of letting someplace like Brietbart try to interpret for you.
Posted on 6/17/17 at 2:44 am to Tyrusrex
I think we're talking about the same thing here, im just saying if they're getting paid to keep up a "hoax" why are they the same people making leaps and bounds in plant reduction of CO2? It doesn't make sense. They would be trying to increase the CO2 as much as possible.
Posted on 6/17/17 at 2:44 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
In the meantime, if as you say, they don't give a flying fig about underlying climate drivers, then how can anyone give a flying fig about their claims of variance. After all, said anomalies are varying from an unknown baseline.
Because they know that the rate of change in temperature far exceeds normal variance. You're assuming that the baseline is unknown, but the baseline has been well established.
Posted on 6/17/17 at 2:52 am to olddawg26
quote:
I think we're talking about the same thing here, im just saying if they're getting paid to keep up a "hoax" why are they the same people making leaps and bounds in plant reduction of CO2? It doesn't make sense. They would be trying to increase the CO2 as much as possible
I don't understand what you're saying, in what way are they not advocating plant reduction of CO2. One of the biggest acknowledged ways to combat CO2 is to plant trees. What I don't understand is why are conservatives so opposed to fighting climate change by reducing are dependence on carbon. Green Technologies is the next big thing, that's going to be a multi trillion dollar industry. Do you not want the United States to be a world leader? Or would you rather let China, Germany, and Japan kick our arse? Also, every barrel of oil we don't use, is a kick in the nuts to the United States worst enemies. We're talking Middle Eastern Countries that fund terrorism around the world and Venezuela. But we're so locked into conservative/liberal agendas. Some people just reject all reason and refuse to believe in Climate Change.
Posted on 6/17/17 at 2:54 am to Tyrusrex
What I'm saying is the same thing you are. IF this was a hoax, they wouldn't be helping the reduction with the new plants and algae species that helps more. But they are. So anyone saying they're just in it for money is completely off base.
Posted on 6/17/17 at 3:03 am to olddawg26
Yeah, believing that Climatologist are in it so they can suck on big government teat is next level conspiracy as crazy as believing the moon landing was faked, or the earth is flat.
Posted on 6/17/17 at 3:08 am to Tyrusrex
I'd say it's just so politicized that no one will look at the data. If you had a group on the left and a group on the right come look at the same data that everyone should use it's a pretty open and shut case. People google stuff like "climate change is a hoax" and fill their heads with unanswerable questions and just say "that's fake or skewed data" and end the debate before it starts. If al gore had nothing to do with it I think everyone would be more in agreement. Green energy is the future and I think everyone knows that.
Posted on 6/17/17 at 3:45 am to Tyrusrex
quote:Unfortunately that simply isn't true.
but the baseline has been well established
Even over the last millennium there have been variations that are not well understood. Regarding your observations of the last 10Kyrs, the relative plateau appears to represent a variance as opposed to past maximums. We don't understand why, much less what it means in terms of predictive climatology.
Further, our predictive CO2 modeling has been less than totally accurate . . . and that's being kind. E.g., you may remember AlGore and John Kerry both predicting the Arctic would be ice-free by 2013. Those statements were not inventions of two doe heads. They were based on some of the same erroneous modeling I'm noting.
As compensation for such, we've even stooped to manipulated measurements in order that temp findings more closely correlate with models. It is an effort providing illusion of more predictive capacity than is actually the case. Where that may be for good politics, it is simply not good science.
Good science hinges as much on acknowledging the things we don't know as it does focusing on that which we do know. In the case of AGW, the science is not settled. We know CO2 is a greenhouse gas. We theorize what its effect should be. But thus far climate complexities have proven daunting,
As long as politics pollute findings, predictions, and remedy the science will not be settled.
Posted on 6/17/17 at 3:48 am to Tyrusrex
quote:Spoken as one who has never had to pursue research grants.
Yeah, believing that Climatologist are in it so they can suck on big government teat is next level conspiracy
Posted on 6/17/17 at 4:57 am to NC_Tigah
quote:Then not only would the climatologist have to be in on it. But the ornithologist are in on it too, when they document bird migratory habits are changing. Or Oceanographers who document sea level rise and acidification. or arborists who are documenting trees species as they move to higher elevations. or glaciologists and retreating ice. or agriculturalist who have documented that the growing season has been extended by 2 weeks because of climate change. If there's a global conspiracy for climate change, then it's a global one that encompasses thousands of scientists in many many different fields of science. To think that every single one of them are united and so few are saying that it's all a global conspiracy, you have to be insane to believe that the scientists are in it for the money.
Spoken as one who has never had to pursue research grants.
This post was edited on 6/17/17 at 4:59 am
Posted on 6/17/17 at 5:00 am to Tyrusrex
quote:
you have to be insane to believe that
Posted on 6/17/17 at 5:15 am to tarzana
Interesting take on climate change on VICE this week. Apparently Russia is convinced that a warming planet is a huge opportunity for them. They are now able to ship shite to Asia quicker because it is half as far away by ship due to receding ice......just the beginning.
The military and govt scientists have been saying for 30 years that climate change is a threat...maybe the biggest one....we face. Russia seems to be all in on that threat.
The military and govt scientists have been saying for 30 years that climate change is a threat...maybe the biggest one....we face. Russia seems to be all in on that threat.
Posted on 6/17/17 at 5:58 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Unfortunately that simply isn't true.
Even over the last millennium there have been variations that are not well understood. Regarding your observations of the last 10Kyrs, the relative plateau appears to represent a variance as opposed to past maximums. We don't understand why, much less what it means in terms of predictive climatology.
Further, our predictive CO2 modeling has been less than totally accurate . . . and that's being kind. E.g., you may remember AlGore and John Kerry both predicting the Arctic would be ice-free by 2013. Those statements were not inventions of two doe heads. They were based on some of the same erroneous modeling I'm noting.
As compensation for such, we've even stooped to manipulated measurements in order that temp findings more closely correlate with models. It is an effort providing illusion of more predictive capacity than is actually the case. Where that may be for good politics, it is simply not good science.
Good science hinges as much on acknowledging the things we don't know as it does focusing on that which we do know. In the case of AGW, the science is not settled. We know CO2 is a greenhouse gas. We theorize what its effect should be. But thus far climate complexities have proven daunting,
As long as politics pollute findings, predictions, and remedy the science will not be settled.
No, the past temperature is quite well known as shown in this article.
quote:
The geological record of ancient climate is excellent. Ancient temperatures can be determined very precisely, because the composition of the shells of corals and other marine organisms varies measurably with it. Furthermore, the plants and animals that lived during a given time and are now preserved as fossils indicate whether the climate was wet or dry
Posted on 6/17/17 at 6:29 am to tarzana
(no message)
This post was edited on 6/5/20 at 7:36 am
Posted on 6/17/17 at 6:46 am to SquirrelyBama
quote:
Not familiar with Houston, but was it built on land not meant for living? Humans have a nasty habit of building where they shouldn't, and then blaming nature for trying to take it back.
Houston started as a scam. It was founded by the Allen Brothers who sold lots sight unseen with a brochure promising an existing town with streets and utilities. When people got there, they found an empty, malarial swamp.
It would have never amounted to much if Beaumont's aristocracy hadn't done everything in their power to (successfully) keep oil companies from headquartering in Beaumont. It was considerably smaller than Galveston (which was the biggest city in Texas) until the great hurricane destroyed Galveston. The real stroke of genius though was digging out the ship channel. Houston is actually inland, without a nearby oilfield. Beaumont's short-sightedness, Galveston's destruction, and the construction of the ship channel made it what it is today.
But yes, you assumed correctly, it's naturally a swamp criscrossed with bayous and that's why it floods.
This post was edited on 6/17/17 at 6:51 am
Page 6 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News