- 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: Houston Fears Climate Change Will Cause Catastrophic Flooding
Posted on 6/17/17 at 7:01 am to Tyrusrex
Posted on 6/17/17 at 7:01 am to Tyrusrex
quote:As with tree rings. Right?
No, the past temperature is quite well known as shown in this article
Until it dawned on folks that temperature alone was non-determinative, but rather the combination of temperature and moisture was. Likewise, corral growth is multifactorial with temp being a major but far from sole determinative factor.
Nonetheless, you mistook my comment.
When I referred to "not well understood", I was not talking about temperature. E.g., We know the "Little Ice Age" was cooler. As with ice age temp cycles generally, my reference was to cause, not effect. Temperature is the effect, the cause of which at given times is "not well understood".
1
Posted on 6/17/17 at 7:06 am to Tyrusrex
quote:False.
Then not only would the climatologist have to be in on it.
ANYONE attaching a study to global warming (i.e., changing fauna in pig gut exhibit variances caused by climate warming) has a far better chance of attaining a grant.
Posted on 6/17/17 at 7:10 am to Cooter Davenport
quote:You mean flooding in a single isolated highly urban environment is not due to pan-global climate change?
But yes, you assumed correctly, it's naturally a swamp criscrossed with bayous and that's why it floods.
Well, I guess you could be right.
Posted on 6/17/17 at 7:13 am to NC_Tigah
Man you sure know how to cherry pick in climate change debates. I'll give you that.
Posted on 6/17/17 at 7:21 am to olddawg26
quote:It really isn't hard.
Man you sure know how to cherry pick in climate change debates. I'll give you that.
Posted on 6/17/17 at 7:26 am to tarzana
The sky is falling, the sky is falling. We're all going to drown. Katy Perry had a meltdown on stage. Hillary Clinton lost the election. Woe is me.
Posted on 6/17/17 at 9:37 am to NC_Tigah
In the same article:.
Ice Age carbon dioxide levels are well known, because bubbles of Ice Age air are preserved within the Antarctic and Greenland glaciers. More ancient carbon dioxide levels are difficult to measure, since no samples of older air have been preserved. Several indirect methods are in use, one based on the effect of ocean carbon dioxide levels on the composition of marine sediments, and another on its effect on now-fossil plant leaves. These measurements show fairly convincingly that the long-term cooling trend over the last 50 million years is associated with a gradual decrease in carbon dioxide levels, from 2000-3000 parts per million during the Eocene Optimum to 200 p.p.m. during the Ice Age. The cause of this decrease is not fully understood, but seems to indicate that the total amount of carbon that can influence climate (carbon in the atmosphere, biosphere and ocean) is slowly decreasing, possibly because an increasing amount of carbon is being tied up in sedimentary rocks such as limestone.
Ice Age carbon dioxide levels are well known, because bubbles of Ice Age air are preserved within the Antarctic and Greenland glaciers. More ancient carbon dioxide levels are difficult to measure, since no samples of older air have been preserved. Several indirect methods are in use, one based on the effect of ocean carbon dioxide levels on the composition of marine sediments, and another on its effect on now-fossil plant leaves. These measurements show fairly convincingly that the long-term cooling trend over the last 50 million years is associated with a gradual decrease in carbon dioxide levels, from 2000-3000 parts per million during the Eocene Optimum to 200 p.p.m. during the Ice Age. The cause of this decrease is not fully understood, but seems to indicate that the total amount of carbon that can influence climate (carbon in the atmosphere, biosphere and ocean) is slowly decreasing, possibly because an increasing amount of carbon is being tied up in sedimentary rocks such as limestone.
Posted on 6/17/17 at 10:19 am to Tyrusrex
quote:
Do you know how little money they make? These people aren't in it for the money.
You mean like Jagdish Shukla? Who is Jagdish Shukla? He's a lead author on the IPCC. The (*cough*nonprofit*cough*) Institute for Environment and Society... And one of those calling for prosecution of "climate science deniers" in 2014. Let's see what the IRS has to say about him...
LINK ]LINK [PDF file]
LINK ]LINK [PDF File]
LINK ]LINK [PDF File]
Over the last three years Jagdish's *cough*nonprofit*cough* received roughly $12.12 Million in federal grants. ($16.44M over last four years, but their history goes back at about this funding level to at least 2005).
Over the last three years the "non-profit" foundation paid $1,379,464 in salary to it's chairman of the board Jagadish Shukla and his wife[/b] who pretended to be *cough* business manager.
A more complete summary...
quote:
since 2001 the organization has received more than $63 million — 98 percent of its total revenue — from taxpayers, mainly in the form of grants from the National Science Foundation, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. And an astonishing amount of that money has ended up in Dr. Shukla’s pock
quote:
That’s largely because the IGES has a tight-knit staff — very tight. The “business manager” is Jagadish Shukla’s wife, Anastasia, and the “assistant business manager”/”assistant to the president” is their daughter, Sonia. According to the Shuklas’ tax filings, they have pocketed $5.6 million in compensation from IGES since 2001 (not including Sonia’s earnings, which have gone unreported). That is on top of Jagadish’s salary from George Mason — a public university, by the way — which paid him $314,000 in 2014.
Poor guy... he was only making $314k from his real job.... quote:
This “double-dipping” — receiving compensation from a research organization on top of academic compensation — is prohibited by the federal agencies from which IGES receives money, as well as by George Mason University
quote:Just a bunch of waiflike guys working away in their labs everyday with no pay for the good of the common man.
Unsurprisingly, the only other member of the IGES staff is a longtime associate of Shukla: George Mason University professor James Kinter, who runs the Institute’s Center for Ocean-Land-Atmosphere Studies (COLA). The pair have worked together since 1984. Kinter, too, appears to have double-dipped, adding $180,038 from IGES to his $171,320 salary in 2014.
Interestingly... Mr. Shulka appears in teh climategate emails. He wrote...
quote::lol: I'm certain he'd know... no warming no funding.
<5131> Shukla/IGES:
["Future of the IPCC", 2008] It is inconceivable that policymakers will be willing to make billion-and trillion-dollar decisions for adaptation to the projected regional climate change based on models that do not even describe and simulate the processes that are the building blocks of climate variability.
Posted on 6/17/17 at 10:36 am to Taxing Authority
quote:
You mean like Jagdish Shukla? Who is Jagdish Shukla? He's a lead author on the IPCC. The (*cough*nonprofit*cough*) Institute for Environment and Society... And one of those calling for prosecution of "climate science deniers" in 2014.
Sure they're going to be outliers. But we need to look at the typical climatologist and see what they're made and then ask if they're really being influenced by the money.
Posted on 6/17/17 at 10:44 am to Tyrusrex
quote:
Sure they're going to be outliers
Shukla isn't an outlier. He's just eh one I have on speedial. If you're going to claim that money = desired results... you need to add to that list everyone that takes government money.
If you believe funding = influence... there is nothing magically different about the government's money. Mr. Shukla even said so explicitly to the approval of his peers. It's there in their own words. Go do a little digging and see for yourself.
quote:The premise of the "article" is demonstrably false by the above. No one checks if these guys double dip. No one monitors the "non-profits" all of these guys seem to be "involved" with. And government funding isn't distributed at random.
But we need to look at the typical climatologist and see what they're made and then ask if they're really being influenced by the money.
It is what is. You can ignore it or go with the evidence.
This post was edited on 6/17/17 at 10:47 am
Posted on 6/17/17 at 11:07 am to Tyrusrex
quote:No.
Ice Age carbon dioxide levels are well known, because bubbles of Ice Age air are preserved within the Antarctic and Greenland glaciers
Allow me to help you.
There are no "bubbles". Ice is porous d/t its crystalline structure. (That's why ice floats). It traps atmosphere as it forms. That trapped ancient atmosphere is what you are referencing. It was included in the Vostok Ice Core data graph posted earlier here.
IAW that graph, ice core CO2 samples rise and fall nearly exactly as temp does. You believe this "seems to indicate" the influence of CO2 on climate. In the instance of ice cores, it almost certainly does not.
There are very few Laws in Science. Henry's Law is one of them. Simplistically, it holds that solubility of gas in liquid decreases as temperature of the liquid increases.
~93.5% of terrestrial CO2 is contained in the oceans. Meaning as oceans warm, atmospheric CO2 will increase. IOW, if the sun was undergoing 0.11Ma cycles, warming and cooling oceans in the process, atmospheric CO2 would be an indicator rather than cause of the temp changes.
All of which calls to question CO2 as the gargantuan climate driver AGW proponents claim. Were it such, as oceanic CO2 was released, the greenhouse warming effect would further warm the oceans, releasing more and more CO2 until the oceans basically boiled off. Obviously, that doesn't happen.
Posted on 6/17/17 at 11:42 am to Taxing Authority
quote:
The premise of the "article" is demonstrably false by the above. No one checks if these guys double dip. No one monitors the "non-profits" all of these guys seem to be "involved" with. And government funding isn't distributed at random.
Ok, lets say there's a conspiracy of thousands of scientists to fake the data that shows global warming. There would have to be a few plucky brave individuals to tell the truth, in fact I would bet there would be more than a just a few, that can't be bought no matter the price. Yet, every major scientific organization has stated their belief in climate change. In fact, I challenge you to find me a major respected scientific organization that doesn't believe in climate change. To believe that every single scientist has been bought and corrupted just beggers belief.
Posted on 6/17/17 at 11:45 am to biglego
It doesn't help that large swaths of Houston are on a thick black clay that is slow to absorb water.
And the topography is still dropping from all the ground water that was pumped out for all of the individual utility districts from one of the boom times in the last century.
And the topography is still dropping from all the ground water that was pumped out for all of the individual utility districts from one of the boom times in the last century.
Posted on 6/18/17 at 11:22 am to Cooter Davenport
(no message)
This post was edited on 6/5/20 at 7:35 am
Page 7 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News