- 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
0
Posted on 2/8/14 at 12:48 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
Glaciers and Ice fields have been retreating since the 1700's. Before the little ice age, they were retreating as well.
This is true, and long before carbon fuels...I'm kind of gland there is dry land that we can walk around on, without bumping into all those glaciers. People just don't really understand, its just a huge Political football, and nothing we do will EVER change climate.
Posted on 2/8/14 at 12:52 pm to Cosmo
quote:
Average global temperatures will rise 7 degrees by 2100.
We've gone up a degree and a half in the last 130 years, the current temperature trends have been collapsing out of the bottom range of the models for the past 10 years, and we're going to GAIN how much more in the next 85 years?
I thought the anti AGW crowd was supposed to be the anti science bunch, sheesh.
Posted on 2/8/14 at 12:57 pm to Cosmo
quote:
The planet has warmed 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit since the 1800s, and as a result, snow is melting. In the last 47 years, a million square miles of spring snow cover has disappeared from the Northern Hemisphere.
A 1 degree rise in temps over 200 years is not sufficient to cause catastrophic consequences.
Posted on 2/8/14 at 1:04 pm to Zach
quote:
The planet has warmed 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit since the 1800s, and as a result, snow is melting. In the last 47 years, a million square miles of spring snow cover has disappeared from the Northern Hemisphere.
I am no climate scientist and do not claim to be any sort of expert in the field at all, but didn't the Little Ice Age come to an end in the mid-1800s? Wouldn't it make sense for temperatures to rise since that particular time?
Posted on 2/8/14 at 1:05 pm to Cosmo
quote:
During the coldest winter of my lifetime.
You must not be that old.
Posted on 2/8/14 at 1:08 pm to RollTide1987
Yep.
Until these studies can actually account for solar variation, I will continue to hold them in very low regard.
Until these studies can actually account for solar variation, I will continue to hold them in very low regard.
Posted on 2/8/14 at 1:12 pm to GoCrazyAuburn
quote:
Until these studies can actually account for solar variation, I will continue to hold them in very low regard.
How is solar variation unaccounted for?
Posted on 2/8/14 at 1:15 pm to deltaland
quote:
What they don't understand is that you can't "reign in" climate change because it is a natural process.
What they do understand, but purposely ignore.
Posted on 2/8/14 at 1:17 pm to AUin02
quote:
the current temperature trends have been collapsing out of the bottom range of the models for the past 10 years
Yep. And there's still ice in the Arctic.
The alarmists have made dire prediction after dire prediction that failed to materialize. But somehow you're an ignorant philistine if you even question the AGW crowd.
Posted on 2/8/14 at 1:17 pm to Bestbank Tiger
quote:
And there's still ice in the Arctic.
Its winter.
Posted on 2/8/14 at 1:18 pm to RockyMtnTigerWDE
quote:
What they do understand, but purposely ignore.
If you like, you can consider the doubling of atmospheric CO2 by burning of fossil fuels by man to be "natural". Man is, of course, natural.
It won't change the results, however.
Posted on 2/8/14 at 1:24 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:
During the coldest winter of my lifetime. You must not be that old.
This is the most number of days with the temp below 32 during any winter in Shreveport since records have been kept. About 150 years. And winter isn't over yet.
Posted on 2/8/14 at 1:30 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:
How is solar variation unaccounted for?
Well if it is accounted for, how much of the warming is do to solar and how much is due to man...
Posted on 2/8/14 at 1:31 pm to Zach
quote:
This is the most number of days with the temp below 32 during any winter in Shreveport since records have been kept. About 150 years. And winter isn't over yet.
Great, we'll count that in the averages.
quote:
Highs hit 90 as heat wave continues to grip Southern California
LINK
We'll ignore the record highs in California, though, because it doesn't help prove your claim.
This post was edited on 2/8/14 at 1:34 pm
Posted on 2/8/14 at 1:32 pm to wickowick
quote:Read the fricking IPCC report. Solar forcings are included.
Well if it is accounted for, how much of the warming is do to solar and how much is due to man...
This post was edited on 2/8/14 at 1:33 pm
Posted on 2/8/14 at 1:42 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:
We'll ignore the record highs in California, though, because it doesn't help prove your claim.
Ah, okay.
Record lows = manmade climate change.
Record highs = manmade climate change.
Got it!
Posted on 2/8/14 at 1:43 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:
Read the fricking IPCC report. Solar forcings are included.
They are included, yes, but they are glossed over and treated like a minor variable. I think a ball of plasma, 93 million miles away, that is responsible for our entire existence is a little bit more significant than that.
Posted on 2/8/14 at 1:45 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
So, let me see if I have this correct.
This year's unusually cold winter is part of global warming... yet... a one year weather event is NOT an indicator of lack of global warming.
Do you not see the conflicting premise in that statement?
Maybe if you weren't so focused on trying to force some sort of "gotcha" situation you'd understand that I wasn't saying that this particular winter in a vacuum is proof of global warming.
Posted on 2/8/14 at 1:57 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
They are included, yes, but they are glossed over and treated like a minor variable.
What does it mean to be "treated like a minor variable"? The solar forcing is added into the total net forcing figure just like every other variable in the summation.
What does it mean to be "glossed over", exactly? What particular aspects of it are missing in the 2013 IPCC assessment? Section 8.4.1 seems to address the issue pretty well, I dunno what you think is missing.LINK
There is also plenty of literature on the topic outside of the IPCC.
LINK
So what isn't addressed?
This post was edited on 2/8/14 at 1:59 pm
Page 2 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News