- 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: Thoughts on global warming/climate change?
Posted on 5/2/26 at 9:17 am to MKP2004
Posted on 5/2/26 at 9:17 am to MKP2004
When you say it’s mostly sunspot activity/natural rebound - what kind of pattern would you expect to see in temperatures if that’s the main driver vs. something like greenhouse gases? Just curious how you’re picturing the difference.
0
Posted on 5/2/26 at 9:18 am to wackatimesthree
quote:
1. We're not going to fricking colonize space and move the entire human race to a new planet. That's dumber than believing in catastrophic climate change by a couple of orders of magnitude
Then we die sooner or later. At that point, who cares?
But you are limiting us to no more evolution. No more advancements. No more anything. Believing that we never can or could is dumber than anything anyone has said on this forum to date.
The rest of your post is a good discussion, but one for another time.
Posted on 5/2/26 at 9:18 am to UFFan
Michael Crichton's State of Fear (2004) was a wake up call for how militant and dedicated the Left are on this issue, and how it's not real.
Posted on 5/2/26 at 9:21 am to UFFan
Historical records on weather only go back around 200 years. Anything before that is just a guess. We have less than 0.01% weather data on the history of the world.
Scientists are going off 200 years of data. Not nearly enough data to say global warming is an issue and something that isn't natural.
Check back when humans have a million years of weather data.
Scientists are going off 200 years of data. Not nearly enough data to say global warming is an issue and something that isn't natural.
Check back when humans have a million years of weather data.
Posted on 5/2/26 at 9:22 am to remaster916
Lot's of people here are saying there's solid evidence for natural cycles of climate change. Are they off base?
Posted on 5/2/26 at 9:31 am to JasonDBlaha
I looked up the ice age subject about 6 years ago. Of course Noaa popped up. I distinctly remember it saying 8000 years to the next ice age. I guess maybe it said 8-10,000. I looked again before I typed and it just says 10,000 now. Not sure what changed.
Obviously climate changes. With or without us.
The majority of deserts were once oceans.
Much of the worlds land was once covered in glaciers.
I read a book written by Obama’s undersecretary for Science, US department of Energy called “Unsettled”
I highly recommend reading it.
Spoiler alert. He says there is nothing we can do about climate change except, Maybe we can slow it down by a fraction.
It would be much more practical to start devoting the trillions of dollars being spent fighting climate change on preparing our world to endure and exist with the inevitable.
Obviously climate changes. With or without us.
The majority of deserts were once oceans.
Much of the worlds land was once covered in glaciers.
I read a book written by Obama’s undersecretary for Science, US department of Energy called “Unsettled”
I highly recommend reading it.
Spoiler alert. He says there is nothing we can do about climate change except, Maybe we can slow it down by a fraction.
It would be much more practical to start devoting the trillions of dollars being spent fighting climate change on preparing our world to endure and exist with the inevitable.
Posted on 5/2/26 at 9:32 am to UFFan
The climate changes? No way!
Posted on 5/2/26 at 9:34 am to remaster916
Meet ice cores.
Posted on 5/2/26 at 9:41 am to UFFan
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here. quote:
Shock New Evidence Showing No Link Between CO2 and Temperature Over Last Three Million Years Stumps Net Zero Activists | Chris Morrison, Watts Up With That?
The climate science world (‘settled’ division) is in shock following the discovery in ancient ice cores that levels of carbon dioxide remained stable as the world plunged into an ice age around 2.7 million years ago. Levels of CO2 at around 250 parts per million (ppm) were said to be lower than often assumed with just a 20 ppm movement recorded for the following near three million-year period. In addition, no changes in methane levels were seen in the entire period. Massive decreases in temperature with occasional interglacial rises appear to have occurred without troubling ‘greenhouse’ gas levels, and this revelation has caused near panic in activist circles.
The assumed level three million years ago of CO2 was around 400 ppm, a convenient mark that has been used to explain the subsequent ice age and a drop to 250 ppm. Due to the recently published paper, this explanation has become more problematic and natural climate variation is correctly noted to have occurred with the temperature changes. Alas, similar explanations are mostly ignored in discussing today’s climate changes in the interests of promoting the Net Zero fantasy. Some cling desperately to a dominant CO2 role, including one of the authors of the findings published in Nature. The co-author states that the results suggest even greater climate sensitivity to the warming effect of CO2. In short, there is a great deal of applying the laws of physics and chemistry to one era, but failing to extend the same courtesy to another.
Posted on 5/2/26 at 9:44 am to UFFan
Better late than never to come to your senses
Posted on 5/2/26 at 9:46 am to UtahCajun
quote:
Believing that we never can or could is dumber than anything anyone has said on this forum to date.
No, it's not, because math matters. (Sorry to have hurt your feelings, though...I obviously did to cause you to use that kind of ridiculous hyperbole.)
It's like when you confront atheists with the mathematical probability against life starting spontaneously on this planet without any intelligent intervention (calculated at 1 x 10 to the 40,000) and they still act like it's the most probable explanation.
This isn't like telling someone in 1850 that we would go to the moon one day.
It's several orders of magnitude more complicated.
We're not talking about creating and holding together an artificial environment for a week. We're talking about creating an artificial environment permanently that can sustain life indefinitely, and the pilgrims having to create it ON the new planet. We're not talking about transporting 4 guys who have tested out to be exceptional physical specimens off the planet. We're talking about transporting a thousand people.
quote:
At that point, who cares?
If you have no basis for caring, why do you care about colonizing space?
Because it's "cool?"
Posted on 5/2/26 at 10:24 am to BK Lounge
So what % CO2 do we need to achieve in our atmosphere to reverse climate change? How will this affect our plant life?
What can be done to stop large volcanic eruptions such as the Hunga Tonga–Hunga Hapai volcanic eruption in 2022 and sent trillions of metric tons of water vapors ash and the big bad CO2 in our atmosphere?
What has caused the cyclical nature of our planet coming in and out of ice ages throughout our planets history? I am not aware of any large scale oil and gas development dating back beyond the 1900’s but I could be wrong. Aliens perhaps? Excessive Dino farts?
What can be done to stop large volcanic eruptions such as the Hunga Tonga–Hunga Hapai volcanic eruption in 2022 and sent trillions of metric tons of water vapors ash and the big bad CO2 in our atmosphere?
What has caused the cyclical nature of our planet coming in and out of ice ages throughout our planets history? I am not aware of any large scale oil and gas development dating back beyond the 1900’s but I could be wrong. Aliens perhaps? Excessive Dino farts?
This post was edited on 5/2/26 at 11:00 am
Posted on 5/2/26 at 11:49 am to UFFan
quote:
Thoughts on global warming/climate change?
I believe that the climate is absolutely changing. I do not belive that Humans are the cause, nor do we have the ability to reverse or fix it.
Posted on 5/2/26 at 12:30 pm to UFFan
Climate has always changed. There have been periods of time with zero ice on the planet and times where glaciers were when New York is now.
I doubt man has much of an effect on it. We should be more concerned with pollution than CO2.
I doubt man has much of an effect on it. We should be more concerned with pollution than CO2.
Posted on 5/2/26 at 12:33 pm to Jim Rockford
quote:
The climate is changing, at least in part due to human activities. Nobody is going to do anything about it.
Reasonable conclusion, unfortunately...
Posted on 5/2/26 at 12:48 pm to Obtuse1
quote:
Anthropogenic climate change is also fact.
NOPE!
Posted on 5/2/26 at 2:07 pm to BK Lounge
quote:
so just keep denying the reality you see around you everyday
I’m 61. I don’t see anything different other than the seasons. Beach is exactly where it’s always been during my life. The fear of the climate being 1C degree warmer in 100 years is paranoia. Tomorrow will be 15 F warmer tomorrow than today. We are like the noise from a dial tone at a rock concert compared to the sun. Try to control that if you really want to make a difference.
Posted on 5/2/26 at 2:10 pm to Jim Rockford
quote:
due to human activities
you had me up until this part.
Posted on 5/2/26 at 2:16 pm to BK Lounge
quote:
You’re right .. especially not in a state where over half the population is either directly involved with the oil/gas/fossil fuel industry, or if not then they at least have significant ties to the industry .. cant risk a paycheck, so just keep denying the reality you see around you everyday .. im sure that strategy will work out awesome .
Please bump your post and check back in tomorrow at sun rise when it is below 50° on May 3rd in south Louisiana.
Didn't the earth just transition from a solar maximum into a solar minimum cycle?
You're going to find it much more difficult to find legitimate data to support the settled science of the "climate change narrative".
Posted on 5/2/26 at 2:18 pm to holdmuh keystonelite
quote:
It's like less than 1%.
We don’t know that but maybe.
Page 4 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News