- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- 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: Do you believe in global warming?
Posted on 12/21/16 at 8:59 am to NC_Tigah
Posted on 12/21/16 at 8:59 am to NC_Tigah
What I find funny about climate change is how liberals are absolutely 100% certain it's happening. But the fact is the Earth is about 4 billion years old, and we have maybe 200 years of weather on record, if that. So we only know .00000005% of the weather history on this planet.
1
Posted on 12/21/16 at 9:09 am to Chimlim
quote:We have better theoretic understanding than that. e.g. ice core data and temp correlates take us back 0.8-1mya.
So we only know .00000005% of the weather history on this planet.
Posted on 12/21/16 at 9:14 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
ACOE management of the Mississippi River delta is about 10000X more important in that regard.
In order to manage sedimentation along the coast, the Corps would have to take into account any eustatic sea level rise factor. If the river were allowed to deposit all of its sediment, the rate of land building could potentially be offset by sea level rise.
The fact is that the river doesn't carry the sediment load that it used to due to locks and dams upstream from Louisiana. So even if the river were allowed to deposit ALL of its sediment load in coastal Louisiana, it still wouldn't be enough to match the delta formation that was occurring prior to hydrologic alterations upstream. With no eustatic sea level rise, we could still see a coast subsiding faster than the sediments delivered by the river could build up the land.
So given the reduced sediment load in the river, any eustatic sea level rise would compound the problem.
That all said, the effects global warming would be far better than cooling to the point of another ice age - except for perhaps Louisiana.
Posted on 12/21/16 at 9:19 am to Strophie
quote:Not at all. The watmists aren't out teaching thermo to the masses. In fact, many try to keep their work out of public view. Instead, they are preaching we should have faith in scientists and take them at their word--consensus!! That isn't understanding. That's faith.
Belief has nothing to do with it. It's whether the public at large understands it or not.
This post was edited on 12/21/16 at 9:21 am
Posted on 12/21/16 at 9:25 am to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:Meh. Considering we routinely search for human activity before laying pipelines....under 100s of feet underwater... I'm not to worried about that either.
Interesting, but that wasn't my point. Habitability doesn't just mean having free oxygen available, it also refers to sea level rise displacing people from their habitations.
If you (or other) are, don't buy beachfront property. It's not a big deal.
quote:Would you be willing to tell someone in Africa "no you can't grow food with a tractor, you have to stay hungry because it causes global warming" for your "benefit"? I'm not.
is of concern to me and should be addressed.
And as noted ACOE-caused erosion due to flood controls is much more of a man-made threat to LAs coastline than anything else.
Subsidence is also a big issue. But nothing can be done about it. Can't tax it. Don't care. And I don't think you're going to stop erosion of the water/alluvial soil interface. It's 100% natural.
This post was edited on 12/21/16 at 9:30 am
Posted on 12/21/16 at 9:25 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
We have better theoretic understanding than that. e.g. ice core data and temp correlates take us back 0.8-1mya.
And? What do those core samples say about a .8 of 1 degree increase in 100 years?
Posted on 12/21/16 at 9:57 am to Taxing Authority
quote:
, don't buy beachfront property. It's not a big deal.
I live in coastal Louisiana, it's a big deal.
quote:
Would you be willing to tell someone in Africa "no you can't grow food with a tractor, you have to stay hungry because it causes global warming" for your "benefit"? I'm not.
African nations are dependent on US technology to support their populations. Would you want to be dependent on another country to feed your people? I wouldn't. the whole "green revolution" was a farce, and only served to get 3rd world countries addicted to the technology provided by the agricultural industry of the US. If we had never interfered in their agricultural affairs, they would actually be able to grow their own seed and thereby be more food independent, and thus have a sustainable population. The population of any group of organisms will grow to meet their food supply. If that food supply is artificially inflated, the population will grow to meet the artificial supply of food. When that supply is cut, they are fricked.
In short, we created the overpopulation in many African countries, and have made them dependent on us to survive. It's too late to tell them they can't use a tractor, even if it would benefit them in the long run, it would be detrimental to the shareholder value of large US corporations. The green revolution wasn't about benefitting Africans, it was about benefitting US corporations.
Posted on 12/21/16 at 10:05 am to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:I get it. But your choice of home, shouldn't equal a burden on everyone else.
I live in coastal Louisiana, it's a big deal.
quote:US (really all) modern technology is dependent on cheap energy.
African nations are dependent on US technology to support their populations.
quote:Growing flowers in the desert is as problematic as building on a beach.
In short, we created the overpopulation in many African countries, and have made them dependent on us to survive.
Posted on 12/21/16 at 10:45 am to Taxing Authority
quote:
I get it. But your choice of home, shouldn't equal a burden on everyone else.
Maybe you missed it, but nowhere have I advocated changing anything, all I've advocated is for an objective study of natural phenomena and anthropogenic effects.
But it turns out that some 80% of the worlds population lives within 60 miles of a coast - potentially affected by sea level rise. It's not just about me, or even just coastal Louisiana. We'd be fools not to actually figure this shite out without the influence of politics or corporate money. The potential exists to displace billions of people due to sea level rise from anthropogenically influenced global warming.
Is this what we want? I'm not willing to dismiss it out of hand. Perhaps the benefits of global warming would outweigh the effects of displacement. I don't know, but it's virtually impossible to have a rational discussion on the topic.
You happen to be one of the more rational posters on the board, I've generally enjoyed our exchanges.
Posted on 12/21/16 at 11:23 am to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:About 4.7"since 1956 . . . juxtaposed with these changes.
eustatic sea level rise
Posted on 12/21/16 at 11:27 am to rpg37
I believe in nature.
Posted on 12/21/16 at 12:43 pm to rpg37
Dumb question is dumb. This is how the media gets the statistics they love to spout off about.
Since we are coming out of an ice age, global warming is indisputable. Also indisputable is the impossibility that man caused this to happen.
Since we are coming out of an ice age, global warming is indisputable. Also indisputable is the impossibility that man caused this to happen.
Posted on 12/21/16 at 12:55 pm to NC_Tigah
I would guess most of that is isostatic (local) sea level rise due to subsidence.
But there is a eustatic (global;) sea level rise factor there.
Here's the thing, HYPOTHETICALLY if there were a global sea level rise rate of 2 mm per year, and the sediment load of the Mississippi River were to allow a land building rate of 1 mm per year, there is still land loss. The trick is to get the sediment deposition from the river to exceed the eustatic sea level rise (currently estimated to average 1.8 mm/year). Currently, the sediment load of the river would probably force us to pick and choose which areas would be kept, and which would not.
Unfortunately land building in coastal Louisiana would require periodic flooding from the river. People want to live on slabs and don't want their land to be flooded - even if it means they wouldn't lose it to erosion/subsidence. People are notoriously short-sighted, and often won't even allow what is in their long-term best interests.
But there is a eustatic (global;) sea level rise factor there.
Here's the thing, HYPOTHETICALLY if there were a global sea level rise rate of 2 mm per year, and the sediment load of the Mississippi River were to allow a land building rate of 1 mm per year, there is still land loss. The trick is to get the sediment deposition from the river to exceed the eustatic sea level rise (currently estimated to average 1.8 mm/year). Currently, the sediment load of the river would probably force us to pick and choose which areas would be kept, and which would not.
Unfortunately land building in coastal Louisiana would require periodic flooding from the river. People want to live on slabs and don't want their land to be flooded - even if it means they wouldn't lose it to erosion/subsidence. People are notoriously short-sighted, and often won't even allow what is in their long-term best interests.
Posted on 12/21/16 at 12:57 pm to rpg37
By looking at the numbers, it's hard to say that there isn't a general, gradual warming trend happening right now.
That being said, the "proof" that the world (and America specifically) is causing it is ridiculous.
That being said, the "proof" that the world (and America specifically) is causing it is ridiculous.
Posted on 12/21/16 at 1:38 pm to mtntiger
quote:
Why is Greenland called Greenland? When it was discovered and named by Europeans, it was lush and green and pretty good farmland. Now, not so much.
This is wrong. Was named Greenland as part of a real estate scam to entice settlement. Was just as dismally cold as it is now.
Posted on 12/21/16 at 1:41 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:I would guess most of that is delta degradation due to erosion.
I would guess most of that is isostatic (local) sea level rise due to subsidence.
Posted on 12/21/16 at 2:04 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
I would guess most of that is delta degradation due to erosion.
The delta and the area south of Houma around Lake Boudreaux have the highest subsidence rates in the state.
It's obvious why the delta would have high subsidence, it's the newest land and thus has the highest potential for compaction.
Posted on 12/21/16 at 3:26 pm to rpg37
quote:Climate Change idiot.
rpg37
quote:Look closer. Ever heard of the hacked emails, using computer MODELS, computer MODEL result tweaking, etc.?
I believe it is obvious,
[link=( https://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/02/11/a-2000-year-global-temperature-record/)]Just one of many reports out there.[/link]Study both sides and then get back with me snowflake.
Posted on 12/21/16 at 3:37 pm to troyt37
quote:
Also indisputable is the impossibility that man caused this to happen.
Man could easily alter the climate if we chose. To me.. that's proof of concept and more than enough reason to study the subject
Posted on 12/21/16 at 3:47 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
eustatic sea level rise
quote:
About 4.7"since 1956 . . . juxtaposed with these changes.
quote:
NC_Tigah
Great picture but...
You do realize that
Scuba Divers found
A Bald Cypress forest buried under ocean sediments in the Gulf of Mexico, protected in an oxygen-free environment for more than 50,000 years, that was likely uncovered by Hurricane Katrina in 2005
We are still coming out of the last ICE AGE.
Page 14 of 15
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News