- 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 12/15/16 at 10:49 am to Cruiserhog
Posted on 12/15/16 at 10:49 am to Cruiserhog
Have you read the new study into the flaw in the methodology of the computer programs regarding the climate projections?
That said, it's a long known reality that computer models tell you what you tell it. GIGO.
That said, it's a long known reality that computer models tell you what you tell it. GIGO.
0
Posted on 12/15/16 at 10:52 am to Damone
quote:
I thought it was "climate change" now? If that's the case, then yes, I do believe the Earth that is billions of years old goes through slow and periodic temperature shifts.
Add this to OP as to what a downvote represents. Most logical people believe this is what is happening based on the real data. Not the stuff skewed by scientists to get them more grant money.
Posted on 12/15/16 at 10:55 am to rpg37
Yes BUT:
Nothing we do as a nation will make any significant impact because China, Russia, South America and India don't give a single frick about it so until they do, nothing we do will make a difference.
I also believe the impact we have on the warming is greatly exaggerated to the point of exhaustion. I think the vast majority of the warming is a natural occurrence.
Nothing we do as a nation will make any significant impact because China, Russia, South America and India don't give a single frick about it so until they do, nothing we do will make a difference.
I also believe the impact we have on the warming is greatly exaggerated to the point of exhaustion. I think the vast majority of the warming is a natural occurrence.
This post was edited on 12/15/16 at 10:57 am
Posted on 12/15/16 at 11:02 am to ShoeBang
quote:
Nothing we do as a nation will make any significant impact because China, Russia, South America and India don't give a single frick about it
Neither do the celebrities like DiCaprio and the politicians like Gore. When they put their hysterics into action and reduce their carbon footprint to the size of mine, I might take notice. Until then, this appears to be nothing but a money and power grab by leftists.
Posted on 12/15/16 at 11:08 am to rpg37
I certainly "believe" what is objectively observable and verifiable. Anyone who doesn't "believe" it is not rational.
I also "believe" that if we don't reduce the amount of externalities in the form of environmental pollution, we will extinguish ourselves. This is also objectively true and verifiable. For example, pour a small cap full of poison into a fish tank every day. At first it wont have any effect. Over time it will change the environment in the tank enough that the inhabitants wont be able to survive. Our Earth is a larger but equally contained environment.
Are the variations in climate caused or contributed to by the objectively true constant introduction of pollution into the environment? I don't know but the folks who study this say it is.
But whether it is or not, we can't accept the premise that our Earth environment has an unlimited capacity for pollution. That is irrational.
I also "believe" that if we don't reduce the amount of externalities in the form of environmental pollution, we will extinguish ourselves. This is also objectively true and verifiable. For example, pour a small cap full of poison into a fish tank every day. At first it wont have any effect. Over time it will change the environment in the tank enough that the inhabitants wont be able to survive. Our Earth is a larger but equally contained environment.
Are the variations in climate caused or contributed to by the objectively true constant introduction of pollution into the environment? I don't know but the folks who study this say it is.
But whether it is or not, we can't accept the premise that our Earth environment has an unlimited capacity for pollution. That is irrational.
Posted on 12/15/16 at 11:33 am to goatmilker
quote:
So this is the science your preaching us idiots about?
For the Global Warming clowns like WiskyPapa, it's not science, it's a religion!
Posted on 12/15/16 at 11:39 am to rpg37
That man has a small effect on climate changes is a fact no one disputes.
That man is the driving force is silly.
The planet is warming up after a very recent ice age.
Take a look at the temperature variances in the Silurian and Pre Cambrian epochs and compare that to today's temperature curve and tell me it's any different.
That man is the driving force is silly.
The planet is warming up after a very recent ice age.
Take a look at the temperature variances in the Silurian and Pre Cambrian epochs and compare that to today's temperature curve and tell me it's any different.
Posted on 12/15/16 at 11:52 am to llfshoals
A recent volcanic eruption put more greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere in one week than all of the vehicles and industries in the US did in a year. But it's our fault.
Certainly we contribute to climate change, just not to the degree that some think.
Certainly we contribute to climate change, just not to the degree that some think.
Posted on 12/15/16 at 11:54 am to mofungoo
Don't forget methane from cow farts. Methane traps MUCH more heat than CO2.
Posted on 12/15/16 at 12:00 pm to rpg37
quote:
Do you believe in global warming?
No.
Posted on 12/15/16 at 12:01 pm to rpg37
I'm shocked the OP has so many upvotes.
There is hope for the PT board after all...
There is hope for the PT board after all...
Posted on 12/15/16 at 12:11 pm to TejasHorn
And with the boar largely conservative, it appears to be a movement the GOP should accept and go with...not necessarily with the same degree, but to work with.
Posted on 12/15/16 at 1:08 pm to Jake88
quote:
As individuals, we can help by taking action to reduce our personal carbon emissions.
quote:
frick that.
Al Gore agrees, He is a bigger "carbon polluter" than 100+ average people.
Posted on 12/15/16 at 2:24 pm to rpg37
Yes the earth is warming. The earth since the beginning of time has always gradually warmed and cooled over very long periods of time. This warming trend has been going on for 1,000s of years - before man had any idea what a freaking house was let alone anything currently being blamed.
Man may - may - may be responsible for an infinitely small portion of the change but the economics of trying to change things to prevent it is absurd. Let's do this instead - let's all be good stewards of the planet and work to cut down on pollution, emissions, etc. in economically viable ways.
Let's stop trying to destroy entire industries (yeah I'm looking at you democrats) and just make the changes that make sense for the good of all people.
Also, let's not put our economy at a disadvantage thinking Mexico or China or any other country are going to play fair on global agreements because that is a fools errand.
Man may - may - may be responsible for an infinitely small portion of the change but the economics of trying to change things to prevent it is absurd. Let's do this instead - let's all be good stewards of the planet and work to cut down on pollution, emissions, etc. in economically viable ways.
Let's stop trying to destroy entire industries (yeah I'm looking at you democrats) and just make the changes that make sense for the good of all people.
Also, let's not put our economy at a disadvantage thinking Mexico or China or any other country are going to play fair on global agreements because that is a fools errand.
Posted on 12/15/16 at 3:06 pm to TBoy
How big is the tank, number of fish, and is there adequate other forms of life (bacteria) that can covert the poison to non life threatening substances.
You forgot about those possibilities.
You forgot about those possibilities.
Posted on 12/15/16 at 3:44 pm to TBoy
quote:
I also "believe" that if we don't reduce the amount of externalities in the form of environmental pollution, we will extinguish ourselves. This is also objectively true and verifiable.
bullshite.
Go ahead verify it objectively. Show your work and methodology.
Posted on 12/15/16 at 3:46 pm to rpg37
quote:
And with the boar largely conservative, it appears to be a movement the GOP should accept and go with...not necessarily with the same degree, but to work with.
Why?
Posted on 12/15/16 at 3:52 pm to Jake88
quote:
So we shouldn't work to avoid another Katrina?
Are you kidding with this stupidity? There will always, always be category five storms, always. We cannot prevent them. This is truly a mind-numbingly stupid post from you. What caused the Galveston hurricane, the 1935 hurricane, Camile? The tax grabbers love dupes like you.
Your problem seems obvious to me.
You don't trust the government to be able to solve -any- problems, let alone global warming.
To say that the government can't solve problems, big or small is unpatriotic.
To say that we shouldn't act because China or Russia or whomever is not acting is cut from the same cloth.
What we can do, we should do.
Posted on 12/15/16 at 3:59 pm to rpg37
quote:
Upvote for yes and down vote for no.
It's 38 degrees and going to drop into the 20s tonight
I'd like some Global warming, but I see no evidence of it.
I see politicians making money off making people believe they can make a difference in something we really can't measure.
Posted on 12/15/16 at 4:06 pm to Dale51
We're at the point where it's less meaningful to ask if someone "believes" in anthropogenic climate change and more apt to ask if they "understand" it. Because it's factual, and it is happening. You may not understand it, and therefore may think that it's a conspiracy etc., but your own opinion doesn't entitle you to your own facts.
Here's a quote that handles this much more succinctly than I could. Please note that these are all sourced and cited quotes.
Here's a quote that handles this much more succinctly than I could. Please note that these are all sourced and cited quotes.
quote:
In the last 650k years, Earth has gone through 7 periods of glacial advance and retreat. The last was 7k years ago, marking the end of the Ice Age.
CO2 was demonstrated to trap heat in the mid 19th century. In the course of the last 650k years, Earth atmospheric CO2 levels has never been above 300ppm, and we know that through mineral deposits, fossils, and arctic ice leaving telltale predictable signs of how much CO2 must have been in the air at the time. Today, CO2 is over 400ppm. Not only have we kept fantastic records pre-industrial revolution, especially the Swedes for centuries, but arctic ice has acted as a more recent history of the last several dozen centuries. CO2 levels has been growing at unprecedented rates and achieving levels higher than we've ever known to occur that wasn't in the wake of planetary disaster and mass extinction. It follows that if CO2 traps heat, and there's more CO2 in the atmosphere than ever before, it's going to trap more heat than ever before.
Sea levels are rising. 17cm over the last century. The last decade alone has seen twice the rise of the previous century. So not only are the oceans rising, but the rate of rise is increasing exponentially.
The Earth's average temperature has increased since 1880, most of that has been in the last 35 years. 15 of the 16 hottest years have been since 2001. We're in a period of solar decline, where the output of the sun cycles every 11 or so years. Despite the sun putting out less energy, the average continues to rise and in 2015 the Earth's average was 1C hotter on average than in 1890. That doesn't sound like much, but if we go some 0.7C hotter, we'll match the age of the dinosaurs when the whole planet was a tropical jungle. That's not a good thing.
The ice caps are losing mass. While we've seen cycles of recession and growth, you have to consider ice is more than area, it's also thickness and density. Yes, we've seen big sheets of ice form, but A) they didn't stay, and B) how thick were they? Greenland has lost 60 cubic miles of ice and Antarctica has lost at least 30 cubic miles, both in the last decade. Greenland is not denying global warming, they're feverishly building ports to poise themselves as one of the most valuable ocean trading hubs in the world as the northern pass is opening, and it's projected you'll be able to sail across the north pole, a place you can currently stand, year-round.
Glacier ice is retreating all over the world, in the Alps, Himalayas, Andes, Rockies, Alaska and Africa.
The number of unprecedented intense weather events has been increasing since 1950 in the US. The number of record highs has been increasing, and record lows decreasing.
The ocean absorbs CO2 from the atmosphere. CO2 and water makes carbonic acid, - seltzer water! The oceans are 30% more acidic since the industrial revolution. 93% of The Great Barrier Reef has been bleeched and 22% and rising is dead as a consequence. The ocean currently absorbs 9.3 billion tons of CO2 a year and is currently absorbing an additional 2 billion tons annually. Not because the ocean is suddenly getting better at it, but because there's more saturation in the atmosphere.
------------------------------------------
IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Summary for Policymakers, p. 5 B.D.
Santer et.al., “A search for human influences on the thermal structure of the atmosphere,” Nature vol 382, 4 July 1996, 39-46
Gabriele C. Hegerl, “Detecting Greenhouse-Gas-Induced Climate Change with an Optimal Fingerprint Method,” Journal of Climate, v. 9, October 1996, 2281-2306
V. Ramaswamy et.al., “Anthropogenic and Natural Influences in the Evolution of Lower Stratospheric Cooling,” Science 311 (24 February 2006), 1138-1141
B.D. Santer et.al., “Contributions of Anthropogenic and Natural Forcing to Recent Tropopause Height Changes,” Science vol. 301 (25 July 2003), 479-483.
National Research Council (NRC), 2006. Surface Temperature
Reconstructions For the Last 2,000 Years. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
Church, J. A. and N.J. White (2006), A 20th century acceleration in global sea level rise, Geophysical Research Letters, 33, L01602, doi:10.1029/2005GL024826.
LINK
LINK
LINK
LINK
T.C. Peterson et.al., "State of the Climate in 2008," Special Supplement to the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, v. 90, no. 8, August 2009, pp. S17-S18.
I. Allison et.al., The Copenhagen Diagnosis: Updating the World on the Latest Climate Science, UNSW Climate Change Research Center, Sydney, Australia, 2009, p. 11
LINK
LINK
Levitus, et al, "Global ocean heat content 1955–2008 in light of recently revealed instrumentation problems," Geophys. Res. Lett. 36, L07608 (2009).
L. Polyak, et.al., “History of Sea Ice in the Arctic,” in Past Climate Variability and Change in the Arctic and at High Latitudes, U.S. Geological Survey, Climate Change Science Program Synthesis and Assessment Product 1.2, January 2009, chapter 7
R. Kwok and D. A. Rothrock, “Decline in Arctic sea ice thickness from submarine and ICESAT records: 1958-2008,” Geophysical Research Letters, v. 36, paper no. L15501, 2009
LINK
LINK
LINK LINK
C. L. Sabine et.al., “The Oceanic Sink for Anthropogenic CO2,” Science vol. 305 (16 July 2004), 367-371 Copenhagen Diagnosis, p. 36. National Snow and Ice Data Center
C. Derksen and R. Brown, "Spring snow cover extent reductions in the 2008-2012 period exceeding climate model projections," GRL, 39:L19504
LINK
Rutgers University Global Snow Lab, Data History Accessed August 29, 2011.
Page 7 of 15
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News