- 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: Greenland ice core data shows that the earth was 2 degrees warmer 5000 years ago.
Posted on 5/8/23 at 8:50 am to oldskule
Posted on 5/8/23 at 8:50 am to oldskule
“Scientists” believe masks work for Covid. Why should anyone believe they can predict Earths temperature? These people should be tarred and feathered
0
Posted on 5/8/23 at 8:51 am to dafif
Crazy. Almost like we live in a self maintained system of some sort.
Posted on 5/8/23 at 8:54 am to SOSFAN
quote:
Of course it was warmer. Do you know the size of a SUV dinosaurs drove.
And Fred Flintstone ran a brontosaurus excavator at the local quarry.
Do you realize the carbon footprint those things have?
Posted on 5/8/23 at 8:55 am to AggieHank86
quote:
quote:
It's just laughable that people get up in arms about the climate changing. Of course it's changing, it has since the world started spinning. Long before humans and their emissions were a possible blame.
True. It seems to me that this is not the correct question. That would seen to be "Are our actions creating or contributing to a change that will have a negative impact upon us and our society?"
If WE are doing so, and if our actions are moving coastlines and affecting what crops will grow and where, it might be wise to consider changing some of those actions.
Just a thought.
other than a full-scale nuclear war, humans can only truly impact environment/climate on a small/regional scale (not global). See acid rain, Chernobyl, coastal erosion due to wetlands loss, levee system on the Mississippi etc. Even the ozone "hole" was concentrated over the poles and was primarily impacted by the time of year (i.e., sunlight/or lack thereof).
No one is saying trash the place. Good stewardship is all that is necessary, but that's not good enough to the watermelon activists (green on outside, red on inside).
This post was edited on 5/8/23 at 8:58 am
Posted on 5/8/23 at 8:57 am to GumboPot
Lmao..... Eat it up
Posted on 5/8/23 at 9:01 am to dafif
quote:
In a very generic circular sort of way the warmer it gets the more plants thrive taking in more CO2 thereby allowing the planet to moderate itself
This is a little bit convoluted. Let me correct it:
As the earth absorbs more energy from the sun the oceans warm. As the oceans warm the oceans have less capacity to dissolve CO2 (and other gasses) and more CO2 is released into the atmosphere.
As more CO2 is released into the atmosphere the atmosphere becomes more fertile ground for plants. Earth greens. NASA satellite data even illustrates this trend of greening earth due to increased CO2 levels.
With increased CO2 levels life on earth thrives. More photosynthesis and respiration occurs. Because more biological activity occurs by every living organism on earth more water vapor enters the atmosphere. With more water vapor in the atmosphere earthy temperatures become more temperate. Temperate means higher lows and lower highs. That is, less extremes. That is exactly what raw temperature data illustrates.
Now the question is why is the earth absorbing more energy from the sun? Is the sun putting out more energy? Potentially. But a lot of scientist that follow space weather propose the reason for more energy reaching the earth is due to the magnetic pole shift and the weakening magnetic field as the poles shift. This is a cycle. Furthermore the earth's magnetic field is vital to the earth maintaining it's atmosphere. Without the magnetic field deflecting most of the sun's electromagnetic radiation, that electromagnetic radiation would strip away most of the light weight gases in our atmosphere and we would be suck with an atmosphere of CO2 like Venus and Mars. (CO2 is the heaviest molecule in the atmosphere and it's difficult for the sun to strip away into space.)
Posted on 5/8/23 at 9:05 am to AggieHank86
quote:
If WE are doing so, and if our actions are moving coastlines and affecting what crops will grow and where, it might be wise to consider changing some of those actions.
Since the last ice age sea levels have risen approximately 400 feet.
Sea levels have been pretty stable for the last ~6000 years.
Posted on 5/8/23 at 9:07 am to GumboPot
quote:Well-written and concise basic summary. Kudos.
This is a little bit convoluted. Let me correct it:
Posted on 5/8/23 at 9:08 am to SOSFAN
The idea of dinosaurs running around the northern parts of the world at one time is a favorite analogy of mine. The bones provide proof they were there and being cold blooded creatures needing constant warming weather should be enough to end the debates. The forest it would have taken to produce the food sources would have needed lots of CO2 to promote the growth. Climate change hoax is a hoax
Posted on 5/8/23 at 9:12 am to loogaroo
“There’s wetland core samples from along the gulf coast that show evidence of ancient super hurricane”.
How old is this data point? Louisiana itself is approximately 6000 years old so where is the proof for massive hurricanes? I’m not doubting but more curious how ancient are you talking?
How old is this data point? Louisiana itself is approximately 6000 years old so where is the proof for massive hurricanes? I’m not doubting but more curious how ancient are you talking?
Posted on 5/8/23 at 9:12 am to Nosevens
quote:Or it could support the theory that some dinosaurs were warm-blooded, like their avian descendants.
The idea of dinosaurs running around the northern parts of the world at one time is a favorite analogy of mine. The bones provide proof they were there and being cold blooded creatures needing constant warming weather should be enough to end the debates. The forest it would have taken to produce the food sources would have needed lots of CO2 to promote the growth. Climate change hoax is a hoax
Posted on 5/8/23 at 9:12 am to rmnldr
Google "Hypercane"
Posted on 5/8/23 at 9:14 am to GumboPot
Ya see board libs? When you try and take my money...
Posted on 5/8/23 at 9:14 am to Nosevens
quote:I assume that you reference only the Mississippi delta?
Louisiana itself is approximately 6000 years old
Posted on 5/8/23 at 9:14 am to Nosevens
quote:
Climate change hoax is a hoax
Climate change is natural but the political part is definitely a hoax. No politician has been successful at changing the rate of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.
Posted on 5/8/23 at 9:19 am to oldskule
United Nations
Climate change refers to long-term shifts in temperatures and weather patterns, mainly caused by human activities, especially the burning of fossil fuels.
Do not question your betters.
Posted on 5/8/23 at 9:20 am to AggieHank86
Whether it’s some or not shouldn’t matter as then some were not. Those that were not would’ve needed continuous warmth to survive. They weren’t the size of today’s lizards to crawl under some leaves. Higher temperatures ( to a point obviously) could be very beneficial to today’s world. I would argue that lower temperature would not be as beneficial
Posted on 5/8/23 at 9:35 am to GumboPot
There is really no use in presenting FACTS contrary to their agenda other than to educate the public.
The Nazis have eliminated all scientist that were skeptical of their faux science over a decade ago.
The media and big tech was already in their pocket.
Rationality and diplomacy has failed.
There is no hope for a peaceful resolution.
The Nazis have eliminated all scientist that were skeptical of their faux science over a decade ago.
The media and big tech was already in their pocket.
Rationality and diplomacy has failed.
There is no hope for a peaceful resolution.
Posted on 5/8/23 at 9:42 am to GumboPot
Anyone who knew anything about paleo climatology already knew this.
And the half dozen warming spikes over the last half million years.
News flash, the planet is still in a cold phase
And the half dozen warming spikes over the last half million years.
News flash, the planet is still in a cold phase
Posted on 5/8/23 at 9:45 am to AggieHank86
quote:
It seems to me that this is not the correct question. That would seen to be "Are our actions creating or contributing to a change that will have a negative impact upon us and our society?"
We know large cities cause an urban heat island effect but they have to cover a decent-sized area in order to do that. Even then, the impact is localized.
We know cutting sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxide (NOX) emissions cut down on acid rain drastically.
We know the earth has been both warmer and cooler during and before Man's presence. Along with this, we know that the earth has been FAR warmer for FAR more of its history than it is now.
LINK
We know that at least the Northen Hemisphere has been warming since the LIA (Little Ice Age), the end of which period being when Man started keeping constant and accurate temperature recordings.
We know that for most of the history of life on Earth there were larger concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere.
LINK
And if someone looks reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeally closely, they'll see that over history the presence of CO2 spikes haven't preceded temperature increases, they've followed them.
LINK
Looking at the above data pulled from some (ostensibly) non-biased sources (and one pro-AGW site), the most likely answer is that Man is not causing global warming.
To that we can add that pretty much every prediction the alarmists make has failed to come true. Arctic and Antarctic sea ice is still present year-round, Glacier National Park still contains glaciers, coastal areas have not flooded due to sea rise. Along with this we have the purposeful softening of the language from "manmade global warming" to "climate change" as more of these predictions failed (done so in order for the clergy of this particular religion to still claim that everyone, but themselves, must do penance to appease their angered entity).
So within the context of "global warming" the preponderance of evidence says that while Man can create very small and highly localized effects, they aren't nearly enough to create an anomalous trend.
Page 2 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News