- 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: Sen. Brandon Smith- America's new dumbest Senator
Posted on 7/11/14 at 4:51 am to Iosh
Posted on 7/11/14 at 4:51 am to Iosh
quote:
Neither. The distinction is not "man made" and "natural." The distinction is organic (low-C13) and inorganic (high-C13)
All you have done is more firmly convinced the denialists of the conspiracy.
0
Posted on 7/11/14 at 5:17 am to OMLandshark
quote:
The thing is I know we're fricked.
Interdasting.
All the AGW models and predictions are wrong, yet you KNOW we're fricked. Let me guess, you take it on "faith"?
Posted on 7/11/14 at 5:20 am to CptBengal
quote:
All the AGW models and predictions are wrong,
No they aren't.
Posted on 7/11/14 at 7:51 am to SpidermanTUba
LINK
Here is an actual sitting US senator saying something idiotic and stupid.
Therefore, according to the logic of the OP, anyone who agrees with her on this issue is also idiotic and stupid.
Here is an actual sitting US senator saying something idiotic and stupid.
Therefore, according to the logic of the OP, anyone who agrees with her on this issue is also idiotic and stupid.
Posted on 7/11/14 at 7:54 am to SpidermanTUba
quote:
No they aren't.
All of that data has been proven to be manipulated for political purposes.
Posted on 7/11/14 at 8:20 am to kywildcatfanone
Al Gore is the smartest most opportunistic man of this generation. I can't stand the bastard, but props brah!
Posted on 7/11/14 at 9:20 am to OMLandshark
I suspect he was attempting say something far different from what the nitwits at HuffPo are reporting and, as people often do, he worded it poorly.
Its been reported that temperatures on Mars are rising and that is the point I'm sure he was attempting to make.
Its been reported that temperatures on Mars are rising and that is the point I'm sure he was attempting to make.
This post was edited on 7/11/14 at 9:21 am
Posted on 7/11/14 at 9:42 am to Taxing Authority
quote:
the other 97% doesn't "add up over time"? Interdasting.
We're the only group, even at 3%, that is even AWARE of potential ozone depletion/global warming. I don't see why that 97% figure is even meaningful. Oh, we can't control 97%? We better make sure our 3% is in tip top shape.
You kinda have to want the world to last longer than your life, though, for this to be a consideration.
Look at the best & worst case scenarios, basically. Best case? We pay more in taxes or businesses have less revenue, but the planet lasts an extra 1000 years. Worst case? We do nothing and the scientists were right...the world ends 1000 years before it should have. In those 1000 years, who knows what technological advancements we could have made, such as actually having colonies on other planets to extend the human race a few thousand more generations.
(I just made up that 1000 year as an example...)
Posted on 7/11/14 at 9:45 am to ocelot4ark
quote:
We pay more in taxes or businesses have less revenue
I know you were just throwing out a hypothetical, so i'm not jumping on you. But raising taxes in a recession leads to depression. You really think it's a good idea right now to raise taxes? The US government took in more tax revenue last year than ever recorded, yet we still are showing exponentially greater deficits every year. The problem is not, not enough taxes. It's government spending.
Posted on 7/11/14 at 9:47 am to BugAC
quote:
I know you were just throwing out a hypothetical, so i'm not jumping on you. But raising taxes in a recession leads to depression. You really think it's a good idea right now to raise taxes? The US government took in more tax revenue last year than ever recorded, yet we still are showing exponentially greater deficits every year. The problem is not, not enough taxes. It's government spending.
I agree with that. I'm more in favor of changing how we spend our money.
Posted on 7/11/14 at 9:48 am to ocelot4ark
quote:
I'm more in favor of changing how we spend our money.
I'm in favor of auditing the entire federal government, and cut spending and proposed spending on every single agency under the federal government.
Posted on 7/11/14 at 10:06 am to ocelot4ark
quote:That makes no sense. Nor does it answer my question. I'd like to understand how Man's 3% is more significant than the other 97%. And how it accumulates ("adds up") but the other 97% does not accumulate.
We're the only group, even at 3%, that is even AWARE of potential ozone depletion/global warming. I don't see why that 97% figure is even meaningful. Oh, we can't control 97%? We better make sure our 3% is in tip top shape.
quote:Your initial premise here is wrong. CO2 will not be the "end of the world". That is silly hyperbole.
Look at the best & worst case scenarios, basically. Best case? We pay more in taxes or businesses have less revenue, but the planet lasts an extra 1000 years. Worst case? We do nothing and the scientists were right...the world ends 1000 years before it should have. In those 1000 years, who knows what technological advancements we could have made, such as actually having colonies on other planets to extend the human race a few thousand more generations.
It's been higher in the past than even the wildest predictions of the future.
Secondly, the effects of increased CO2 are not linear. They start to diminish (exponentially) with increasing concentrations.
IOW, going from 100-to-200 ppm makes a large difference in solar absorption. Going from 300-400... Not as much. Going from 400-500 even less.
This post was edited on 7/11/14 at 10:07 am
Posted on 7/11/14 at 10:15 am to Taxing Authority
quote:
That makes no sense. Nor does it answer my question. I'd like to understand how Man's 3% is more significant than the other 97%. And how it accumulates ("adds up") but the other 97% does not accumulate.
Yeah. That's a very silly assumption that man will double co2 output every single year. Meanwhile the 97% of natural co2 output is inconsequential.
Posted on 7/11/14 at 10:18 am to Taxing Authority
quote:
That makes no sense. Nor does it answer my question. I'd like to understand how Man's 3% is more significant than the other 97%. And how it accumulates ("adds up") but the other 97% does not accumulate.
Is there anything we can do about the other 97%? Would improving the only 3% we somewhat control be better or worse for the atmosphere?
quote:
Your initial premise here is wrong.
I don't doubt it. I know pretty much nothing and if it's scientific I know less.
quote:
CO2 will not be the "end of the world". That is silly hyperbole.
What ARE the different effects for each incremental increase in CO2 concentration?
Posted on 7/11/14 at 10:22 am to BugAC
Also, CO2 makes up a miniscule amount of Earth's atmosphere, yet we are still led to believe it is a driving factor on the thermostat of earth.
So let's look at that graph.
78% Nitrogen
22% Oxgyen
.9% Argon
.042% CO2
.0018% Neon
etc...
Co2 makes up approximately .042% of the atmosphere. Not 4.2%, .042% of the atomsphere. And, if you believe the left, man is responsible for 3% of that .042%. So according to the left, man is responsible for .0126% of the CO2 in the atmosphere, and that .0126% is responsible for a global shift in climate? Is CO2 somehow the only gas that controls temperature? And is Man Made CO2 the only controlling factor of earth's thermometer.
quote:
Composition of Earth's atmosphere by volume. The lower pie represents the trace gases which together compose about 0.038% of the atmosphere (0.043% with CO2 at 2014 concentration).
So let's look at that graph.
78% Nitrogen
22% Oxgyen
.9% Argon
.042% CO2
.0018% Neon
etc...
Co2 makes up approximately .042% of the atmosphere. Not 4.2%, .042% of the atomsphere. And, if you believe the left, man is responsible for 3% of that .042%. So according to the left, man is responsible for .0126% of the CO2 in the atmosphere, and that .0126% is responsible for a global shift in climate? Is CO2 somehow the only gas that controls temperature? And is Man Made CO2 the only controlling factor of earth's thermometer.
This post was edited on 7/11/14 at 10:26 am
Posted on 7/11/14 at 10:28 am to ocelot4ark
quote:I'm pretty sure that it will no matter what we do.
world to last longer than your life
Posted on 7/11/14 at 10:33 am to ocelot4ark
quote:Not that I know of. (And I'm not sure about the 97% number)
Is there anything we can do about the other 97%?
quote:Define. "Better" and "worse". It appears you're only looking at one side of the equation.
Would improving the only 3% we somewhat control be better or worse for the atmosphere?
To realistically have a significant reduction in CO2 would mean giving almost all modern civilized inventions. Many if which are life saving. No more plastic. No more computers. No more pesticides. No more fertilizer. No more air conditioning. No more long distance transportation.
That would lead to a lot more hungry people, a lot more sick people, a lot more economically disadvantaged people, and fewer people getting an education. That isn't an improvement in my view.
I'd contend that humanity would be far worse off without those things than even the most hyperbolic predictions of doom.
For example, I'm perfectly willing to keep modern medicine in exchange for the low probability chance of temperatures on average being 1-degree warmer in 100 years.
Today, it will be 97°F in my home town. Will I die if its 98°F? Probably not. I think we can adapt just fine.
quote:
What ARE the different effects for each incremental increase in CO2 concentration?
that is the great unknown, eh? This post was edited on 7/11/14 at 10:38 am
Posted on 7/11/14 at 10:43 am to Taxing Authority
Thanks for the effort in explaining. I've always sucked, sucked, sucked at science-related stuff.
Posted on 7/11/14 at 10:56 am to DelU249
quote:
You've all been had people. The environment is worth protecting but environmentalists 1. Don't know shite, 2. Will use any slimy tactic to promote their agenda (which isn't the environment), and 3. Are holding back the progress of humanity.
Very well said and 100% true.
Posted on 7/11/14 at 1:41 pm to BugAC
quote:
CO2 makes up approximately .042% of the atmosphere. Not 4.2%, .042% of the atomsphere. And, if you believe the left, man is responsible for 3% of that .042%. So according to the left, man is responsible for .0126% of the CO2 in the atmosphere, and that .0126% is responsible for a global shift in climate?
Page 4 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News