- 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: Climatology: more hot, dryness for Texas
Posted on 4/24/24 at 9:48 am to olddawg26
Posted on 4/24/24 at 9:48 am to olddawg26
quote:
I provided a reasonable argument of why more CO2 in an atmosphere makes the temperature trend upwards, citing 2 demonstrable observations on a small and large scale. If your only response is to try to make me dig through what the co2 level was when dinosaurs were here then it’s obvious what you’re trying to do. The average temperature is increasing, unless you’d care to refute that, and we are emitting more CO2 into the atmosphere, unless you’d care to refute that too. No I don’t know what percentage is volcanos, no I don’t know what the global temperature should be. The debate is does the temperature eventually level out with more CO2 being emitted every day, mainly by China and India
Yeah, it was obvious what I was trying to do. It was also obvious what you were trying to do when you gave examples of the scenario that had nothing to do with Earth's atmosphere. Plant life and the effect of CO2 upon them were of no consideration in your examples...they should be.
Since this is a scientific discussion, then why do we not throw evolution into the mix and talk about what CO2 levels on Earth need to be for optimum plant growth. Then we see where our levels are today. Let's also talk about periods of time where CO2 levels were low and the famines caused by that. Let's also talk about the global greening effect we are seeing today as a result of increased CO2.
Yeah, my point was...you are using CO2 to prove a point. CO2 in increasing levels, on this planet and not other planets, is beneficial for life and fossil record does show, the higher the CO2, the more diverse and more numerous we find life.
So stop demonizing CO2. Factually, it is a lie.
1
Posted on 4/24/24 at 10:03 am to UtahCajun
Are you under the impression I want there to be no CO2? Your response is long winded and really off course. At no point did I ever suggest removing all carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. I suggested that too much does in fact warm the planet. To what extent, and for how long, is debatable. If that is not true please explain why Venus is hotter than mercury despite being further from the sun, all while we know Venus has large amounts of CO2 in its atmosphere, and widely accepted as the reason its climate is what it is.
Posted on 4/24/24 at 10:07 am to Corinthians420
You just linked a source whom you now think is fake news.
Posted on 4/24/24 at 10:09 am to BabyTac
This "forecast" will break temperature trends for the state of Texas. According to NOAA temperature data from all Texas NOAA stations Texas high temperatures are trending down by a little and Texas low temperatures are trending down by a lot:
Posted on 4/24/24 at 10:10 am to Sao
quote:
You just linked a source whom you now think is fake news.
?
They are biased but that article is 15 years old and it contains direct quotes from scientists denouncing Al Gores statement
Posted on 4/24/24 at 10:14 am to Corinthians420
quote:
?
They are biased but that article is 15 years old and it contains direct quotes from scientists denouncing Al Gores statement
Whooosh
Posted on 4/24/24 at 10:18 am to olddawg26
quote:
Are you under the impression I want there to be no CO2
I only say that because thus far, it is your only example. There are much more greenhouse gases than the one that is extremely beneficial.
quote:
please explain why Venus is hotter than mercury
Because Mercury has ZERO atmosphere. Venus also has clouds made of sulfuric acid. I mean, you point to CO2 as if that is important when one planet has nothing and the other rains sulfuric acid. C'mon bruh.
Posted on 4/24/24 at 10:20 am to olddawg26
quote:
I don’t understand why people have to throw the baby out with the bath water on this all because of politics. It’s pretty much agreed on by most rational people on both sides now that the average temperature of the earth is trending upwards every year.
I think the main objection is giving politicians more money via taxation in the name of climate change which they'll just launder through places like Ukraine to enrich themselves ain't gonna change the climate baw
Posted on 4/24/24 at 10:21 am to olddawg26
quote:
olddawg26
What percentage of our atmosphere is CO2?
Posted on 4/24/24 at 10:25 am to BabyTac
Hot? During the summer? In Texas?
I guess we need to raise taxes again to cool it down.
I guess we need to raise taxes again to cool it down.
Posted on 4/24/24 at 10:25 am to texag7
quote:
They predicted 3-5 major hurricanes the last few years and it has been relatively quiet.
a Cat 3 made landfall in Florida last year.
a Cat 4 and a Cat 5 formed in the Atlantic but didn't make landfall.
so they were correct.
all they can do is make educated guesses based on predicted conditions as to how many might form.
but we are no where even remotely close to capable of guessing before the season even starts as to where (or if) any on them will land.
Posted on 4/24/24 at 10:29 am to UtahCajun
quote:
Because Mercury has ZERO atmosphere.
This was kinda my point. A planet with an atmosphere that can trap greenhouse gasses like a blanket is more likely to warm if it contains them, as you know. I certainly won’t be disingenuous and ask how much of the temperature is affected by sulfur clouds, but are you suggesting none of the extreme heat is due to carbon dioxide? Obviously a once very volcanic planet it has massive amounts of CO2.
Posted on 4/24/24 at 10:38 am to olddawg26
It's weird that oil companies in the 60s and earlier privately isolated CO2 as the key to increasing temperatures as well as scientists on the other side.
We're both sides paid off by "Big Sulphur"
We're both sides paid off by "Big Sulphur"
Posted on 4/24/24 at 10:43 am to bad93ex
quote:
What percentage of our atmosphere is CO2?
It's about 415 ppm or 0.0415% of the atmosphere.
What is weird about climate science when they forecast temperature gloom and doom they base their forecast on historical temperature data.
Why is this wrong?
Because basing future outcomes on historical data with a calculated trendline will be skewed by the following:
1. Starting point. Start lower and you make a increasing trendline. Start higher you can make a decreasing trendline.
2. Data manipulation. A lot of temperature data in the NOAA record is flagged with an "e" for estimated. That is, if the station is down NOAA will estimate the temperature based on climate models.
3. Station bias. The environment around stations change over time and may not be reflective of overall temperature. Heat island effect is a good example. That is, some rural stations have become urban stations over time.
So if someone asked me how increasing the concentration of CO2 from 415 to 2000 ppm would impact temperature, as engineer I would approach this problem by comparing the initial composite heat capacity to the new composite heat capacity. It's a properties of matter approach versus a statistical forecasting approach. By increasing the CO2 concentration the heat capacity will decrease but not by much. For this example of increasing the CO2 concentration from 415 ppm to 2000 ppm at a temperature of 70 degrees the new temperature would increase by less than a half a degree. ETA: specifically 0.14 degrees F.
This post was edited on 4/24/24 at 11:14 am
Posted on 4/24/24 at 10:47 am to olddawg26
quote:
but are you suggesting none of the extreme heat is due to carbon dioxide?
Not at all. My stance now, as always, is that global warming is not a bad thing at all. Humans have a fatal flaw. Seeing all things from the centric lense of "this is how things always are and always must be". Right now, our planet is still far below historic temperature average and historic CO2 levels for life to even exist. Yet, here we are spending countless hours and funds trying to solve a problem that does not exist yet.
Posted on 4/24/24 at 10:51 am to UtahCajun
quote:
Yet, here we are spending countless hours and funds trying to solve a problem that does not exist yet.
Big Oil has the climate change people duped.
For example in the Inflation Reduction Act CO2 emitters (big O&G users) are getting tax credits to sequester their CO2 emissions. This only lowers the costs basis for fossil fuel users and makes using fossil fuels more economically attractive.
The answer is nuclear but government has made nuclear very expensive.
Posted on 4/24/24 at 10:54 am to UtahCajun
quote:
here we are spending countless hours and funds trying to solve a problem that does not exist yet.
I think “prevent” would be the better term than solve right now. I don’t think we’re even close to a doomsday scenario. My point, or question even, was more so following the trend, it would have to eventually become a problem or even out somehow. Obviously some of this gas escapes but not at a favorable ratio of out/in. If increase in CO2 is correlated to increase in temperature, however much or little, then on our current track it would make sense that we could one day have a problem with the climate and sea levels. When that will be is the debate, especially if everyone agrees that we are trending warmer every year.
This post was edited on 4/24/24 at 10:57 am
Posted on 4/24/24 at 10:54 am to UtahCajun
quote:
Not at all. My stance now, as always, is that global warming is not a bad thing at all. Humans have a fatal flaw. Seeing all things from the centric lense of "this is how things always are and always must be". Right now, our planet is still far below historic temperature average and historic CO2 levels for life to even exist. Yet, here we are spending countless hours and funds trying to solve a problem that does not exist yet.
Because life has existed, but not always human life. Also we span the entire globe, not all these areas will remain habitable with the climate changing. There are 8 billion humans on earth now,
Around 900k years ago there were estimated to be under 1,500 breeding pairs.
Posted on 4/24/24 at 11:21 am to BabyTac
I made a little table for the OT. It's starts at CO2 concentration of 415 and temp of 70 degrees F and calculates the new temperature at a new CO2 ppm. This assumes all other atmospheric gases are adjusted downward proportionally as CO2 concentration increases.
ETA: gases and concentrations I used to make the calculations:
ETA: gases and concentrations I used to make the calculations:
This post was edited on 4/24/24 at 11:27 am
Posted on 4/24/24 at 11:22 am to olddawg26
quote:
The 2023 Atlantic hurricane season was the fourth-most active Atlantic hurricane season on record with 20 named storms forming, tied with 1933. Among them, 7 became hurricanes, with 3 reaching major hurricane strength.
All true, but I can't let it slide that we also had a 72mph major hurricane make landfall on the Big Bend area of Florida. It truly was the first of its kind.
Page 3 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News