What's new

Houston..

One more question if I may. How is it that these so called environmentalists do not get that are ecosystem will adapt jest like are bodies do? CO2 will only git so high before plants sequester enough of it ta counteract vehicle pollution.

It is nature.
You should call your local university and explain it to them.

Sent from my SM-J700P using JazzFanz mobile app
 
You should call your local university and explain it to them.

Sent from my SM-J700P using JazzFanz mobile app

I would tell them bout this!

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/05/170502113810.htm


Than tell em ta build CO2 pumpin power plants next ta these forests an make em grow like crazy. We will be cryin when there is not enough CO2!


Than we git rid of all the concrete jungles that are the true cause of global warming (who wants to deny it?) an replace them with skyscrapers an reforestation.
 
Riddle me this with the straw woman logic.

I know CO2 ppm was at like 310 in 1950 an it is about 400 now but what was it when the deadliest storm the hurricane of 1900 that wiped out Galveston an all them island countries? 15 foot waves sendin houses crashin inta other houses. Kin you imagine all them spectators sittin on there rooftops just wantin ta see the gigantic waves when the hurricane throws a entire house at them?

That weren't global warming caused. This ain't neither.

You continue the straw man. No one is claiming this hurricane was caused by global warming.
 
So GD is now 90% "debate" with fake posters...

Sooooo much this.

I feel like I've brought this up before, but the amount of ****ty trolls/ alts is a serious detriment to this board.

It becomes impossible to discuss a topic when you don't know whether the person you are replying to is serious or just TR0lL1NG 4 Th3 L0lZ. And when you open a public forum it's tough to differentiate between the morons and the trolls!
 
read my message again


I SAID I AM NOT DENYING CLIMATE CHANGE!


I am very skeptical of the co2 "settled science" HOGWASH!

Well, you wrote: "we can either blame it on this "mythical man made climate change" or you can start building for the next storm. whoch can be in 5 years in another place."

As others have pointed out, nobody is saying this storm, or any particular storm, was directly caused by climate change. But, increasing CO2 emissions are warming the oceans, including to deeper levels, which is bound to provide more energy to those storms. Scott Pruitt is on the public record as saying man made CO2 emissions are not an important factor in global warming. Yet we are seeing a greater increase in that warming in our northern polar regions, and in our oceans. Because of the increase in man produced CO2 emissions that Pruitt says are not a factor. And you have called man made climate change "mythical". So how am I misreading your words? For most people, mythical is somewhat in opposition to factual. How am I misreading you?

In addition to "mythical", you refer to the consensus that CO2 emissions are contributing to a warming climate as "hogwash". You're entitled to your opinion, but if I say you deny the reality of a significant human contribution to a warming climate, I believe, based on your oft cited opinions on the subject, in this thread and elsewhere, that I am not misrepresenting your opinion.
 
One more question if I may. How is it that these so called environmentalists do not get that are ecosystem will adapt jest like are bodies do? CO2 will only git so high before plants sequester enough of it ta counteract vehicle pollution.

It is nature.

Well, much of the warming is occurring in the oceans, where there are no trees. And deforestation of the Amazon rain forest, for example, is proceeding at an alarming pace.

It is true, that mitigation may hinge on developing technology that can extract CO2 from the atmosphere. Trees do help, but as noted with natural regulators like the Amazon rain forest, humans are not helping the situation.

https://www.fastcompany.com/4042187...out-of-the-air-to-save-us-from-climate-change
 
yes.

the nature of the climate is it is always changing!


so switch and bate from global cooling to global warming to "Climate change", is a bait and switch.


let me put it this way, govenrment cant get simple things right, so you think they can control the global climate?


of course cities are getting warmer. lets take a small scale example. let say i enter my room it is 20 degrees Celsius(sorry i use the logical metric system) i fire up my computer and sit behind the computer. my body temperature is 37 degrees celsiuc, i fire up a game and my computer starts spitting out heat my cpu is 50-60 degrees and my vidocard is 80 degrees celsius. the room gets warmer. if we put 2 computers 2 people in their it gets warmer.

now cities are basically big heating towers! because we have 10s of thousands of people firing up heat because of winter and such. everything radiates heat. so the cities are warmer than the countryside and urban city, is that climate change. no CITIES are just warmer because of LOGIC!

btu climate accords and all that government crap is not the solution!
in 10-30 years their will be some new settled science. i will bet 100 dollar worth of gold. that 30 years from now we will have some new settled science and admit today we are wrong! and then i will double down the bet and in 20-30 yeaars get 100 dollar worth of gold more!


the governments job is not to bail out people who lost their home due to lack of insurance.

but their are purposes for government and protecting the people from foreign forces including in this case floods

It probably needs to be pointed out that when speaking of climate change through the Earth's history, we are talking about climate change within a geological scale of time. Geologic time involves millions of years, generally speaking. The Pleistocene Period of the Cenozoic Era began roughly 1 million years ago. It is the period during which the Earth experienced 4 major periods of glaciation, with warm period intervals during which continental glaciers retreated. Some geologists see us as living in a warm interval within an ongoing Pleistocene Period. Others denote a Anthropocene Period, when the climate began to experience influence via the industrial activity of the human species.

At any rate, there is clearly a difference in the scale of time, and the rate of climate change, when dealing with a geologic time scale on the one hand, and a human time scale on the other hand. We should expect to see changes coincident with widespread industrialization, and I believe we in fact do. I have no problem, unlike Scott Pruitt, in understanding that...
 
Well, much of the warming is occurring in the oceans, where there are no trees. And deforestation of the Amazon rain forest, for example, is proceeding at an alarming pace.

It is true, that mitigation may hinge on developing technology that can extract CO2 from the atmosphere. Trees do help, but as noted with natural regulators like the Amazon rain forest, humans are not helping the situation.

https://www.fastcompany.com/4042187...out-of-the-air-to-save-us-from-climate-change

So do what I said. Start tearing down concrete jungles an reforesting America. You know how much heat asphalt absorbs?
 
So do what I said. Start tearing down concrete jungles an reforesting America. You know how much heat asphalt absorbs?

In Houston, the problem was not heat absorbed by asphalt. The problem was making flooding worse by covering a flood plain with asphalt. Trees help, but, in the long run, it's about reducing CO2 emissions, which is what the Paris Climate Accord was about. And adhering to it is only voluntary, making Trump's withdrawal all the dumber. And it remains to be seen to what degree the development of man made CO2 extraction technology will mitigate warming caused by CO2 emissions. I don't think anybody expects the modest goals of the Paris Accord to be met, anyway. As far as I am concerned the denial movement that attacks climate science is in part driven by fossil energy companies motivated by profit over the long term needs of humanity, and the general anti-intellectualism of popular culture, which distrusts authority in virtually all fields of human knowledge. As I've mentioned elsewhere, if not on this forum, I would not entrust brain surgery to a man off the street, but we're trending in that direction. And that's only partly comic sans....
 
In Houston, the problem was not heat absorbed by asphalt. The problem was making flooding worse by covering a flood plain with asphalt. Trees help, but, in the long run, it's about reducing CO2 emissions, which is what the Paris Climate Accord was about. And adhering to it is only voluntary, making Trump's withdrawal all the dumber. And it remains to be seen to what degree the development of man made CO2 extraction technology will mitigate warming caused by CO2 emissions. I don't think anybody expects the modest goals of the Paris Accord to be met, anyway. As far as I am concerned the denial movement that attacks climate science is in part driven by fossil energy companies motivated by profit over the long term needs of humanity, and the general anti-intellectualism of popular culture, which distrusts authority in virtually all fields of human knowledge. As I've mentioned elsewhere, if not on this forum, I would not entrust brain surgery to a man off the street, but we're trending in that direction. And that's only partly comic sans....

Keep spruiking. Your a heat sink denier?

Git rid of heat sinks an git rid of global warming. You know how much heat asphalt absorbs, retains an then radiates? It is not natural to paint the planet black with a substance that holds heat in.

Hell mining concrete an exposin rocks to sunlight even absorbs tons of energy. Go out on a hot summer day barefoot an walk on grass, in the weeds. Than go walk on cement or asphalt.
 
I bet Red's back has gone raw from all the self patting for winning all of those totally legit debates.

How many hours have you spent empowering trolls so far?
 
I bet Red's back has gone raw from all the self patting for winning all of those totally legit debates.

How many hours have you spent empowering trolls so far?
The joy is in putting together the rebuttal - doing the research, writing and editing the position, clarifying your thoughts to yourself. That's likely the motivator instead of changing the minds of the trolls.
 
The joy is in putting together the rebuttal - doing the research, writing and editing the position, clarifying your thoughts to yourself. That's likely the motivator instead of changing the minds of the trolls.

He should just create a notepad file, and make up an argument he can demolish.

Question: If globel wornimg is true ten how come antactuca haz ice?

Response: a wall of text about changing ocean temperature around Antarctica.

There. All the satisfaction of research without contributing to the forum takeover by awful trolls.
 
He should just create a notepad file, and make up an argument he can demolish.

Question: If globel wornimg is true ten how come antactuca haz ice?

Response: a wall of text about changing ocean temperature around Antarctica.

There. All the satisfaction of research without contributing to the forum takeover by awful trolls.

I am astonished at the number of faux-autocrats this forum has.

"Belief in me jihad or die!"
 
If you thought Houston was bad just wait a couple days for Irma to hit FL.

Irma just became a category 5 hurricane and the most common projected path is right up the entire FL panhandle. The FL Gov. has already declared a state of emergency for the entire state. Supermarkets are already starting to run low/out of items like bottled water.
 
If you thought Houston was bad just wait a couple days for Irma to hit FL.

Irma just became a category 5 hurricane and the most common projected path is right up the entire FL panhandle. The FL Gov. has already declared a state of emergency for the entire state. Supermarkets are already starting to run low/out of items like bottled water.

why do people who live in those areas wait for storm warnings to get supplies?

i never get that!
 
Back
Top