Started By
Message
0
Posted on 1/25/16 at 10:35 pm to Aux Arc
quote:
From what I have seen of climatology it is about as solid a science as political science or sociology.
Don't be ridiculous.
Though I'm curious, why do your physics bros think man's impact is minimal?
Posted on 1/25/16 at 10:36 pm to Pbhog
quote:
You aren't arguing with me. You are arguing with 97% of scientist
I'm not arguing with anybody. I'm making fun of you.
Posted on 1/25/16 at 10:40 pm to Aux Arc
quote:
From what I have seen of climatology it is about as solid a science as political science or sociology.
Bitch, I got a degree in a hard science field. Physics is my strong suit. I can tell you it is very solidly grounded in sound science. Your "scientist" friend is an idjit with an axe to grind.
This post was edited on 1/25/16 at 10:41 pm
Posted on 1/25/16 at 10:42 pm to Bigbens42
ME or ChE?
Posted on 1/25/16 at 10:44 pm to Duke
BSEE. But I'm a biomedical engineer by trade.
Posted on 1/25/16 at 10:47 pm to Bigbens42
Cool.
I'm still slogging through ChE school, but im through the Thermo/Fluids/Mass and Energy Transport. So, I might actually graduate.
I'm still slogging through ChE school, but im through the Thermo/Fluids/Mass and Energy Transport. So, I might actually graduate.
Posted on 1/25/16 at 10:51 pm to Duke
quote:
why do your physics bros think man's impact is minimal?
It's not that man's impact is proven to be minimal. It's that the impact is not proven to be substantial. Other inputs are likely to be more significant. We do all agree that sound science shows extreme climate variability without man, right?
Posted on 1/25/16 at 11:03 pm to Duke
You got it at this point.
Dang ChEs. I had a boss, a dang good one, that would whip out his old TI-30 at the first suggestion option A might be better than option B. Don't become that guy.
Dang ChEs. I had a boss, a dang good one, that would whip out his old TI-30 at the first suggestion option A might be better than option B. Don't become that guy.
Posted on 1/25/16 at 11:07 pm to Bigbens42
That ain't me.
I've got Excel.
I've got Excel.
Posted on 1/26/16 at 11:09 am to Bigbens42
That is interesting. Found a link to a Washington Post article about that study
LINK
It's a preliminary result. A quote from the article though
LINK
It's a preliminary result. A quote from the article though
quote:
As Jamin Greenbaum, a researcher at the University of Texas at Austin who studies East Antarctica, put it by e-mail: Unfortunately, this study doesn’t change the fact that sea level rise has been accelerating since around 1870. Actually, it suggests that Antarctica’s ability to slow that rise is decreasing due to alarming trends in coastal mass loss. For instance, in East Antarctica, Totten Glacier is losing enough mass on its own to balance mass gains in an area larger than Texas.
Posted on 1/26/16 at 11:14 am to Duke
quote:I got a 96 on my first thermo test and the average was 35. Me being me I immediately quit going to class. In the end I had to pull a bunch of all nighters to try and pull it out in the final. Wound up with a B. True story
but im through the Thermo/Fluids/Mass and Energy Transport.
Posted on 1/26/16 at 1:04 pm to TideJoe
Cruz/Rubio have too much Tea Party in them
Other than buzzwords, what does this mean?
Other than buzzwords, what does this mean?
Posted on 1/26/16 at 1:21 pm to Pbhog
quote:
Y'all think 97% of scientist are lying to us?
First of all it is 97% of climate scientists you moron. Second, they think that there is warming and that man is the main cause. They are not all saying that it is a major problem, only that the earth is a degree or so hotter than it was 150 years ago and that it is more man's cause than nature's. Third, they make no judgements as a group over whether man should or could do anything to stop it.
I don't have a problem with you believing that global warming is an issue and that we should take action, but if you want to espouse change you should at least educate yourself prior.
Posted on 1/26/16 at 1:58 pm to TideJoe
quote:
It's very real, we just don't have any significant impact on it. The earth warmed and cooled hundreds of times before people and combustion engines. A single volcanic eruption is far worse on the atmosphere. Waves breaking in the ocean releases more CO2 than human activity ever will. This is all just another scheme from world governments to grab more power and levy more taxes.
It's really some extreme comedy. We think we can change the climate of a 4.5 billion year old planet. It's hilarious. A planet that has endured all types of catastrophes before human beings is being significantly affected by humans? The idea is ridiculous.
None of that is true at all. It's sad that you have the internet at your disposal, and you accept some anecdotal lie as gospel. All the volcanoes in the world on average release about 300 million metric tons of CO2 in to the atmosphere annually. The United States alone releases about 6 billion metric tons of CO2 in to the atmosphere annually. The whole human population spits out about 30 billion a year. So... We produce about 100x the amount volcanoes do...
The same people that think human beings have the power to defy God(the creator of the entire universe) and foresake everything he does, simultaneously believe that we don't have the power to damage the environment. It's baffling.
The Earth has endured catastrophic events, absolutely. Major extinction events have depleted 75-80% of the life on the planet. And humans alone have overexploited or collapsed nearly 50% of the world's fish stocks. We've destroyed 80% of the world's forests. We almost destroyed the ozone. It took millions of years for the Earth to naturally sequester carbon in to the ground. In the last 100 years we've thrown it back in to the atmosphere.
What does the fact that the Earth has survived impacts from meteors have anything to do with it's ability to be significantly altered by something else? This is some of the worst mental gymnastics I've ever seen.
Posted on 1/26/16 at 2:06 pm to Aux Arc
quote:
It's not that man's impact is proven to be minimal. It's that the impact is not proven to be substantial. Other inputs are likely to be more significant. We do all agree that sound science shows extreme climate variability without man, right?
Extremely sound sciences that shows natural variability also shows wildly bucked trends due to human involvement.
CO2 levels are 25% higher than they were 65 years ago. The highest they have been in 15 million years(if the levels are sustained above 400 ppm which we know they will be).
The only reason that man's impact hasn't proven go be "substantial" is because humans haven't been negatively impacted. Almost every other life source on the planet has had catastrophic impacts due to human existence.
Posted on 1/26/16 at 2:23 pm to GnashRebel
I'm educated on the issue. Are you?
Posted on 1/26/16 at 9:05 pm to Vols&Shaft83
When some a-hole can accurately predict the weather 12 hours in advance , maybe I could believe they know what the frick they're talking about.
Posted on 1/26/16 at 9:23 pm to TeLeFaWx
quote:
CO2 levels are 25% higher than they were 65 years ago. The highest they have been in 15 million years(if the levels are sustained above 400 ppm which we know they will be
quote:
When some a-hole can accurately predict the weather 12 hours in advance , maybe I could believe they know what the frick they're talking about, nonetheless when they say shite about 65 or 15 million years ago.
FIFY
Posted on 1/26/16 at 10:02 pm to Aux Arc
quote:I bet you're fantastically qualified to make this determination.
From what I have seen of climatology it is about as solid a science as political science or sociology.
Page 6 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News