• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Global Warming Dumps On Denver

I am also curious why you chose to reply with this type of message to the person discussing warm records that focus on multiple cities and a longer time scale rather than a post to the original author who has chosen to focus on one weekend for one city?

Really? Well, I'm curious why you would ignore the point of my post.
 
The existence of a few outlier events does not mean that a trend does not exist. The fact that a few star personalities lost amazing amounts of weight by dieting does not mean that the US obesity trend is being arrested, much less reversed. I suspect that the very strong El Niño condition is more responsible than glow bull warming for that record Denver snowfall but your logic fails.
 
I am curious why you chose to reply with this type of message to the person discussing warm records that focus on multiple cities and a longer time scale rather than a post to the original author who has chosen to focus on one weekend for one city?
Are you 'curious' about that? Really? Because...if you were 'curious' about that you probably would have responded to post #7 which addresses the silliness of attributing or not attributing single incident weather claims to ANYTHING.
 
There are only a couple of glaciers left in all of Colorado and they set to disappear within a few years. Moreover, 2015 is set to be the warmest year globally on record, but no the world's climate isn't warming.... Obviously alpine glaciers across the globe, arctic ice, permafrost and so on are in on the scam...

One curious point. Boulder, one of the most liberal of cities and consequently one of the largest groups of AGW believers in the US gets its water from Arapahoe Glacier. Yet none of the believers seem to be particularly concerned of this pending disaster. No scramble to find a solution.

Why is that.
 
This type of post does not reflect well on someone who has repeatedly questioned the scientific literacy of other people.
OK, I'll bite. What is ill-reflective of that post? Was it inaccurate? Did it not sufficiently glorify Global Warming? What?

You may as well be Inhofe tossing around snow balls on the Senate floor and acting as if they debunks climate change.
Not at all. I just let you debunk Global Warming in the other thread. Your EVASION is the most effective method available.

Thank you, btw.
 
Really? Well, I'm curious why you would ignore the point of my post.

Oh I get your point - we have to rely on a series of proxy temperature points prior to 120 years ago and we have to make adjustments to the data collected more recently to account for technological and methodological changes, and therefore it is possible that our understanding of the records is severely wrong. I just disagree that the issue is very significant because I trust the collective expertise of thousands of individuals with relevant expertise cross-checking each other.

Now, would you be willing to answer my question?
 
OK, I'll bite. What is ill-reflective of that post? Was it inaccurate? Did it not sufficiently glorify Global Warming? What?

You are relying on an extremely short time scale - a single event in fact (that arguably is consistent with AGW) in an extremely small location - a single city in fact (one that has also experienced extremely warm periods very recently) as a justification for rejecting AGW.

Not at all. I just let you debunk Global Warming in the other thread. Your EVASION is the most effective method available.

Thank you, btw.

Yea...Ok, my "evasion" just "debunked" Global Warming. Right.
 
Oh I get your point - we have to rely on a series of proxy temperature points prior to 120 years ago and we have to make adjustments to the data collected more recently to account for technological and methodological changes, and therefore it is possible that our understanding of the records is severely wrong. I just disagree that the issue is very significant because I trust the collective expertise of thousands of individuals with relevant expertise cross-checking each other.

Now, would you be willing to answer my question?

I think I did answer your question. Well maybe not, since your question made no sense to me.

As to your statement. I don't think it is unreasonable to expect the science to be less filled with mistakes, fraud, and questionable behavior before agreeing to hand over more money than at any other time in human history, and to agree to be ruled by a committee of hand picked experts who will decide how I and my loved ones will be allowed to live and work.

Your choice to participate in that does not obligate me to follow in your footsteps.
 
One curious point. Boulder, one of the most liberal of cities and consequently one of the largest groups of AGW believers in the US gets its water from Arapahoe Glacier. Yet none of the believers seem to be particularly concerned of this pending disaster. No scramble to find a solution.

Why is that.

Probably because there are other sources of water from the numerous lakes in the Denver metro, and Arapaho glacier only supplies a small portion of the water Boulder uses. Arapaho glacier has lost over 50% of its mass in the last century alone.

arapaho-lg.jpg
 
You are relying on an extremely short time scale - a single event in fact
The shorter the time scale the better.

If the earth is cooling right now, the earth is cooling right now.

It's not very informative to select a range of years that produce an average that is cooler than the present moment in order to stretch the semantic that we are in Global Warming.
 
Probably because there are other sources of water from the numerous lakes in the Denver metro, and Arapaho glacier only supplies a small portion of the water Boulder uses. Arapaho glacier has lost over 50% of its mass in the last century alone.
Translation: Panic, panic, panic...glaciers are MELTING! ...but don't worry about the one from which we get our water. Move along. Show's over. There's nothing to see here.
 
I think I did answer your question. Well maybe not, since your question made no sense to me.

As to your statement. I don't think it is unreasonable to expect the science to be less filled with mistakes, fraud, and questionable behavior before agreeing to hand over more money than at any other time in human history, and to agree to be ruled by a committee of hand picked experts who will decide how I and my loved ones will be allowed to live and work.

Your choice to participate in that does not obligate me to follow in your footsteps.

You misunderstood (deliberately or accidentally) my question. I wanted to know why you chose to make a post about the possibility of limited data influencing a point of view in response to the person raising historic highs on the temperature scale rather then the OP of this thread - especially when the person citing the historic highs used a larger geographic area, and a larger time scale, for his evidence.
 
The shorter the time scale the better.

So then you must be REALLY freaking out about the fact that October 2015 was the single hottest month, relative to its monthly average, of any month in recorded history.

And what about the influence of geographic region? Who is "stretching the semantic" of Global Warming by focusing on one city in Colorado?
 
Translation: Panic, panic, panic...glaciers are MELTING! ...but don't worry about the one from which we get our water. Move along. Show's over. There's nothing to see here.

What is your point? One of the concerns about the loss of alpine glaciers is the loss of a water source in many areas. However, my point about Boulder is that its already far too large of a community to get its water from a single small glacier. Even if Arapaho glacier was not in rapid retreat, Boulder would still have a lot of concerns of over water supplies as does much of the arid west.

I don't think we are ever going to do anything about Anthropogenic Climate Change. We may as well just get used to it. However, denying it is just plain ignorance.
 
The shorter the time scale the better.

If the earth is cooling right now, the earth is cooling right now.

It's not very informative to select a range of years that produce an average that is cooler than the present moment in order to stretch the semantic that we are in Global Warming.

Why are you equating snowfall in one region with what is taking place on a global scale? Are you aware that south of the Equator, summer is approaching?

Far too many Americans seem to think that what is happening where they live is what is happening everywhere else in the world.
 
You misunderstood (deliberately or accidentally) my question. I wanted to know why you chose to make a post about the possibility of limited data influencing a point of view in response to the person raising historic highs on the temperature scale rather then the OP of this thread - especially when the person citing the historic highs used a larger geographic area, and a larger time scale, for his evidence.

I think you misunderstood (deliberately or accidentally) the point I was making in response to the post I commented on. Since you seem to be attached to this, allow me to explain.

The post I commented on cited historical evidence going back I believe, 135 years. My comment was based on the fact, 135 years is a nano second in historical time. There could be hundreds of winters prior to 1880, with far higher temperatures, which obviously couldn't fit within the AGW theory.
 
So then you must be REALLY freaking out about the fact that October 2015 was the single hottest month, relative to its monthly average, of any month in recorded history.
Why would I be gullible enough to believe that without a valid, unfudged, raw dataset?

Why would I freak out if it were actually true?
 
Why are you equating snowfall in one region with what is taking place on a global scale? Are you aware that south of the Equator, summer is approaching?
Hey, I'm just celebrating with the warmizombies. Doesn't Global Warming cause everything? Isn't the record snowfall proof that Global Warming is real and active in our lives? Isn't the record snowfall exactly what "climate models" predicted? Isn't the record snowfall just more evidence that "Climate" changes in mysterious ways?

I'm with you.

Far too many Americans seem to think that what is happening where they live is what is happening everywhere else in the world.
Too many warmizombies think that "Global" doesn't include the United States.
 
Probably because there are other sources of water from the numerous lakes in the Denver metro, and Arapaho glacier only supplies a small portion of the water Boulder uses. Arapaho glacier has lost over 50% of its mass in the last century alone.

So what many glaciers have increased and you'll find a very long list of them here

List of expanding glaciers

Were these all our fault too ?
 
So what many glaciers have increased and you'll find a very long list of them here

List of expanding glaciers

Were these all our fault too ?

Yes some glaciers have increased, but the majority are in retreat. This argument that it was cold in such and such city so they earth isn't warming or some glaciers are increasing, thus the earth isn't warming is like saying that I know a smoker that lived to 95 years old, thus smoking can't be bad for you.

The fact is, the vast majority of alpine glaciers across the globe are in retreat. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retreat_of_glaciers_since_1850

I regularly do wilderness backpacking trips into the high country and I have yet to stand on a glacier that was not in rapid retreat.
 
I don't think we are ever going to do anything about Anthropogenic Climate Change. We may as well just get used to it. However, denying it is just plain ignorance.

As is blaming it for everything that might come down the pike when we can't even begin to quantify its effects

Here is a graphic example of just how ridiculous all this shroud waving has become and why the dwindling extremist disciples of this faith are increasingly ridiculed

warmlist
 
Why would I be gullible enough to believe that without a valid, unfudged, raw dataset?

Why would I freak out if it were actually true?

Because if it is true, and you only care about small time scales and we experienced more than 1 degree celsius of warming in a single month, then we are a **** load of trouble.

But then, of course, you could just be gullible enough to call NASA, the NOAA, and the Japan Meterological Society "scientifically illiterate" because...**** you, that's why.
 
Back
Top Bottom