• 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

SouthernDemocrat said:
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.
Click to expand...

There is nothing whatsoever marking our current very modest warming phase as in any way different to the dozens of others we have experienced since the last glaciation. Indeed we have been in an overall cooling trend since the Holocene maximum.

Do you have some idea what the correct mean temperature of the globe should be or why our current climate is somehow all wrong ?

You might find this interesting.

Is there global cooling? The answer might not be what you expected. - Home

As you can see here it is very easy to make a compelling case for the opposite of what is claimed to be happening if you just pick the right cherries
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
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.
Click to expand...
What does it mean to "deny" Anthropogenic Climate change and why is it "ignorant" to do so?

If you don't mind me asking, do you believe in this Anthropoclima-Change stuff?
 
MrT said:
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.
Click to expand...

Well I'd certainly call the satellite data far more reliable than the ground monitoring given all the 'adjustments' perpetually being made to the latter both past and present
 
flogger said:
Well I'd certainly call the satellite data far more reliable than the ground monitoring given all the 'adjustments' perpetually being made to the latter both past and present
Click to expand...

Satellite data that relies on more than dozens of satellites, that use different methods of measuring, recording, and transmitting data, to numerous agencies (including the ones that are responsible for adjustments made to ground based data), and which are constantly moving around the planet as opposed to consistently reporting from one location all the time?

The point that I raise is that Satellite information is adjusted all of the time to account for limitations - just like ground based data. One of the other problems with your implied accusation is that NASA and the NOAA, as public organizations, are required by law to release their data within 24 hours. You are implying that these organizations are constantly using that 24 hour window to manipulate BILLIONS of points of data.
 
MrT said:
Satellite data that relies on more than dozens of satellites, that use different methods of measuring, recording, and transmitting data, to numerous agencies (including the ones that are responsible for adjustments made to ground based data), and which are constantly moving around the planet as opposed to consistently reporting from one location all the time?

The point that I raise is that Satellite information is adjusted all of the time to account for limitations - just like ground based data. One of the other problems with your implied accusation is that NASA and the NOAA, as public organizations, are required by law to release their data within 24 hours. You are implying that these organizations are constantly using that 24 hour window to manipulate BILLIONS of points of data.
Click to expand...

You are incorrect satellites require very little adjustment at all and so are pretty reliable indicators of what is really going on.

They are not affected by time of day UHI effects and the myriad of other 'perturbations' made to ground plots be they intentional or otherwise
 
flogger said:
You are incorrect satellites require very little adjustment at all and so are pretty reliable indicators of what is really going on.

They are not affected by time of day UHI effects and the myriad of other 'perturbations' made to ground plots be they intentional or otherwise
Click to expand...

Really? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements

The very first sentence under Measurement says, "Satellites do not measure temperature. They measure radiances in various wavelength bands, which must then be mathematically inverted to obtain indirect inferences of temperature." The article then goes on to note, "The resulting temperature profiles depend on details of the methods that are used to obtain temperatures from radiances. As a result, different groups that have analyzed the satellite data have produced differing temperature datasets."

You sure about me being incorrect?
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
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
Click to expand...

I would like to see all 117 annual photographs so we can see the cyclical pattern.

Have them by chance, or are those cherry picked?
 
Bloggers and pundits are right, scientists are wrong. Local weather really does disprove global warming. Why, if the scientists were right, we'd have made great strides in medicine in the last 100 years, maybe have even put men on the moon. Let's not listen to those crazy scientists and their "scientific method." Fact, observation, experimentation, what a humbug. Now, I have to go the homeopathic medicine clinic. I think someone just gave me the evil eye.
 
flogger said:
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 ?
Click to expand...

I wonder who the first alarmist pundit will be to include such data?


Do I hear crickets?

Does AGW also create more crickets?
 
Dittohead not! said:
Bloggers and pundits are right, scientists are wrong. Local weather really does disprove global warming. Why, if the scientists were right, we'd have made great strides in medicine in the last 100 years, maybe have even put men on the moon. Let's not listen to those crazy scientists and their "scientific method." Fact, observation, experimentation, what a humbug. Now, I have to go the homeopathic medicine clinic. I think someone just gave me the evil eye.
Click to expand...

What have those scientists decided the correct mean global temperature should be and why is todays all wrong ?
 
Lord of Planar said:
I would like to see all 117 annual photographs so we can see the cyclical pattern.

Have them by chance, or are those cherry picked?
Click to expand...

Are you claiming scientists somehow faked the carbon dating for any organic matter revealed by the melting glacier? That is how they determine when a glacier had last retreated to its current extent. For example, if a glacial retreat uncovers plant matter that carbon dates to 4000 years ago, we know that the glacier was larger than it currently is for at least the last 4000 years.
 
flogger said:
What have those scientists decided the correct mean global temperature should be and why is todays all wrong ?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure science is interested in what anything should be. They're more into measuring and describing what is. How can you measure what should be?
 
Dittohead not! said:
I'm not sure science is interested in what anything should be. They're more into measuring and describing what is. How can you measure what should be?
Click to expand...

So if we don't have any target for what the correct mean global temperature should be then why are we spending all this money ?
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Are you claiming scientists somehow faked the carbon dating for any organic matter revealed by the melting glacier? That is how they determine when a glacier had last retreated to its current extent. For example, if a glacial retreat uncovers plant matter that carbon dates to 4000 years ago, we know that the glacier was larger than it currently is for at least the last 4000 years.
Click to expand...

And if the glacier grew, retreated, grew, retreated...

Will there still be old plant remains there or not?

I assume you're ready to supply research proving I don't need to see annual photos.

Actually... If I was devious, I would rally around your 4,000 year old plants. That means it was as warm, or warmer 4,000 years ago than today! Right!
 
flogger said:
So if we don't have any target for what the correct mean global temperature should be then why are we spending all this money ?
Click to expand...

I don't understand that one at all.

Did you think science had picked a "correct mean temperature" and was spending gobs of money trying to achieve it?

Science has discovered that carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are accelerating worldwide temperature increases, and that said increases are driving changes in local climates. Anything beyond that is speculation and politics.
 
Dittohead not! said:
I don't understand that one at all.

Did you think science had picked a "correct mean temperature" and was spending gobs of money trying to achieve it?

Science has discovered that carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are accelerating worldwide temperature increases, and that said increases are driving changes in local climates. Anything beyond that is speculation and politics.
Click to expand...

So if we don't know whether yesterdays todays or tomorrows temperatures will be the ideal why are we bothering with any of this ?
 
flogger said:
So if we don't know whether yesterdays todays or tomorrows temperatures will be the ideal why are we bothering with any of this ?
Click to expand...

Scientific curiosity.
That, and to be prepared for what is likely to happen to this little blue speck of dust on which all of our lives depend.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Scientific curiosity.
That, and to be prepared for what is likely to happen to this little blue speck of dust on which all of our lives depend.
Click to expand...

I'm curious about a lot of things but this particular curiosity has cost trillions to date with trillions more to come.

Obviously a bit more than mere curiosity is driving this
 
flogger said:
I'm curious about a lot of things but this particular curiosity has cost trillions to date with trillions more to come.

Obviously a bit more than mere curiosity driving this
Click to expand...
I really doubt that trillions have been spent on researching global climate change. Where are you getting your figures?
 
Dittohead not! said:
I really doubt that trillions have been spent on researching global climate change. Where are you getting your figures?
Click to expand...

I'm talking about all the various low carbon technology spinoffs too not just the basic scientific research.

A completely useless squandering of vast resources on what is a non problem
 
Lord of Planar said:
And if the glacier grew, retreated, grew, retreated...
Click to expand...

The plants would decay over the course of the summer once they were exposed. Same with any frozen insects. If you get out on any alpine glacier, look carefully and you will most likely find some plant matter or frozen insects right at the edge of the glacier, these will all rapidly decay over the course of the summer. It depends on the glacier and mountain range as to how old they will be. For example, in the Beartooth Federal Wilderness in Montana, grasshoppers exposed from glacial retreat are typically only a few hundred years old. Indicating the area was unusually cold and snowy a few hundred years ago, and has been warmer since. However, just a couple of hundred miles away in the Wind River Range of Wyoming, plants and insects exposed from glacial melt can easily be thousands of years old. In the Andes they can be tens of thousands of years old. So it all depends on where you are.

The retreat of alpine glaciers at mid latitudes is not entirely due to climate change. Particulate pollution has been a contributing factor. As it settles on the snow cover, it reduces its albedo and results in greater melting from the sun over the course of the summer.
 
[h=1]Study: Current climate models misrepresent El Niño[/h] From the UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Clues to the fundamental physics of El Niño from millennia-old corals and clams An analysis of fossil corals and mollusk shells from the Pacific Ocean reveals there is no link between the strength of seasonal differences and El Niño, a complex but irregular climate pattern with large impacts on…
 
flogger said:
I'm talking about all the various low carbon technology spinoffs too not just the basic scientific research.

A completely useless squandering of vast resources on what is a non problem
Click to expand...

Do you think it's a non problem because the science is wrong and there is no global warming, or because you don't foresee a problem with it?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom