• 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!

U.S. scientists officially declare 2016 the hottest year on record.

apdst said:
How much data did they manipulate to come to that conclusion?
Click to expand...
In this case not much, Nature provided a big fat El Nino event that skewed the first 4 months of the year.
Of course counting the warming from a known weather event as part of a warming trend is disingenuous at best.
 
longview said:
In this case not much, Nature provided a big fat El Nino event that skewed the first 4 months of the year.
Of course counting the warming from a known weather event as part of a warming trend is disingenuous at best.
Click to expand...

I knew there were some shananigans somewhere.
 
Mac77 said:
Liberals have this impossible dream that they are powerful enough to dictate what the climate will

Call them the environmentalist Three Bears

The want it not too cold, and not too hot

But JUST RIGHT
Click to expand...

Um, no, that's not it at all.

We aren't trying to control the climate. We're trying to let nature run its course as much as is feasible. Do you understand the difference?
 
longview said:
In this case not much, Nature provided a big fat El Nino event that skewed the first 4 months of the year.
Of course counting the warming from a known weather event as part of a warming trend is disingenuous at best.
Click to expand...

Good thing we're not only using this single datapoint then, but rather an entire century or more, eh?
 
Deuce said:
Good thing we're not only using this single datapoint then, but rather an entire century or more, eh?
Click to expand...
Wow, you think they use other years when calculating the average temperature for 2016,
as opposed to just averaging all the moths together!
Nope, they just averaged the 12 months together, which is why the first 4 months being exceptionally
high from the El Nino, pushed the average higher.
2016 may well be some sort of record, I am just saying it takes a minimum of 40 months to average out an El Nino spike,
of about 20 months from now.
 
Deuce said:
Um, no, that's not it at all.

We aren't trying to control the climate. We're trying to let nature run its course as much as is feasible. Do you understand the difference?
Click to expand...

Thats a good answer but your course of action is based on suspicious assumptions

In either case without an increase in global temps we would be facing global cooling which is much more stressful on humans
 
longview said:
Are you confident we possess the ability to measure all the energy entering or leaving Earth?
It has only been a few year ago, that they confirmed that Thunderstorms emitted gamma rays.
Gamma-ray bursts 'common in storms' - BBC News
In addition all of that new greening is energy being stored as hydrocarbons.
Click to expand...

LOL Perhaps we should measure Gamma rays effect on man in the moon marigolds? Heat energy is what makes the earth warmer though and the concurrent rising temperatures mean we are now passing the equilibrium likely due to increases in greenhouse gases. Now 2017 will build on that.
 
Last edited:
iguanaman said:
Perhaps we should measure Gamma rays effect on man in the moon marigolds. Heat energy is what makes the earth warmer though and the concurrent rising temperatures mean we are now passing the equilibrium likely due to greenhouse gases.
Click to expand...
Your statement in post #22 was,
"For 3 years in a row the Earth has absorbed more heat then was radiated. You don't find that significant?"
I replied, asking if you were confident that we possess the ability to measure all of the energy entering and leaving Earth.
Gamma is a for of energy that leaves earth, that until recently we thought was uncommon,
now we know it happens all the time. The Gamma energy leaving is part of the energy balance.
Did they count it before they knew it was there?
Since it only comes from thunderstorms, would a model that takes a snapshot and extrapolates account for gamma and X-rays
leaving the earth.
And that is just the high frequency stuff, at the other end of the spectrum the 15 um IR wavelength that is supposed to be doing the work for CO2.
does not have to re-emit another 15 um photon, but can emit bunches of lower frequency radio waves.
 
longview said:
Wow, you think they use other years when calculating the average temperature for 2016,
as opposed to just averaging all the moths together!
Nope, they just averaged the 12 months together, which is why the first 4 months being exceptionally
high from the El Nino, pushed the average higher.
2016 may well be some sort of record, I am just saying it takes a minimum of 40 months to average out an El Nino spike,
of about 20 months from now.
Click to expand...

Are you pretending to so hilariously misunderstand my post or are you actually that wrong?
 
Deuce said:
Are you pretending to so hilariously misunderstand my post or are you actually that wrong?
Click to expand...
You were the one who said,
"Good thing we're not only using this single datapoint then, but rather an entire century or more, eh?"
How do you interpret your own words?
 
Fletch said:
Gee, that sounds horrific. Please tell me how we prevent this from happening. And be specific.
Click to expand...

We don't.

I was merely responding to how the earth heating up is not so good for ones garden.
 
I know saying "on record" is a limiting factor, but average yearly temps were warmer for millions of years of the planet's history. Those aren't disastrous years, either, as life evidently thrived during those times.
 
CycloneWanderer said:
I know saying "on record" is a limiting factor, but average yearly temps were warmer for millions of years of the planet's history. Those aren't disastrous years, either, as life evidently thrived during those times.
Click to expand...

Yes life "thrived" but not human life or nearly any of the species that exist today. Who cares about those? Dragonflies with 2.5 foot wingspans are far cooler that stupid humans. Right?
 
Last edited:
CycloneWanderer said:
I know saying "on record" is a limiting factor, but average yearly temps were warmer for millions of years of the planet's history. Those aren't disastrous years, either, as life evidently thrived during those times.
Click to expand...

And where I live now was anything from a shallow tropical sea or a mile under a glacier.

I have a feeling the transition between the two was fairly disastrous for SOMETHING.

Climate kinda matters. Stability kinda matters, especially when the change is orders of magnitude faster than ever before.
 
let compare that to all the years that were never recorded.
that is what this amounts to.

:roll:

the fact that life was ok with thriving full forests in the artic means we will be ok.
 
iguanaman said:
Yes life "thrived" but not human life or nearly any of the species that exist today. Who cares about those? Dragonflies with 2.5 foot wingspans are far cooler that stupid humans. Right?
Click to expand...

If my grandchildren aren't able to peacefully coexist with giant dragonflies they probably deserve whatever they get.
 
Threegoofs said:
And where I live now was anything from a shallow tropical sea or a mile under a glacier.

I have a feeling the transition between the two was fairly disastrous for SOMETHING.

Climate kinda matters. Stability kinda matters, especially when the change is orders of magnitude faster than ever before.
Click to expand...

If it wasn't recorded with the sensitivity of measurement we have today, how do we know it was all that stable? How do we know this change is magnitudes faster than any other 130-year period in geological history? It seems like some large assumptions must be made to come to that conclusion.
 
CycloneWanderer said:
If my grandchildren aren't able to peacefully coexist with giant dragonflies they probably deserve whatever they get.
Click to expand...

You just don't get it. Humans are not capable of living in high temperatures and neither are our food crops, we/they didn't evolve that way. Much of the Earth will become uninhabitable if temperatures return to those of many millions of years ago if we don't starve first.

Six thousand years ago, when the world was one degree warmer than it is now, the American agricultural heartland around Nebraska was desert. It suffered a short reprise during the dust- bowl years of the 1930s, when the topsoil blew away and hundreds of thousands of refugees trailed through the dust to an uncertain welcome further west. The effect of one-degree warming, therefore, requires no great feat of imagination.
Click to expand...
A degree by degree explanation of what will happen when the earth warms
 
CycloneWanderer said:
If it wasn't recorded with the sensitivity of measurement we have today, how do we know it was all that stable? How do we know this change is magnitudes faster than any other 130-year period in geological history? It seems like some large assumptions must be made to come to that conclusion.
Click to expand...

Not really large assumptions at all. And I never said ANY other period....I'm sure there have been meteor impacts and volcanic eruptions which have abruptly changed global climate quickly.

But the change we are seeing is fast- one would expect short periods of time to have less magnitude effects than long time periods overall- and from what we can tell of the time that civilization began, there's never been a change in temp this drastic. That seems to hold true for the entire Holocene also based on paleoclimate work.
It's pure fantasy to pretend there are spikes of hot and cold temps within centuries that 'even out' and leave no record in psleoclimate studies.
 
Well I am thankful for global warming. Where my house is the ice was over a mile thick just 25000 years ago. Those campfires my ancestors built did the trick melting all that ice so I could live in a nice forest.
 
iguanaman said:
You just don't get it. Humans are not capable of living in high temperatures and neither are our food crops, we/they didn't evolve that way. Much of the Earth will become uninhabitable if temperatures return to those of many millions of years ago if we don't starve first.

A degree by degree explanation of what will happen when the earth warms
Click to expand...

Emotion-driven crap. People survived the dust bowl and the changes we've made in farming techniques has gone a long way to ensuring another dust bowl doesn't happen.
 
Threegoofs said:
Not really large assumptions at all. And I never said ANY other period....I'm sure there have been meteor impacts and volcanic eruptions which have abruptly changed global climate quickly.

But the change we are seeing is fast- one would expect short periods of time to have less magnitude effects than long time periods overall- and from what we can tell of the time that civilization began, there's never been a change in temp this drastic. That seems to hold true for the entire Holocene also based on paleoclimate work.
It's pure fantasy to pretend there are spikes of hot and cold temps within centuries that 'even out' and leave no record in psleoclimate studies.
Click to expand...

Why should short periods of time have less magnitude effects than long periods of time? The human body has a relatively stable average temperature over a long period of time, but there can be drastic variances and changes in temperature over shorter periods of time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom