• 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.

CycloneWanderer said:
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.
Click to expand...

If you can come up with some type of scientific data to show that the earth is prone to dramatic short term temperature pertubations that are greater than long term ones, I'd love to see it.

Because I havent seen anything that suggests that to be a fact at all.
 
Well that idiot PM in Canada bought into this whole climate change is going to be catastrophic garbage. They just instituted a carbon tax, and Canadians just love him for it.. Sarc/

That asshole is gone as soon as he can get gone!

Tim-
 
longview said:
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?
Click to expand...

In a greater context.

You can whine about picking data during an el nino, but the truth is that's not the only data showing we're getting warmer.
 
Mac77 said:
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
Click to expand...

What "suspicious assumptions?"
 
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.
Click to expand...



Humans inhabit the earth everywhere from the arctic circle to the Sahara desert, and I promise you the variation in temperature between those areas is an order of magnitude greater than any worldwide change you will see in the next several millenia.



Besides, where are the most biologically rich and diverse areas of the earth right now? That's right, the tropics, where it's warm. Plants thrive with warmer temps and a higher CO2 level.



So we're not going to starve. Our primative ancestors survived much greater variations in global temperatures without the benefit of any of our technology, just animal skins and basic shelter.



The worst that will happen is that some areas may slowly over time become too arid for crops. But at the same time, other areas that are currently too cold will become quite fertile. Some coastal areas may be flooded. But people will move, just as they always have. These changes will take place over hundreds or even thousands of years.
 
CycloneWanderer said:
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.
Click to expand...

Organisms adapt to their environment, but faster changes requires faster adaptation and it can be harmful if the organism is unable to do so.

Talking about this from a human body heat perspective is... um... missing the point.
 
KevinKohler said:
Mass die offs due to out of control algae blooms in our oceans will not be good for you or your garden.
Click to expand...
Wouldnt mass algae blooms lower the CO2 levels?

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 
trouble13 said:
Wouldnt mass algae blooms lower the CO2 levels?

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Yes, but they also kill everything else in the ocean. It's like red tide, but on a more massive scale. It's where middle eastern oil came from.
 
Deuce said:
What "suspicious assumptions?"
Click to expand...

That man-made-global-warming is primarily caused by humans and it will lead catastrophic harm to the earth
 
Mac77 said:
That man-made-global-warming is primarily caused by humans and it will lead catastrophic harm to the earth
Click to expand...

I'm not worried about the earth being harmed. It'll keep spinning with or without us.
 
Threegoofs said:
If you can come up with some type of scientific data to show that the earth is prone to dramatic short term temperature pertubations that are greater than long term ones, I'd love to see it.

Because I havent seen anything that suggests that to be a fact at all.
Click to expand...

Not sure why that would even matter. Rapid changes have almost certainly occurred before, the planet has been around for a long time. But that doesn't preclude our influence, nor does it mean such changes are benign.
 
Threegoofs said:
Well THATS a fake graph.

The projections 31 years ago (and previous to that) were that we would be warmer than ever recorded in 30 years.

Looks like they nailed it.
Click to expand...

That dishonest Christy chart has been doing the rounds for a while on the internet. It's so flawed and dishonest it could never be published or found on legitimate science websites. Here it is again, shown with some of the tricks used to deceive:
ChristyChart500problems.jpg

Here's a more accurate chart from Berkeley Earth:

Berkeley earth end 2016.jpg

And an update of figure 10.1 in Ch10 in the IPCC AR5 Working Group 1 report

C080ZaGXAAEcvaW.jpg
 
Last edited:
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...

It's been 'disingenuous' at best for all the science deniers who kept claiming there was no warming while using one satellite tropospheric data set 'counting' from the 1997/98 extreme el Nino year.

Here's a breakdown of the el Nino contribution:

ChrisColose2016ensoremoved.jpg

Note the different scales on the temperature color bars.
 
Deuce said:
Are you pretending to so hilariously misunderstand my post or are you actually that wrong?
Click to expand...

He's 'that wrong'. Just strings a couple of "sciency sounding" words together but makes no sense.
 
Quaestio said:
It's been 'disingenuous' at best for all the science deniers who kept claiming there was no warming while using one satellite tropospheric data set 'counting' from the 1997/98 extreme el Nino year.

Here's a breakdown of the el Nino contribution:

View attachment 67212590

Note the different scales on the temperature color bars.
Click to expand...

Here's another chart from Gavin Schmidt (NASA GISS):

Gavin 2016 Enso correctted.jpg
 
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...

For some perspective, try watching a short 24 minute presentation by Prof Richard Alley at the National Academy of Sciences 2015 Symposium on 4.6 billion years of earth's climate history



If you don't know who Prof Richard Alley is, here is his CV
http://www.geosc.psu.edu/sites/default/files/alley_vitalong_jan17.pdf
 
Deuce said:
In a greater context.

You can whine about picking data during an el nino, but the truth is that's not the only data showing we're getting warmer.
Click to expand...
No, it is not, however the rate of the temperature rise during an El Nino event is like 10 times faster than would be possible
from the other sources. The contamination of the data is such, that it takes at least 40 months to average the spike out.
 
Quaestio said:
It's been 'disingenuous' at best for all the science deniers who kept claiming there was no warming while using one satellite tropospheric data set 'counting' from the 1997/98 extreme el Nino year.

Here's a breakdown of the el Nino contribution:

Note the different scales on the temperature color bars.
Click to expand...
Where did I say there was no warming?
It seems like this is what I said back in post#15.
Since it takes an mean of at least 40 months to average out the spike of an El Nino weather event.
We will not know for another 20 months if 2016 was anything special.
Click to expand...
Also it is hypercritical to on the one hand say counting from 1997/98 extreme el Nino year is wrong,
while at the same time saying 2015/16 extreme el Nino year is some record breaking year.
Pretty graphics and estimates aside, it takes about 40 months to average out the spike from an El Nino.
Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs
 
chuckiechan said:
The "change" people don't tell me what they want to change the climate to, or what year or decade they want to use as "normal" weather.
Click to expand...

It really doesn't matter. Of course, you know what the solution is to global warming, right? Bigger government and higher taxes. More power for our politicians to force us to pour money into windmills. Then, temperatures will start dropping. After that, they will give us an ice age scare, that we need to do something about right now! Raise taxes again!
 
Threegoofs said:
U.S. scientists officially declare 2016 the hottest year on record. That makes three in a row.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-makes-three-in-a-row/?utm_term=.c828ea762717



Remember how the deniers told us that the scientists were always wrong about predictions on warming? Remember when they said there was no significant warming? Remember when they said the earth was going into a 'cooling phase' in 1990 errr..1995, errrrr..... 1999, errr 2003, errrr..... 2008, errr....2012, errr.... 2015?

In addition to this obvious record, we also are seeing record lows in arctic sea ice, gigatons of melt in Greenland, significant melt in parts of Antarctica, and disappearing glaciers all over the globe - from the Alps to the Himalayas to the Andes.

But Donald Trump says its a hoax made up by the Chinese.
Click to expand...

 
longview said:
No, it is not, however the rate of the temperature rise during an El Nino event is like 10 times faster than would be possible
from the other sources. The contamination of the data is such, that it takes at least 40 months to average the spike out.
Click to expand...

Great, so lets use 30 years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom