• 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!

2017 is the 2nd Warmest Year on Record

Media_Truth said:
The first nine months of 2017 are the 2nd hottest on record, dating back to 1880, according to the NOAA, which tracks worldwide data. September was the 4th warmest ever, 1.57 deg F above the 20th century average. This newscast really emphasizes the effect on ice melt, weather patterns, etc.

https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/2017-second-warmest-year-noaa/

Seldom do you hear News agencies talk about wildfires, and climate change. They don't discuss the Western wildfires of 2017, but I believe that is one of the most proven correlations.
Click to expand...

Woah. 130 years and the 2nd hottest? End of life on the planet.
 
Media_Truth said:
I realize as a non-scientist, and one that has no 4-year scientific degree, you like everything spoon-fed to you. Have at it yourself. C'mon - you can do it. You always claim to be more advanced than the scientists. Then surely you can follow the technical scientific jargon of AR5.
Click to expand...

My God Man....

I have looked and looked. It does not exists.

Are you really that daft to think I can prove something doesn't exists?

You say it's in the AR5, so put up or shut up!
 
Buzz said:
My God man... I know how the loss of evaporative cooling can warm a city. I also know that in cities where rainfall is normally low that increasing irrigation can cool a city(like desert cities in the southwest). Are you able to understand this?



Really? Because I have never seen anything that states that anyone is adjusting for increased cooling from irrigation. Even Hansen 2010 doesn't say this like you keep incorrectly stating. All it does is mention cooling from irrigation as an example of what can cool a city.



You didn't really read the study, did you? You just read that short description of adjustments in the beginning and saw that they mention cooling from irrigation and assumed that they are adjusting based on that alone. But if you had actually read further into it you would have seen that the adjustments are based solely on matching the city's trend with the trend of surrounding rural stations.



There you go again... always demanding that everyone else has to prove you wrong while you never prove anything. Why don't you quit being lazy for once in your life and back up your own B.S.

And I have already provided all that is needed to prove you wrong in Hansen's article. Since they adjust to match surrounding rural stations this means they are adjusting for all the warming and/or cooling effects including loss of evaporative cooling.
Click to expand...

Another non-sense response.

So tell me... If a region that normally gets over 40" of annual rainfall, over the last 100 years went from 99% natural land to 95% suffocated land, how much do you think the nearby temperature readings will increase by this over 7 W/m^2 increase in warming?
 
Threegoofs said:
Oh, yeah. The old 'I knew it, I was just trying to get you to say it' thing.

Third grade is over, man.

And I hate to break it to you...the baseline used here is the one that best illustrates the point of human consequences of AGW....the rise in postindustrial temps.

But I'm sure you knew that. You were just 'testing me', LOL.
Click to expand...

Actually the baseline used in the graph is not properly defined.
Just what dates start and end, "the late nineteenth century"?
 
Lord of Planar said:
My God Man....

I have looked and looked. It does not exists.

Are you really that daft to think I can prove something doesn't exists?

You say it's in the AR5, so put up or shut up!
Click to expand...

I won't do your homework for you. I trust the educated scientists to do a thorough evaluation, so I don't need some highly subjective idiotic proof, that would satisfy the Far-Right argument of a non-scientific denier. You're just throwing darts, hoping that something sticks.
 
longview said:
Actually the baseline used in the graph is not properly defined.
Just what dates start and end, "the late nineteenth century"?
Click to expand...

Following this discussion is somewhat of a joke. As if some baseline that a scientist uses in a graph discredits the entire AGW theory. I would think this thread deserves a little more objective analysis than that.
 
Media_Truth said:
I won't do your homework for you. I trust the educated scientists to do a thorough evaluation, so I don't need some highly subjective idiotic proof, that would satisfy the Far-Right argument of a non-scientific denier. You're just throwing darts, hoping that something sticks.
Click to expand...

In other words, you made another baseless claim and now you have been exposed, again.
 
Media_Truth said:
Following this discussion is somewhat of a joke. As if some baseline that a scientist uses in a graph discredits the entire AGW theory. I would think this thread deserves a little more objective analysis than that.
Click to expand...
So tell me what the average temperature was for "the late nineteenth century"?
You cannot nor can anyone since "the late nineteenth century" is not a range with defined limits.
 
Jack Hays said:
In other words, you made another baseless claim and now you have been exposed, again.
Click to expand...

My claim was that the scientists that wrote AR5 know a lot more than Lord of Planar, so his low-education theory is not a revelation, like he would like us to believe, with his big, bold red text. And this claim of mine is not baseless. It's a FACT.

Kind of like you quoting Shaviv, who says that AGW isn't happening, because volcanic eruptions didn't cause warming, when the yearly CO2 from volcanoes is less than 1/10,000th of mankind's CO2, from fossil fuels. If you people would study the actual scientific organizations, and quote from those, instead of blogs or make-believe, we might have some rational discussions.
 
longview said:
So tell me what the average temperature was for "the late nineteenth century"?
You cannot nor can anyone since "the late nineteenth century" is not a range with defined limits.
Click to expand...

Jesus.

Ask Schmidt if you're dying to know.
 
Media_Truth said:
I won't do your homework for you. I trust the educated scientists to do a thorough evaluation, so I don't need some highly subjective idiotic proof, that would satisfy the Far-Right argument of a non-scientific denier. You're just throwing darts, hoping that something sticks.
Click to expand...

I have read the AR5 front to back. I don't remember seeing your claim, so please sow me to be wrong.
 
Media_Truth said:
My claim was that the scientists that wrote AR5 know a lot more than Lord of Planar, so his low-education theory is not a revelation, like he would like us to believe, with his big, bold red text. And this claim of mine is not baseless. It's a FACT.
Click to expand...
And most of the AR5 is correct.

I get it.

You are all talk and no substance. You are perfectly aware to are taking from where the sun doesn't shine, so you refuse to look up what you claim, because you know I am likely correct.

I get it.
 
Media_Truth said:
By "more of the same", you mean the scientific truth doesn't conform with your political view. This is exactly why others on this forum ignore the true scientific organizations, and resort to blogs.
Click to expand...

Not really. When i started following the climate debate, i was very much a believer in the Club of Rome position. I still am, as a matter of fact. But i do nötig like poor science.
 
Threegoofs said:
While it's impressive to follow a discussion and read, it's even more impressive to actually do the research and write.

I'll stick with those guys.
Click to expand...

Thema at least for the economic and statistical Parts of the debate you must be with me.
 
Media_Truth said:
My claim was that the scientists that wrote AR5 know a lot more than Lord of Planar, so his low-education theory is not a revelation, like he would like us to believe, with his big, bold red text. And this claim of mine is not baseless. It's a FACT.

Kind of like you quoting Shaviv, who says that AGW isn't happening, because volcanic eruptions didn't cause warming, when the yearly CO2 from volcanoes is less than 1/10,000th of mankind's CO2, from fossil fuels. If you people would study the actual scientific organizations, and quote from those, instead of blogs or make-believe, we might have some rational discussions.
Click to expand...

Shaviv's point had nothing to do with whether volcanoes or anything else causes warming. His discussion was about climate sensitivity. The material seems too complex for you.
 
Jack Hays said:
Shaviv's point had nothing to do with whether volcanoes or anything else causes warming. His discussion was about climate sensitivity. The material seems too complex for you.
Click to expand...

Which is another way to say the same thing. Pretty idiotic. When you start posting from real scientific organizations, maybe we can have a rational discussion, which doesn't include curt little snippets.
 
Lord of Planar said:
And most of the AR5 is correct.

I get it.

You are all talk and no substance. You are perfectly aware to are taking from where the sun doesn't shine, so you refuse to look up what you claim, because you know I am likely correct.

I get it.
Click to expand...

Is this post referencing something scientific? Don't think so.
 
Media_Truth said:
Which is another way to say the same thing. Pretty idiotic. When you start posting from real scientific organizations, maybe we can have a rational discussion, which doesn't include curt little snippets.
Click to expand...

No, it's not saying the same thing. Not at all. We can't really have that discussion because you don't understand the material.
 
Jack Hays said:
No, it's not saying the same thing. Not at all. We can't really have that discussion because you don't understand the material.
Click to expand...

Yeah right - a typical response when proven wrong. The fact that CO2 in the atmosphere from volcanoes is 1/10,000th of the amount from mankind's sources absolutely shows that any "climate sensitivity" study of the effects of CO2, related to volcanoes is bogus. But continue your denial of real science - it fits the profile.
 
Media_Truth said:
Yeah right - a typical response when proven wrong. The fact that CO2 in the atmosphere from volcanoes is 1/10,000th of the amount from mankind's sources absolutely shows that any "climate sensitivity" study of the effects of CO2, related to volcanoes is bogus. But continue your denial of real science - it fits the profile.
Click to expand...

You don't even realize you are (if anything) making Shaviv's point. And putting "climate sensitivity" in quotes again demonstrates you don't understand the discussion.

Here's the relevant passage from Shaviv:

[FONT=&quot]". . . If you look at the average global response to large volcanic eruptions, from Krakatoa to Pinatubo, you would see that the global temperature decreased by only about 0.1°C while the hypersensitive climate models give 0.3 to 0.5°C, not seen in reality. . . ."

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Do you see anything in there about volcanoes as a source of CO2 and warming? No. Because that's not what Shaviv is talking about. In fact, please notice he's talking about how much volcanoes lower temperature. You've really exposed yourself this time. [/FONT]
 
Last edited:
Jack Hays said:
You don't even realize you are (if anything) making Shaviv's point. And putting "climate sensitivity" in quotes again demonstrates you don't understand the discussion.

Here's the relevant passage from Shaviv:

[FONT="]". . . If you look at the average global response to large volcanic eruptions, from Krakatoa to Pinatubo, you would see that the global temperature decreased by only about 0.1°C while the hypersensitive climate models give 0.3 to 0.5°C, not seen in reality. . . ."

[/FONT][/I][FONT="]Do you see anything in there about volcanoes as a source of CO2 and warming? No. Because that's not what Shaviv is talking about. In fact, please notice he's talking about how much volcanoes lower temperature. You've really exposed yourself this time. [/FONT]
Click to expand...


Funny! You're the one that denied the aerosol claim, for volcanic effects, and now you're resorting back to it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom