• 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!

The Real Arctic Vs The Imaginary Arctic Of Climate Scientists

Threegoofs said:
Which does not mean the polar bear population is increasing.
Click to expand...

It means that the estimate of the polar bear population has increased. You're right it doesn't mean that the population is increasing.

Do you have an opinion on the status of the polar bear population? Increasing? Decreasing? Static? What? And why?
 
Threegoofs said:
I’m sure you can find that paper on bears. Was it in a peer reviewed journal?

Or was it a ‘science paper’ ?
Click to expand...

She has a number of published papers on animals in the Arctic including Polar Bears, your ignorance is noted.

Why don't you stop making a fool of yourself?
 
Sunsettommy said:
She has a number of published papers on animals in the Arctic including Polar Bears, your ignorance is noted.

Why don't you stop making a fool of yourself?
Click to expand...

I guess you can only repeat this claim, since you can’t actually produce one. And a peer reviewed one, too, since anyone can write stuff and claim it’s valid (as we see with your posts).

Fool, indeed.
 
Threegoofs said:
I guess you can only repeat this claim, since you can’t actually produce one. And a peer reviewed one, too, since anyone can write stuff and claim it’s valid (as we see with your posts).

Fool, indeed.
Click to expand...
What if the reviewing peers' research income is dependent upon sycophants?
 
JBG said:
What if the reviewing peers' research income is dependent upon sycophants?
Click to expand...

Well, beside the fact that’s a pretty stupid paranoid fantasy reflecting a basic ignorance of how science works, it certainly doesn’t lead to the conclusion that internet blogs are a good source of information when they conflict with scientific literature.
 
Lord of Planar said:
It almost certainly is the case in Climastrology.
Click to expand...
The truth is that before recent times we've never had snowstorms, heat waves, pouring rain, droughts, cold waves or for that matter the common cold. And according to today's Times La Niñas and El Niños are new (link).
New York Times said:
His colleague at FewsNet, Chris Funk, a climatologist at the University of California, Santa Barbara, has linked recent drought to the long-term warming of the western Pacific Ocean as well as higher land temperatures in East Africa, both products of human-induced climate change. Global warming, he concluded, seems to produce more severe weather disruptions known as El Niños and La Niñas, leading to “protracted drought and food insecurity.”
Click to expand...
 
JBG said:
The truth is that before recent times we've never had snowstorms, heat waves, pouring rain, droughts, cold waves or for that matter the common cold. And according to today's Times La Niñas and El Niños are new (link).
Click to expand...

The funny thing about the severity of droughts and floods, is that it is cause by us. It just isn't a form of climate change. We restrict the flow of rivers and steams, and people wonder why they flood when they didn't used to. We have inadequate storm sewers for when it rains hard, now that precipitation cannot soak into land covered by asphalt, concrete, and buildings. We have more people using the same water supplies, and people blame CO2 for the water being used faster.
 
Lord of Planar said:
The funny thing about the severity of droughts and floods, is that it is cause by us. It just isn't a form of climate change. We restrict the flow of rivers and steams, and people wonder why they flood when they didn't used to. We have inadequate storm sewers for when it rains hard, now that precipitation cannot soak into land covered by asphalt, concrete, and buildings. We have more people using the same water supplies, and people blame CO2 for the water being used faster.
Click to expand...
Noah didn't quite see it that way. Nor the actors in the story of Gilgamesh. Nor untold non-fiction descriptions of floods and droughts.
 
Renae said:
Climate, changes. It takes a particularly uneducated population to buy into the idea that it's their fault climate is changing and further political solutions can fix it. (from Renae's signature)
Click to expand...
That's a real hard lesson for some.
 
JBG said:
Noah didn't quite see it that way. Nor the actors in the story of Gilgamesh. Nor untold non-fiction descriptions of floods and droughts.
Click to expand...

That's a far tangent you went off on. Have any evidence against what I said for the changes we made on the earth the last century or so?
 
Lord of Planar said:
That's a far tangent you went off on. Have any evidence against what I said for the changes we made on the earth the last century or so?
Click to expand...
I guess you want me to dissect this post:
Lord of Planar said:
The funny thing about the severity of droughts and floods, is that it is cause by us. It just isn't a form of climate change. We restrict the flow of rivers and steams, and people wonder why they flood when they didn't used to. We have inadequate storm sewers for when it rains hard, now that precipitation cannot soak into land covered by asphalt, concrete, and buildings. We have more people using the same water supplies, and people blame CO2 for the water being used faster.
Click to expand...
I will.

You have presented no evidence of the lack of those events in the past. In fact, the Dust Bowl occurred early in this century. Nothing like it has occurred since, in spite of greater habitation. The Hurricane of 1938 was worse than Sandy. The connection of CO2 to water use is novel. I will have to examine the basis of your speculation. At least in my area the storm sewers have improved since the days of Hurricane/Tropical Storm Agnes.

I think we're not used to these events because most of our recorded history has been European. The land mass of the Americas has always had a more extreme climate. The land mass of North America extends closer to the North Pole than does the land mass of Europe, thus allowing bone-warping cold south. The expanse of the Gulf of Mexico is far wider, and further south longitudinally. It warms up like a huge bathtub, thus able to feed hot, humid air north. Washington's troops dealt with some pretty severe weather at the Battle of Trenton and, of course, at Valley Forge. At the Battle of Trenton, on Christmas 1776 the river was choked with ice. The temperatures were in the 50s or higher within a week.

Lord of Planar, please prove your points.
 
JBG said:
I guess you want me to dissect this post:I will.

You have presented no evidence of the lack of those events in the past. In fact, the Dust Bowl occurred early in this century. Nothing like it has occurred since, in spite of greater habitation. The Hurricane of 1938 was worse than Sandy. The connection of CO2 to water use is novel. I will have to examine the basis of your speculation. At least in my area the storm sewers have improved since the days of Hurricane/Tropical Storm Agnes.

I think we're not used to these events because most of our recorded history has been European. The land mass of the Americas has always had a more extreme climate. The land mass of North America extends closer to the North Pole than does the land mass of Europe, thus allowing bone-warping cold south. The expanse of the Gulf of Mexico is far wider, and further south longitudinally. It warms up like a huge bathtub, thus able to feed hot, humid air north. Washington's troops dealt with some pretty severe weather at the Battle of Trenton and, of course, at Valley Forge. At the Battle of Trenton, on Christmas 1776 the river was choked with ice. The temperatures were in the 50s or higher within a week.

Lord of Planar, please prove your points.
Click to expand...

Proving my point is difficult, as it is a long study of events over the years. I do know there is no positive link to say we changed the climate to cause more inland flooding or more drought.

Your mentioning of the dust bowl was long ago, and with these elevated levels of CO2, we haven't seen it happen again. I am claiming that we have not witnessed climate change due to greenhouse gasses. The dust bowl occurred because of the farming practices used. Cyclical droughts are natural occurrences. Had there been natural vegetation in place, there never would have been a dust bowl.

It is easy to witness over decades of living some place, where reducing the channel width of a river or stream causes higher water levels during high precipitation events.

When you have natural streams covered with development, and storm sewers put in, they never account for the worse rain an area may witness. My daughter lost a car a few years ago. It was parked on a street that before development, never in the history of Oregon had a flood. What was once natural vegetation and streams, was now a suburb. It was not even close to a record rain, but all the cars parked on the street were flooded. The foundation of the house was around 6 ft higher than the street, so at least it wasn't flooded. But some of the neighbors houses were.

I am amazed that you would question something that is common sense.

I never said water was connected to CO2. I said man has cause droughts and flooding to be more severe, but not because of CO2. We use water faster than the past because the populations are greater, and that's why the severity of a drought seems greater! When the population is twice as much as some years back, did the water supply miraculously double?

Hell no!
 
Last edited:
Lord of Planar said:
Proving my point is difficult, as it is a long study of events over the years. I do know there is no positive link to say we changed the climate to cause more inland flooding or more drought.
Click to expand...
I am confused as to the point, if any, you are making. I thought you said that recent CO2 changes caused changes in our century, which I happen not to believe.
 
JBG said:
I am confused as to the point, if any, you are making. I thought you said that recent CO2 changes caused changes in our century, which I happen not to believe.
Click to expand...

I think you and he are on the same side of the debate. The Skeptic side.
 
Threegoofs said:
bd21141d32ba66cadcb8fc33a5c91bce.jpg
Click to expand...

What a perfect icon for the ignorant; another brain-dead leftist confusing Hollywood movies with real life.

Do you think this phenomenon is confined only to the low IQ socialists?

Leftists in Congress routinely invite Hollywood actors who play doctors, scientists, and engineers to give "expert testimony" to their congressional hearings in costume as the movie characters they play on the silver screen.

It obviously impressed the author of this post as well.

 
SirGareth said:
I can readily understand how easily duped and gullible you are if the preceding statement makes any sense you.

I cannot "definitely" say that a chimp playing at piano keyboard cannot render Beethoven's Emperor Concerto flawlessly, it's just not very likely.

Are you similarly as deaf as Beethoven; just what went wrong with the "Antarctic Ice Shelf Collapse Models" anyway?

....Crickets


Click to expand...

Your wasting your time.
no matter how much evidence is presented to warming zealots they will continue to ignore it.

They live on short term weather events to uphold their failing theory.

What they don't realize is that earths climate is supposed to change and it will change.

https://astronomynow.com/2015/07/17/diminishing-solar-activity-may-bring-new-ice-age-by-2030/
this article was posted about 3 years ago.

It shows a significant correlation between the sun and earths climate which should be the case as the sun is our main
source of heat. something that warming zealot dismiss outright and think a gas that makes up <1% of our atmosphere is responsible.

i know it is a silly notion but they have an agenda they are pushing. If you can't win the econut fight with propaganda then take over a field
of science and then start pushing out your propaganda.
 
ludin said:
Your wasting your time.
no matter how much evidence is presented to warming zealots they will continue to ignore it.

They live on short term weather events to uphold their failing theory.

What they don't realize is that earths climate is supposed to change and it will change.

https://astronomynow.com/2015/07/17/diminishing-solar-activity-may-bring-new-ice-age-by-2030/
this article was posted about 3 years ago.

It shows a significant correlation between the sun and earths climate which should be the case as the sun is our main
source of heat. something that warming zealot dismiss outright and think a gas that makes up <1% of our atmosphere is responsible.

i know it is a silly notion but they have an agenda they are pushing. If you can't win the econut fight with propaganda then take over a field
of science and then start pushing out your propaganda.
Click to expand...

Please inform climate scientists about your findings.

They’ll take them under consideration.
 
Threegoofs said:
Please inform climate scientists about your findings.

They’ll take them under consideration.
Click to expand...

Please inform the Pontiff and his Cardinals that you have new evidence that suggests Mary may not have conceived by God having intercourse with her; they will take your evidence under advisement and possibly put up the Vatican for auction and then get into the life insurance sales business instead.

Which is more likely to occur, my scenario or yours ?

 
Tim the plumber said:
I think you and he are on the same side of the debate. The Skeptic side.
Click to expand...
I am definitely a skeptic. If my weather hasn't changed, I'm not going to take the word of a person touting composite statistics from an uninhabited area, without records, as to climate change. As to trying the Northwest Passage I'll let someone else try it, and show me their suntans after the trip.
 
JBG said:
I am definitely a skeptic. If my weather hasn't changed, I'm not going to take the word of a person touting composite statistics from an uninhabited area, without records, as to climate change. As to trying the Northwest Passage I'll let someone else try it, and show me their suntans after the trip.
Click to expand...
Revision to post:

I am definitely a skeptic. If my weather hasn't changed, I'm not going to take the word of a person touting composite statistics from an uninhabited area, without records, as to climate change. As to trying the Northwest Passage I'll let someone else try it, and show me their suntans after the trip. And I'm not relying only on my memory; I'm relying on New York Times records going back to the latter part of the 19th Century, and histories of the revolutionary and Civil War.
 
JBG said:
I am confused as to the point, if any, you are making. I thought you said that recent CO2 changes caused changes in our century, which I happen not to believe.
Click to expand...

No.

I am saying man causes changes in the severity of droughts and flooding from land use changes. Not from CO2. Also that droughts have a greater effect because of more people using a limited source of water.

My post:


The funny thing about the severity of droughts and floods, is that it is cause by us. It just isn't a form of climate change.
​

I am saying we are not changing the climate.


We restrict the flow of rivers and steams, and people wonder why they flood when they didn't used to.
​

When dealing with the physics of water flow, the greater the restriction to flow, the higher the water has to reach for more mass to overcome a greater resistance to flow.


We have inadequate storm sewers for when it rains hard, now that precipitation cannot soak into land covered by asphalt, concrete, and buildings.
​

Depending on soil type, several inches worth of water in natural settings would be absorbed by the land. When we cover these surfaces with concrete, asphalt, and buildings, the land is no longer available to absorb the water. All municipalities are on a budget, and even when a storm sewer system is designed for the worse expected events, we on occasion have more severe events yet. Then as years pass, building codes change. Areas that once used to had 1/8th acre lots and single residence homes, are now having multiple family buildings built, and some areas now have even less, or no land to absorb water, and sewer systems are not retrofit to accommodate the greater water levels. This is just one of several problems.

We have more people using the same water supplies, and people blame CO2 for the water being used faster.
​

My mention of CO2, is saying it is the scapegoat, rather than government or the people. California now runs the Colorado river dry. It runs many of its resources dry. Shasta lake has some rather extreme high and low points, and as the number of people using water... Glaciers, melting snow packs, etc. only furnish a fixed range of water. We are exceeded the low point capacities, so when we have long periods of dry weather, rather than saying we have too many people for the existing water... They use CO2 as the scapegoat, saying it caused a severe drought, when it is no worse than past historical drought periods.
 
Lord of Planar said:
No.
My mention of CO2, is saying it is the scapegoat, rather than government or the people. California now runs the Colorado river dry. It runs many of its resources dry. Shasta lake has some rather extreme high and low points, and as the number of people using water... Glaciers, melting snow packs, etc. only furnish a fixed range of water. We are exceeded the low point capacities, so when we have long periods of dry weather, rather than saying we have too many people for the existing water... They use CO2 as the scapegoat, saying it caused a severe drought, when it is no worse than past historical drought periods.
Click to expand...
Thanks. That's a lot better.

How anyone could expect good things to happen by placing America's second largest city in a near-desert is beyond me. Or building almost to the mean high-tide mark in coastal areas.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom