• 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 Weather Gods Smite the USA for Donald Trump's Sins

Mithrae said:
Global temperatures have risen 0.8 degrees over the last forty years (RSS), a rate of about 0.2 degrees per decade. If that rate continued, we'll be 2.4 degrees above mid 20th century levels by 2100.

Can I safely assume that you, LoP, Code and so on all agree with that assessment, since generalizing recent trends into the distant future without regard for physical processes and causes is the one and only 'argument' that any of you have offered on which to base your absolute certainty regarding sea level rise?
Click to expand...

No. You cannot assume that. As I have posted elsewhere, I believe global cooling has begun.
 
LowDown said:
Florence rolls into South Carolina and Donald Trump is partly to blame, according to the Washington Post.

But nothing that Trump has done or proposes to do will have any significant effect on the climate or the weather.

Since Trump isn't with the CAGW agenda then he's held to blame for any adverse weather events, never mind that there's no evidence of any connection between what Trump does and what happens with the weather.

In fact, nothing that has been proposed by any person or nation to address global warming that is actually politically and financially feasible will do anything significant to change the climate.

It's just magical thinking. It certainly isn't science.
Click to expand...

That makes sense. It is time to stop blaming Bush and blame someone else. If a volcano erupts does he get the blame for that also or can we blame that on Obama.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Please explain to us how many joules of energy it takes to melt that much ice, and how many years it will take at what energy imbalance.
Click to expand...

All it takes is for the democrats to lose an election. Everyone knows that.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Yes, Hot air generated by propaganda does more damage than CO2.
Click to expand...

I take it that you are as unwilling to answer my question as Code was, even after its hypothetical numbers have now (thanks indirectly to Jack) been confirmed as plausible. Given that obvious reluctance, it seems that the position you guys are advocating is best described as "hope for the best" - or indeed, given the vitriolic disdain you have all shown towards scientific studies calculating the risks of anything but the best-case scenarios, probably something more like "Have faith in the best."

The opposite extreme of course would be 'prepare for the worst, at any cost,' which would be equally absurd. But the median of taking all reasonable measures to ensure a steady and relatively early transition away from fossil fuels (which have been responsible for tens of thousands of deaths per year even regardless of global warming) is - and always has been - the most obviously sensible course of action. Folk such as Carl Sagan have been pointing this out since the 1980s! Sea level rise, even when the extreme scenarios are evaluated as mere risks rather than high probabilities, is yet another good illustration of this principle.
 
Mithrae said:
Global temperatures have risen 0.8 degrees over the last forty years (RSS), a rate of about 0.2 degrees per decade. If that rate continued, we'll be 2.4 degrees above mid 20th century levels by 2100.
Click to expand...

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
 
Mithrae said:
I take it that you are as unwilling to answer my question as Code was, even after its hypothetical numbers have now (thanks indirectly to Jack) been confirmed as plausible. Given that obvious reluctance, it seems that the position you guys are advocating is best described as "hope for the best" - or indeed, given the vitriolic disdain you have all shown towards scientific studies calculating the risks of anything but the best-case scenarios, probably something more like "Have faith in the best."
Click to expand...
There is no such thing as a 'scientific' study. Science is a set of falsifiable theories, not a study.
Mithrae said:
The opposite extreme of course would be 'prepare for the worst, at any cost,' which would be equally absurd. But the median of taking all reasonable measures to ensure a steady and relatively early transition away from fossil fuels (which have been responsible for tens of thousands of deaths per year
Click to expand...
We don't burn fossils for fuel. Fossils don't burn. No deaths have occurred by attempting to burn fossils.
Mithrae said:
even regardless of global warming)
Click to expand...
Fossils do not cause 'global warming' either. You can't even define what 'global warming' means.
Mithrae said:
is - and always has been - the most obviously sensible course of action.
Click to expand...
You want to recommend an action based on a buzzword and attempts to burn fossils??
Mithrae said:
Folk such as Carl Sagan have been pointing this out since the 1980s!
Click to expand...
You bringing up this twit pot smoker again?
Mithrae said:
Sea level rise,
Click to expand...
It is not possible to measure the global sea level. You have no valid reference point.
Mithrae said:
even when the extreme scenarios are evaluated as mere risks rather than high probabilities, is yet another good illustration of this principle.
Click to expand...
Pascals' Wager fallacy.
 
Mithrae said:
I take it that you are as unwilling to answer my question as Code was, even after its hypothetical numbers have now (thanks indirectly to Jack) been confirmed as plausible. Given that obvious reluctance, it seems that the position you guys are advocating is best described as "hope for the best" - or indeed, given the vitriolic disdain you have all shown towards scientific studies calculating the risks of anything but the best-case scenarios, probably something more like "Have faith in the best."

The opposite extreme of course would be 'prepare for the worst, at any cost,' which would be equally absurd. But the median of taking all reasonable measures to ensure a steady and relatively early transition away from fossil fuels (which have been responsible for tens of thousands of deaths per year even regardless of global warming) is - and always has been - the most obviously sensible course of action. Folk such as Carl Sagan have been pointing this out since the 1980s! Sea level rise, even when the extreme scenarios are evaluated as mere risks rather than high probabilities, is yet another good illustration of this principle.
Click to expand...

Cooling continues. Sea level rise is a non-problem.


UAH_LT_1979_thru_September_2018_v6-550x317.jpg
 
Mithrae said:
Not even on your most recent Antarctic expedition? Weird. Seems the other experts who went there noticed something, but I guess we can trust you over them :doh

Maybe you can answer the question that Code is so desperate to avoid, since you're here: For the sake of argument, let's assume that such a rapid and imminent increase is indeed improbable. Let's say that there's only a one in five chance of it occurring at all, and furthermore that it will only be in the next century even then. So we, personally, can rest easy in our beachfront homes knowing that the end is not "nigh," as Code put it.

Does that mean that we should simply not worry about it at all - that we should just leave our descendants with that risk of a 3m or 5m sea level rise? Sea level rise is uncertain, but we can be certain that they'll have flying cities by then, perhaps?
Click to expand...

Why should a whole population of the earth worry about an area they we know has dangerous natural probabilities? To think we can stop stated harm my our actions os exceptionally arrogant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom