• 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!

September Heat Records are Being Shattered in Denver

 
Bergslagstroll said:
Even federal agencies under Trump acknowledge manmade global warming and its negative effect.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/03/climate/us-climate-report.html

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...gencies-break-with-trump-over-climate-threats

Also fossil fuel companies own studies acknowledge manmade global warming and its destructive effects.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/...h-climate-change-20-years-ago-documents-show/

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/
Click to expand...

Anyone is a fool not to acknowledge our activities as a contributor to global warming. However, until they properly get all the variables correct, the quantification are not to be trusted. The first link say we are the dominant cause. When you add up the effects of aerosols, land use changes, and greenhouse gasses, we just might be. However, not a single one of these three is the dominant cause.
 
Media_Truth said:
Another conspiracy theorist.
Click to expand...
Argument of the Stone fallacy.

Media_Truth said:
All those scientists - thousands of them worldwide, disregarding the laws of thermodynamics. But you know better, don't you?
Click to expand...
Appeal to Authority fallacy. Appeal to the Masses fallacy.

Media_Truth said:
Regarding your equation - equations are meaningless, if they are not used within the right application.
Click to expand...
It's being applied correctly.

Media_Truth said:
You can say that the sun adds x amount of heat to a surface, through a calculation. However, if the sun is shaded, the equation is not applicable. Likewise, you can say that the earth radiates heat. But if that radiative process is blocked by a thin layer of plastic (the analogy to a layer of CO2), then the equation must be modified accordingly.
Click to expand...
You're not even making sense here... CO2 is not a plastic (solid); it is a gas. Also, you're acting here as if CO2 would only block radiance from escaping (that it wouldn't block the sun's radiance from entering)... that's nonsense... You're still trying to heat a warmer surface by using a cooler gas. Heat only flows from hot to cold, never the inverse. You're also likely conflating heat with temperature... The SB law does not need to be "modified" in any way; it applies to all bodies all the time...
 
Media_Truth said:
Climate change continues to pick on the Mountain West. Records are being shattered and the risk of wildfires is way up. The average temperature anomaly is much higher in the Mountain West than it is in the rest of the world.

https://www.denverpost.com/2018/09/18/denver-weather-september-18-heat-record/

Breaking temperature records in Denver has become routine during the ongoing heat wave the past two weeks and another very old one is expected to go down Monday.
Click to expand...
:lamo

Question is were the the records 45s or LPs? Pristine condition? :2wave::peace
 
gfm7175 said:
Paradox and irrational reasoning noted... to argue rationally, you must clear your paradox...

1) There is no proof.
2) Proof is more absolute...

Which one is it... either there is proof in science, or there isn't...


Continued irrational reasoning...


Good for you, assuming that is the truth.


Not in the slighest... The Stefan-Boltzmann law is as follows... radiance = SBconstant * emissivity * temperature ^ 4 The SBconstant is a constant of nature, emissivity is a measured constant. Therefore, that leaves us with radiance on one side of the equation and temperature on the other... If temperature increases, radiance must also increase, and vice versa.


Yes, it does.


They may or may not understand those laws, but they most certainly are disregarding them when it comes to "global warming"...
Click to expand...

Increasing the greenhouse gas content of the Earth's atmosphere reduces its effective emissivity. Hence the temperature of the Earth has to rise in order to give the same radiance. That's why adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere raises the Earth's temperature.
 
Surface Detail said:
Increasing the greenhouse gas content of the Earth's atmosphere reduces its effective emissivity. Hence the temperature of the Earth has to rise in order to give the same radiance. That's why adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere raises the Earth's temperature.
Click to expand...
If you are reducing emissivity, then you are also reducing absorbtivity... That would end up making the Earth's surface colder, not warmer, because the Earth's surface would be absorbing less light... This puts you into another paradox:

1) Emissivity of the Earth is decreased by <insert gas(es) here>.
2) The Earth is warming.
 
gfm7175 said:
If you are reducing emissivity, then you are also reducing absorbtivity... That would end up making the Earth's surface colder, not warmer, because the Earth's surface would be absorbing less light... This puts you into another paradox:

1) Emissivity of the Earth is decreased by <insert gas(es) here>.
2) The Earth is warming.
Click to expand...

Emissivity and absorptivity are wavelength-dependent.

To be more precise than in my previous post: increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases reduces the effective emissivity (and absorptivity) of the Earth in the IR part of the spectrum, but has no effect on the emissivity (and absorptivity) of the Earth at shorter wavelengths. The incoming solar radiation is therefore absorbed pretty much without change, but a higher temperature is required to maintain the outgoing IR radiation.

There is, of course, nothing remotely contentious about this. The basic mechanism of the greenhouse effect has been known since the 1800s. The only people pursuing this line of argument are, frankly, scientific illiterates.
 
Media_Truth said:
It's not random, when 14 of the 15 hottest years, globally, have been since 2000. And continuing with the Mountain West - it's not random, when they have experienced 35 years of abnormal intense heat and drought.
Click to expand...

OMG!!! The United States should rejoin (NOT) the Paris Climate Accords, where they want us to give a trillion dollars to the cause, while all of these other countries dirty the worlds air while we are already doing a better job than anyone else.

Of course, good ole reliable China wouldn't have to pay their first dollar for the first 30 years of the agreement.

Wait a minute, because we now know the world isn't warming, let's change the name to Climate Change (instead of Global Warming). Irregardless, America give us a trillion dollars.

NOTE: America is a much smarter and stronger country now than under Obama. Global warming was all about transfer of American wealth (again) without firing a shot.

Thank you Mr. President for cutting bait on this ridiculous agreement, and for stopping America from being the worlds piggy bank.
 
gfm7175 said:
If you are reducing emissivity, then you are also reducing absorbtivity... That would end up making the Earth's surface colder, not warmer, because the Earth's surface would be absorbing less light... This puts you into another paradox:

1) Emissivity of the Earth is decreased by <insert gas(es) here>.
2) The Earth is warming.
Click to expand...

It gets reduced in a one directional path as greenhouse gas levels change. The incoming solar energy is mostly shortwave energy, and greenhouse gasses have almost no effect on them. Changing greenhouse gas levels do change attenuation of the the outgoing longwave spectra significantly. When considering the atmosphere as part of the earth system, other variables some into play. It isn't as simple as black body formulas.
 
Last edited:
Lord of Planar said:
Anyone is a fool not to acknowledge our activities as a contributor to global warming. However, until they properly get all the variables correct, the quantification are not to be trusted. The first link say we are the dominant cause. When you add up the effects of aerosols, land use changes, and greenhouse gasses, we just might be. However, not a single one of these three is the dominant cause.
Click to expand...

The models have been extremely accurate. If anything, they have been too conservative.
 
Davey said:
OMG!!! The United States should rejoin (NOT) the Paris Climate Accords, where they want us to give a trillion dollars to the cause, while all of these other countries dirty the worlds air while we are already doing a better job than anyone else.

Of course, good ole reliable China wouldn't have to pay their first dollar for the first 30 years of the agreement.

Wait a minute, because we now know the world isn't warming, let's change the name to Climate Change (instead of Global Warming). Irregardless, America give us a trillion dollars.

NOTE: America is a much smarter and stronger country now than under Obama. Global warming was all about transfer of American wealth (again) without firing a shot.

Thank you Mr. President for cutting bait on this ridiculous agreement, and for stopping America from being the worlds piggy bank.
Click to expand...

It wasn't even close to trillions. The only Trillion dollar giveaways in our Government are the Corporate and Billionaire Welfare giveaway of this Administration, and the Bush Oil War.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opin...r-plus-deficits-fiscal-ruin-column/986236002/

Though no one in Washington will admit it, our nation's finances are in deep trouble. Spending is up, revenue is down, and this will only get worse.
 
Media_Truth said:
It wasn't even close to trillions. The only Trillion dollar giveaways in our Government are the Corporate and Billionaire Welfare giveaway of this Administration, and the Bush Oil War.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opin...r-plus-deficits-fiscal-ruin-column/986236002/

Though no one in Washington will admit it, our nation's finances are in deep trouble. Spending is up, revenue is down, and this will only get worse.
Click to expand...

1. There was never a "Bush Oil War."
2. Paris would cost $1-2T per year.

[h=3]We Have A Climate Treaty--But At What Cost? | Bjorn Lomborg[/h]https://www.lomborg.com/news/we-have-a-climate-treaty-but-at-what-cost



After two weeks, huge amounts of political rhetoric, and much activity behind closed doors, we have atreaty. While there will be celebrations among activists, the ...

". . . Using the best individual and collectively peer-reviewed economic models, the total cost of Paris – through slower GDP growth from higher energy costs – will reach $1-2 trillion every year from 2030. . . . "
 
Media_Truth said:
It wasn't even close to trillions. The only Trillion dollar giveaways in our Government are the Corporate and Billionaire Welfare giveaway of this Administration, and the Bush Oil War.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opin...r-plus-deficits-fiscal-ruin-column/986236002/

Though no one in Washington will admit it, our nation's finances are in deep trouble. Spending is up, revenue is down, and this will only get worse.
Click to expand...

Same ole BS, another misquote to further your crap. I said a trillion, singular, NOT trillions. Big difference, but your type of math always gets one in trouble. The U.S. was supposed to give a trillion dollars while China and others don't give anything, yet China air is much dirtier than American air.

We are no longer everyone's piggy bank dude. Your country needs to stand on it's own and quit trying to bilk it from America.

I don't know what country you are from, but Americans are glad we are no longer 'suckers' to the world.
 
Media_Truth said:
The models have been extremely accurate. If anything, they have been too conservative.
Click to expand...

Believe as you wish. People used to also believe the earth was flat.
 
Media_Truth said:
It wasn't even close to trillions. The only Trillion dollar giveaways in our Government are the Corporate and Billionaire Welfare giveaway of this Administration, and the Bush Oil War.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opin...r-plus-deficits-fiscal-ruin-column/986236002/

Though no one in Washington will admit it, our nation's finances are in deep trouble. Spending is up, revenue is down, and this will only get worse.
Click to expand...

Congress approved the war, with overwhelming support by democrats. You partisan fallacies don't hold water.
 
Davey said:
Same ole BS, another misquote to further your crap. I said a trillion, singular, NOT trillions. Big difference, but your type of math always gets one in trouble. The U.S. was supposed to give a trillion dollars while China and others don't give anything, yet China air is much dirtier than American air.

We are no longer everyone's piggy bank dude. Your country needs to stand on it's own and quit trying to bilk it from America.

I don't know what country you are from, but Americans are glad we are no longer 'suckers' to the world.
Click to expand...

If you're so concerned fiscally, why are you supportive of the current skyrocketing deficit. The Gas Overconsumption Party, GOP, has control of all 3 Legislative branches, and they are building monumental deficits. Pathetic incompetence! Did you even look at the USA Today link???
 
Lord of Planar said:
Congress approved the war, with overwhelming support by democrats. You partisan fallacies don't hold water.
Click to expand...

Bush, and more likely Cheney, who was part of the PNAC (Project for New American Century) cited cooked-up CIA reports to convince America to go along with their deception. The PNAC philosophy is basically US world interference and dominance. I protested against this war, at the time.
 
Jack Hays said:
1. There was never a "Bush Oil War."
2. Paris would cost $1-2T per year.

[h=3]We Have A Climate Treaty--But At What Cost? | Bjorn Lomborg[/h]https://www.lomborg.com/news/we-have-a-climate-treaty-but-at-what-cost



After two weeks, huge amounts of political rhetoric, and much activity behind closed doors, we have atreaty. While there will be celebrations among activists, the ...

". . . Using the best individual and collectively peer-reviewed economic models, the total cost of Paris – through slower GDP growth from higher energy costs – will reach $1-2 trillion every year from 2030. . . . "
Click to expand...

Biased, no backup, partisan hack.
 
Media_Truth said:
If you're so concerned fiscally, why are you supportive of the current skyrocketing deficit. The Gas Overconsumption Party, GOP, has control of all 3 Legislative branches, and they are building monumental deficits. Pathetic incompetence! Did you even look at the USA Today link???
Click to expand...

When President Obama took office we were 10 trillion dollars in debt. When Obama left office we were 20 trillion dollars in debt and in a mess all around the world.

Obama got us in debt more than every president that preceded him combined.

The trade deficits are horrendous, and Trump is fixing them. Our GDP is 4.2 this last quarter. Under Obama it never reached 3.0 in any quarter in his 8 years in office. Obama is the only President never to reach 3.0 GDP in a quarter.

I think you need to go to school and learn some math or the school that taught you math you need to ask for your money back dude:lamo
 
Last edited:
Davey said:
When President Obama took office we were 10 trillion dollars in debt. When Obama left office we were 20 trillion dollars in debt and in a mess all around the world.

Obama got us in debt more than every president that preceded him combined.

The trade deficits are horrendous, and Trump is fixing them. Our GDP is 4.2 this last quarter. Under Obama it never reached 3.0 in any quarter in his 8 years in office. Obama is the only President never to reach 3.0 GDP in a quarter.

I think you need to go to school and learn some math or the school that taught you math you need to ask for your money back dude:lamo
Click to expand...

You really need to study history. Bush executed the worst hand-off since the great depression - 2 wars, a housing/banking crisis, a bankrupt American auto industry, CEO corruption gone Amuck, a severely depressed stock market, etc, etc. Once Obama fixed all of that, the deficit started dropping like a rock. Now it is skyrocketing upward again.us_deficit_history.png
 
Get a room please. This isn't about how congress spends money.
 
Media_Truth said:
You really need to study history. Bush executed the worst hand-off since the great depression - 2 wars, a housing/banking crisis, a bankrupt American auto industry, CEO corruption gone Amuck, a severely depressed stock market, etc, etc. Once Obama fixed all of that, the deficit started dropping like a rock. Now it is skyrocketing upward again.View attachment 67241059
Click to expand...

Your numbers are wrong dude. Show the real numbers or just stay quite while the sane posters discuss this in real terms.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom