• 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!

Earth just had its second-hottest April on record

Bergslagstroll

Bergslagstroll

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 26, 2005
Messages
6,968
Reaction score
1,563
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
April this year was the second hottest April on record continuing an alarming trend with 9 of the 10 warmest years on record occurring since 2005.
The globe just experienced its second-warmest April since reliable instrument data began in 1880, according to NASA and the Japan Meteorological Agency.

Why it matters: The unusually warm April follows a top 3 hottest March, and indicates that the Earth is headed for yet another top 3 warmest year on record. This follows recent news that carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere edged past 415 parts per million for the first time in human history, likely becoming the highest level on record in at least 3 million years.


Human activities, such as burning fossil fuels for energy and chopping down forests, are causing carbon dioxide levels to increase at a quickening pace.
Click to expand...

Climate change: Earth just had its second-hottest April on record - Axios

You also have the latest report from the The World Meteorological Organization about how the impacts of global warming are accelerating.

Climate change: Global impacts 'accelerating' - WMO - BBC News
 
1880 is still pretty recent in terms of how old the planet is, so this so-called near record heat is meaningless. Just more silly propaganda made by doomsayers.
 
PoS said:
1880 is still pretty recent in terms of how old the planet is, so this so-called near record heat is meaningless. Just more silly propaganda made by doomsayers.
Click to expand...

Look at you, you've gone so far off into the nutter drowning pool that you're trying to minimize and explain away the second hottest April in recorded history and a consistent trend of record breaking, as if it's propaganda. Who are you really trying to convince with these uneducated, knee jerk comments? Yourself?
 
Last edited:
RabidAlpaca said:
Look at you, you've gone so far off into the nutter drowning pool that you're trying to minimize and explain away the second hottest April in recorded history. Who are you really trying to convince with these uneducated, knee jerk comments? Yourself?
Click to expand...

How sure are you of the accuracy of the global temperature in, say, April of 1881? How about April 1911? How about April 1965? April 1981?
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Look at you, you've gone so far off into the nutter drowning pool that you're trying to minimize and explain away the second hottest April in recorded history. Who are you really trying to convince with these uneducated, knee jerk comments? Yourself?
Click to expand...

The earth is 4.5 billion years old.

139 years isn't even a adequate sample to determine trends.

PoS is correct......................... while you slam him as uneducated. :lamo
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Look at you, you've gone so far off into the nutter drowning pool that you're trying to minimize and explain away the second hottest April in recorded history and a consistent trend of record breaking, as if it's propaganda. Who are you really trying to convince with these uneducated, knee jerk comments? Yourself?
Click to expand...

Yeah, right. Look at the kooks in your side: a former VP who predicted the polar ice caps would melt by 2014, a former bartender who says we have 12 years left before the world ends, and a high school drop out who claims she can see carbon dioxide in the air. I think your side has the monopoly on nutters there.
 
Fletch said:
How sure are you of the accuracy of the global temperature in, say, April of 1881? How about April 1911? How about April 1965? April 1981?
Click to expand...
RetiredUSN said:
The earth is 4.5 billion years old.
139 years isn't even a adequate sample to determine trends.
PoS is correct......................... while you slam him as uneducated. :lamo
Click to expand...

None of you have spent a single day of your lives studying climate science, yet you pretend that you know more than all of the scientists and experts who have dedicated their lives to providing us mountains and mountains of evidence that mankind does in fact have a negative effect on the environment and climate. The sincerest evidence of the downfall of our society is people with no education or knowledge on a subject pretending they're experts and all the people with the evidence are part of a conspiracy.

PoS said:
Yeah, right. Look at the kooks in your side: a former VP who predicted the polar ice caps would melt by 2014, a former barista who says we have 12 years left before the world ends, and a high school drop out who claims she can see carbon dioxide in the air. I think your side has the monopoly on nutters there.
Click to expand...

Man's effect on climate is not defined by a handful of liberal politicians that are trying to bring attention to the issue. You're making a scientific issue a political one because you have an agenda and lack the knowledge, training, education or experience in climate science to be an authority on any of it.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Man's effect on climate is not defined by a handful of liberal politicians that are trying to bring attention to the issue. You're making a scientific issue a political one because you have an agenda and lack the knowledge, training, education or experience in climate science to be an authority on any of it.
Click to expand...
There's plenty of scientists who disagree that the world is going to end and the predictions of the IPCC.

List of scientists who disagree with the scientific consensus on global warming - Wikipedia
 
PoS said:
There's plenty of scientists who disagree that the world is going to end.

List of scientists who disagree with the scientific consensus on global warming - Wikipedia
Click to expand...

Thank you, this is a great example. You just googled a wikipedia article you've never read thinking it proves your point when it in fact proves mine.

300px-Climate_science_opinion_graph_3Path.svg.png

Your own ****ing link.

The scientific consensus is overwhelming. The scientific evidence they provide to support these assertions are even more overwhelming. You're the literal equivalent of a flat earther saying science backs your opinion because you found a handful of flat earthers with science degrees. Your stance is 100% political and 0% scientific.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
None of you have spent a single day of your lives studying climate science, yet you pretend that you know more than all of the scientists and experts who have dedicated their lives to providing us mountains and mountains of evidence that mankind does in fact have a negative effect on the environment and climate. The sincerest evidence of the downfall of our society is people with no education or knowledge on a subject pretending they're experts and all the people with the evidence are part of a conspiracy.



Man's effect on climate is not defined by a handful of liberal politicians that are trying to bring attention to the issue. You're making a scientific issue a political one because you have an agenda and lack the knowledge, training, education or experience in climate science to be an authority on any of it.
Click to expand...

WOW....what sort of scientist are you to peer review? Can you tell us all what qualifies you to validate the science?

You most certainly could make a case for your expertise on rhetorical BS, but I seriously doubt you are the one to call anyone uneducated in regards to climate changes.
 
RetiredUSN said:
WOW....what sort of scientist are you to peer review? Can you tell us all what qualifies you to validate the science?

You most certainly could make a case for your expertise on rhetorical BS, but I seriously doubt you are the one to call anyone uneducated in regards to climate changes.
Click to expand...

RetiredUSN: The earth is flat! I may know nothing, but I found a guy on the internet that agrees with me!
RabidAlpaca: No it isn't, we have mountains of undeniable evidence that prove otherwise and the scientific consensus overwhelmingly rejects a flat earth.
RetiredUSN: WELL YOU'RE NOT A SCIENTIST EITHER SO I GUESS OUR OPINIONS ARE EQUAL!
 
That wouldn't be so disconcerting were it not that 2018's April was the third hottest one on record.

1509


​


At the very least, there should be fluctuation rather than each successive year being more hot than previous one, which is a phenomenon of increasing rate of increase or, if one prefers, "exponential growth/increase," "geometric growth/increase" or "logarithmic growth/increase." (A log is just a different way to express an exponent.)

I don't much care how one describes the rate of global temperature increase. I care that we're not taking decisive actions that are in fact takeable so as to attempt to attenuate the rate of global temperature increase. Simply, one either is content with the temperature increase and its consequences, or one is not. If one is not, it's then incumbent on one to advocate for and take action to help attenuate the rate of increase.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
None of you have spent a single day of your lives studying climate science, yet you pretend that you know more than all of the scientists and experts who have dedicated their lives to providing us mountains and mountains of evidence that mankind does in fact have a negative effect on the environment and climate. The sincerest evidence of the downfall of our society is people with no education or knowledge on a subject pretending they're experts and all the people with the evidence are part of a conspiracy.



Man's effect on climate is not defined by a handful of liberal politicians that are trying to bring attention to the issue. You're making a scientific issue a political one because you have an agenda and lack the knowledge, training, education or experience in climate science to be an authority on any of it.
Click to expand...

I dont see an answer to my question in there anywhere
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Thank you, this is a great example. You just googled a wikipedia article you've never read thinking it proves your point when it in fact proves mine.

300px-Climate_science_opinion_graph_3Path.svg.png

Your own ****ing link.

The scientific consensus is overwhelming. The scientific evidence they provide to support these assertions are even more overwhelming. You're the literal equivalent of a flat earther saying science backs your opinion because you found a handful of flat earthers with science degrees. Your stance is 100% political and 0% scientific.
Click to expand...

Science is not advanced by consensus. If it was then Einstien would have never gotten his theories accepted.

And the so-called consensus on global warming is false.

That Scientific Global Warming Consensus...Not!

So where did that famous “consensus” claim that “98% of all scientists believe in global warming” come from? It originated from an endlessly reported 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) survey consisting of an intentionally brief two-minute, two question online survey sent to 10,257 earth scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois. Of the about 3.000 who responded, 82% answered “yes” to the second question, which like the first, most people I know would also have agreed with.

Then of those, only a small subset, just 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals, were considered in their survey statistic. That “98% all scientists” referred to a laughably puny number of 75 of those 77 who answered “yes”.
Click to expand...

Out of the 10K who was surveyed, only 3K responded, and out of these a mere 77 had their papers peer reviewed and out of these it was 75 who said yes.

The vast majority of scientists in the world actually have no opinion or dont know. So the issue is far from resolved.
 
Xelor said:
I don't much care how one describes the rate of global temperature increase. I care that we're not taking decisive actions that are in fact takeable so as to attempt to attenuate the rate of global temperature increase. Simply, one either is content with the temperature increase and its consequences, or one is not. If one is not, it's then incumbent on one to advocate for and take action to help attenuate the rate of increase.
Click to expand...

And just what decisive actions would you like to empower the state to impose upon us serfs?
 
PoS said:
Science is not advanced by consensus. If it was then Einstien would have never gotten his theories accepted.

And the so-called consensus on global warming is false.

That Scientific Global Warming Consensus...Not!



The vast majority of scientists in the world actually have no opinion or dont know. So the issue is far from resolved.
Click to expand...

No, it's furthered by evidence. You're really trying to argue that if you take the entire pool of ALL scientists from all fields completely unrelated to climate and atmospheric sciences, that there is no longer a consensus? Can you show some evidence of that? I guess there's no consensus on electron theory either and must be conspiracy theory bull**** because no majority of ALL scientists from all fields have written papers in support of it!

When it comes to people like you, your political and personal beliefs will ALWAYS outweigh the facts and there is no standard of proof that will convince you otherwise. I wrote what I wrote here for other people that unfortunately wander into this thread and find your garbage.

Fletch said:
I dont see an answer to my question in there anywhere
Click to expand...

You're right, because it was a stupid question posed by someone who thinks his internet research makes him qualified to declare mankind has no effect on the climate, despite all scientific evidence.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
RetiredUSN: The earth is flat! I may know nothing, but I found a guy on the internet that agrees with me!
RabidAlpaca: No it isn't, we have mountains of undeniable evidence that prove otherwise and the scientific consensus overwhelmingly rejects a flat earth.
RetiredUSN: WELL YOU'RE NOT A SCIENTIST EITHER SO I GUESS OUR OPINIONS ARE EQUAL!
Click to expand...

So, this is your argument, your response?

Again, I am asking what qualification(s) do you have to peer review climate change science while you calling posters like PoS.............. uneducated?.
 
RetiredUSN said:
So, this is your argument, your response?

Again, I am asking what qualification(s) do you have to peer review climate change science while you calling posters like PoS.............. uneducated?.
Click to expand...

I'm not peer reviewing papers because I'm not qualified in that field to. People on the internet pretending they are qualified to do just that and declare the entire field a liberal conspiracy should be called out and ridiculed.

And yes, POS is not in any way, shape, or form qualified or educated in climate or atmospheric science and has not spent a day of his life researching it, and neither have you. So both of your conspiracy theory opinions are completely meaningless.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
No, it's furthered by evidence. You're really trying to argue that if you take the entire pool of ALL scientists from all fields completely unrelated to climate and atmospheric sciences, that there is no longer a consensus? Can you show some evidence of that? I guess there's no consensus on electron theory either and must be conspiracy theory bull**** because no majority of ALL scientists from all fields have written papers in support of it!
Click to expand...
What are you talking about? The survey was sent to 10K sceintists who specialized in climate, out of those only 3K responded, and then only 77 was peer reviewed and only 75 said yes.

That's a grand total of 75 papers. 75 out of 10,000+ scientists.

Those are the facts, and it seems to me you'd rather listen to idiots like Greta Thunberg than look at the actual facts. Oh well, thats you.
 
Fletch said:
How sure are you of the accuracy of the global temperature in, say, April of 1881? How about April 1911? How about April 1965? April 1981?
Click to expand...

They aren't sure at all. I've been asking for the instrument and calibration records as well as the training records for those instruments and people involved in generation of the data for years. Not one of them has been able to supply them. Without those their data is qualitative not quantitative. That means it's useful for talk around the water cooler and meaningless as far as science is concerned.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
No, it's furthered by evidence. You're really trying to argue that if you take the entire pool of ALL scientists from all fields completely unrelated to climate and atmospheric sciences, that there is no longer a consensus? Can you show some evidence of that? I guess there's no consensus on electron theory either and must be conspiracy theory bull**** because no majority of ALL scientists from all fields have written papers in support of it!

When it comes to people like you, your political and personal beliefs will ALWAYS outweigh the facts and there is no standard of proof that will convince you otherwise. I wrote what I wrote here for other people that unfortunately wander into this thread and find your garbage.



You're right, because it was a stupid question posed by someone who thinks his internet research makes him qualified to declare mankind has no effect on the climate, despite all scientific evidence.
Click to expand...

Its not a stupid question at all. Let me rephrase it so you can better understand what is being asked. How confident are you that the global temperature data from 100 years ago is accurate? 50 years ago? 25?
 
Bergslagstroll said:
April this year was the second hottest April on record continuing an alarming trend with 9 of the 10 warmest years on record occurring since 2005.



Climate change: Earth just had its second-hottest April on record - Axios

You also have the latest report from the The World Meteorological Organization about how the impacts of global warming are accelerating.

Climate change: Global impacts 'accelerating' - WMO - BBC News
Click to expand...

So?

Why does it matter with all the atmospheric changes and land use change unaccounted for?
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Thank you, this is a great example. You just googled a wikipedia article you've never read thinking it proves your point when it in fact proves mine.

300px-Climate_science_opinion_graph_3Path.svg.png

Your own ****ing link.

The scientific consensus is overwhelming. The scientific evidence they provide to support these assertions are even more overwhelming. You're the literal equivalent of a flat earther saying science backs your opinion because you found a handful of flat earthers with science degrees. Your stance is 100% political and 0% scientific.
Click to expand...

It's amazing how often you see this. The Denying Machine posts links that they don't read. Then one us analyzes it, and realize that it is in total contradiction of AGW Denial. Good job, calling this out!!!
 
2019 El Nino is the only thing pausing the cooling that began in 2016.
 
PoS said:
1880 is still pretty recent in terms of how old the planet is, so this so-called near record heat is meaningless. Just more silly propaganda made by doomsayers.
Click to expand...

Even more so given the 'massaging' of historical temperature data over recent decades
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom