• 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 experienced its hottest September ever recorded

longview said:
The cycle is much longer than 100,000 years, and we will adapt to whatever comes along or die out like any other species.
The question is how much of a change could Humans cause, and would it be significant?
The answer, at least as far as CO2 is concerned, is no, we do not have enough CO2 to matter.
Click to expand...

Baseless opinion and not much else here.
 
Frigidweirdo said:
Baseless opinion and not much else here.
Click to expand...
Not really, there are very real estimates of available natural hydrocarbons.
Even if we found, extracted and burned all of them, it would be unlikely that we could get CO2 levels above
say the 1370 ppm suggested by RCP8.5.
Long before we might be able to do that, using oil for transport fuel, will be priced out of the market.
Coal is already choking on it's logistical tail, oil will be next, and lastly natural gas.
This is not an if opinion, but a when! What oil remains is almost always more expensive to extract than
older wells. Fracking oil wells does not cause a well to produce more oil, but only changes the speed of reservoir depletion.
 
Media_Truth said:
It wasn't 6 years. It was a very short time, and very quickly the scientific community began to overwhelmingly disagree with the cooling advocates, and provide scientific refutes. All major scientific organizations have been talking about warming since then.
Click to expand...

Also that even federal agencies under Donald Trump have to acknowledge the urgent need for action.

Fourth National Climate Assessment
 
Bergslagstroll said:
Hottest September on record, after many other record hot month this year.

Following the hottest summer on record, 2019 continues to head for the history books. Last month was officially the hottest September on record, just slightly hotter (.04 degrees Fahrenheit) than the previous record-holder, September 2016.

Last month was 1.02 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than the average September from 1981-2010 and about 1.2 degrees Fahrenheit above the preindustrial level, according to data released Friday by the Copernicus Climate Change Service, an organization that tracks global temperatures.

According to AFP, the organization is treating the two months as joint record-holders because the difference is negligible.

September follows a record-setting summer, which recorded the hottest June and July, and the second hottest August. This July was the hottest month on record since record-keeping began 140 years ago.

Climate Change: Earth just experienced its hottest September ever recorded - CBS News

There also 2014-2019 are set to become the warmest recorded five year period.

Five-year period ending 2019 set to be hottest on record
Click to expand...

why does this say "hottest September EVER instead of hottest in 140 years?"

does that headline not read true enough?

for some of us...truth in journalism still matters
 
longview said:
It was not even the hottest September in 5 years, 2016 was warmer.
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v4/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
Click to expand...

The CBS link used by Bergie stated this...

Following the hottest summer on record, 2019 continues to head for the history books. Last month was officially the hottest September on record, just slightly hotter (.04 degrees Fahrenheit) than the previous record-holder, September 2016.

.04 degrees is splitting hairs. How about the AGW proponents and the deniers come together on this one, and call it a tie?
 
Media_Truth said:
The CBS link used by Bergie stated this...

Following the hottest summer on record, 2019 continues to head for the history books. Last month was officially the hottest September on record, just slightly hotter (.04 degrees Fahrenheit) than the previous record-holder, September 2016.

.04 degrees is splitting hairs. How about the AGW proponents and the deniers come together on this one, and call it a tie?
Click to expand...

Also that the five warmest year on record have been since 2014.

The 10 Hottest Global Years on Record | Climate Central

You also have a lot of proxy data before you have recorded temperatures that show that the warning that his happening now is unprecedented.

Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet
 
Media_Truth said:
The CBS link used by Bergie stated this...

Following the hottest summer on record, 2019 continues to head for the history books. Last month was officially the hottest September on record, just slightly hotter (.04 degrees Fahrenheit) than the previous record-holder, September 2016.

.04 degrees is splitting hairs. How about the AGW proponents and the deniers come together on this one, and call it a tie?
Click to expand...
In who's data set? Not the GISS.
 
Bergslagstroll said:
Hottest September on record, after many other record hot month this year.

Following the hottest summer on record, 2019 continues to head for the history books. Last month was officially the hottest September on record, just slightly hotter (.04 degrees Fahrenheit) than the previous record-holder, September 2016.

Last month was 1.02 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than the average September from 1981-2010 and about 1.2 degrees Fahrenheit above the preindustrial level, according to data released Friday by the Copernicus Climate Change Service, an organization that tracks global temperatures.

According to AFP, the organization is treating the two months as joint record-holders because the difference is negligible.

September follows a record-setting summer, which recorded the hottest June and July, and the second hottest August. This July was the hottest month on record since record-keeping began 140 years ago.

Climate Change: Earth just experienced its hottest September ever recorded - CBS News

There also 2014-2019 are set to become the warmest recorded five year period.

Five-year period ending 2019 set to be hottest on record
Click to expand...

Thanks for the weather report. I am sure October will be the hottest October ever in record as well. Just give them a few weeks.
 
Bergslagstroll said:
Heatwaves will both become more common, severe and larger in size.

Click to expand...

Environmental Protection Agency

Figure 1. U.S. Annual Heat Wave Index, 1895–2015

high-low-temps-figure1-2016.png


This figure shows the annual values of the U.S. Heat Wave Index from 1895 to 2015. These data cover the contiguous 48 states.
Interpretation: An index value of 0.2 (for example) could mean that 20 percent of the country experienced one heat wave, 10
percent of the country experienced two heat waves, or some other combination of frequency and area resulted in this value.

Data source: Kunkel, 20166
Web update: August 2016​

DATA:

"Figure 1. U.S. Annual Heat Wave Index, 1895-2015",
Source: EPA's Climate Change Indicators in the United States:
"Data source: Kunkel, 2016",
Web update: August 2016,
Units: Heat Wave Index,
,
Year,Heat Wave Index
1895,0.025
1896,0.082
...
2015,0.129
​

Follow this link to see the 1895 to 2015 EPA Heat Wave Index Data
 
Here are some fun facts about global warming.
In 1984 Nasa's James Hansen published a paper about CO2's greenhouse effect.
https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1984/1984_Hansen_ha07600n.pdf
In the paper's introduction, he also cited the fact that Earth should be 255K (-18C)but is really 288K (15C)
This year (2019) a NASA fact sheet places Earth's temperature at 288K (15C)
Earth Fact Sheet
Since we have added quite a bit of CO2 since 1984, and temperatures according to the NASA GISS have increased by .69C,
Should not the calculated temperature of the earth increased?
I have been unable to find the origins of the earth being 33C warmer than it should be,
but it could go back to the nineteenth century.
 
Glitch said:
It depends on the geographical location, of course, but I found that temperature records after 1930 are largely complete. They may miss a day or two in February 1937 in Chicago, for example, but they are not missing weeks, months, and even years of data like they are prior to 1910....
Click to expand...
:roll:

The data between 1880 and 1930 is more than sufficient for us to draw conclusions.

We also have the option of using proxy data to check those conclusions.

And of course, temperatures have risen quite a bit since 1930.

GISS Land and Sea - 1930 to 2018.jpg


According to the NASA GISS data I downloaded, there was a cooling period between 1880 and 1915, followed by a warming period between 1915 and 1945, followed by another cooling period between 1945 and 1980, followed by another warming period from 1980 until 2010 (although my NASA data stops at the end of 2008). If that trend continues then between 2010 and 2045 there should be another cooling period.
Click to expand...
:roll:

Try again. Since 1880, there were only two decades with anything resembling a significant drop in temperatures (1890 and 1950). 9 decades since then showed an increase in temperatures. There is no regular drop in temperatures every 60 years. The current decade is the hottest on record. And of course, overall, global temperatures have increased nearly 1C since 1880.

GISS Land-Ocean, Annual and Decade Averages, 1880-2018.jpg


NASA's data shows a overall temperature increase of 0.89°C and an overall temperature decrease of 0.38°C, resulting in a net temperature increase of 0.51°C between 1880 and 2008.
Click to expand...
:roll:

Thanks for the transparent cherry-picking. 2008 was 0.52C warmer than the 1951-1980 average. However, 2018 was 0.25C warmer than 2008 -- and 2017 was 0.48C warmer than 2008! Annual figures are often influenced by factors like ENSO events. This is why we generally ought to use averages.


This is a very generalized trend for the US only (since all the NASA GISS data originates within the US)....
Click to expand...
Uh, hello? The US is only 6% of the global surface area. You should not use US-only figures to draw conclusions about global warming. The idea that you can somehow get more accurate by ignoring 94% of the Earth's surface is ludicrous.
 
Outlook said:
What are you doing to save the earth?
Click to expand...
sigh

First, facts are facts. The fact is that human activity is having a significant impact on the environment in a short period of time.

Second, there is only so much that individuals can do to reduce the impact of climate change. I may take every step I possibly can to reduce my impact, for example, but that doesn't matter if my local utility continues to use coal plants, my neighbors continue to buy and drive massive SUVs, and millions (if not billions) of people continue business as usual.

Third, environmentalism doesn't mean you have to wear a hair shirt and live in a cave. You just have to be a little more conscious of your impact, and advocate for change.
 
Glitch said:
They didn't predict the end of the world or the end of mankind. What they predicted, with 100% consensus among the 46 scientists at the NSF I might add, was that the Holocene Interglacial Period that began 11,700 years ago had finally come to an end....
Click to expand...
:roll:

There was no "100% consensus" on global cooling. It was a minority viewpoint, and even at that time there were climate scientists who knew that increased CO2 would result in warming. Hansen had already compiled data in 1980 showing that the planet was warming.
 
gdgyva said:
why does this say "hottest September EVER instead of hottest in 140 years?"
Click to expand...
It doesn't say that.

It says "hottest on record."

The CBS article specifically states "This July was the hottest month on record since record-keeping began 140 years ago." The Phys.org article specifically states "The past four years were already the hottest since record-keeping began in 1850."
 
Visbek said:
:roll:

The data between 1880 and 1930 is more than sufficient for us to draw conclusions.
Click to expand...
Really? Then you should be able to tell us what the weather was for any geographical area above 50°N latitude prior to 1915.

Oh, that's right, that data doesn't exist at all. But I'll wager you still think there is "more than sufficient" data to draw conclusions - if you just try to imagine what the data might have looked like in the fantasy-world of insane leftists if they had ever gotten around to collecting any.

Visbek said:
We also have the option of using proxy data to check those conclusions.
Click to expand...
You obviously don't know diddly-squat about NASA GISS temperature survey. It is based entirely upon the temperatures recorded in American towns and cities around the country since 1880. There is no proxy data. Either they have the records, or they don't. In the case of any location above 50°N latitude, there are no temperature records at all. The very first recorded temperature above 50°N latitude appears in 1917 with the founding of the city of Anchorage, AK.

Visbek said:
Try again. Since 1880, there were only two decades with anything resembling a significant drop in temperatures (1890 and 1950). 9 decades since then showed an increase in temperatures. There is no regular drop in temperatures every 60 years. The current decade is the hottest on record. And of course, overall, global temperatures have increased nearly 1C since 1880.

Thanks for the transparent cherry-picking. 2008 was 0.52C warmer than the 1951-1980 average. However, 2018 was 0.25C warmer than 2008 -- and 2017 was 0.48C warmer than 2008! Annual figures are often influenced by factors like ENSO events. This is why we generally ought to use averages.

Uh, hello? The US is only 6% of the global surface area. You should not use US-only figures to draw conclusions about global warming. The idea that you can somehow get more accurate by ignoring 94% of the Earth's surface is ludicrous.
Click to expand...

You are spewing pure leftist propaganda, that has absolutely nothing to do with NASA GISS temperature data. You didn't even know that NASA GISS data is ONLY US surfaces temperatures recorded by other US towns and cities (and not in a very scientific manner either). NASA decides to pick the year 1880 to begin their survey, and you think I'm the one cherry-picking data? ROFL! Only a truly delusional leftist could think their cherry-picked data was somehow more valid.
 
Visbek said:
:roll:

There was no "100% consensus" on global cooling. It was a minority viewpoint, and even at that time there were climate scientists who knew that increased CO2 would result in warming. Hansen had already compiled data in 1980 showing that the planet was warming.
Click to expand...

Reading comprehension is clearly not your strong suit. The article was written in March 1973, and there was a 100% consensus of all 46 Scientists at the National Science Foundation that Global Cooling has ended the Holocene Interglacial Period and started another ~100,000 years of glaciation.

In other words, it was the first example that leftists had completely lost their tiny little delusional minds.
 
Glitch said:
Really? Then you should be able to tell us what the weather was for any geographical area above 50°N latitude prior to 1915.
Click to expand...
As I just wrote: If it's necessary, we can use proxy data to check those temperatures.


You obviously don't know diddly-squat about NASA GISS temperature survey. It is based entirely upon the temperatures recorded in American towns and cities around the country since 1880....
Click to expand...
lol

Epic fail on your part. GISS is based off of GHCN (Global Historical Climatology Network) and ERSST (Extended Reconstructed Sea Surface Temperature). Both are global.
Data.GISS:
GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP v4)

chrome_luOlaK2Wna.jpg


There is no proxy data....
Click to expand...
sigh

I did not say that GISS incorporates proxy data. I said they can check the temperature record against proxy data if it's required, e.g. to make sure the record data is correct.


You are spewing pure leftist propaganda....
Click to expand...
No, I'm citing facts. They just clash with your denial of facts.


NASA decides to pick the year 1880 to begin their survey, and you think I'm the one cherry-picking data? ROFL!
Click to expand...
:roll:

No, they didn't cherry-pick that date. It's because there weren't enough stations before 1880, resulting in too much uncertainty to justify using those records.

DHXLQqCVoAAYIhq


And again, nothing you've said justifies your self-serving choice of 2008. You're busted.
 
Visbek said:
DHXLQqCVoAAYIhq


And again, nothing you've said justifies your self-serving choice of 2008. You're busted.
Click to expand...

Do you deny that by this graph, we might only be less than 0.2 degrees warmer than about 1776?
 
Glitch said:
Reading comprehension is clearly not your strong suit. The article was written in March 1973, and there was a 100% consensus of all 46 Scientists at the National Science Foundation that Global Cooling has ended the Holocene Interglacial Period and started another ~100,000 years of glaciation.
Click to expand...
lol

Oh, you mean that unattributed article, which you're using to distort the reality of the scientific views? What denier website did you dredge that up from?

Back in the real world, there was never any consensus on "global cooling." That's just BS pushed by the deniers. Unless, of course, you think there were only 46 climate scientists in the world in 1973....

http://nora.nerc.ac.uk/id/eprint/11584/1/2008bams2370%2E1.pdf

How the "Global Cooling" Story Came to Be - Scientific American
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom