• 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!

2019 2nd Hottest Year On Record

Threegoofs said:
ALL OF IT.

What'''s Really Warming the World? Climate deniers blame natural factors; NASA data proves otherwise

You want to hear a climate scientist say that? I guarantee you won’t need to look hard.
Click to expand...

All of it is why you are in denial of science.

Their graph for the sun is scientifically incorrect. That is Bloomberg. Not a science journal. They use the IPCC et. al. misrepresentation of solar energy as only it's "direct" effects, and ignore the added indirect effects.

Yes, they are correct that aerosols cool, but they do have minimal surface warning too. What isn't accounted for with aerosols is the melting of ice. They have little to do with warming otherwise.

Nobody here is claiming volcanoes, like a real denier does.

They also don't address the corrections to temperature records.
 
Lord of Planar said:
All of it is why you are in denial of science.

Their graph for the sun is scientifically incorrect. That is Bloomberg. Not a science journal. They use the IPCC et. al. misrepresentation of solar energy as only it's "direct" effects, and ignore the added indirect effects.

Yes, they are correct that aerosols cool, but they do have minimal surface warning too. What isn't accounted for with aerosols is the melting of ice. They have little to do with warming otherwise.

Nobody here is claiming volcanoes, like a real denier does.

They also don't address the corrections to temperature records.
Click to expand...

They don’t address a lot of denier memes, because those are generally BS.

The bottom line is that virtually all climate scientists accept that ALL the warming we have seen is attributable to GHG emissions.

That’s the science. Its clearly stated in the IPCC attribution statement, which says:

It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together. The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Threegoofs said:
They don’t address a lot of denier memes, because those are generally BS.

The bottom line is that virtually all climate scientists accept that ALL the warming we have seen is attributable to GHG emissions.

That’s the science. Its clearly stated in the IPCC attribution statement, which says:
Click to expand...

I don't care what a political body says.

I don't trust anything created by politicians.

They cherry pick from papers, and misrepresent the facts.

This has been proven time and again.
 
calamity said:
No. It’s actually getting ****ing warmer, LP.
Click to expand...
LP also utterly fails to recognize that temperature stations affected by increases in density are corrected to remove those urban heat island effects.

His explanation also utterly fails to explain why rural areas are getting warmer.

2020-01-10_11-47-58.jpg

2020-01-10_11-49-21.jpg

2020-01-10_11-49-56.jpg

Yet another reason why inane arguments by deniers can be safely ignored.
 
Visbek said:
LP also utterly fails to recognize that temperature stations affected by increases in density are corrected to remove those urban heat island effects.

His explanation also utterly fails to explain why rural areas are getting warmer.

View attachment 67271619

View attachment 67271620

View attachment 67271621

Yet another reason why inane arguments by deniers can be safely ignored.
Click to expand...

How close are the rural stations to the land use changes of their cities?

How many people do you think can be in the city and be classes as rural?

Do you even know? The rural stations are contaminated too!
 
Lord of Planar said:
I don't care what a political body says.

I don't trust anything created by politicians.

They cherry pick from papers, and misrepresent the facts.

This has been proven time and again.
Click to expand...

Its written by the top climate scientists.

It’s also pretty much the consensus of scientists in the area, based on multiple studies which are carefully outlined in the report.

So its the entire scientific establishment who claims this versus on anonymous libertarian denier on DP who also has stated he lies about his academic credentials regularly.

I’m going with the IPCC.
 
Lord of Planar said:
How close are the rural stations to the land use changes of their cities?

How many people do you think can be in the city and be classes as rural?

Do you even know? The rural stations are contaminated too!
Click to expand...

These EXACT questions were examined by Richard Muller at BEST.

Deniers were cheering for him, until he found that siting was not a problem.


And years later, deniers just vomit up the same argument, pretending that its never been looked at.

How dishonest.
 
Captain Adverse said:
Well, I do believe that there are some interesting climate trends I've personally observed over the years without support of this data.

Still, the key words are "On Record."

Detailed records didn't begin until the 1850's. About 150 years or so ago.

The Earth has been around for 4,500,000,000 years.

Thus "alarming signs" is relative, as I am sure there have been quite a few "alarming trends" over the millennia. ;)
Click to expand...

Stupid argument to say the least: It was warmer when dinosaurs roamed the earth.

But, we get it. Better to sound dumb than admit someone was wrong.
 
Lord of Planar said:
How close are the rural stations to the land use changes of their cities?
Click to expand...
What an utterly weak response.

Almost all of the stations in Yukon-Koyuk are in the middle of nowhere, 20+ miles away from "towns" (for lack of a better word) with 300 people or less. They're in the wilderness.

The Tupper Lake station (Hamilton County) is on the outskirts of a town of 3000 people.

The closest "town" to the Hopi AZ station is Keams Canyon, which has around 300 people. Do you really think that urban activity is suppressing evapotranspiration.... in rural Arizona?!? Did you forget that we actually have evapotranspiration maps? (On that map, the annual evapotranspiration is 185mm.)

2020-01-10_13-14-43.jpg


How many people do you think can be in the city and be classes as rural?
Click to expand...
How can you not even bother to look at a map, and realize that these are rural counties?

How can you repeatedly ignore that urban stations are corrected, and their temperatures are revised down? As in, the exact opposite direction if you were trying to fool people about global warming?


Do you even know? The rural stations are contaminated too!
Click to expand...
LOL

OK, despite the utter absurdity, I have to ask. How are rural stations "contaminated?!?" Are you really suggesting that a temperature station in the Alaskan back country is somehow ruined by... what exactly? Caribou? Or perhaps collared pika?

Or are you trying to say that every single measurement station in the world, on land and sea, are "contaminated?" And that your only proof is that... they almost all show temperatures rising?
 
Visbek said:
What an utterly weak response.

Almost all of the stations in Yukon-Koyuk are in the middle of nowhere, 20+ miles away from "towns" (for lack of a better word) with 300 people or less. They're in the wilderness.

The Tupper Lake station (Hamilton County) is on the outskirts of a town of 3000 people.

The closest "town" to the Hopi AZ station is Keams Canyon, which has around 300 people. Do you really think that urban activity is suppressing evapotranspiration.... in rural Arizona?!? Did you forget that we actually have evapotranspiration maps? (On that map, the annual evapotranspiration is 185mm.)
Click to expand...

You are right. My response was weak, but then you cherry picked those places. Very few places have their criteria. Hamilton county actually has a smaller population than it did in 1900.
 
Visbek said:
LP also utterly fails to recognize that temperature stations affected by increases in density are corrected to remove those urban heat island effects.

His explanation also utterly fails to explain why rural areas are getting warmer.

View attachment 67271619

View attachment 67271620

View attachment 67271621

Yet another reason why inane arguments by deniers can be safely ignored.
Click to expand...

If you're going to measure how hot it got then you should measure how hot it got, not the average of
the Min & Max January to December.

image.png
 
Lord of Planar said:
You are right. My response was weak, but then you cherry picked those places.
Click to expand...
LOL

No, dude. I looked at 3 random rural areas and posted them. I did not look at 500 counties and pluck out three that showed an increase. Do you really need me to pick more?

2020-01-10_15-54-41.jpg

2020-01-10_15-55-40.jpg

2020-01-10_15-56-48.jpg

2020-01-10_15-57-47.jpg

If there is a rural county somewhere in the US where temperatures are flat or fell, then it is really hard to find. Go ahead, look for yourself.


Very few places have their criteria. Hamilton county actually has a smaller population than it did in 1900.
Click to expand...
LOL

Hello? Have you already forgotten your own claim? "As the populations increase, so does land area and density. This reduces evaporation cooling. Meteorological stations nearby see this loss of cooling as a heat increase." If your theory was correct, then Hamilton County should have shown a decline in temperatures, not a rise. Zomg... Comedy gold

Meanwhile, Herkimer County is right next door, and has almost the same population since 1900 (around 62,000 people). If your theory was correct, temperatures should have stayed flat. Guess what? Temperatures rose.

2020-01-10_16-06-39.jpg


What else ya got?
 
Steve Case said:
If you're going to measure how hot it got then you should measure how hot it got, not the average of
the Min & Max January to December.
Click to expand...
LOL

To start with "average temperature" is NOT the "average of Min & Max." No, what they do is average out the temperatures over a 24 hour period, then average that over monthly and yearly periods.

To continue, you *cough* somehow ignored the daily minimums:

2020-01-10_16-26-19.jpg

Why gosh. I wonder why?

Just for fun, let's look at some other maximums anyway.

2020-01-10_16-33-03.jpg

2020-01-10_16-33-40.jpg

2020-01-10_16-34-37.jpg


I'm running into forum limits, but you get the idea. In most (but not all) cases, maximums are in fact going up. And for the coupe de grace:

2020-01-10_16-36-30.jpg
 
Visbek said:
LOL

To start with "average temperature" is NOT the "average of Min & Max." No, what they do is average out the temperatures over a 24 hour period, then average that over monthly and yearly periods.

To continue, you *cough* somehow ignored the daily minimums:

View attachment 67271638

Why gosh. I wonder why?

Just for fun, let's look at some other maximums anyway.

View attachment 67271640

View attachment 67271641

View attachment 67271643


I'm running into forum limits, but you get the idea. In most (but not all) cases, maximums are in fact going up. And for the coupe de grace:

View attachment 67271644
Click to expand...

I wonder if guys like SC are trying to fool you, others, or are just trying to fool themselves?
 
Last edited:
Visbek said:
LOL

To start with "average temperature" is NOT the "average of Min & Max." No, what they do is average out the temperatures over a 24 hour period, then average that over monthly and yearly periods.

To continue, you *cough* somehow ignored the daily minimums:

View attachment 67271638

Why gosh. I wonder why?

Just for fun, let's look at some other maximums anyway.

View attachment 67271640

View attachment 67271641

View attachment 67271643


I'm running into forum limits, but you get the idea. In most (but not all) cases, maximums are in fact going up. And for the coupe de grace:

View attachment 67271644
Click to expand...

If you would stick to the maximum temperatures during the summer,
you would find that in the eastern United States they are mostly on
the decline. The January-December average Maximum really doesn't
find out how hot it got.
 
Visbek said:
Sigh

I knew that particular denier nonsense would be coming.

Climate scientists have NEVER said “hottest in all of Earth’s history.” And yes, “hottest on record” it is relevant, because it is a continuation of a trend that is over 100+ years now, and it’s a result of human activity.
Click to expand...

Oh calm down! It’s not as if, for example, Australia is on fire.
 
Steve Case said:
If you would stick to the maximum temperatures during the summer,
you would find that in the eastern United States they are mostly on
the decline. The January-December average Maximum really doesn't
find out how hot it got.
Click to expand...

I bet if you only look at Tuesdays in months ending with an ‘r’ in the Southeast states (excluding western Georgia and Gooch county, NC) you might see it’s actually been a cooling trend.

Take that, warmists!
 
Visbek said:
LOL

To start with "average temperature" is NOT the "average of Min & Max." No, what they do is average out the temperatures over a 24 hour period, then average that over monthly and yearly periods.

To continue, you *cough* somehow ignored the daily minimums:

View attachment 67271638

Why gosh. I wonder why?

Just for fun, let's look at some other maximums anyway.

View attachment 67271640

View attachment 67271641

View attachment 67271643


I'm running into forum limits, but you get the idea. In most (but not all) cases, maximums are in fact going up. And for the coupe de grace:

View attachment 67271644
Click to expand...

Minimum temperatures have increased and the Maximum
temperatures have stayed about the same. I would call that
milder weather. You guys seem to be claiming it's a looming
catastrophic disaster.

You keep talking about how hot it got and then you put up a
graph that includes winter temperatures. If you want to know
how hot it got during the year maybe you should look at what
the maximum temperatures were that year. That wouldn't be
January, it would be July.

Here's that quote again from the IPCC:

IPCC Chapter Ten Page 750

Temperature Extremes

Almost everywhere, daily minimum temperatures are projected
to increase faster than daily maximum temperatures, leading to
a decrease in diurnal temperature range.​

It also says there will be more precipitation. But you guys ignore
all that and continue to show pictures of the blazing summer sun
and dry cracked river bottoms when the fact of the matter is that
we are enjoying milder winters. That's true where I live:

Highest annual temperatures Milwaukee WI LINK

Lowest annual temperatures Milwaukee, WI LINK
 
Visbek said:
Sigh

I knew that particular denier nonsense would be coming.

Climate scientists have NEVER said “hottest in all of Earth’s history.” And yes, “hottest on record” it is relevant, because it is a continuation of a trend that is over 100+ years now, and it’s a result of human activity.
Click to expand...

You don't know it but you just deflated your thread
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom