• 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!

A New Explanation of Arctic Warming

Middleground said:
I suck at math but completely understand this. Say the world had 20% farmland and 80% bush land 100 years ago but now has 80% farmland and 20% bush land, do you think there would be a decrease in fires? Of course.
Click to expand...

You're not getting it. Try this too.


[h=2]Australian fires: Climate ‘truth bomb’?[/h][FONT=&quot]Posted on February 24, 2020 by curryja | 217 comments[/FONT]
by Alan Longhurst
Recipe for Australia’s climate ‘truth bomb’: dubious manipulations of the historical temperature record, ignorance of the climate dynamics of the Southern Hemisphere, and ignorance of Australia’s ecological and social history.
Continue reading →
 
Middleground said:
They are progressively getting worse every year. Scientists many years ago predicted this to happen.... get this... by 2020. Talk about bang on, eh?
Click to expand...

Did you read the links that Jack HAys posted about wild fires being down?
 
Middleground said:
I suck at math but completely understand this. Say the world had 20% farmland and 80% bush land 100 years ago but now has 80% farmland and 20% bush land, do you think there would be a decrease in fires? Of course.
Click to expand...

Lots of the world has had increased forestry.

Humanity had chopped down most of what it wanted to chop down by 1920.
 
Tim the plumber said:

Lots of the world has had increased forestry.

Humanity had chopped down most of what it wanted to chop down by 1920.
Click to expand...

That is certainly true for the US. Between 1600 and 1900 we cut down between 25% and 30% of the forests, but since 1920 it has been relatively stable, no significant gain or loss of our forests. However, in nations that are still developing there is still a lot of forest loss, being replaced by agriculture. Despite a slight increase in the greening of the planet due to an increase in atmospheric CO2, our ever increasing population is driving the need for more agriculture.

With regard to improving our planet's forests, doubling or even tripling the amount of atmospheric CO2 would certainly help.
 
vegas giants said:
You guys cant figure out if you like climate models or hate them. Lol
Click to expand...

The depth of ignorance is astonishing as displayed in your posts.

This model, like so many, reveal a departure based on data and actual research and empirical evidence from the consensus which is proclaimed to be all inclusive by the propagandistic Climastrologers.

This model shows that half of the global warming overall is caused by a non-CO2 cause.

What does your incisive intellect reveal to you about the cause and remedy of global warming based on this information?
 
code1211 said:
The depth of ignorance is astonishing as displayed in your posts.

This model, like so many, reveal a departure based on data and actual research and empirical evidence from the consensus which is proclaimed to be all inclusive by the propagandistic Climastrologers.

This model shows that half of the global warming overall is caused by a non-CO2 cause.

What does your incisive intellect reveal to you about the cause and remedy of global warming based on this information?
Click to expand...

You deniers get so angry. Lol.


First this is one study. Let it be repeated half a dozen times and I will get interested in it. No one denies that other factors play a part in global warming. The degree to which they are important should be studied more.


See....I didnt even have to get snippy. Lol
 
code1211 said:
The depth of ignorance is astonishing as displayed in your posts.

This model, like so many, reveal a departure based on data and actual research and empirical evidence from the consensus which is proclaimed to be all inclusive by the propagandistic Climastrologers.

This model shows that half of the global warming overall is caused by a non-CO2 cause.

What does your incisive intellect reveal to you about the cause and remedy of global warming based on this information?
Click to expand...
If you consider that if the ECS from doubling CO2 were the 3C some of the models show, and the 2XCO2 is only 1.1C,
then CO2's contribution would be 42%.
 
vegas giants said:
You deniers get so angry. Lol.


First this is one study. Let it be repeated half a dozen times and I will get interested in it. No one denies that other factors play a part in global warming. The degree to which they are important should be studied more.


See....I didnt even have to get snippy. Lol
Click to expand...

Why should actual, real world data cause you get snippy?
 
longview said:
If you consider that if the ECS from doubling CO2 were the 3C some of the models show, and the 2XCO2 is only 1.1C,
then CO2's contribution would be 42%.
Click to expand...

It seems to be less than certain what the actual contribution from CO2 might be and the complexity of the climate system seems create outcomes that are impossible to accurately predict across decades into the future.

Of course, we can't wait for certainty when "WE MUST ACT NOW!"

In almost every example in my life when an immediate decision was demanded, the guy demanding that decision was trying to lure me into a swindle of one type or another.

After 4.5 billion years, I'm pretty sure the planet will do just fine whether we ACT NOW or wait until we know what's actually happening.
 
code1211 said:
Why should actual, real world data cause you get snippy?
Click to expand...

I like real data. Repeat it a half dozen times and get back to me. One study?????



Are you kidding???
 
vegas giants said:
I like real data. Repeat it a half dozen times and get back to me. One study?????



Are you kidding???
Click to expand...

Again, I am only observing and noting for the dogmatically blinded that there is no consensus, that there are alternative ideas based on empirical data and, as additional research is conducted, additional data is revealed that seems to undermine the legitimacy of demands to adhere to dogmatic allegiance.

You don’t need to abandon your dogma or ask questions.

You have the right to remain uncurious.
 
code1211 said:
Again, I am only observing and noting for the dogmatically blinded that there is no consensus, that there are alternative ideas based on empirical data and, as additional research is conducted, additional data is revealed that seems to undermine the legitimacy of demands to adhere to dogmatic allegiance.

You don’t need to abandon your dogma or ask questions.

You have the right to remain uncurious.
Click to expand...

The consensus is overwhelming for agw
 
code1211 said:
Again, I am only observing and noting for the dogmatically blinded that there is no consensus, that there are alternative ideas based on empirical data and, as additional research is conducted, additional data is revealed that seems to undermine the legitimacy of demands to adhere to dogmatic allegiance.

You don’t need to abandon your dogma or ask questions.

You have the right to remain uncurious.
Click to expand...

You know you are dealing with a troll, right? No matter what you post he will always post something contrary. You will get no debate, no sources, no arguments from this troll, just unintelligent nonsense for as long as you are willing to feed it. After a certain point, however, those who continually feed trolls are demonstrating that they are even less bright than the moronic troll because they are unable to recognize the troll.
 
Glitch said:
You know you are dealing with a troll, right? No matter what you post he will always post something contrary. You will get no debate, no sources, no arguments from this troll, just unintelligent nonsense for as long as you are willing to feed it. After a certain point, however, those who continually feed trolls are demonstrating that they are even less bright than the moronic troll because they are unable to recognize the troll.
Click to expand...

I frequently post peer reviewed evidence. You almost never do. You are not here to debate....you are here to attack the person not the argument. Thankfully you wont read this so I wont have to hear your response. It would just be more personal attacks.....its all you have
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom