• 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!

Arctic Cold Smashes October Records in the West, Plains

Glitch said:
Consider the source. I never realized you were so gullible. Or are you simply ignorant of astronomy? If you asked any astronomer to compare Earth to Venus they would laugh in your face. You might as well claim that Steven Hawking declared the moon to be made of cheese, it is that level of stupidity. Which is how I know he never said anything of the sort, regardless of your source of propaganda.
Click to expand...

I suppose you think the BBC is lying crap fake news? You must be pretty sure of your analyses of various news sources.
 
Glitch said:
Consider the source. I never realized you were so gullible. Or are you simply ignorant of astronomy? If you asked any astronomer to compare Earth to Venus they would laugh in your face. You might as well claim that Steven Hawking declared the moon to be made of cheese, it is that level of stupidity. Which is how I know he never said anything of the sort, regardless of your source of propaganda.
Click to expand...

You are being absurd - you've just been shown a BBC video of Hawking saying exactly that. This is taking denial to ridiculous lengths.
 
[h=2]Warmth-Demanding Species Present In The Early Holocene Arctic Verify It Was 7°C Warmer Then[/h]By Kenneth Richard on 9. December 2019
[h=4]Scientists find three Arctic (Svalbard) lakes were all ~7°C warmer than they are now about 10,000 years ago – when CO2 concentrations were only 260 ppm.[/h]According to a just-published Geophysical Research Letters paper (van der Bilt et al., 2019), not only were surface temperatures 7°C warmer than today in High Arctic Svalbard due to the accompanying “high radiative forcing” during the Early Holocene, but sea ice limits were well north of the study area back then too.
The authors point out that model “simulations neither reproduce this reconstructed pattern nor its magnitude.” This is presumably because the model simulations are predicated on the assumption CO2 concentrations are a primary climate driver.
Holocene-Cooling-Svalbard-Arctic-7-C-warmer-van-der-Bilt-2019.jpg

[h=6]Image Source: van der Bilt et al., 2019[/h]This paper is yet another in a “growing body of recent work” that uses the prevalence of warmth-demanding (thermophilious) species present in Arctic locations to reconstruct regional temperatures based on a requisite warmth limit for the species’ survival.
Earlier this year Leopold et al., 2019 assessed temperatures were 5-8°C warmer than today in Arctic Svalbard 8 to 10 thousand years ago due to the presence of Mytilus spp, a warmth-loving mussel.
Holocene-Cooling-Svalbard-Arctic-Leopold-2019.jpg

[h=6]Image Source: Leopold et al., 2019[/h]
 
marke said:
I suppose you think the BBC is lying crap fake news? You must be pretty sure of your analyses of various news sources.
Click to expand...

Of course. The BBC is notorious for their anti-Semitism and their repeated lies. Just like every other extreme leftist organization. Since when do you put your trust in leftist propaganda?
 
marke said:
I suppose you think the BBC is lying crap fake news? You must be pretty sure of your analyses of various news sources.
Click to expand...

The BBC is just another M$M that sells a product, and tailors it to their audience.
 
Surface Detail said:
You are being absurd - you've just been shown a BBC video of Hawking saying exactly that. This is taking denial to ridiculous lengths.
Click to expand...

Please explain the compressed data bursts heard in the audio, just before Hawking's synthesizer is activated.
 
Glitch said:
Of course. The BBC is notorious for their anti-Semitism and their repeated lies. Just like every other extreme leftist organization. Since when do you put your trust in leftist propaganda?
Click to expand...

I don't know how leftists think exactly. If a leftist does not accept a report then can he dismiss any obligation obligation to prove the report wrong if he simply declares it to be product of a large association of conspiracy theory propagandists?
 
digitusmedius said:
No matter how hard we've tried we'll never get CAGW deniers to understand the difference between weather and climate. Every time there's a cold snap they immediately trot this stupidity out.
Click to expand...
Fixed:

No matter how hard we've tried we'll never get CAGW worshippers to understand the difference between weather and climate. Every time there's a hot spell they immediately trot this stupidity out.
Click to expand...
 
Lord of Planar said:
Fixed:
Click to expand...

That's another way you lot try impugn the science--try to bring it down to your level of ignorance and deceit. It's so familiar to me since it's the same tactic believers try with non-believers: claiming not believing is just another belief. It's sophistry at its most amateurish and clownish level.
 
marke said:
I don't know how leftists think exactly. If a leftist does not accept a report then can he dismiss any obligation obligation to prove the report wrong if he simply declares it to be product of a large association of conspiracy theory propagandists?
Click to expand...

Goebbels ghost is having a hearty laugh in hell right now.
 
digitusmedius said:
That's another way you lot try impugn the science--try to bring it down to your level of ignorance and deceit. It's so familiar to me since it's the same tactic believers try with non-believers: claiming not believing is just another belief. It's sophistry at its most amateurish and clownish level.
Click to expand...

OMG...

I only showed that the warming claims are no more valid than the cooling claims.

Please wake up, and smell the coffee.
 
Lord of Planar said:
OMG...

I only showed that the warming claims are no more valid than the cooling claims.

Please wake up, and smell the coffee.
Click to expand...

Since you believe a single weather event is evidence of "cooling" you've qualified for being an unschooled, unvarnished denier.
 
digitusmedius said:
Since you believe a single weather event is evidence of "cooling" you've qualified for being an unschooled, unvarnished denier.
Click to expand...

Please take you biased reading glasses on and carefully consider my words.

I am saying that these incidents your side claims when it comes to cherry picked warming events are no more valid than the cherry picked cooling events.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Please take you biased reading glasses on and carefully consider my words.

I am saying that these incidents your side claims when it comes to cherry picked warming events are no more valid than the cherry picked cooling events.
Click to expand...

The person who should pay closer attention to his words is you not me. Calling a winter snow storm in Winter evidence of "cooling" either has no grasp of climate science or deliberately misuses the terminology or both.
 
digitusmedius said:
The person who should pay closer attention to his words is you not me. Calling a winter snow storm in Winter evidence of "cooling" either has no grasp of climate science or deliberately misuses the terminology or both.
Click to expand...

So what do you day about the hot spells in summer?
 
digitusmedius said:
Part two of the thorough debunking of longview's bogus CO₂ "saturation" climate science denial effort:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument-part-ii/
Click to expand...
Do you understand the difference between the opinion of a blog, and the empirical data
actually gathered under atmospheric test conditions?
In the 1960's the research continued,
Error 403 (Forbidden)!!1
And the findings still showed that the atmosphere was already absorbing all of the energy in the wavelengths under question (13.5 to 16 um).
The dipole moments do allow for some frequency broadening at surface pressures, but the outside edges would be absorbed by H2O first.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Ah... but once it hits that saturation of the peak area, the "wings" don't give the same warming effect. There is still warming, but the sensitivity took a severe drop.

Prove me wrong!
Click to expand...

Nothing in that comment makes any sense. To begin with, where does the term "wings" appear in the article and where do you see a comment or graphic evidence that "sensitivity took a drop." Inventing your own terms is the typical way you deniers like to use to obfuscate (lie) about global warming. All you've done is show us either how dishonest you are or how amateurish you understanding of science is--neither of which is news to us.
 
longview said:
Do you understand the difference between the opinion of a blog, and the empirical data
actually gathered under atmospheric test conditions?
In the 1960's the research continued,
Error 403 (Forbidden)!!1
And the findings still showed that the atmosphere was already absorbing all of the energy in the wavelengths under question (13.5 to 16 um).
The dipole moments do allow for some frequency broadening at surface pressures, but the outside edges would be absorbed by H2O first.
Click to expand...

Are you now actually admitting you just have an opinion based on an irrelevant piece of research done some 60 years ago on a subject that has now been thoroughly studied and shows that this idea of CO₂ being a brake on warming is total BS? And from what part of your GI tract did you pull this gem of BS out:
the outside edges would be absorbed by H2O first.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
digitusmedius said:
Nothing in that comment makes any sense. To begin with, where does the term "wings" appear in the article and where do you see a comment or graphic evidence that "sensitivity took a drop." Inventing your own terms is the typical way you deniers like to use to obfuscate (lie) about global warming. All you've done is show us either how dishonest you are or how amateurish you understanding of science is--neither of which is news to us.
Click to expand...
From your citation.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument-part-ii
We see that for the pre-industrial CO2 concentration, it is only the wavelength range between about 13.5 and 17 microns (millionths of a meter) that can be considered to be saturated. Within this range, it is indeed true that adding more CO2 would not significantly increase the amount of absorption. All the red M&M’s are already eaten. But waiting in the wings, outside this wavelength region, there’s more goodies to be had.
Click to expand...
So they are saying exactly what I was saying, the wavelength range between 13.5 and 17 microns can be considered to be saturated.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom