• We will be rebooting the server around 4:30 AM ET. We should be back up and running in approximately 15 minutes.
  • 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!

Global Warming Confirmed

Threegoofs said:
Consensus is constantly used.

How do you think someone comes up with the concept of a study? Consensus that the issue is pertinent and relevant.

How do you think someone comes up with the methodology? Consensus on what is sound methodology.

How does someone get funding? Consensus that the proposal is worth putting money into because the consensus of the science is that it will lead to valuable results.

Etc etc etc.

This is why we dont see homeopathy being compared to faith healing being compared to ventricular assist devices in heart failure trials.
Click to expand...

The never ending self perpetuating circle of ignorance.
 
flogger said:
I'm sorry but where is the empirical evidence here that the current earths temperatures are outwith the natural variation of even the last few thousand years ?

(Kobashi 2011 4000 year Arctic ice core temperature data)

View attachment 67252285
Click to expand...

Here's a link for that graph source.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2011GL049444

This observation is near the end:
[16] This conclusion differs somewhat from the result of a recent reconstruction of Arctic summer air temperature over the past 2000 years, which indicates that a long cooling trend over the last 2000 years ended with a pronounced warming during the twentieth century [Kaufman et al., 2009]. Possible reasons for the differences are numerous, and include at a minimum 1) our record is a mean‐annual temperature, not a summer temperature, and variability is minimal in summer but highest in winter [Box, 2002]; 2) differences between air and snow temperature may be influenced by changes in cloud cover and wind speed, which affect the strength of the near‐surface inversion; and 3) our site is not necessarily representative of the whole Arctic, and may respond in opposite ways to annular mode fluctuations.
Click to expand...
 
Threegoofs said:
Consensus is constantly used.
Click to expand...
Nope. Consensus is only used in politics or religion. It is not used in science.
Threegoofs said:
How do you think someone comes up with the concept of a study?
Click to expand...
Science isn't a 'study' or a 'research'. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.
Threegoofs said:
Consensus that the issue is pertinent and relevant.
Click to expand...
Unnecessary. One can study something on their own. They do not need to have a consensus with anyone.
Threegoofs said:
How do you think someone comes up with the methodology?
Click to expand...
Science isn't a 'method' or a 'procedure'. It is a set of falsifiable theories.
Threegoofs said:
Consensus on what is sound methodology.
Click to expand...
Science is not a 'method' or a 'procedure'. It is a set of falsifiable theories.
Threegoofs said:
How does someone get funding?
Click to expand...
Science isn't 'funding'.
Threegoofs said:
Consensus that the proposal is worth putting money into because the consensus of the science is that it will lead to valuable results.
Click to expand...
No, that's politics, not science.
Threegoofs said:
This is why we dont see homeopathy being compared to faith healing being compared to ventricular assist devices in heart failure trials.
Click to expand...
But you do.
 
Time to end the snooty off-topic remarks, and get back on topic. Trump installed a denier as the head of NASA - Jim Bridenstine. Within 4-5 weeks he did a 180, and is now a believer in human-caused global warming.

Trump's NASA Chief Changed His Mind on Climate Change. He Is a Scientific Hero. | Space

"I don't deny the consensus," Bridenstine said at a NASA town hall meeting. "I believe fully in climate change and that we human beings are contributing to it in a major way."

When asked why he changed his mind, Bridenstine told The Washington Post, "I heard a lot of experts, and I read a lot. I came to the conclusion myself that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, that we've put a lot of it into the atmosphere, and therefore we have contributed to the global warming that we've seen."

Bridenstine has also backed up his rhetoric with vocal support for NASA's climate missions, which have been threatened under a Trump presidency.

"We spend over $100 million dollars annually … on carbon monitoring at NASA," Bridenstine told a small group of reporters at NASA's Washington D.C. headquarters. "We're committed to that. And I'm committed to that."
 
Media_Truth said:
Time to end the snooty off-topic remarks, and get back on topic. Trump installed a denier as the head of NASA - Jim Bridenstine. Within 4-5 weeks he did a 180, and is now a believer in human-caused global warming.

Trump's NASA Chief Changed His Mind on Climate Change. He Is a Scientific Hero. | Space

"I don't deny the consensus," Bridenstine said at a NASA town hall meeting. "I believe fully in climate change and that we human beings are contributing to it in a major way."

When asked why he changed his mind, Bridenstine told The Washington Post, "I heard a lot of experts, and I read a lot. I came to the conclusion myself that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, that we've put a lot of it into the atmosphere, and therefore we have contributed to the global warming that we've seen."

Bridenstine has also backed up his rhetoric with vocal support for NASA's climate missions, which have been threatened under a Trump presidency.

"We spend over $100 million dollars annually … on carbon monitoring at NASA," Bridenstine told a small group of reporters at NASA's Washington D.C. headquarters. "We're committed to that. And I'm committed to that."
Click to expand...

How childish to call people deniers.

Is he like Into the Night?
 
I'm still looking for a warmist who will give some evidence that man's behavior is changing the earth's temperature.

If you response is one of these, don't bother:
**** you
You're stupid
Read something
It's obvious
 
tonyeveland said:
I'm still looking for a warmist who will give some evidence that man's behavior is changing the earth's temperature.

If you response is one of these, don't bother:
**** you
You're stupid
Read something
It's obvious
Click to expand...

The truth is, we may have contributed. Mostly with aerosols and land use changes though. Greenhouse gasses are real, so we at least have a small effect there.
 
Jack Hays said:
Just another propaganda effusion. No new evidence presented.
Click to expand...

Global warming has been going on since the last ice age ended. It is what ended the ice age and allowed man to flourish into the billions. There has never been an issue about whether we have been living in an era of global warming. It is a fact that our green house gases contribute to global warming. The question is whether man and our green house gases are significant enough to be a problem. Of course when you are talking about melting ice the size of a continent between a mile and 2 miles thick I would look to the sun for that kind of energy. I don't think we have produced enough energy to melt that much ice since man existed. Especially if we were supposed to be going into another ice age. I don't think we could stop the next ice age if we wanted to.
 
PIPEWRENCH said:
Global warming has been going on since the last ice age ended. It is what ended the ice age and allowed man to flourish into the billions. There has never been an issue about whether we have been living in an era of global warming. It is a fact that our green house gases contribute to global warming. The question is whether man and our green house gases are significant enough to be a problem. Of course when you are talking about melting ice the size of a continent between a mile and 2 miles thick I would look to the sun for that kind of energy. I don't think we have produced enough energy to melt that much ice since man existed. Especially if we were supposed to be going into another ice age. I don't think we could stop the next ice age if we wanted to.
Click to expand...

Of course when you are talking about melting ice the size of a continent between
a mile and 2 miles thick I would look to the sun for that kind of energy.​
It isn't a matter of melting, it's a matter of how much snow falls and how much ice calves into the sea.
 
Steve Case said:
Of course when you are talking about melting ice the size of a continent between
a mile and 2 miles thick I would look to the sun for that kind of energy.​
It isn't a matter of melting, it's a matter of how much snow falls and how much ice calves into the sea.
Click to expand...

So it does not take longer colder winters to build up ice sheets the size of continents? It does not require warmer weather to melt 20,000 square miles of ice miles thick. That was in North America only. There was an ice sheet across Europe and Asia as well. I assume it was all those camp fires by our ancestors.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom