• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • 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!

Is The Earth Warming? Forget the How or Why.

Is the Earth warming? (forget anything regarding the cause)


  • Total voters
    78
Be sure to cash your ExxonMobil check this week

BTW, even you should be able to recognize that you can't even defend your own statements which means that you lose.

Still waiting for YOUR concession but not expecting it since it would prove you to be full of it.
 
BTW, even you should be able to recognize that you can't even defend your own statements which means that you lose.

Still waiting for YOUR concession but not expecting it since it would prove you to be full of it.

Ok what do you want evidence of?
 
Dude all I am asking for you to do is back your claim. You can post anything you want on here.....but if you cant back it up you will get called out on it

And I have asked you to back up yours and nothing. Seems like you truly are one way and not to bright.
 
Ok what do you want evidence of?

Any of your claims, which to this point you have failed to back up.

Of course, that isn't your style. Just continue to be juvenile with a playground IQ. It is what you do best.
 
Any of your claims, which to this point you have failed to back up.

Of course, that isn't your style. Just continue to be juvenile with a playground IQ. It is what you do best.

Pick one. I will show you how it's done.


Watch this folks. Lol
 
How well do you know science? Do you understand what the enthalpy of vaporization is? Ground water retention from rain? How much water that once used to soak in the ground and provide evaporation cooling throughout the year, now is going in storm sewers instead? This is above and beyond the albedo and emmisivity changes of natural vegetation to concrete, asphalt, and buildings.

For every 1 cm of rain water that in the past would soak into the ground, not make it to a stream or river, and later evaporate back into the atmosphere, cools the ground by 22,570,000 joules for every square meter. A joule is one watt-second. Therefore, for every centimeter in a year loss to storm sewers rather than being evaporated, we lose 0.716 W/m^2 of cooling. More to the point, the net warning is 0.716 W/m^2.

What does that mean for where you live? Here in Portlandia, we get an annual average of 42 inches a year. That's over 100 centimeters a year. Naturally, some of it before we capped of the land would make it's way to streams and rivers, but most would be absorbed by the land and later cause cooling. If we lost 60 centimeters in Portlandia to storm sewers that would have previous cooled the land, then we lost 42.9 W/m^2 of cooling...

In other words, this effect caused 42.9 W/m^2 of the urban heat island effect. I laugh when alarmists cry about "record temperatures" in a city, then play it off as CO2 and other effects. Sure, it's man-made, but mostly because we have practically got rid of the areas natural cooling.

Now the contamination to meteorological station.

I don't think there are any meteorological station in use, that are far enough away, that when they are downwind of a town or city, aren't affected by the warmer air, cause by loss of evaporation cooling.

I really don't care to continue, and probably go past 5,000 characters explaining how albedo works. And how little soot it takes to reduce the albedo enough to do ten times more melting of ice than CO2 or a small temperature increase ever could.

Ohfer****sakes. What a pile of bull**** deflection. Who cares about groundwater retention in Portlandia? I'm talking about permafrost in the north and the ice-free season. Stuff that actually matters. Stuff like acidification in seawater that inhibits shellfish aquaculture. You guys can banter meaningless phrases and cite worthless internet blogs till the cows come hone but the effects of global warming aren't coming, they're here. And the snowball is picking up speed.
 
Pick one. I will show you how it's done.


Watch this folks. Lol

Find one that you have actually made, defend it (since you never made one this should be fun) and then discuss it. You will fail of course since you never made one.
 
Find one that you have actually made, defend it (since you never made one this should be fun) and then discuss it. You will fail of course since you never made one.


Hahahaha.


Right on cue.



Perfect. Lol
 
July 2019 was hottest month on record for the planet | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

The average global temperature in July was 1.71 degrees F above the 20th-century average of 60.4 degrees, making it the hottest July in the 140-year record, according to scientists at NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information. The previous hottest month on record was July 2016.

Nine of the 10 hottest Julys have occurred since 2005—with the last five years ranking as the five hottest. Last month was also the 43rd consecutive July and 415th consecutive month with above-average global temperatures.


But it's all lies right? :roll:
 
But hey - forget the news from the US, because the US is full of liars trying to get money...

Warmest October on record occurred in 2019, Europe's climate monitor says | Euronews

Average temperatures across the world in October 2019 were the warmest on record for that month, the EU’s earth monitoring service Copernicus said on Tuesday.

October 2019 was 0.69°C warmer than the month's average from 1981-2010. In Europe, the month was 1.1°C warmer than the average October in the same timespan.

According to Copernicus, experts agree that the temperature datasets show a sustained period of above-average temperatures from 2001.

Copernicus findings are based on computer-generated analysis using measurements from satellites, ships, aircraft and weather stations worldwide.
 
34 pages are too much for me to read so I relied on the abstract. You do know that one of your perturbations is increased atmospheric CO2, the climate change driver we are talking about. Interestingly enough, a follow up study published in 2005 (your source came from 1997) makes explicit reference to the former study as an assist in studying climate change. Error - Cookies Turned Off

One problem with using old research is there is often newer research that contradicts your claims.
Well Hansen 2005 did not contradict Hansen 97, James Hansen is the AGW leader in chief and has not changed his position.
No! In AGW the warming perturbation from added CO2 is the input to the feedbacks, but the feedbacks would respond to ANY warming input event.
 
Well Hansen 2005 did not contradict Hansen 97, James Hansen is the AGW leader in chief and has not changed his position.
No! In AGW the warming perturbation from added CO2 is the input to the feedbacks, but the feedbacks would respond to ANY warming input event.

:roll:


:doh
 
When I went to college, way back when, grades where given as an A=4.0, B=3.0, C=2.0, etc. All these course grades; 4,3,2 etc, were then averaged to get your GPA.

In the decades that followed, there was a phenomena called grade inflation. The GPA's were rising like global warming temperatures. The reason they rose what not so much that the courses were easier or the students were smarter. Rather the grading scale had been expanded to include B+=3.5 and C+=2.5, etc. Before if you got an 87 average in a course, that was worth 3.0. Now the same average, in the same course, with the same tests, would be worth 3.5, causing the GPA average to rise. This has been expanded in some places to add A+=4.3 and A-=3.75, etc.

There is a similar affect going on in terms of the measurements of the local temperatures, that are average into the average global temperature GPA. As technology improved, based on all the money being spent on weather and climate during the digital age, temperature went from 3.0 to 3.5, for the same grade, in the same course. Mercury and alcohol thermometers are not as accurate as digital thermometers using the latest sensor technologies and assumptions.The global temperature rise, we are discussing, is in fractions of a degree each year, which could not be accurately measured or seen 100 years ago. There was no B+=3.5.

My recommendation, is to level the playing field, by using only the same tools as 140 years ago. This will be like returning to the 2.0, 3.0 and 4.0 grade system and then compare GPA. This way we test the hypothesis of grade inflation; temperature rise, being a measurement bias, and not a change in the student body.
 
Last edited:
Ohfer****sakes. What a pile of bull**** deflection. Who cares about groundwater retention in Portlandia? I'm talking about permafrost in the north and the ice-free season. Stuff that actually matters. Stuff like acidification in seawater that inhibits shellfish aquaculture. You guys can banter meaningless phrases and cite worthless internet blogs till the cows come hone but the effects of global warming aren't coming, they're here. And the snowball is picking up speed.

First off, I gave Portland as an example because I'm familiar with the weather history since the 60's. I explained why temperature readings are skewed over time, as more land gets capped off.

You want explanations on permafrost? I don't have all explanations for everything, but what I most commonly do is explain effects that occur that are generally denied by the alarmists. Soot has been falling in the polar areas far more with industrialization than ever before. The permafrost areas are generally between 60 and 68 degrees latitude. There isn't always snow, but when there is, the high albedo reflects the sunlight and it stays cooler longer. Soot speeds up the melting of the ice. Now the land and vegetation is exposed to sunlight for longer periods of time over the yer. This is one cause of the permafrost unfreezing, and most likely the major cause.

Do you understand what albedo is?
 
Does it seem that way to you? Jesus Christ, liberals are like a ****ing pandamonium of parrots. SQUAWK!!! Russian Collusion Russian Collusion SQUAWK!!! Climate Change Oh Climate Change!!! SQUAAAAAAAAAAWK!!! Quid pro quo Quid pro quo!!!!! SQUAAAAAAAAAAAAAWK!!!

Don't you people have anything else to bitch about?

Damn...
 
I think it's beyond obvious that yes, the Earth is warming, and has been for quite a few decades now.

It warmed a little bit on the average, but the effects are negligible, so its all a big nothingburger.
 
First off, I gave Portland as an example because I'm familiar with the weather history since the 60's. I explained why temperature readings are skewed over time, as more land gets capped off.

You want explanations on permafrost? I don't have all explanations for everything, but what I most commonly do is explain effects that occur that are generally denied by the alarmists. Soot has been falling in the polar areas far more with industrialization than ever before. The permafrost areas are generally between 60 and 68 degrees latitude. There isn't always snow, but when there is, the high albedo reflects the sunlight and it stays cooler longer. Soot speeds up the melting of the ice. Now the land and vegetation is exposed to sunlight for longer periods of time over the yer. This is one cause of the permafrost unfreezing, and most likely the major cause.

Do you understand what albedo is?

Soot? Soot falling on the tundra is causing the permafrost to melt? Lemme get this straight- you're saying that soot on the snow makes the snow melt and this lets the permafrost melt and this is what's making underground pipes buckle and buildings lean?
You're just making this up. You remember someone somewhere putting this theory forward as a reason the polar ice and glaciers are melting and you're hoping to slide it past me as a reason permafrost is being affected. Next you'll be telling me that soot is the reason the icecap reforms later and later.
Is soot causing the pH level in the seawater to drop here to the point that shellfish aquaculture is affected? Science says that CO2 dissolving in water causes this but I bet you know a blog with a different explanation.
This is all requiring a greater degree of creativity from you deniers as the effects start to gain momentum.
 
NASA is staffed by leftists with a self-serving agenda. You need to get your information from random bloggers and obscure internet dumpster sites if you want the straight poop. Some retired weatherman carries more weight on this subject than NASA, NOAA, and the British Antarctic Survey all put together.

Maybe I can find a college dropout blogger website like WUWT?
 
Hahahaha.


Right on cue.



Perfect. Lol

As predicted, no defending of something that you did not do.

The truth hurts those congenital liars like you.

You have become pathetic with your continuing attention seeking and childish behavior. It has even been noted by others on these boards.
 
As predicted, no defending of something that you did not do.

The truth hurts those congenital liars like you.

You have become pathetic with your continuing attention seeking and childish behavior. It has even been noted by others on these boards.

If you would like evidence of something.....ask for it.


You have nothing to add to this debate.


You are simply obsessed with me. Lol
 
Well Hansen 2005 did not contradict Hansen 97, James Hansen is the AGW leader in chief and has not changed his position.
No! In AGW the warming perturbation from added CO2 is the input to the feedbacks, but the feedbacks would respond to ANY warming input event.

Okay, so you found a source, but you really don't understand what it is saying. It says that added atmospheric CO2 impacts the perturbations (and they are not clear on what the changes in atmospheric carbon mean. The fact that you say Hansen did not contradict Hansen is hilarious. It points out that he ignores more recent studies in his research. By the way, we are worried about global climate change not average global warming. Averages are not a scientific construct. A billionaire and 999 paupers averages out to a 1,000 millionaires.
 
Back
Top Bottom