• 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!

All-time record heat scorches Middle East as temperatures hit 129 degrees

Again with your not taking responsibility for the words you wrote. I thought libertarians were all about personal responsibility. Why can't you practice what you preach?

LOL what are you babbling about now?

Man-made AGW is redundant and whining about the OP is ridiculous.
LOL redundant? So you agree that it isnt proven then? Good, finally we're making progress.

If you can't take the data and prove there is no global warming, then your position on this subject lacks merit.
lolwhut? Who said there wasnt any global warming?

Show me the evidence that the hottest temperature in Death Valley reflects global temperature maximums? Oh, you can't, so why are your statements relevant?
Show me evidence that the recorded temp in the mideast reflects global temp maxes.

It's dumb to keep claiming a record in Death Valley supports a global warming maximum when all existing data proves the hypothesis wrong.
LOL strawman. Who is saying that?

The highest global temperature wasn't related to what happened in Death Valley and the data proves it.
What does it relate to, then? Please tell us.
 
Which part? We have warmed and cooled in the past, without any human involvement.
and CO2 levels in the past have risen and fallen without any Human involvement.
Adding CO2 likely can cause warming, the actual amount is still in question.
The real question is feedbacks, and not CO2, and the data does not support the high level of feedbacks
necessary for the catastrophic levels of warming.

There is no likely in a scientific law. If enough CO2 is added to the Earth's atmosphere, it has to cause warming and the amount of warming can be determined rather accurately. The measurements of the IPCC tend to be conservative and beyond a tipping point, people lack the technology to stop it. There will be too much obvious positive feedback to stop it. It should be obvious, a resultant forces pushing something towards a tipping point lacks the capacity to prevent something tipping at some point. The vector of force only changes things in one direction.
 
Do you know how cheaply some science research gets done by someone working on getting a degree? Do you know what peer review is? It's possible for a scientific crime to occur with something obscurely lacking much interest, but not on real important topics of interests. You obviously know very little about science and where the money can be made. It isn't doing global warming research, that's done for reputation and science for the sake of science.

Anti-AGW deniers post material that is easily traced to it's original source. The funding for tax exempt, non-profit, right-wing think tanks are easily traced to their source for income supporting them and sometimes even an individual's special interests is shown. Public records are required. I've seen times such right-wing think tanks have known a bad report about poverty is due and posted "poverty in America isn't so bad" misinformation the very day the report was released.
So tell me, When I say I think the models are running hot because sunlight renders CO2 transparent to infrared absorption,
where is that concept easily traced to?
 
LOL what are you babbling about now?


LOL redundant? So you agree that it isnt proven then? Good, finally we're making progress.


lolwhut? Who said there wasnt any global warming?


Show me evidence that the recorded temp in the mideast reflects global temp maxes.


LOL strawman. Who is saying that?


What does it relate to, then? Please tell us.

Meaning replies really prove your case while claiming false victories. Your Death Valley claim is bogus and you know it. You obviously don't have anything better to do than spread misinformation and make childish arguments. How is my quote: "It's dumb to keep claiming a record in Death Valley supports a global warming maximum when all existing data proves the hypothesis wrong." become a strawman argument when it's about the thread title and your argument. I didn't attempt to change the subject about that, you did. Where is the evidence to support your claim? You know no such evidence exists, so it's just say so.
 
So tell me, When I say I think the models are running hot because sunlight renders CO2 transparent to infrared absorption,
where is that concept easily traced to?

So wear your blankets during the day light and prove the physics wrong. Maybe the extra heat will clear your mind, like a sweat lodge.
 
There is no likely in a scientific law. If enough CO2 is added to the Earth's atmosphere, it has to cause warming and the amount of warming can be determined rather accurately. The measurements of the IPCC tend to be conservative and beyond a tipping point, people lack the technology to stop it. There will be too much obvious positive feedback to stop it. It should be obvious, a resultant forces pushing something towards a tipping point lacks the capacity to prevent something tipping at some point. The vector of force only changes things in one direction.

There is no scientific law in the concept known as a greenhouse gas,
The concept is that CO2 absorbs 15 um photons, because that is the only window H2O left.
What is not known is how much effect that actually causes.
Lab experiments have failed to detect much change in power levels as CO2 levels increase,
although not much testing has been done in a century.
CO2 can under the right conditions (ground state) absorb a 15 um photon, but unless if collides with another
atom or molecule, CO2 takes a very long quantum time to get rid of that energy, and the entire time that molecule cannot
absorb any additional 15 um photons. This means a fixed quantity of CO2 would quickly become saturated,
and would be much less efficient in absorbing photons.
The prediction of the amount of warming CO2 can cause is not measured but strictly calculated,
no actual measurements back up the calculations. The accuracy is limited to the accuracy of the assumptions used in the calculations.
Also there does not appear to be any warming tipping points, but there likely is a cooling tipping point.
Were there a warming tipping point, it would have tipped during one of the 4 other inter glacial s, in the last 500,000 years.
Let review this positive feedback a bit, How long do you think the period is between the warming perturbation and say 60 % of ECS?
Hansen says 37.5 years! How much positive feedback would it take to make the 2XCO2 perturbation of 1.1C reach an ECS of 3 C?
that one is easy, 3/1.1=2.727 times the input.
The climate system is incapable of distinguishing the source of warming, all warming looks like an input to the feedbacks.
Hadcrut4 shows we have .288 C of warming before 1950, and total warming of .9 C.
Table 2 of NOAA's greehouse gas index, shows a 2108 CO2eq, of 496 ppm
this would place the 1950 CO2eq level at 306 ppm
NOAA/ESRL Global Monitoring Division - THE NOAA ANNUAL GREENHOUSE GAS INDEX (AGGI)
So (5.35 X ln(496/306)X.3)=.77C,
.78 C + the pre 1950 .288 C is 1.068 C.
There is no positive number we can multiply times the .288 C to get the total to be .9 C!
So ether the feedback is negative, or the forcing number is too high, or both.
 
So wear your blankets during the day light and prove the physics wrong. Maybe the extra heat will clear your mind, like a sweat lodge.
Your statement was,
"Anti-AGW deniers post material that is easily traced to it's original source."
so can you easily tell me the source?
 
Meaning replies really prove your case while claiming false victories. Your Death Valley claim is bogus and you know it. You obviously don't have anything better to do than spread misinformation and make childish arguments. How is my quote: "It's dumb to keep claiming a record in Death Valley supports a global warming maximum when all existing data proves the hypothesis wrong." become a strawman argument when it's about the thread title and your argument. I didn't attempt to change the subject about that, you did. Where is the evidence to support your claim? You know no such evidence exists, so it's just say so.

Wrong. Its a perfect rebuttal against the OP since he claims the record temp in the ME is evidence of AGW, when in actuality its not a world temp record at all. Higher temps have been recorded in the distant past, which completely demolishes the article as an argument for manmade AGW. Anyone with half a brain could have figured this out.
 
LOL what are you babbling about now?

Don't play dumb. You deliberately made a strawman and are failing miserably at gaslighting us over it.
 
Meaning replies really prove your case while claiming false victories. Your Death Valley claim is bogus and you know it. You obviously don't have anything better to do than spread misinformation and make childish arguments. How is my quote: "It's dumb to keep claiming a record in Death Valley supports a global warming maximum when all existing data proves the hypothesis wrong." become a strawman argument when it's about the thread title and your argument. I didn't attempt to change the subject about that, you did. Where is the evidence to support your claim? You know no such evidence exists, so it's just say so.

That's what deniers do. They deliberately distort the truth, and when you call them on it, they act like they don't know what you're talking about. That or they come back with even more "alternative facts."
 
There is no likely in a scientific law. If enough CO2 is added to the Earth's atmosphere, it has to cause warming and the amount of warming can be determined rather accurately. . . . .

Sorry, but if that were true there would be no dispute about ECS and TCR. Hint: There is.
 
That's what deniers do. They deliberately distort the truth, and when you call them on it, they act like they don't know what you're talking about. That or they come back with even more "alternative facts."

Unlike AGW advocates, who dodge the data and retreat to authority arguments.
 
Sorry, but if that were true there would be no dispute about ECS and TCR. Hint: There is.

There is always a dispute about anything, what planet are you on?
 
All-time record heat scorches Middle East as temperatures hit 129 degrees[h=1]

All-time record heat scorches Middle East as temperatures hit 129 degrees[/h]Temperatures soared to over 129 degrees in the Middle East Thursday and Friday, possibly setting all-time records for the Eastern Hemisphere.

The temperature in Mitribah, Kuwait, Thursday soared to 129.2 degrees, which if verified, would be Earth's hottest temperature ever reliably measured outside of Death Valley, Calif., according to the Weather Underground's weather historian Christopher C. Burt.
On Friday, Basra, Iraq, reached that same torrid temperature, setting an all-time record for that nation.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The temperature in Kuwait in the sun hit 145 degrees today, 129 in the shade. Two of the world's four all-time hottest temperatures have occurred in the past 3 years. No, this is not normal for Kuwait. Sure, everyone knows it gets hot in deserts, but to hit an all time record, for the 4th time in 3 years is disturbingly evidence of global warming.




Some here will argue it's proof that the earth is cooling. ;)
 
Some here will argue it's proof that the earth is cooling. ;)

Or that the earth is flat and everything evens out because of gravity. :doh
 
The point is that your claim was false and, unfortunately, uninformed.

Then prove how adding CO2 to the atmosphere doesn't cause warming. At some point, the CO2 level is high enough to cause 22*C annual global temperature warming like the paleoclimatic record shows. Our present ice age cycles began when the circum-equatorial current was blocked by Panama connecting the North and South American continents, a major current that existed for hundreds of million of years. A circum-equatorial current only has to be near the equator at times and doesn't have to remain on the equator all the time if blocked by land to force a detour, so there isn't a need to play the semantics game with me. The current existed and it's well documented by real scientists. That temperature doesn't sound like much, but it's enough to put fossilized alligators in the arctic and they don't like cold water.
 
That isn't the case. There is good data to get good enough measurements of global temperatures by many means. It isn't like accurate thermometers were invented yesterday and neither were weather stations. Places on Earth were snow has accumulated during a past period of time have records that can be dated annually in some cases. They all haven't melted away in every location. The advancements in dating have been truly amazing in the past 50 years.

Temperature increase tailing CO2 increase is a natural phenomenon, too. Why wouldn't it be, physics is physics.
When has there been good measurements of global temperature? It's not an easy task. The last ten years I can give you. 20 years is a maybe for some uses. More than 30 years ago we did not have the knowledge base to do it properly. If we are being generous, we can use that for an excuse of the predictions made 30 years ago that were so far wrong. Snowpack data is generally less precise and primarily useful for very long term trends.

BTW I see that Glacier National Park took down the signs saying certain glaciers will be gone by 2020. That's irony if you want it.

Global warming is a reality. Catastrophic climate change is not.

That's crap, Global temperature matches CO2 changes and the records of recent ice ages prove it beyond doubt. What does climate change existing before man have to do with it? The CO2 added to the atmosphere works the changes whether man puts it there or not.
Ouch. You used the magic words "beyond doubt". That's gotta hurt.

CO2's impact is just one element in a much more complex absorption/radiation dynamic. It's why all the talk of carbon footprint is so much gibberish.
 
Last edited:
Then prove how adding CO2 to the atmosphere doesn't cause warming. At some point, the CO2 level is high enough to cause 22*C annual global temperature warming like the paleoclimatic record shows. Our present ice age cycles began when the circum-equatorial current was blocked by Panama connecting the North and South American continents, a major current that existed for hundreds of million of years. A circum-equatorial current only has to be near the equator at times and doesn't have to remain on the equator all the time if blocked by land to force a detour, so there isn't a need to play the semantics game with me. The current existed and it's well documented by real scientists. That temperature doesn't sound like much, but it's enough to put fossilized alligators in the arctic and they don't like cold water.

Sorry, but that's not my point. The topic of debate is how much CO2 affects temperature. Here's an insightful view.


 
When has there been good measurements of global temperature? It's not an easy task. The last ten years I can give you. 20 years is a maybe for some uses. More than 30 years ago we did not have the knowledge base to do it properly. If we are being generous, we can use that for an excuse of the predictions made 30 years ago that were so far wrong. Snowpack data is generally less precise and primarily useful for very long term trends.

BTW I see that Glacier National Park took down the signs saying certain glaciers will be gone by 2020. That's irony if you want it.

Global warming is a reality. Catastrophic climate change is not.

You totally lack the understanding of science and always will, because you refuse to learn. Do you think the temperature ranges on IPCC reports are just made up by scientists with nothing more than their reputation to lose or gain? They don't do that work chasing the phantom money AGW deniers claim exists. They aren't like those right-wing think tanks spewing out garbage to the world and getting paid for doing so.
 
Sorry, but that's not my point. The topic of debate is how much CO2 affects temperature. Here's an insightful view.



You mean like how solar forcing isn't calculated, too? What a crock!

The topic of the debate is whether global warming exists and whether it's caused by man's emissions. The science says global temperatures haven't caught up with our present atmospheric CO2, because temperature lags CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere.
 
Last edited:
You totally lack the understanding of science and always will, because you refuse to learn. Do you think the temperature ranges on IPCC reports are just made up by scientists with nothing more than their reputation to lose or gain? They don't do that work chasing the phantom money AGW deniers claim exists. They aren't like those right-wing think tanks spewing out garbage to the world and getting paid for doing so.
Math degree with two science minors, including physics. I was a science major until I realized my lab technique sucked. Math is cleaner.

IPCC is not above fudging numbers to make a point. Since all their peer review is in house they can get away with a lot of it. However, at bottom it isn't the measurements that matter. it's the projections and numbers are my area. Feel free to refer to me as an expert.;)
 
You mean like how solar forcing isn't calculated, too? What a crock!

The topic of the debate is whether global warming exists and whether it's caused by man's emissions. The science says global temperatures haven't caught up with our present atmospheric CO2, because temperature lags CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere.

Actually, CO2 lags temperature, but that's another topic. Solar forcing has been inaccurately calculated.


2018
My experience at the German Bundestag's Environment Committee in a pre-COP24 discussion

[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]. . . We know from the climate-gate e-mails that the hockey stick was an example of shady science. The medieval warm period and little ice ages were in fact global and real. And, although the IPCC will not admit so, we know that the sun has a large effect on climate, and on the 20th century warming in particular. [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]
bundestagFig1.jpg
[/FONT]
[/FONT]​
[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]In the first slide we see one of the most important graphs that the IPCC is simply ignoring. Published already in 2008, you can see a very clear correlation between sea level change rate from tide gauges, and solar activity. This proves beyond any doubt that the sun has a large effect on climate. But it is ignored.[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]To see what it implies, we should look at figure 2.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
bundestagFig2.jpg
[/FONT]​
[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]This is the contribution to the radiative forcing from different components, as summarized in the IPCC AR5. As you can see, it is claimed that the solar contribution is minute (tiny gray bar). In reality, we can use the oceans to quantify the solar forcing, and see that it was probably larger than the CO2 contribution (large light brown bar). [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]Any attempt to explain the 20th century warming should therefore include this large forcing. When doing so, one finds that the sun contributed more than half of the warming, and climate has to be relatively insensitive. How much? Only 1 to 1.5°C per CO2 doubling, as opposed to the IPCC range of 1.5 to 4.5. This implies that without doing anything special, future warming will be around another 1 degree over the 21st century, meeting the Copenhagen and Paris goals.[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]The fact that the temperature over the past 20 years has risen significantly less than IPCC models, should raise a red flag that something is wrong with the standard picture. . . . [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
 
Back
Top Bottom