• 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!

Australia Just Had Four of Its Hottest Days on Record

No worries, I was just pointing out that while we know the heat island effects exists, being able to measure it with
sufficient accuracy to take it out of the warming equation, would be challenging.

It would be rather pointless to do so even if we would, Local temperature variations are of little consequence in the global or macro scheme of things. An island is irrelevant to the ocean
 
It would be rather pointless to do so even if we would, Local temperature variations are of little consequence in the global or macro scheme of things. An island is irrelevant to the ocean
Except that the way the temperatures are homogenized, they end up getting the high spots.
In some areas it could be 1000 miles between stations near cities, and everything between becomes the average between those two.
If the two spots are high because of the heat island effect, then everything in between becomes high also.
 
Except that the way the temperatures are homogenized, they end up getting the high spots.
In some areas it could be 1000 miles between stations near cities, and everything between becomes the average between those two.
If the two spots are high because of the heat island effect, then everything in between becomes high also.

I recommend you mention that to Australia.
 
I'm sure he does.....probably believes in the same God as you do too. Too bad you wont be able to ask again when he is your age.

Don't see why not. I had him when I was in my twenties, you see.
 
It would be rather pointless to do so even if we would, Local temperature variations are of little consequence in the global or macro scheme of things. An island is irrelevant to the ocean

Sorry, dude. You can't just throw out data points willy-nilly.
 
Get ready for the "But...But....it's snowing in NY". This will have no effect on the minds of our deniers nor will ANYTHING until something directly effects them.....unfortunately it will be their kids who really deal with the realities, and they probably will not be in a forgiving mood.
The "Deniers" are the ones that are so blinded by their ideology that they can not see the sun.

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk
 
The "Deniers" are the ones that are so blinded by their ideology that they can not see the sun.

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

The "deniers" have science and mathematics on their side... The "advocates" are science and math denying fundamentalists of a circularly-defined buzzword religion...
 
Hmm! Imagine if there was just one more coal fired power plant, umm, say even that ancient old clunker Hazelwood.
Take away coal fired power, umm, tell ‘em they’re dreamin! . . .

Damn those French multinationals and their endangering of Australia's energy security.
 
The "deniers" have science and mathematics on their side... The "advocates" are science and math denying fundamentalists of a circularly-defined buzzword religion...

Denier propaganda are fo all tastes, just like fast food. That you have propagande that claim that there will be global cooling. Propaganda that acknowledge global warming but claims it’s not because of the greenhouse gases. Propaganda that acknowledge global warming but claims that it’s uncertain how much is from greenhouses gases. While also propaganda that claims that global warming from greenhouses gases is real but it will not be that bad.

While the fossil fuels companies, that have paid for propaganda, have for a long time known about manmade global and its devastating effects.

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...d-exxons-secret-1980s-climate-change-warnings

There the evidence of manmade global warming also is so strong that even federal agencies under Donald Trump acknowledge manmade global warming and its devasting effects.

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

https://science2017.globalchange.gov/

https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/
 
The "deniers" have science and mathematics on their side... The "advocates" are science and math denying fundamentalists of a circularly-defined buzzword religion...

Nonsense. You don't even know how the 'greenhouse' effect works or the laws of thermodynamics, yet you claim the 'greenhouse' effect doesn't exist because it supposedly violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics. That just shows you are laughably scientifically illiterate. Your only excuse is that you mindlessly parroted that nonsense from Into the Night.
 
The "deniers" have science and mathematics on their side... The "advocates" are science and math denying fundamentalists of a circularly-defined buzzword religion...
Agreed

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk
 
Yes, it's a no brainier. The urban heat island effect will do that.

Whoop t- do...

It is a no brainer. weather happens. it is funny when half the country is under ice and snow along with other places it is simply weather.
but 4 days of hot weather and we are going to die in 12 years.

that is what zealotry does to you.

let's ignore the fact it is summer time there right now.
 
...removed religious chanting and various holy links...

First off, let's start by providing a definition for the term "global warming"... Define the term in a way which isn't defining it with itself...
 
It is a no brainer. weather happens. it is funny when half the country is under ice and snow along with other places it is simply weather.
but 4 days of hot weather and we are going to die in 12 years.

that is what zealotry does to you.

let's ignore the fact it is summer time there right now.

Precisely this... Fundamentalism in a circularly-defined buzzword religion is not a good thing...

Where I live (in south central WI), we will typically get up to about 90°F (at least for a few days) in the Summer and dip down to about -10°F (at least for a few days) in the Winter. That happens to be a 100°F temperature range in approximately six months time, and that happens EVERY. SINGLE. YEAR.

Heck, over the next couple weeks or more, south central Wisconsin is going to see crazy cold temperatures [highs hovering around 0°F, lows in the double digit negatives], and one day (if the forecast stays relatively close to what it is now) is even forecasted to have a double digit negative HIGH temperature, and well into the negative twenties for a low, and that's not including wind chill.

I suppose that's due to global warming as well...
 
Nonsense. You don't even know how the 'greenhouse' effect works
I do know how it works. It doesn't work. That's how it works. Greenhouse effect models outright deny various scientific laws...

or the laws of thermodynamics,
I know how they work.

yet you claim the 'greenhouse' effect doesn't exist because it supposedly violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
Correct. It also violates the 1st law of thermodynamics and the stefan-boltzmann law. It attempts to make heat flow backwards, and attempts to decrease radiance while increasing temperature. The greenhouse effect outright laughs in the face of science...

That just shows you are laughably scientifically illiterate.
Inversion Fallacy. YOU are, not me.

Your only excuse is that you mindlessly parroted that nonsense from Into the Night.
Wrong. I've simply taken the time to learn about those laws (and science in general). I suggest that you do the same...
 
Forgotten history: 50 degrees everywhere, right across Australia in the 1800s


Don’t believe your lying eyes — Australian newspaper archives are full of temperatures recorded higher than 121 in the shade which is 50C. All of these temperatures in the map below are found in historic newspaper archives. Measurements done after 1910 are even done with official Stevenson screens, yet the BOM “throws them away”. It’s true that ones done in the 1800s are often recorded on non-standard equipment, or are just literally “in the shade” under cover. So some of these, perhaps many, are one or two degrees too high. But even if we take two degrees off, how scary is global warming when Australia knew many days of 48C and 49C and some at 50C 120 years ago? The BOM — supposedly so concerned about the State of Our Climate — show little interest in talking about our history or in analyzing it, or even mentioning it.
And modern temperatures are recorded on electronic equipment, sometimes in areas affected by urban heat islands (concrete and cars).
(click to enlarge)
Photo: Jo Nova
50C temperatures have occurred all over Australia before

Australians have been recording temperatures of over 50C since 1828, right across the country. In 1896 the heat was so bad for weeks that people fled on emergency trains to escape the inland heat. Millions of birds fell from the sky in 1932 due to the savage hot spell.
In 1939 outer Sydney reached 122F or over 50C – recorded at Windsor Observatory — a place that had had a Stevenson screen for around 40 years at that stage. Without fanfare, the Ballarat Star in January 1898 notes that there was a “genuine heat wave” in Blanchetown SA in November the year before. Temperatures of 120 and 121 are recorded on four days that month.
All these measurements are wrong?
click to enlarge.
Contrast that with last week when towns in the outback reached 48 and 49C and the Bureau of Meteorology senior forecaster Michael Efron said — “They are pretty incredible temperatures.” Seriously. It’s hard to believe that after a quadrillion megatons of emissions we are nearly as hot as we were in 1896? It’s as if hundreds of measurements of similar temperatures across four states of Australia and on many occasions from 1828 to 1939 don’t even exist.
The worst heatwave was probably January 1896 when the nation was “like a furnace”. . . .


 
I do know how it works. It doesn't work. That's how it works. Greenhouse effect models outright deny various scientific laws...

Actually it does work see Venus for example which is where the whole entire theory started.
Here is the problem venus has a CO2 concentration of about 97%.

This was caused by massive releases of CO2 from ocean waters. The surface of venus is very hot and when it does rain
the rain evaporates before it even hits the ground.

what you see there is a cataclysmic planet event in which you had massive amount of CO2 released at a time.

The issue with earth is this. You would never see this event happen.
I think at anything above 5000ppm things start to get really sketchy.

at 2000ppm you start running into health problems.

basically would need the level of co2 to be 50x higher than it is today for it to start running into issues.
you would never see a full global warming even as you would die before it happened.
 
Actually it does work see Venus for example which is where the whole entire theory started.
Here is the problem venus has a CO2 concentration of about 97%.

This was caused by massive releases of CO2 from ocean waters. The surface of venus is very hot and when it does rain
the rain evaporates before it even hits the ground.

what you see there is a cataclysmic planet event in which you had massive amount of CO2 released at a time.

The issue with earth is this. You would never see this event happen.
I think at anything above 5000ppm things start to get really sketchy.

at 2000ppm you start running into health problems.

basically would need the level of co2 to be 50x higher than it is today for it to start running into issues.
you would never see a full global warming even as you would die before it happened.

I have to wonder if the components of the atmosphere of Venus is as much a factor as the density of the atmosphere.
At 90 times the pressure of earth, Nitrogen, Argon, or most any other gas would cause warming.
 
I have to wonder if the components of the atmosphere of Venus is as much a factor as the density of the atmosphere.
At 90 times the pressure of earth, Nitrogen, Argon, or most any other gas would cause warming.

There are other factors of course that lead to this event.
everything from proximity to the sun to gravitational forces etc ...
 
There are other factors of course that lead to this event.
everything from proximity to the sun to gravitational forces etc ...
I understand, but simply having 90 atmospheres of any kind of gas would make it warmer.
 
I understand, but simply having 90 atmospheres of any kind of gas would make it warmer.

No, if Venus had 90 atmospheres of a non-greenhouse gas such as nitrogen, it would be much cooler that with its actual CO2 dominated atmosphere. Its temperature would be close to its expected black-body temperature of about 60 C (if I recall correctly).
 
Back
Top Bottom