• 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!

From NASA, Aug 9, 2022: Scientific Consensus: Earth's Climate Is Warming

watsup

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 17, 2020
Messages
24,100
Reaction score
7,599
Location
Springfield MO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Temperature data from four international science institutions. All show rapid warming in the past few decades and that the last decade has been the hottest on record.

Temperature data showing rapid warming in the past few decades, the latest data going up to 2021. According to NASA data, 2016 and 2020 tied for the warmest year since 1880, continuing a long-term trend of rising global temperatures. The 15 warmest years on record have occurred since 2005, with the eight most recent years being the warmest. Credit: NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies
 

watsup

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 17, 2020
Messages
24,100
Reaction score
7,599
Location
Springfield MO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
It’s important to remember that scientists always focus on the evidence, not on opinions. Scientific evidence continues to show that human activities (primarily the human burning of fossil fuels) have warmed Earth’s surface and its ocean basins, which in turn have continued to impact Earth’s climate. This is based on over a century of scientific evidence forming the structural backbone of today's civilization.

NASA Global Climate Change presents the state of scientific knowledge about climate change while highlighting the role NASA plays in better understanding our home planet. This effort includes citing multiple peer-reviewed studies from research groups across the world,1 illustrating the accuracy and consensus of research results (in this case, the scientific consensus on climate change) consistent with NASA’s scientific research portfolio.

With that said, multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1show that climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.

 

watsup

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 17, 2020
Messages
24,100
Reaction score
7,599
Location
Springfield MO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal

International Academies: Joint Statement​

"Climate change is real. There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world’s climate. However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities (IPCC 2001)." (2005, 11 international science academies)10

Statement on Climate Change from 18 Scientific Associations​

"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver." (2009)2

 

Lord of Planar

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Dec 22, 2012
Messages
56,088
Reaction score
18,608
Location
Portlandia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Temperature data from four international science institutions. All show rapid warming in the past few decades and that the last decade has been the hottest on record.

Temperature data showing rapid warming in the past few decades, the latest data going up to 2021. According to NASA data, 2016 and 2020 tied for the warmest year since 1880, continuing a long-term trend of rising global temperatures. The 15 warmest years on record have occurred since 2005, with the eight most recent years being the warmest. Credit: NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies
Yes, observed temperature reading will continue to rise for decades more, as long as the global meteorological network is withing range of the urban heat island effect. We have no way of accurately removing the urban heat island effect from the observed reading, so we really have no accurate idea what the temperatures really are.

This is no surprise what so ever.
 

watsup

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 17, 2020
Messages
24,100
Reaction score
7,599
Location
Springfield MO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Yes, observed temperature reading will continue to rise for decades more, as long as the global meteorological network is withing range of the urban heat island effect. We have no way of accurately removing the urban heat island effect from the observed reading, so we really have no accurate idea what the temperatures really are.

This is no surprise what so ever.

Repetitive talking point.

“Scientists have been very careful to ensure that UHI is not influencing the temperature trends. To address this concern, they have compared the data from remote stations (sites that are nowhere near human activity) to more urban sites. Likewise, investigators have also looked at sites across rural and urban China, which has experienced rapid growth in urbanisation over the past 30 years and is therefore very likely to show UHI. The difference between ideal rural sites compared to urban sites in temperature trends has been very small:

jones_china.gif

Figure 1. Annual average temperature anomalies. Jones et al (dotted green and brown) is a dataset of 42 rural and 42 urban sites. Li et al (solid green and brown) is an adjusted dataset of 42 rural and 40 urban sites. Li (blue) is a non-adjusted set of 728 stations, urban and rural. CRUTEM3v (red) is a land-only data set (Brohan et al., 2006). This plot uses the 1954–83 base period.”

 

Lord of Planar

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Dec 22, 2012
Messages
56,088
Reaction score
18,608
Location
Portlandia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
It’s important to remember that scientists always focus on the evidence, not on opinions. Scientific evidence continues to show that human activities (primarily the human burning of fossil fuels) have warmed Earth’s surface and its ocean basins, which in turn have continued to impact Earth’s climate. This is based on over a century of scientific evidence forming the structural backbone of today's civilization.
Nobody disagrees with this. Only the quantification of this effect.
NASA Global Climate Change presents the state of scientific knowledge about climate change while highlighting the role NASA plays in better understanding our home planet. This effort includes citing multiple peer-reviewed studies from research groups across the world,1 illustrating the accuracy and consensus of research results (in this case, the scientific consensus on climate change) consistent with NASA’s scientific research portfolio.

With that said, multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1show that climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.

How many times a year are you going to post this?
 

Gateman_Wen

Official disruptive influence
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 27, 2017
Messages
14,423
Reaction score
14,197
Location
Middle of it all
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Yes, observed temperature reading will continue to rise for decades more, as long as the global meteorological network is withing range of the urban heat island effect. We have no way of accurately removing the urban heat island effect from the observed reading, so we really have no accurate idea what the temperatures really are.

This is no surprise what so ever.
The first "naysayer" shows up...
 

watsup

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 17, 2020
Messages
24,100
Reaction score
7,599
Location
Springfield MO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
What's your problem with scientific facts?

None at all. Exactly what “scientific fact” did you post. Not your biased opinion, actual scientific fact.

“Jacobson and Ten Hoeve are authors of a paper describing the research that will be published in Journal of Climate. The paper is available online now. The study modeled climate response from 2005 to 2025.

Some global warming skeptics have claimed that the urban heat island effect is so strong that it has been skewing temperature measurements that show that global warming is happening. They have argued that urban areas are a larger contributor to global warming than the greenhouse gases produced by human activity, and thus drastic measures to reduce greenhouse gases are not needed.

"This study shows that the urban heat island effect is a relatively minor contributor to warming, contrary to what climate skeptics have claimed," Jacobson said. "Greenhouse gases and particulate black carbon cause far more warming."

 
Last edited:

watsup

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 17, 2020
Messages
24,100
Reaction score
7,599
Location
Springfield MO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Yes, observed temperature reading will continue to rise for decades more, as long as the global meteorological network is withing range of the urban heat island effect. We have no way of accurately removing the urban heat island effect from the observed reading, so we really have no accurate idea what the temperatures really are.
This is no surprise what so ever.

“The U.S. Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) data are used to quantify national- and regional-scale temperature changes in the contiguous United States (CONUS). The USHCN is a designated subset of the NOAA Cooperative Observer Program (COOP) Network with sites selected according to their spatial coverage, record length, data completeness, and historical stability.
Hausfather and colleagues found that "urbanization accounts for 14% to 21% of the rise in unadjusted minimum temperatures since 1895 and 6% to 9% since 1960." However, the paper goes on to say that correction procedures have effectively removed the urban heat signal such that it has not caused a bias in temperature assessment over the past 50-80 years.”

 

Lord of Planar

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Dec 22, 2012
Messages
56,088
Reaction score
18,608
Location
Portlandia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Did you ignore this part of my post?

We have no way of accurately removing the urban heat island effect from the observed reading
 

Lord of Planar

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Dec 22, 2012
Messages
56,088
Reaction score
18,608
Location
Portlandia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
You don’t know that.
We have discussed this before, and nobody has shown the methodology/model is accurate. It's just one huge SWAG (scientific wild ass guess.) Comparing urban and rural stations is a joke. It in no way accurately shows a correct adjustment to use.

Can you supply us with a paper that shows it's accurate?
 

watsup

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 17, 2020
Messages
24,100
Reaction score
7,599
Location
Springfield MO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
We have discussed this before, and nobody has shown the methodology/model is accurate. It's just one huge SWAG (scientific wild ass guess.) Comparing urban and rural stations is a joke. It in no way accurately shows a correct adjustment to use.

Can you supply us with a paper that shows it's accurate?

Your post is every bit as much garbage as those of flogger and Queen Margo. They ask questions, not for discussion, but for the sole purpose of criticizing the answer, no matter what it is, and neither of them know squat about the issue. Your first paragraph is what is SWAG. It’s just a claim without merit. And your use of the word “accurate” is garbage because no matter what anyone would say about it, you would simply repeat your first paragraph, just like flogger and Queen Margo repeat their garbage questions. Garbage in, garbage out, should be your motto.
 

Lord of Planar

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Dec 22, 2012
Messages
56,088
Reaction score
18,608
Location
Portlandia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Your post is every bit as much garbage as those of flogger and Queen Margo. They ask questions, not for discussion, but for the sole purpose of criticizing the answer, no matter what it is, and neither of them know squat about the issue.
Maybe if you guys would stop calling us names, we would be a little more gentle towards your feeling.

You flat our deserve to be critisizes. The truth of these sciences is they have been politically corrupted. Notice how attempting to understand every variable that diminishes the role CO2 can play is taboo. This is not science to talk about real variables that need further study.
Your first paragraph is what is SWAG. It’s just a claim without merit. And your use of the word “accurate” is garbage because no matter what anyone would say about it, you would simply repeat your first paragraph, just like flogger and Queen Margo repeat their garbage questions. Garbage in, garbage out, should be your motto.
What if it is garbage in garbage out?

See, your problem is you are 100% anti-science. Science demands that allow your hypothesis to be tested not only in manners to support it, but try to look at every thing that can nullify your hypothesis to claim the hypothesis has merit.

Why do you think climate papers are never explicit? The scientists know their work has a very wide margin of error for the real world. The scientists present the papers are results of the input variables, in a model. They know the models are insufficient. I say time and time again, I trust the science. I understand the science. But what you guys believe is what the pundits are saying. Not the actual research scientist who actually perform the work. And it is their actual work that I read. Not the pundits.
 

watsup

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 17, 2020
Messages
24,100
Reaction score
7,599
Location
Springfield MO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Maybe if you guys would stop calling us names, we would be a little more gentle towards your feeling.

You flat our deserve to be critisizes. The truth of these sciences is they have been politically corrupted. Notice how attempting to understand every variable that diminishes the role CO2 can play is taboo. This is not science to talk about real variables that need further study.

What if it is garbage in garbage out?

See, your problem is you are 100% anti-science. Science demands that allow your hypothesis to be tested not only in manners to support it, but try to look at every thing that can nullify your hypothesis to claim the hypothesis has merit.

Why do you think climate papers are never explicit? The scientists know their work has a very wide margin of error for the real world. The scientists present the papers are results of the input variables, in a model. They know the models are insufficient. I say time and time again, I trust the science. I understand the science. But what you guys believe is what the pundits are saying. Not the actual research scientist who actually perform the work. And it is their actual work that I read. Not the pundits.

Repetitive standard talking points. I’ve heard it all from you dozens, and even hundreds of times. There never anything new, just plowing the same trite fields over and over.
 

watsup

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 17, 2020
Messages
24,100
Reaction score
7,599
Location
Springfield MO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Why do you think climate papers are never explicit? The scientists know their work has a very wide margin of error for the real world.

Are you saying this is a negative? Of course they know there is margin for error. That is why they continue to do research and gather data while you sit around in an online chat room whining about it.
And they also know that the climate is steadily warming because of the human-produced CO2 that has been increasingly pouring into it since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution. Of that, according to the climate scientists, there is simply no doubt.
 

Integrityrespec

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2018
Messages
19,046
Reaction score
8,295
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
It’s important to remember that scientists always focus on the evidence, not on opinions. Scientific evidence continues to show that human activities (primarily the human burning of fossil fuels) have warmed Earth’s surface and its ocean basins, which in turn have continued to impact Earth’s climate. This is based on over a century of scientific evidence forming the structural backbone of today's civilization.

NASA Global Climate Change presents the state of scientific knowledge about climate change while highlighting the role NASA plays in better understanding our home planet. This effort includes citing multiple peer-reviewed studies from research groups across the world,1 illustrating the accuracy and consensus of research results (in this case, the scientific consensus on climate change) consistent with NASA’s scientific research portfolio.

With that said, multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1show that climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.

I'm just curious. If these climate change studies being done by these scientists came back and said there is no negligible climate rise in temperature, wouldn't their funding be cut off? So what do you think they are doing, a legitimate study, or a search for information to support their pre decided outcome?
 

watsup

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 17, 2020
Messages
24,100
Reaction score
7,599
Location
Springfield MO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
I'm just curious. If these climate change studies being done by these scientists came back and said there is no negligible climate rise in temperature, wouldn't their funding be cut off? So what do you think they are doing, a legitimate study, or a search for information to support their pre decided outcome?

Conspiracy theory/standard denier talking point.
 

longview

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
38,118
Reaction score
13,277
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I'm just curious. If these climate change studies being done by these scientists came back and said there is no negligible climate rise in temperature, wouldn't their funding be cut off? So what do you think they are doing, a legitimate study, or a search for information to support their pre decided outcome?
It does not really work like that! For example say someone runs an experiment that finds that
the idea of centuries of warming are already in the pipeline, is largely a myth.
Ricke and Caldeira Maximum warming occurs about one decade after a carbon dioxide emission
They phrase their words in such a way as to say they found the same as earlier results.
This range is in keeping with contemporary estimates of transient climate response to cumulative carbon emission obtained in a number of studies (Collins et al 2013), though our metric is time-dependent so the values are not directly comparable.
Thus paying homage to the idea that everyone is finding similar results.
The actual findings were significant enough that a second study tested their findings.
The time lag between a carbon dioxide emission and maximum warming increases with the size of the emission
And while they could not contradict, the findings, they deflected them by saying that the
time lag was tied to the size of the emissions, bypassing the idea that even Ricke and Caldeira's
test pulse was ten times larger than the average Human emission.
 
Top Bottom