• 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 ain't happenin in Buffalo this year..

I see you have the latest talking point words down from the GOP messaging machine .

Why would you accuse another poster of saying 'stupid Americans', putting words in his mouth he didn't say?

Or using the already worn-out Grubered this thread?

Just another of the Nixon cards from you .

Fletch said:
You mean 'stupid Americans.' You just Grubered this thread.
Click to expand...
 
NIMBY said:
I see you have the latest talking point words down from the GOP messaging machine .

Why would you accuse another poster of saying 'stupid Americans', putting words in his mouth he didn't say?

Or using the already worn-out Grubered this thread?

Just another of the Nixon cards from you .
Click to expand...
LOL spoken like a true Grubocrat.
 
cold.webp

Says it all.

EDIT:

Buffalo 10 coldest years (by lowest temp - not the best indicator but one I could find at short notice):

Year Low (F)
1982 -16
1957 -12
1976 -11
1968 -11
1963 -11
1996 -10
1994 -10
1985 -10
1984 -10
1948 -8

None of those are recent.
 
Last edited:
My understanding is that Global Warming causes climate change which is manifested by extreme weather events.
 
Hicup said:
I bet if you polled the Buffalo area not too many would vote yes to GW.. Just sayin. These folks are getting 7 feet of snow in some places. Sure I know, I know, just snow, can't base climate models on one year or a few days, but it's still funny to poke fun. :)


Tim-
Click to expand...


Are you crazy!!! DENIALIST!!!!! What... I bet you think the world is flat, earth is 6,000 years old, evolution is fake, moon landing is fake, Elvis is alive, And you probably have 20 oil wells on your land........

Weather is not climate!!!!!!

When it snows a lot, it is because of global warming
When it does not snow at all, it is because of global warming
When the first 3-4 months are on par to becoming the hottest year on record, its global warming..
When unusually cold for a few weeks.... that's just weather, not climate!!!
 
lifeisshort said:
The AGW so called scientist are all admitting earth has not warmed in a decade or so and are covering their asses by calling it a "pause".
Click to expand...

So looking at this image, the only thing you take away from it is that the temperature hasn't changed in a few years?

Untitled.webp
 

Attachments

  • download.webp
    download.webp
    384 bytes · Views: 44
Juanita said:
My understanding is that Global Warming causes climate change which is manifested by extreme weather events.
Click to expand...

First off , one most define 'extreme weather events'. That could mean anything.

But my most definitions, there is no reliable data which points to an uptick in 'extreme weather' events.

IF the theory says they should be happening and they aren't, isn't there something amiss with the theory.
 
whysoserious said:
So looking at this image, the only thing you take away from it is that the temperature hasn't changed in a few years?
Click to expand...

What happened between 1940 and 1950?

What I take away from it is we are talking about one single degree from 1910 and 2010. That is supposed to be a crisis? :lamo
 
blaxshep said:
What happened between 1940 and 1950?

What I take away from it is we are talking about one single degree from 1910 and 2010. That is supposed to be a crisis? :lamo
Click to expand...

one degree is not considered a crisis, no.
 
Hicup said:
I bet if you polled the Buffalo area not too many would vote yes to GW.. Just sayin. These folks are getting 7 feet of snow in some places. Sure I know, I know, just snow, can't base climate models on one year or a few days, but it's still funny to poke fun. :)


Tim-
Click to expand...
Warm air holds more moisture, when it hits the cold, it snows more.
 
pbrauer said:
Warm air holds more moisture, when it hits the cold, it snows more.
Click to expand...

Is there supposed to cold air with global warming?
 
blaxshep said:
What happened between 1940 and 1950?

What I take away from it is we are talking about one single degree from 1910 and 2010. That is supposed to be a crisis? :lamo
Click to expand...

A single degree is a lot. It's still, obviously, trending upward. For every 2 degrees you can expect:

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/basics/facts.html
5—15% reductions in the yields of crops as currently grown
3—10% increases in the amount of rain falling during the heaviest precipitation events, which can increase flooding risks
5—10% decreases in stream flow in some river basins, including the Arkansas and the Rio Grande
200%—400% increases in the area burned by wildfire in parts of the western United States
Click to expand...

So quite frankly, I hope you're right, but a very small number of educated people agree that you are. And even worse, if you are wrong, it won't be terribly long before things really start to suck. The republican base has really hung there hat the warming of the globe at this rate has nothing to do with carbon emissions, and they better be right, because if they are wrong they will be remembered as total assholes.

*Edit to add:

FYI, they have already accounted for the difference in energy we receive from the sun and determined this:

http://climate.nasa.gov/causes/
Since 1750, the average amount of energy coming from the Sun either remained constant or increased slightly.

If the warming were caused by a more active sun, then scientists would expect to see warmer temperatures in all layers of the atmosphere. Instead, they have observed a cooling in the upper atmosphere, and a warming at the surface and in the lower parts of the atmosphere. That's because greenhouse gasses are trapping heat in the lower atmosphere.
-
Climate models that include solar irradiance changes can’t reproduce the observed temperature trend over the past century or more without including a rise in greenhouse gases.
Click to expand...

The debate is basically over, so get ready to take your place in history. :thumbs:
 
Last edited:
whysoserious said:
A single degree is a lot. It's still, obviously, trending upward. For every 2 degrees you can expect:

Since 1750, the average amount of energy coming from the Sun either remained constant or increased slightly.

If the warming were caused by a more active sun, then scientists would expect to see warmer temperatures in all layers of the atmosphere. Instead, they have observed a cooling in the upper atmosphere, and a warming at the surface and in the lower parts of the atmosphere. That's because greenhouse gasses are trapping heat in the lower atmosphere.
-
Climate models that include solar irradiance changes can’t reproduce the observed temperature trend over the past century or more without including a rise in greenhouse gases.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
If all of the observed warming were attributable to the response of greenhouse gasses acting alone, the temperature would have increased in lockstep
with the increase in the gasses. There are clearly other feedbacks both positive and negative at play.
I Suspect the reason the majority of the models over predicted the warming, is they weighted the positive feedbacks too heavily.
FYI, Nasa thinks the increase in Solar intensity over the last 100 years, could account for as much as .3 C of the observed warming.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/SORCE/sorce_04.php
Many researchers believe the steady rise in sunspots and faculae since the late seventeenth century may be responsible
for as much as half of the 0.6 degrees of global warming over the last 110 years
Click to expand...
That number seems a bit high to me, I don't think it could be much over .25 C, based on the IPCC predicted response to a change in Wm-2.
 
KLATTU said:
First off , one most define 'extreme weather events'. That could mean anything.

But my most definitions, there is no reliable data which points to an uptick in 'extreme weather' events.



WTF! Are you saying that no extreme weather events have been documented for the past few years? Extreme -- you know -- out of the ordinary!
Click to expand...
 
Hicup said:
I bet if you polled the Buffalo area not too many would vote yes to GW.. Just sayin. These folks are getting 7 feet of snow in some places. Sure I know, I know, just snow, can't base climate models on one year or a few days, but it's still funny to poke fun. :)


Tim-
Click to expand...



It's a little hard to find in Indianapolis as well.

We've just gone through several days of 10 to 30 degrees below average highs and lows.

We should be returning to those normals this weekend. Sadly, there will be rain.

Beautifully sunny, but cold, today. It's a good day for house hunting which is the order of the day.
 
Juanita said:
KLATTU said:
First off , one most define 'extreme weather events'. That could mean anything.

But my most definitions, there is no reliable data which points to an uptick in 'extreme weather' events.



WTF! Are you saying that no extreme weather events have been documented for the past few years? Extreme -- you know -- out of the ordinary!
Click to expand...

While skeptic blogs and others cite this, I will cite weather underground, a known AGW proponent.
Extreme Weather | Weather Underground
However, there is no evidence that climate change has caused in increase in tornadoes and severe thunderstorms, though preliminary research suggests this may occur late this century.
Click to expand...
From the proponents "it has not happened yet, but if the IPCC predictions hold true, IT STILL COULD KILL US ALL."
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom