• 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!

Idiotic Environmental Predictions

It appears to me, you are the one lied to, and you believe it.

Have you seen a cost benefit analysis on the projects we do? Wouldn't tax dollars be better spent in other areas?

Like what?

The cost-benefit analysis certainly was not done by people like you.
 
Not really. I looked up his credentials. Guess what they are??????
Yes, I know who he is. He has some pretty good credentials, unlike your James Cook.
 
``Discovering Associations Between Climatic and Oceanic Parameters to Monitor Drought Using Data Mining Techniques in Nebraska,'' Tsegaye Tadesse, Donald A. Wilhite, Michael J. Hayes, Sherri K. Harms, and Steve Goddard, in submission to Journal of Climate, 2003.

``A Self-Calibrating Palmer Drought Severity Index,'' Nathan Wells, Steve Goddard, and Michael J. Hayes, in submission to Journal of Climate, 2003.

``Drought Monitoring Using Data Mining Techniques,'' Tsegaye Tadesse, Donald A. Wilhite, Sherri K. Harms, Michael J. Hayes, and Steve Goddard, Natural Hazards, accepted with revisions for publication in 2004.

``Patterns and Trends of Soil Climate Regimes and Drought Events in the Northern Great Plains,'' W.J. Waltman, S. Goddard, S.E. Reichenbach, M.D. Svoboda, M.J. Hayes, and J.S. Peake, Proceedings of the Applied Geography Conference, Colorado Springs, Colorado, November 2003.

 
Then why is every climate change "solution" proposed by the left some sort of economic program or tax?
We used socialist solutions to deal with smog and they seemed to work. Ditto auto safety. Speed limits are obvious socialism as well.
Feel free to provide us with your non-socialist solutions. Perhaps you could submit them at Glasgow this fall.
 
``Discovering Associations Between Climatic and Oceanic Parameters to Monitor Drought Using Data Mining Techniques in Nebraska,'' Tsegaye Tadesse, Donald A. Wilhite, Michael J. Hayes, Sherri K. Harms, and Steve Goddard, in submission to Journal of Climate, 2003.

``A Self-Calibrating Palmer Drought Severity Index,'' Nathan Wells, Steve Goddard, and Michael J. Hayes, in submission to Journal of Climate, 2003.

``Drought Monitoring Using Data Mining Techniques,'' Tsegaye Tadesse, Donald A. Wilhite, Sherri K. Harms, Michael J. Hayes, and Steve Goddard, Natural Hazards, accepted with revisions for publication in 2004.

``Patterns and Trends of Soil Climate Regimes and Drought Events in the Northern Great Plains,'' W.J. Waltman, S. Goddard, S.E. Reichenbach, M.D. Svoboda, M.J. Hayes, and J.S. Peake, Proceedings of the Applied Geography Conference, Colorado Springs, Colorado, November 2003.

LOL. In submission in 2003.

That’s code for ‘rejected’.

The other looks like an abstract to a local conference, and a paper from an obscure journal 15+ years ago thats not even about climate.

Cook, of course, has several well cited papers and authors two college level textbooks on the subject.

For a guy who hates pundits and bloggers, you sure like pundits and bloggers.
 
LOL. In submission in 2003.

That’s code for ‘rejected’.

The other looks like an abstract to a local conference, and a paper from an obscure journal 15+ years ago thats not even about climate.

Cook, of course, has several well cited papers and authors two college level textbooks on the subject.

For a guy who hates pundits and bloggers, you sure like pundits and bloggers.

Yup.
 
The NOAA Climate Extremes Index
The NOAA Climate Extremes Index | Real Climate Science

Posted on July 31, 2021 by tonyheller

According to NOAA, the area of the US experiencing extreme maximum summer temperatures has greatly increased over the past fifty years.

“The sum of (a) percentage of the United States with maximum temperatures much below normal and (b) percentage of the United States with maximum temperatures much above normal.”

1629176139651.png

U.S. Climate Extremes Index (CEI) | Extremes | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)

According to NOAA, the past decade has been the hottest on record.
Click link above for full article.
Unbailable how NOAA tamper with the data. What the media is reporting is the opposite of what really has happened. The decade of the 1930s was much hotter than the decade of 2010s. During the summers of 1930s high temperatures and drought plagued much of the U.S. Before global warming there was the dust bowl years of the 1930s. During the summer of 1936 more than 5,000 people died due to the heat wave across the U.S.




 
Unbailable how NOAA tamper with the data. What the media is reporting is the opposite of what really has happened. The decade of the 1930s was much hotter than the decade of 2010s. During the summers of 1930s high temperatures and drought plagued much of the U.S. Before global warming there was the dust bowl years of the 1930s. During the summer of 1936 more than 5,000 people died due to the heat wave across the U.S.
I think most of the actual Scientist are accurately reporting their findings,
it is the media, and the public relations people who are reading into it more than is there.
I think the July NOAA temp was .01°C higher that some earlier July temp,
Here is what NASA's GISS says about the accuracy of the data set.
GISS FAQ
Q. How accurate are the GISS results (tables, graphs)?
A. The GISS results are estimates based on the available data. Hence it is important to determine the uncertainty of these results. A new uncertainty web site has been created and a paper published that deals with that problem. Roughly speaking, the uncertainty of annual global means after 1960 is about ±0.05°C, for seasonal and monthly means that number increases to ±0.1°C and ±0.17°C, respectively.
In this context, saying a reading is 0.01°C higher that some earlier reading, is almost meaningless, because the error bar is ±0.1°C.
To put this is context, GISS says the July 2021 anomaly is .92 °C , which means with the error bar it could be anywhere between .82 °C and 1.02°C.
 
Unbailable how NOAA tamper with the data. What the media is reporting is the opposite of what really has happened. The decade of the 1930s was much hotter than the decade of 2010s. During the summers of 1930s high temperatures and drought plagued much of the U.S. Before global warming there was the dust bowl years of the 1930s. During the summer of 1936 more than 5,000 people died due to the heat wave across the U.S.

What caused the high temperarures of the 1930s? What is causing them now?
 
What caused the high temperarures of the 1930s? What is causing them now?
You say that like the idea that Human added CO2 may be causing some of the recent warming is a big deal.
It only matters if the Climate's sensitivity to added CO2 is high, AND Human emissions are also much higher than present rates.
Based on the most recent IPCC AR6 SPM,
CO2 increases since 1900, are related to ~.75°C of warming, but if we look at where the forcing is on the log curve,
we see that we have already experienced more than 50% of the potential doubling forcing from CO2.
The forcing from doubling the CO2 level is 3.71 W m-2 and CO2 levels have increased from 280 ppm to 415 ppm,
so the forcing from that increase would be 5.35 X ln(415/280)=2.105W m-2, or 56.7% of 3.71W m-2!
If the resulting warming is .75°C, then that represents 56.7% of the warming we can expect from a doubling of the CO2 level.
This would be .75/.567=1.32°C.
I know, people will say, what about the feedback? The maximum warming from small increases in CO2 is reached within a decade,
so all the feedbacks between 1900, and 2010, are already in the .75°C, as well as all the forcing between 1900 and 2019.
The only outstanding feedback is the thin slice remaining between 2010 and 2019!
 
Wrong . Its entirely political being given faux scientific window dressing in an attempt to legitimise it ;)

We’re you the one who thinks 20 million people die every year exclusively as a result of biofuels? Or was that someone else.
 
Conspiracy theory.
Please explain to us why the SPM was set in stone before the science of the AR6 and the AR6 is being edited as not to conflict with the SPM.
 
You can’t prove that.
Typical. You didn't read a single page.

Each of the pages in the final, that isn't really the final says its subject to editing. The SPM is the only section actually finalized, so they must make the science match the agenda.
 
Typical. You didn't read a single page.

Each of the pages in the final, that isn't really the final says its subject to editing. The SPM is the only section actually finalized, so they must make the science match the agenda.

Does it use exactly those words? Show me.
 
Back
Top Bottom