• 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!

NOAA - Arctic Report Card -warming temperatures and melting ice

Given the extremely short duration of such datasets they are essentially a worthless curiosity to be used as a political football by the greedy for the gullible. There really is nothing unprecedented going on at either pole if one looks at ice core data from recent millenia as I've illustrated many times here

Yeah, I suppose the NOAA is lying in their original article, and you know better.

The annual report released Tuesday says rapid warming over the past three decades has led to a 95 percent decline of the Arctic's oldest and thickest ice.
 
Yeah, I suppose the NOAA is lying in their original article, and you know better.

The annual report released Tuesday says rapid warming over the past three decades has led to a 95 percent decline of the Arctic's oldest and thickest ice.

You realize his whole schtick is that the gubbmint and scientists are lying and he ‘knows better’, right?
 
Yeah, I suppose the NOAA is lying in their original article, and you know better.

The annual report released Tuesday says rapid warming over the past three decades has led to a 95 percent decline of the Arctic's oldest and thickest ice.

Yet the Arctic today is still well within the natural temperature variation of the last 4000 years. Funny that :wink:

4000yearsgreenland_nov2011_gprl.jpg

Graph taken from peer reviewed paper Kobayashi 2011 before you ask
 
Yet the Arctic today is still well within the natural temperature variation of the last 4000 years. Funny that :wink:

View attachment 67247917

Graph taken from peer reviewed paper Kobayashi 2011 before you ask

I wasn't around then. We don't know the cause and effect. Today, we know cause and effect.
 
I wasn't around then. We don't know the cause and effect. Today, we know cause and effect.

No .... we actually don't its all just non empirically based assertion and thats the major problem with the AGW hypothesis . All the rest is just politics sadly :(
 
No .... we actually don't its all just non empirically based assertion and thats the major problem with the AGW hypothesis . All the rest is just politics sadly :(

No it's not. It is science - science by thousands of Climatologists from around the world. All the major scientific organizations endorse it. There are peer reviewed publications. It is way beyond a "hypothesis". "Sadly", it is the oil industry that has turned it into "politics".
 
No it's not. It is science - science by thousands of Climatologists from around the world. All the major scientific organizations endorse it. There are peer reviewed publications. It is way beyond a "hypothesis". "Sadly", it is the oil industry that has turned it into "politics".

I couldnt care less about the oil industry. What I care about is what is scientifically and empirically verifiable and the AGW hypothesis most certainly isn't
 
Yes. Because before that, the German tribes had no technology to cross the Rhine.

That’s just common sense.

Rome would still be Rome if they only had a wall next to the Rio Rhino.
 
I couldnt care less about the oil industry. What I care about is what is scientifically and empirically verifiable and the AGW hypothesis most certainly isn't

It has been verified now, year after year, for about 30 years. The science is solid. It is NOT a hypothesis any more than electron theory and electrical currents, which is proven in practice and acceptance.
 
It has been verified now, year after year, for about 30 years. The science is solid. It is NOT a hypothesis any more than electron theory and electrical currents, which is proven in practice and acceptance.

You fail to grasp very inportant concepts. Electron theory for example we have quantified to something like five significant digits or more. None of us are saying AGE isn't real. We are saying the quantification is poor, not even to one significant digit.
 
You fail to grasp very inportant concepts. Electron theory for example we have quantified to something like five significant digits or more. None of us are saying AGE isn't real. We are saying the quantification is poor, not even to one significant digit.

Please provide your electron theory reference. There is much about electron theory that we don't know. Math is based on suppositions, not actual electron flow.
 
It has been verified now, year after year, for about 30 years. The science is solid. It is NOT a hypothesis any more than electron theory and electrical currents, which is proven in practice and acceptance.

Nonsense
 
Please provide your electron theory reference. There is much about electron theory that we don't know. Math is based on suppositions, not actual electron flow.

O please.

If yo don't understand the point I am making, then what makes you think you have any credibility?

Significant digits matter. When you have error bands as large as in the climate sciences, there is no credible certainty.
 
It has been verified now, year after year, for about 30 years. The science is solid. It is NOT a hypothesis any more than electron theory and electrical currents, which is proven in practice and acceptance.

What *exactly* has been verified?
 
It has been verified now, year after year, for about 30 years. The science is solid. It is NOT a hypothesis any more than electron theory and electrical currents, which is proven in practice and acceptance.

No its the new trendy secular religion ...... sorry but I'm not a disciple :wink:
 
What *exactly* has been verified?

Did you read the title thread article? Probably not. This for starters...

According to NOAA, the Arctic is warming at twice the rate of the rest of the globe, which is melting some of the region's oldest ice.
 
Trump's incompetence seems to extend to his recent comments about weather, and the inference to climate change.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opin...global-warming-editorials-debates/2711995002/

The past four years were the planet's warmest since modern record-keeping began in 1850. And oceans are heating up even faster.

What is tragically lost on the president and others is that weather (short-term changes in the atmosphere) and climate (average weather over time) are two different things. And a crucial hallmark of man-made climate disruption, scientists agree, is that it can multiply and intensify extreme weather events.
 
Back
Top Bottom