• 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!

Record month again March 2016

It's quite clear that the entire Holocene- aka the Anthropocene- has not been warmer than it is right now.

See Pages 2K for reference for the last couple thousand years, or Marcott et al for a 12,000 year, lower resolution look.

heh heh - you're cluelessness is exceeded (and exposed) by your terrible attempts at bluffing your way through this stuff.

What preceded 1890 and why did they/you start their graph in 1890?
 
Because it hasn't been this warm since records began, and I can confidently say that nobody alive then is alive now.

Is that what you meant?
Then it's meaningless so nevermind.
 
No one is calling for eliminating all fossil fuel use.

You don't understand the problem or the solutions, so you make up strawmen.

Nonsense - there are lots of people calling for the elimination of fossil fuels, either in the short term or through pricing/taxing fossil fuels to such an extent that inefficient and uneconomical green power alternatives become preferable.

That you don't understand that simple fact, or that you dishonestly won't acknowledge it, makes all your continued arrogant bleatings about the issue irrelevant.
 
Maybe I have missed it, but I never see any of you guys discussing 'solutions' All I ever see is scare tactics and fear mongering designed to accept the one 'solution' you fringe leftists desire--government control.

Yes, you missed it.
 
I've been waiting for months for a response from you regarding Climategate. You've yet to offer anything over all those months, and I'm not the only one here to which you offer no response. In fact, the point was historical and doesn't fit your narrative, so you ignore it much like the Climategate business. It isn't going away, 3G. You've already mentioned the science superiority business, the lack of intelligence, and the consensus - none of which have any factual basis at all. If you were to look at Roy Spencer's temperature evidence, you'd find that minus El Nino, it's tracking in a pretty much straight line. Yes, satellites. Naturally they are incorrect. That's why we put them up there - to measure and transmit incorrect data. :roll:

I've been waiting longer than you for that ... but speaking of emails that tell the story of guys who will fall for anything ...

mann gore 3g.jpg
 
And you know that ... how?

Because we have fairly accurate temperature data going back 850,000 years and slightly less accurate temperature data going back for millions of years.
 
LOL. I answered it. And you just kept asking because you literally know nothing else about the entire topic.

There you are again doing what you do. I'm convinced you don't know anything at all about the topic other than what you are told. You refuse to read a critical source, you refuse to answer questions the AGW alarmist community refuses to acknowledge, and you denigrate those who hold critical views even though it's apparent their knowledge and expertise far, far exceeds your parroting. I'll even help you out - June will also set a record for warmth, as will July, August, September and so on ad infinitum.
 
Maybe I have missed it, but I never see any of you guys discussing 'solutions' All I ever see is scare tactics and fear mongering designed to accept the one 'solution' you fringe leftists desire--government control.

You missed the "Send me your money" solution?
 
Your/their graph begins in 1890.
You must have missed my question to you so I'll ask you again ...
And before 1890?
Think ... Think.
What was that period called?
And the one before that?

I guess a point in your favor is that you never seem to get tired of being played for a fool by the alarmists, but that's because you never appear to know that they are doing just that.
But we here on DP know why that is.

We have tree ring data that stretches back several thousands of years, ice core data that stretches back for 850,000 years, and various other temperature measurements that go back for even longer. We have a really good idea about the temperature fluctuations over that time period. Our current warming trend is novel when compared to any time period during which modern humans have lived.

Please Bubba - understand this simple fact. The EARTH will be fine - nothing we do will in regards to climate change will hurt the planet Earth. What will be hurt are the currently living plants and animals because the rate of change that humans are causing is dramatically faster than any naturally occurring force (outside of extremely rare events like massive volcanoes or global meteor strikes).
 
Nearly all of them. It would be easier to identify those quotes that don't demonstrate your contention that we are constantly getting warmer regardless of what the instruments tell us. It's the extremist, alarmist position in nearly every instance, even when the evidence demonstrates a scientifically justified skepticism.

Dude...you were supposed to be finding a quote from your link that illustrates the isolated impact of El Nino on the temperature anomaly.

Stick with that one.
 
Because we have fairly accurate temperature data going back 850,000 years and slightly less accurate temperature data going back for millions of years.

No No ... it's been cleared up.
He was talking about humans who are literally alive today.
What you're talking about is just plain silly, unproven, and quite likely preposterous but definitely agenda driven.
 
No No ... it's been cleared up.
He was talking about humans who are literally alive today.
What you're talking about is just plain silly, unproven, and quite likely preposterous but definitely agenda driven.

So wait...you doubt the validity of ice core data or whether the data stretches back 850,000 years? Or is it just "silly" to think that we can gain anything useful from ice core data?

Let me put it a different way bubba - is there ANYTHING that could be presented that would convince you of climate change?
 
Because no human lives longer than 120 years. And we have records that go back that far.

You're right.
I thought he was making a claim of some significance ... it would have been a false claim, of course, but significant.
But no, his was just a point not worth making.
 
So wait...you doubt the validity of ice core data or whether the data stretches back 850,000 years? Or is it just "silly" to think that we can gain anything useful from ice core data?

Let me put it a different way bubba - is there ANYTHING that could be presented that would convince you of climate change?

There are proxies, and there are proxies, and there are proxies in the hands of charlatans that when employed produce hockey sticks.
You don't want to go down the proxy road.
It leads nowhere good for you.
 
I've been waiting for months for a response from you regarding Climategate. You've yet to offer anything over all those months, and I'm not the only one here to which you offer no response. In fact, the point was historical and doesn't fit your narrative, so you ignore it much like the Climategate business. It isn't going away, 3G. You've already mentioned the science superiority business, the lack of intelligence, and the consensus - none of which have any factual basis at all. If you were to look at Roy Spencer's temperature evidence, you'd find that minus El Nino, it's tracking in a pretty much straight line. Yes, satellites. Naturally they are incorrect. That's why we put them up there - to measure and transmit incorrect data. :roll:
Another point the alarmist don't like to talk about, is that the surface temperatures are not what is modeled
in the computer simulations.
The models cover the surface troposphere system, with a vertical resolution of about 8000 feet.
This means the satellites and weather balloons are a more accurate measure of what was modeled.
 
There are proxies, and there are proxies, and there are proxies in the hands of charlatans that when employed produce hockey sticks.
You don't want to go down the proxy road.
It leads nowhere good for you.

I'm sorry...why don't you do me a favor and find me a SINGLE EXAMPLE of a temperature measurement that does not rely on a proxy.

Seriously...even when you use a ****ing mercury thermometer, you are using a proxy.
 
I'm sorry...why don't you do me a favor and find me a SINGLE EXAMPLE of a temperature measurement that does not rely on a proxy.

Seriously...even when you use a ****ing mercury thermometer, you are using a proxy.

I thought I was pretty clear.
There are proxies, and there are proxies, and there are proxies in the hands of charlatans that when employed produce hockey sticks.
 
Dude...you were supposed to be finding a quote from your link that illustrates the isolated impact of El Nino on the temperature anomaly.

Stick with that one.

Supposed to be? You could've read the link yourself. Why don't you demonstrate exactly how it has been determined that March would be warmer than ever without El Nino. Because, you know, we have this El Nino and all...
 
Another point the alarmist don't like to talk about, is that the surface temperatures are not what is modeled
in the computer simulations.
The models cover the surface troposphere system, with a vertical resolution of about 8000 feet.
This means the satellites and weather balloons are a more accurate measure of what was modeled.

No kidding. It's almost like they don't read that stuff. They surely don't want to talk about it. We're supposed to view the world through the gun slit they offer and accept it as an all-encompassing view.
 
Supposed to be? You could've read the link yourself. Why don't you demonstrate exactly how it has been determined that March would be warmer than ever without El Nino. Because, you know, we have this El Nino and all...

No one is claiming that March would have been the warmest ever absent El Nino - the point is that El Nino is not large enough, on its own, to explain the global warming that we are currently seeing.

Think of this analogy. Let's say that I want to learn how to jump really high on a trampoline. So I start by jumping on a trampoline to get my "starting point" and then I start to train for a long time without using a trampoline. Then, after several years of training, I go back to the trampoline to see how high I can jump. If I can jump higher than my "starting point," then something else besides the trampoline explains the new height of my jump.

In this analogy, the global average temperature is the "starting point" and El Nino is the trampoline.
 
I thought I was pretty clear.
There are proxies, and there are proxies, and there are proxies in the hands of charlatans that when employed produce hockey sticks.

I thought I was pretty clear.

EVERYTHING IS A PROXY.

So if you're just going to keep resorting to some unprovable assertion about how the data must have been manipulated to prove a goal, I think that you've answered my question.

There is literally nothing that I could show you that would convince you of AGW. And if that's the case, I will not engage in any further debate with you.
 
No one is claiming that March would have been the warmest ever absent El Nino - the point is that El Nino is not large enough, on its own, to explain the global warming that we are currently seeing.

Think of this analogy. Let's say that I want to learn how to jump really high on a trampoline. So I start by jumping on a trampoline to get my "starting point" and then I start to train for a long time without using a trampoline. Then, after several years of training, I go back to the trampoline to see how high I can jump. If I can jump higher than my "starting point," then something else besides the trampoline explains the new height of my jump.

In this analogy, the global average temperature is the "starting point" and El Nino is the trampoline.

That's a reasonable description, but the starting point is the element in question here, and not what follows. The contention all along has been that the starting point excludes too much to be accurately be described as a starting point at all. If we were using high jumping as an analogy, setting the bar at two inches and claiming that a jump of four inches is a dramatic improvement (or significant warming), while mathematically correct, loses sight of the more significant fact that no jumping is required to achieve such a dismal height and is completely insufficient for projection purposes. Now if that doubling were to occur on a continuing basis extending far into the future, it would be something to watch. In this particular year, we have a strong anomaly, and while one can claim it would be thus or so without it, there will be no direct evidence to support the claim. Simply saying that we've had warming in all recent, previous years (with defining conditions) doesn't cut the mustard because that itself is in dispute, whether AGW alarmists wish to admit it or not.
 
Back
Top Bottom