• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • 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 setting global hear in January

SouthernDemocrat said:
The point being glossed over is that surface temperature stations take a direct measurement of temperature while satellites measure radiance and temperature measurements are extrapolated from that with various models - there is not even a real consensus on which models to use and depending on the model used there is a huge variance in temperatures extrapolated. You also have the issue of orbital variance, differences in sensors between satellites, deterioration in sensors over time and so on. This is why the majority of the scientific community considers surface measurements to be far superior to the satellite datasets and see the value in satellite datasets in their showing a cooling stratosphere - which is exactly what we would expect to see as co2 ppm increased over time.

Its all well discussed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements
Click to expand...
It is not being glossed over, there are inconsistencies in all of the data collection methodologies.
the satellite and balloon measurements are likely just a good or better than the ground stations.
Read what the GISS says about the Surface Air Temperature.
Data.GISS: GISTEMP ? The Elusive Absolute Surface Air Temperature
Q. What do we mean by daily mean SAT?
A. Again, there is no universally accepted correct answer. Should we note the temperature every 6 hours and report the mean, should we do it every 2 hours, hourly, have a machine record it every second, or simply take the average of the highest and lowest temperature of the day? On some days the various methods may lead to drastically different results.
Click to expand...
It does not sound like there is a standard methodology.
Near the ground, micro climates vary several degrees within a few yards.
You also have to ask yourself what are we trying to measure?
In the IPCC's key concept documents, they talk about warming in the surface troposphere,
not the Surface Air Temperature.
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/pdf/tar-01.pdf
To counteract this imbalance, the temperature of the surface-troposphere
system would have to increase by 1.2°C
Click to expand...
The satellites and balloons are likely more accurate measures of the surface troposphere,
the Surface Air Temperature, could swing wildly based on local micro climates.
 
flogger said:
Higher temperatures make for longer growing seasons and with the benefit extra CO2 that means greater yields

Thats a good thing
Click to expand...

It also leads to mass extinction events in our oceans.
 
MrT said:
Wait...did you just imply that the "know-it-alls" are trying to convince you that the Earth is flat?

Anyways, the primary and most significant problem with your critique is that the concern of AGW is not that the Planet is in danger or that the Planet will be destroyed. Earth will be just fine. However, humans and the other currently living plants and animals do not live on a geologic timescale. So while 800,000 years may be a blip for the planet, that represents more than a million generations for most species.

Finally, no one is advocating that we stop doing research and looking to make our understanding of the climate any broader (except, for example, conservatives who advocate that NASA stop researching the climate) or more refined. However, it is a far different thing to claim that our lack of perfect knowledge means that we should dismiss the knowledge that we do have currently in the hope that we are wrong.
Click to expand...

Right.

However the advocates of AGW, despite this lack of perfect knowledge, want all humans of the earth to accept the demands of a small minority of people, change everything they do to live and work, and for those countries of means, transfer over wealth on scales unseen in the history of mankind.

It seems reasonable to expect something closer to perfection before thinking such a thing can be pulled off without any resistance.
 
OK. For starters, I'm not really sure about "global warming" being entirely man made. Is Co2 a greenhouse gas, in that it traps more heat than it reflects? So I'm told.

I'm not to abreast on that science. What I DO know, however, is that the earth heating up can, and likely WILL be catastrophically bad. Heat is energy, and it powers EVERYTHING on this planet. Rising sea levels? I could give two ****s. Warmer winters and longer summers? Sounds awesome.

Category 5 hurricanes being a yearly, normal event, along with greater tornado activity, and in general, "greater" weather, in both strength and scope? NOT a good thing. More fertile growing periods, while at first may seem like a good thing, can and most likely will result in longer down times. Soil only has so much in it, and cows can only **** so much. But the greater danger is the undeniable harm that warming is currently doing to our oceans. It's resulting in species no longer able to reproduce properly, die outs, and an over all change that is happening faster than evolution can keep pace with. Add to that, if the oceans become warm enough, plant life will flourish more than animal life there, to the point that, eventually, we'll end up with dead patches. Does no one question why red tide has been getting worse these past 10 years or so? To make light of our earth getting warmer, no matter what we think the cause is, is to show truly remarkable idiocy.
 
flogger said:
Which again is utter nonsense

Rapid plankton growth in ocean seen as sign of carbon dioxide loading | Hub

More plankton just like more vegetation is undeniably a good thing for the biosphere
Click to expand...

Undeniably?
Your link specifically says it's NOT undeniably good!


............................................________
....................................,.-'"...................``~.,
.............................,.-"..................................."-.,
.........................,/...............................................":,
.....................,?......................................................,
.................../...........................................................,}
................./......................................................,:`^`..}
.............../...................................................,:"........./
..............?.....__.........................................:`.........../
............./__.(....."~-,_..............................,:`........../
.........../(_...."~,_........"~,_....................,:`........_/
..........{.._$;_......"=,_......."-,_.......,.-~-,},.~";/....}
...........((.....*~_......."=-._......";,,./`..../"............../
...,,,___.`~,......"~.,....................`.....}............../
............(....`=-,,.......`........................(......;_,,-"
............/.`~,......`-...................................../
.............`~.*-,.....................................|,./.....,__
,,_..........}.>-._...................................|..............`=~-,
.....`=~-,__......`,.................................
...................`=~-,,.,...............................
................................`:,,...........................`..............__
.....................................`=-,...................,%`>--==``
........................................_..........._,-%.......`
...................................,
 
KevinKohler said:
OK. For starters, I'm not really sure about "global warming" being entirely man made. Is Co2 a greenhouse gas, in that it traps more heat than it reflects? So I'm told.

I'm not to abreast on that science. What I DO know, however, is that the earth heating up can, and likely WILL be catastrophically bad. Heat is energy, and it powers EVERYTHING on this planet. Rising sea levels? I could give two ****s. Warmer winters and longer summers? Sounds awesome.

Category 5 hurricanes being a yearly, normal event, along with greater tornado activity, and in general, "greater" weather, in both strength and scope? NOT a good thing. More fertile growing periods, while at first may seem like a good thing, can and most likely will result in longer down times. Soil only has so much in it, and cows can only **** so much. But the greater danger is the undeniable harm that warming is currently doing to our oceans. It's resulting in species no longer able to reproduce properly, die outs, and an over all change that is happening faster than evolution can keep pace with. Add to that, if the oceans become warm enough, plant life will flourish more than animal life there, to the point that, eventually, we'll end up with dead patches. Does no one question why red tide has been getting worse these past 10 years or so? To make light of our earth getting warmer, no matter what we think the cause is, is to show truly remarkable idiocy.
Click to expand...
While I have no doubt the oceans of the world are having human related troubles,
I have serious doubts that it is related to warming from extra CO2.
More Hurricanes, it does not look like it,
TCFAQ E11) How many tropical cyclones have there been each year in the
More tornadoes,
Not really, https://weather.com/safety/tornado/news/tornado-count-hits-record-lows
Better reporting on both, very likely.
Red tide and dead zones like in the Gulf of Mexico, are human related, but related
to agriculture.
http://petelandrysrealgas.com/wp-content/uploads/2014-Gulf-of-Mexico-Dead-Zone-pic1.jpg
The dead zone corresponds to the Mississippi river outflow moving west with the longshore current.
We need better management of our oceans, not more management, just better.
Again not related to temperature, but over fishing and poorly designed fishing regulations.
 
Last edited:
longview said:
While I have no doubt the oceans of the world are having human related troubles,
I have serious doubts that it is related to warming from extra CO2.
More Hurricanes, it does not look like it,
TCFAQ E11) How many tropical cyclones have there been each year in the
More tornadoes,
Not really, https://weather.com/safety/tornado/news/tornado-count-hits-record-lows
Better reporting on both, very likely.
Red tide and dead zones like in the Gulf of Mexico, are human related, but related
to agriculture.
http://petelandrysrealgas.com/wp-content/uploads/2014-Gulf-of-Mexico-Dead-Zone-pic1.jpg
The dead zone corresponds to the Mississippi river outflow moving west with the longshore current.
We need better management of our oceans, not more management, just better.
Again not related to temperature, but over fishing and poorly designed fishing regulations.
Click to expand...

Rising oceanic temps are also being increasingly linked to species not being able to reproduce properly.

And I said up front that I don't really know if increasing ocean temps are a result of Co2.
 
flogger said:
Since when was having extra food be it on land or sea not good ?
Click to expand...

Fish need to breath in order to survive. If plant life, even if it IS fish food, is overpowering the fish and other sea life, there were be a mass extinction event in the ocean. It has happened before, it is the reason we have oil today.
 
KevinKohler said:
Fish need to breath in order to survive. If plant life, even if it IS fish food, is overpowering the fish and other sea life, there were be a mass extinction event in the ocean. It has happened before, it is the reason we have oil today.
Click to expand...

Is there nothing humanity can't be held culpable for in the modern environmentalist mindset I wonder ? Oceanic acidification was a tubthumper for a while there too until ....

C3: Xtra Catg: Are Oceans Becoming Acidic
 
Last edited:
Threegoofs said:
Maybe if you read your own articles and understand the material beyond your denier stance, you'll find out.

Here's a hint, and it relates well to the 'dead zones' mentioned in the post above from 'extra food' coming down the Mississippi River....

Harmful Algal Blooms | Nutrient Pollution | US EPA
Click to expand...


As ever deliberate your conflation of harmful pollution with beneficial CO2 is always the go to position.

Yup white is always black when you are trying to eat the rich isn't ? Don't get so jealous just work harder :wink:
 
flogger said:
As ever deliberate your conflation of harmful pollution with beneficial CO2 is always the go to position.

Yup white is always black when you are trying to eat the rich isn't ? Don't get so jealous just work harder :wink:
Click to expand...

You asked if too much food can ever be a problem.

I showed you it not only can be, but often is.

Sorry I made you learn something. Had to hurt a bit, eh?
 
Last edited:
SouthernDemocrat said:
You won't hear much out of the deniers on this one until one of their crackpot blogs gives them their marching orders.
Click to expand...
Northeast preps for coldest temperatures in 20 years | MSNBC

fail
dancefail-11.gif
 
flogger said:
The US spends at least 3 times more than it needs to on defence and has armed forces larger than the next 13 nations combined.

Slash that by two thirds and you would have cash available for the best national healthcare sevice in the developed world without it having to cost your taxpayers an extra penny
Click to expand...
Oh that the US Government could actually do something efficient like that!
No any savings would get diverted off into some pet project, and we still would
pay a lot for medical care.
 
flogger said:
The US spends at least 3 times more than it needs to on defence and has armed forces larger than the next 13 nations combined.

Slash that by two thirds and you would have cash available for the best national healthcare sevice in the developed world without it having to cost your taxpayers an extra penny
Click to expand...

rather than do that, we should close all overseas bases and stop foreign aid, including to israel.

The Cost of the Global U.S. Military Presence - FPIF 250 billion towards maintaining our overseas presence,
$37,680,000,000: That?s How Much the U.S. Spent on Foreign Aid in 2012 ? Here?s a Chart That Helps Explain It | TheBlaze.com

that frees up 290 billion/year, which while nowhere near enough to balance the US budget, would be an excellent start to averting the collapse of the US economy.
 
longview said:
Oh that the US Government could actually do something efficient like that!
No any savings would get diverted off into some pet project, and we still would
pay a lot for medical care.
Click to expand...

Its up to your voters to demand something better then. If they don't then they are getting what they deserve

Its weird the gnashing of teeth that goes on about universal healthcare provision in your country when you have such ample resources to provide for it. How many supercarriers and F22's do you really need after all ? :(
 
QuadpolarNutjob said:
rather than do that, we should close all overseas bases and stop foreign aid, including to israel.

The Cost of the Global U.S. Military Presence - FPIF 250 billion towards maintaining our overseas presence,
$37,680,000,000: That?s How Much the U.S. Spent on Foreign Aid in 2012 ? Here?s a Chart That Helps Explain It | TheBlaze.com

that frees up 290 billion/year, which while nowhere near enough to balance the US budget, would be an excellent start to averting the collapse of the US economy.
Click to expand...

So why is this vast and unnecessary overspend on military hardware somehow better than having adequate healthcare provision ?

discretionary_spending_pie,_2015_enacted_large.webp

Some 54 % of your discretionary budget is spent on defence :(
 
Last edited:
Threegoofs said:
Looks like 2016 is already breaking records on the heels of a record breaking 2015 and the formerly record breaking 2014.

As the models have accurately predicted decades ago, we are living in the warmest month of the warmest years of the warmest decade we've ever recorded.

January 2016 was Earth's warmest month yet.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but no.


[h=1]New NOAA forecast suggests current El Niño will fade fast, and be replaced by a strong cooling La Niña this year[/h] Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. directs me to this new forecast product from NOAA’s Earth System Research Laboratory (ESRL). If it holds, it suggests a big cooling event ahead. NOAA/ESRL PSD and CU CIRES Forecast in Global Tropics Domain LIM forecasts of SST anomalies based on November-December-January 2015-2016 initial conditions. Contour interval is 0.3 degrees C.…
Continue reading →
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom