• 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!

Tackling climate change ?

I just have to ask the age old question, "Do you want it sunny and warm tomorrow, or cold and wet?"
.
Are those the only choices? Do the people suffering under record highs in the West want it sunny and hot day after day?
 
.
Are those the only choices? Do the people suffering under record highs in the West want it sunny and hot day after day?
Yes, they're always backbiting the rain and then Nature starves and punishes us with storms.
 
I think the best we can hope for for an average global temperature is the RSS data set.
RSS
It is a somewhat unbiased mapping of an atmospheric variable that can be correlated to temperature.
Do we agree that if we click on the link we don't get temperatures, but rather "anomolies". What I'm saying is imagine if a kid doesn't want to go to school & says hey mom, I took my temp & I got an anomaly of 103!!! What I need to see is temperatures, not anomalies.
 
What we do know is that excess human-produced CO2 in the atmosphere since the onset of the Industrial Revolution holds heat. That is called “global warming” and is an absolute fact at this point.
--and my question is that if we really know there's heat, then someone must know how much heat, and know what the temperature was before and what it is now. You're not saying what temperature was before & what it is now. So far I haven't found anyone else yet either but I'm still look tho...
 
--and my question is that if we really know there's heat, then someone must know how much heat, and know what the temperature was before and what it is now. You're not saying what temperature was before & what it is now. So far I haven't found anyone else yet either but I'm still look tho...

Really? You haven't heard anything at all about long-term temperature (anomaly) records?

Oh, so you'll be interested to know that there's a very large group of experts studying this topic over the last 123 years! It's called AGW or "Anthropogenic Global Warming". It's been in the news quite a bit over the last 40 years but you might have missed it.

Here's an example:

1*3owJDz28r5senMJ2NL_4KQ.jpeg


Now, note this is in terms of something called the TEMPERATURE ANOMALY meaning how far it deviates + from a baseline temperature set.

Enjoy learning about GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE. There are about a billion easy-to-find references about the topic. But watch out for deniers who like to leverage a lack of scientific knowledge in service to an agenda to call into question relatively settled science.
 
I just have to ask the age old question, "Do you want it sunny and warm tomorrow, or cold and wet?"

Right now you live in a place that has had a relatively stable climate for, oh, estimates vary but likely about 14,000years. The plants you are surrounded by are uniquely suited to that environment, the entire ecosystem is well-established. You have farmers in your area growing crops and making money largely because they know roughly what will grow and how the weather will cooperate in most years.

So the REAL question is: "Do you want an ecosystem thrown into utter turmoil and likely irreparably destroyed because you can't bother to drive your car less?"
 
Do we agree that if we click on the link we don't get temperatures, but rather "anomolies". What I'm saying is imagine if a kid doesn't want to go to school & says hey mom, I took my temp & I got an anomaly of 103!!! What I need to see is temperatures, not anomalies.

If you don't understand the topic perhaps you should LEARN IT before questioning it's relative merit!
 
Do we agree that if we click on the link we don't get temperatures, but rather "anomolies". What I'm saying is imagine if a kid doesn't want to go to school & says hey mom, I took my temp & I got an anomaly of 103!!! What I need to see is temperatures, not anomalies.

If your child had a temperature anomaly of 103 that would essentially be a 200degF temperature.

Honestly you should learn what the conversation is about.

If you child had a 4.4degF temperature anomaly it would work out t0 103deg F
 
Do we agree that if we click on the link we don't get temperatures, but rather "anomolies". What I'm saying is imagine if a kid doesn't want to go to school & says hey mom, I took my temp & I got an anomaly of 103!!! What I need to see is temperatures, not anomalies.
The publish temperatures as anomalies compared to a baseline,
but I think the vibrations of the atoms they are looking at are about a good a thermometer as we can get, that is everywhere.
 
If you check the ice core record from both poles over the last 4000 years (Kobashi 2011) we are slap bang in the middle of temperature variations over that period and well within normal natural variation in both level and rate of change

All the rest is just about politics money fear and control :(
Yeah, a few years ago I check w/ a Greenland core data set from NOAA paleoclimatology site & got this (temp in C vs. years before present)--
gw6.png
--and this (again temp C vs. years before present)--
gw5.png
It was interesting but it just doesn't support the AGW narrative. So while nobody can prove a negative (there is no warming) I'm trying to find someone who can prove a positive ("this" proves that we do have warming).
 
Yeah, a few years ago I check w/ a Greenland core data set from NOAA paleoclimatology site & got this (temp in C vs. years before present)--
View attachment 67338716
--and this (again temp C vs. years before present)--
View attachment 67338717
It was interesting but it just doesn't support the AGW narrative. So while nobody can prove a negative (there is no warming) I'm trying to find someone who can prove a positive ("this" proves that we do have warming).

So the cumulative expertise of thousands upon thousands of independently operating experts over the course of 100 years of analysis of the topic doesn't convince you?

You need someone to post one single thing on a chat forum and that will do the trick?
 
Its a phrase politicians love using but what does it actually mean ?

simple truth is the phrase "Tackling climate change" is just anger example of political theater (i.e. propaganda) mostly used by "left leaning" partisan believers to rally around

sadly in an idiocracy there is lots of political theater (i.e. propaganda) used by partisan believers on both sides of the political spectrum

4x6-PC-TRUMP-climate-change.png
 
simple truth is the phrase "Tackling climate change" is just anger example of political theater (i.e. propaganda) mostly used by "left leaning" partisan believers to rally around

It is a luxury to have absolutely no knowledge of the history of the AGW hypothesis. I am kind of jealous of people who have zero understanding of how the concept came about because it makes it so much easier to simply ignore the problem. Of course those people will be VERY surprised by how nature and science don't really give a flying *deleted* about how little people know of a concept.

But in case you are interested in learning about it here's a great resource: https://history.aip.org/climate/index.htm
 
So the cumulative expertise of thousands upon thousands of independently operating experts over the course of 100 years of analysis of the topic doesn't convince you?...
Look guy, EVERYONE has a list of "thousands of independently operating experts over the course of 100 years of analysis of the topic" that they point to & say see I'm right see see see --and then they pass out I can can go back to trying to find the temp of the earth.

U know what the temp of the earth is? Remember I'm not looking for the anomaly of the earth (nor the taste, mass, color, or the feel), please tell me the TEMPERATURE of the earth.
 
Look guy, EVERYONE has a list of "thousands of independently operating experts over the course of 100 years of analysis of the topic" that they point to & say see I'm right see see see --and then they pass out I can can go back to trying to find the temp of the earth.

Well, in the case of climate science you are wrong. But if you still struggle with temperature vs anomaly then you don't know much about the topic.


Remember I'm not looking for the anomaly of the earth (nor the taste, mass, color, or the feel), please tell me the TEMPERATURE of the earth.

That's because you don't understand the concept.

Perhaps the people at NOAA can help you:

NOAA said:
Absolute estimates of global average surface temperature are difficult to compile for several reasons. Some regions have few temperature measurement stations (e.g., the Sahara Desert) and interpolation must be made over large, data-sparse regions. In mountainous areas, most observations come from the inhabited valleys, so the effect of elevation on a region's average temperature must be considered as well. For example, a summer month over an area may be cooler than average, both at a mountain top and in a nearby valley, but the absolute temperatures will be quite different at the two locations. The use of anomalies in this case will show that temperatures for both locations were below average.

Using reference values computed on smaller [more local] scales over the same time period establishes a baseline from which anomalies are calculated. This effectively normalizes the data so they can be compared and combined to more accurately represent temperature patterns with respect to what is normal for different places within a region.

For these reasons, large-area summaries incorporate anomalies, not the temperature itself. Anomalies more accurately describe climate variability over larger areas than absolute temperatures do, and they give a frame of reference that allows more meaningful comparisons between locations and more accurate calculations of temperature trends.

SOURCE: HERE
 
Yeah, a few years ago I check w/ a Greenland core data set from NOAA paleoclimatology site & got this (temp in C vs. years before present)--
View attachment 67338716
--and this (again temp C vs. years before present)--
View attachment 67338717
It was interesting but it just doesn't support the AGW narrative. So while nobody can prove a negative (there is no warming) I'm trying to find someone who can prove a positive ("this" proves that we do have warming).

Not sure exactly what you are saying here. Could you explain more as to what your specific point is by using the chart info.
 
simple truth is the phrase "Tackling climate change" is just anger example of political theater (i.e. propaganda) mostly used by "left leaning" partisan believers to rally around

sadly in an idiocracy there is lots of political theater (i.e. propaganda) used by partisan believers on both sides of the political spectrum

4x6-PC-TRUMP-climate-change.png

What would you call it? The point is that we need to address the climate change that is being caused by human-produced CO2 being out into the atmosphere. “Tackling” it seems like an appropriate use of the word, in context. How would you phrase if?
 
Look guy, EVERYONE has a list of "thousands of independently operating experts over the course of 100 years of analysis of the topic" that they point to & say see I'm right see see see --and then they pass out I can can go back to trying to find the temp of the earth.

U know what the temp of the earth is? Remember I'm not looking for the anomaly of the earth (nor the taste, mass, color, or the feel), please tell me the TEMPERATURE of the earth.

First, I am assuming that’s you mean the temperature of the atmosphere (and oceans). If climate scientists find an anomaly, what should they then do? Should they keep quiet about it, or should they try to discover what is causing it, as they are now doing?
 
...Perhaps the people at NOAA can help you:

Absolute estimates of global average surface temperature are difficult to compile for several reasons....

SOURCE: HERE
OK, now we may be getting somewhere. If we say that we can't measure the temperature then off hand that should make it impossible to say that the temp is higher or lower. Hey, I know you can come up w/ endless rationalizing & intricate logic structures to defend whatever your belief system requires, but that's you & I'm trying to find out what the temp is.

So now we know that NOAA can't figure it out. Maybe someone else can. We know the surface temp of the sun to 4 significant figures, we should certainly be able to get the same for the earth.
 
OK, now we may be getting somewhere. If we say that we can't measure the temperature then off hand that should make it impossible to say that the temp is higher or lower. Hey, I know you can come up w/ endless rationalizing & intricate logic structures to defend whatever your belief system requires, but that's you & I'm trying to find out what the temp is.

So now we know that NOAA can't figure it out. Maybe someone else can. We know the surface temp of the sun to 4 significant figures, we should certainly be able to get the same for the earth.

Very simplistic. The atmosphere of the sun is basicslly very simple when compared to that of Earth and its many different components. This is not a good example.
 
OK, now we may be getting somewhere. If we say that we can't measure the temperature then off hand that should make it impossible to say that the temp is higher or lower.

So you didn't really understand the link and you don't really understand the topic yet.

Hey, I know you can come up w/ endless rationalizing & intricate logic structures to defend whatever your belief system requires, but that's you & I'm trying to find out what the temp is.

If you don't understand science that isn't the fault of science.

So now we know that NOAA can't figure it out. Maybe someone else can. We know the surface temp of the sun to 4 significant figures, we should certainly be able to get the same for the earth.

Wow.
 
Very simplistic. The atmosphere of the sun is basicslly very simple when compared to that of Earth and its many different components. This is not a good example.
Solar scientists would disagree. The solar atmosphere is far more complex than the atmosphere of the earth.,
 
Yeah, a few years ago I check w/ a Greenland core data set from NOAA paleoclimatology site & got this (temp in C vs. years before present)--
View attachment 67338716
--and this (again temp C vs. years before present)--
View attachment 67338717
It was interesting but it just doesn't support the AGW narrative. So while nobody can prove a negative (there is no warming) I'm trying to find someone who can prove a positive ("this" proves that we do have warming).
The way the ice cores work, is that when they support the narrative they represent the global temperature,
but when they do not support the narrative, they are only local temperatures!
It really depends on the which side of the bowl you pick the cherries from!
Recent temps are cooler than earlier in the current inter glacial period, according to the ice core records,
and this interglacial period so far is cooler than several others.
That does not mean that CO2 is not causing warming, only that recent level of warming is not that unusual.
 
So you claim recent levels of warming are not unusual but clearly many professionals who are brave enough to publish disagree with you:

t4sgLiu.gif
I'm curious. Do you understand what temporal resolution is, and what the temporal resolution is of the proxies to make the graph prior to the thermometer record? If so, I have a followup question.
 
I'm curious. Do you understand what temporal resolution is, and what the temporal resolution is of the proxies to make the graph prior to the thermometer record? If so, I have a followup question.
Yes I know what temporal resolution is
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom