Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Perspectives. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
India records its hottest temperature ever amid heat wave; 51 degrees Celsius (123.8 Fahrenheit)
Topic Started: May 20 2016, 07:24 AM (2,618 Views)
Member013

A city in western India has suffered through the country's highest temperature in history — a scorching 51 degrees Celsius (123.8 Fahrenheit).

The record was set Thursday in the city of Phalodi, in the western state of Rajasthan. India's meteorological department said the previous high was 50.6 Celsius (123 F), reached in 1956 in the city of Alwar, also in Rajasthan.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/india-records-its-hottest-temperature-ever-amid-heat-wave/ar-BBtgNp7?li=BBnb7Kz
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
mysysail
Member Avatar
Global_Hick
Climate-change, though reality across the Globe, is non-existent according to some CONs.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Robert Stout
Member Avatar

The 123.8 degree temperature in Phalodi barely beat the record set 60 years ago, prior to global warming...I have been in temperatures of over 121 degrees in Phoenix and Bullhead City....That is what deserts do............... :rotflmao:
Edited by Robert Stout, May 20 2016, 08:20 AM.
Jesus can raise the dead, but he can't fix stupid
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
nNeo

Robert Stout
May 20 2016, 08:16 AM
The 123.8 degree temperature in Phalodi barely beat the record set 60 years ago, prior to global warming...I have been in temperatures of over 121 degrees in Phoenix and Bullhead City....That is what deserts do............... :rotflmao:
What is significant is not an individual record, or the margin by which an individual record is exceeded, but rather the overall pattern. In normal cycles we'd expect occasional record highs and lows, in about even proportion. Looking at the early 20th century, that was pretty much the case, with a small warming bias in the 1920s, and slight cooling (mostly from aerosol air pollution) in the 1960s and early 70s. Since then we've seen a strong tilt to warming, with record highs happening 1.5 to 2 times as often as record lows.

That it gets hot in the desert isn't news. That it gets hotter, more often, in the same place, is.
Edited by nNeo, May 20 2016, 01:27 PM.
“Strong people don’t need strong leaders.”
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Demagogue
Member Avatar
Administrator
mysysail
May 20 2016, 07:56 AM
Climate-change, though reality across the Globe, is non-existent according to some CONs.
Almost nobody says that the climate does not change. What is in question is how much of the change is due to the actions of man.

That wonderful hockey stick graph is a flat line when if you take the date back 1000 years or so.
People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to visit violence on those who would do them harm.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
nNeo

Demagogue
May 20 2016, 01:32 PM
Almost nobody says that the climate does not change. What is in question is how much of the change is due to the actions of man.
That question has been mostly answered. There's a positive and very close correlation between observed increases in temperature and and atmospheric levels of greenhouse gasses. The increases in greenhouse gasses correspond to the amount humans are adding. The temperature increase is in line with theory, given those levels. There are still minor questions about feedback effects and long-term sensitivities, but those are subtle. The basic mechanism is well understood.
“Strong people don’t need strong leaders.”
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
W A Mozart
Member Avatar

What we really need here is MORE CO2 in the atmosphere...! You betcha! Makes everything green. Plants grow better. There's more food availability, corn crops, wheat crops, soybeans, ...everything grows better with more CO2...!

Quote:
 

n the past, sea temperatures were obtained from
measurements by passing ships in the sea lanes of
the world. It is only in the past three decades that
more accurate data on sea surface temperatures has
become available. The analysis of this recent data by the
author shows that:
¢ the oceans regulate the composition of the
atmosphere;
¢ the influence on climate of human-generated carbon
dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere is negligible; and
¢ global climate change has natural causes.
The oceans and the atmosphere are quite shallow in
relation to the vast surface area of the oceans. The interaction
of the atmosphere and the oceans is essentially a
phenomenon of the ocean surface. It would be expected
that there would be almost a direct correlation between
levels of CO2 in the air and the global mean sea surface
temperatures, and that is the case.
It is possible to plot an experience curve of the relationship
between ocean temperatures and atmospheric
CO2 levels. In order to do so it is necessary to recognise
that the oceans have a vast storage capacity for heat and
dissolved gases, and that changes are slow.
On the other hand, the atmosphere has a much
more rapid response time. If we use a 12-month moving
average of atmospheric CO2 and a 21-year moving average
of the more accurate recent data on global average
sea surface temperatures, a remarkably clear experience
curve is obtained.


http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/pdf/Endersbee-oceans.pdf

Mozart

edited to the allowable 25% copy/paste per the rules
Edited by wilmywood8455, May 20 2016, 04:31 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
nNeo

W A Mozart
May 20 2016, 03:01 PM
What we really need here is MORE CO2 in the atmosphere...! You betcha! Makes everything green. Plants grow better. There's more food availability, corn crops, wheat crops, soybeans, ...everything grows better with more CO2...!

Under most real-world conditions that is false. More CO2 improves plant growth only when the limiting factor is CO2, and only for non-C4 plants. In most cases it isn't. Response is not uniform, so you may boost weeds or insect pets more than the crop you hope to help. Plants under stress from drought, heat, or low nutrients can be further harmed by higher levels of CO2, and since heat and drought are made worse, more CO2 is a problem, and not certainly NOT needed.


https://news.stanford.edu/pr/02/jasperplots124.html
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11655-climate-myths-higher-co2-levels-will-boost-plant-growth-and-food-production/
https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food.htm
“Strong people don’t need strong leaders.”
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Scim

Demagogue
May 20 2016, 01:32 PM
mysysail
May 20 2016, 07:56 AM
Climate-change, though reality across the Globe, is non-existent according to some CONs.
Almost nobody says that the climate does not change. What is in question is how much of the change is due to the actions of man.

That wonderful hockey stick graph is a flat line when if you take the date back 1000 years or so.
That's a scientifc question and thr best estimate is that about 100% of the warming since 1950 has been caused by us.

If you change the question to "is most of the recent warming human caused?", then the consensus in scienticic research is 97 %.
Edited by Scim, May 20 2016, 05:49 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
W A Mozart
Member Avatar

Scim
May 20 2016, 05:48 PM
Demagogue
May 20 2016, 01:32 PM
mysysail
May 20 2016, 07:56 AM
Climate-change, though reality across the Globe, is non-existent according to some CONs.
Almost nobody says that the climate does not change. What is in question is how much of the change is due to the actions of man.

That wonderful hockey stick graph is a flat line when if you take the date back 1000 years or so.
That's a scientifc question and thr best estimate is that about 100% of the warming since 1950 has been caused by us.

If you change the question to "is most of the recent warming human caused?", then the consensus in scienticic research is 97 %.
Nonsense!

(And you call yourself a scientist...?)

Bupkis, gobbledexxxx, pie-in-the-sky codswallup, crapoloa, liberal-wet-dreams, fallacious logic, stupid rumor, erroneous trickery, bull crap, urban myth, ...but if you repeat it often enough (Joseph Stalin), it becomes the truth.

Completely debunked by the Wall Street Journal in 2014:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136

Here it is in its entirety...

Quote:
 
The Myth of the Climate Change '97%'
What is the origin of the false belief—constantly repeated—that almost all scientists agree about global warming?
By JOSEPH BAST And ROY SPENCER
May 26, 2014 7:13 p.m. ET
840 COMMENTS
Last week Secretary of State John Kerry warned graduating students at Boston College of the "crippling consequences" of climate change. "Ninety-seven percent of the world's scientists," he added, "tell us this is urgent."

Where did Mr. Kerry get the 97% figure? Perhaps from his boss, President Obama, who tweeted on May 16 that "Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous." Or maybe from NASA, which posted (in more measured language) on its website, "Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities."

Yet the assertion that 97% of scientists believe that climate change is a man-made, urgent problem is a fiction. The so-called consensus comes from a handful of surveys and abstract-counting exercises that have been contradicted by more reliable research.

One frequently cited source for the consensus is a 2004 opinion essay published in Science magazine by Naomi Oreskes, a science historian now at Harvard. She claimed to have examined abstracts of 928 articles published in scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and found that 75% supported the view that human activities are responsible for most of the observed warming over the previous 50 years while none directly dissented.

Ms. Oreskes's definition of consensus covered "man-made" but left out "dangerous"—and scores of articles by prominent scientists such as Richard Lindzen, John Christy, Sherwood Idso and Patrick Michaels, who question the consensus, were excluded. The methodology is also flawed. A study published earlier this year in Nature noted that abstracts of academic papers often contain claims that aren't substantiated in the papers.


Mozart

edited for length to meet the 25% copy/paste criteria...do it again and there will be action
Edited by wilmywood8455, May 22 2016, 05:46 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Robert Stout
Member Avatar

Warmists like to believe that climate change is man made...It makes them feel more powerful than Mother Nature and makes God irrelevant............... :rollseyes:
Jesus can raise the dead, but he can't fix stupid
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Robert Stout
Member Avatar

The highest recorded temperature in Death Valley was 134 degrees, set in 1913....This is before we had all this terrible man caused global warming........... :lol:
Jesus can raise the dead, but he can't fix stupid
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
W A Mozart
Member Avatar

Furthermore, there is this from Forbes....

http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/#77834a0f7187

Quote:
 
JAN 6, 2015 @ 02:12 PM 261,646

'97% Of Climate Scientists Agree' Is 100% Wrong




Alex Epstein , CONTRIBUTOR


Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.
If you’ve ever expressed the least bit of skepticism about environmentalist calls for making the vast majority of fossil fuel use illegal, you’ve probably heard the smug response: “97% of climate scientists agree with climate change” — which always carries the implication: Who are you to challenge them?

The answer is: you are a thinking, independent individual–and you don’t go by polls, let alone second-hand accounts of polls; you go by facts, logic and explanation.

Here are two questions to ask anyone who pulls the 97% trick.

:euflag: .


Quote:
 
Because the actual 97% claim doesn’t even remotely justify their policies, catastrophists like President Obama and John Kerry take what we could generously call creative liberties in repeating this claim.

On his Twitter account, President Obama tweets: “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.” Not only does Obama sloppily equate “scientists” with “climate scientists,” but more importantly he added “dangerous” to the 97% claim, which is not there in the literature.

This is called the fallacy of equivocation: using the same term (“97 percent”) in two different ways to manipulate people.

John Kerry pulled the same stunt when trying to tell the underdeveloped world that it should use fewer fossil fuels:


Alex Epstein is founder of the Center for Industrial Progress and author of The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels..


There...! Done!

:popcorn:


Mozart

edited for length to adhere to 25% rule
Edited by wilmywood8455, May 22 2016, 07:46 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
W A Mozart
Member Avatar

The "global warming industry" is now a 1.5 trillion (with a 't') farce.

If you were a scientist, looking for a government hand-out every friggen year for your sustenance, you'd be a 'global warming' proponent as well. The EU in Brussels and the Democrats on our Capital Hill are paying-out BIG bucks to keep this monster alive.

Quote:
 
Climate Change Business Journal estimates the Climate Change Industry is a $1.5 Trillion dollar escapade, which means four billion dollars a day is spent on our quest to change the climate. That includes everything from carbon markets to carbon consulting, carbon sequestration, renewables, biofuels, green buildings and insipid cars. For comparison global retail sales online are worth around $1.5 trillion. So all the money wasted on the climate is equivalent to all the goods bought online.

The special thing about this industry is that it wouldn’t exist if it weren’t for an assumption about relative humidity that is probably wrong. As such, it’s the only major industry in the world dependent on consumer and voter ignorance. This is not just another vested interest in a political debate; it’s vested-on-steroids, a mere opinion poll away from extinction. You can almost hear the captains of climate industry bellowing: “Keep ‘em ignorant and believing, or the money goes away!”.



http://joannenova.com.au/2015/07/spot-the-vested-interest-the-1-5-trillion-climate-change-industry/


Furthermore:

Quote:
 
No warming in 18 years, no category 3-5 hurricane hitting the USA in ten years, seas rising at barely six inches a century: computer models and hysteria are consistently contradicted by Real World experiences.

So how do White House, EPA, UN, EU, Big Green, Big Wind, liberal media, and even Google, GE and Defense Department officials justify their fixation on climate change as the greatest crisis facing humanity? .


http://www.westernjournalism.com/climate-crisis-inc-a-1-5-trillion-per-year-house-of-cards/
Mozart

edited for length to comply with 25% copy/paste rule
Edited by wilmywood8455, May 22 2016, 07:37 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Siberian
Member Avatar

Global warming is a wonderful thing. We need more! I am a little tired to have snow 6 months a year. I don't mind if I have just 4...
Goood morning GULAG!!!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Robert Stout
Member Avatar

Siberian
May 22 2016, 03:05 PM
Global warming is a wonderful thing. We need more! I am a little tired to have snow 6 months a year. I don't mind if I have just 4...
Apparently you have not heard my prediction of a Mini Ice Age ???................... :oyvey
Jesus can raise the dead, but he can't fix stupid
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
nNeo

Robert Stout
May 22 2016, 03:19 PM
Apparently you have not heard my prediction of a Mini Ice Age ???................... :oyvey
Wrong, and supported by nothing.

And WAM tossing out already discredited crap, right on cue. There has been warming according to every credible study, and fairly constant with theory. You can quibble about sensitivity and feedbacks, or whether the scientific consensus is 97% or 95 or 98, but overwhelmingly experts who study the subject, and mountains of physical evidence support global warming. Nothing supports cooling beyond local or short term effects.

Deniers are liars or fools.
Edited by nNeo, May 22 2016, 03:47 PM.
“Strong people don’t need strong leaders.”
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Scim

It's easy to test whether the scientists are right or Mozart is right. Go look on Google Scholar, do a random search for climate science papers and go read them. If all the scientists are wrong then you'll easily be able to find more than a few percent that reject human-caused global warming. Rather than do this really, really easy test, science deniers have spent years bitching. Why?


NASA says "Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities." Mozart has opinion pieces by:
1) Alex Epstein, paid by the fossil fuel industry (“I am proud to work with the fossil fuel industry")
2) Roy Spencer, of the ~3 % of climate scientists outside the consensus, paid by Peabody coal for a court case where the judge decided he spouted rubbish. Creationist and believes his "job [is] a little like a legislator...to minimize the role of government."
3) Joe Bast of the Heartland Institute, which is paid by the fossil fuel industry for anti-science propaganda. The same group was paid by big tobacco to lie to the public about smoking and lung cancer.

They're good, persuasive writers, but very deceptive. They compare results of climate science with opinion polls of weathermen who have never done any science, for example. And report David Legates, who had to hide poll results and thousands of papers in order to get the results he wanted.
Edited by Scim, May 22 2016, 04:42 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Scim

NASA's temperature record is below. Data is here. Global warming is happening.

Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
W A Mozart
Member Avatar

Scim
May 22 2016, 04:41 PM
It's easy to test whether the scientists are right or Mozart is right. Go look on Google Scholar, do a random search for climate science papers and go read them. If all the scientists are wrong then you'll easily be able to find more than a few percent that reject human-caused global warming. Rather than do this really, really easy test, science deniers have spent years bitching. Why?


NASA says "Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities." Mozart has opinion pieces by:
1) Alex Epstein, paid by the fossil fuel industry (“I am proud to work with the fossil fuel industry")
2) Roy Spencer, of the ~3 % of climate scientists outside the consensus, paid by Peabody coal for a court case where the judge decided he spouted rubbish. Creationist and believes his "job [is] a little like a legislator...to minimize the role of government."
3) Joe Bast of the Heartland Institute, which is paid by the fossil fuel industry for anti-science propaganda. The same group was paid by big tobacco to lie to the public about smoking and lung cancer.

They're good, persuasive writers, but very deceptive. They compare results of climate science with opinion polls of weathermen who have never done any science, for example. And report David Legates, who had to hide poll results and thousands of papers in order to get the results he wanted.
Peabody Coal ? (bankrupt)
The fossil fuel industry? (bankrupt)

Now, I want you to take some time and READ that lovely little article about the global warming industry being 1.5 trillion dollar monster. See it? Read it again. Peabody Coal, which just went bankrupt 2 months back, doesn't hold a candle to this mega-monster. It's complete insanity. One (point) five trillion dollars is being poured into this fraud.

There is NO global warming.

The temperatures over the past 100 years have been rising slightly, as they should.
There is only MODEST loss of ice on the North Pole, and a major increase on the South Pole.
There is a very, very slight rise in ocean water levels.

That's it. Nothing to worry about. Nothing worth wrecking the entire world's economy over.
Were this a just world, a world filled with global-minded citizens, Al Gore would be taken to the nearest tar pit, then tarred and feathered.


Mozart
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · UnitedStates.com FOREIGN* & DEFENSE · Next Topic »
Add Reply