The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!
Climate Change
in Science
Debra AI Prediction
Arguments
  Considerate: 90%  
  Substantial: 77%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.8  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
http://dev1.debateisland.com/discussion/1053/climate-change
  Considerate: 99%  
  Substantial: 18%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.02  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 42%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 98%  
  Substantial: 78%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.18  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 35%  
  Learn More About Debra
What this all means is that the principle means of heat transfer in the troposphere is conduction - one molecule bouncing about with heat energy and slamming into another and transferring part of that energy. All of the atmospheric gases are very close in their specific heat levels meaning that there is extremely little difference in any of the gases.
Slowly the heated gases rise into the stratosphere where the density of gases is low enough that heat is rid via radiation. As the heat radiates away from the Earth the gases cool and sink due to convection.
Indeed, man-made global warming is a hoax and most scientists know this. There have been some that have gone along with it because this is the way they gain research grants - even scientists have to eat.
http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html
You couldn't get 97% of scientists to agree that sugar is sweet and that should have been a glaring, screaming hint that it was all a lie meant only to give the government more power and more money and more departments to employ brothers-in-law. Was all a problem of energy use? If that was the case why did the government light all of the bridges in the San Francisco bay? Wouldn't they turn off as much power as possible? Instead from space all you can see of cities is almost solid lighting. Even the government knows they are lying.
Pacific Gas and Electricity has enough solar and wind power that if all conditions were perfect they could meet 19% of the maximum power needs. How much have they? In a normal year 2% and in a drought and windy year 3%. It costs far more to maintain these "green energy sources" than they make.
https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/25472-congress-investigates-fraudulent-science-used-by-noaa-to-push-un-global-warming-treaty
Do not be taken in.
  Considerate: 96%  
  Substantial: 92%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.4  
  Sources: 2  
  Relevant (Beta): 53%  
  Learn More About Debra
What this all means is that the principle means of heat transfer in the troposphere is conduction - one molecule bouncing about with heat energy and slamming into another and transferring part of that energy. All of the atmospheric gases are very close in their specific heat levels meaning that there is extremely little difference in any of the gases.
Slowly the heated gases rise into the stratosphere where the density of gases is low enough that heat is rid via radiation. As the heat radiates away from the Earth the gases cool and sink due to convection.
Indeed, man-made global warming is a hoax and most scientists know this. There have been some that have gone along with it because this is the way they gain research grants - even scientists have to eat.
http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html
You couldn't get 97% of scientists to agree that sugar is sweet and that should have been a glaring, screaming hint that it was all a lie meant only to give the government more power and more money and more departments to employ brothers-in-law. Was all a problem of energy use? If that was the case why did the government light all of the bridges in the San Francisco bay? Wouldn't they turn off as much power as possible? Instead from space all you can see of cities is almost solid lighting. Even the government knows they are lying.
Pacific Gas and Electricity has enough solar and wind power that if all conditions were perfect they could meet 19% of the maximum power needs. How much have they? In a normal year 2% and in a drought and windy year 3%. It costs far more to maintain these "green energy sources" than they make.
https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/25472-congress-investigates-fraudulent-science-used-by-noaa-to-push-un-global-warming-treaty
Do not be taken in.
  Considerate: 96%  
  Substantial: 92%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.4  
  Sources: 2  
  Relevant (Beta): 53%  
  Learn More About Debra
^ Graph showing the dramatic increase of average temperature over the years.
Graph showing a dramatic increase in water levels
Also the dramatic increase in amount of hurricanes.
  Considerate: 95%  
  Substantial: 65%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.94  
  Sources: 5  
  Relevant (Beta): 82%  
  Learn More About Debra
Wake likes to restrict AGW discussions to CO2, states CO2 can't absorb any more infra-red energy(saturated) & that water vapor absorbs much more infra-red energy than CO2. In essence, he states that GHG theory isn't correct, altho on other websites, he has made many mathematical errors, even muffing exponents.
First, any increases in water vapor (& increasing ability to absorb more infra-red energy) IS a positive feedback due to increasing man-made GHGs. Second, there are unsaturated infra-red energy absorption bands available to CO2. Third, numerous other man-made GHGs, plus all positive feedbacks to AGW warming are in play.
  Considerate: 95%  
  Substantial: 82%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 89%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.9  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 32%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 95%  
  Substantial: 14%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 3.84  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 84%  
  Substantial: 37%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 85%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.16  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 94%  
  Learn More About Debra
I'm going to ignore satellites for the moment because they've only been around since the 60's. That is a another series of questions anyway. A lot of the argument about climate change is about increasing temperatures of the Earth since 1920 (or any other convenient year to pick). In other words, before satellites.
A statistical analysis makes use of raw data only as a source population to select from. No 'corrections' are possible because the analysis hasn't been run yet.
For something like temperatures, things like how many thermometers exist in an area or where a thermometer is located would affect the average. That would mean we would have to use equidistantly placed thermometers. Storms move, the Earth rotates, temperatures are constantly changing. That would mean we would have to read all thermometers simultaneously. We have to eliminate the effects of location, location grouping, and time from the analysis.
Question: How many 'official' thermometers exist in the world?
Question: If X thermometers are in the world, and the surface of Earth is 197 million sq miles, how many thermometers does that translate to per mile?
Question: What is the possible gradient in temperature per mile? That number will be needed to calculate the margin of error in statistics. That tells us how good our average is compared to the population. That's the +- number you see.
Now the big question: Just how good is any number of thermometer readings in describing the temperature of the whole Earth? If we have trouble determining the Earth's temperature, how can we say it's warming, cooling, or anything else? Is it even possible to generate an average that has a margin of error less than the gradient to begin with?
Does any graph or collection of historical temperatures actually mean anything, or is it just a bunch of numbers someone made up and they get tossed around like it was some kind of foreordained truth? Lots of people throw numbers around a lot. Even governments do this. How does one determine whether they are anything valid?
  Considerate: 95%  
  Substantial: 96%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.9  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 87%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 96%  
  Substantial: 74%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.5  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 57%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 94%  
  Substantial: 79%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.52  
  Sources: 2  
  Relevant (Beta): 82%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 86%  
  Substantial: 35%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 33%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 1.26  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
To get a trend, you need at least two absolute measurements. Then you come up with additional questions:
"Why are these two measurements significant? Why are any other measurements not significant?"
Simply saying you can trust it because 'scientists say so' is equivalent to trusting in a religion because 'God said so".
You seem to be ignoring the questions I posed, and simply reverting to the 'scientists said so' argument.
  Considerate: 86%  
  Substantial: 85%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.02  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
Humans are responsible for all of climate change. None of it is natural its all human caused.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/apr/19/study-humans-have-caused-all-the-global-warming-since-1950
  Considerate: 77%  
  Substantial: 24%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 89%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.24  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 17%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 95%  
  Substantial: 79%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 89%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.12  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 85%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 90%  
  Substantial: 45%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 90%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 4.7  
  Sources: 2  
  Relevant (Beta): 84%  
  Learn More About Debra
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425232/97-percent-solution-ian-tuttle
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/11/20/the-latest-meteorologist-survey-destroys-the-global-warming-climate-consensus/#5c6d76cf18c3
  Considerate: 68%  
  Substantial: 35%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.32  
  Sources: 3  
  Relevant (Beta): 65%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 95%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.3  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
@Nope Most of them are on the same payroll.
Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.
Wayne Dyer
  Considerate: 91%  
  Substantial: 56%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 87%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 4.56  
  Sources: 2  
  Relevant (Beta): 75%  
  Learn More About Debra
Nope, they're spread across a wide array of universities, private organisations and government bodies in probably every country on Earth.
  Considerate: 80%  
  Substantial: 75%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 87%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.44  
  Sources: 5  
  Relevant (Beta): 34%  
  Learn More About Debra
Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.
Wayne Dyer
  Considerate: 80%  
  Substantial: 72%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 86%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.42  
  Sources: 11  
  Relevant (Beta): 29%  
  Learn More About Debra
Moving from one trash argument to another trash argument.
  Considerate: 80%  
  Substantial: 72%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 86%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.48  
  Sources: 12  
  Relevant (Beta): 27%  
  Learn More About Debra
Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.
Wayne Dyer
  Considerate: 93%  
  Substantial: 7%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 5.38  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 88%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 88%  
  Substantial: 97%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.02  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 63%  
  Substantial: 25%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 3.74  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
The actual study: https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00091.1 has the results on page 6.
If you read the details of the study, the original 97% refers to climate change experts - people whose academic credentials and work is based on climate change - not other areas of metereological study. Therefore the aspect of the table of results on page 6 we are looking to understand is the first column of Area of expertise: Climate science, publication focus: mostly Climate. If you then tabulate all the rows of this column where the respond says they believe global warming is happening and assign some of the cause for this (whether totally or in part) to humanity, you get 95% (78%+10%+2%+5%). The 52% you cite includes non-climate experts (which then dilutes the per capita percentage of climate change acceptance) and ignores several answer categories that state global warming is real and caused at least in part by humanity.
  Considerate: 92%  
  Substantial: 84%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.12  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 29%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 94%  
  Substantial: 56%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.6  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 59%  
  Learn More About Debra