• 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!

Global Cooling Is Under Way

Frigidweirdo said:
Water vapor DOES have an impact.

Greenhouse gas - Wikipedia

There's a nice little table there under "Impacts on the overall greenhouse effect"

H2O contributes 36%-72% of greenhouse gases.
CO2 contributes 9%-26% of greenhouse gases.

Under "Global warming potential" there's an even more important table

CO2 has a lifetime of 30-95 years
Methane has a lifetime of 12 years. However it is 84 times stronger as a greenhouse gas in a 20 year period. Over a 100 year period this goes down to 28 times stronger and so on.


Different gases have different properties and appear in different concentrations and have different strengths.
Click to expand...

OMG... You too?

Please read this part of his reply slowly: "apparently has absolutely no effect at all in your world?"
 
Renae said:
He's not talking science either, science isn't settled by committee.
Click to expand...

That is correct, it advances on REPRODUCIBLE research, not unverifiable modeling constructs with often laughable prediction claims built in, with those unverifiable laughably large temperature projection spreads the media and warmists cry over. The ones the Media misleads the public every day, the same garbage warmists drool over.

The IPCC way is highly selective Meta Analysis approach, where their unfalsifiable modeling claims are praised, while good reproducible science suffers, that is why warmists when confronted with real evidence that contradicts their modeled belief system, they fall back on the ad homs, consensus, big oil funding, attack blogs or rarely, make threats replies. It is all they have left when their modeled science delusions are exposed, it is why debate with them are short lived and silly.

That is the way of Pseudoscience, it is the way political propaganda runs, it is the way unscientific delusions develop.
 
Lord of Planar said:
OMG... You too?

Please read this part of his reply slowly: "apparently has absolutely no effect at all in your world?"
Click to expand...

You haven't actually written anything worth replying to.
 
Lord of Planar said:
...The total down-forcing between clouds and greenhouse gasses is around 333 W/m^2...
Click to expand...
The model shown adds and subtracts all the different heat flows to come up w/ the final "net absorbed 0.9 W/m^2. That 0.9 number is the entire basis for the AGW argument. The only way to support the 0.9 number is by knowing that we have 333.0W/m^2, yet your saying it's "around 333.W/m^2.

Pse share your thoughts on this, does the model support AGW or doesn't it?
 
expat_panama said:
The model shown adds and subtracts all the different heat flows to come up w/ the final "net absorbed 0.9 W/m^2. That 0.9 number is the entire basis for the AGW argument. The only way to support the 0.9 number is by knowing that we have 333.0W/m^2, yet your saying it's "around 333.W/m^2.

Pse share your thoughts on this, does the model support AGW or doesn't it?
Click to expand...

Absolutely wrong.

The various imbalance numbers are calculated by the assumed heat the earth gains. The models are then adjusted to show those numbers.

I see you have never read any of the energy balance studies, yet you claim to know...
 
Lord of Planar said:
...imbalance numbers are calculated by the assumed heat the earth gains. The models are then adjusted to show those numbers...
Click to expand...
That's exactly how it appeared to me too. Heat flows are not measurements as they appear to be at first glance, but they are rather mere assumed constructs that are presented for the purpose of supporting the preferred model. During the fitting-together process, the heat flow numbers are then adjusted as needed to further 'prove' the model's premise. It's how science becomes settled science.

All this is the reverse of how most previous scientific models have been developed in the past. Those had begun w/ observed measurements which in turn led to theories that were modeled so as to point out where further research was needed.
 
It looks like the 2019 El Nino may have been inhibited by the Sun's approach to minimum.

[h=2]UAH Global Temperature Update for May, 2019: +0.32 deg. C[/h]June 3rd, 2019The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for May, 2019 was +0.32 deg. C, down from the April, 2019 value of +0.44 deg. C:
 

CO2, GLOBAL WARMING, CLIMATE AND ENERGY

CO2, GLOBAL WARMING, CLIMATE AND ENERGY by Allan M.R. MacRae, B.A.Sc., M.Eng., P.Eng., June 2019 ABSTRACT Global warming alarmism, which falsely assumes that increasing atmospheric CO2 causes catastrophic global warming, is disproved – essentially, it assumes that the future is causing the past. In reality, atmospheric CO2 changes lag global temperature changes at all measured…
Continue reading →

[FONT=&quot]. . . . 10. I wrote in an article published 1Sept2002 in the Calgary Herald:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]“If [as we believe] solar activity is the main driver of surface temperature rather than CO2, we should begin the next cooling period by 2020 to 2030.”[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I will stand with this prediction – for moderate, natural cooling, similar to that which occurred from ~1940 to the Great Pacific Climate Shift of 1977, despite accelerating fossil fuel combustion and atmospheric CO2. Similar cooling occurred from ~1945 to 1977 as fossil fuel consumption accelerated.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I now think global cooling will start closer to 2020. The following plot explains why (Fig.10).[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I hope to be wrong, because humanity and the environment suffer during cold periods. . . . [/FONT]

 
Threegoofs said:
LOL.

I love how you guys criticize the IPCC for having economists contribute. They do that appropriately, because they quantify the economic impact of AGW.

But the deniers here won’t say a peep about economists interpreting global temperature data in the above article.
Click to expand...

Strawman. Please cite any post of mine criticizing the IPCC for having economists contribute. Hint: You can't because there isn't one.
The problem with economists quantifying "the economic impact of AGW" is not that they're economists but that they're working on an imaginary problem.
Meanwhile, economists can provide a real contribution because they are often skilled statisticians, and too many climate scientists are blundering sorcerers' apprentices in handling statistics.
 
Last edited:
Jack Hays said:
Strawman. Please cite any post of mine criticizing the IPCC for having economists contribute. Hint: You can't because there isn't one.
The problem with economists quantifying "the economic impact of AGW" is not that they're economists but that they're working on an imaginary problem.
Meanwhile, economists can provide a real contribution because they are often skilled statisticians, and too many climate scientists are blundering sorcerers' apprentices in handling statistics.
Click to expand...

Of course not.

You just cut and paste so you can have plausible deniability.

Other deniers will just ignore this.
 
Threegoofs said:
Of course not.

You just cut and paste so you can have plausible deniability.

Other deniers will just ignore this.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure why you think I would need deniability, plausible or otherwise. The fact is that no post of mine has criticized the inclusion of economists in IPCC work, either in my own words or someone else's.
 
Jack Hays said:
There really was a hiatus in global warming https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304407619301113 …
Click to expand...


LOL


4d2f5f5d508eef7ecd9d153633a44024.jpg
 
Threegoofs said:
LOL


4d2f5f5d508eef7ecd9d153633a44024.jpg
Click to expand...

Yet another unlinked graph of no interest. It does, however, show the right sequence: hiatus, El Nino, cooling. Meanwhile:


​

[h=1]Inference related to common breaks in a multivariate system with joined segmented trends with applications to global and hemispheric temperatures☆[/h]Author links open overlay panelDukpaKima
TatsushiOkab
FranciscoEstradacd
PierrePerrone






Show more
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2019.05.008Get rights and content

[h=2]Abstract[/h]What transpires from recent research is that temperatures and radiative forcing seem to be characterized by a linear trend with two changes in the rate of growth. The first occurs in the early 60s and indicates a very large increase in the rate of growth of both temperature and radiative forcing series. This was termed as the “onset of sustained global warming”. The second is related to the more recent so-called hiatus period, which suggests that temperatures and total radiative forcing have increased less rapidly since the mid-90s compared to the larger rate of increase from 1960 to 1990. There are two issues that remain unresolved. The first is whether the breaks in the slope of the trend functions of temperatures and radiative forcing are common. This is important because common breaks coupled with the basic science of climate change would strongly suggest a causal effect from anthropogenic factors to temperatures. The second issue relates to establishing formally via a proper testing procedure that takes into account the noise in the series, whether there was indeed a ‘hiatus period’ for temperatures since the mid 90s. This is important because such a test would counter the widely held view that the hiatus is the product of natural internal variability. Our paper provides tests related to both issues. The results show that the breaks in temperatures and radiative forcing are common and that the hiatus is characterized by a significant decrease in their rate of growth. The statistical results are of independent interest and applicable more generally.




 
Agriculture
The Setup is like 1315

Guest Commentary by David Archibald The area planted for corn and soybeans this season is well below historic averages. This was mostly due to waterlogged fields and flooding which precluded planting. The planting windows for corn and soybeans are now closed. The USDA crop progress reports provide weekly updates by state. For example this is…

[FONT=&quot]. . . What is happening in the Corn Belt is a mini version of the transition from the Medieval Warm Period to the Little Ice Age. The population of Europe exploded in benign conditions of the Medieval Warm Period from 1000 AD to 1300 AD, reaching population levels that weren’t matched again until the 19th century. In fact parts of rural France have less population today than at the beginning of the 14th century.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The breakover from the Medieval Warm Period to the Little Ice Age in Europe had sustained periods of bad weather characterised by severe winters and rainy and cold summers. The Great Famine of 1315 – 1317 started with bad weather in the spring of 1315. Crop failures lasted through 1316 until the summer of 1317. The population decline over the two years is thought to be about 10%, associated with “extreme levels of crime, disease, mass death, cannibalism and infanticide.” These conditions may be less in the Mormons amongst us who are instructed to keep one year’s worth of food in stock.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The Modern Warm Period ended in 2006. Current solar activity is back to levels of the Little Ice Age. To paraphrase Santayana, those who don’t remember history are condemned to being surprised and unprepared when it repeats itself. . . . [/FONT]

 

Surprising Summer Chill Baffles Global Warming Alarmists

From the “summer colds are the worst” department Guest essay by Vijay Jayaraj A surprising late-June chill broke records for lowest temperatures and made life miserable for many across the world. From Denver, Colorado, in the United States, to Melbourne in Australia, the mercury dropped precipitously. Many people in Colorado woke up to what would…
Continue reading →
 
Jack Hays said:
[h=2]UAH Global Temperature Update for June, 2019: +0.47 deg. C[/h]July 2nd, 2019The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for June, 2019 was +0.47 deg. C, up from the May, 2019 value of +0.32 deg. C:
The linear warming trend since January, 1979 remains at +0.13 C/decade.
Click to expand...

It's looking increasingly obvious that your predictions that cooling had started were merely wishful thinking. The upward trend continues.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom