• 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

longview said:
I have my opinion, but it is not required as the world has it's own definition.
We have 12 years to limit climate change catastrophe, warns UN | Environment | The Guardian
https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement/what-is-the-paris-agreement

So for the sake of discussion, a boundary of 2°C could be used for distinction between catastrophic and non catastrophic AGW.
If the warming is below 2°C, we can still have AGW, but will miss most of the catastrophic predictions.
Keeping warming below 1.5°C would be even better.
Click to expand...

Let's reduce co2 to.make it happen
 
vegas giants said:
Let's reduce co2 to.make it happen
Click to expand...
How would we know that reducing CO2 would. "make it happen"?
How about we solve our real problem of energy, and not worry about CO2.
CO2 emissions will be reduced as a side effect, anyway, but at least we would be addressing the real problem.
 
longview said:
How would we know that reducing CO2 would. "make it happen"?
How about we solve our real problem of energy, and not worry about CO2.
CO2 emissions will be reduced as a side effect, anyway, but at least we would be addressing the real problem.
Click to expand...

As long as you are effective in reducing co2 emissions that is fine with me
 
vegas giants said:
As long as you are effective in reducing co2 emissions that is fine with me
Click to expand...
Do you understand that as long as the primary focus is on CO2, we will not be focusing on the actual problems facing Humanity?
We have a very real energy problem, and natural hydrocarbon fuels cannot solve this problem.
We simply do not have enough naturally occurring hydrocarbon sources, to allow everyone alive
to live a 1st world lifestyle, if they choose to.
Conflict would almost be inevitable between the energy haves and have nots.
The solution is to find a sustainable path forward, so that everyone can live a first world lifestyle.
Solar with mass storage, is the only thing currently on the table, that looks possible.
The best storage that has evolved in nature is hydrocarbons, which if produced from atmospheric CO2,
would be carbon neutral when burned.
 
longview said:
Do you understand that as long as the primary focus is on CO2, we will not be focusing on the actual problems facing Humanity?
We have a very real energy problem, and natural hydrocarbon fuels cannot solve this problem.
We simply do not have enough naturally occurring hydrocarbon sources, to allow everyone alive
to live a 1st world lifestyle, if they choose to.
Conflict would almost be inevitable between the energy haves and have nots.
The solution is to find a sustainable path forward, so that everyone can live a first world lifestyle.
Solar with mass storage, is the only thing currently on the table, that looks possible.
The best storage that has evolved in nature is hydrocarbons, which if produced from atmospheric CO2,
would be carbon neutral when burned.
Click to expand...

That is certainly your opinion
 
Lord of Planar said:
Funny how they are resolving it to 100th of a degree again.

It's obvious they have switched measuring equipment. Past records are not to the 100th of a degree. We have no way of knowing if past records would have been seen higher with that same equipment. Response time is everything.
Click to expand...

Response time is...not everything.

What’s ‘everything’ is that another heat record was broken in the world. That seems to be continuing a trend.

629d6a37ddfaf311a6249e1291a22337.jpg
 
Threegoofs said:
Response time is...not everything.

What’s ‘everything’ is that another heat record was broken in the world. That seems to be continuing a trend.

629d6a37ddfaf311a6249e1291a22337.jpg
Click to expand...

Another unlinked graph... Probably altered.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Another unlinked graph... Probably altered.
Click to expand...

You always whine about ‘altered’ graphs....but have never disproved one of them.

You don’t have the tools to do so, of course, because your knowledge of science was arrested in high school.
 
Threegoofs said:
You always whine about ‘altered’ graphs....but have never disproved one of them.

You don’t have the tools to do so, of course, because your knowledge of science was arrested in high school.
Click to expand...

It is upon you, to prove it.
 
I am glad we are clear global cooling is NOT underway
 
Threegoofs said:
You wouldn’t know what to do with it anyway.

:)
Click to expand...

Then since YOU, Sommerville and Calamity can't answer my reasonable question, I can now ignore the data I can't see, courtesy to your inability to answer the question I posted.

:mrgreen:
 
Sunsettommy said:
Where is the LINK to the database?

:)
Click to expand...

Sunsettommy said:
Then since YOU, Sommerville and Calamity can't answer my reasonable question, I can now ignore the data I can't see, courtesy to your inability to answer the question I posted.

:mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Does seem to be the case that the deniers prefer BELIEVING they are right instead of actually doing a bit of checking on their own, which might then require THINKING.

Historical Data - Met Eireann - The Irish Meteorological Service
 
[h=2]New Study: A Massive Cooling Of 2°C In 8 Years (2008-2016) Has Jolted Large Regions Of The North Atlantic[/h]By Kenneth Richard on 24. February 2020
[h=4]From 2008 to 2016 a widespread cooling ranging from 0.6°C to more than 2.0°C has chilled effectively the entire oceanic region from E. Canada to N. Iceland to S. Europe. The cooling persists year-round and extends from the surface down to depths of 800 m.[/h]
Ocean-heat-content-declines-10-15-Wm2-North-Atlantic-Bryden-2020.jpg

[h=6]Image Source: Bryden et al., 2020[/h]A year ago scientists revealed a large swath of the North Atlantic surface had cooled at a rate of -0.78°C per decade between 2004 and 2017 (Fröb et al., 2019).
Recent-Cooling-North-Atlantic-Frob-2019.jpg

[h=6]Image Source: Fröb et al., 2019[/h]The cooling has recently sprawled into the Arctic regions, as the upper ocean waters in Disko Bay (West Greenland) have just been hit with a ~2°C cooling since 2014 (Khazendar et al., 2019).
Glacier-Cooling-Greenland-Khazendar-2019.jpg

[h=6]Image Source: Khazendar et al., 2019[/h]A new study (Bryden et al., 2020) suggests the magnitude, rapidity, and extent of this cooling may have been underestimated.

A cooling of “more than 2°C” in just 8 years (2008-2016) has been reported for nearly the entire ocean region south of Iceland.
The cooling persists year-round and extends from the “surface down to 800 m depth”.
From 40°N to 70°N, and from 40°W to 0°W, average temperatures have plunged 0.6°C from 2008 to 2016 – also to depths of 800 m.
To put these thermal changes into perspective, consider it took the global oceans 55 years (1955-2010) to warm 0.18°C (0.27 W/m²) in the 700 m layer (Levitus et al., 2012).
It is unknown to what extent the cooling will permeate other regions of the ocean. Nor is it known how long the cooling will persist. Or worsen.
Recent-Cooling-North-Atlantic-2-C-2008-2016-Bryden-2020.jpg

[h=6]Image Source: Bryden et al., 2020[/h]
 
Somerville said:
Does seem to be the case that the deniers prefer BELIEVING they are right instead of actually doing a bit of checking on their own, which might then require THINKING.

Historical Data - Met Eireann - The Irish Meteorological Service
Click to expand...

You FIRST posted an article without the data to support their sensationalist claim, then when I asked for the data from YOU, I get a generic link to a Historical Data website, meaning you still didn't answer my question.

I had asked this very difficult question that still remains unanswered:

Where is the LINK to the database?
Click to expand...

You gave me a search for the data link, not the actual data themselves to support the article YOU posted.

You article didn't bother to post the link to the data, the same article YOU posted here, yet you have the gall to complain that I didn't do checking of the unsupplied data on my own, what about all those readers of that shallow article....?

Snicker, it clear YOU NEVER LOOKED AT THE DATA THEMSELVES! or YOU would have posted it.

:lamo
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom