• 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!

And now it's global COOLING!

WCH

Believer
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 30, 2013
Messages
31,009
Reaction score
9,029
Location
The Lone Star State.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Global cooling: Arctic ice caps grows by 60% against global warming predictions | Mail Online

A chilly Arctic summer has left nearly a million more square miles of ocean covered with ice than at the same time last year – an increase of 60 per cent.
The rebound from 2012’s record low comes six years after the BBC reported that global warming would leave the Arctic ice-free in summer by 2013.
Instead, days before the annual autumn re-freeze is due to begin, an unbroken ice sheet more than half the size of Europe already stretches from the Canadian islands to Russia’s northern shores.


article-2415191-1BAEE1D0000005DC-503_640x366.jpg
 
1) Single-year change is useless for establishing trends.
2) Article is going by ice area, where volume is a far better measurement. After all, volume would tell you the actual amount of ice, whereas area could leave you fooled. The volume increase was less dramatic. (not even making it back to the trend line, barely making it back to one standard deviation below the trend!)
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/wordp...olumeAnomalyCurrentV2.png?<?php echo time() ?
3) 2012's was a record low. As you can see from here
Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis | Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag
This "expansion" of sea ice is barely making it back to the trend line. Hardly a growth trend.


So is that sufficient or should I continue explaining that weather is highly variable from year to year, therefore a single year isn't indicative of anything?
 
That's why it had to be changed from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change" or as I call it, seasons.
 
Last edited:
That's why it had to be changed from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change" or I as I call it, seasons.

Both terms have been around for decades. Or are you referring to how the media describes it?
 
Both terms have been around for decades. Or are you referring to how the media describes it?

I'm referring to how for years it was all "global warming" and how now that's been replaced by the term "climate change". That way no matter what actually happens it confirms the political agenda of person control.
 
I'm referring to how for years it was all "global warming" and how now that's been replaced by the term "climate change". That way no matter what actually happens it confirms the political agenda of person control.

Oh, sorry, didn't realize this was the manifestation of a conspiracy theory. Carry on.
 
1) Single-year change is useless for establishing trends.
2) Article is going by ice area, where volume is a far better measurement. After all, volume would tell you the actual amount of ice, whereas area could leave you fooled. The volume increase was less dramatic. (not even making it back to the trend line, barely making it back to one standard deviation below the trend!)
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/wordp...olumeAnomalyCurrentV2.png?<?php echo time() ?
3) 2012's was a record low. As you can see from here
Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis | Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag
This "expansion" of sea ice is barely making it back to the trend line. Hardly a growth trend.


So is that sufficient or should I continue explaining that weather is highly variable from year to year, therefore a single year isn't indicative of anything?

Nor is a few decades of measurements indictive of global trends of a planet that is over 4 billion years old.
 
That's why it had to be changed from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change" or I as I call it, seasons.
:crazy3:

I just had to log-in to like your post.
 
That's why it had to be changed from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change" or as I call it, seasons.

No, actually it's still called global warming. And you actually bring up a good point even though you're wrong, a single year change means absolutely nothing in terms of a larger trend, just like the fact that we have seasons.
 
Reminds me of the ozone hole that was growing bigger every year and causing mass hysteria until it started getting smaller every year and was forgotten about.

You mean after the world dramatically reduced its emissions of CFCs? Yes, that certainly is similar.
 
1) Single-year change is useless for establishing trends.
2) Article is going by ice area, where volume is a far better measurement. After all, volume would tell you the actual amount of ice, whereas area could leave you fooled. The volume increase was less dramatic. (not even making it back to the trend line, barely making it back to one standard deviation below the trend!)
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/wordp...olumeAnomalyCurrentV2.png?<?php echo time() ?
3) 2012's was a record low. As you can see from here
Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis | Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag
This "expansion" of sea ice is barely making it back to the trend line. Hardly a growth trend.


So is that sufficient or should I continue explaining that weather is highly variable from year to year, therefore a single year isn't indicative of anything?

It could happen rather quickly.
The last ice age came on within a year.
 
Last edited:
No, actually it's still called global warming. And you actually bring up a good point even though you're wrong, a single year change means absolutely nothing in terms of a larger trend, just like the fact that we have seasons.

Really? Seasons are irrelevant? Everything that happens, is to be blamed on Global Warming?
 
No, actually it's still called global warming. And you actually bring up a good point even though you're wrong, a single year change means absolutely nothing in terms of a larger trend, just like the fact that we have seasons.

Congratulations, you are the only one left in here with the balls to say "global warming"!:lol:
 
You mean after the world dramatically reduced its emissions of CFCs? Yes, that certainly is similar.

Lol, talk about confirmation bias.
 
Global cooling: Arctic ice caps grows by 60% against global warming predictions | Mail Online

A chilly Arctic summer has left nearly a million more square miles of ocean covered with ice than at the same time last year – an increase of 60 per cent.
The rebound from 2012’s record low comes six years after the BBC reported that global warming would leave the Arctic ice-free in summer by 2013.
Instead, days before the annual autumn re-freeze is due to begin, an unbroken ice sheet more than half the size of Europe already stretches from the Canadian islands to Russia’s northern shores.


View attachment 67153295

That will make it difficult to get at all the oil and minerals, if the ice doesn't go away.
 
Environmentalists and scientists need to hedge their bets.... :lol:
 
No, actually it's still called global warming. And you actually bring up a good point even though you're wrong, a single year change means absolutely nothing in terms of a larger trend, just like the fact that we have seasons.

Yeah, we have to have Global Warming, Liberals have to have it no matter what, make it up, use bogus science etc. That's the only crutch liberals have to kill, Keystone, oil and coal and of course jobs.
 
Back
Top Bottom