• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • 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

Quaestio said:
No, it's not just 'aerosols on the ice' causing the ice melt. And it's just not as simplistic as that anyway. It's a combination of a number of factors which includes warming temperatures as well as changes in ice albedo due to black carbon, mineral dust, algae etc.

eg
What's Eating Away at the Greenland Ice Sheet?

Here's a link to one of the studies the article cites as I know you go apoplectic when people don't post links that are actually provided by the articles themselves and can be clicked on easily by anyone who actual reads the article.

Dark zone of the Greenland Ice Sheet controlled by distributed biologically-active impurities | Nature Communications


And scientists have known about the effect of black carbon (soot) on ice for far longer than you've been trying to pretend you're some type of "expert" on this little subforum.

You would already know this if you had any real scientific curiosity or wanted to know the facts. But that's clearly not you. You only look for things that you think confirms your "anything but CO2" confirmation bias.

For example, here's two papers from James Hansen and colleagues from 2003 and 2004.

https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/101/2/423.full.pdf

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2004JD005296

And here's a summary article on the NASA website from 2005:

NASA -
Black and White: Soot on Ice


Here's a 2019 paper on warming in the Arctic and the many factors involved:

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aafc1b

I could find many more studies doing a literature search (something you've shown you don't know how to do), but that's enough to show you are uninformed on the topic.

So tell us again why we should be listening to anything a non-expert like you "keeps saying" on an anonymous subforum? LOL!
Click to expand...

You did a fine job demonstrating what is melting the ice sheets, but failed to convince anyone that atmospheric CO2 has anything to do with warming temperatures. Saying so doesn't make it so. I'm curious as to why you think an atmospheric gas that is a grand total of 0.04% of the atmosphere can have such a huge influence on surface temperatures, but water vapor - which is of 95%+ of all radiative forcing among greenhouse gases - apparently has absolutely no effect at all in your world?
 
Jack Hays said:
NASA disagrees.

Full story here
Source for data: https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
Click to expand...

So you're saying that if there are temperature drops, this means there's global cooling?

Have you ever seen global temperature statistics?

I would have posted a picture but everything is either invalid or too large

Global Temperatures: Global Mean Temperatures as an Indicator of Global Climate Change

Here, the temperatures when on an upward trajectory over a period of 100 years will DROP many, MANY times in that period.

In fact, using 2 years to suggest global cooling is so dishonest it's ridiculous.
 
Glitch said:
You did a fine job demonstrating what is melting the ice sheets, but failed to convince anyone that atmospheric CO2 has anything to do with warming temperatures. Saying so doesn't make it so. I'm curious as to why you think an atmospheric gas that is a grand total of 0.04% of the atmosphere can have such a huge influence on surface temperatures, but water vapor - which is of 95%+ of all radiative forcing among greenhouse gases - apparently has absolutely no effect at all in your world?
Click to expand...

Sheesh. How lazy are you?

Go read a textbook first on the topic, or at least a website of a major science institution if you don't even know the basics (which you've just shown you don't). The information is easily available to anyone who wants to learn. If you were interested in science at all, you would already know that your statement about water vapor was false and your question was just silly.

For other people who know the basics already, they may be interested in these papers:

Lacis, Andrew A., et al. "Atmospheric CO2: Principal control knob governing Earth’s temperature." Science 330.6002 (2010): 356-359.
https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2010...s_la09300d.pdf

Schmidt, G. A., Ruedy, R. A., Miller, R. L., & Lacis, A. A. (2010). "Attribution of the present‐day total greenhouse effect." Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 115(D20).
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2010JD014287
 
Last edited:
Quaestio said:
Oh FFS. Sheesh. How lazy are you?

Go read a textbook first on the topic, or at least a website of a major science institution if you don't even know the basics (which you've just shown you don't). The information is easily available to anyone who wants to learn. If you were interested in science at all, you would already know that your statement about water vapor was false and your question was just silly.
Click to expand...

As expected, I didn't think you could answer my question. None of you eco-fanatics can because you were never taught science. All you do is regurgitate the indoctrination you were force-fed by anti-American leftists in public school.
 
The people claiming "It's cooling!" remind me of that nitwit Bjorn Lomborg and his 2008 claim that sea-levels were not increasing:

Bjorn_Lomborg_Sea_Level_Rise.webp
 
Quaestio said:
The people claiming "It's cooling!" remind me of that nitwit Bjorn Lomborg and his 2008 claim that sea-levels were not increasing:

View attachment 67256577
Click to expand...

Sea levels are increasing globally, by an average of 1.49 mm annually. Locally sea levels may increase, or decrease, by a substantially larger amount, depending on the geographical location. Overall, sea levels have been relatively flat for the last ~8,000 years. The sea levels increased by more than 100 meters between 11,700 years ago and 9,000 years ago, which was an average of 49.26 mm increase per year.
 
Frigidweirdo said:
So you're saying that if there are temperature drops, this means there's global cooling?

Have you ever seen global temperature statistics?

I would have posted a picture but everything is either invalid or too large

Global Temperatures: Global Mean Temperatures as an Indicator of Global Climate Change

Here, the temperatures when on an upward trajectory over a period of 100 years will DROP many, MANY times in that period.

In fact, using 2 years to suggest global cooling is so dishonest it's ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Not at all dishonest if you set aside (as I do) the assumption that AGW is responsible for all the warming of recent decades.
 
Quaestio said:
No, it's not just 'aerosols on the ice' causing the ice melt. And it's just not as simplistic as that anyway. It's a combination of a number of factors which includes warming temperatures as well as changes in ice albedo due to black carbon, mineral dust, algae etc.

eg
What's Eating Away at the Greenland Ice Sheet?

Here's a link to one of the studies the article cites as I know you go apoplectic when people don't post links that are actually provided by the articles themselves and can be clicked on easily by anyone who actual reads the article.

Dark zone of the Greenland Ice Sheet controlled by distributed biologically-active impurities | Nature Communications


And scientists have known about the effect of black carbon (soot) on ice for far longer than you've been trying to pretend you're some type of "expert" on this little subforum.

You would already know this if you had any real scientific curiosity or wanted to know the facts. But that's clearly not you. You only look for things that you think confirms your "anything but CO2" confirmation bias.

For example, here's two papers from James Hansen and colleagues from 2003 and 2004.

https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/101/2/423.full.pdf

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2004JD005296

And here's a summary article on the NASA website from 2005:

NASA -
Black and White: Soot on Ice


Here's a 2019 paper on warming in the Arctic and the many factors involved:

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aafc1b

I could find many more studies doing a literature search (something you've shown you don't know how to do), but that's enough to show you are uninformed on the topic.

So tell us again why we should be listening to anything a non-expert like you "keeps saying" on an anonymous subforum? LOL!
Click to expand...

And you continue to misrepresent my arguments.

Pathetic...
 
Glitch said:
You did a fine job demonstrating what is melting the ice sheets, but failed to convince anyone that atmospheric CO2 has anything to do with warming temperatures. Saying so doesn't make it so. I'm curious as to why you think an atmospheric gas that is a grand total of 0.04% of the atmosphere can have such a huge influence on surface temperatures, but water vapor - which is of 95%+ of all radiative forcing among greenhouse gases - apparently has absolutely no effect at all in your world?
Click to expand...

It's called indoctrination. Religious like in the belief of AGW gospel and only correlated, and no way to quantify.
 
Lord of Planar said:
It's called indoctrination. Religious like in the belief of AGW gospel and only correlated, and no way to quantify.
Click to expand...

You self-indoctrinated yourself from junkscience conspiracy blogs. Apparently you don't even understand the science enough to correct him about his statement about water vapor.

So much whining and chest beating, so little science.
 
Glitch said:
You did a fine job demonstrating what is melting the ice sheets, but failed to convince anyone that atmospheric CO2 has anything to do with warming temperatures. Saying so doesn't make it so. I'm curious as to why you think an atmospheric gas that is a grand total of 0.04% of the atmosphere can have such a huge influence on surface temperatures, but water vapor - which is of 95%+ of all radiative forcing among greenhouse gases - apparently has absolutely no effect at all in your world?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Glitch said:
As expected, I didn't think you could answer my question. None of you eco-fanatics can because you were never taught science. All you do is regurgitate the indoctrination you were force-fed by anti-American leftists in public school.
Click to expand...

So you didn't bother to learn anything yourself? You didn't bother to read the ACS website link or the 2 papers I provided for you? Typical lazy Climate Truther who wants to stay ignorant so you can whine. All you do is whine. So much whining.
 
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...

He's too far gone in whiny science-denying conspiratorial Climate Truther la-la land. If he couldn't be bothered to find the easily available answers himself, he's not interested in learning or understanding the facts. Note he didn't bother to read the ACS website or the 2 papers I provided for him to educate himself. He just whined and bitched.
 
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[h=1]No Hockey Sticks: Studies Reveal Long-Term Lack of Warming[/h][FONT=&quot]A new temperature reconstruction, using proxy temperature measurements from locations in central Asia, has revealed that there has been no warming in the past 432 years. by Vijay Jayaraj The Global Warming “Hiatus” or Pause The word “hiatus” became popular in recent years after the discovery of a pause or hiatus in global warming. There…
Continue reading →
[/FONT]
 
[h=2]Cold Throttles N. Hemisphere Spring: “It’s Been Brutal” …”Can’t Remember Such A Delayed Spring” …”Barely A Hint Of Leaves On Trees”[/h]By P Gosselin on 17. May 2019
[h=3]There has been a flurry of major May cold weather and snow reports coming in from a variety of regions across the globe, leaving global warming alarmists speechless.[/h][h=3]Australia in ice box[/h]For example, weather site electroverse.net here just reported on how the entire Australian land mass is getting walloped by extreme cold as the winter season begins there.
“It’s a cold snap affecting the whole country, it’s a big one,” says Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) forecaster Sarah Scully. Temperatures would be 10C below normal “even in the Northern Territory and Queensland.”
[h=3]German mountain peak sees 6 meters of snow – in May![/h]Much of Europe has also been seeing unusually cold temperatures as well. Germany’s highest peak, Zugspitze, recently saw snow pile up to 6 meters – in May.
“That’s “the most in 20 years,” reported Michael Krueger of Science Skeptical.
[h=3]“Very remarkable” snow in Corsica[/h]Dalmatia, Croatia has seen “its coldest May start since records began and a “very rare and very remarkable” just blanketed the Mediterranean island of Corsica.
[h=3]New England: “Been brutal”…can’t remember such “delayed” spring[/h]In North America in New England on May 13th, Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine were forecast to get snow, and not just dustings, but real cover.
Vermont-resident and NTZ reader Indomitable Snowman PhD wrote by e-mail 2 days ago: “It’s been brutal. I can’t remember a ‘spring’ – ever – that has been this slow and delayed. The grass is starting to turn green, but there is barely a hint of leaves on the trees.”
[h=3]“Huge piles of snow” linger[/h]Indomitable Snowman Phd – also a pilot – also described how he had just flown some friends up to Quebec City on May 12th and how on the way up they could see “there was still some snow in the forest and in the ditches”: . . .
 
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[h=1]A Warning from the Dead[/h][FONT=&quot]Guest post by David Archibald Following on from this post on the effect of excess water in the Midwest affecting planting, this graphic shows rainfall in the 30 days up to 26th May: Figure 1: Rainfall in the Midwest in the 30 days to 26th May. One place had almost an inch a day on…
Continue reading →
[/FONT]
 
Sunsettommy said:
Typical that PISS is the preferred choice for temperature propaganda, it has been changed so many times now. Notice the well known cooling trend from 1940- 1980 that was originally .5C is now near zero.

:lol:
Click to expand...

True enough, but not enough to save him this time because even his graph made my point.
 
Quaestio said:
You self-indoctrinated yourself from junkscience conspiracy blogs. Apparently you don't even understand the science enough to correct him about his statement about water vapor.

So much whining and chest beating, so little science.
Click to expand...

He was implying that you guys don't think water vapor is not important, that CO2 rules over it. I understood what he meant, you didn't. It sure seems to me he understand the role water vapor plays. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. Maybe my conformation bias is in play.

But seriously. It really appears he understands. He said "but water vapor - which is of 95%+ of all radiative forcing among greenhouse gases - apparently has absolutely no effect at all in your world?" Don't you see... He is claiming it is 95% of all radiative forcing among greenhouse gasses. Now what I see is he mixed the vapor and aerosol portions together.

Think about it. If we use this accepted image:



The total down-forcing between clouds and greenhouse gasses is around 333 W/m^2. CO2 is only about 31 W/m^2 of that. This means that CO2 is 9.3% of that. I'm not going to quibble about 4.3% difference because it is inside the noise margins. He might be using someone else's energy budget calculations, and they vary by a great deal. Have you seen how dramatically different studies vary?

It's not my fault you have no clue how to make valid arguments. I sure get laughs when you make your ignorant posts though.

Please... Keep the laughs coming!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom