• 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!

We're about to cool down; not heat up!

I have been on debate politics for 10 years and for 10 years the skeptics have been claiming we were on the cusp of another ice age.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
I have been on debate politics for 10 years and for 10 years the skeptics have been claiming we were on the cusp of another ice age.
Click to expand...
Maybe a few have. I don't know. There is only a minority of claims I have seen to say that. I have been steady at saying we could start a cooling if solar cycle 25 remains as small, or smaller, than cycle 24. It seems to me now, than the earth is in balance with solar cycle 24.

We need to wait for the next solar cycle to see.

Back to post 40, I only mention cooling based on cycle 25 predictions.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
I have been on debate politics for 10 years and for 10 years the skeptics have been claiming we were on the cusp of another ice age.
Click to expand...

You should have been listening. And not another Ice Age. We are currently in a temporary interglacial warming period. As that comes to an end, the ice age we are in will resume.

An ice age is a period of long-term reduction in the temperature of Earth's surface and atmosphere, resulting in the presence or expansion of continental and polar ice sheets and alpine glaciers. Within a long-term ice age, individual pulses of cold climate are termed "glacial periods" (or alternatively "glacials" or "glaciations" or colloquially as "ice age"), and intermittent warm periods are called "interglacials". Glaciologically, ice age implies the presence of extensive ice sheets in the northern and southern hemispheres.[1] By this definition, we are in an interglacial period—the Holocene—of the ice age that began 2.6 million years ago at the start of the Pleistocene epoch, because the Greenland, Arctic, and Antarctic ice sheets still exist.[2]
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age
 
Deuce said:
Why do you think my three sentence post was a comprehensive primer on solar measurements?
Click to expand...

It was my way of calling you out on cherry picking one variable. I don't know if it was your intent to cherry pick or not, but things like that can be considered a lie by omission.

It is obvious to anyone who studied the sun, that sunspots and TSI are only loosely coupled. The sun has other causes that increase or decrease temperature and spectral emissions.
 
Lord of Planar said:
It was my way of calling you out on cherry picking one variable. I don't know if it was your intent to cherry pick or not, but things like that can be considered a lie by omission.

It is obvious to anyone who studied the sun, that sunspots and TSI are only loosely coupled. The sun has other causes that increase or decrease temperature and spectral emissions.
Click to expand...

:roll:

Yeah ok.
 
Lord of Planar said:
With so many factors in play, hard to say what the true effects per cause are.

If all other factors were stable, and not changing, I will bet that we should see temperatures following the solar equalized response. We still have increasing soot and increasing CO2 causing warming. We have the AMO causing cooling. How everything balances in the end is hard to quantify.
Click to expand...

Ah. It's the "there's so many factors we can't know for sure" argument.

Yawn.

Yeah, there's lots of factors...but in order for those factors to have had the observed effect of global warming, we would have seen what it was already. It's as if you're trying to claim that the scientists are SO dumb that they didn't think of things like volcanoes and cosmic rays and flatulating bovines.

But I get it - it's just conservative dogma: "there's no GW, and even if there is GW, Thou Shalt Never Agree that worldwide human civilization might be the primary cause. If there is GW, the cause must ALWAYS be something else!" And if one is having problems with people asking difficult questions about AGW, just say "Well, I'm not a scientist, but..." and dodge the question. Gotta protect those petroleum stocks, y'know?
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Ah. It's the "there's so many factors we can't know for sure" argument.

Yawn.

Yeah, there's lots of factors...but in order for those factors to have had the observed effect of global warming, we would have seen what it was already. It's as if you're trying to claim that the scientists are SO dumb that they didn't think of things like volcanoes and cosmic rays and flatulating bovines.
Click to expand...
No matter how much I elaborate, people like you misconstue what I say. Why do I waste my time with hard headed people?

Glen Contrarian said:
But I get it - it's just conservative dogma: "there's no GW, and even if there is GW, Thou Shalt Never Agree that worldwide human civilization might be the primary cause.
Click to expand...
It's not dogma. it's observing the fact that the AGW dogma is not coming true.

Glen Contrarian said:
If there is GW, the cause must ALWAYS be something else!"
Click to expand...
That's not the case at all. I show that the notion that AGW is the primary cause, is not solid. That there are other valid points of view being ignored.

Glen Contrarian said:
And if one is having problems with people asking difficult questions about AGW, just say "Well, I'm not a scientist, but..." and dodge the question. Gotta protect those petroleum stocks, y'know?
Click to expand...
See, when you start with a biased viewpoint, you are not open to reasonable discussion.

You are truly a tool that the left has indoctrinated, and uses.
 
It is still pretty cool here. Lots of rain too. We are gonna get hit by a big hurricane soon I suspect. Anyway.

Climate change is real. We have evidence. All kinds. It is normal. As mountains grow or descend...weather changes. As a volcano erupts we get weather change. It is logical.

Pollution? Pollution is bad. We all know it. Honestly if the green machine wouldn't have tried to shove it down our throats with alarmist crap...people would have listened. Should have just coasted on the anti pollution train.

One piece of evidence for anthropogenic climate change:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2013/07/09/southwest-climate-change-drought/2439191/
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by Tim the plumber View Post
Is that; "The last 18 years of data have made no impact on our understanding of climate science."

I ask because that is what you seem to be saying. If it is how many more years of zero (or there abouts) warming would it need for you to change your mind?

If it cools next year and the year after will you then change your mind? If it is on average 0.2 degrees cooler over the next decade will you change your mind?

What will it take?
Click to expand...

Glen Contrarian said:
The problem with your post, guy, is that you're claiming that there has been however many "years of zero (or there abouts) warming...and your claim itself is wrong. Why? Because the ten hottest years on record have been since 1998!

If you're right that there's been zero or nearly-zero warming, then WHY THE HECK IS OUR PLANET STILL WARMING???? And continued to do so EVEN WHEN OUR SUN WAS PUTTING OUT LESS ENERGY?????
Click to expand...

Do you now say that there has not been less warming than was predicted by the IPCC in 1998?

Is that your position?

I also note that your religion does not allow you to address the clear questions I have asked twice. You are in deep denial and know it.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
I have been on debate politics for 10 years and for 10 years the skeptics have been claiming we were on the cusp of another ice age.
Click to expand...

Strange, as a skeptic I have never claimed that. Nor have I seen it claimed much at all. That would be unjustifiable alarmism and stupid.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
I have been on debate politics for 10 years and for 10 years the skeptics have been claiming we were on the cusp of another ice age.
Click to expand...

Well, given that warming or cooling is not a 10 year process I would say your observation is insufficient to draw a conclusion.
 
Tim the plumber said:

Do you now say that there has not been less warming than was predicted by the IPCC in 1998?

Is that your position?

I also note that your religion does not allow you to address the clear questions I have asked twice. You are in deep denial and know it.
Click to expand...

And as I pointed out already, when the IPCC made the prediction in 1998, they did not and could not have known that the sun was by then already entering a phase in which it was putting out significantly less energy than before. THAT, sir, is why our planet warmed at a slower rate than the IPCC predicted...but the thing is, our planet was STILL continuing to warm even though the sun was putting out less heat! Our planet SHOULD have cooled, but it didn't. It still continued to warm.

Tell me, guy, WHY is it that our planet did not cool, but instead continued to warm even when the sun was putting out significantly less energy than normal?

WHY?
 
The World Wildlife Fund claims are exiting the polar ice because it is melting. Also, their food sources I.e., salmon, seals are dwindling. The polar bears are foraging for food in the local garbage dumps and food keeps in outskirts and even closer in towns such as Churchill, Manitoba. They seem to see a warming occurring; your scientists, however, are saying, ig
 
Glen Contrarian said:
And as I pointed out already, when the IPCC made the prediction in 1998, they did not and could not have known that the sun was by then already entering a phase in which it was putting out significantly less energy than before. THAT, sir, is why our planet warmed at a slower rate than the IPCC predicted...but the thing is, our planet was STILL continuing to warm even though the sun was putting out less heat! Our planet SHOULD have cooled, but it didn't. It still continued to warm.

Tell me, guy, WHY is it that our planet did not cool, but instead continued to warm even when the sun was putting out significantly less energy than normal?

WHY?
Click to expand...

I don't know why the planet did not cool. There are lots of very complex factors at play. There is a long time delay in the thermal inertia of the oceans for example.

You still have not answered my question at all.

Do you consider the full range of the 1998 IPCC's predictions still in play given the past 18 years of very little change in temperature?

While you are at it what has been the drop in solar energy input since then? A figure in watts per meter would be good.

This is the third time I have asked the same question, is there any set of words that would get you to answer this easy queation?
 
Empirica said:
Most of us are now aware that the primary driver of "global hot air" is progressive ideo-elitism!

But; what is the real driver of "global climate change"??? Is it people? :unsure13: Or the sun and stars?

Read the sunspots
Climate stability has never been a feature of planet Earth. The only constant about climate is change; it changes continually and, at times, quite rapidly. Many times in the past, temperatures were far higher than today, and occasionally, temperatures were colder. As recently as 6,000 years ago, it was about 3C warmer than now. Ten thousand years ago, while the world was coming out of the thou-sand-year-long "Younger Dryas" cold episode, temperatures rose as much as 6C in a decade -- 100 times faster than the past century's 0.6C warming that has so upset environmentalists.

Climate-change research is now literally exploding with new findings. Since the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, the field has had more research than in all previous years combined and the discoveries are completely shattering the myths. For example, I and the first-class scientists I work with are consistently finding excellent correlations between the regular fluctuations in the brightness of the sun and earthly climate. This is not surprising. The sun and the stars are the ultimate source of all energy on the planet.

Solar scientists predict that, by 2020, the sun will be starting into its weakest Schwabe solar cycle of the past two centuries, likely leading to unusually cool conditions on Earth. Beginning to plan for adaptation to such a cool period, one which may continue well beyond one 11-year cycle, as did the Little Ice Age, should be a priority for governments. It is global cooling, not warming, that is the major climate threat to the world, especially Canada. As a country at the northern limit to agriculture in the world, it would take very little cooling to destroy much of our food crops, while a warming would only require that we adopt farming techniques practiced to the south of us.


View attachment 67184001
NASA satellite images show August 2012
and August 2013
. (Photo: NASA)​
​


Global Cooling: Arctic Ice Cap Grows 60 Percent In A Year [NASA PHOTO] - International Science Times
Are we experiencing global cooling?
A cool Arctic summer allowed nearly a million more square miles of ice to form over the same time last year.
This figure represents a growth of 60 percent.

So return all that hot weather gear to Walmart and buy yourself some longjohns and a parka!

Cause in another 10 years you'll likely be missing global warming and crying for more Co2_ :baby2
View attachment 67184002​
Click to expand...


Are you a climate scientist?​
 
Glen Contrarian said:
And as I pointed out already, when the IPCC made the prediction in 1998, they did not and could not have known that the sun was by then already entering a phase in which it was putting out significantly less energy than before. THAT, sir, is why our planet warmed at a slower rate than the IPCC predicted...but the thing is, our planet was STILL continuing to warm even though the sun was putting out less heat! Our planet SHOULD have cooled, but it didn't. It still continued to warm.

Tell me, guy, WHY is it that our planet did not cool, but instead continued to warm even when the sun was putting out significantly less energy than normal?

WHY?
Click to expand...

I don't know why the planet did not cool. There are lots of very complex factors at play. There is a long time delay in the thermal inertia of the oceans for example.

You still have not answered my question at all.

Do you consider the full range of the 1998 IPCC's predictions still in play given the past 18 years of very little change in temperature?

While you are at it what has been the drop in solar energy input since then? A figure in watts per meter would be good.

This is the third time I have asked the same question, is there any set of words that would get you to answer this easy queation?
Click to expand...

Any chance of an answer?
 
Glen Contrarian said:
And as I pointed out already, when the IPCC made the prediction in 1998, they did not and could not have known that the sun was by then already entering a phase in which it was putting out significantly less energy than before. THAT, sir, is why our planet warmed at a slower rate than the IPCC predicted...but the thing is, our planet was STILL continuing to warm even though the sun was putting out less heat! Our planet SHOULD have cooled, but it didn't. It still continued to warm.

Tell me, guy, WHY is it that our planet did not cool, but instead continued to warm even when the sun was putting out significantly less energy than normal?

WHY?
Click to expand...

The Pause.

[h=1][/h]
[h=1]El Niño has not yet paused the Pause[/h] Global temperature update: no warming for 18 years 5 months By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley Since December 1996 there has been no global warming at all (Fig. 1). This month’s RSS temperature – still unaffected by the most persistent el Niño conditions of the current weak cycle – shows a new record length for the…
 
Jack Hays said:
The Pause.

[h=1][/h]
[h=1]El Niño has not yet paused the Pause[/h] Global temperature update: no warming for 18 years 5 months By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley Since December 1996 there has been no global warming at all (Fig. 1). This month’s RSS temperature – still unaffected by the most persistent el Niño conditions of the current weak cycle – shows a new record length for the…
Click to expand...

Yeah, no warming at all...except for the fact that the warmest 10 years on record have all occurred since 1998...and 2014 is the warmest of those ten...and 2015 is on course to beat 2014.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Yeah, no warming at all...except for the fact that the warmest 10 years on record have all occurred since 1998...and 2014 is the warmest of those ten...and 2015 is on course to beat 2014.
Click to expand...

Do you ever answer questions or is it just those you don't like?
 
if it gets warmer does it mean our earth is progressive ,I wonder that :roll:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom