Global Cooling

[mrsleeve]

wonder what heeters trend line looked like at the end of that last ice age.............

[Farbin Kaiber]

It's a conspiracy, now the conspiracists and skeptics are actually taking the time to make ice to prove the earth isn't warming. I wonder if they are uising hybrid Prius style ships to drop the ice off?

[nando]

So, tell me - do you get paid for every link you post to that blog?

[gwb72tii]

well it seems climate data is diverging from the global warming hypothesis

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/11/rss-global-temperature-data-no-global-warming-at-all-for-202-months/#more-93635

"Though the IPCC projects that the world should have warmed by 0.20 Cº (2.33 Cº/century) since 2005, the mean of the RSS and UAH satellite datasets shows cooling of 0.02 Cº (0.22 Cº/century). The predicted and actual trends are visibly diverging. Solar physicists expect significant cooling in the coming decades. If they are right, the divergence will become more than merely embarrassing."

how inconvenient

[nando]

forbes - what a joke.

are they owned by the Koch brothers or something?

I was actually thinking, thank god - if this year is much better than last year, there's hope. but then you look at the long term trend line. damn.

George won't believe it even if sea level rise has the pacific ocean lapping at his doorstop.

[rwh11385]

This is for the all the news that the lamestream media won't print, and the 97% consensus (LOL) can't explain, other than global warming causes cooling (wrap your head around that logic)

#1 Who would have guessed tht in 1975 the 97% consensus was that the globe was cooling? http://www.denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm

#2 Forbes magazine http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterfer...oling-is-here/


more as I find them

Um, so why did you start a new thread? Needing attention? Feeling the need to break into fresh landscape since all of your lame arguments have already been put down in "Global Warming is over"?: http://www.r3vlimited.com/board/showthread.php?t=226743

Did the Heartland Institute magically become a trusted source for scientific thought? Or did you get forget that Peter Ferrara is a director there?

"Lamestream media" won't print the scientific conclusions of the Heartland Institute? Maybe they have standards. Forbes doesn't.

glad to see the usual suspects hyperventilating

Mr Q, bringing up James Hansen as a credible source on anything, and dismissing Fred Singer as a skeptic shows your bias. James Hansen is a biased agenda driven psuedo scientist.

more raw data showing no warming, and cooling
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/2...se/#more-92466

So once again, you hate on a NASA scientist and instead favor someone who dropped out of college? Seriously dude? Is this just your warped George logic at work? Or just like whoever tells you what you want to hear?

1 million more square miles of ice due to global warming, as predicted
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/env...cientists.html

Actually, yes.

http://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/2012/arctic-sea-ice-in-2013/

UPDATE: (06/09/12)
Around 80% of the ~100 scientists at the Bjerknes conference thought that there would be MORE Arctic sea-ice in 2013, compared to 2012

Why? It has a bit to do with the fact that 2012 was a record low and a think you like to mention a bit, regression towards the mean.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/sep/09/climate-change-arctic-sea-ice-delusions

The reason so many climate scientists predicted more ice this year than last is quite simple. There's a principle in statistics known as "regression toward the mean," which is the phenomenon that if an extreme value of a variable is observed, the next measurement will generally be less extreme. In other words, we should not often expect to observe records in consecutive years. 2012 shattered the previous record low sea ice extent; hence 'regression towards the mean' told us that 2013 would likely have a higher minimum extent.

Oh well, it's very sad seeing all the ignorant people obsess over the headline number while completely disregarding the long-term trend. But people like George like to cherry pick and skew their perspective so their observed reality mirrors their opinion, rather than being informed. It's also sad that Faux News and other pretend news sources parrot the statistic without caring to give it context properly...

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

Only someone who is clueless about trends would focus on the YoY to the red dot while disregarding the blue line...

[BraveUlysses]

http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/09/why-trust-climate-models-its-a-matter-of-simple-science/

Talk to someone who rejects the conclusions of climate science and you’ll likely hear some variation of the following: “That’s all based on models, and you can make a model say anything you want.” Often, they'll suggest the models don't even have a solid foundation of data to work with—garbage in, garbage out, as the old programming adage goes. But how many of us (anywhere on the opinion spectrum) really know enough about what goes into a climate model to judge what comes out?

Climate models are used to generate projections showing the consequences of various courses of action, so they are relevant to discussions about public policy. Of course, being relevant to public policy also makes a thing vulnerable to the indiscriminate cannons on the foul battlefield of politics.

Skepticism is certainly not an unreasonable response when first exposed to the concept of a climate model. But skepticism means examining the evidence before making up one’s mind. If anyone has scrutinized the workings of climate models, it’s climate scientists—and they are confident that, just as in other fields, their models are useful scientific tools. [continued]

[AwakenNoMore]

Everyone knows Al Gore invented global warming. Also manbearpig is real guys.

[gwb72tii]

1 million more square miles of ice due to global warming, as predicted
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/env...cientists.html

[z31maniac]

I wonder why when I visited Iceland in 2013, all of my photos of the same glaciers I took pictures of when I visited in 2001 showed significantly smaller and receded glaciers. One of the glaciers has receded more in the past 10 years than the previous 100. Ice core data shows no other time in earth's history that that rate of rapid ice loss has occurred...ever. Explain to me why George?

Because Jeebus wanted it this way.

[nando]

It's Obama's fault

[herbivor]

I wonder why when I visited Iceland in 2013, all of my photos of the same glaciers I took pictures of when I visited in 2001 showed significantly smaller and receded glaciers. One of the glaciers has receded more in the past 10 years than the previous 100. Ice core data shows no other time in earth's history that that rate of rapid ice loss has occurred...ever. Explain to me why George?

[BraveUlysses]

He sure knows how to keep fuckin' that chicken. Like a bawss.

[nando]

I think George is actually a spambot from whatsupwiththat. He just spams random links with "raw data" (except it's not raw, it's cherry picked and skewed) showing whatever it is they want him to believe.

[Q5Quint]

In science, you try and prove that your hypothesis is wrong, not that it is right.


Can you find any data that proves the world is not cooling?

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2013/7#temp

According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration July 2013 is the 6th warmest and 129th coolest July on record. The warmest being 1998 and coolest 1911. This data seems to directly oppose your conclusion that the world is 'cooling', since temperatures have been rising since the 1940s and especially after 1980.





Is the conclusion of the whatsupwiththat website that there has been no warming since 1996 incorrect if the warmest temperatures on record have been recorded THIS YEAR in many places around the globe?

Could other factors, such as el nina cycles, atmospheric particulates, solar cycles etc play a role in global climate change and temperature predictions that could lead to small cycles of up and down trends, though the long term conclusion is still total warming?

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-intermediate.htm

Are you, and people like you, subject to public attitude studies of how people don't believe in studies?

Climate scepticism appeared particularly common among older individuals from lower socio-economic backgrounds who are politically conservative and hold traditional values; while it is less common among younger individuals from higher socio-economic backgrounds who hold self-transcendence and environmental values. The finding that climate scepticism is rooted in people's core values and worldviews may imply a coherent and encompassing sceptical outlook on climate change. However, attitudinal certainty appeared mainly concentrated in non-sceptical groups, suggesting that climate sceptical views are not held very firmly.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...59378011000288

Do you believe that only citing non-scientific blog sites and opinion articles from koch-funded conservative think-tanks as 'proof' that anthropogenic climate change is not true lends any credibility at all to your views?

This is the part where I insult you for being a tin-foil hat armageddon prepping loony tea-bagger that garners absolutely no respect from anyone because you follow the pied piper of fox news instead of actually doing any research into fact vs fiction. Don't feel bad~ my parents do it too. Puppets of capitalism and emotion-driven media hype who have yet to learn the fact that you have been lied to your whole life. You really need to branch out and think for yourselves before it is too late and the world is totally screwed for those of us that have to live here after you are gone.

Are you SURE the world is cooling? Because I can find lots of data that says that is not true. Why are you still pushing it and why do you keep citing a blog by a climate skeptic weatherman who is quoted saying that the globe is actually warming, but he does not believe in taxes?

Watts more recently expressed his position as: "Now I'm in the camp of we have some global warming. No doubt about it, but it may not be as bad as we originally thought because there are other contributing factors." He further avers that what most bothers him about scientists and others who claim global warming is serious, is that, "They want to change policy. They want to apply taxes and these kinds of things may not be the actual solution for making a change to our society."[

The reasonable thing would be to say:

'Human-caused climate change is real, though the exact level is still being researched (somewhere between not-a-big-deal to terribly bad) and there are people out there trying to make money off either the promotion of those facts, or the denial of them.'

To say 'the world is cooling' is just plain wrong and people will make fun of you for even suggesting it.