Global Cooling

[BraveUlysses]

If only winning the lottery was as easy as reading a broken clock :(

[rwh11385]

Did you read the BBC article actually? You might have missed the part where someone else thought the projection might be a bit aggressive but the ice was melting more rapidly. Are you focused on what one person said... or the actual trend? You seem to be purposefully ignoring the data, again.

And how would you summarize the conclusions of the papers? The agreement pile sure seems quite a bit larger than the denial pile... regardless of if you don't like finding the percentage of the subset with an opinion present. Is any amount of complaining going to change that there is a glut of research that supports it rather than is against it? I think your constant cherry picking prevents you from seeing the big picture, or perhaps you choose to do so.

Either way, care to explain where all the additional absorbed radiation goes to if it doesn't cause the globe to warm? Do you assume that energy disappears or something?

[gwb72tii]

nope, maslowski specifically predicted an ice free arctic this year which is a big FAIL

and bingo and two points for you robbie for posting the problem facing the doomsayers like you, where did the energy go? because it hasn't warmed anything at all.

but wait, there is that 97% consensus

[rwh11385]

nope, maslowski specifically predicted an ice free arctic this year which is a big FAIL

What do you mean "nope"? The question was did you even read the article that you yourself posted. So either you hotlinked an article without actually reading it beyond the byline or purposefully ignored Dr. Serreze's comments even after I mentioned them.

Did you read the BBC article actually? You might have missed the part where someone else thought the projection might be a bit aggressive but the ice was melting more rapidly. Are you focused on what one person said... or the actual trend? You seem to be purposefully ignoring the data, again.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7139797.stm

The US National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) collects the observational data on the extent of Arctic sea ice, delivering regular status bulletins. Its research scientist Dr Mark Serreze was asked to give one of the main lectures here at this year's AGU Fall Meeting.

Discussing the possibility for an open Arctic ocean in summer months, he told the meeting: "A few years ago, even I was thinking 2050, 2070, out beyond the year 2100, because that's what our models were telling us. But as we've seen, the models aren't fast enough right now; we are losing ice at a much more rapid rate.

"My thinking on this is that 2030 is not an unreasonable date to be thinking of."

And later, to the BBC, Dr Serreze added: "I think Wieslaw is probably a little aggressive in his projections, simply because the luck of the draw means natural variability can kick in to give you a few years in which the ice loss is a little less than you've had in previous years. But Wieslaw is a smart guy and it would not surprise me if his projections came out."

Perhaps you are a bit naive about how science works and projections, but just because you cherry pick and focus on one prediction that didn't come true yet doesn't mean the science as a whole is bunk... especially since Dr. Serreze thought it was a bit aggressive.

Of course, if all you want to do is ignore facts... then go about how you are. It's not like us posting logic, reason, and data has done anything to change you from an anti-intellectual troll who is challenged to form a complete thought.

[rwh11385]

and bingo and two points for you robbie for posting the problem facing the doomsayers like you, where did the energy go? because it hasn't warmed anything at all.

but wait, there is that 97% consensus

Sooooooo... are you believing that energy can disappear then? Or just that heat is absorbed by the atmosphere and doesn't cause warming anywhere? (While ignoring data points that do show heating, melting, etc.)

Maybe you should look at the ice chart again if you think "it hasn't warmed anything at all"



You can read a chart, right?

[Q5Quint]

Let me summarize how stupid you are making yourself look.

on 9/8 you posted this:

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

That paper, or rather the website interviewing the author contained this misquote that made you ecstatic:

Professor Anastasios Tsonis, of the University of Wisconsin, said: "We are already in a cooling trend, which I think will continue for the next 15 years at least. There is no doubt the warming of the 1980s and 1990s has stopped.”

However, if you actually read the paper and not just a cherry picked misquote, you get gems like this from the conclusion:

Finally, it is vital to note that there is no comfort to
be gained by having a climate with a significant degree of
internal variability, even if it results in a near-term cessation
of global warming. It is straightforward to argue that a
climate with significant internal variability is a climate that
is very sensitive to applied anthropogenic radiative anomalies
[cf. Roe, 2009]. If the role of internal variability in the
climate system is as large as this analysis would seem to
suggest, warming over the 21st century may well be larger
than that predicted by the current generation of models,
given the propensity of those models to underestimate
climate internal variability.

Warming may be larger than predicted? Oh my!

ftp://starfish.mar.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/pub...08GL037022.pdf

And if you search up the co-aurthor of the paper, Kyle L. Swanson, you find nice quotes like:

We hypothesize that the established pre-1998 trend is the true forced warming signal, and that the climate system effectively overshot this signal in response to the 1997/98 El Niño. This overshoot is in the process of radiatively dissipating, and the climate will return to its earlier defined, greenhouse gas-forced warming signal. If this hypothesis is correct, the era of consistent record-breaking global mean temperatures will not resume until roughly 2020. Of course, this contrasts sharply with other forecasts of the climate system; the purple line roughly indicates the model-based forecast of Smith et al. (2007) , suggesting with a warming of roughly 0.3 deg C over the 2005-2015 period.

Or:

Regardless, it’s important to note that we are not talking about global cooling, just a pause in warming.

Then three weeks later you somehow conveniently forget that bit of 'evidence' that you yourself posted and post this:

so, how many more prophecies of global environmental doom have to fail before there is a 97% consensus that we just really don't understand the complexities of climate science?

LOL

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7139797.stm

to cut to the chase, this is a bbc report on Maslowski, who with much fanfare and lame stream press support predicted the Arctic would be ice free by 2013, and instead we get a colder than normal summer and record sea ice extent growth

You literally post a paper from 2009, where these guys hypothesized a 'pause' in global warming due to el nino before resuming the previously predicted human caused greenhouse gas warming line, then try to spin it as global cooling evidence, then, 3 weeks later, you post a 2007 prediction and say that because the ice has not melted that global warming predictions are wrong...when you answered your own question 3 weeks ago with evidence you are now ignoring.

El nino is causing a pause as predicted by YOUR link from 2009....

Or are you now tossing that bit of 'evidence' out because it goes against the lie you want to believe?

[Farbin Kaiber]

So, what do we think is going to happen as people get to reading the new IPCC report?

[BraveUlysses]

So, what do we think is going to happen as people get to reading the new IPCC report?

I expect vocal idiots to have kneejerk reactions.

[nando]

Geroge wont read the report - he'll read a regurgitated interpretation on a blog site funded by the koch brothers.

[Farbin Kaiber]

I expect vocal idiots to have kneejerk reactions.

Me too, there are so many people that are buying into the climate change complex that there will be a rekindled desire to save the earth. Oh, wait, that already happened in the early to mid 90's when all this bullshit started.

[BraveUlysses]

Me too, there are so many people that are buying into the climate change complex that there will be a rekindled desire to save the earth. Oh, wait, that already happened in the early to mid 90's when all this bullshit started.

Thanks for proving my point!

[Farbin Kaiber]

[BraveUlysses]

Can't tell because you're a great example of Poe's law

[Fusion]

Sooo... they're 95% certain that humans mostly effect climate change.
Anyone care to explain how humans were able to effect the cooling/stagnant 15 year trend?
Or does the blame game only apply to warming trends, whereas stagnant or cooling trends are attributed to something the science (read: politically biased assessment) has no knowledge about?

[Farbin Kaiber]

Can't tell because you're a great example of Poe's law

It's OK, you were right, the kneejerk reactions are already happening!

https://twitter.com/EricHolthaus