So all of a sudden we are headed toward "Global Cooling" now?

[-p.tiddy-]

I tried to talk about this in the "superstorm" thread and it just got ignored, but it was brought up that the ice caps are now GROWING at an accelerated rate...they have grown up to 60% larger even. There are dozens upon dozens of articles on it out there.

Antarctic sea ice hit 35-year record high Saturday
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2013/09/23/antarctic-sea-ice-hit-35-year-record-high-saturday/

Arctic Ice Cap Growing at Tremendous Rate
http://guardianlv.com/2013/09/arctic-ice-cap-growing-at-tremendous-rate/

So, If Global Warming Exists, Why Did The Arctic Ice Cap Grow By 920,000 Square Miles?
http://cnsnews.com/mrctv-blog/matt-vespa/so-if-global-warming-exists-why-did-arctic-ice-cap-grow-920000-square-miles

Gore in the "An Inconvenient Truth" flick predicted the the ice caps to be GONE completely by 2013, complete with footage of dying polar bears to make us all sad...only the caps are bigger than ever now. Simply put he was just WRONG, and I bought into it as well as many others.

So now I have begun to read up on "Global Cooling", and there are lots of convincing articles on that right now too, and I am confused and don't know what to believe any more.

some recent articles:

Multiple lines of evidence suggest global cooling (http://dailycaller.com/2013/11/13/multiple-lines-of-evidence-suggest-global-cooling/)

[QUOTE]The consensus may be moving away from global warming and towards global cooling: Scientists have been looking at different lines of evidence suggesting that the globe is in the midst of a slight cooling trend for at least the last decade or so.

Whether it

[chips93]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/files/2013/09/ArcticEscalatorv2.gif

[andgar923]

This is sort of unrelated but, why the f*ck are global warming detractors so obstinate? Even if global warming doesn't exist, is it really a big deal to slightly change habits to be less harmful to the environment?

Many people don't believe in global warming, whatever... But why are tons of them so opposed to buying a more efficient car or looking into different heating/energy options? It's like they're defying it so hard for no gain.

Because they feel they

[DeuceWallaces]

Caps may be growing and getting cooler, but that doesn't change the excessive warming happening in the mid latitudes where everyone lives.

[KevinNYC]

so wtf is going on here?..."Global Warming" is now over just like that?

No.

[MavsSuperFan]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/files/2013/09/ArcticEscalatorv2.gif
:applause: :applause: :applause:
The trend of our world getting hotter is obvious.

Sure there are individual years and events contradicting the trend, but the overall trend is clear.

IIRC the last 10 years have been the hottest ever recorded.

[-p.tiddy-]

Caps may be growing and getting cooler, but that doesn't change the excessive warming happening in the mid latitudes where everyone lives.
not saying you're wrong, I know you're much more educated on this than I am...but from everything I read recently "scientists" are saying that "the warming of the 80s and 90s" stopped a while ago and now we are headed toward a cooling period...:confusedshrug:

maybe like this:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_January_2012.png

:confusedshrug:

[rezznor]

i wish people would stop calling it global warming for the deniers out there to have something tho latch onto. it's climate change.

[chips93]

i wish people would stop calling it global warming for the deniers out there to have something tho latch onto. it's climate change.

technically, climate change refers to the natural changes that have been going on forever. climate change is undeniable.

climate forcing the appropriate term, for human influenced climate change.


http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_January_2012.png

there are always going to be natural flutuations

but even on this graph, you can see that it is steadily trending upwards.

you need to think long term, and not necessarily look at this on a year-by-year basis.



like if steve nash has a good game tomorrow, we arent gonna ignore the fact, that his game has been trending downwards for the last few years, and that the one game is just an aberration, or part of an understandable fluctuation.

[Frozen1]

Have you seen the movie The Day After Tomorrow?

It

[DeuceWallaces]

The last inflection point in that graph is from just one cool/wet season in 2008. Like nine of the last ten growing seasons have been hot and dry as ****. I know my site has been getting raped the past 4 years. Growth was down by almost half last year.

[chips93]

The REAL problem is becoming global population. Where will liberals be on that issue? Ready to take a stand against reproduction in the third world? :oldlol: I won't hold my breath. They'll continue, as they always do, to scape goat a tiny fraction of people who are the "lucky ones" and ignore the fact that a pyramid crumbles when it has a crack in the wide base, not the tiny point on top.

people are well aware of the issue with developing countries becoming bigger GHG producers. but there is the ethical issue of those poorer countries having a right to develop, and produce GHG, just as all the developing world did.

its not just ignoring it.

the problem is more complex than you are indicating.

[OldSkoolball#52]

people are well aware of the issue with developing countries becoming bigger GHG producers. but there is the ethical issue of those poorer countries having a right to develop, and produce GHG, just as all the developing world did.

its not just ignoring it.

the problem is more complex than you are indicating.





Many people don't believe in global warming, whatever... But why are tons of them so opposed to buying a more efficient car or looking into different heating/energy options? It's like they're defying it so hard for no gain.


This is the post I responded to. What sort of car Americans buy right now is not dooming us to freeze as popsicles or drown in a flood of melted glaciers.

I would think you understand full well that the TYPICAL 'call to action' by climate change supporters is for AMERICANS to stop driving oversized cars and other relatively trivial issues. Hey, if you want to promote that tiny fraction of the issue, great. But then at least be consistent. Try and spark some debate about how to handle the rest of the world's contribution to these issues as well. If you're not willing to do that, it's just hypocritical.

[chips93]

This is the post I responded to. What sort of car Americans buy right now is not dooming us to freeze as popsicles or drown in a flood of melted glaciers.

I would think you understand full well that the TYPICAL 'call to action' by climate change supporters is for AMERICANS to stop driving oversized cars and other relatively trivial issues. Hey, if you want to promote that tiny fraction of the issue, great. But then at least be consistent. Try and spark some debate about how to handle the rest of the world's contribution to these issues as well. If you're not willing to do that, it's just hypocritical.

you said that liberals are ignoring the world population growth as a factor, which isnt the case.

like i said, (and you happily ignored) there are ethical issues at hand.

we as developed nations dont really have the right to tell developing countries how to develop, considering how destructive we were/are in developing.

[-p.tiddy-]

but even on this graph, you can see that it is steadily trending upwards.

you need to think long term, and not necessarily look at this on a year-by-year basis.



like if steve nash has a good game tomorrow, we arent gonna ignore the fact, that his game has been trending downwards for the last few years, and that the one game is just an aberration, or part of an understandable fluctuation.
the graph shows an upward trend over the 80s and 90s that leveled off and is now heading downward

just like many of the "scientists" in those articles claim...

many of them are saying we will be "cooling" for the 20 or so years...which is a lot different than Nash having one bad game

[OldSkoolball#52]

you said that liberals are ignoring the world population growth as a factor, which isnt the case.

like i said, (and you happily ignored) there are ethical issues at hand.

we as developed nations dont really have the right to tell developing countries how to develop, considering how destructive we were/are in developing.


So America has no right to tell Somalia what to do. What right does one American have to tell the other what to do?


If you (anyone) are going to COMPLAIN about graphs and data and what "we're" doing to the environment, you sure as hell better be ready to tell other countries what to do if thats whats necessary to stop it. Otherwise what are you complaining for? Attention?

[chips93]

the graph shows an upward trend over the 80s and 90s that leveled off and is now heading downward

just like many of the "scientists" in those articles claim...

many of them are saying we will be "cooling" for the 20 or so years...which is a lot different than Nash having one bad game

scale is another issue here, if you take a step back the trend is still going up

https://www2.ucar.edu/sites/default/files/news/2013/201201-201212-1.png

as far as i could tell, all of those articles stemmed from that one awful mail one, which was hugely misleading. in that it compared this year, only to last year, which was the lowest ever recorded.

the washington post article referred to antarctica having record ice sheets, despite rising temperatures, and described the very complex systems that could make this occur. which frankly is way over my head.

were there any other articles that actually refered to global temperatures rising?

[chips93]

So America has no right to tell Somalia what to do. What right does one American have to tell the other what to do?

we all reaped the benefits of development, and are living very comfortably, and could continue to do so while redcing our environmental impact.

the same cant be said for developing countries, who still have to worry about poverty far more than any developing nations do.


If you (anyone) are going to COMPLAIN about graphs and data and what "we're" doing to the environment, you sure as hell better be ready to tell other countries what to do if thats whats necessary to stop it. Otherwise what are you complaining for? Attention?

when was i complaining? i just pointed out that you left out the huge ethical issue at play here.

[OldSkoolball#52]

we all reaped the benefits of development, and are living very comfortably, and could continue to do so while redcing our environmental impact.

the same cant be said for developing countries, who still have to worry about poverty far more than any developing nations do.



when was i complaining? i just pointed out that you left out the huge ethical issue at play here.


Ok, so yes we got there first. Thats part of life. Everything isnt equal.

Let me ask you this. If we could hypothetically forecast that continued development and population growth around the globe was SURE to create devastating environmental impacts, for us and for everyone else... What would you do? (Meaning would you support us intervening or not?)

[Nick Young]

scientists don't know shit. Everything they are spitting as gospel truth now is going to be proven completely wrong 20 years from now.

[chips93]

Let me ask you this. If we could hypothetically forecast that continued development and population growth around the globe was SURE to create devastating environmental impacts, for us and for everyone else... What would you do? (Meaning would you support us intervening or not?)

i honestly dont know

its very difficult (its probably impossible) to quantify degradation of the environment vs raising the living standards of a big chunk of the world

if push comes to shove, id tend to not support intervening

[Dresta]

This is sort of unrelated but, why the f*ck are global warming detractors so obstinate? Even if global warming doesn't exist, is it really a big deal to slightly change habits to be less harmful to the environment?

Many people don't believe in global warming, whatever... But why are tons of them so opposed to buying a more efficient car or looking into different heating/energy options? It's like they're defying it so hard for no gain.
Because it would hurt the US's global competitiveness at a time when China and India are building multiple new coal plants each week. The same people moaning about poverty incessantly, and wanting the government to do something about it, are also demanding the government do something that push up everyone's standard of living, and restrain growth. But don't worry, they don't see their contradictions, because they have begun to think of the government as a vast cash cow which has endless streams of money and can solve everyone's problems easily.

Many of the predictions made by climate scientists have turned out to be buncombe, and yet the self-righteous who continue to believe the inconclusive, go around denouncing everyone who doesn't instantly accept their dogmatic beliefs as 'deniers' as if that has somehow won the argument and shown their opponent to be a kind of depraved conspiracy theorist. This kind of behaviour is not far off the individuals who proclaim anyone who doesn't think 9/11 was an inside job as a denier. The scientific community has always been pretty divided on the issue; but climate change advocates dismiss this by saying any scientist who disagrees with their beliefs does so to pursue his own self-interest, while not believing that could be the case with the scientists who support their opinion.

This is a double standard is it not? :confusedshrug:

I have seen enough politically motivated science by the socially concerned in recent years to be extremely skeptical. Not that ordinary Americans couldn't reduce their emissions without much trouble, but that needs to be done on an individual level, not a national one. The amount of morons driving around American cities in huge 4x4's is obscene and completely unnecessary.

[-p.tiddy-]

scale is another issue here, if you take a step back the trend is still going up

https://www2.ucar.edu/sites/default/files/news/2013/201201-201212-1.png

as far as i could tell, all of those articles stemmed from that one awful mail one, which was hugely misleading. in that it compared this year, only to last year, which was the lowest ever recorded.

the washington post article referred to antarctica having record ice sheets, despite rising temperatures, and described the very complex systems that could make this occur. which frankly is way over my head.

were there any other articles that actually refered to global temperatures rising?
this graph looks the same to me?...temp went up in 80s and 90s and has since leveled off, now trending down :confusedshrug:

there are DOZENS of write ups on this out...

AS ARCTIC ICE REBOUNDS, TOP SCIENTISTS PREDICT PERIOD OF GLOBAL COOLING (http://www.thegwpf.org/arctic-ice-rebounds-top-scientists-predict-period-global-cooling/)

^^^ that is on "The Global Warming Policy Foundation"...a web site dedicated to global "WARMING"...even they are now suggesting we may be headed toward a long cool down

[QUOTE]A chilly Arctic summer has left nearly a million more square miles of ocean covered with ice than at the same time last year

[Dresta]

scale is another issue here, if you take a step back the trend is still going up

https://www2.ucar.edu/sites/default/files/news/2013/201201-201212-1.png

as far as i could tell, all of those articles stemmed from that one awful mail one, which was hugely misleading. in that it compared this year, only to last year, which was the lowest ever recorded.

the washington post article referred to antarctica having record ice sheets, despite rising temperatures, and described the very complex systems that could make this occur. which frankly is way over my head.

were there any other articles that actually refered to global temperatures rising?
lol, look at the standard deviation on everything before around 1950.

[chips93]

this graph looks the same to me?...temp went up in 80s and 90s and has since leveled off, now trending down :confusedshrug:

look back over the whole graph, there are several points where it levels off, but then aterwards, continues on again upwards.

[QUOTE]AS ARCTIC ICE REBOUNDS, TOP SCIENTISTS PREDICT PERIOD OF GLOBAL COOLING (http://www.thegwpf.org/arctic-ice-rebounds-top-scientists-predict-period-global-cooling/)

this is the exact same point that the mail article makes. arctic ice down from last year, but ignores the overall trend.


^^^ that is on "The Global Warming Policy Foundation"...a web site dedicated to global "WARMING"...even they are now suggesting we may be headed toward a long cool down

after spending about a minute reading their site they sound very skeptical of global warming.

[-p.tiddy-]

after spending about a minute reading their site they sound very skeptical of global warming.
http://www.thegwpf.org/who-we-are/

yeah, that was my point...NOW they sound "skeptical"....the "Global Warming Policy Foundation" lol

just do some reading...this is NOT a case of ONE biased article going around...there are a lot of people and so called scientists saying we are headed toward a cooling period, and saying that is the "trend" too


HERE, JUST LOOK AROUND (https://www.google.com/#q=global+cooling&safe=off)

[KeylessEntry]

hey guise, have you heard all this new talk about how evolution is a hoax? i have been reading up on how evolution is a hoax and there are lots of convincing articles. look at all the results that come up when you google "evolution hoax", seems like everybody is talking about how evolution is a hoax right now.

so whats going on i guess the evolution skeptics won?

HERE JUST LOOK AROUND (https://www.google.com/search?q=evolution+hoax&oq=evolution+hoax&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.5996j0j7&sourceid=chrome&espv=210&es_sm=91&ie=UTF-8)

[chips93]

http://www.thegwpf.org/who-we-are/

yeah, that was my point...NOW they sound "skeptical"....the "Global Warming Policy Foundation" lol

just do some reading...this is NOT a case of ONE biased article going around...there are a lot of people and so called scientists saying we are headed toward a cooling period, and saying that is the "trend" too


HERE, JUST LOOK AROUND (https://www.google.com/#q=global+cooling&safe=off)

any reputable news sites?

or any reputable scientists?

or any reputable publications/scientific papers?

[-p.tiddy-]

hey guise, have you heard all this new talk about how evolution is a hoax? look at all the results that come up when you google "evolution hoax", seems like everybody is talking about how evolution is a hoax right now.

so whats going on i guess the evolution skeptics won?

HERE JUST LOOK AROUND (https://www.google.com/search?q=evolution+hoax&oq=evolution+hoax&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.5996j0j7&sourceid=chrome&espv=210&es_sm=91&ie=UTF-8)
fair point but it's not the same...there aren't actual scientists now claiming evolution is a hoax...those are all garbage articles obviously, the ones are unbiased as far as I can tell, and have plenty of support

[niko]

Isn't it not warming, but a change in climate further away from what would be considered "normal?"

[-p.tiddy-]

any reputable news sites?

or any reputable scientists?

or any reputable publications/scientific papers?

such as?

why are the scientists in the OP not reputable?

[-p.tiddy-]

also Keyless...they aren't saying Global Warming was a "hoax" they are saying we are now headed toward a cooling period...

[shlver]

Using a single year's ice extent to purport a global trend is nonsense, especially when ice extent is subject to natural variability. A much better indicator would be total ice volume.

[KeylessEntry]

also Keyless...they aren't saying Global Warming was a "hoax" they are saying we are now headed toward a cooling period...

No scientist calls it "global warming", its called "global climate change" for a reason. While some areas may indeed be cooling down, others are obviously warming up.

BTW, you might want to stop linking articles from the daily caller, they are not exactly an unbiased source


The Daily Caller is a politically conservative[1][2] news and opinion website based in Washington, D.C., United States. Founded by Tucker Carlson, a conservative political pundit, and Neil Patel, former adviser to former Vice President Dick Cheney, The Daily Caller launched on January 11, 2010. In late 2012, it was reported that the site had quadrupled its page view and total audience and had become profitable without ever buying an advertisement for itself.[3]

[shlver]

[QUOTE]Scambos also cautioned against relying on a single year to indicate a new trend of global cooling. There is simply not enough data.

[-p.tiddy-]

No scientist calls it "global warming", its called "global climate change" for a reason. While some areas may indeed be cooling down, others are obviously warming up.
I don't think anyone is debating whether or not the climate is "changing"...the debate is whether it is getting warmer or colder...overall

[-p.tiddy-]

http://nsidc.org/icelights/2013/09/16/are-we-cooling/

/thread?
not really just ONE year...although this year seems to be particularly cold and maybe sparking the debates...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html

seems we have been at a stand still for 16 years now

[chips93]

such as?

why are the scientists in the OP not reputable?

well, they arent specifically referred to

they just say 'scientists believe' without saying who these people are.

[-p.tiddy-]

well, they arent specifically referred to

they just say 'scientists believe' without saying who these people are.
yeah that's why I have been putting "scientists" in quotes in this thread

I am not sure what a "reputable" source on this would be but those articles I posted seemed unbiased and informative to me...it isn't like they are globalwarmingisBS.com

[-p.tiddy-]

[QUOTE]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.

[KeylessEntry]

I am not sure what a "reputable" source on this would be but those articles I posted seemed unbiased and informative to me...it isn't like they are globalwarmingisBS.com

a reputable source is definitely NOT the dailymail or dailycaller, that much is for sure.

find a peer reviewed scientific paper on global cooling, shouldnt be hard if all these scientists are supposedly studying it

[-p.tiddy-]

However, US climate expert Professor Judith Curry has questioned how this can be true as that rather than increasing in confidence, “uncertainty is getting bigger” within the academic community.

Long-term cycles in ocean temperature, she said, suggest the world may be approaching a period similar to that from 1965 to 1975, when there was a clear cooling trend.

At the time some scientists forecast an imminent ice age.

that was in the OP as well

"US climate expert Professor" sound reputable to me...:confusedshrug:

[shlver]

not really just ONE year...although this year seems to be particularly cold and maybe sparking the debates...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html

seems we have been at a stand still for 16 years now
Answer this question. Is the difference between global mean temps in 16 years a meaningful quantity?

[-p.tiddy-]

Answer this question. Is the difference between global mean temps in 16 years a meaningful quantity?
that's debatable according to that article

one person saying 16 years is too short, another saying 16 years to be in a standstill is very meaningful

[Dresta]

http://nsidc.org/icelights/2013/09/16/are-we-cooling/

/thread?
Not really:

'He said,

[-p.tiddy-]

from that article shvler:


Some climate scientists, such as Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, last week dismissed the significance of the plateau, saying that 15 or 16 years is too short a period from which to draw conclusions.

Others disagreed. Professor Judith Curry, who is the head of the climate science department at America’s prestigious Georgia Tech university, told The Mail on Sunday that it was clear that the computer models used to predict future warming were ‘deeply flawed’.

[DeuceWallaces]

[QUOTE=Dresta]Not really:

'He said,

[shlver]

that's debatable according to that article

one person saying 16 years is too short, another saying 16 years to be in a standstill is very meaningful
Well it's not very debateable. It is too short to meaningfully predict anything.
I'll be using data from GHCN, http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts.txt
To extract a trend out of data you need to have enough data so that the trend is meaningful. From a least squares fit I did in excel from nasa's temp anomalies, I extracted the slope from 2002 and 2012 which was 0.28k/cent which is a significant warming trend. Adding just 4 years 1997-2001, changed the slope to 1.53k/cent, a greater positive warming trend. The lesson here is if you are willing to utilize and discuss this data within the span of 16 years, you have to accept the error that comes along with using a limited data set. 0.0153k/yr is significantly larger than the trend for the twenty first century, about 0.5k/cent.

[-p.tiddy-]

Well it's not very debateable. It is too short to meaningfully predict anything.
I'll be using data from GHCN, http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts.txt
To extract a trend out of data you need to have enough data so that the trend is meaningful. From a least squares fit I did in excel from nasa's temp anomalies and extracted the slope from 2002 and 2012 which was 0.28k/cent which is a significant warming trend. Adding just 4 years 1997-2001, changed the slope to 1.53k/cent, a greater positive warming trend. The lesson here is if you are willing to utilize and discuss this data within the span of 16 years, you have to accept the error that comes along with using a limited data set. 0.0153k/yr is significantly larger than the trend for the twenty first century, about 0.5k/cent.
well I don't think many are using our current 16 year stand still in temp as the lone reason to "predict" things...

from earlier:


Long-term cycles in ocean temperature, she said, suggest the world may be approaching a period similar to that from 1965 to 1975, when there was a clear cooling trend.

also read a few comments about solar reasons for the temp going down in coming years...has a lot to do with what the sun is currently doing

I don't think the scientists that are predicting the coming cool down are just looking at overall temp graphs and saying "see it's curving downward now!"

[CeltsGarlic]

this topic is too debatable to debate.

[KeylessEntry]

Just stumbled across this
[quote]
Incomplete global coverage is a potential source of bias in global temperature reconstructions if the unsampled regions are not uniformly distributed over the planet's surface. The widely used HadCRUT4 dataset covers on average about 84% of the globe over recent decades, with the unsampled regions being concentrated at the poles and over Africa. Three existing reconstructions with near-global coverage are examined, each suggesting that HadCRUT4 is subject to bias due to its treatment of unobserved regions.

Two alternative approaches for reconstructing global temperatures are explored, one based on an optimal interpolation algorithm and the other a hybrid method incorporating additional information from the satellite temperature record. The methods are validated on the basis of their skill at reconstructing omitted sets of observations. Both methods provide superior results than excluding the unsampled regions, with the hybrid method showing particular skill around the regions where no observations are available.

Temperature trends are compared for the hybrid global temperature reconstruction and the raw HadCRUT4 data. [b]The widely quoted trend since 1997 in the hybrid global reconstruction is two and a half times greater than the corresponding trend in the coverage-biased HadCRUT4 data. Coverage bias causes a cool bias in recent temperatures relative to the late 1990s which increases from around 1998 to the present. Trends starting in 1997 or 1998 are particularly biased with respect to the global trend. The issue is exacerbated by the strong El Ni

[KevinNYC]

there are DOZENS of write ups on this out...

Holy Shit dozens?