Global Cooling

[xrayzebra]

Here this article should keep all you people happy for a little while. I am sure there is some kind of conspiracy involved.

Global warming? No, actually we're cooling, claim scientists

A cold Arctic summer has led to a record increase in the ice cap, leading experts to predict a period of global cooling.



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/10294082/Global-warming-No-actually-were-cooling-claim-scientists.html

Please don't let the writers facts confuse you.

[scroteface]

earth is NOT warming as a whole. it's warming in certain parts and cooling in others..climate change for sure but global warming is an al gore hoax to get us to pay him carbon taxes.

[Jacob1983]

Bring it on. Cold summers would be awesome in North Texas.

[Trainwreck2100]

hurry the fuck up my air has been out since labor day

[Wild Cobra]

I miss global warming...

[Axegrinder]

As long as the ganja still grows, I dont care

[The Reckoning]

al g:lolre

what the fuck is that trash of a person doing these days anyway?


i can't believe hollywood/sweden ate up all of his shit in 2007...the only people who got his message right was South Park lmao.


his net worth went from 1 million in 2000 to over 200 million now. he banked so much on gullible people.


lol him investing in green companies then using his political power to falsify global warming so those companies would be subsidized. :greedy going green indeed.

he's as big of a piece of shit as cheney.

[boutons_deux]

AGW is real. All you deniers and the BigCarbon criminals who finance you being duped can GFY.

[The Reckoning]

AGW is real. All you deniers and the BigCarbon criminals who finance you being duped can GFY.


take it with a grain of salt

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition

[boutons_deux]

take it with a grain of salt

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition

take it with a pound of salt:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kevin-grandia/the-30000-global-warming_b_243092.html

[AntiChrist]

Aussies are about to abolish their idiotic carbon tax.

[boutons_deux]

Aussies are about to abolish their idiotic carbon tax.

AU has lots of coal, so I'm sure BigCoal bought the carbon tax to death.

AU is also going very hard for renewables, and Melbourne's desalination project is fantastic.

[The Reckoning]

take it with a pound of salt:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kevin-grandia/the-30000-global-warming_b_243092.html

take it with a pinch of cyanide

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy

[boutons_deux]

U. East Anglia climategate was just another fabricated scandal by BigCarbon

[AntiChrist]

U. East Anglia climategate was just another fabricated scandal by BigCarbon


bullshit, moonbat

[boutons_deux]

bullshit, moonbat

It has been TOTALLY debunked, asshole

[AntiChrist]

It has been TOTALLY debunked, asshole


bullshit, moonbat

[cheguevara]

global warming is just a really bad stupid term

the problem is the melting of the arctic/antartic ice caps.

[boutons_deux]

global warming is just a really bad stupid term

the problem is the melting of the arctic/antartic ice caps.

and every glacier on the planet, with concomitant ocean level rise. bye bye Miami

[AntiChrist]

global warming is just a really bad stupid term

the problem is the melting of the arctic/antartic ice caps.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415191/Global-cooling-Arctic-ice-caps-grows-60-global-warming-predictions.html

[cheguevara]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415191/Global-cooling-Arctic-ice-caps-grows-60-global-warming-predictions.html

wait, did they just compare 2012 vs 2013? :lol

so a study that covers less than 12 months of data is supposed to be more relevant than studies that cover centuries if not millenias ??

[Axegrinder]

If global warming will sink Cuba, I'm all for it

[MannyIsGod]

Step 1. Take measurement of ice at record lows.

Step 2. Take another measurement a year later which still shows an incredible decline over the amount of ice even one decade ago.

Step 3. Write an article for possibly the worse newspaper in the world regarding climate change. (So bad WC and Darrin could have columns).



We didn't set a record low this year. The low last year was so bad that in fact we have more ice than we had last year. The ice is still a great deal below the long term average and the long term trend still is incredibly bad. I know of no scientific organization who thinks that an arctic with declining sea ice that will likely disappear in the coming decades is somehow going to lead to global cooling.

People falling for this kind of pure bullshit is a nice showcase for amazing stupidity and conformation bias at the same time.

[MannyIsGod]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415191/Global-cooling-Arctic-ice-caps-grows-60-global-warming-predictions.html

Are you willing to stand behind the science in that article?

[spurraider21]

the earth has been warming and cooling for billions of years. we've been studying global temperature for roughly a century and suddenly we have doomsday predictions :lol. I wonder what caused the last ice age, or the subsequent global warming that got the planet out of the ice age... probably exhaust from our SUV's

[spurraider21]

global warming is just a really bad stupid term

the problem is the melting of the arctic/antartic ice caps.
no. just, no. the melting of ice caps attributes very little to ocean levels (which is the perceived issue). ocean levels change in large part to thermal expansion of water. the ice caps are just a nice visual aid/thermometer

[boutons_deux]

"the melting of ice caps attributes very little to ocean levels"

true for landless Arctic, but not true for Antarctica

[Wild Cobra]

Are you willing to stand behind the science in that article?
Are you willing to read anything that is haresy against your AGW dogma?

[MannyIsGod]

the earth has been warming and cooling for billions of years. we've been studying global temperature for roughly a century and suddenly we have doomsday predictions :lol. I wonder what caused the last ice age, or the subsequent global warming that got the planet out of the ice age... probably exhaust from our SUV's

Fire has occurred for much longer than man has been around and yet we accept that man can create fire, correct? Just because there are natural causes for a phenomenon does not preclude it from being anthropogenic in nature as well. You don't believe scientists have considered prior shifts in climate before considering the causes of the current changes? We have accepted scientific explanations for recent ice ages that are not applicable to current climate change. Whether you choose to believe them or not is up to you but the idea that "it happened before" somehow precludes current climate change from being caused by humans does not not survive long under the most basic of scrutiny.

[MannyIsGod]

Lost my other reply but just to summarize: Saying the ice caps are merely visual aid/thermometer and that thermal expansion is the main culprit in sea level rise displays a serious lack of understanding of the science at the poles.

[spurraider21]

Lost my other reply but just to summarize: Saying the ice caps are merely visual aid/thermometer and that thermal expansion is the main culprit in sea level rise displays a serious lack of understanding of the science at the poles.
i didn't say the ice caps melting have no effects. in the scope of sea level rising, though, it is a rather insignificant contributor compared to thermal expansion

[Wild Cobra]

i didn't say the ice caps melting have no effects. in the scope of sea level rising, though, it is a rather insignificant contributor compared to thermal expansion
I disagree with that assessment. Last time I looked, they are pretty close in effect. Boutons is actually right. It's the land based ice like Greenland and Antarctica that have an effect. It is floating ice that doesn't change the level, like the norther cap.

[MannyIsGod]

i didn't say the ice caps melting have no effects. in the scope of sea level rising, though, it is a rather insignificant contributor compared to thermal expansion

That simply isn't true. You're confusing the melting of sea ice with the all ice near poles. The icecap at the southern pole is enough water to raise sea level by over 60 meters. Thermal expansion will likely be maybe 2% of that figure.

[AntiChrist]

Hmm

http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs/Climate%20change/Climate%20model%20results/over%20estimate.pdf

[AntiChrist]

http://m.us.wsj.com/articles/a/SB10001424127887324549004579067532485712464?mg=ren o64-wsj

[MannyIsGod]

There is so much idiocy in that WSJ op ed.


Most experts believe that warming of less than 2 degrees Celsius from preindustrial levels will result in no net economic and ecological damage. Therefore, the new report is effectively saying (based on the middle of the range of the IPCC's emissions scenarios) that there is a better than 50-50 chance that by 2083, the benefits of climate change will still outweigh the harm.Warming of up to 1.2 degrees Celsius over the next 70 years (0.8 degrees have already occurred), most of which is predicted to happen in cold areas in winter and at night, would extend the range of farming further north, improve crop yields, slightly increase rainfall (especially in arid areas), enhance forest growth and cut winter deaths (which far exceed summer deaths in most places). Increased carbon dioxide levels also have caused and will continue to cause an increase in the growth rates of crops and the greening of the Earth—because plants grow faster and need less water when carbon dioxide concentrations are higher.


This section especially. A lot of the statements alone are not false but they are completely out of context and foolish. IE, warmer temps have been shown in papers like Seager 2007 to have a slight increase in precipitation in the American SW. However, the overall point of that paper - and many others - is that evaporation will increase far more than the increase in precipitation. So the slight increase in precipitation certainly isn't going to do any good.

The line about most experts not thinking 2 degrees results in net damage is amazing as well. But I guess in an Op Ed for the WSJ you're just allowed to throw whatever you want against the wall since you don't have to provide sources and people with extreme conformation bias like Darrin will just eat it up.

As for the first opinion piece you posted, it states that models produce natural variability in their runs. They do. But capturing natural variability on a short time scale is nothing more than a coin flip. They assume the natural variability is accounted for in the model runs approximately which is why you see observations on the tails of their distributions. However, thats a piss poor assumption.

Furthermore, they once again focus on air temperatures while ignoring the fact that oceanic heat content is at all time levels. This is the equivalent of saying there's no problem because your candle is not on fire while the house around you burns. The oceans contain FAR more energy and are much slower to warm.

[boutons_deux]

pro-corporate/BigCarbon WSJ's take on AGW is as reliable as David Barton on history or Bible-thumpers on biological evolution. :lol

[Wild Cobra]

That simply isn't true. You're confusing the melting of sea ice with the all ice near poles. The icecap at the southern pole is enough water to raise sea level by over 60 meters. Thermal expansion will likely be maybe 2% of that figure.
LOL...

Really?

Wrong again. It would be much more than 2% because to melt all that ice, the global temperature would have to be so much greater. The sea temperature would be greater too!

For it to be warm enough to melt all the antarctic ice... What would the thermal expansion be...

Think about it. I say thermal expansion alone would be at least 20 meters.

The average ocean depth is 3790 meters. If thermal expansion increases that by 0.5%...

[AntiChrist]

There is so much idiocy in that WSJ op ed.



This section especially. A lot of the statements alone are not false but they are completely out of context and foolish. IE, warmer temps have been shown in papers like Seager 2007 to have a slight increase in precipitation in the American SW. However, the overall point of that paper - and many others - is that evaporation will increase far more than the increase in precipitation. So the slight increase in precipitation certainly isn't going to do any good.

The line about most experts not thinking 2 degrees results in net damage is amazing as well. But I guess in an Op Ed for the WSJ you're just allowed to throw whatever you want against the wall since you don't have to provide sources and people with extreme conformation bias like Darrin will just eat it up.

As for the first opinion piece you posted, it states that models produce natural variability in their runs. They do. But capturing natural variability on a short time scale is nothing more than a coin flip. They assume the natural variability is accounted for in the model runs approximately which is why you see observations on the tails of their distributions. However, thats a piss poor assumption.

Furthermore, they once again focus on air temperatures while ignoring the fact that oceanic heat content is at all time levels. This is the equivalent of saying there's no problem because your candle is not on fire while the house around you burns. The oceans contain FAR more energy and are much slower to warm.


I can understand you blasting away at a WSJ op-Ed, but the previous thing I posted wasn't an "opinion piece", it is a published paper.

[MannyIsGod]

I can understand you blasting away at a WSJ op-Ed, but the previous thing I posted wasn't an "opinion piece", it is a published paper.

Did you even open it and read it? Its not the same as a newspaper Op Ed but its not peer reviewed. Its a commentary piece.

[MannyIsGod]

From the upper right portion of the article: opinion & comment

[MannyIsGod]

That being said, Nature Climate Change is probably the preeminent climate change journal. The article is not without worth, I just feel a major problem is the fact that natural variability can definitely be underestimated by the models in a short time frame. This is a short time frame. It is definitely on the low side of model projections but it IS within model projections which is the important part.