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

[madville]

Source: The Telegraph

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

There has been a 60 per cent increase in the amount of ocean covered with ice compared to this time last year, they equivalent of almost a million square miles.

A leaked report to the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) seen by the Mail on Sunday, has led some scientists to claim that the world is heading for a period of cooling that will not end until the middle of this century.

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.”


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

[kestrel91316]

1. So I guess the CO2 has quit building up in the atmosphere??

If it does cool for some reason we haven't factored in, it will only be a temporary reprieve. There is absolutely no denying the greenhouse effect and the fact of CO2 buildup.

[OneCrazyDiamond]

8. I think the real issue is

the cooling is not predicted in almost all of the models, and the ones that do, do not reflect it to the observed degree.
It gives steam to the counter argument, real or not.

[Igel]

9. There are a number of proposals for temporary reprieves.

More CO2 is being sequestered in the deep ocean--that the boundary between the cold, deep ocean and the middle regions that atmospheric CO2 gets into isn't as impermeable as thought.

Problem: Even if increased deep ocean CO2 has been observed, and even if isotope analysis of the deep water CO2 shows it's recently moved from the atmosphere, atmospheric concentration of CO2 has, in fact, continued to build up, so even if it's being sequestered there should still be some increases in T over the last dozen years on average. But it's flatlined. It's only "increased" because they've increased the window for calculating the moving average. Early GW deniers used the same trick to try to make the upward trendline for global warming go away. (It's known as principled hypocrisy--the principle being that the data has to be made to say what you think it should when public policy decisions are on the line and you think you're right.)

Another option: That ENSO just happens to be trending cooler than it had been.

Problem: The anti-AGW folk retorted that global warming was just ENSO trending towards having warm water surface off the western South Am coast--and that that's precisely how global warming gets implemented.

That the data are wrong. 'Nuff said on that point.

That the Arctic Oscillation happens to be trending more often to the east than it had been. But it had trended west before that, and helped boost temperatures. The Arctic Oscillation is a fairly newfangled discovery, so we don't have much of an observational history for it.

And the winning answer, until there's a need for a better one: That the Arctic is the Arctic, and it's only one subset of the data.

The runner up: Global warming is still complex, the models not as complex, and if there's a hiccup that we haven't figured out it's a chance to have our models trashed and do some new science. Or it's just a random event. Shit happens--it's why there's a 95% or a 99% confidence interval, and not a 99.99999999% confidence interval.

[stupidicus]

12. given that last year was the lowest ice extent on record

since satellites started taking pics, http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CCsQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fnsidc.org%2Farcticseaicenews%2F2012%2F09%2Farctic-sea-ice-extent-settles-at-record-seasonal-minimum%2F&ei=yBwtUvkwqdbJAdLogKgF&usg=AFQjCNHFczC7PNJ3W2uvvNF1DPgWfuYKXg&bvm=bv.51773540,d.aWc I'm underwhelmed

and of course, we don't call it "most ice extent in the Arctic warming" but rather "global" warming of which the arctic is but a small part of

there are also other things to consider, like the thickness of that ice.

Arctic sea ice cover naturally grows during the dark Arctic winters and retreats when the sun re-appears in the spring. But the sea ice minimum summertime extent, which is normally reached in September, has been decreasing over the last three decades as Arctic ocean and air temperatures have increased. This year's minimum extent is approximately half the size of the average extent from 1979 to 2000. This year's minimum extent also marks the first time Arctic sea ice has dipped below 4 million square kilometers.

"Climate models have predicted a retreat of the Arctic sea ice; but the actual retreat has proven to be much more rapid than the predictions," said Claire Parkinson, a climate scientist at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md. "There continues to be considerable inter-annual variability in the sea ice cover, but the long-term retreat is quite apparent."

The thickness of the ice cover is also in decline.

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2012-seaicemin.html

It's good to see flat earther stuff posted here though

[DeltaLitProf]

61. SO the report is wrong about the volume of the ice . . .

. . . could it also be wrong on its face? Could it be wrong even about the square mile coverage of the ice?

[stupidicus]

72. the devil is always in the details

the volume would be hard to calculate (but that's why thickness is important) and it's doubtful the coverage numbers are wrong.

It's the "cooling" conclusion that is more than suspect because this one episode simply doesn't support it. This is like saying that since 1999 wasn't as hot as 1998 in terms of land temps, ergo we've entered a time of global cooling. One year does not a trend make.


Figure 3. Monthly August ice extent for 1979 to 2013 shows a decline of 10.6% per decade.

Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center
High-resolution image
The seasonal decline of extent through the month of August was slightly above average at 56,400 square kilometers (21,800 square miles) per day, but more than a third slower than the record decline rate in August 2012. This year’s August extent was the sixth lowest in the 1979 to 2013 satellite record.

August 2013 ice extent was 2.38 million square kilometers (919,000 square miles) above the record low August extent in 2012. The monthly trend is –10.6% per decade relative to the 1981 to 2010 average
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

[billh58]

22. Rush Limbaugh

and his right-wing cheering section likes to quote Tsonis at every opportunity as the "go to" source for all things which deny man-caused climate change is happening. CO2 buildup, and depletion of the ozone layers are just inconvenient facts which "Libruls" use to scare people.

[truthisfreedom]

2. It's called climate change for a reason.

Weather is getting weirder and weirder and much more unpredictable and intense.

[itsrobert]

7. It's been unusually humid and hot here in San Diego County

n/t

[Iliyah]

28. Same for Los Angeles

[spin]

53. It was first called global warming. ...

but many global warming rallies occurred in record cold temperatures and consequently were ridiculed even by the media.

Climate change is a far better term as it can be used to describe any unusual weather event such as a colder than usual winter or an extremely warm summer. A rash of tornadoes or a hurricane season with a large number of strong hurricanes can be attributed to climate change.

History proves that our climate is always changing. At one time the Sahara Desert was a great place to live.

Sahara Desert Was Once Lush and Populated
Bjorn Carey | July 20, 2006 10:07am ET

At the end of the last Ice Age, the Sahara Desert was just as dry and uninviting as it is today. But sandwiched between two periods of extreme dryness were a few millennia of plentiful rainfall and lush vegetation.

During these few thousand years, prehistoric humans left the congested Nile Valley and established settlements around rain pools, green valleys, and rivers.

The ancient climate shift and its effects are detailed in the July 21 issue of the journal Science.
http://www.livescience.com/4180-sahara-desert-lush-populated.html

Both the American Revolution and the French Revolution occurred during a "Little Ice Age."

The Little Ice Age (LIA) was a period of cooling that occurred after the Medieval Warm Period (Medieval Climate Optimum).[1] While it was not a true ice age, the term was introduced into the scientific literature by François E. Matthes in 1939.[2] It has been conventionally defined as a period extending from the sixteenth to the nineteenth centuries,[3][4][5] or alternatively, from about 1350 to about 1850,[6] though climatologists and historians working with local records no longer expect to agree on either the start or end dates of this period, which varied according to local conditions. NASA defines the term as a cold period between AD 1550 and AD 1850 and notes three particularly cold intervals: one beginning about 1650, another about 1770, and the last in 1850, each separated by intervals of slight warming.[7] The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Third Assessment Report considered the timing and areas affected by the LIA suggested largely independent regional climate changes, rather than a globally synchronous increased glaciation. At most there was modest cooling of the Northern Hemisphere during the period.[8]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

It's hard to attribute such climate changes to pollution caused by mankind. Even before we evolved our earth had many climate changes.

Snowball Earth

The snowball Earth hypothesis posits that the Earth's surface became entirely or nearly entirely frozen at least once, some time earlier than 650 Ma (million years ago). Proponents of the hypothesis argue that it best explains sedimentary deposits generally regarded as of glacial origin at tropical paleolatitudes, and other otherwise enigmatic features in the geological record. Opponents of the hypothesis contest the implications of the geological evidence for global glaciation, the geophysical feasibility of an ice- or slush-covered ocean,[2][3] and the difficulty of escaping an all-frozen condition. There are a number of unanswered questions, including whether the Earth was a full snowball, or a "slushball" with a thin equatorial band of open (or seasonally open) water.
The geological time frames under consideration come before the sudden multiplication of life forms on Earth known as the Cambrian explosion, and the most recent snowball episode may have triggered the evolution of multi-cellular life on Earth. Another, much earlier and longer, snowball episode, the Huronian glaciation, which occurred 2400 to 2100 Ma may have been triggered by the oxygen catastrophe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowball_Earth

Realize that I am not denying that the enormous amount of pollution our civilization is throwing into our atmosphere might be causing some significant changes in our climate. Even if it isn't, it still causes significant health problems to those exposed to it. I was born in Pittsburgh Pa and my mother often told me that while she lived there she would have to often wash her window curtains as they had turned black from the soot from the steel mills. There were times long ago when the street lights were turned on at noon time because the pollution blocked out the sun.

Pittsburgh

The air in this steel town was once so polluted with coal and coke soot that streetlights were sometimes turned on at high noon. Now, much of Pittsburgh's pollution comes from Ohio, West Virginia and further west, according to Neil Donahue, who studies transport pollution at Carnegie Mellon University.

I grew up in a industrial town in northeastern Ohio. The fumes from the factories were so strong that it ate paint off the cars of the plant workers in the parking lots.

Therefore I am a strong supporter of efforts to find more environmentally friendly means to power our industry than fossil fuels. There are a lot of viable alternatives that are being developed today but unfortunately it may be impossible to greatly reduce our dependence on fossil fuels for another 20 to 30 years. All efforts to find better solutions should be financed and supported and if developed the technology should be shared with the world with little emphasis on financial profit.

What I fear is that the backers of "global warming" or "climate change" are developing a religion. While this approach does garner considerable support for the movement to reduce pollution and the consequent damage to our environment, it may hinder good science. Intermixing politics and science is a poor idea just as intermixing science with religion.

The bottom line is I feel that we both agree that our dependence on fossil fuels has to change. No matter how you look at it pollution has a negative effort on our environment. Our technology is advancing to the point that we can leave this addition behind and find a cheaper and far more efficient method of generating power that will be far healthier both to us and our planet.

[truebluegreen]

78. "spin" is right

"What I fear is that the backers of "global warming" or "climate change" are developing a religion. While this approach does garner considerable support for the movement to reduce pollution and the consequent damage to our environment, it may hinder good science. Intermixing politics and science is a poor idea just as intermixing science with religion. "
....this approach...may hinder good science....

"backers" of "global warming"? Like it is a movement? a belief? and not a fact? The fucking ice caps, which have been around for 3 fucking million years, are melting away in front of our eyes.

Give me a break.

[OneCrazyDiamond]

56. Yep, right-wing spin.

Last edited Mon Sep 9, 2013, 01:22 PM - Edit history (1)

The phrase "global warming" should be abandoned in favor of "climate change", Mr Luntz says, and the party should describe its policies as "conservationist" instead of "environmentalist", because "most people" think environmentalists are "extremists" who indulge in "some pretty bizarre behavior... that turns off many voters".


http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2003/mar/04/usnews.climatechange

[Dustlawyer]

68. Ironic since Luntz was probably the one who helped demonize the word "environmentalist!"

[OneCrazyDiamond]

71. I hear he has since reversed his opposition.

[hamsterjill]

58. That's right.

Seeing definite changes in weather patterns these days. Undeniable that something is going on.

[Sanddog42]

3. This isn't really breaking news

Google "Anastasios Tsonis" and you'll find citations as far back as at least 2009 saying we're heading for a cooling trend.

[Plucketeer]

4. OMG! Can't you just HEAR the BS now!

I hope there's a snowbank here (where it's 103 this afternoon) for me to hide in.

[Posteritatis]

5. Gotta love watching the press try to report on anything complex. (nt)

[Richard D]

6. Don't believe it.

http://www.alternet.org/environment/our-society-living-massive-lie-about-threat-climate-change-its-time-wake

[madville]

10. The possibility is certainly there

What if positive things happen like hurricane activity diminishing?

Will global cooling become the new bad thing?

[Hissyspit]

14. It's the Telegraph.

"2012's record low"

[starroute]

23. There haven't been any Atlantic hurricanes at all so far this year

The latest suggestion I've seen is that it's the result of a drought in Brazil. The general consensus is that whatever the specific mechanism, the air over the Atlantic has been too dry and stable for hurricanes to spin up. In other words, it's still global warming -- and it's not necessarily positive. (Just ask Texas.)

[madville]

26. It's all give and take

For every negative there will be be a positive in some other way. Cooling and warming can both have positive and negative effects, should we expect things to stay the same indefinitely?

Climate change will happen and we will have to adapt, always been that way, always will be, regardless of human activity. Climate scientists do have a very tough job though, half will always be wrong and the ones that are right will be proven wrong the next year.

[CRH]

49. the link below might enlighten you,

There are no lasting short or long term positive effects from global heating.

Invest some of your time at the link below, for a greater understanding of the global heating phenomenon.

http://www.apollo-gaia.org/Arctic%20Dynamics.pdf

[snooper2]

55. Climate Change is the proper term to use..

Just over the last couple weeks have had our "hot" Texas summer with temps 100+

June and July we had way more rain than the past few years and pretty low temps...Last summer was a beatdown.

[nolabels]

70. It's freaking strange weather indeed

In our area in So.Cal. in the last two or three summers we now have these hard hitting rainy thunder storms, which we never had much 20 years prior. There is a lot information on why these kinds of things are now happening. Just cruise the inner-tubes

[truebluegreen]

30. You are indulging in wishful thinking.

The effect of greenhouse gases has been known for 150 years, and really got nailed down in the 1950s when the military was developing heat-seeking missiles.

It is not going away in some natural cycle, because it isn't a natural cycle that's causing it.

[7962]

32. Well, when I was in school in the early 70s the talk WAS about cooling!

I remember it well as a child.

[Hissyspit]

33. Yeah, and was wrong

Much less grounded in data and science.

[caraher]

40. Not by scientists

There was buzz in popular media based on poor reporting of the science.

[truebluegreen]

79. No. It isn't.

[wordpix]

11. one year of cooling in 4 decades and this is a trend?

I think Big Oil got to these scientists.

[sakabatou]

13. Possibly

[padruig]

15. not so fast ...

Kosaka and Xie recently published in Nature (doi:10.1038/nature12534) that the 'pause' in heating is likely due to equatorial surface cooling in the Pacific ocean.

Their abstract provides an excellent summary -

"Despite the continued increase in atmospheric greenhouse gas
concentrations, the annual-mean global temperature has not risen
in the twenty-first century1,2, challenging the prevailing view that
anthropogenic forcing causes climate warming. Various mechanisms
have been proposed for this hiatus in global warming3–6,
but their relative importance has not been quantified, hampering
observational estimates of climate sensitivity. Here we show that
accounting for recent cooling in the eastern equatorial Pacific reconciles
climate simulations and observations.We present a novel method
of uncovering mechanisms for global temperature change by prescribing,
in addition to radiative forcing, the observed history of sea
surface temperature over the central to eastern tropical Pacific in a
climate model. Although the surface temperature prescription is
limited to only 8.2% of the global surface, our model reproduces
the annual-mean global temperature remarkably well with correlation
coefficient r 50.97 for 1970–2012 (which includes the current
hiatus and a period of accelerated global warming). Moreover, our
simulation captures major seasonal and regional characteristics of
the hiatus, including the intensified Walker circulation, the winter
cooling in northwestern NorthAmerica and the prolonged drought
in the southernUSA.Our results show that the current hiatus is part
of natural climate variability, tied specifically to aLa-Nin˜a-like decadal
cooling. Although similar decadal hiatus events may occur in the
future, the multi-decadal warming trend is very likely to continue
with greenhouse gas increase."

This gives an insight into the mechanics. Now about the ice, the National Snow and Ice Data Center has switched from their nominal average datum period 1979-2000 to a new thirty year average extending from 1981 to 2010. This thirty year average datum period has been adopted in other data sets as well.

The net effect is that the numbers as we have seen them change just slightly, an effect that the climate denial crowd has latched on to suggesting that the earth is actually 'cooling'.

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2013/06/updating-the-sea-ice-baseline/

[Liberal Veteran]

16. It's true. I had to chisel out to my car from the glaciers that came in overnight.

But the upside is that I can now drive to Russia across the new land bridge.

[Rain Mcloud]

17. Oh Thank God! People on the coastline rejoice!

A newspaper called off Climate change,our problems are all solved.
Tomorrow the Flood Insurance Premium Rebate Checks will be in the mail.
Woot!

[momrois]

18. Heard a discussion about this just the other day

http://www.npr.org/2013/08/29/216415005/a-cooler-pacific-may-be-behind-recent-pause-in-global-warming

[Mr. Sparkle]

19. Professor Anastasios Tsonis has a history of saying the same thing for

at least the last 3 years.

http://www.maciverinstitute.com/2010/01/uw-milwaukee-professor-predicts-50-years-of-global-cooling/

the Arctic "may" have been cooler for the last few years, but what about the rest of the planet where record temperatures have been set ? Also , didn't i read last month that the north pole in now a lake.

The Telegraph is a notorious anti-climate change paper, so i will take what they say with a pinch of salt.

[pasto76]

20. cause most of you sheeple are stuck on 'global warming'

in the 80s in school, they called it 'global climate change'. Like a lot of real science, the 'greenhouse' analogy is overly simplified.

kinda like how the right pinned the left with the label 'liberal', they also got the phrase 'global warming' to stick. Start referring to it as climate change. Not warming. be accurate. correct people when they use the wrong words.

[Delphinus]

44. Global climate change

is the correct terminology.

Must say, though, calling the folks on the board "sheeple" is a bit rude.

[LanternWaste]

57. rather than the petulance of "sheeple" when

"correct people when they use the wrong words..."

Then let us use' individuals', or 'people' rather than the petulance of "sheeple" when addressing those who may not have as much knowledge, or even disagree with one's position.

(Insert rationalization here...)

[Warren DeMontague]

21. Now, for a word from our Sponsor.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

24. Ahem....

The professor has made a career out of being a global warming denier.

http://www.maciverinstitute.com/2010/01/uw-milwaukee-professor-predicts-50-years-of-global-cooling/

[DallasNE]

25. Last Year Was The Hottest Year On Record In North America, Perhaps The Globe

Remember that day in March of last year when a town in upper Michigan broke their old high temperature for that day by 32 degrees. Thawing got an early, early start. This year March, April and May were below normal so we had less of a thaw. But the year, overall, has come out to be very normal -- not cool and not warm when taken as a whole. (The last 3 weeks have been seasonally very warm, getting us all of the way back to normal for the year.) Incidentally, the Greenland icecap saw a record thaw this year and that probably just means a shift in the location of the hot spot. That is the problem when making predictions based on a cherry picked single set of numbers. You simply ignore them and wait for a more comprehensive sample. (Is the Telegraph a right-wing paper on the other side of the pond)?

[Warpy]

27. It's the Torygraph

I'd expect nothing more of them than claiming we're cooling off when it's been in the 90s this summer in Alaska and Siberia.

[cheapdate]

29. A junk report in the Telegraph to distort the actual scientific understanding of climate trends.

Observations over the past 5 years have shown a slowing down in the rate of warming. The actual warming rate over the past five years has been around 0.17 degC/decade. The mean warming rate predicted by the latest models was 0.23 degC/decade. The observed rate of warming is still within the predicted envelope -- it's just on the low side.

Despite what "some scientists" (who?) might allegedly suggest, a five year trend is not believed by the vast majority of climate scientists to be significant in the long term (the "long term" being the very definition of climate).

A minority of climate scientists have suggested that surface temperatures may be slightly less sensitive to carbon dioxide than the present models allow. But the general consensus is that five years of less than expected warming is not a falsification of our entire understanding of how "greenhouse gases" influence the planet's temperature.

Most scientists attribute the less than expected warming to a combination of a period of solar minimum and temporary ocean circulation patterns in the Pacific. We will be returning to a solar maximum in a few years and many scientists expect the warming to get back on pace, possibly aggressively.

[SunSeeker]

31. This is the sort of vile propaganda that prevents us from saving ourselves.

The article (BP press release?) says, "major climate research centres now accept that there has been a “pause” in global warming since 1997." But it does not name these "centres." It only names two climate change deniers. Anatasios Tsonis and Judith Curry do not represent "scientists," nor is this what the mainstream scientific community "claims."

There has been no "pause" in warming since 1997. The fact is, seven of the top 10 warmest years on record for the contiguous 48 states have occurred since 1998, and 2012 was the warmest year on record. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/indicators/weather-climate/temperature.html

Madville, why did you post this?

[backscatter712]

34. I call bullshit. This article is pure fucking lies. n/t

[Hissyspit]

39. It's The Telegraph. Right-wing crap.

[Theyletmeeatcake2]

48. Your bullshit meter is functioning perfectly!!!!!

[GalaxyHunter]

62. I call bullshit on your bullshit call!

[Rstrstx]

35. Think of the earth's warming like this:

CO2 levels aren't going to be the only thing controlling the temperature of the planet, which naturally rises and falls, but long-term it could be raising the global temperature. Say this is a graph of the earth's temperature over time and we're at the circle in red right now:

[IMG][/IMG]

If you only looked back a few years you'd conclude the earth was cooling, but look back farther and the trend is apparent

[joshcryer]

36. Volume is key, not extent.

Which is a very shitty metric for the state of the sea ice.

Arctic ice volume has indeed rebounded a tiny bit from 2012, but barely so. Nothing to make you go "wow!"

Especially when the long term trend is downward:

http://psc.apl.washington.edu/wordpress/research/projects/arctic-sea-ice-volume-anomaly/

[iamthebandfanman]

37. how THICK is the ice?

that's what needs to be asked...


as I recall, ice has returned before in areas that went without in previous years.. only it was a fraction of the thickness...

[BillyRibs]

38. The last major case of globle warming was the Permian extinxtion, it took almost 100,000 Years.

We yet may have some time. But lets not push it! the worst of the best news is that we spend a lot of money and convert to 100% renewable energy. The worst of the worst, Well I don't want to think about the worst of the worst. Let me put it to you this way. I don't want to be around to say "I told you so."

[NickB79]

63. Actually it was the Eocene Thermal Maximum

The Permian was approximately 240 million years ago; the Eocene Thermal Maximum was only 50 million years ago.

The scary thing was that, while the ETM didn't get quite as hot as the Permian, it only took 20,000 years to get there, a veritable blink of an eye in geologic terms.

[Kolesar]

41. Prof. Anastasios Tsonis frequently advocates for the fossil fuel industry

https://www.google.com/search?q=Anastasios+Tsonis&oq=Anastasios+Tsonis&aqs=chrome..69i57&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#q=Anastasios+Tsonis+%22oil+industry%22

google gave me this reference to Tsonis, too: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x190213

[n2doc]

42. The ice increase is all in the southern pole, because it is winter there

Pretty blatant FUD. The increase is all in temporary sea ice that will melt as soon as it is summer down there. It is not permanent. Ice coverage in the arctic continues the multi-decadal trend:

[7962]

45. But the picture shows the north; around Greenland and Russia

[n2doc]

46. They are trying to confuse the reader, then

They are comparing the worst year in recorded history to this year. There is variability in Nature, but the graph I posted clearly shows the trend is being followed.

[CreekDog]

75. you've been denying or downplaying global warming and at times discouraging serious discussion of it

this latest post of yours is as reliable as the trend of global warming.

[7962]

80. Wow, you go back 3 years to find a post? Got a slow day?

I DO downplay it. Know why? Because theres NOTHING we can do about it as long as China & India keep up what THEY are doing. China is building a shitload of new coal plants right now.
So forgive me if I'm tired of buying big ticket items that dont work as well as the old ones and need replacing years earlier, just because they might save 8.00 in energy in a year.

[Ash_F]

43. This is likely just newspaper publishers too dumb to understand what scientists are trying to say.

Happens all the time.

[Theyletmeeatcake2]

47. Check the source...

Barclay brothers who own hollinger holdings should be called"Dodgy Brothers" for their tax rorts and other exploits. They also have a writer?? Called delingpole who is a vehement global warming denier who calls himself a libertarian who goes on talking tours sponsored by right wing antiglobal warming think tanks .take this with a grain of salt .Amazing that they'll seize any scientists 'facts' that match their needs. I'd rather err on the side of caution in this matter .What do I know? Enough to know when most scientists agree I'm likely to agree with them. I'm not arrogant enough to think I know more than these people. And it wouldn't be so bad but I suspect because the deniers are so on song with their faith that they are being fed their lines by their sponsors(big oil,tobacco,pharma,industry). As they say if people were rational there would be no religion....no offence to all you sports fans out there!!!!

[Nye Bevan]

50. When I posted a similar article in GD, it was locked by the host Cyberswede,

who suggested I post it in Creative Speculation instead.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022911565

[Towlie]

51. As the Titanic was sinking, it reversed and popped back up. The people in the lifeboats cheered...

[blackspade]

52. Yeah, right......

So one year's worth of data now means we are in a cooling trend. Bullshit.

Climate change denial FAIL.

[Richard D]

54. Just watch this.

[SheilaT]

59. Something almost no one talks about is

the possibility that climate change could wreak havoc on things like the Gulf Stream, which is crucial for keeping Europe as warm as it is. If that gets disrupted, all climate hell will break loose.

[SansACause]

60. a special place in the hell that we're creating

Either the reporter is too dumb to understand what the source is saying, or he/she is distorting the truth so much as to be lying. There is a special hell, just like the one on earth we're creating, for people like this.

[skip fox]

64. Have you heard the ole definition of a statistician?

He's the man who drowns in a river with the mean depth of 2 feet.

[emmadoggy]

65. Gimme a break. This is laughable. nt

[Eljo_Don]

66. Physics 101

Professor Anastasios Tsonis, just remember physics 101. As long as there is ice, the temperature will not rise. The solar energy coming through will be spend melting the ice. Just think about your coke with ice drink. the drink will stay cool as long as there is ice. The very moment the last piece of ice melts, the temperature will start rising. Wait until the last piece of polar ice melts down, then start recording global temperatures. Until then, all you will notice is climate change, not temperature change. You are not considering heat transfer. Heat transfer can produce change of state (ice to water, water to vapor), and temperature change. I think you know that global warming is a multiple stage process. We are in the ice melting stage. Think about heat transfer, not temperature change.

[retread]

67. I'm filing this one next to the "Intelligent Design Theory".

[Agony]

69. the global warming pause button

"Recent articles about a global warming 'pause' miss that the planet as a whole is still rapidly warming"

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/jun/24/global-warming-pause-button

I forget did we throw the Guardian under the bus? (Greenwald...)

there are journalists that get it.

&feature=c4-overview-vl&list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP
Agony

[NickB79]

73. Exactly. Global warming hasn't stopped at all

If you look at the historical record of the last 150 years, you'll see frequent episodes where we warmed rapidly for a decade, leveled off or dropped slightly for a decade, and then warmed even more then following one.

It's been a puzzle for scientists for a while, with suggestions that it had to do with solar activity, sulfur pollution from coal plants, etc.

Now they think they've figured it (mostly) out: it's the Pacific La Nina effect: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2013/08/28/la-nina-behind-gentler-global-warming-study-finds/

The heat we should be seeing in the atmosphere is instead being pumped into the deep oceans. Unfortunately, heating the deep oceans can result in changes in global currents, and also reduce the amount of CO2 the oceans can store in reserve (warm water holds less CO2 than cold water).

The scary thing, though, is that this effect is expected to only last to the end of this decade. And, even with a La Nina cooling trend, the planet is still seeing extreme weather effects already from climate change. As the oceans warm, they reach their CO2 saturation point more quickly, leaving more of the stuff in the air. After that: boom goes the dynamite.

[DeSwiss]

74. It's climate change or climate extremes, not global warming.

It's happening to all the planets in the solar system. And the concept of global cooling (referred to as global dimming) has been around for quite a while.

- Many scientists who published these facts were treated like Cassandra who was cursed to know the truth and yet no one would listen......

K&R

[Ghost Dog]

76. MODs please remove this RW propaganda article from 2013 from LBN

Thanks.

[Binkie The Clown]

77. Scientists claim the Earth is flat.

And contains an infinite supply of petroleum.

And unicorns shit raspberry ice cream.

Northern Polar Melt Re-Asserts With A Vengeance — Arctic Sea Ice Volume Closed on New Record Lows During February

Look at the satellite photographs years after year as the ice cover continues to hit new lows and tell me sea ice is growing. Bullshit.
and

February Smashes Earth's All-Time Global Heat Record by a Jaw-Dropping Margin

and



Look at the rightmost data point and tell me Earth is cooling. I've never heard such rank bullshit, even from a hack denialist like Anastasios Tsonis.