Climate Theories Crumble as Data and Experts Suggest Global Cooling

[homersapien 11,377]

I will not sit here and claims that busts up Homers theory, but it is a good sign we may need a little more info to make an argument to outlaw CO2 and start charging companies for running their equipment correctly.

"Homer's" theory?

And we have enough information to convince the global scientific community if not you. Sorry if I'd rather rely on their conclusions instead of a complete layman's opinion such as yours.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Hey Weegs - thanks for jumping in earlier. What we all need to realize is that the weather goes in cycles. We can not sit back and say that manmade CO2 is driving this. There are just too many factors.

Do you really think that the science of global warming has simply overlooked the natural causes of climatic variation?

Is that what you are contending?

As an engineer, you probably never learned much about research and how experiments and the analysis of data are designed to account for all sources of variation. Weegs said this was "your field". Have you ever published a paper on the subject?

Have you? If not maybe you should cool it too after 17 pages where no one has probably changed their mind.

[homersapien 11,377]

I made a comment about the EPA designating other greenhouse gases as having a "global warming potential" greater than CO2 - and by a good bit. These are the gasses I beleive we should be concerned about. They will not make as much money for our government but the effect they have on surface temps and human health are much worse.

As an engineer, you should be able to differentiate between qualitative factors and a quantitative factors. And what does one do with these factors? (I presume you already know what is meant by a "factor", mathematically speaking.

I hope you don't make your engineering calculations based on your feelings about what we should be concerned about.

[homersapien 11,377]

If you are really worried about CO2 (a non toxic gas) then go plant a tree - I hear the plant life on this planet LOVES some CO2.

Didn't we already cover the subject of CO2 chemistry. (Remember my "water-is-bad-because-you-can-drown-in-it-analogy"?) Did you not understand it? Do I need to explain how this line of reasoning is quite irrelevant?

The School of Engineering called. They want their degree back.

[DKW 86 7,425]

Excuse some of us if we have heard all this before and just arent that impressed by it all.

But, but, but it is real! The great scientists say so! I know this because I googled it, and everything you read on the internet is true! And the science blogs, and the scientists, and the........well the scientists......

And Grasshopper, often times, the very same scientists are telling us that we need to fear both sides of the story. ;-)

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

I made a comment about the EPA designating other greenhouse gases as having a "global warming potential" greater than CO2 - and by a good bit. These are the gasses I beleive we should be concerned about. They will not make as much money for our government but the effect they have on surface temps and human health are much worse.

As an engineer, you should be able to differentiate between qualitative factors and a quantitative factors. And what does one do with these factors? (I presume you already know what is meant by a "factor", mathematically speaking.

I hope you don't make your engineering calculations based on your feelings about what we should be concerned about.

I know what a factor is. It's the Bill O'Reilly show, the highest rated cable news program for 13 straight years

[DKW 86 7,425]

Homer, calm down. I was an Environmentalist before it was "Cool."

Do i think we are heating up, probably.

Do i think the Science is en masse weighted toward this? Yes.

What i also think is that there is a really determined bunch of folks that are set on making themselves filthy stinking rich with all this. Al Gore to become a $BNaire...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/6491195/Al-Gore-could-become-worlds-first-carbon-billionaire.html

I also dont buy that the elites really actually believe much of this. At the Copenhagem Climate summit in 2009, do we find delegates using mass transit, public airlines, and other public transit? NOPE. We find 1200 Private Limos and 140 Private Jets burning a gawd awful amount of fuel and spewing a tremendous carbon foot print into the air. They dont act like they believe one word of it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/07/copenhagen-limos-private-planes_n_383516.html

Give me more of the Harry Chapin and the other real Enviros out there. Those not in it to make a buck.

What about our own pols?

Nancy Pelosi plane rides...

Gore's Mansion? His G2?

Mann's Hockey Stick graph? PLEASE!

The UEA Email hacks? PLEASE!

Anyone with an open mind knows three things.

1) Global Warming/Pollution is a fact and needs to be a concern going forward.

2) More than a few of the clowns advocating all this are financially tied to making $BNs off this.

3) That there have been some gigantic frauds perpetrated by those in the Global Warming Community to further the cause.

It would be the end of the debate if the Left could just admit that they jumped the shark a few times in all this and move forward.

Those on the Right likely deep down know the truth but are not going to admit it until the Left gets real with some of the bogus claims.

And i still support the Keystone Pipeline...

[homersapien 11,377]

Homer, calm down. I was an Environmentalist before it was "Cool."

Do i think we are heating up, probably.

Do i think the Science is en masse weighted toward this? Yes.

What i also think is that there is a really determined bunch of folks that are set on making themselves filthy stinking rich with all this. Al Gore to become a $BNaire...

http://www.telegraph...illionaire.html

I also dont buy that the elites really actually believe much of this. At the Copenhagem Climate summit in 2009, do we find delegates using mass transit, public airlines, and other public transit? NOPE. We find 1200 Private Limos and 140 Private Jets burning a gawd awful amount of fuel and spewing a tremendous carbon foot print into the air. They dont act like they believe one word of it.

http://www.huffingto...s_n_383516.html

Give me more of the Harry Chapin and the other real Enviros out there. Those not in it to make a buck.

What about our own pols?

Nancy Pelosi plane rides...

Gore's Mansion? His G2?

Mann's Hockey Stick graph? PLEASE!

The UEA Email hacks? PLEASE!

Anyone with an open mind knows three things.

1) Global Warming/Pollution is a fact and needs to be a concern going forward.

2) More than a few of the clowns advocating all this are financially tied to making $BNs off this.

3) That there have been some gigantic frauds perpetrated by those in the Global Warming Community to further the cause.

It would be the end of the debate if the Left could just admit that they jumped the shark a few times in all this and move forward.

Those on the Right likely deep down know the truth but are not going to admit it until the Left gets real with some of the bogus claims.

And i still support the Keystone Pipeline...

Sorry, you disqualified yourself as worthy of a reply by mentioning "Al Gore".

If you can rephrase you post to reflect technical arguments, I will respond. point by point.

Meanwhile, thanks for the effort!

[AURaptor 1,125]

The fake enviros hate it when they have to be reminded of their clowns and frauds, like Algore.

Seriously burns them up.

[DKW 86 7,425]

The fake enviros hate it when they have to be reminded of their clowns and frauds, like Algore.

Seriously burns them up.

Yep...

homer can see that i am agreeing with the 'facts' in this. He is just deflecting so he can keep up the defense of the indefensible.

What he cant see, EVER, is that there are bad people on the AGW side that are in it for nothing but the $$$. algore, UEA, etc.

So he deflects to non issues etc.

And if mentioning algore keeps me from one of your crazy 5 page screeds & tirades, i hereby invoke the name of algore from everlasting to everlasting...

[homersapien 11,377]

The fake enviros hate it when they have to be reminded of their clowns and frauds, like Algore.

Seriously burns them up.

Yep...

homer can see that i am agreeing with the 'facts' in this. He is just deflecting so he can keep up the defense of the indefensible.

What he cant see, EVER, is that there are bad people on the AGW side that are in it for nothing but the $$$. algore, UEA, etc.

So he deflects to non issues etc.

And if mentioning algore keeps me from one of your crazy 5 page screeds & tirades, i hereby invoke the name of algore from everlasting to everlasting...

Please show me where I have deflected to "non-issues". In fact show me one of my "crazy screeds and tirades". Show me what I've posted that is "crazy". I need to know what you think is crazy. Maybe I can explain it to you. Show me.

You guys are really big on hurling insults but you simply can't deal with the scientific case.

I am here to discuss the evidence for AGW. Bringing up Al Gore in that context is the "non issue". It reflects an unwillingness - or inability - to address the science, so you try to turn the discussion into a political discussion.

[homersapien 11,377]

The fake enviros hate it when they have to be reminded of their clowns and frauds, like Algore.

Seriously burns them up.

And another substantive post by Weegle. Nothing like making a solid contribution to the actual debate, huh weegs?

[Weegle777 78]

The fake enviros hate it when they have to be reminded of their clowns and frauds, like Algore.

Seriously burns them up.

And another substantive post by Weegle. Nothing like making a solid contribution to the actual debate, huh weegs?

Are you drunk or something?

[homersapien 11,377]

The fake enviros hate it when they have to be reminded of their clowns and frauds, like Algore.

Seriously burns them up.

And another substantive post by Weegle. Nothing like making a solid contribution to the actual debate, huh weegs?

Are you drunk or something?

That's a least your third "substantive" post of the day. :-\

Better take a rest. I'd hate to see you burn yourself out to the point you can no longer contribute to the discussion.

[DKW 86 7,425]

The fake enviros hate it when they have to be reminded of their clowns and frauds, like Algore.

Seriously burns them up.

Yep...

homer can see that i am agreeing with the 'facts' in this. He is just deflecting so he can keep up the defense of the indefensible.

What he cant see, EVER, is that there are bad people on the AGW side that are in it for nothing but the $$$. algore, UEA, etc.

So he deflects to non issues etc.

And if mentioning algore keeps me from one of your crazy 5 page screeds & tirades, i hereby invoke the name of algore from everlasting to everlasting...

Please show me where I have deflected to "non-issues". In fact show me one of my "crazy screeds and tirades". Show me what I've posted that is "crazy". I need to know what you think is crazy. Maybe I can explain it to you. Show me.

You guys are really big on hurling insults but you simply can't deal with the scientific case.

I am here to discuss the evidence for AGW. Bringing up Al Gore in that context is the "non issue". It reflects an unwillingness - or inability - to address the science, so you try to turn the discussion into a political discussion.

1) What is there to debate with "Facts?" I am materially agreeing with the facts.

2) You lied, i invoked your algorism strategy and you replied anyway... smh (lol)

[homersapien 11,377]

The fake enviros hate it when they have to be reminded of their clowns and frauds, like Algore.

Seriously burns them up.

Yep...

homer can see that i am agreeing with the 'facts' in this. He is just deflecting so he can keep up the defense of the indefensible.

What he cant see, EVER, is that there are bad people on the AGW side that are in it for nothing but the $$$. algore, UEA, etc.

So he deflects to non issues etc.

And if mentioning algore keeps me from one of your crazy 5 page screeds & tirades, i hereby invoke the name of algore from everlasting to everlasting...

Please show me where I have deflected to "non-issues". In fact show me one of my "crazy screeds and tirades". Show me what I've posted that is "crazy". I need to know what you think is crazy. Maybe I can explain it to you. Show me.

You guys are really big on hurling insults but you simply can't deal with the scientific case.

I am here to discuss the evidence for AGW. Bringing up Al Gore in that context is the "non issue". It reflects an unwillingness - or inability - to address the science, so you try to turn the discussion into a political discussion.

1) What is there to debate with "Facts?" I am materially agreeing with the facts.

2) You lied, i invoked your algorism strategy and you replied anyway... smh (lol)

It's not like Krypton. I can choose to ignore the rule if necessary.

[japantiger 4,051]

Arctic sea ice up 60 percent in 2013

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/09/09/arctic-sea-ice-up-60-percent-in-2013/#ixzz2eXW7pq2i

About a million more square miles of ocean are covered in ice in 2013 than in 2012, a whopping 60 percent increase -- and a dramatic deviation from predictions of an "ice-free Arctic in 2013," the Daily Mail noted.

Arctic sea ice averaged 2.35 million square miles in August 2013, as compared to the low point of 1.32 million square miles recorded on Sept. 16, 2012, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center. A chart published Sept. 8 by NSIDC shows the dramatic rise this year, putting total ice cover within two standard deviations of the 30-year average.

Noting the year over year surge, one scientist even argued that "global cooling" was here.

"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,” Anastasios Tsonis of the University of Wisconsin told London’s Mail on Sunday.

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/09/09/arctic-sea-ice-up-60-percent-in-2013/

[homersapien 11,377]

Arctic sea ice up 60 percent in 2013

Read more: http://www.foxnews.c.../#ixzz2eXW7pq2i

About a million more square miles of ocean are covered in ice in 2013 than in 2012, a whopping 60 percent increase -- and a dramatic deviation from predictions of an "ice-free Arctic in 2013," the Daily Mail noted.

Arctic sea ice averaged 2.35 million square miles in August 2013, as compared to the low point of 1.32 million square miles recorded on Sept. 16, 2012, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center. A chart published Sept. 8 by NSIDC shows the dramatic rise this year, putting total ice cover within two standard deviations of the 30-year average.

Noting the year over year surge, one scientist even argued that "global cooling" was here.

"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,” Anastasios Tsonis of the University of Wisconsin told London’s Mail on Sunday.

http://www.foxnews.c...ercent-in-2013/

Technically (scientifically) speaking, this is a another version of the same statistical argument made by Bama Grad in post #60, which I rebutted in post # 61.

Here's the long explanation: (You should like this, it was published in "The Guardian")

http://www.theguardi...a-ice-delusions

Arctic sea ice delusions strike the Mail on Sunday and Telegraph

Both UK periodicals focus on short-term noise and ignore the rapid long-term Arctic sea ice death spiral

When it comes to climate science reporting, the Mail on Sunday and Telegraph are only reliable in the sense that you can rely on them to usually get the science wrong. This weekend's Arctic sea ice articles fromDavid Rose of the Mail and Hayley Dixon at the Telegraph unfortunately fit that pattern.

Both articles claimed that Arctic sea ice extent grew 60 percent in August 2013 as compared to August 2012. While this factoid may be technically true (though the 60 percent figure appears to be an exaggeration), it's also largely irrelevant. For one thing, the annual Arctic sea ice minimum occurs in September – we're not there yet. And while this year's minimum extent will certainly be higher than last year's, that's not the least bit surprising. As University of Reading climate scientist Ed Hawkins noted last year,

"Around 80% of the ~100 scientists at the

Bjerknes [Arctic climate science] conference

thought that there would be MORE Arctic sea-ice in 2013, compared to 2012."

Regression toward the Mean

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.

The amount of Arctic sea ice left at the end of the annual melt season is mainly determined by two factors – natural variability (weather patterns and ocean cycles), and human-caused global warming. The Arctic has lost 75 percent of its summer sea ice volume over the past three decades primarily due to human-caused global warming, but in any given year the weather can act to either preserve more or melt more sea ice. Last year the weather helped melt more ice, while this year the weather helped preserve more ice.

Last year I created an animated graphic called the 'Arctic Escalator' that predicted the behavior we're now seeing from the Mail on Sunday and Telegraph. Every year when the weather acts to preserve more ice than the previous year, we can rely on climate contrarians to claim that Arctic sea ice is "rebounding" or "recovering" and there's nothing to worry about. Given the likelihood that 2013 would not break the 2012 record, I anticipated that climate contrarians would claim this year as yet another "recovery" year, exactly as the Mail on Sunday and Telegraph have done.

Arctic sea ice extent data, 1980–2012. Data from NSIDC.

In short, this year's higher sea ice extent is merely due to the fact that last year's minimum extent was record-shattering, and the weather was not as optimal for sea ice loss this summer. However, the long-term trend is one of rapid Arctic sea ice decline, and research has shown this is mostly due to human-caused global warming.

When Will the Arctic be Ice-Free?

Both Rose and Dixon referenced a 2007 BBC article quoting Professor Wieslaw Maslowski saying that the Arctic could be ice free in the summer of 2013. In a 2011 BBC article, he predicted ice-free Arctic seas by 2016 "plus or minus three years." Other climate scientists believe this prediction is too pessimistic, and expect the first ice-free Arctic summers by 2040.

It's certainly difficult to predict exactly when an ice-free Arctic summer will occur. While climate research has shown that the Arctic sea ice decline is mostly human-caused, there may also be a natural component involved. The remaining sea ice may abruptly vanish, or it may hold on for a few decades longer. What we do know is that given its rapid decline, an ice-free Arctic appears to be not a question of if, but when.

Continuing Global Warming

Both articles also claimed that "some scientists" are predicting that we're headed into a period of global cooling. Both named just one scientist making this claim – Professor Tsonis of the University of Wisconsin,whose research shows that slowed global surface warming is only temporary. In fact, Tsonis' co-author Kyle Swanson wrote,

"What do our results have to do with Global Warming, i.e., the century-scale response to greenhouse gas emissions?

VERY LITTLE

, contrary to claims that others have made on our behalf."

Both articles also wrongly claimed that global warming has "paused" since 1997. In reality, global surface temperatures have warmed over the past 15 years, albeit more slowly than during the previous 15 years. It is possible to cherry pick a shorter time frame over which global surface temperatures haven't warmed, as I illustrated in my other animated 'Escalator' graphic.

Average of NASA GISS, NOAA NCDC, and HadCRUT4 monthly global surface temperature anomalies from January 1970 through November 2012 (green) with linear trends applied to the timeframes Jan '70 - Oct '77, Apr '77 - Dec '86, Sep '87 - Nov '96, Jun '97 - Dec '02, and Nov '02 - Nov '12.

However, the opposite is true of the overall warming of the planet – Earth has accumulated more heat over the past 15 years than during the prior 15 years.

Global heat accumulation data (ocean heating in blue; land, atmosphere, and ice heating in red) from Nuccitelli et al. (2012)

.Recent research strongly suggests that the main difference between these two periods comes down to ocean heat absorption. Over the past decade, heat has been transferred more efficiently to the deep oceans, offsetting much of the human-caused warming at the surface. During the previous few decades, the opposite was true, with heat being transferred less efficiently into the oceans, causing more rapid warming at the surface. This is due to ocean cycles, but cycles are cyclical – meaning it's only a matter of time before another warm cycle occurs, causing accelerating surface warming (as Tsonis' research shows).

It would be foolhardy for anyone to predict future global cooling, and those few who are so foolish are unwilling to put their money where their mouth is, as my colleague John Abraham found out when challenging one to a bet, only to find the other party unwilling to stand behind it.

Rose and Dixon Invent an IPCC 'Crisis Meeting'

Both articles also claimed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(IPCC), whose Fifth Assessment Report is due out in a few weeks, has been forced "to hold a crisis meeting." This claim made both articles even though Ed Hawkins noted,

"I told David Rose on the phone and by email on Thursday about the IPCC process and lack of 'crisis' meeting."

Unfortunately that didn't stop Rose from inventing this meeting, or Dixon from repeating Rose's fictional reporting in the Telegraph.

Yes, Humans are Driving Global Warming

Finally, both articles quoted climate scientist Judith Curry claiming that the anticipated IPCC statement of 95 percent confidence that humans are the main cause of the current global warming is unjustified. However, Curry has no expertise in global warming attribution, and has a reputation for exaggerating climate uncertainties. In reality, the confident IPCC statement is based on recent global warming attribution research. More on this once the IPCC report is actually published – any current commentaries on the draft report are premature.

Shoddy Climate Reporting

These two articles at the Mail on Sunday and Telegraph continue the unfortunate trend of shoddy climate reporting in the two periodicals,particularly from David Rose. They suffer from cherry picking short-term data while ignoring the long-term human-caused trends, misrepresenting climate research, repeating long-debunked myths, and inventing IPCC meetings despite being told by climate scientists that these claims are pure fiction.

Based on their history of shoddy reporting, the safest course of action when reading a climate article in the Mail on Sunday or Telegraph is to assume they're misrepresentations or falsehoods until you can verify the facts therein for yourself.

[homersapien 11,377]

P.S.: I am not surprised you picked up this little nugget on Fox "news".

[DKW 86 7,425]

P.S.: I am not surprised you picked up this little nugget on Fox "news".

I see your graph only went back to 1980. Why?

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/2000-years-of-global-temperature.jpg

Oh now i see why...

[homersapien 11,377]

P.S.: I am not surprised you picked up this little nugget on Fox "news".

I see your graph only went back to 1980. Why?

Oh now i see why...

1) What graph?

2) Regardless, if you see "why", how about telling us?

3) What is the chart you posted and why? Does it have any relevance to my post (much less yours)?

[DKW 86 7,425]

P.S.: I am not surprised you picked up this little nugget on Fox "news".

I see your graph only went back to 1980. Why?

Oh now i see why...

And it's because....?

Its not the "Because..."

Its the "Why cant we discuss the whole truth?"

There have been periods of even warmer tamps than now that lasted approximately 600 years.

When we deny or hide that reality it makes the whole argument look like BS.

Do i think that we need less carbons on Earth? Certainly.

Why do we need to hide huge parts of the whole picture from the general population? Just tell the whole truth.

In my graph i show everyone that the Totally Unindustrialized Dark Ages were warmer still than today.

I also show that when man first started to take scientific readings and log them down, about 1700, we were at an historical trough.

Any readings after that time were just reflecting the normal, cyclical, rebound.

When will we see the next downturn?

Does anyone know?

Lets just try to tell the whole truth and not scare the bejesus out of everyone to make ourselves wealthy and feel superior to others.

[homersapien 11,377]

P.S.: I am not surprised you picked up this little nugget on Fox "news".

I see your graph only went back to 1980. Why?

Oh now i see why...

And it's because....?

Its not the "Because..."

Its the "Why cant we discuss the whole truth?"

There have been periods of even warmer tamps than now that lasted approximately 600 years.

When we deny or hide that reality it makes the whole argument look like BS.

Do i think that we need less carbons on Earth? Certainly.

Why do we need to hide huge parts of the whole picture from the general population? Just tell the whole truth.

In my graph i show everyone that the Totally Unindustrialized Dark Ages were warmer still than today.

I also show that when man first started to take scientific readings and log them down, about 1700, we were at an historical trough.

Any readings after that time were just reflecting the normal, cyclical, rebound.

When will we see the next downturn?

Does anyone know?

Lets just try to tell the whole truth and not scare the bejesus out of everyone to make ourselves wealthy and feel superior to others.

1) First, provide some attribution for you rchart. I am very interested in where this "data" came from (since year "zero" no less!)

2) I am also interested in how the baseline was established.

3) You never told me what chart started at 1980.

4) You changed the subject, which was recent data on the size of the Arctic ice shelf proves something. That's OK, but I just wanted to point out you are changing the subject (an oft-used diversionary tactic).

I would appreciate a point-by-point (numbered) response. (That's expected when you make a technical argument btw).

But take your time, I am going to bed.

[Weegle777 78]

There are just as many articles that state that GW is happening, as there are that state that it isn't. There are just as many graphs and statistics that state that GW isn't happening, as there are that state it is. The earth heals itself guys, it always has and it always will.

[homersapien 11,377]

There are just as many articles that state that GW is happening, as there are that state that it isn't. There are just as many graphs and statistics that state that GW isn't happening, as there are that state it is. The earth heals itself guys, it always has and it always will.

Not all articles are the same. Especially on the internet.

One doesn't simply count up the number of articles pro or con on any subject and come to a conclusion. Particularly with scientific questions.

DKW made a faulty technical argument. I responded with a technical analysis that explains why it is faulty. It doesn't matter how many such faulty arguments are made. It doesn't make them valid.