Uh oh.. get ready to panic over global cooling

[cashmcall]

I often have to wonder at just how much damage one can expect man to do to the environment before one accepts that it is a part of the problem, and quit relying on some fantasy that the earth will clean up mans messes. If you believe in a God created system you must accept that He had the idea as to how the earth could mend itself. Then when you factor in that man has destroyed over 2/3's of the rain forests He created to clean the air (in their search for gold, oil, timber, etc.), and the idea that industrial pollution has been dumped into the rivers, oceans, etc., by the millions of gallons, or how dams have destroyed the natural resources of rivers, etc., just how much does one think the earth can withstand?

Or, you can rely on junk science, and ignore reality, as usual:

A summer cloud cover caused sea ice to return to 2010 levels. 2012 was a record low so 2013 looks larger in comparison. Meanwhile data from buoys (which have no political connections and don't lie) show that the thickness of the ice is continuing to decrease from the bottom up due to rising water temperatures.

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

The polar ice is melting from the bottom up. But since this data comes from NASA and not KOCHBRO you will probably not read it.


The latest data reveal that Antarctica is losing ice at an accelerating rate, while surface melting recently has decreased. How is this possible?

NASA - Is Antarctica Melting?

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/20100108_Is_Antarctica_Melting.html

There has been lots of talk lately about Antarctica and whether or not the continent's giant ice sheet is melting. One new paper 1, which states there’s less surface melting recently than in past years, has been cited as "proof" that there’s no global warming. Other evidence that the amount of sea ice around Antarctica seems to be increasing slightly 2-4 is being used in the same way. But both of these data points are misleading. Gravity data collected from space using NASA's Grace satellite show that Antarctica has been losing more than a hundred cubic kilometers (24 cubic miles) of ice each year since 2002. The latest data reveal that Antarctica is losing ice at an accelerating rate, too. How is it possible for surface melting to decrease, but for the continent to lose mass anyway? The answer boils down to the fact that ice can flow without melting


You might want to watch this:

http://www.climatecentral.org/watch-62-years-of-global-warming-in-13-seconds-15469.html

But with only a few years of data, he couldn't say whether the retreat was a temporary, natural anomaly or a longer-term trend from global warming.

Schodlok doesn't doubt that the ice shelves are being undermined by warmer water being brought up from the depths. But he admits that it hasn't been proven rigorously, because satellites can’t measure underneath the ice.

 

[PLC1]

So, the Arctic is freezing over again, and a new ice age is on the way?
Oh, well, the Ruskies are way ahead of us in developing shipping routes in the newly opened waterways anyway.

Russia roars ahead in race to develop Arctic shipping route

They will wind up with egg all over their collective faces as they continue the race to the Arctic.

As the Arctic is warming twice as much as the rest of the planet, rapid ice melting and the prediction of ice-free summers by as early as 2030 has dramatically changed how we view the geopolitical and geoeconomic relevance of the region. What used to be the least explored part of the world and considered an uninhabitable, remote outpost now mobilizes considerable strategic, commercial, economic, and even military considerations.

No doubt the best choice now would be to invest in mucklucks and sweaters.

 

[OldTrapper]

But with only a few years of data, he couldn't say whether the retreat was a temporary, natural anomaly or a longer-term trend from global warming.

Schodlok doesn't doubt that the ice shelves are being undermined by warmer water being brought up from the depths. But he admits that it hasn't been proven rigorously, because satellites can’t measure underneath the ice.

Problem is that the original article made it appear as if such was not occurring. And the replies by most in here show only ignorance fo the reality of the matter.

In other forums I posted as to how the permafrost in Alaska is melting, and several groups of Natives have had to move 400 to 800 miles North to stay on frozen land. Yet it matters not to the "deniers".

In regards to the original article, here is something of interest. How many in here do you think will take it to heart?

http://www.theguardian.com/environm...ep/09/climate-change-arctic-sea-ice-delusions

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 from David 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."

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.

 

[Texas_tea]

Arctic sea ice up 60 percent in 2013


"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.


The surge in Arctic ice is a dramatic change from last year’s record-setting lows, which fueled dire predictions of an imminent ice-free summer. A 2007 BBC report said the Arctic could be ice free in 2013 -- a theory NASA still echoes today.

 

[steveox]

Ill believe Al Gore the day when horses can talk

 

[Cruella]

OMG...I can't believe we are having a another weather shift. It must be global warming, or cooling or something.

According to Weatherbell, we are in the same weather pattern that we were in during the 1950's. Colder Pacific and warmer Atlantic. Look for more hurricanes to go up the eastern sea board.

Tropical Atlantic wakes up on peak day of hurricane season

Not only did Gabrielle regenerate, Humberto is expected to become the season’s first hurricane today, and Ingrid appears to be in the works.

 

[OldTrapper]

OMG...I can't believe we are having a another weather shift. It must be global warming, or cooling or something.

According to Weatherbell, we are in the same weather pattern that we were in during the 1950's. Colder Pacific and warmer Atlantic. Look for more hurricanes to go up the eastern sea board.

Tropical Atlantic wakes up on peak day of hurricane season

Not only did Gabrielle regenerate, Humberto is expected to become the season’s first hurricane today, and Ingrid appears to be in the works.

And then there is this:

http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2013/09/09/304441.htm

“It certainly looks like pretty much of a forecast bust,” said Jeff Masters, a hurricane expert and director of meteorology at the Weather Underground (www.wunderground.com).

“Virtually all the (forecast) groups were calling for above-normal hurricanes and intensive hurricanes and we haven’t even had a hurricane at all, with the season half over,” he said.

With records going back to 1851, Dennis Feltgen, a spokesman for the U.S. National Hurricane Center, said there had been only 17 years when the first Atlantic hurricane formed after Sept. 4.

The all-time record was set in 1905, he said, when the first hurricane materialized on Oct. 8.

In an average season the first hurricane shows up by Aug. 10, usually followed by a second hurricane on Aug. 28 and the first major hurricane by Sept. 4.

 

[PLC1]

Problem is that the original article made it appear as if such was not occurring. And the replies by most in here show only ignorance fo the reality of the matter.

In other forums I posted as to how the permafrost in Alaska is melting, and several groups of Natives have had to move 400 to 800 miles North to stay on frozen land. Yet it matters not to the "deniers".

In regards to the original article, here is something of interest. How many in here do you think will take it to heart?

http://www.theguardian.com/environm...ep/09/climate-change-arctic-sea-ice-delusions

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 from David 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."

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.

Dry, dull, old facts and logic aren't going to sway the faithful followers of the church of perpetual denial.
The arctic has more ice this summer than last? Hey, it's global cooling! All of the cool kids are saying so, so it must be true! Never mind long term trends, that's just dull, dry, old facts once again.

Anyway, search the internet and you'll find just gobs of bloggers saying the same thing. It's a consensus of bloggers, so it must be true.

 

[steveox]

Hey remember this?

The Artic is gonna get bigger and theres this

 

[Cruella]

I follow Piers Corbyn in Britain. He says global warming is bunk. He predicts weather and is usually in disagreement with Britain's Met office on their predictions.

Piers has about an 80% accuracy rate.

He says that the weather has to do with the sun, moon, wind and ocean currents.

http://www.weatheraction.com/

 

[Texas_tea]

I follow Piers Corbyn in Britain. He says global warming is bunk. He predicts weather and is usually in disagreement with Britain's Met office on their predictions.

Piers has about an 80% accuracy rate.

He says that the weather has to do with the sun, moon, wind and ocean currents.

http://www.weatheraction.com/

But ..... you can't tax and redistribute the sun, moon, wind and ocean currents.

 

[OldTrapper]

I follow Piers Corbyn in Britain. He says global warming is bunk. He predicts weather and is usually in disagreement with Britain's Met office on their predictions.

Piers has about an 80% accuracy rate.

He says that the weather has to do with the sun, moon, wind and ocean currents.

http://www.weatheraction.com/

We are not talking about the weather:

http://cses.washington.edu/cig/pnwc/weathervsclimate.shtml

Here is some more information for all to ignore:

http://antarcticsun.usap.gov/science/contenthandler.cfm?id=2892

Sizzling summer
South Pole experiences more record heat in August to end warmest winter ever
By Peter Rejcek, Antarctic Sun Editor
Posted September 6, 2013
Last month was the warmest August on record for the South Pole, ending a winter that will go down as the mildest ever since record-keeping began in 1957.

 

[Texas_tea]

Climate models wildly overestimated global warming, study finds


That’s the upshot of a new study in the journal Nature Climate Change

that compared 117 climate predictions made in the 1990's to the actual amount of warming. Out of 117 predictions, the study’s author told FoxNews.com, three were roughly accurate and 114 overestimated the amount of warming. On average, the predictions forecasted two times more global warming than actually occurred.

 

[steveox]

Climate models wildly overestimated global warming, study finds


That’s the upshot of a new study in the journal Nature Climate Change

that compared 117 climate predictions made in the 1990's to the actual amount of warming. Out of 117 predictions, the study’s author told FoxNews.com, three were roughly accurate and 114 overestimated the amount of warming. On average, the predictions forecasted two times more global warming than actually occurred.

You see how American people are stupid? Like the evoinmentalist who support the democratic party. The Democratic party controls the EPA and they set up regulations so oil companies can make Gas and oil expensive. You realize gas in Mexico isn't regulated? Gas in Mexico isn't abide the EPA standards. Its really cheap to live in Texas near the Mexican border you can go into Mexico and buy gas there and give a finger to the EPA and liberals.

UP YOURS EPA & AL GORE!

 

[steveox]

Oh BTW how does George Bush feel about the EPA and Al Gore? Lets ask him

Theres your answer.