Welcome to the new Ice Age!!!!!!!!

[RumJungle]

Looks like we may have a temporary lull in warming!!!!!!!!!
Maybe we could use this time to develop solar and wave energy more effectively. The two most abundant sources of possible energy on the planet.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1242011/DAVID-ROSE-The-mini-ice-age-starts-here.html

"According to the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado, Arctic summer sea ice has increased by 409,000 square miles, or 26 per cent, since 2007 – and even the most committed global warming activists do not dispute this.

[Toots]

1. Who is we, do you speak for the entire world or just the east coast of the USA?

Is there anyone, ANYONE, that denies the world is and has been warming? I know of no one that doesn't agree to that established fact. The thing that gets Republicans upset is the claim that it is aided by human activity..

[seabeyond]

2. geeez, if degrees dip below 70 in winter, there is no global warmong, dontcha know. nt

[RumJungle]

3. Did you even read the article?

[seabeyond]

21. no. i was totally being snarky. nt

[RumJungle]

24. Sounded more dismissive than snarky Obi Wan...

...you need to work on that........!

[seabeyond]

26. do i. hm. lol. a thought. nt

[RumJungle]

25. Sounded more dismissive than snarky Obi Wan...

...you need to work on that........!

[RumJungle]

4. We..... is whoever wants cheap clean energy.

[harkadog]

9. Would you accept NASA as a source for cooling?

They and others say the earth has cooled significantly over the last year. http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Worldwide+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm

[RumJungle]

11. He prob won't..

...once people decide on things like that it's hard to change minds.

[neverforget]

33. With links to the Washington Times and Breitbart. Nope, No agenda

whatsoever. :eyes:

[harkadog]

34. NASA is now part of the Washington Times???

Adjust the tin foil.

[neverforget]

44. Cherry picked data.....wouldn't expect anything else from right wing

sources. See the links below in the thread.

[harkadog]

45. So is the NASA data correct or not?

Or did they make it up in your conspiracy world?

[neverforget]

46. Conspiracy world? WTF? Rose cherry picked the data, used Latif's words

out of context and I'm the one with "conspiracy world"? The only conspiracy is by those you are defending.

[harkadog]

48. I am defending NASA

I don't believe they made up their data. You do. Show where the NASA data is wrong and has been made up.

[neverforget]

49. Cherry picked data is not made up data. It's taken out of context.

I never said that NASA made up their data. You put words in my mouth that I did not say. You're not "defending NASA", you're defending a piece of data that fits your opinion. If you really are defending NASA, then you are with me and believe that Global Warming/Climate Change is really taking place.

The whole point of this discussion is that Rose cherry picked his data to fit his opinion that climate change isn't happening. The author whose data was cherry picked by Rose has pointed that out here.

[harkadog]

52. Your link has nothing to do with the NASA data.

I only replied to the poster that said that no one says there is any cooling going on. So far you have not replied to that issue.

[muriel_volestrangler]

53. Your link is 2 years out of date; NASA data says nothing of the sort

It has nothing to do with 'the past year' at all. Here is NASA's data for the global temperature anomaly, up to Nov 2009: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

Notice that the year up to Nov 2009 was warmer than the preceding year (+0.56 C over the 1951-80 base period, compared with +0.43 C the year before).

So, you were wrong. What that blogger was doing was cherrypicking (amazing how that is done by the warming deniers all the time, isn't it?) In fact, that blogger didn't actually quote any NASA data at all, so why you are invoking the names of NASA, other that to give yourself some spurious connection to a real science outfit, I don't know. The blogger lies right from the start of his post.

"Twelve-month long drop in world temperatures wipes out a century of warming"

Lie. Even that Jan 08 point on the HadCRUT graph that he's getting excited about is higher than several points in the 50-75 month region of that very graph - about 1992-93. If you look at the HadCRUT data here: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3vgl.txt , you'll see that the Jan 08 0.050 C anomaly is higher than almost every January figure up to 1985. And for the year leading up to that figure (ie 2007), the anomaly of 0.399 C was higher than every single year from 1997 and before.

Here's what NASA had to say about Jan 08:

The top of Fig. 2 provides seasonal resolution of global and low latitude surface temperature, and an index that measures the state of the natural tropical temperature oscillation. The figure indicates that the La Niña cool cycle peaked in early 2008. The global effect of the tropical oscillation is made clear by the average temperature anomaly over the global ocean (bottom of Fig. 2). The "El Niño of the century", in 1997-98, stands out, as well as the recent La Niña.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/

So what the blogger did was take the figures from the maximum effect of La Niña, ignore that everyone knew La Niña was going on at the time, and pretend it was part of something to do with solar activity.

Why you think posting an article that is 22 months out of date, and pretending it talks about 'the last year', I don't know.

[harkadog]

55. The NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies is not NASA?

Who knew? That is what my link goes to. Temperature data is never up to the minute -- at least reliable data. Of course you know that despite your attempt to smear.

[muriel_volestrangler]

58. No, your link goes to dailytech.com, which is a right wing blog

The blog links to brietbart.com (right wing), nationalpost.com (right wing), washingtontimes.com (right wing), and ana.gr (a Greek news agency, which is as far as I know objective; great, so we have a neutral report on snow in Greece. Not something that tells us how unusual this is, or in what direction the Greek climate is going on the whole; so it's one anecdote, from one place, for a period of a few days).

Then it links to a warming denier blog (wattsupwiththat). The only bit of data it supplies is the copy of the HadCRUT graph, which, as I explained and linked to, has got well over a year's more data since the 22 month old blog you linked to. During which it became clear Jan 08 was an unusual dip in global temperature, due to La Nina (as NASA explained at the time, but the right wing blogger ignored).

"Up to the minute"? :rofl: Boy, you've got some nerve. You make a claim about 'last year', and link to something from Feb 2008, and then try to pretend that that was because "temperature data is never up to the minute". Try linking to something written in the last year, not before it, if you want to make claims about 'the last year'. I gave the links to both NASA and HadCRUT data, and they show your claim about last year was full of shit.

[harkadog]

63. When I click on the link it goes to the NASA info.

Maybe your computer is wired differently. I have no idea about the politics of any of these sites. I was just commenting on and showing the NASA data. So far you haven't been able to refute it if that is your intention. Other posters claim NASA was aligned with the Washington Times so I guess I know who I am responding to.

[muriel_volestrangler]

65. No, it goes to the right wing blog

neverforget pointed out in reply #33 that your link went to somewhere with links to the Washington Times and Breitbart. I suspect you haven't even tried clicking on your own link, despite 2 of us pointing out you're linking to a right wing site. Whatever NASA page you saw at one point, it's also obvious you didn't actually check dates on it, because your claim that NASA says the last year has shown significant cooling is also patently false.

You have shown no NASA data whatsoever. Stop claiming that you have.

I did indeed refute your claim; I gave the figures in post #53, which showed that you were talking rubbish. See? I gave figures. You didn't. You just linked to a right wing blog that was lying. Go and search for 'dailytech' in this thread. You'll see it's what you linked to.

[harkadog]

69. My link goes here

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/02/19/january-2008-4-sources-say-globally-cooler-in-the-past-12-months/ NASA says temp drop of .75 degrees C from Jan 07 to Jan 08. but as you say they are part of the RW machine. They are everywhere!!

[muriel_volestrangler]

71. (a) your link doesn't go there, it goes to dailytech.com

(b) That's not NASA, as you had claimed
(c) That is still an out-of-date climate denier blog - the one that dailytech links to, to try to back up its lies.

To be accurate, I called that one "a warming denier blog", not 'part of the RW machine' (though I do tend to suspect someone like that who dedicates themselves to denying climate change to have links to the right wing, or to big business like the coal industry). And you can see what they have done. Picked one particular time period, and claimed this shows something special. Why is Jan 07 to Jan 08 important to you? And since you claimed NASA showed a significant cooling in the past year, what has Jan 07 to Jan 08 got to do with it? The latest month in NASA's data, Nov 09, is 0.11 C warmer than Nov 08. Or, if you want January data, Jan 09 was 0.38 C warmer than Jan 07. Both of those bits of data are more relevant that Jan 07 to Jan 08. So why are you bringing it up?

Watts picked one particular 12 month period, and implies there's something significant about it. At least when he did that it was the latest data available. Now, it's hopelessly out of date, and it's clear it was a phenomenon of La Nina - as NASA and others had pointed out at the time.

So, once more: why did you link to a 22 month old blog post, and claim it showed something about the past year?

[Uncle Joe]

73. It's more like

they're booger picking but without all the class.

[neverforget]

59. Funny. NASA supports the science behind climate change. So you're not

defending NASA. You're defending right wing sources which cherry picked the data to support your opinion.

[harkadog]

64. I didn't say a word about climate change in any of my posts.

You are making that up which doesn't surprise me. I just gave some information from NASA. Apparently that so bothered you and you weren't even the poster I was responding to.

[neverforget]

74. It's a discussion board. I can respond if I want too. Besides, the link

to the Daily Tech is full of other links to climate deniers. You cited them so one is made to believe that you hold their beliefs of climate change denial.

"I just gave some information from NASA." How disengenious. It's cherry picked data and you won't even acknowledge that.

The only one bothered is you.

[harkadog]

76. I cited the NASA data and that was it.

Which you didn't respond to. Science haters freak out at facts. Go back to your bedroom.

[neverforget]

77. Now you're calling me a hater of science and to go back to my bedroom?

:eyes: You've been busted for promoting right wing sites and cherry picked data and yet you claim you're defending NASA. I agree with NASA and their stance on global warming. Where do you stand?

[harkadog]

78. I just pointed out their data

You went to into a fit because I did. A few hundred years ago you would have been promoting flat earth.

[neverforget]

80. Answer this question: where do you stand on global warming?

Do you stand with NASA or the Daily Tech article and Rose which cherry picks data?

I pointed you to what NASA believes and you call me a flat earther? :eyes:

[uppityperson]

79. BS. That article is Feb 2008, previous yr goes back to Feb 2007, nothing NASA there, only anecdotes

For most of us, that is not "the last yr" AND the article states "Over the past year, anecdotal evidence for a cooling planet has exploded. China has its coldest winter in 100 years." Anecdotal evidence doesn't count.

[Vickers]

5. I just went and took the catalytic converter off my car.

:headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang:

[Bobbieo]

6. I don't know where you live but it is 74 degrees and normal weather

for this time of year in the desert SW. Next week? Who knows?

[RumJungle]

7. i am in England........

Freezing here but I hope to return to San Diego or Las Vegas soon....

[surrealAmerican]

31. England is one of the few places that will get colder ...

... due to global "warming". The gulf stream has been heading toward Greenland this winter, instead of toward England, as it usually would. If this continues, England's climate will resemble that of other places at its latitude.

[liberal N proud]

8. Global Warming does not equal warmer temperatures

Global Warming was wrongly named "Warming."

Global Warming means we will see extreme changes in weather patterns around the world. This means extreme cold as well as extreme heat.

[RumJungle]

10. Of course...

....otherwise how could they make sure they were correct 100% of the time... This article is just there to affirm that the ocean anomalies which were not accounted for in earlier studies have shown that it is possible that there will be a cool period. No one is asking you not to believe in CC.

[spanone]

12. you forgot about global warming...or are you a denier?

[RumJungle]

14. What does that mean????

Are you saying there can't be a cooling trend within a larger warming period?

[Land Shark]

13. A 3 degree rise in global temps ONLY MEANS a 30 below zero day on average is 27 below zero.

The difference between weather and climate is what we're teaching 6th and 7th graders in science class (and have been for many decades)

On edit: and the same average climb in temperature can be achieved by 30 degree below zero days being 33 degrees below zero (that's right) and having a corresponding day in summer be 6 degrees higher than usual

[RumJungle]

16. That has nothing to do with the article...

but um.. thanks i guess.

[YOY]

15. The Balkans are experiencing record high temperatures this winter.

So...perhaps investing in a climatology degree might do you good to understand the nature of these shifting weather patterns.

[RumJungle]

18. Oh really?

So you know better than the scientists mentioned in the article? Oh sorry I forgot , yuou didn't bother to read it did you.

[YOY]

20. Not really.

And frankly that only gives a small picture of things. Since there will undoubtably be a contradictory article coming up within a week.

[RumJungle]

22. You were the one who decided that the Balkans were the be all and end all

in temperature matters. Talk about small picture......!

[YOY]

23. ...

:freak:

[YOY]

43. Well now I'd reply...you clearly have been busted below as I predicted/

And in no way did I assume/state/declare/anounce/say in any fucking way that the Balkans are the only indicator.

Freak...

[Ignis]

68. Nice name and welcome to DU, but ...

There's no need to act like an asshole. :hi:

[Soylent Brice]

17. *AHEM*

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=433&topic_id=113180

:popcorn:

[RumJungle]

19. Your handy guide does not trump

Prof Latif....

Prof Latif, who leads a research team at the renowned Leibniz Institute at Germany’s Kiel University, has developed new methods for measuring ocean temperatures 3,000ft beneath the surface, where the cooling and warming cycles start.

He and his colleagues predicted the new cooling trend in a paper published in 2008 and warned of it again at an IPCC conference in Geneva last September.

Last night he told The Mail on Sunday: ‘A significant share of the warming we saw from 1980 to 2000 and at earlier periods in the 20th Century was due to these cycles – perhaps as much as 50 per cent.

'They have now gone into reverse, so winters like this one will become much more likely. Summers will also probably be cooler, and all this may well last two decades or longer.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1242011/DAVID-ROSE-The-mini-ice-age-starts-here.html#ixzz0cJdoYOaV

[Soylent Brice]

28. lol

:popcorn:

[RumJungle]

29. Meh.......

[Soylent Brice]

32. i find it amusing that you think your article trumps

the post i gave you. the reason being is becuase i find it highly unlikely that you read it in it's entirety within 4 minutes.

you are clearly full of shit.

:popcorn:

[AuntPatsy]

38. You could not have possibly went over all of that data offered by soy in the amount

of time that you replied saying your guide trumps the other? I understand that there is still so much that is nothing more than projection based on certain areas of recent available evidence, the truth is, your prof does not know with complete certainty anymore than any others the outcome of climate change, we are all in a new world these days in that there is simply not enough firm evidence to support either side fully, though I would have to say that to simply pooh pooh the chance that humans could be inadvertently messing up earths natural cycles is like sitting on top of an supposed extinct volcano and deciding to build your house on that very spot since the current evidence lacks any data showing recent activity of any kind..


I find it sad how we have failed to realize yet that we are not as important as we foolishly believe we are..nature will "trump" man every time whether he likes it or not..it is what it is....and it takes thousands upon thousands of years to get a better picture of earth's life cycles not a few decades which offers nothing more than a meaningless blip only worthy of the current human lifespan, nothing more nothing less...

Perhaps if we finally got off our high horses of false superiority over not only other living creatures but the foolish belief that one day weather and natures fury could be man controlled along with other life forms than perhaps we as the current self important high ranking species could learn to get along much better than we are currently....


Religion is with us why? Fear, fear of the unknown, fear that we are not all that important as we so want to believe...religion offers life after death, religion offers forgiveness for bad behavior toward others, religion offers a way to ease the pain of losing loved ones on earth...religion as it now stands offers little more than a need to control, once again, its al about control, even after we die...

we are honestly a strange species...very strange...

[Lorien]

57. Some people won't consider a truth that doesn't jive with their ideology

the OP is obviously just such a person.

[madrchsod]

27. here in northern ill we have set another record for rainfall....

since 1895 we have had 4 record setting yearly rainfall totals... two of them--2008-2009.

this year should be interesting

[madrchsod]

30. cold? this year is`t all that cold

in fact it`s not been bad at all.

[ProfessorGAC]

47. Didn't We Just Have the Coolest Summer In 30 Years?

I'm no climate change denier (thermodynamic principles apply to the earth as a whole too), but this past summer was unusually cool. Remember how low your electric bills were this past summer?

Localized cooling trends do not in any way contradict global warming theories, so we can have a cool summer but still not have anything to do with overall climate change.
GAC

[samsingh]

35. i think Global Warning is causing unexpected weather patterns

this cold spell could be a side affect.

[samsingh]

36. i think Global Warning is causing unexpected weather patterns

this cold spell could be a side affect.

[muriel_volestrangler]

37. Nice cherry picking of data by Rose

Here's the National Snow and Ice Data Centre on the 2009 Arctic summer sea ice:

Arctic sea ice extent remains low; 2009 sees third-lowest mark

At the end of the Arctic summer, more ice cover remained this year than during the previous record-setting low years of 2007 and 2008. However, sea ice has not recovered to previous levels. September sea ice extent was the third lowest since the start of satellite records in 1979, and the past five years have seen the five lowest ice extents in the satellite record.

NSIDC Director and Senior Scientist Mark Serreze said, “It’s nice to see a little recovery over the past couple years, but there’s no reason to think that we’re headed back to conditions seen back in the 1970s. We still expect to see ice-free summers sometime in the next few decades.”

The average ice extent over the month of September, a reference comparison for climate studies, was 5.36 million square kilometers (2.07 million square miles) (Figure 1). This was 1.06 million square kilometers (409,000 square miles) greater than the record low for the month in 2007, and 690,000 square kilometers (266,000 square miles) greater than the second-lowest extent in 2008. However, ice extent was still 1.68 million square kilometers (649,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 September average (Figure 2). Arctic sea ice is now declining at a rate of 11.2 percent per decade, relative to the 1979 to 2000 average (Figure 3).

Sea surface temperatures in the Arctic this season remained higher than normal, but slightly lower than the past two years, according to data from Mike Steele at the University of Washington in Seattle. The cooler conditions, which resulted largely from cloudy skies during late summer, slowed ice loss compared to the past two years (Figure 4). In addition, atmospheric patterns in August and September helped to spread out the ice pack, keeping extent higher.

http://nsidc.org/news/press/20091005_minimumpr.html

Rose manages to put that as ""According to the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado, Arctic summer sea ice has increased by 409,000 square miles, or 26 per cent, since 2007 – and even the most committed global warming activists do not dispute this." No mention that 2009 had less ice than 2006, 2005, 2004 etc.

And that sets the tone for the whole article (but what do you expect from the Daily Mail? It's right wing, as anyone living in Britain knows, and most DUers should know by now). He claims that 'orthodoxy' say the North Pole will be ice-free by the summer of 2013. No, that's not 'orthodoxy' - that's the most extreme prediction anyone has made. A lot of estimates are far later than that - see eg http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003873003_arcticice07m.html

[SoCalDem]

39. Moments in time do occur during trends

and weather is different from climate:)

[muriel_volestrangler]

40. "Leading climate scientist challenges Mail on Sunday's use of his research"

A leading scientist has hit out at misleading newspaper reports that linked his research to claims that the current cold weather undermines the scientific case for manmade global warming.

Mojib Latif, a climate expert at the Leibniz Institute at Kiel University in Germany, said he "cannot understand" reports that used his research to question the scientific consensus on climate change.

He told the Guardian: "It comes as a surprise to me that people would try to use my statements to try to dispute the nature of global warming. I believe in manmade global warming. I have said that if my name was not Mojib Latif it would be global warming."

He added: "There is no doubt within the scientific community that we are affecting the climate, that the climate is changing and responding to our emissions of greenhouse gases."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/11/climate-change-global-warming-mojib-latif

Heh - what a surprise. Mail distorts science. Colour me amazed.

[PVnRT]

41. Busted

[tekisui]

42. The Daily Mail is a conservative tabloid.

Nothing of worth.

[ddeclue]

50. That's a bunch of RWTP horsecrap....

[Hugabear]

51. Bull fucking shit. Enjoy your stay here.

As has been mentioned above, that claim has already been discredited by the scientist whose data they tried to use to make their claim.

[H2O Man]

54. Legalize Lonnie Anderson's Hair

[fascisthunter]

56. lol

[Canuckistanian]

61. ROFL

:rofl:

[laundry_queen]

60. Actually

even though the ice *appears* to have increased on satellite images, the quality of the ice is extremely poor as compared with the past, full of holes and not very thick. IOW, it's not multi year ice, the kind of ice they need. At least that is what scientists on the ground were saying on a CBC (gasp! Socialist!) documentary.

[SidDithers]

62. Why do idiot asshats always use the Daily Mail as their source?...nt

Sid

[Name removed]

66. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Javaman]

67. Perhaps you should lay off the rum. nt

[Canuckistanian]

70. Thank you, RJ. You've opened our eyes.

I don't know WHAT we were thinking. This cold weather PROVES UNDOUBTEDLY that Al Gore is full of shit.

Can you ever forgive us?

[alarimer]

72. You are confusing weather with climate

The last decade was the warmest on record. This is merely a slight blip in an otherwise upward trend.

[immoderate]

75. Look up "variation" and "trend." You need to understand those words.

--imm