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

[Maestro]

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

A cold Arctic summer has led to a record increase in the ice cap, leading experts to predict a period of global cooling.
By Hayley Dixon
9:55AM BST 08 Sep 2013

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

In a rebound from 2012's record low, an unbroken ice sheet more than half the size of Europe already stretches from the Canadian islands to Russia's northern shores, days before the annual re-freeze is even set to begin.

The Northwest Passage from the Atlantic to the Pacific has remained blocked by pack-ice all year, forcing some ships to change their routes.

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.

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

-- The Telegraph 2013-09-08

[NBD]

Hopefully the wheels are finally falling off the shameless fraud that is climate change.

[canman]

Hopefully the wheels are finally falling off the shameless fraud that is climate change.

The sham is the CO2 linked warming which has been shown to be false. The earth has been warming since the last ice age 10,000 years ago. Interspersed amongst this 10,000 years have been long periods of much cooler global temperatures and long periods of much warmer global temperatures.

The fraud you refer to is real and stems from the false corelation between CO2 and global mean temps. By falsely linking CO2 to fossil fuel use the agenda is to drive so called clean energy souces. Unfortunately technology is not there yet and we will be dependent on fossil fuels for some time yet.

[Thaddeus]

That's why they changed the term from 'global warming' to 'climate change'

They will try to make it our fault though, and tax us for it.

[NBD]

As far as I can see the fraud is scientists and government pretending to have any real certainty about what controls the climate or what it will do next.

Fossil fuels are an attractive target because they are price inelastic, meaning they can be taxed to buggery and people still keep using them.

Edited September 20, 2013 by NBD

[canman]

As far as I can see the fraud is scientists and government pretending to have any real certainty about what controls the climate or what it will do next.

Fossil fuels are an attractive target because they are price inelastic, meaning they can be taxed to buggery and people still keep using them.

Absolutely

[Maestro]

Could it be that man-made CO₂ emissions are slowing down the onset of the next ice age?

[jmccarty]

Last year getting warmer, next year getting colder. Soon they will be claiming it is staying the same!! All so confusing!

[canman]

Could it be that man-made CO₂ emissions are slowing down the onset of the next ice age?

I really just cannot see how a trace amount of CO2 can have any effect at all on global temperatures.

[NBD]

Could it be that man-made CO₂ emissions are slowing down the onset of the next ice age?

It probably theoretically could be, but we have no realistic way of testing the hypothesis or making any pronouncements about it.

Unfortunately politicians and scientists are never going to admit this because it doesn't make headlines or justify taxes.

[Jdietz]

We can always burn the politicians and IPCC members if it get too cold.

[Wavefloater]

Still gotta wonder if Al Gore (remember the book " In Inconvenient Truth") actually believed that he was doing the world a favor by manipulating data to suit the content of his bullsh*t book, or were there other more sinister factors involved? I've got to believe the latter because he even won some bullsh*t awards (including a Hollywood Oscar, I think).

Anyway, a large portion of the science community was saying that temperature shift cycles are normal and gave credible scientific evidence to show it, but Al Gore was still lauded and his pack of lies promoted. So, this news is not surprising at all.

I just remembered the over-sensationalized footage that is shown where huge walls of ice would shear off glaciers, The creators of such dramatic ads or documentaries trying to sell us the "global Warming" lies would use this footage for its shock value, and it was once again bullsh*t. Think about it -- they're glaciers so they're constantly moving. Of course they're going to reach a more southerly point where the ice melts and softens to the point where naturally it falls off. in the meantime, New ice is forming at the other end, as nature would dictate.

[canman]

Still gotta wonder if Al Gore (remember the book " In Inconvenient Truth") actually believed that he was doing the world a favor by manipulating data to suit the content of his bullsh*t book, or were there other more sinister factors involved? I've got to believe the latter because he even won some bullsh*t awards (including a Hollywood Oscar, I think).

Anyway, a large portion of the science community was saying that temperature shift cycles are normal and gave credible scientific evidence to show it, but Al Gore was still lauded and his pack of lies promoted. So, this news is not surprising at all.

I just remembered the over-sensationalized footage that is shown where huge walls of ice would shear off glaciers, The creators of such dramatic ads or documentaries trying to sell us the "global Warming" lies would use this footage for its shock value, and it was once again bullsh*t. Think about it -- they're glaciers so they're constantly moving. Of course they're going to reach a more southerly point where the ice melts and softens to the point where naturally it falls off. in the meantime, New ice is forming at the other end, as nature would dictate.

Yes, they are very good at showing emotive images. The one which always makes me smile is the large cooling towers with huge clouds of supposedly smoke billowing out. It's not smoke it's water vapour also known as steam:

[HeijoshinCool]

Gee. Guess Al was wrong. But he still invented the internet.

[overherebc]

We can always burn the politicians and IPCC members if it get too cold.

Dangerous when all that gas inside them explodes

[Gsxrnz]

Cool, I'm going to cut down all the trees in my garden and light a huge bonfire to celebrate the end of Global Warming.

[Tywais]

An interesting documentary Chasing Ice

'National Geographic' photographer James Balog was once a skeptic about climate change. But through his Extreme Ice Survey, he discovers undeniable evidence of our changing planet. In 'Chasing Ice,' we follow Balog across the Arctic as he deploys revolutionary time-lapse cameras designed for one purpose: to capture a multi-year record of the world's changing glaciers. Balog's hauntingly beautiful videos compress years into seconds and capture ancient mountains of ice in motion as they disappear at a breathtaking rate. Traveling with a young team of adventurers by helicopter, canoe and dog sled across three continents, Balog risks his career and his well-being in pursuit of the biggest story in human history. As the debate polarizes America and the intensity of natural disasters ramp up around the world, 'Chasing Ice' depicts a heroic photojournalist on a mission to gather evidence and deliver hope to our carbon-powered planet

[RickBradford]

The global warming scam has been truly busted by Nature herself, but the damage that has been done is incalculable and irrecoverable.

Think of how those hundreds of billions of wasted dollars could have been used to create better lives for so many people -- but then those benefits are exactly the opposite of what the hard Green activists want.

[PoorSucker]

[Thaddeus]

Aha...... The Curse of The Daily Mail strikes again.

Pity the OP is from the Telegraph, they tend to have a bit more credibility.

[NeverSure]

The internet is causing global warming - all invented by All Gore. He got rich off global warming. And some say the Thais are the master scammers.

I wonder how many trillions have been made or lost by this scam, worldwide.

[lannarebirth]

An interesting documentary Chasing Ice

'National Geographic' photographer James Balog was once a skeptic about climate change. But through his Extreme Ice Survey, he discovers undeniable evidence of our changing planet. In 'Chasing Ice,' we follow Balog across the Arctic as he deploys revolutionary time-lapse cameras designed for one purpose: to capture a multi-year record of the world's changing glaciers. Balog's hauntingly beautiful videos compress years into seconds and capture ancient mountains of ice in motion as they disappear at a breathtaking rate. Traveling with a young team of adventurers by helicopter, canoe and dog sled across three continents, Balog risks his career and his well-being in pursuit of the biggest story in human history. As the debate polarizes America and the intensity of natural disasters ramp up around the world, 'Chasing Ice' depicts a heroic photojournalist on a mission to gather evidence and deliver hope to our carbon-powered planet

I saw that documentary and it was pretty shocking to see the decline in size, mass and receding of glaciers over such a short period of time. I wonder if the relative surface area size increase of polar icecaps has anything to do with the water having relatively less salinity due to glacial ice melt and thereby freezing at a higher temperature?

[F430murci]

I have more respect for Dr. Jeff Masters than anyone when it comes to climate issues.

http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/global-warming-continues-with-no-slow-down

One often hears the statement in the media that global warming stopped in 1998, or that there has been no global warming for the past 16 years. Why pick 16 years? Why not some nice round number like 20 years? Or better yet, 30 years, since the climate is generally defined as the average weather experienced over a period of 30 years or longer? Temperatures at Earth's surface undergo natural, decades-long warming and cooling trends, related to the La Niña/El Niño cycle and the 11-year sunspot cycle. The reason one often hears the year 1998 used as a base year to measure global temperature trends is that this is a cherry-picked year. An extraordinarily powerful El Niño event that was the strongest on record brought about a temporary increase in surface ocean temperatures over a vast area of the tropical Pacific that year, helping boost global surface temperatures to the highest levels on record (global temperatures were warmer in both 2005 and 2010, but not by much.) But in the years from 2005 - 2012, La Niña events have been present for at least a portion of every single year, helping keep Earth's surface relatively cool. Thus, if one draws a straight-line fit of global surface temperatures from 1998 to 2012, a climate trend showing little global warming results. If one picks any year prior to 1998, or almost any year after 1998, a global warming trend does result. The choice of 1998 is a deliberate abuse of statistics in an attempt to manipulate people into drawing a false conclusion on global temperature trends. One of my favorite examples of this manipulation of statistics is shown an animated graph called "The Escalator", created by skepticalscience.com (Figure 1).

Edited September 21, 2013 by F430murci

[F430murci]

Who really has more lobbying power and incentive. Koch, Exxon et al. I would say oil companies that also provide major political support to politicians lining up against environmental concerns.

I would prefer to listen the the real scientist that have less skin in the game in these issues. They are out there. If you are looking to support your agenda or belief you will probably miss them.

[NeverSure]

30 years? Out of thousands or or millions or billions? Sorry, I'm not impressed.

[RickBradford]

It doesn't matter whether the observations say it is warming or cooling, or whether this can be attributed to man's activities.

Because the AGW scare is not about the science, but about anti-development ideologies and bureaucratic rent-seeking, as the EU's 'climate commissioner' Connie Hedegaard belatedly admitted last week.

"Let's say that science, some decades from now, said 'we were wrong, it was not about climate', would it not in any case have been good to do many of things you have to do in order to combat climate change?"

So, even though the science is wrong, we should pursue the same policies which would apply if the science was right.

Such as: more taxes, bigger utility bills, ravaged environment, higher insurance, greater legislation and control, And all for no purpose.

That, in part, is why I don't flinch when someone calls me a 'denier'.

[bunnydrops]

As I see it, each side of this question gets a knee jerk reaction. When the news comes out in their favor "See I told you so!". Sure there are long range cycles and within them some short range cycles. Maybe the "No climate change" people are right and this is just one of those natural cycles. But on the other hand, anyone that has taken medication knows a very small amount of something can cause big changes in the body if only temporary. I am sure that the Earth can in time heal any damage we can do, but we can cause damage that can affect many generations.

We as humans are very short sighted

[Steely Dan]

Gee. Guess Al was wrong. But he still invented the internet.

He also sold his TV interests for a fortune to the petro dollar backed Al-Jazeera, but the joke alas is on all of those fooled by him.

[Neurath]

The five stages neatly summarized with data also!

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/sep/16/climate-change-contrarians-5-stages-denial

[NBD]

And in it's bid to remain the paper of choice for people who think they're more intelligent than they really are, the Guardian seem to have over looked the facts that:

No amount of coincidental correlation establishes causation.

No amount of consensus amongst cherry picked "scientists" proves a hypothesis.

A few decades of reliable data can not explain the shifts in climate that take place over millenia.

The fact that something is published by Rupert Murdoch or the Daily Mail does not invalidate the point.

Sent from my GT-N7100 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app