To The Horror of Warm Mongers, Global Cooling Is Here

[Odinson]

They say here that our climate is getting cooler.



Winters cooler than in thousands of years.



We were installing some equiptment in the wilderness back in 2010-2011 and it was the coldest winter in a 1000 years.

Had to shovel some snow around our tent to keep us warm.



That was a shitty job but I we got extra.

[Odinson]

I´m not complaining but it was kinda hilarious.



We laugh when things get shitty. And then we solve the problem.



When my nazi ass wants some kids, I get 3 coloured babies.

When I go to install some equiptment, I get a winter colder than in a 1000 years.



I think that is pretty funny.

[Anonymous]

They say here that our climate is getting cooler.



Winters cooler than in thousands of years.



We were installing some equiptment in the wilderness back in 2010-2011 and it was the coldest winter in a 1000 years.

Had to shovel some snow around our tent to keep us warm.



That was a shitty job but I we got extra.

I don't know about Finland in particular, but many places in Europe broke records for cold in 2012.

[Odinson]

They say here that our climate is getting cooler.



Winters cooler than in thousands of years.



We were installing some equiptment in the wilderness back in 2010-2011 and it was the coldest winter in a 1000 years.

Had to shovel some snow around our tent to keep us warm.



That was a shitty job but I we got extra.

I don't know about Finland in particular, but many places in Europe broke cold records in 2012.

Ice ages have been happening multiple times.

[Obvious Li]

it was so cold here, last winter, i had to stop taking a piss outside.....kinda cramps a mans style if you ask me... :ugeek:

[Odinson]

The nazi germans photographed antarctica back in the day. For what I´ve seen it is getting larger.

These mappings were done by airplanes and they are accurate.



It is arrogance that we think we could affect the entire planet with our actions.

[Romero]

We were installing some equiptment in the wilderness back in 2010-2011 and it was the coldest winter in a 1000 years.

No it wasn't. Funny enough, there was a global warming denier myth that Europe was going to experience its coldest winter in 1,000 years for 2010-2011. But it didn't happen.



The Finnish Meteorological Institute says Finland has been warming.

The annual mean temperature of Finland in the 1981-2010 normal period was almost 0,4 degrees higher compared to the previous normal period of 1971-2000 and approximately 0,7 degrees higher than in the official normal period of 1961-1990. The observed temperature rise is in reasonable agreement with the climate models.



If we compared the new normal period to the official 1961-1990 values, we can see that the temperature rise has been most notable during winter months.



http://en.ilmatieteenlaitos.fi/normal-period-1981-2010">//http://en.ilmatieteenlaitos.fi/normal-period-1981-2010

The nazi germans photographed antarctica back in the day. For what I´ve seen it is getting larger.

These mappings were done by airplanes and they are accurate.

The Nazis explored only a small part of Antarctica and I doubt you've seen what Neuschwabenland looks like now compared to then.



Antarctica has also been warming.

[Anonymous]

Record warm temperatures, record cold temperatures. It shows that climate change has been taken over by people that do not put scientific data first. Both sides scientists are guilty of this too.



I did not have to look very hard to find this.



Never before has so much ice built up so late in the year on the Baltic Sea and in Gulf of Bothnia between Sweden and Finland — and records have been kept for 50 years, according to Swedish news agency TT.



"We have never seen anything like this," says icebreaking manager Ulf Gulldne, to the Swedish newspaper Örnsköldsviks Allehanda. A stubborn area of high pressure camped over Scandinavia has contributed to freezing temperatures late in the winter and to the new record.



On March 29, some 176,000 square kilometers of the Baltic were covered by ice. The previous record came in 2008, when just 49,000 square kilometers of sea ice were recorded as late as March 25.

[Anonymous]

Sorry Romero, climate change is natural and happens all the time. We the people are getting sick of giving money to your greedy lying corporatist friends for a non-existent emergency.

Hey, where'd my glacier go? It was right here. Must be all that climate change.



No, really. I'm writing in Glacier Bay, a rightly famous beauty spot just west of Skagway (a famed tourist trap but that's a story for another, duller day). But it seems to be all bay and no glacier.



Those poor little massive annihilating rivers of ice have kind of retreated up the valley. They're still visible and magnificent. But they aren't in the bay.



I gather from the brochure that 333 years ago there wasn't a bay at all, just a broad grassy plain where the illustration suggests the Huna Tlingit stood around naked fishing in Alaskan waters (currently 12 degrees).



Those guys must have been tough as Narwhal tusks. In the pool it's 27 degrees.



If you're wondering what I'm doing in Alaska, blame fellow QMI Agency columnist Ezra Levant.



He either wanted me to have a breathtaking scenic adventure or be eaten by a Kodiak bear.



With that smile of his you're never quite sure.



Anyway, the point is the Tlingit were minding their own business when this huge glacier went "Hey buddy, I need your house" and crushed their entire neighbourhood on its way to the sea.



By 1750 it was sticking out into "Icy Strait" (see "fishing naked" and "tough as Narwhal tusks" above).



Now it's back where it came from, leaving a gouged-out bay. Darn climate change.



But here's an inconvenient truth.



By the time George Vancouver visited in 1795, the glacier had already retreated five miles up the gouged-out bay, leaving the Huna Tlingit going, 'Um didn't there used to be soil here?'



By 1860 it was another



20 miles or so up the new bay and gaining lack of momentum.



By 1879 it was nearly gone from all of what is now water, and by the 1892 survey was basically all on dry land except at the top of two inlets from which it was gone by the 1920s.



Now I know one swallow does not make a summer.



But isn't it odd that, in certain places, the ice has advanced since the 1920s?



A perky onboard presentation explained that man messing with the planet was causing some glaciers to grow by increasing precipitation.



But if the glacier turned purple and sang the aria from Faust, they'd blame man-made climate change so it doesn't tell us much.



Meanwhile, the National Park Service map, which constitutes my extensive research on this point, (hey, it could be worse, I could just have Googled it from Ottawa and instead I'm actually here looking at paper that might even be from Alaskan trees) naturally contains the sacred incantation, "Polar regions respond to changes in climate at faster rates than temperate and equatorial regions do. How will Glacier Bay change in your lifetime?"



Well gee, NPS, I don't know. And neither do you.



You don't really know why the glacier did the stuff it did before 1966, so you also don't know what it's going to do later.



In some places, glaciers are retreating; in others advancing. And they're doing it because the Earth's temperature goes up and down in the darndest ways.

One minute you're fishing in a bracing stream. The next your house is under



50 feet of hard blue ice.



Then George Vancouver sails up and watches the ice flee while man is still lucky to get a log burning.



Climate change is like that. It changes.



So if you ever get a chance to visit Alaska, do. The scenery is breathtaking and so far the bears aren't a big issue.



But if you're planning to fish near a glacier, bring some warm clothing and keep a sharp eye out.



You never know what that ice will do next.

http://www.torontosun.com/2013/08/09/dude-wheres-my-glacier-climate-change-theories-on-thin-ice">http://www.torontosun.com/2013/08/09/du ... n-thin-ice">http://www.torontosun.com/2013/08/09/dude-wheres-my-glacier-climate-change-theories-on-thin-ice

[Anonymous]

C'mon people don't let blips in Hansen's computer model predictions cause your faith to waver. Even more disastrous predictions are on the way to convince you how necessary it is to separate you from your money. Expect full government cooperation in the fleecing.

Later this month, the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is likely to release its fifth major report since 1992 on the state of the Earth's environment and climate.



Why do I say likely?



Because there have been reports the IPCC is badly divided over what to say.



This is nothing new. Despite a steady drone by environmentalists and media that the science of climate change is "settled" and that there is an "overwhelming consensus" that human activity is causing dangerous climate change, the truth is more complex.



While most climate scientists do believe human action is having some impact on climate, there is far less than the 97% certainty trumpeted by the David Suzukis and Al Gores of the world. And there never has been.



If anything, the uncertainty is growing and that, according to leaked reports from inside the IPCC, is what is causing the delay in releasing the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5).



While the senior members of the IPCC insist their latest report be every bit as gloomy and alarmist as the past four, a growing number of scientists are unwilling to claim the world is going to hell in a handbasket unless we all stop using fossil fuels.



This has always been the case.



The executive summaries of past IPCC assessment reports (known officially as the summaries for policymakers) have been very much more emphatic than the dull, intricate science inside.



The crusading scientists, activists and politicians who write the summaries have always been keen to take their proclamations well beyond where the science led.



That has always been a tricky balance, but now, apparently, it is becoming nearly impossible to pull off.



You see, the Earth hasn't warmed in the past 16 or 17 years, even though the production of carbon dioxide has continued apace.



And it is becoming harder and harder for global warming's cheerleaders on the IPCC to square that circle.



As an increasing number of scientists begin to question the so-called consensus on climate change, the IPCC has pushed harder and harder for ever more dramatic and alarming predictions in AR5. Hence the delay.

Consider just a few recent announcements.



First, there were a few reports on Monday that Arctic sea ice is 60% greater than it was this time last year.



The northern ice cap begins to refreeze in September, so that means the slow shrinkage of Arctic ice may be reversing.



One year of ice growth does not make a trend, but imagine the hysterical headlines if it were the other way around — if the ice cap was 60% smaller.



There is also a growing body of scientific work that shows Earth's climate may not be as sensitive to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as once thought.



The most alarming predictions of climate change were based on the theory that CO2 would trap solar energy in the lower atmosphere, where it would be magnified two, three or even five times.



Many scientists now believe this "forcing" effect was vastly overstated.



That is why temperatures have not budged in the past 17 years, even as CO2 concentrations have risen.

Most importantly, though, might be a German study released last week that claims all 65 climate-model computers used by the IPCC to predict the future impact of CO2 on climate — every last one of them —has failed to foresee this 17-year pause in temperature rise.

Indeed, most of the environmentalists' vaunted supercomputers have trouble predicting past climate, much less future climate.



And if they cannot reproduce known climate, how can these computers be trusted to predict what's coming?

http://www.edmontonsun.com/2013/09/10/running-on-empty">http://www.edmontonsun.com/2013/09/10/running-on-empty

[Romero]

Because there have been reports the IPCC is badly divided over what to say.

Reports by deniers. The IPCC isn't divided at all. You'll see when the IPCC report is released.



It will show that the Earth has warmed the past 16 or 17 years. It will show that Arctic ice has been shrinking.



How do I know? Because the data shows the Earth has been warming and Arctic ice has been shrinking. There is global warming. It's being recorded and we're seeing it with our own eyes.

[Romero]

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. 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.



http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/9/9/1378692793547/ArcticEscalator450.gif">



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.



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.



http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/9/9/1378695854558/Escalator_450.gif">



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.



http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/9/9/1378693463744/Nuccitelli_OHC_Data_450.jpg">



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.



http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/sep/09/climate-change-arctic-sea-ice-delusions">//http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/sep/09/climate-change-arctic-sea-ice-delusions

[Anonymous]

It sounds like you are determined to go down with the trillion dollars that has been wasted on global warm mongering. That's your money and your business. If you want to keep making a few corporations, multi-billionaires and greedy, corrupt governments richer it really has nothing to do with me. I am not interested in their failed doom and gloom predictions and I taking a stand and refuse to give them anymore cash without a fight.

Collapse of Climate Change Talks in Bonn plus the Epic Fail of Global Warming Prediction Models mean End of Climate Terror say Friends of Science



Russia foiled the climate talks in Bonn last week by challenging the 'consensus' decision making process that they said often excludes them; that 'draft agreements' are offered up in the 11th hour for approval without their valid input. In light of revelations that global warming stopped 16 years ago, despite a rise in carbon dioxide (CO2), Friends of Science point out that computer model predictions of warming are all wrong with tropical warming trends from 1979 off by a factor of four – the evidence shows no global warming.



A graph published last week in Canada's prestigious Financial Post is generating climate change controversy. The comparative graph from Dr. John Christy and Dr. Roy Spencer U of Alabama Huntsville (UAH) compares 73 climate model projections to the temperature measurements from two different monitoring system: satellites and weather balloons. These model runs will be used in the upcoming assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).



Dr. Roy Spencer says, "Now, in what universe do [these] results not represent an epic failure for the models?"



"After nearly thirty years of a reign of psychological fear of deadly global warming, citizens of the world can relax," said Len Maier, President of Friends of Science. "There's no catastrophic global warming in progress – no global warming now at all, in fact."



Some scientists have predicted frightening high temperatures saying there would be deadly consequences for people. In fact, the evidence shows global warming has stopped over 16 years ago. The IPCC has confirmed that global warming has stopped.



"People were terrified by Al Gore's movie 'An Inconvenient Truth'," says Maier. "The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) made frightening predictions and governments reacted accordingly. Now we know the modellers were wrong."



"Garbage In, Garbage Out (GIGO)," says Ken Gregory, a director of Friends of Science and an engineer who uses models for various applications himself. "A model can be a useful guide in some instances when most factors are known. "The climate modellers fail to consider natural causes of climate change. Changes in clouds and water vapor counteract the small effect of greenhouse gas emissions, contrary to climate model assumptions."



Actual global temperatures are measured by both satellites and weather balloons.

Dr. Roy Spencer and Dr. John Christy, publish the UAH satellite dataset of atmosphere temperatures. The trend of the two satellite datasets is identical to the trend of the four weather balloon datasets.



Dr. Spencer writes, "I frankly don't see how the IPCC can keep claiming that the models are 'not inconsistent with' the observations. Any sane person can see otherwise."



There has been no near-surface global warming for 16 years despite 33% of all man-made carbon dioxide emission since 1750 being produced during the period. It appears that global warming or cooling is driven by something other than carbon dioxide or emissions from fossil fuel use.



The scientific method requires theory to be modified to match observations. Ken Gregory, a director of the Friends of Science, says, "Climate modellers have apparently given up on matching their computer runs to observations." The famous physicist Dr. Richard Feynman said, "It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is ... If it doesn't agree with the experiment, it's wrong."

http://financialpostopinion.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/climate.jpg">

[Anonymous]

IPCC"s view of a consensus; you must agree without question that the world is warming unlike before and man is totally responsible for it then you are part of the final draft.

The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change misled the press and public into believing that thousands of scientists backed its claims on manmade global warming, according to Mike Hulme, a prominent climate scientist and IPCC insider.  The actual number of scientists who backed that claim was "only a few dozen experts," he states in a paper for Progress in Physical Geography, co-authored with student Martin Mahony.



"Claims such as '2,500 of the world's leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate' are disingenuous," the paper states unambiguously, adding that they rendered "the IPCC vulnerable to outside criticism."



Hulme, Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia –  the university of Climategate fame — is the founding Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research and one of the UK's most prominent climate scientists. Among his many roles in the climate change establishment, Hulme was the IPCC's co-ordinating Lead Author for its chapter on 'Climate scenario development' for its Third Assessment Report and a contributing author of several other chapters.



Hulme's depiction of IPCC's exaggeration of the number of scientists who backed its claim about man-made climate change can be found on pages 10 and 11 of his paper, found here.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/06/13/the-ipcc-consensus-on-climate-change-was-phoney-says-ipcc-insider/">http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/201 ... c-insider/">http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/06/13/the-ipcc-consensus-on-climate-change-was-phoney-says-ipcc-insider/

I used to believe the gospel of AGW in high school too. When I got to uni I didn't have a single prof who accepted the Gore/Suzuki/Hansen schtick that climate change was unique or completely caused by man. Then again with their self-indulgent huge carbon footprints those hypocrits obviously don't believe in it either.

[Obvious Li]

[size=200]And now it's global COOLING! Record return of Arctic ice cap as it grows by 60% in a year[/size]

[size=200]• Almost a million more square miles of ocean covered with ice than in 2012

• BBC reported in 2007 global warming would leave Arctic ice-free in summer by 2013

• Publication of UN climate change report suggesting global warming caused by humans pushed back to later this month[/size]

By David Rose

PUBLISHED: 23:37 GMT, 7 September 2013 | UPDATED: 12:01 GMT, 8 September 2013



A chilly Arctic summer has left nearly a million more square miles of ocean covered with ice than at the same time last year – an increase of 60 per cent.

The rebound from 2012's record low comes six years after the BBC reported that global warming would leave the Arctic ice-free in summer by 2013.

Instead, days before the annual autumn re-freeze is due to begin, an unbroken ice sheet more than half the size of Europe already stretches from the Canadian islands to Russia's northern shores.

The Northwest Passage from the Atlantic to the Pacific has remained blocked by pack-ice all year. More than 20 yachts that had planned to sail it have been left ice-bound and a cruise ship attempting the route was forced to turn back.

Some eminent scientists now believe the world is heading for a period of cooling that will not end until the middle of this century – a process that would expose computer forecasts of imminent catastrophic warming as dangerously misleading.

The disclosure comes 11 months after The Mail on Sunday triggered intense political and scientific debate by revealing that global warming has 'paused' since the beginning of 1997 – an event that the computer models used by climate experts failed to predict.

In March, this newspaper further revealed that temperatures are about to drop below the level that the models forecast with '90 per cent certainty'.

The pause – which has now been accepted as real by every major climate research centre – is important, because the models' predictions of ever-increasing global temperatures have made many of the world's economies divert billions of pounds into 'green' measures to counter climate change.

Those predictions now appear gravely flawed.

The continuing furore caused by The Mail on Sunday's revelations – which will now be amplified by the return of the Arctic ice sheet – has forced the UN's climate change body to hold a crisis meeting.

The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was due in October to start publishing its Fifth Assessment Report – a huge three-volume study issued every six or seven years. It will now hold a pre-summit in Stockholm later this month.

Leaked documents show that governments which support and finance the IPCC are demanding more than 1,500 changes to the report's 'summary for policymakers'. They say its current draft does not properly explain the pause.

At the heart of the row lie two questions: the extent to which temperatures will rise with carbon dioxide levels, as well as how much of the warming over the past 150 years – so far, just 0.8C – is down to human greenhouse gas emissions and how much is due to natural variability.

In its draft report, the IPCC says it is '95 per cent confident' that global warming has been caused by humans – up from 90 per cent in 2007.

This claim is already hotly disputed. US climate expert Professor Judith Curry said last night: 'In fact, the uncertainty is getting bigger. It's now clear the models are way too sensitive to carbon dioxide. I cannot see any basis for the IPCC increasing its confidence level.'

She pointed to long-term cycles in ocean temperature, which have a huge influence on climate and suggest the world may be approaching a period similar to that from 1965 to 1975, when there was a clear cooling trend. This led some scientists at the time to forecast an imminent ice age.

Professor Anastasios Tsonis, of the University of Wisconsin, was one of the first to investigate the ocean cycles. He 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.

'The IPCC claims its models show a pause of 15 years can be expected. But that means that after only a very few years more, they will have to admit they are wrong.'

Others are more cautious. Dr Ed Hawkins, of Reading University, drew the graph published by The Mail on Sunday in March showing how far world temperatures have diverged from computer predictions. He admitted the cycles may have caused some of the recorded warming, but insisted that natural variability alone could not explain all of the temperature rise over the past 150 years.

Nonetheless, the belief that summer Arctic ice is about to disappear remains an IPCC tenet, frequently flung in the face of critics who point to the pause.

Yet there is mounting evidence that Arctic ice levels are cyclical. Data uncovered by climate historians show that there was a massive melt in the 1920s and 1930s, followed by intense re-freezes that ended only in 1979 – the year the IPCC says that shrinking began.

Professor Curry said the ice's behaviour over the next five years would be crucial, both for understanding the climate and for future policy. 'Arctic sea ice is the indicator to watch,' she said.