• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Has the Earth cooled in the last decade?

Middleground

Dam Epidamic
Bartender
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 15, 2005
Messages
26,292
Reaction score
12,312
Location
Canada's Capital
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
If we're going to insist upon answering one another's questions then perhaps you could explain AGW-theory as you understand it. You could also address the satellite data which clearly points to a cooling trend in the past 12 years.

Please, Etheral... I'm not going to write you an essay on Global Warming. :roll:

As for what you posted, the paper by Craig Loehle, is that the corrected version? Funny how it was a web reader that pointed out his mistakes, LOL. Kinda like the hockey stick, ya know. :2razz:

Anyhoo, this is an article that came out not too long ago:

ated 4:47 p.m. ET, Mon., Oct . 26, 2009
WASHINGTON - An analysis of global temperatures by independent statisticians shows the Earth is still warming and not cooling as some global warming skeptics are claiming.

from the article:

Satellite data tends to be cooler
One prominent skeptic said that to find the cooling trend, the 30 years of satellite temperatures must be used. The satellite data tends to be cooler than the ground data. Key to that is making sure that 1998 is part of the trend, he added.

What happened within the past 10 years or so is what counts, not the overall average, contends Don Easterbrook, a Western Washington University geology professor and global warming skeptic.

"I don't argue with you that the 10-year average for the past 10 years is higher than the previous 10 years," said Easterbrook, who has self-published some of his research. "We started the cooling trend after 1998. You're going to get a different line depending on which year you choose.

"Should not the actual temperature be higher now than it was in 1998?" Easterbrook asked. "We can play the numbers games."

That's the problem, some of the statisticians said.

Grego produced three charts to show how choosing a starting date can alter perceptions. Using the skeptics' satellite data beginning in 1998, there is a "mild downward trend," he said. But doing that is "deceptive."

Statisticians say that in sizing up climate change, it's important to look at moving averages of about 10 years. They compare the average of 1999-2008 to the average of 2000-2009. In all data sets, 10-year moving averages have been higher in the last five years than in any previous years.

"To talk about global cooling at the end of the hottest decade the planet has experienced in many thousands of years is ridiculous," said Ken Caldeira, a climate scientist at the Carnegie Institution at Stanford University.

Not all skeptical scientists make the flat-out cooling argument.

"It pretty much depends on when you start," wrote John Christy, the Alabama atmospheric scientist who collects the satellite data that skeptics use. He said in an e-mail that looking back 31 years, temperatures have gone up nearly three-quarters of a degree Fahrenheit (four-tenths of a degree Celsius). The last dozen years have been flat, and temperatures over the last eight years have declined a bit, he wrote.

Statisticians reject global cooling - Environment- msnbc.com
 

Scarecrow Akhbar

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
11,430
Reaction score
2,282
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent

Amazing.

He used big fonts, so it must be true. Never mind record cold, record snowfalls, etc, the size 3 type sweeps all that aside.
 

Scarecrow Akhbar

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
11,430
Reaction score
2,282
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
So if we agree that the world has been substantially hotter at many points in the past, how does that relate to the doomsday claims that we've heard about how global warming will destroy humanity and kill the planet?

In the past they didn't have Al Gore and Big Government to save them, so they survived.

Because we have Al Gore and Big Government, we probably won't survive this minor climate shift.
 

Ethereal

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 17, 2005
Messages
8,211
Reaction score
4,178
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Please, Etheral... I'm not going to write you an essay on Global Warming. :roll:

Not an essay. Just the core of AGW-theory as you understand it. Is that too much to ask on a debate forum?

As for what you posted, the paper by Craig Loehle, is that the corrected version? Funny how it was a web reader that pointed out his mistakes, LOL. Kinda like the hockey stick, ya know. :2razz:

Is there a corrected version? You have a link?

Anyhoo, this is an article that came out not too long ago:

Well, you posted two articles. The first one isn't specific enough to effectively address the Loehle analysis, and the second one has no link.

Could you provide a more specific rebuttal of his paper, perhaps, address it yourself?
 

Middleground

Dam Epidamic
Bartender
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 15, 2005
Messages
26,292
Reaction score
12,312
Location
Canada's Capital
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
Not an essay. Just the core of AGW-theory as you understand it. Is that too much to ask on a debate forum?

I ask why? Why is it important to you that I do this? It has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand. :roll:



Is there a corrected version? You have a link?

Yes, the link is on this page. Thank goodness for alert reader Andrew at Climate Audit for finding the mistakes!

Study: model in good agreement with satellite temperature data – suggest cooling Watts Up With That?

Well, you posted two articles. The first one isn't specific enough to effectively address the Loehle analysis, and the second one has no link.

Could you provide a more specific rebuttal of his paper, perhaps, address it yourself?

I posted one article, titled "Statisticians reject global cooling... Some skeptics claim Earth is cooling despite contrary data." The link works fine.
 

ptif219

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 15, 2009
Messages
13,156
Reaction score
1,038
Location
melbourne florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
I guess record cold and snow all over the world this year is warming?
MG_119.gif
 

Ethereal

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 17, 2005
Messages
8,211
Reaction score
4,178
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I ask why? Why is it important to you that I do this? It has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand. :roll:

I think you lack the ability to defend the theory yourself. Prove me wrong whenever you like.

Yes, the link is on this page. Thank goodness for alert reader Andrew at Climate Audit for finding the mistakes!

Study: model in good agreement with satellite temperature data – suggest cooling Watts Up With That?

The paper I provided you was the corrected version. The data still points to a cooling trend, it's just not statistically signifigant after 16 years.

Here's the correction:

The only thing different about the abstract is that the lower confidence limits do not exclude a negative trend until 16 years instead of “16 to 22 years”.

So, you ready to rebut his paper?

I posted one article, titled "Statisticians reject global cooling... Some skeptics claim Earth is cooling despite contrary data." The link works fine.

I couldn't find this text in the link you provided, so I assume it's from a separate article:

Not all skeptical scientists make the flat-out cooling argument.

"It pretty much depends on when you start," wrote John Christy, the Alabama atmospheric scientist who collects the satellite data that skeptics use. He said in an e-mail that looking back 31 years, temperatures have gone up nearly three-quarters of a degree Fahrenheit (four-tenths of a degree Celsius). The last dozen years have been flat, and temperatures over the last eight years have declined a bit, he wrote.
 

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,255
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative

did you ever see the out takes on that commercial? I have. there are 2 of them. In the first one, the tear is starting to flow down his cheek, and he breaks out laughing. In the second one, the garbage doesn't land at his feet but hits him in the chest, and he laughs and yells "You son of a bitch". LOL.
 

Gladiator

Verifier
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 21, 2007
Messages
4,412
Reaction score
609
Location
Suburbia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The sunset was red last night. This menas that SO2 is in the Stratopher, above about 10 miles high.

The S02 is from the Alaskan Volcanoes that erupted in the summer of 1988.

Since the summer of 1988, Global Cooling has been taking place becuase the sun's rays are more scattered. and reflected back to outer space, by SO2 Aerosols in Stratosphere. The SO2 Aersols in the Stratosphere are not cleansed out by rain, becuase the rain forms in the Troposphere, below 10 miles above sea level.

Explosive Eruption Of Okmok Volcano In Alaska

Alaska Volcano Observatory - Kasatochi - Eruption Page



Signs of Global Cooling are the resurgences of summer ice in the Arctic. The lloss of ice had been documented by satelite images, up til 2008, iwth 2007 being a record year for the loses evel of ice in an arctic summer.

2000 to 2009 may have been the warmest decade overall, but the cooler winter of 2009-10 is a result of SO2 Aersols in the troposphere.


"The minimum ice extent in September 2009 was greater than the past two Septembers, but again fell below the long-term average. The melt season began with a young, thin Arctic sea ice cover, suggesting that significant amounts of ice would be lost during the melt season. However, a cooler summer with favorable winds helped preserve the ice. "

Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis


What are PPN particles? Primary Particle Neutrons, are the foundation of Aersols in the Stratospnere. Are Tropospheic PPN particles different from Stratospheicric PPn Particles?

Why are the movements of the Stratospheric PPN particles almoset exclusively horizontgal, and why so the SO2 Aersols stay in th\e Stratsphere for years before succuming to gravity, and coming by to the tropsopehre, and being cleansed by rain?

Why do smaller sized SO2 Aesols reflect/scatter sunlight more effetively than larger aersols?

Are there similarities for PPN particles in the stratospnere of Jupiter?

ScienceDirect - Icarus : Models for Polar Haze Formation in Jupiter's Stratosphere








..
 

Gladiator

Verifier
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 21, 2007
Messages
4,412
Reaction score
609
Location
Suburbia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Do Warmer oceans cause Global Ice?

The Next Ice Age May have been Triggered in 2008.


Is the Bearing Strait ice reduction responsible for the melting of more polar ice melting, up to 2008? What ere the fators that cused teh Bearing Straits to become blocked with ice again?

There is a volcano in Eastern Siberia that may be putting
S02 into the Stratsphere. Russia may have a policy of secrecy about science of Aersols Climate change.


Here is a link to more volcanic activity in other parts of the world

Chaiten volcano Fire Earth


How can Volcanic SO2 in the Stratosphere be causally linked to the cooling temperatures after 2008?

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/09/...-may-have-cooling-effect-on-the-nh-this-year/


How can we measure the SO2 in the Sratosphere, other than by watching Red colors in sunsets?


http://www.authorsden.com/categories/article_top.asp?catid=38&id=40379


..
 
Last edited:

Middleground

Dam Epidamic
Bartender
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 15, 2005
Messages
26,292
Reaction score
12,312
Location
Canada's Capital
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
I think you lack the ability to defend the theory yourself. Prove me wrong whenever you like.

Call me on any topic I choose to debate here in this forum. Feel free to call me on anything that you deem wrong. It's as simple as that. Your request is silly, teach. :roll:

The paper I provided you was the corrected version. The data still points to a cooling trend, it's just not statistically signifigant after 16 years.

If you are going to take this paper as gospel, then you must do the same with the "hockey stick." Both have had revisions pointed out by non-experts. Both revisions didn't change much. However, the hockey stick is a complete fraud according to many who frequent these forums because of it.

Furthermore, if you read the article that I posted, blind stats where given to statisticians and all showed warming. The satellite data show cooler temperatures in general, but definitely show a warming pattern from the inception of collected data that started in 1979.


I couldn't find this text in the link you provided, so I assume it's from a separate article:

I only quoted one article. Obviously, you didn't care to read it.
 

Gladiator

Verifier
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 21, 2007
Messages
4,412
Reaction score
609
Location
Suburbia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Here is a reference to an active Volcano i Siberea, Russia.

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klyuchevskaya_Sopka]Klyuchevskaya Sopka - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

Kamchatka, Russia

Active Volcaones on Kamchatka, a peninusla on the Bearing Sea, North of Japan

http://www.travelkamchatka.com/images/bigkamap.jpg


If above-water volcanoes are currently causing Global Cooling, this does not mean that AGW does not exist. Man Made Global Warming may be occurring, but it may just overshadowed by the SO2 Aersols in the Stratosphere, from the Volcanoes which are not underwater.

Volcanoes thqat are underwater give off heat. The SO2 is emitted under water, but there is no indication that the SO2 in the oceans escapes in any significant amount to the Stratospehre, abobve 10 miles above sea level.

Underwater Volcanoes may create more SO2 in the Troposphere, below 10 miles above Sea Level. which may increase the acidity of rain.

Global Warming/cooling is a combination of cooling and warming dynamics.




..
 
Last edited:

Gill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 5, 2005
Messages
8,713
Reaction score
1,907
Location
The Derby City
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative

According to this AP story, they gave the statisticians NOAA data to evaluate. Unfortunately, NOAA data comes from the Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN) network of temperature data recording stations. NASA also uses this data for their GissTemp data set. NOAA and GissTemp are the same data sets.

Following is a map of Giss temperature data for a recent month:

ghcn_giss_1200km_anom11_2009_2009_1951_1980.gif


Look at two areas on this map, Brazil and northern Canada. As you can see, there is a large area of red over Brazil denoting above average temperatures. Over northern Canada, there is a dark red blob of much above average temperatures.

There's one problem with both of these areas....

1. There have been no GHCN temperature data stations in Brazil since 1990.

2. There is only one GHCN site in all of northern Canada. The one Canadian site is located in Eureka, Canada. According to Wiki, Eureka has been described as "The Garden Spot of the Arctic" due to the flora and fauna abundant around the Eureka area, more so than anywhere else in the High Arctic, hardly representative of the Canadian Arctic.

If there are no stations in Brazil and only one in northern Canada, how does Giss calculate temperatures there. It's simple, they extrapolate temperatures from stations as far away as 1,200 KM from the site.

Draw a circle 1,200 km around your home and look at some of the temperatures within that circle. Do they really reflect the weather at your home. It's highly doubtful.

The temperature data used to claim that "2005 was the hottest year on record" highly suspect. Not only does NASA, NOAA, HadCrut, and Giss "guess" at temperatures for much of the globe, the number of temperature stations has declined dramatically since 1990.

thermometer_records.gif


The entire temperature data record is one big "guesstimate".
 

Ethereal

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 17, 2005
Messages
8,211
Reaction score
4,178
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
According to this AP story, they gave the statisticians NOAA data to evaluate. Unfortunately, NOAA data comes from the Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN) network of temperature data recording stations. NASA also uses this data for their GissTemp data set. NOAA and GissTemp are the same data sets.

Following is a map of Giss temperature data for a recent month:

ghcn_giss_1200km_anom11_2009_2009_1951_1980.gif


Look at two areas on this map, Brazil and northern Canada. As you can see, there is a large area of red over Brazil denoting above average temperatures. Over northern Canada, there is a dark red blob of much above average temperatures.

There's one problem with both of these areas....

1. There have been no GHCN temperature data stations in Brazil since 1990.

2. There is only one GHCN site in all of northern Canada. The one Canadian site is located in Eureka, Canada. According to Wiki, Eureka has been described as "The Garden Spot of the Arctic" due to the flora and fauna abundant around the Eureka area, more so than anywhere else in the High Arctic, hardly representative of the Canadian Arctic.

If there are no stations in Brazil and only one in northern Canada, how does Giss calculate temperatures there. It's simple, they extrapolate temperatures from stations as far away as 1,200 KM from the site.

Draw a circle 1,200 km around your home and look at some of the temperatures within that circle. Do they really reflect the weather at your home. It's highly doubtful.

The temperature data used to claim that "2005 was the hottest year on record" highly suspect. Not only does NASA, NOAA, HadCrut, and Giss "guess" at temperatures for much of the globe, the number of temperature stations has declined dramatically since 1990.

thermometer_records.gif


The entire temperature data record is one big "guesstimate".

In your opinion, is the satellite data more reliable and consistent?
 

Gill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 5, 2005
Messages
8,713
Reaction score
1,907
Location
The Derby City
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
In your opinion, is the satellite data more reliable and consistent?

It is by far more reliable and accurate. Satellites cover most of the globe including the oceans. Temperature data over oceans, the vast majority of the globe's surface, is haphazard at best. Satellite data is not affected by UHI, a major concern with surface stations. Current data stations are not only affected by placement in cities or in areas enveloped by population growth, many are also placed in areas affected by micro-UHI, as abundantly shown by Anthony Watts Surface Station project.

As time passes, each surface stations covers more square miles of the globe, reducing overall accuracy. As I said above, the number of reporting stations has been reduced drastically since 1990.

Here's another graph showing the overall reduction in climate stations throughout the globe:

ghcncrucompare21.png


We now have about the same number of stations as we did in the late 1800s.
 

livefree

Active member
Joined
Nov 15, 2005
Messages
313
Reaction score
97
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
It is by far more reliable and accurate. Satellites cover most of the globe including the oceans. Temperature data over oceans, the vast majority of the globe's surface, is haphazard at best. Satellite data is not affected by UHI, a major concern with surface stations. Current data stations are not only affected by placement in cities or in areas enveloped by population growth, many are also placed in areas affected by micro-UHI, as abundantly shown by Anthony Watts Surface Station project.

As time passes, each surface stations covers more square miles of the globe, reducing overall accuracy. As I said above, the number of reporting stations has been reduced drastically since 1990.

Here's another graph showing the overall reduction in climate stations throughout the globe:

ghcncrucompare21.png


We now have about the same number of stations as we did in the late 1800s.

You like the satellite data, eh?

Key claim against global warming evaporates

Satellite and weather balloon data based on faulty analyses, studies find


By Ker Than
MSNBC Live Science
Aug 11, 2005

For years, skeptics of global warming have used satellite and weather balloon data to argue that climate models were wrong and that global warming isn't really happening.

Now, according to three new studies published in the journal Science, it turns out those conclusions based on satellite and weather balloon data were based on faulty analyses.

The atmosphere is indeed warming, not cooling as the data previously showed.
Story continues below ↓advertisement | your ad here

While surface thermometers have clearly shown that the Earth's surface is warming, satellite and weather balloon data have actually suggested the opposite, that the atmosphere was cooling.

Scientists were left with two choices: either the atmosphere wasn't warming up, or something was wrong with the data.

"But most people had to conclude, based on the fact that there were both satellite and balloon observations, that it really wasn't warming up," said Steven Sherwood, a geologists at Yale University and lead author of one of the studies.

Moderator's Warning:
Edited for fair use
 
Last edited by a moderator:

livefree

Active member
Joined
Nov 15, 2005
Messages
313
Reaction score
97
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Some new info from NASA on satellite research into global warming.


NASA Outlines Recent Breakthroughs in Greenhouse Gas Research

NASA - JPL
December 15, 2009

WASHINGTON – Researchers studying carbon dioxide, a leading greenhouse gas and a key driver of global climate change, now have a new tool at their disposal: daily global measurements of carbon dioxide in a key part of our atmosphere. The data are courtesy of the Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS) instrument on NASA's Aqua spacecraft.

Moustafa Chahine, the instrument's science team leader at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif., unveiled the new product at a briefing on recent breakthroughs in greenhouse gas, weather and climate research from AIRS at this week's American Geophysical Union meeting in San Francisco. The new data, which span the seven-plus years of the AIRS mission, measure the concentration and distribution of carbon dioxide in the mid-troposphere--the region of Earth's atmosphere that is located between 5 to 12 kilometers, or 3 to 7 miles, above Earth's surface. They also track its global transport. The product represents the first-ever release of global carbon dioxide data that are based solely on observations. The data have been extensively validated against both aircraft and ground-based observations.

"AIRS provides the highest accuracy and yield of any global carbon dioxide data set available to the research community, now and for the immediate future," said Chahine. "It will help researchers understand how this elusive, long-lived greenhouse gas is distributed and transported, and can be used to develop better models to identify 'sinks,' regions of the Earth system that store carbon dioxide. It's important to study carbon dioxide in all levels of the troposphere."

Chahine said previous AIRS research data have led to some key findings about mid-tropospheric carbon dioxide. For example, the data have shown that, contrary to prior assumptions, carbon dioxide is not well mixed in the troposphere, but is rather "lumpy." Until now, models of carbon dioxide transport have assumed its distribution was uniform.

Carbon dioxide is transported in the mid-troposphere from its sources to its eventual sinks. More carbon dioxide is emitted in the heavily populated northern hemisphere than in its less populated southern counterpart. As a result, the southern hemisphere is a net recipient, or sink, for carbon dioxide from the north. AIRS data have previously shown the complexity of the southern hemisphere's carbon dioxide cycle, revealing a never-before-seen belt of carbon dioxide that circles the globe and is not reflected in transport models.

Moderator's Warning:
Fair use
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Gladiator

Verifier
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 21, 2007
Messages
4,412
Reaction score
609
Location
Suburbia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The entire temperature data record is one big "guesstimate".

That' why I like the summer Actic ice coverage as an indication of overall Global Warming/Cooling. The Arctic summer ice coverage was was covering less and less area, up till 2007, then in 2008 the Summper arctic ice coverage area starrted to becoming less reduced.

Arctic Sea Ice Increases at Record Rate Watts Up With That?

Search Arctic Ice 2009.


Antarctica Ice is also increasing

"Antarctic sea ice is growing while at the other pole, Arctic ice is shrinking at record rates."

Why Antarctic ice is growing despite global warming - environment - 20 April 2009 - New Scientist



"The ice melt across during the Antarctic summer (October-January) of 2008-2009 was the lowest ever recorded in the satellite history. "


World Climate Report Antarctic Ice Melt at Lowest Levels in Satellite Era



Al Gore's movie implied that the trends in Earth's reduced polar Ice, up till 2005 the date of the movie, were proof of Global Warming, and implied AGW, GW was man made. Now there is Global Cooling, with continued more Man Made CO2, some AGW advocates are ignoring 2009 Global cooling, and other AGW advocates are trying to find wild explanations for 2008-2009 global cooling.

Very few AGW advocates are discussing SO2 Aerosols in the Stratosphere that might result from Volcanoes, refracting light/heat away from Earth, resulting in 2008-2009 Global Cooling.

Why are AGW advocates afraid of Volcanoes?





...
 
Last edited:

livefree

Active member
Joined
Nov 15, 2005
Messages
313
Reaction score
97
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The entire temperature data record is one big "guesstimate".

That's your denier cult myth but it has no connection to reality. You believe it because you're ignorant of science and don't know any better.
 

livefree

Active member
Joined
Nov 15, 2005
Messages
313
Reaction score
97
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
That' why I like the summer Actic ice coverage as an indication of overall Global Warming/Cooling. The Arctic summer ice coverage was was covering less and less area, up till 2007, then in 2008 the Summper arctic ice coverage area starrted to becoming less reduced.

Arctic Sea Ice Increases at Record Rate Watts Up With That?

Search Arctic Ice 2009.

Antarctica Ice is also increasing

"Antarctic sea ice is growing while at the other pole, Arctic ice is shrinking at record rates."

Why Antarctic ice is growing despite global warming - environment - 20 April 2009 - New Scientist

"The ice melt across during the Antarctic summer (October-January) of 2008-2009 was the lowest ever recorded in the satellite history. "

World Climate Report Antarctic Ice Melt at Lowest Levels in Satellite Era

Al Gore's movie implied that the trends in Earth's reduced polar Ice, up till 2005 the date of the movie, were proof of Global Warming, and implied AGW, GW was man made. Now there is Global Cooling, with continued more Man Made CO2, some AGW advocates are ignoring 2009 Global cooling, and other AGW advocates are trying to find wild explanations for 2008-2009 global cooling.

Very few AGW advocates are discussing SO2 Aerosols in the Stratosphere that might result from Volcanoes, refracting light/heat away from Earth, resulting in 2008-2009 Global Cooling.

Why are AGW advocates afraid of Volcanoes?

Too bad you choose to believe pseudo-science and slanted propaganda off of denier cult blogs instead of reading some actual science from some reputable source. Of course when you do read stuff off of reputable sources, like New Scientist, you don't seem to understand what you're reading. So either you're not actually reading it but just cut&pasting the link from some denier cult blog that told you what it meant (and lied) or you really are just incapable of comprehending the material. You do realize, don't you, that the New Scientist article you cited was talking about an increase in Antarctic sea ice, which comprises about 2% of the total ice mass in Antarctica. The Antarctic as a whole is losing close to 2 hundred billion tons of ice mass yearly now from the glaciers and ice sheets.

Survey Data Supports Rapid Ice Loss: Largely Open Arctic Seas In Summer Within 10 Years

ScienceDaily (Oct. 15, 2009) — New research, released by the Catlin Arctic Survey and WWF, provides further evidence that the Arctic Ocean sea ice is thinning, supporting the emerging thinking that the Ocean will be largely ice-free during summer within a decade.

The Catlin Arctic Survey, completed earlier this year, provides the latest ice thickness record, drawn from the only survey capturing surface measurements conducted during winter and spring 2009.

The data (1), collected by manual drilling and observations on a 450-kilometre route across the northern part of the Beaufort Sea (2), suggests the survey area is comprised almost exclusively of first-year ice.

This is a significant finding because the region has traditionally contained older, thicker multi-year ice. The average thickness of the ice-floes measured 1.8 metres, a depth considered too thin to survive the next summer’s ice melt.


Antarctic ice loss vaster, faster than thought: study

PhysOrg.com
November 22, 2009

The East Antarctic icesheet, once seen as largely unaffected by global warming, has lost billions of tonnes of ice since 2006 and could boost sea levels in the future, according to a new study.

Published Sunday in Nature Geoscience, the same study shows that the smaller but less stable West Antarctic icesheet is also shedding significant mass.

Scientists worry that rising global temperatures could trigger a rapid disintegration of West Antarctica, which holds enough frozen water to push up the global ocean watermark by about five metres (16 feet).

In 2007 the UN Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) predicted sea levels would rise 18 to 59 centimetres (7.2 to 23.2 inches) by 2100, but this estimate did not factor in the potential impact of crumbling icesheets in Greenland and Antarctica.

Today many of the same scientist say that even if heat-trapping CO2 emissions are curtailed, the ocean watermark is more likely to go up by nearly a metre, enough to render several small island nations unlivable and damage fertile deltas home to hundreds of millions.

Moderator's Warning:
Edited for fair use
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Gill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 5, 2005
Messages
8,713
Reaction score
1,907
Location
The Derby City
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
That's your denier cult myth but it has no connection to reality. You believe it because you're ignorant of science and don't know any better.

If you would like to discuss and debate the topic, then great and I'm all for it. If you only want to insult, I suggest you go live in the basement, or preferably, go to another forum.

I don't report insulting posts, but another one like this and I'll make an you an exception.
 

ptif219

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 15, 2009
Messages
13,156
Reaction score
1,038
Location
melbourne florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Scientist says Global warming may be over and the ocean is much of the reason.


DAVID ROSE: The mini ice age starts here | Mail Online


The bitter winter afflicting much of the Northern Hemisphere is only the start of a global trend towards cooler weather that is likely to last for 20 or 30 years, say some of the world’s most eminent climate scientists.

Their predictions – based on an analysis of natural cycles in water temperatures in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans – challenge some of the global warming orthodoxy’s most deeply cherished beliefs, such as the claim that the North Pole will be free of ice in
summer by 2013.

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.

The scientists’ predictions also undermine the standard climate computer models, which assert that the warming of the Earth since 1900 has been driven solely by man-made greenhouse gas emissions and will continue as long as carbon dioxide levels rise.

They say that their research shows that much of the warming was caused by oceanic cycles when they were in a ‘warm mode’ as opposed to the present ‘cold mode’.
 

American

Constitutionalist
Bartender
Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
89,077
Reaction score
28,100
Location
SE Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
And of course, the data will continue to be revised until it fits the desired conclusion.

Climate science has nothing on Phrenology.
If the Earth is billions of years old, how do they which year is the coldest and which was the hottest?
 
Top Bottom