How long will deniers keep up this rubbish about new cooling!?

Question

Given that only normal sea ice has returned to the Arctic and this will melt quickly in summer and the straight out lies I have seen posted about 'global cooling' when a number of southern hemisphere locations are having heat waves.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071230211952.htm

I should point out that I work in the climate science so if you are going to use the BS theories from heartland.org try to post supporting links that are not just blogs, as I'm yet to see any that can do this!

Answer 1

Unfortunately there are people that fail to differentiate between weather which fluctuates and the long term averages which define climate.

Answer 2

Having followed the arguments on other forums there seems to be some simple answers there is strong and heart felt belief on the side of those who believe in global warming this is backed by the scientific community, across a wide range of fields, that relate to the climate. On the other hand the deniers do seem to be there own worst enemies while some of their theories sound like science to the lay person there is little evidence to back them up like Sun dimming theories, when there is no evidence the sun is dimming and it is being monitored by satellites like SOHO which would easily detect that.

They also seem to bring up the cooling theory of the 70s a lot which is so lame as it never had a scientific following at all. Many of these theories seem to originate from just a couple of sources with names like Arthur B. Robinson, Noah Robison, Willie Soon popping up a lot or the Russian scientist (who’s name escapes me) who had the sun cooling theory who was listed as the head of some institute, which turned out to be a derelict building with a couple of 60 year old 24in telescopes.

Worst of all seems to be the direct lie that there isn't a scientific consciences on this when all the largest scientific bodies have stated publicly they agree with the theory

The deniers seem more interested in what its called, climate change or global warming, like that makes a difference or what Al Gore is doing, again who cares.

Answer 3

see for youself, there is a global sea ice anomoly of almost a half million square miles.  That means, there is more than there usually is, globally.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/...

The antarctic sea ice is already increasing in area, at this time last year, it was not yet, and it was also starting from a lower minimum amount of ice.  The sea ice concentration at the north pole was also around half a million square miles more than last year at this time too.  

You work in the climate science?  Oh really.

Oh, there are heat waves in the southern hemisphere?  The are cold waves in the northern, and have been all winter, I dont know if you missed that, or what.

Answer 4

So what do you think is so unusual about the return of normal sea ice? Or that the southern Hemisphere is having summer?  If I was a denier I would use that as part of my premise.

Answer 5

Was this recent cooling predicted by any of the climate models. I am a skeptic, I don't honestly think that any short term cooling would tell us anything. Believers do the same thing though, blow insignificant things way out of porportion for effect. If you feel like doing a little reading search Middlebury Community Network and read about global warming in editorial section. This guy claims that none of his science has been refuted in peer reviews.

Answer 6

Until h**l freezes over, probably.

Answer 7

So, if you work in the climate science, maybe you can answer some questions for me.

1.  How is the global annual temperature calculated?  Your article says it was 58.0 F in 2007.  How was that calculated?

2.  What is the normal global annual temperature?  We always hear that the temperature has gone up 0.7 C over the last 100 years.  Does that mean the normal global annual temperature is 57.3 F?

3.  How do you calculate the global annual temperature for the late 19th and early 20th centuries when accurate temperature data is only recorded for North America and Europe?

4.  With thermometers only being accurate to about 0.5 C in the late 19th early 20th centuries, how can you compare such inaccurate data with today's data?

5.  Why are AGW proponents so offended by skepticism and criticism?  Do they have something to hide?  Is their data not as accurate as claimed?

6.  Can the same climate models that are predicting dire consequences of AGW go back to say 1899 and "predict" the weather from 1900 to 1905?  How about 1950 and "predict" the weather from 1951 through 1959?

7.  I know the answer to #6 which is they can't.  If they can't take known data and accurately predict the weather in the past, then why should we trust their predictions for the next 100 years?

8.  If AGW proponents went almost a decade with a serious flaw in their calculations (which was not found by AGW proponents), how can we trust their data period?

If you are a real climate scientist, you should be able to answer these questions.

EDIT: Thanks for proving my point.  If you can't answer these questions, how can you claim there is global warming?  Call me a skeptic or denier all you want.  The simple fact is that most global warming alarmists can't answer these and thus have no basis for their argument.  If you don't have accurate and complete data, how can you make scientific judgments concerning the inaccurate and incomplete data?

Imagine the hew and cry if someone tried to extrapolate data back 100 years based on data from today in any other scientific area.  Scientists would be laughed out of their profession for assuming what the global warming scientists have assumed about the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

#9  Assuming we can accurately determine the global annual temperature from the late 19th century through today, what is our frame of reference?  How do we know that the Earth is heating up above the "normal" temperature of the Earth from the beginning of time through today?  Might we just be warming up from a cooler period to the normal temperature?  Please don't tell me about tree rings or core samples.  It is an understatement to say that neither are accurate enough to show changes in tenths of a degree.

EDIT #2:

1.  No kidding?  I realize there are thousands of different temperature readings around the world.  My question is when are the temperature readings taken?  Multiple times per day?  At the same time in every location?  And you really consider farmers to be a reliable source?  How many readings were taken how often in 1880?  Somehow I doubt their data was very accurate.

2.  If there is no "normal" global annual temperature, then what is the concern over a 0.7 C increase in temperature over the last 100 years?  How do we know that the temperature is abnormally high?  Ever consider that the "normal" temperature could be somewhere in the middle of the 0.7 C increase?

3.  Still doesn't answer the problem of not having a full data set.  The places you mentioned sound all well and good, but the sad fact is that global warming alarmists have to make assumptions about perhaps 75% of the Earth in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

4.  Let me get this straight.  You are saying that rounding doesn't affect accuracy when the alleged increase is less than a full degree?  Pitiful.

7.  Accuracy might have improved, but the predictions haven't.  Computer models still cannot "predict" weather from known data sets.  Why should we trust the predictions now?

8.  Love the way you ignored this one.  Most alarmists ignore it also.  Hansen reluctantly accepted the error.  Funny how a simple little error can change the face of the whole debate.  Well, should change the face of the debate.  Actually, the alarmists have completely glossed over it and the MSM isn't bright enough to pick up on the problems.  Maybe they are, but it doesn't further their agenda.

Nice try, but your answers have been found lacking.

Answer 8

Maybe they meant global dimming?

Answer 9

Dan there are heat waves in the southern hemisphere because it's summer there - the global average temps have been falling for months and the temps right now are what they were in the 1970s when we were being warned about global cooling.

Answer 10

Indefinitely.  Talk is cheap.

The Heartland Institute is definitely a strange source to accept scientific (sounding) theories from:

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfact...

The Heartland Institute created a website in the Spring of 2007, www.globalwarmingheartland.org, which asserts there is no scientific consensus on global warming and features a list of experts and a list of like-minded think tanks, many of whom have received funding from ExxonMobil and other polluters."

"The Heartland Institute formerly sponsored and hosted www.climatesearch.org, a web page ostensibly dedicated to objective research on global warming, but at the same time presenting heavily biased research by organizations such as the American Petroleum Institute as an FAQ section."

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/wiki/index.p...

Funding

Heartland Institute has received $676,500 from ExxonMobil since 1998.

1997 $unknown Mobil Corporation

Source: Heartland material, present at 3/16/97 conference

1998 $30,000 ExxonMobil Corporate Giving

Source: ExxonMobil 1998 grants list

2000 $115,000 ExxonMobil Foundation

Climate Change

Source: ExxonMobil Foundation 2000 IRS 990

2001 $90,000 ExxonMobil Foundation

Source: ExxonMobil 2001 Annual Report

2002 $15,000 ExxonMobil Foundation

Source: ExxonMobil 2002 Annual Report

2003 $7,500 ExxonMobil Corporate Giving

19th Aniversary Benefit Dinner

Source: ExxonMobil 2003 Corporate Giving Report

2003 $85,000 ExxonMobil Foundation

General Operating Support

Source: ExxonMobil 2003 Corporate Giving Report

2004 $10,000 Exxon Corporation

Climate Change Activities

Source: Exxon Giving Report 2004

2004 $15,000 ExxonMobil Foundation

Climate Change Efforts

Source: Exxon Giving Report 2004

2004 $75,000 ExxonMobil Foundation

General Operating Support

Source: Exxon Giving Report 2004

2005 $29,000 ExxonMobil Foundation

Source: ExxonMobil 2005 DIMENSIONS Report (Corporate Giving)

2005  $90,000 ExxonMobil Corporate Giving

Source: ExxonMobil 2005 DIMENSIONS Report (Corporate Giving)

2006  $90,000 ExxonMobil Corporate Giving

General Operating Support

Source: ExxonMobil Corporate Giving Report 2006

2006  $10,000 ExxonMobil Corporate Giving

Anniversary benefit dinner

Source: ExxonMobil Corporate Giving Report 2006

2006  $15,000 ExxonMobil Corporate Giving

General Operating Support

Source: ExxonMobil Corporate Giving Report 2006

---

Some people may not know that the Heartland Institute accepts payment from special interests such as oil companies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shill

"A shill is an associate of a person selling goods or services or a political group, who pretends no association to the seller/group and assumes the air of an enthusiastic customer. The intention of the shill is, using crowd psychology, to encourage others unaware of the set-up to purchase said goods or services or support the political group's ideological claims. Shills are often employed by confidence artists. In the UK the term plant is used."

"Shilling is illegal in many circumstances and in many jurisdictions because of the frequently fraudulent and damaging character of their actions. However, if a shill does not place uninformed parties at a risk of loss, but merely generates buzz,' the shill's actions may be legal."

"In online discussion media, satisfied consumers, or “innocent” parties may express specific opinions in order to further the interests of an organization in which they have an interest, such as a commercial vendor or special-interest group. Websites may also be set up for the same purpose."

"In some jurisdictions and circumstances, this type of activity may be illegal."

Answer 11

Well i believe folks should work hard to preserve our nature and rampant destruction makes no sense, But sorry my friend Global Warming is a fraud theory. Here is some history for you. Iceland was at one time all ice..hence the name. Yet long before SUV's, it melted. Greenland was farmed by the Vikings, now it is mainly ice. Most of Europe was ice...Gone long before man and their cars and fossil fuels. Nothing will change your mind, and I will not try to. If believing that we face total destruction is your thing, so be it. But nature produces more carbon in a week than man does all year. Many top scientist, including the founder of the weather channel calls global warming the most ludicrous theory yet. Check out this website, it shows that the Global Warming "scientist" have made it so that any weather pattern fits their theory. Warmer...global warming   colder....global warming....drought...global warming......more rain...global warming.....get my point. Educate yourself and you will see right through the c**p..

Website.....http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.ht...

LMAO climate scientist, i have lost interest in this post now. Any Climate scientist would def have better spelling and a better grasp of the english language. Yet another poser who thinks internet folks are impressed by his lies. Been to Antarctica many times my BUTT.

I copied and pasted so there could be no corrections by him later...........

birdog

this is ((exacly)) the sort of rubbish I was talking about

http://middlebury.net/op-ed/greenpeace-s...

from the site you mention it claims this image (prove(s))(greenpease) are fakes and this is a ship created crack, I have been to Antarctica quite a few times and this is cracked sea ice(  *  ) you can clearly see the narrowing in the distance.

The (standed) measure of 9/10ths ice below the water which would make this ice over 10m thick, the best icebreakers in the world can't brake more than 2-3 (metres) and they don't leave neat slots as they break ice by sliding over the top in short runs and crushing the ice and then letting the props chop it up, leaving the slot full of ice mush. The only time they can push through is if the ice is only inches thick.

4 minutes ago

I have no problem with skeptics, what deniers fail to grasp is science is all about being a skeptic and there is quite a bit (a) debate about GW but this isn't the same as the off the wall rubbish that circulates the blogs which for the most part is just made up and seems to have the purpose of slowing real community understanding of the problem we are facing.

(   )   are some of the mistakes which do not include grammer mistakes. There are more, I just got bored. You are as much a  climate scientist as I am President of the United States.

Answer 12

There seem to be a very strong anti GW movement here that don't seem to let facts or science get in the way of their strange theories. The 70's global cooling one keeps popping up in spite of the fact there is no evidence for it, I have posted the links myself several times that prove it was only media hype.

The current one is the same, sayings like 'all the heating for the last hundred years wiped out' mean nothing if you look at the 100 year temperature record there have been quite a few colder periods.