From Global Warming to Mini Ice Age?

[Gatekeeper]

"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."

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

Another chapter in the misunderstanding of planet evolution. Does anyone really know?
One side says it is,it is, the other says it isn't, it isn't and some in the same groups say who the "F" knows. And some try profiteering from the confusion.

 

[Old Rocks]

Damn, you guys take a screed from a non-scientist, and act like it is the gospel. 2009 will rank somewhere between the 5th and 2nd warmest year on record. Nine of the warmest years on record have happened since 2000. The single exception is 1998.

You are predicting a little ice age.

I will predict two years in the next five that exceed 1998.

So we will see who is correct.

 

[Gatekeeper]

Damn, you guys take a screed from a non-scientist, and act like it is the gospel. 2009 will rank somewhere between the 5th and 2nd warmest year on record. Nine of the warmest years on record have happened since 2000. The single exception is 1998.

You are predicting a little ice age.

I will predict two years in the next five that exceed 1998.

So we will see who is correct.

Nahh I am just an observer in the Global Warming fiasco. Although I do have MY thoughts, which are not influenced by others, I love how some scientists take a sample of a few hundred years out of 4 billion plus and draw a conclusion. Like trying to find the 'average' using a sample poll of one (1), really quite amusing. Stats require a specific 'n' population in order to reach a valid, or what seems to be a valid conclusion. "Trending', or sampling a few hundred years out of 4BIL is ridiculous, specially when from say the 1200's to the 1700's the weather patterns varied up and down with severe winters and some cases virtually no summers temperature wise etc. And then there is the ultimate 'variable', out of nowhere an event occurs that changes the game rules, such as volcanic eruptions etc. I guess the ancestors of AG would have blamed it on 'animal and human exaust gases'

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Damn, you guys take a screed from a non-scientist, and act like it is the gospel. 2009 will rank somewhere between the 5th and 2nd warmest year on record. Nine of the warmest years on record have happened since 2000. The single exception is 1998.

You are predicting a little ice age.

I will predict two years in the next five that exceed 1998.

So we will see who is correct.

Once again from 1998 to present the overall rise in temperature from the previous hundred years was just over 1 degree, with about 1/3 of a degree occurring in a short 15 year period. No noticeable warming has occurred since 1998.

I keep schooling you dumb asses. OF COURSE the last 10 years are the warmest on record, the TEMPERATURE WENT UP. The average went up because of it. But don't forget that there has been NO NOTICEABLE rise in temperature since the end of 1998.

 

[Gatekeeper]

Damn, you guys take a screed from a non-scientist, and act like it is the gospel. 2009 will rank somewhere between the 5th and 2nd warmest year on record. Nine of the warmest years on record have happened since 2000. The single exception is 1998.

You are predicting a little ice age.

I will predict two years in the next five that exceed 1998.

So we will see who is correct.

Once again from 1998 to present the overall rise in temperature from the previous hundred years was just over 1 degree, with about 1/3 of a degree occurring in a short 15 year period. No noticeable warming has occurred since 1998.

I keep schooling you dumb asses. OF COURSE the last 10 years are the warmest on record, the TEMPERATURE WENT UP. The average went up because of it. But don't forget that there has been NO NOTICEABLE rise in temperature since the end of 1998.

Point well taken, at least I am not a Smart Ass......

 

[concept]

Damn, you guys take a screed from a non-scientist, and act like it is the gospel. 2009 will rank somewhere between the 5th and 2nd warmest year on record. Nine of the warmest years on record have happened since 2000. The single exception is 1998.

You are predicting a little ice age.

I will predict two years in the next five that exceed 1998.

So we will see who is correct.

Except that the data you are fed is manipulated and corrupted.


And you buy it completely. That is a never ending source of humor to me.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Damn, you guys take a screed from a non-scientist, and act like it is the gospel. 2009 will rank somewhere between the 5th and 2nd warmest year on record. Nine of the warmest years on record have happened since 2000. The single exception is 1998.

You are predicting a little ice age.

I will predict two years in the next five that exceed 1998.

So we will see who is correct.

If we are indeed at the peak of a warming trend, then of course the most recent years will have been the warmest.

Truth is , you have no ability to predict with any certainty that the next decade will be warmer than the last.

If it is colder, then you will claim it wasn't as cold as it would have been because of global warming.

 

[Dick Tator]

Damn, you guys take a screed from a non-scientist, and act like it is the gospel. 2009 will rank somewhere between the 5th and 2nd warmest year on record. Nine of the warmest years on record have happened since 2000. The single exception is 1998.

1998 happened after 2000?

 

[OregonStream]

The reason for 1998's exceptional anomaly (in the CRU dataset so untrusted by some of the same global coolists highlighting it) has been explain to RetiredGySgt at least twice now. It's remains scientifically invalid to compare individual years when you're talking about climate trends. AKA departure from a multi-decadal base average. You can include 1998 in the averages, but not cherry-pick it as a starting point. It represents a period biased by short-term "internal" variability (part of the black line):

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Isn't citing CRU data a lot like including the Piltdown Man in mankind's Family Tree?

 

[OregonStream]

Isn't citing CRU data a lot like including the Piltdown Man in mankind's Family Tree?

Maybe if you subscribe to manufactured climate controversies. But you may want to ask this of your board buddies citing it as proof of "global cooling" since 1998.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Isn't citing CRU data a lot like including the Piltdown Man in mankind's Family Tree?

Maybe if you subscribe to manufactured climate controversies. But you may want to ask this of your board buddies citing it as proof of "global cooling" since 1998.

Did you even look at the video you linked to, claiming to "explain" hide the decline because they said that, when the data did not fit the theory, they dropped the data. Is that how science works?

 

[Baruch Menachem]

Damn, you guys take a screed from a non-scientist, and act like it is the gospel. 2009 will rank somewhere between the 5th and 2nd warmest year on record. Nine of the warmest years on record have happened since 2000. The single exception is 1998.

1998 happened after 2000?

1998 was the single hottest year prior to 2000. So the 10 hottest years ever have all been since 1997.

I think Old Rocks is a tool, but I think you are reaching a bit here.

Or it could just be because he subscribes to the math of the sort we expect out of GW hysterics.

 

[OregonStream]

Isn't citing CRU data a lot like including the Piltdown Man in mankind's Family Tree?

Maybe if you subscribe to manufactured climate controversies. But you may want to ask this of your board buddies citing it as proof of "global cooling" since 1998.

Did you even look at the video you linked to, claiming to "explain" hide the decline because they said that, when the data did not fit the theory, they dropped the data. Is that how science works?

It doesn't say they dropped the data because it doesn't fit the theory. So what does "the decline" refer to, and why were they advised by the authors themselves to "hide" (i.e. avoid) it? What difference would it make to the general conclusion if they entirely excluded that particular series?

 

[OregonStream]

Damn, you guys take a screed from a non-scientist, and act like it is the gospel. 2009 will rank somewhere between the 5th and 2nd warmest year on record. Nine of the warmest years on record have happened since 2000. The single exception is 1998.

1998 happened after 2000?

1998 was the single hottest year prior to 2000. So the 10 hottest years ever have all been since 1997.

I think Old Rocks is a tool, but I think you are reaching a bit here.

Or it could just be because he subscribes to the math of the sort we expect out of GW hysterics.

Again, what does a "single hottest year" have to do with assessing a climate trend? Individual years can be slightly biased, plus or minus, by things like ENSO. If I picked the coldest single year on record to prove to you a strong warming trend, would you accept it?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

"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."

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

Another chapter in the misunderstanding of planet evolution. Does anyone really know?
One side says it is,it is, the other says it isn't, it isn't and some in the same groups say who the "F" knows. And some try profiteering from the confusion.

Wow, since 2007? That definitely establishes a trend.

 

[saveliberty]

Damn, you guys take a screed from a non-scientist, and act like it is the gospel. 2009 will rank somewhere between the 5th and 2nd warmest year on record. Nine of the warmest years on record have happened since 2000. The single exception is 1998.

You are predicting a little ice age.

I will predict two years in the next five that exceed 1998.

So we will see who is correct.

Warmest because your scientists manipulated the crap out of the numbers. Your scientists prediction have been wrong. Unless that wasn't snow that fell in England. Unless we aren't experiencing one of the coldest years in some time. Unless Boston is underwater and no one told me. Unless there are no more polar bears. Unless higher CO2 levels in teh last two years have rised temps and the scientists just missed it.

 

[OregonStream]

Damn, you guys take a screed from a non-scientist, and act like it is the gospel. 2009 will rank somewhere between the 5th and 2nd warmest year on record. Nine of the warmest years on record have happened since 2000. The single exception is 1998.

You are predicting a little ice age.

I will predict two years in the next five that exceed 1998.

So we will see who is correct.

Warmest because your scientists manipulated the crap out of the numbers. Your scientists prediction have been wrong. Unless that wasn't snow that fell in England. Unless we aren't experiencing one of the coldest years in some time. Unless Boston is underwater and no one told me. Unless there are no more polar bears. Unless higher CO2 levels in teh last two years have rised temps and the scientists just missed it.

Climatologists make projections regarding longer-term trends influenced by persistent forcings like CO2, not the weather in England in January 2010, or in the United States for any particular season. Nor have they predicted that Boston should already be under water, or that polar bears should already be extinct. Get a grip.

 

[FactFinder]

The decade running up to 1998 was marked by historically high solar activity (sun spots, solar winds). Yes indeed the planet heated up as a result of it.

When I crank my woodstove up to its highest potential then I let it cool I give you fair warning not to touch the damn thing for awhile because it is still at some of it hottest temps even as it is cooling.

 

[saveliberty]

Damn, you guys take a screed from a non-scientist, and act like it is the gospel. 2009 will rank somewhere between the 5th and 2nd warmest year on record. Nine of the warmest years on record have happened since 2000. The single exception is 1998.

You are predicting a little ice age.

I will predict two years in the next five that exceed 1998.

So we will see who is correct.

Warmest because your scientists manipulated the crap out of the numbers. Your scientists prediction have been wrong. Unless that wasn't snow that fell in England. Unless we aren't experiencing one of the coldest years in some time. Unless Boston is underwater and no one told me. Unless there are no more polar bears. Unless higher CO2 levels in teh last two years have rised temps and the scientists just missed it.

Climatologists make projections regarding longer-term trends influenced by persistent forcings like CO2, not the weather in England in January 2010, or in the United States for any particular season. Nor have they predicted that Boston should already be under water, or that polar bears should already be extinct. Get a grip.

Climatologists predictions (Why do they have to predict anyways? I thought this was settled science.) are overblown on almost every try. The reason why is they are using bad data, because they manipulated it. At some point in the future, we will need accurate data to save us from some real threat and these bozos will have hurt us severely.

Polar Bears Global Warming - Effects of Global Warming

There are an estimated 20,000 Polar Bears in the wild and they depend upon the arctic weather for their livelihood. Today, there are many accounts of Polar Bear, global warming deaths attributed to drowning. The Polar Bear is doomed if something isn’t done to reverse the dangers of global warming.

Polar bears are <I>not</I> endangered!

Polar bear populations are not declining throughout their range. The total population is about 22,000 and stable. Dr. Mitchell Taylor, a biologist with the government of Nunavut, in Canada's Northwest Territory, says, "Polar bears are not going extinct" and do not even "appear to be affected." In fact, the Nunavut government continues to allow hunters to kill up to 500 polar bears a year to keep populations under control and preserve other wildlife species the bears feed on. According to Taylor, of the 13 separate polar bear populations in Canada, 11 are stable or increasing in number.

"The consequences would be catastrophic," said Jonathan Overpeck, director of the Institute for the Study of Planet Earth at the University of Arizona in Tucson. "Even with a small sea level rise, we're going to destroy whole nations and their cultures that have existed for thousands of years."

Rising Sea Levels - The Environmental eZine

Overpeck and his colleagues have used computer models to create a series of maps that show how susceptible coastal cities and island countries are to the sea rising at different levels. The maps show that a mere 1-meter (3-foot) rise would swamp cities all along the American eastern seaboard. A 6-meter (20-foot) sea level rise would submerge a large part of Florida.

They are still flying into Logan, so I'm going with Boston is still there.