And now it's global COOLING! Return of Arctic ice cap as it grows by 29% in a year.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415191/And-global-COOLING-Return-Arctic-ice-cap-grows-29-year.html

Oh noes it's teh ice age!!!!!!11

The question is, how long will that ice stick around? The general trend is for all the old ice to melt, and leave short lived temporary stuff that'll melt right away. Also its winter. And the weather has been more volatile as of late. We'll see how the ice sheet does in the summer.

[citation needed]

Global warming will be followed with an ice age.

It's the Daily Fail. Anything they write on climate change can be safely disregarded as one of "misinterpreted", "misrepresented" or "just plain made up".

As usual, Peter Hadfield has an excellent debunking of this:

Inserting a large amount of gas in an atmosphere may result in global cooling or warming or cooling and warming in different areas. As everyone knows, gases are chaotic, in the sense that a few particles can affect the outcome at almost 100%. We cannot model the interactions between their particles 100% due to the lack of processing power, so we have no idea if the introduction of gases in the atmosphere will result in global cooling, global warming, or both.

And the sciencey-sounding bullshit award goes to...

Global warming, an increase in the average temperature globally.

To increase an average, all values need not grow, neither is an increase impossible if some of the values decrease.

Inserting a large amount of bugs in an application may result in global increase of errors or decrease or increase and decrease in different areas. As everyone knows, bugs are chaotic, in the sense that a few mistakes can affect the outcome at almost 100%. We cannot model the interactions between their consequences 100% due to the lack of processing power, so we have no idea if the introduction of bugs in the application will result in global increase of errors, global decrease, or both.

Southern USA gets 2 inches of snow and all mayhem breaks loose.

I get that they don't have many plows, etc, but ... getting stranded on highways for the entire day?

The ice age is here. And I blame Canada.

When I get cold I put the heating on. Sometimes it's too hot so I turn the heating off. Sometimes I wake up and it's cold, so I put the heating on, but then when I get out of the shower I'm too hot, so I turn it off again.

This is why I have a digital programmable thermostat. I have it set to keep it around 19c during the day, and a bit cooler at night.

It's never been about warmth, it's been about climate change.

{"name":"giss2.jpg","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/d\/9\/d9497915b06185547ed87097da107174.jpg","w":1024,"h":667,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/d\/9\/d9497915b06185547ed87097da107174"}

Note the trend line, that's the important part.

Anybody can create a graph.

Cold    | X
        |
Colder  |        X
        |
Coldest |               X
--------+---------------------
         Sat    Sun    Mon

This has been the trend here. Ice age.

I call BS on the global part, we had like 3 heat weaves so far this summer... the worst one we experienced 50 ºC (~122 ºF).

Ignore that cold outside folks, you can trust us when we tell you that things are getting warmer, after all, we have a graph, when you're through shivering, you may want to check it out!

LMAO...

That's true only if your application is chaotic, like the weather.

Half a degree Celsius increase in the last 35 years, according to the graph posted by Katko up there. If you think you'd have such an excellent sensory perception and memory not clouded by bias (eg: remembering more the day at the beach or on the mountains), you probably aren't human. The difference in temperature between two average neighboring days (in one place) is more than half a degree generally. This is why people who follow data laugh at people who change their opinions with the weather.

Do you think the data is forged? Why not visit a temperature station or 50? If there is really such a convoluted multi-decade worldwide plot to, uh, plant some windmills or something then I'll join you in the depths of the mines on the moon wishing I'd also worn a tin-foil hat.

I feel 35 years is still too small a sample. Perhaps if we looked at the last 200 years we would see a bit of a sine wave that has a positive slope every 100 years and negative every other 100 years.

{"name":"NH_Temp_Reconstruction.gif","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/3\/8\/38eb3f87b9e8edcd056fca72a314e443.gif","w":500,"h":257,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/3\/8\/38eb3f87b9e8edcd056fca72a314e443"}
(Mann, 2008)

{"name":"cold.png","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/a\/c\/ac42b35eaa0a381fe6fb1502c8e0f0ee.png","w":537,"h":543,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/a\/c\/ac42b35eaa0a381fe6fb1502c8e0f0ee"}
(xkcd: Cold)

Global warming is as real as global ignorance.

Pure fucking bullshit!

In 2012 there was what was referred to as a mini-iceage in Europe it got so cold. Even some deserts got snow that year.

Last year, 2013, the snow where I live lasted longer than I remember us ever having, well into spring and our summer was proably the coolest I remember.

This year we have broken records where I live for cold temperatures so no... they HAVEN'T ALWAYS HAPPENED IN THE PAST!!! That is pure bullshit! It has NEVER been -25C here for several days in a row (two weeks of this now, only today getting closer to seasonal which is normally around -5C!).

Global warming is a HOAX, and man made global warming is especially false.

.

Don't look at this so narrowly. You have to have data over a long period of time to see if we have global warming or not.

I'm pretty sure he's trolling at this point.

Even so, I'm still looking forward to the next video response...

He's not trolling. He's just ignorant. Trolling specifically refers to somebody that knows what they're saying is bullshit, but says it specifically to upset you. There are always people that care about the truth and strive to uncover it whatever it is, and people that prefer to side with what gives them comfort. He just falls into the second category based on past experiences with him (i.e., religion comes to mind).

While having a discussion with somebody that is ignorant and closed-minded is annoying, it's equally annoying to have a conversation with somebody that accuses you of trolling just because you don't agree with them. That is ignorant in itself.

Global warming is a farce.

Matthew never trolls^[1].

About that hockey stick graph...
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/27/quote-of-the-week-20-ding-dong-the-stick-is-dead/

Depending on what data you cherry pick, it's easy to misrepresent extreme temperature rises.

Perhaps you are correct, but in that case, you can't say we are having it without the long term data. In the 80s and 90s they were talking about global cooling, this is a very recent idea.

Also, if you did have data indicating warming, then you have to figure out where it is coming from. There is no evidence at all CO2 causes warming, actually, the evidence points to warming causes an increase in CO2, the opposite. Did you know in 2012 there was a news report that scientists thought any warming trends we had were caused 80% by increased solar activity? We have had much more solar activity lately, but I don't see the warming at all, quite the opposite.

In any event, if you are correct and we need longer term data, and we haven't had that, than they still shouldn't be saying we have global warming (or cooling for that matter) without it. And even then, we would need much more study to determine the cause, which seems to be solar if there is any warming at all.

Who is "they"? Actual Scientists have been talking about an average rise in temperature since the 70s or even before that.

Where did you get this information? Last I heard, there IS evidence. But you are right on the second point. Warming causes more C02 to be released (in some cases), and more C02 causes warming. Its a really nice run-away process. One reason why the balance is so delicate.

As a general rule: whenever you read that "scientists" are saying something, remember that no matter how fringe a hypothesis is, you can always find someone endorsing it. What you should do is check what the scientific consensus is. And here, the scientific consensus is pretty darned clear:
{"name":"3Mo5fEv.jpg","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/4\/3\/437c34a72fe40fcfe1c512b6bbd19be7.jpg","w":1222,"h":1222,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/4\/3\/437c34a72fe40fcfe1c512b6bbd19be7"}
{"name":"a0gL6Rc.png","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/5\/a\/5aaa70cd081d3f0ede92e4e529e69eb0.png","w":1391,"h":940,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/5\/a\/5aaa70cd081d3f0ede92e4e529e69eb0"}

Ah, WUWT. The NaturalNews of climate change.

http://skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm

Nope.

Seriously? Carbon dioxide's role in warming the planet has been known since Arrhenius in the late 1800s, and you can test the basic principle at home.

^{[citation needed]}

Dead wrong.

That AGW consensus may not be as overwhelming as you think:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/

That article reads like they hand picked the group of people to talk to. Looking for a specific sub set of people that have sciency sounding job titles that may possibly be skeptical.

The article also referred to a study where a majority of American meteorologists reject AGW. It isn't surprising to me that climate scientists usually argue in favor of the existence of AGW, that's a particular special interest of theirs.

Most scientists are about science. No matter where it leads. There are some people that have an agenda, but I argue they aren't scientists if they let something get in the way of evidence and truth.

Anyone at this point who is going against the grain of peer consensus needs clear and convincing evidence to show that everyone else is wrong. It is up to them to prove their point. So far, that hasn't happened. The most you get is dodgy papers with flawed reasoning that eventually get yanked from the journal they were published in due to improper data handling or clearly skewed hypothesis. Sometimes those papers are even published in journals created specifically for that paper... Talk about sketchy.

Actually, ANY scientist that wants to show ANYTHING needs clear and convincing evidence. It doesn't matter what you're trying to show. Anything less than that is not proof of anything. If the science is sound, it might show a hint in a new direction.

You really lose credibility with "American" these days (there's a whole WORLD outside of the USA, and Americans tend to be stupid, lazy, and greedy, by stereotype), but you're also siding with the people that practice existing knowledge instead of expanding knowledge. You're trusting a group of people that doesn't have that knowledge.

And isn't that particularly sad? Just because say for example, half of Americans don't believe in evolution, doesn't mean the other half are stupid warmongerers. The USA still has a majority of science development--so it's sad to lop them in with the vocal idiots. When I was in academia, it was a completely different world from the Fox News zealots. Every STEM Ph.D. I talked to thought nuclear energy was the obvious choice and everyone who didn't believe it doesn't understand numbers.

I like nuclear energy. The main problem is stupid operators. The power plants need to be made idiot proof. Most of the modern designs are very close to idiot proof though. It's harsh that it takes like 20 years to build one.

Even if they aren't idiot proof, I think the number of accidents happening at nuclear powered reactors is insignificant compared to how much shit coal powered plants cause.

It's like this thread. gnolam wins it by a long stretch, but you can still argue. People don't care about numbers and facts, they just care about arguing.

Numbers don't lie to people. People lie to people.

Global Cooling articles...
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/01/global-cooling-compilation/

Scroll down a bit and check out the lengthy list of news articles from 1970 to 1979. It's quite extensive.

From 1978, "In Search of The Coming Ice Age"...

I'm sure they all have proper citations and references to peer reviewed papers that haven't since been yanked?

I hope global warming kills us all so we don't have to talk about global warming anymore.

I've been confused about this for a while, can someone clear a question up for me?

Why is it that any discussion on climate change always ends up debating whether it is caused by man or not? , I sort of look at that logic as like saying "if you got lung cancer naturally instead of through smoking then it's not really an issue worth worrying about"... isn't it irrelevant?

Is it suggesting that if we aren't totally to blame for the inevitable consequences of climate change then there is no need for us to change our behaviour to prevent it or even just lessen the severity ?

Governments, individuals, documentary makers and seemingly anyone whoever discusses climate just end up in circles debating blame ... flip a coin ... heads: not mans fault ... ok, now it is an inevitable looming natural disaster that threatens millions of people's lives, what next?

Well if it occurs entirely naturally and humans aren't responsible for it then there is an argument to "let nature take its course". Albeit, certainly, it makes sense that if it threatens our own lives, and we know about it, and are able to influence it one way or another, it's fair to do what we must to survive.

In any case, knowing that it was us that caused it shows that by changing our behavior we most certainly can influence it in major ways. We may be too late to stop it, but we can at least slow it down or maybe lessen the severity. At least we can try.

The truth is that we don't need everything that we have today anyway. In fact, I have a sneaking suspicion that having everything that we have makes our lives less fulfilling, and that having to work a little harder would actually make our lives more meaningful.

Many of the things that we have are great and we shouldn't get rid of them. For example, the Internet, and a global network of information sharing. However, other things, like SUVs that never leave the paved roads, and people becoming addicted to automated messages generated by the Facebook engine on behalf of people that they vaguely knew 10 years ago constantly bombarding their mobile phones that they don't make calls on ever... No, no, no, we can let these things go.

I digress.

If the cause isn't due to things humans are doing with regards to CO2, then changing how much CO2 we emit isn't going to have any effect.

The argument isn't "if it's natural, then we should let it kill us."

Mine is. Minus the nature part.

I used to believe in evolution too, but I'm hoping a God exists that'll kill everyone so I don't have to keep participating in the same debate over and over.

You can't just not participate?

Clearly, you over-estimate my abilities.

You guys need to cool down.

It's perverse, cause disccussions get hotter and thus climate does as well.

First off: WUWT again. They take Christopher Monckton seriously, for chrissakes. Quoting them on climate change is like quoting NaturalNews in a discussion about medicine.
Second: I've already refuted that one. Watch the video.

Mostly, it's been a "moving the goalposts" tactic. It started out as a flat denial that the Earth is warming. When that became untenable, it switched to "Ok, so the Earth is warming, but it totally isn't our fault, so we can't do anything about it". The step after that is "Ok, the Earth is warming, it's our fault, but it's too expensive to do anything about it".

I don't see that the "it's our fault" step has been accepted as proven yet except in a specific area of science and other areas of science don't seem to corroborate its findings. So bankrupting the global economy to make changes that have no effect to the problem is really a waste of resources.

{"name":"3Mo5fEv.jpg","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/4\/3\/437c34a72fe40fcfe1c512b6bbd19be7.jpg","w":1222,"h":1222,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/4\/3\/437c34a72fe40fcfe1c512b6bbd19be7"}
{"name":"a0gL6Rc.png","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/5\/a\/5aaa70cd081d3f0ede92e4e529e69eb0.png","w":1391,"h":940,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/5\/a\/5aaa70cd081d3f0ede92e4e529e69eb0"}

^{[citation needed]}

For information about arctic sea ice, I like this site. It has easy to read graphs created from accurate and up-to-date data, without any kind of speculation or loaded explanation.

Anyway, based on the current graphs, there's a bit more sea ice this year than last year, but it's still well below the long-term average. I wouldn't call that 'global cooling'.

I know there's some cold stuff going on in the north, but in Australia, 2013 was our hottest year on record; and the start of 2014 has been very hot so far as well. So I certainly wouldn't be betting on global cooling.

The short term weather has also been a lot more volatile as best I can tell. Lots of big storms. And here, we've had it go from -50c up to +10c in a matter of a few weeks. With the temperature changing 10c in a given day.

gnolam, my understanding is those charts represent the consensus of AGW among climate scientists specifically and not all scientists. If you can prove otherwise, then by all means do so.

Asking a cosmologist about global warming is only slightly better than asking any one of us it's not their area of expertise.

If global warming was a certainty, there should be plenty of evidence that other sciences can regularly validate. It's hard to take either side completely seriously when the data has to be doctored to "correct" it.

Are you aware of how complex the climate is? And most of the other sciences? Most scientists don't actually know much of anything about fields other than their own. You have to specialize to an insane degree to get anything done.

There are people who study just worm dna, and stuff like that.

I think it almost deserves being siged.
I did add it to my note of favorite quotes though.

Thanks guys, I didn't consider that most people would believe that the root of climate change was either 100% caused by nature or 100% caused by man. It makes sense how people argue about it now.

Too many people allow their opinions to be shaped by extremist groups. It's retarded to think that something is only black, or only white.

I'd just like to point out that the current ice age is not over.

Anyway, it doesn't even matter what we blame it on. Even if it were shown beyond a shadow of a doubt that humans were the cause it would still continue because money.

Putting aside the precise causes of climate change, I think it's fair to say that the global climate is changing, and that the change involves generally warmer temperatures, longer draughts, bigger storms, higher sea-levels.

I think it's also fair to say that human activity contributes to this change. Maybe you think human activity accounts for 90% of the change, or maybe it's only 0.1% of the change. An important fact is that human activity is something we as humans can change, whereas other climate factors such as the earth's orbit and the energy output of the sun are not things we cannot change.

One way of looking at it is that human activity makes up 100% of the difference between the climate we have, and the climate we would have had in a world without any human activity. That's just a matter of definitions.

In any case, I think it's a good idea to try to calculate what effect human activity does have, and that's exactly what many climatologists are doing. There's not much point listening to guesses and speculation from business leaders and politicians. They only know what they've been told by experts, or what they've worked out from their high-school education and their intuition. Contributions from non-experts like that cannot be relied on as the basis for important decisions.

Here is yet another example of an expert suggesting that human-induced climate change is probably going to be a major problem for us in the future.

I agree with your points. It seems self-evident that we are causing an unsustainable impact on our environment, climate change and otherwise.

Humans are an expensive fruit for the planet to bear, I guess.

I do think we will develop new technologies to help combat this issue, but I also think it will need economic pressures to reverse the trend.

The bottom line is money, and I think economic incentives are the primary opposition to climate change. People love to spend energy and pay all kinds of money for it.

It really is kind of weird for a guy that is so invested in technology to cringe at the mention, but I do. I don't think that technology is going to be a quick fix. We certainly should invest in it, but I think that if we put all of our eggs in that basket then it's going to break.

"Money" is what got us into this mess. Money is a virtual thing so we need to keep that in mind. We don't need "incentives". That just sounds like padding executive officers' already inflated bonuses. I think that what we really need is governments to tax the fuels that are harming the environment, and to crack down on the corporations (and individuals!) that are getting rich from the environmental harm.

The problem is that the layman sees it as "gas prices are too high!" and the like. And frankly, we need leaders that are willing to overlook those FWP pleas and do what is needed to make actual change. We don't need to do a lot of the things that we do do. And yes, they are nice to haves, but we're at a point where we're concerned about our great grandchildren even being able to sustain themselves. Does it really matter if we have the luxuries that we do today?

Now, if by "incentives" you mean that renewable energies are given breaks, great, but ultimately the technology really isn't there yet to let those compete with the harmful fuels of our past century. And that's what people know. That is where the real power of money comes in. Start making those fuels in all forms, from the gasoline at the pump to the electricity flowing through the grid from the coal power plant too expensive to waste and people will be forced to conserve it. Of course, you run into competition issues with other nations. We need cooperation worldwide, but at the same time we really can't expect the developing nations to cooperate because they won't be suffering FWPs (even if in part it is their own fault). It's a political nightmare. Not to mention, you firstly need a transparent government so that you can be sure that the resources that are acquired are distributed intelligently instead of making public officials another form of over-paid executive officer.

I don't know. It's a complicated problem, and I don't have all of the answers, but I certainly don't trust our current politics, or economies, to solve it. We need to invest in smart people, and deter waste.

My argument is not that it should be that way, or that we need it, or that I think banksters should be allowed to live and breathe among the rest of us. That's just how it is right now. He who controls the spice....

Economic incentives can vary. Things like green bonds are one item, or there was something about captain trade that I remember being a hot topic?

Money might be virtual, but humans still get pretty damn excited about it. How virtual is that?

Today I watched two documentaries that I found very alarming. The first was about the inhumane treatment of orca whales (killer whales) by popular theme parts like Sea World and Sea Land. The second was (is since I'm not quite finished it, but plenty enraged) about the shortage of water in the Southern USA (e.g., California) where they begin to contemplate global warming as well as their greedy consumption of too much water for the Earth to give them. Then they dry up and start begging for water to be piped across the country to save them. My general reaction to it all is kill them all with fire. To be fair, most of the civilians are just idiots that don't know any better. Anybody making a profit should be slain, and their offspring and possibly cousins should be slain to set an example that greedy affairs are not profitable. Basically I have an extremely low opinion of humanity right now. I'm starting to think that the "terrorists" really are the good guys in all of this, but America is just an extreme example. We all need to pay attention to our wastefulness (and if you're going to waste resources waste them on exterminating the most wasteful population on the planet).

Blame many and trust few?

Hang 'em all and they will multiply.

"Hate begets hate".

We are individuals. Compassion is the answer.

That's why you burn them with fire.

That doesn't sound very compassionate to me

There are plenty of rich people in California, they should put some money into desalinating ocean water if they need more fresh water. I mean, come on. The Atlantic is right there.

According to the film that I watched desalinating ocean water is the most expensive way to get fresh water. It is done, but it's not a very practical solution for the world's problem (the problem isn't limited to California or even the USA... It's a global dilemma). There may be lots of rich people in California, but they didn't get that way by throwing their money away. There are more cost effective ways to attain fresh water. So unless you plan to force them to buy everybody water, you and who's army... There is no easy money solution. We just need people to be less wasteful. Taxing excessive resource consumption is probably the only way to do that.

Speaking of water, the US is already trying to demand water rights from canada. Trying to boss us around and stuff. Its like fuck you! You wouldn't listen to us if the roles were reversed, why in the hell should we listen to you?

I hate my government.

I've been to California, wonderful state.

BUT.. i don't understand how they can talk about "shortage of water" while in the meantime maintaining this:
{"name":"Palmsprings.jpg","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/5\/0\/50f790245a311a05727225e74e8ac731.jpg","w":2692,"h":1473,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/5\/0\/50f790245a311a05727225e74e8ac731"}

(Palm Spring, which is located inside a desert ... )