Global Cooling or Global Warming, Which is it?


Is It Really Getting Colder? What Does Scientifically Undisputed Data Say? The stakes could not be higher or our collective reality any more dire. This being the case, many are willing to lie about reality for a long list of reasons. Many others are all too quick to believe the lies without any objective investigation, especially if the lies are what they want to believe.

Dane Wigington

I want to make one point clear, my goal in pointing out specific facts, charts, and details is primarily to bring attention to the subject of global geoengineering. I am not saying geoengineering is the sole source for the climate chaos and atmospheric disintegration that is now unfolding around us, there are many causal factors, but I do believe data indicates geoengineering is the single greatest climate disrupting factor of all. (Not to mention poisoning all life on earth in the process).

When “global cooling” articles and conclusions are embraced by anti-geoengineering activists and web sites, without proper investigation, these activists and web sites are then completely discredited in many circles that are all too good at “throwing the baby out with the bathwater”. The subject of geoengineering goes out the window with the “climate change denial” that can not be rationally denied at this point if one truly examines hard data. If we are ever to bring geoengineering to the light of day, we can not afford such mis steps. It is imperative that we all make an effort to pull together, and not open up new battle fronts in directions that are not supported by verifiable information.

So, is it getting colder?

Is the Arctic ice cap really growing? No, it is steadily and rapidly shrinking, the current bombardment of spun math is this, the cap is 60% larger than last year, the lowest ice cover ever recorded. 2013 will still be at best the 4th LOWEST ice “extent” area ever recorded. “Extent” refers to the surface area alone, not the “ice mass” which I will cover below. The ice “mass” is by far the most telling factor of what is truly occurring in the Arctic.

Screen Shot 2013-09-06 at 8.39.21 PM


In regard to the Arctic ice “mass”, (total volume), it is at all time record lows and still declining. The mass has declined over 80% from the historical average.

Screen Shot 2013-09-07 at 10.46.03 AM


How about the ten warmest years on record, all in the last 15 years?

What about the 362 ”all time record highs in the US during 2012, ZERO record lows, ZERO. 2012 was also the hottest year ever recorded in the US

Another thing that is extremely important to consider, it appears that all the climate data/temperature records are being radically falsified to the down side. In the areas we have investigated it seems that the “official reading” for a given day is routinely 3, 4, or even 5 degrees below what actually occurred on the ground. This is a massive data skewing factor which helps to hide the true extent of the warming. In addition, “official agencies” like NOAA,(NOAA is connected to geoengineering contractor “Raytheon”), and National Weather Service ( NWS is connected to geoengineering contractor Lockheed Martin), etc, now appear to be logging many more temperature readings from a given “cold” event as compared to “heat wave” areas of the same land mass. This skews the data to the down side even further. On top of all this, lets add the “geoengineering” factor, artificial/chemical ice nucleation, jet stream manipulation, etc, which can and does create temporary cooling anomalies from which the agencies above take an abundance of temp readings in the attempt to lower the overall temperature picture.

Hope we will all take the time to consider the entire data picture before leaping at conclusions. None of this is about “Al Gore” or his scams, but rather its about a harsh and verifiable reality. Any conclusions must consider the massive data altering and even more the global geoengineering programs and their effects.

Even with all this considered, all available peer reviewed science data makes clear the planet is not just warming but in meltdown. Global geoengineering is likely the biggest single factor fueling the fire.

There are other important factors outlined in the just posted article below from the Guardian. Of course there is no mention of the elephant in the room that is global geoengineering, and its effects on the total equation, but many other fallacies of the “global cooling” notion and those that are pushing it are clearly addressed.

Dana Nuccitelli
Monday 9 September 2013


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. This weekend’s Arctic sea ice articles from David Rose of the Mail and Hayley Dixon at the Telegraph unfortunately fit that pattern.

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. For one thing, the annual Arctic sea ice minimum occurs in September – we’re not there yet. And while this year’s minimum extent will certainly be higher than last year’s, that’s not the least bit surprising. As University of Reading climate scientist Ed Hawkins noted last year,

“Around 80% of the ~100 scientists at the Bjerknes [Arctic climate science] conference thought that there would be MORE Arctic sea-ice in 2013, compared to 2012.”

Regression toward the Mean

The reason so many climate scientists predicted more ice this year than last is quite simple. There’s a principle in statistics known as “regression toward the mean,” which is the phenomenon that if an extreme value of a variable is observed, the next measurement will generally be less extreme. In other words, we should not often expect to observe records in consecutive years. 2012 shattered the previous record low sea ice extent; hence ‘regression towards the mean’ told us that 2013 would likely have a higher minimum extent.

The amount of Arctic sea ice left at the end of the annual melt season is mainly determined by two factors – natural variability (weather patterns and ocean cycles), and human-caused global warming. The Arctic has lost 75 percent of its summer sea ice volume over the past three decades primarily due to human-caused global warming, but in any given year the weather can act to either preserve more or melt more sea ice. Last year the weather helped melt more ice, while this year the weather helped preserve more ice.

Last year I created an animated graphic called the ‘Arctic Escalator’ that predicted the behavior we’re now seeing from the Mail on Sunday and Telegraph. Every year when the weather acts to preserve more ice than the previous year, we can rely on climate contrarians to claim that Arctic sea ice is “rebounding” or “recovering” and there’s nothing to worry about. Given the likelihood that 2013 would not break the 2012 record, I anticipated that climate contrarians would claim this year as yet another “recovery” year, exactly as the Mail on Sunday and Telegraph have done.

Arctic sea ice extent data, 1980–2012. Data from NSIDC.

In short, 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.

When Will the Arctic be Ice-Free?

Both Rose and Dixon referenced a 2007 BBC article quoting Professor Wieslaw Maslowski saying that the Arctic could be ice free in the summer of 2013. In a 2011 BBC article, he predicted ice-free Arctic seas by 2016 “plus or minus three years.” Other climate scientists believe this prediction is too pessimistic, and expect the first ice-free Arctic summers by 2040.

It’s certainly difficult to predict exactly when an ice-free Arctic summer will occur. While climate research has shown that the Arctic sea ice decline is mostly human-caused, there may also be a natural component involved. The remaining sea ice may abruptly vanish, or it may hold on for a few decades longer. What we do know is that given its rapid decline, an ice-free Arctic appears to be not a question of if, but when.

Continuing Global Warming

Both articles also claimed that “some scientists” are predicting that we’re headed into a period of global cooling. Both named just one scientist making this claim – Professor Tsonis of the University of Wisconsin, whose research shows that slowed global surface warming is only temporary. In fact, Tsonis’ co-author Kyle Swanson wrote,

“What do our results have to do with Global Warming, i.e., the century-scale response to greenhouse gas emissions? VERY LITTLE, contrary to claims that others have made on our behalf.”

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, as I illustrated in my other animated ‘Escalator’ graphic.

Average of NASA GISS, NOAA NCDC, and HadCRUT4 monthly global surface temperature anomalies from January 1970 through November 2012 (green) with linear trends applied to the timeframes Jan ’70 – Oct ’77, Apr ’77 – Dec ’86, Sep ’87 – Nov ’96, Jun ’97 – Dec ’02, and Nov ’02 – Nov ’12.

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.

Global heat accumulation data (ocean heating in blue; land, atmosphere, and ice heating in red) from Nuccitelli et al. (2012).

Recent research strongly suggests that the main difference between these two periods comes down to ocean heat absorption. Over the past decade, heat has been transferred more efficiently to the deep oceans, offsetting much of the human-caused warming at the surface. During the previous few decades, the opposite was true, with heat being transferred less efficiently into the oceans, causing more rapid warming at the surface. This is due to ocean cycles, but cycles are cyclical – meaning it’s only a matter of time before another warm cycle occurs, causing accelerating surface warming (as Tsonis’ research shows).

It would be foolhardy for anyone to predict future global cooling, and those few who are so foolish are unwilling to put their money where their mouth is, as my colleague John Abraham found out when challenging one to a bet, only to find the other party unwilling to stand behind it.

Rose and Dixon Invent an IPCC ‘Crisis Meeting’

Both articles also claimed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), whose Fifth Assessment Report is due out in a few weeks, has been forced “to hold a crisis meeting.” This claim made both articles even though Ed Hawkins noted,

“I told David Rose on the phone and by email on Thursday about the IPCC process and lack of ‘crisis’ meeting.”

Unfortunately that didn’t stop Rose from inventing this meeting, or Dixon from repeating Rose’s fictional reporting in the Telegraph.

Yes, Humans are Driving Global Warming

Finally, both articles quoted climate scientist Judith Curry claiming that the anticipated IPCC statement of 95 percent confidence that humans are the main cause of the current global warming is unjustified. However, Curry has no expertise in global warming attribution, and has a reputation for exaggerating climate uncertainties. In reality, the confident IPCC statement is based on recent global warming attribution research. More on this once the IPCC report is actually published – any current commentaries on the draft report are premature.

Shoddy Climate Reporting

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.

Based on their history of shoddy reporting, the safest course of action when reading a climate article in the Mail on Sunday or Telegraph is to assume they’re misrepresentations or falsehoods until you can verify the facts therein for yourself.

If you have any questions about this email, please contact the user help desk: Copyright (c) Guardian News and Media Limited. 2013 Registered in England and Wales No. 908396 Registered office: PO Box 68164, Kings Place, 90 York Way, London N1P 2AP



Get every new post delivered to your Inbox

Join other followers