Just saw this link on Drudge. I don't recognize David Rose or the British paper, the Mail Online, but it sounds like they are naming sources and backing up thier positions.
DAVID ROSE: The mini ice age starts here | Mail Online
Eddie
Hi Eddie:
I actually read the link you supplied, and there is some valid science there towards the end (I'll point it out later)...the problem is that the article David Rose wrote is riddled with errors. This should be a major red flag for anyone looking for unbiased data.
The problems I saw?
1. The claim that Arctic sea ice is INCREASING.
"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."
This is extremely misleading.
To see the raw, unedited data, and decide for yourself, I suggest anyone interested educate themselves at the National Snow and Ice Data Centre, (yes, the same source quoted in the article) and look for yourself:
Important point: be sure and distinguish between ice AREA, and ice VOLUME.
National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC)
For other good discussions on how the deniers spin this topic, as well as time lapse remote sensing images, check this out:
YouTube - 2009 Sea Ice Update
2. The continuation of the myth that climate scientists were screaming about the next ice age in the 1970's.
"He recalled that towards the end of the last cold mode, the world media were preoccupied by fears of freezing.
For example, in 1974, a Time magazine cover story predicted another Ice Age? saying: 'Man may be somewhat responsible as a result of farming and fuel burning [which is] blocking more and more sunlight from reaching and heating the Earth."
This is one of the most perpetuated myths out there:
YouTube - Climate Deniers Love the 70s! -- The Remix
3. The only part of the article that doesn't rehash falsehoods and is actually interesting quotes a Prof. Anastasios Tsonis, head of the University of Wisconsin Atmospheric Sciences Group.
Dr. Tsonis has an interesting theory to explain some of the short term cooling observed that has to do with ocean currents and multi-decadal oscillations or MDO's.
The problem is that the good Professor is inundated by nut jobs from both the pro and con climate change factions. He says in your article:
"Prof Tsonis said that when he published his work in the highly respected journal Geophysical Research Letters, he was deluged with hate emails.
He added: people were accusing me of wanting to destroy the climate, yet all I am interested in is the truth.
He said he also received hate mail from climate change sceptics, accusing him of not going far enough to attack the theory of man-made warming."
This exactly illustrates how politicized this branch of science has become.
The article then goes on to take Prof. Tsonis's theory and twist it to somehow make him look like he is saying that there is no man-influenced warming.
I am familiar with Prof. Tsonis, and I know that in the past he has said the exact opposite. From a former interview:
"I recently invited Professor Anastasios Tsonis, of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, to participate in an email interview regarding a research paper written by Tsonis and Professor Kyle Swanson titled "Has the climate recently shifted?". The peer-reviewed paper is said to conclude that global warming due to anthropogenic causes is on hold.
Here is the interview in its entirety:
Carbon Purging (CP): What is your background, and what typical activities do you do in your background?
Anastasios Tsonis (AT): I am a professor of Atmospheric sciences at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. I teach and do research related to climate dynamics and variability.
CP: What prompted the researching of this paper?
AT: Our interest in understanding the natural variability of climate.
CP: Was this paper peer-reviewed?
AT: Yes.
CP: If so, who were the reviewers, and did they come to the same conclusions as you did for your research paper?
AT: The reviewers were anonymous. Their comments were supportive of our conclusions.
CP: Would a break in the mean global temperature trend suggest that anthropogenic sources are or are not the main cause of average warming global temperatures from 1880 onward?
AT: If the overall warming is due to anthropogenic sources (and not some unknown very low-frequency feature of our climate system), then a break will indicate that at this point the natural variability signal is stronger than the anthropogenic signal.
CP: Do you agree that average global temperatures have continued to increase since 2001?
AT: No. In fact it appears that the (average) global temperature has at least leveled off if not decreasing.
CP: Do the conclusions of this paper support the existence of anthropogenic global warming?
AT: The research was not designed to address this issue, however the conclusions do not rule out that natural variability may "ride" on the top of some anthropogenic or other low-frequency signal. In fact we state this in our conclusions.
CP: Would you be more inclined to say that average global temperatures are cooling, that average global temperatures are trending no change, or that average global temperatures are warming?
AT: Right now we would say that the rapid warming in the 80s and 90s has stopped and we are entering a cooler regime.
CP: In layman's terms, how did you form your conclusions?
AT: The conclusions are the results of a rigorous mathematical analysis of observed and modeled data.
CP: In layman's terms, what modeling or testing did you do to research this paper?
AT: This is too complicated to explain here.
CP: In your expert opinion, would you agree that the release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere via anthropogenic sources contributes to the increase in average global temperature?
AT: Yes.
CP: Would you allow part of, or all of, this email interview to be excerpted at my blog?
AT: We would prefer the whole thing as we wrote it.
CP: Would you consider a follow-up interview should I have additional questions?
AT: Sure."
