Talk:Global cooling

Current cooling cycle headlines, FYI.

Headine-1: ‘’’ Deep Freeze Recap: Coldest Temperatures of the Century for Some’’’

• http://www.weather.com/news/weather-winter/coldest-arctic-outbreak-1990s-midwest-south-east-20140103

QUOTE: “ Now that the January 2014 deep freeze is abating, it's time to take stock of its place in history. The core of the cold came Monday, Jan. 6, and Tuesday, Jan. 7. Subzero temperatures affected a large swath from Montana to New York and as far south as northern Oklahoma and northern Alabama.” [We have all seen additional articles.] — FYI, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:52, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

This has zero relevance. — TPX 00:05, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Local cold spell. We had 18℃ today (and over 10℃ for most of February), and Australia had a massive heat wave in January[1][2]. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:09, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

'Typical Wiki-Hypocrisy' Not relevant, you say. Then where is your contribution to the Hurricane Sandy item, which prominently blames global warming for EVERY weather event? Moynihanian (talk) 19:04, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Headine-2: ‘’'3 Incredible Photos Illustrate Just How Cold It Is at Lake Superior’’’

• http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/03/08/3-incredible-photos-illustrate-just-how-cold-it-is-at-lake-superior/

QUOTE: “Several stunning images captured by a Minnesota photographer illustrate just how cold it is at Lake Superior.” [Is this relevant to "Global Cooling"?] — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:11, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

As pointed out above, no, individual local weather events are not generally relevant to global climate change, wether warming or cooling. They might be if there is a statistical significant clustering of such events and a plausible mechanism, as pointed out by a reliable source.--Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:37, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Point of misinformation

House of Commons - Communicating climate science - Science and Technology Committee item 52: "The Mail considers climate science to be a political issue and is of the view "that not every piece of science by every scientist should be reported as fact".[106] This ambiguous view of science may explain the claim in the Mail's submissions that scientists were predicting an ice age 20 years ago. An examination of the scientific knowledge at the time shows that this was clearly not the case, although it was widely and inaccurately reported as such in the media at that time.[107]" Also amusing, The Telegraph told us "we report information, and rely on our commentators to interpret it." . . Did someone say Delingpole? H/T John Timmer. . . dave souza, talk 20:43, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Reid Bryson

How can you have an article on the subject of anthropogenic cooling that doesn't even mention Reid Bryson? 71.178.145.140 (talk) 04:14, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Probably because there isn't much around about what he said. What significant things do you think he published? William M. Connolley (talk) 11:19, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Peter Gwynne

We quote extensively from a 1975 Newsweek article by Peter Gwynne, he's commented on it recently. . 20:24, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I've seen it. He still seems to be in denial about how rubbish his original was. I don't think there's anything useful in it William M. Connolley (talk) 17:31, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Orbital Forcing

Under the orbital forcing section, the last sentence states, "Secondly,future orbital variations will not closely resemble those of the past". WHY? Is this just some sort of opinion we are supposed to take for granted? This is unsubstantiated statement that doesn't belong here without further reference or scientific substantiation.70.196.204.36 (talk) 16:10, 23 May 2015 (UTC)STEVE

Needs total rewrite

The topic of "global cooling" is an extremely complicated one that in this article's case has been reduced to some idiotic political argument about past near term climate predictions. The earth warms and cools. There are ice ages and there are warming periods. An article about global cooling should be about how cooling periods have occurred. The article as it stands should be a minor sidenote about people making short term climate predictions with regard to cooling or warming and how they turned out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.135.183 (talk) 08:38, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

You're looking for climate change William M. Connolley (talk) 10:51, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Does the Climate change article not cover this? The Global warming article is a sister article to this, and it also focuses on near term climate predictions, rather than an analysis of the historical processes. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 11:16, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Little

The argument over the word little is a little silly. My rewording avoids the need to use any quantitative adjectives and is equally correct. The only reason to insist on including little is personal bias.