Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

@parados,

Quote:

The world is still here but civilizations have come and gone.

Then you might want to be concerned about what your zealous enthusiasm to interfere in global markets to prevent a non-existant global warming might have on global civilisation. There are people running countries who I wouldnt trust to run a corner store.

0 Replies

Quote:

Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT’s peer reviewed work states “we now know that the effect of CO2 on temperature is small, we know why it is small, and we know that it is having very little effect on the climate.”

Quote:

The global surface temperature record, which we update and publish
every month, has shown no statistically-significant “global warming”
for almost 15 years. Statistically-significant global cooling has now
persisted for very nearly eight years. Even a strong el Nino – expected
in the coming months – will be unlikely to reverse the cooling trend.

More significantly, the ARGO bathythermographs deployed
throughout the world’s oceans since 2003 show that the top 400
fathoms of the oceans, where it is agreed between all parties that at
least 80% of all heat caused by manmade “global warming” must
accumulate, have been cooling over the past six years. That now prolonged
ocean cooling is fatal to the “official” theory that “global
warming” will happen on anything other than a minute scale.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/co2_report_july_09.pdf

2 Replies

@Deckland,

Meanwhile in reality (which doesn't appear to be Lord Monckton's long suit.)

The data from the Argo bathytermographs to 2000 meters.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/ocean-heat-2000m.gif

http://climateprogress.org/2009/10/10/skeptical-science-global-warming-not-cooling-is-still-happening-ocean-heat-content/

And then we can read this response to the third viscount.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/05/moncktons-deliberate-manipulation/

Quote:

These show clearly that 2002-2009 is way too short a period for the trends to be meaningful and that Monckton’s estimate of what the IPCC projects for the current period is woefully wrong. Not just wrong, fake.

Why rely on reality when you can just fake it, eh Deck?

2 Replies

@Deckland,

Deckland wrote:

Quote:
Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT’s peer reviewed work states “we now know that the effect of CO2 on temperature is small, we know why it is small, and we know that it is having very little effect on the climate.”

I would have to dig it up from a long time ago on this forum, but I recall that a simple mathematical calculation of the heat being absorbed by the earth's atmosphere from the sun, over the last approximate hundred years, would account for roughly 0.3 degrees Centigrade of any perceived or measured warming over that period of time. This was calculated from the level of solar activity as measured. So, considering the fact that our climate or temperature monitoring stations, worldwide, have been shown to be quite inaccurate, to the point that the total amount of warming as measured around the world is not at all well established, and might not be much greater than that, it seems to me that any computer modeling program could be and is very probably very questionable at best, in terms of determining the amount of warming from manmade greenhouse gases. In fact, there are so many variables that have either been poorly measured and / or guesstimated in terms of their effects, that this entire global warming issue appears to me to be a complete and utter fiasco from the start.

0 Replies

@parados,

So enlighten us as to what really is a correct period for world temperature change.

No ? Dont know ? Doesnt that make it difficult to criticse anyone else's period for change ?

0 Replies

@parados,

Argos Buoy's record no "Global Warming"
The new buoys, known as Argos, drift along the oceans at a depth of about 6,000 feet constantly monitoring the temperature, salinity and speed of ocean currents. Every 10 days or so a bladder inflates, bringing to the surface readings taken at various depths. Once on the surface, they transmit their readings to satellites that retransmit them to land-based computers. The Argos buoys have disappointed the global warm-mongers in that they have failed to detect any signs of imminent climate change. As Dr. Josh Willis, who works for NASA in its Jet Propulsion Laboratory, noted in an interview with National Public Radio, “there has been a very slight cooling” over the buoys’ five years of observation, but that drop was “not anything really significant.” Certainly not enough to shut down the Gulf Stream.

Climate-change promoters also are perplexed by the observations of NASA’s eight weather satellites. In contrast to some 7,000 land-based stations, they take more than 300,000 temperature readings daily over the surface of the Earth. In 30 years of operation, the satellites have recorded a warming trend of just 0.14C - well within the range of normal variations. If the Argos buoys and satellites had confirmed the greenie computer models and Gore hype instead of natural temperature variations, it would have been big news. The silence speaks volumes.

0 Replies

If you're going to attempt to report on research, deckhand, do try to keep up to date, rather than just parroting denialist blog posts, because they tend to be outdated, misinterpreted crap. Systematic errors in the Argo data readings were found after those 2006 statements by Willis, and the corrected figures in fact show ocean warming.
http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/global_change_analysis.html#temp

http://www-argo.ucsd.edu/levitus_2009_figure.jpg

1 Reply

And, deckhand, your suggestion that satellites show a tropospheric warming trend of 0.14 degrees C is equally bogus. In fact, the usual reporting statistic is change PER DECADE, and not one figure. And your one figure is wrong. From Wikipedia article on "Satellite temperature measurenents", which summarizes the research:

Quote:

To compare to the trend from the surface temperature record (approximately +0.07 °C/decade over the past century and +0.17 °C/decade since 1979) it is most appropriate to derive trends for the part of the atmosphere nearest the surface, i.e., the lower troposphere. Doing this, through July 2010:

RSS v3.2 finds a trend of +0.162 °C/decade.[3]
UAH v5.3 finds a trend of +0.138°C/decade.[4]

An alternative adjustment introduced by Fu et al. (2004)[5] finds trends (1979-2001) of +0.19 °C/decade when applied to the RSS data set[6].

Which of course,considering we're talking multiple decades here, puts the tropospheric rise well in line with climate change models.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

Quote:

the corrected figures

Does the GW side have any figures not needing correction to show GW ?

0 Replies

ionus, yes. Would you like a few? Start with more than doubling of the melt rate of Greenland glaciers. Satellite measurement of record low, and decreasing, Arctic circle ice cap extent, and unprecedented loss of dense multi-year ice which is more resistant to melting (about a 75% decrease). Virtually worldewide bleaching of temperature-sensitive coral reefs (not all coral is temp-sensitive, but the species that are, are bleaching). USDA (they serve agriculture, not climate change) movement of climate zones one zone north due to warming over the last forty years. Increasing ocean acidification due to increasing absorption of CO2. Recent dieoff of an estimated 40% of phytoplankton. And I might add that people who had derived lower figures for tropospheric warming, like the UAH folks, who had been using their data as evidence of a much lower figure than models would have predicted, admitted that their early data with the lower figures were incorrect because they'd neglected to figure in changing orbital dynamics of the satellites, which meant they were actually measuring nighttime temperatures in part instead of daytime temps.

2 Replies

My goodness, ionus, I had no idea you were such a sensitive plant. You vote my posts down because the facts disagree with your interpretations? Touchy, touchy.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

Quote:

Start with more than doubling of the melt rate of Greenland glaciers.

Doubling ? How much ice should have melted ?

Quote:

unprecedented loss of dense multi-year ice

Really ? So when we had no polar ice before, several times quite recently by geological times, was that man made ? When the polar bear retreated to land those several times, was that man made ?

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

Quote:

You vote my posts down because the facts disagree with your interpretations?

You need to talk to parody....

0 Replies

Yeah, parados. He's really good at finding the facts and researchthat shoot down the denialist cut-and-pastes, isn't he?

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

Quote:

Yeah, parados. He's really good at finding the facts and researchthat shoot down the denialist cut-and-pastes, isn't he?

I hadnt noticed......do we have the same parody ?

0 Replies

oh, come on, ionus, you're being silly.

Quote:

Doubling ? How much ice should have melted ?

The measured historical rate before the increase of the last ten years or so. Do a little research before you quibble.

1 Reply

I'm talking about parados. Who are you talking about. You'll notice I'm not going the "Anus" route with you, you might try to be generally civil here.

Geological time is not really relevant to the discussion. For most of the 20th century and pretty certainly historic time, the bulk of the arctic icecap consisted of denser multi-year ice, on the order of thirty feet thick or more. In the last decade, that's decreased by about three quearters, and is instead new ice, much thinner and much less dense, which melts much quicker, and open water increases the albedo, which feeds back in increased warming.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

Quote:

The measured historical rate before the increase of the last ten years or so.

How about the fluctuations for the last 2.5 million years.....then we have a meaningful time scale. 10 yrs is ludicrous, but you need a time period like that to justify GW. Look at it from the point of view of science and not be in a political hurry.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

I thought I was generally civil. I was referring to Parodos habit of marking posts down that disagree with him. So I mark them up. You might want to get interpol in to find out who is marking down your posts...that is pretty serious right there.

0 Replies

Considering they were the posts I made in the last half hour or so,and considering you seem to be the only other person here, you would seem to be the usual suspect. If it's not you, I retract the allegation.

1 Reply

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know