| | |
It's them pesky republicans, I'm sure.
The Mystery of Global Warming's Missing Heat
"The buoys can dive 3,000 feet down and measure ocean temperature. Since the system was fully deployed in 2003, it has recorded no warming of the global oceans."
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=88520025
The same problem exists with the tropospheric trend....as I posted in the Coming Climate Change thread...
------------------------------------------------
Not to make light of running a temp, but it is cooler in the upper troposphere, which is completely opposite what the GCMs predict. One preeminent climate study agency is the Hadley Center in the U.K. Their climate model is just one that predicts this, yet....well, just read what Lindzen has to say...based on their data..
--------------------------------------------
Climate models forecast increasing temperatures on earth because of increasing levels of atmospheric CO2, but observational data appears to contradict this claim.
Subsequent to publishing the feature ”The Fluid Envelope - A Case Against Climate Alarm“ by Dr. Richard Lindzen, we received an email from a science journalist questioning one of the central assertions in Lindzen’s report. The writer wanted to know on what basis Dr. Lindzen was claiming there has been no significant warming in the last 10+ years. In response, Lindzen emailed the following table, showing temperature trends for the last 27 years. This data is based on global (including over the ocean) average temperature readings per year, per altitude, as reported by the U.K.’s Hadley Climatic Research Unit:
altitude (meters/feet) hPa Trend (C/decade)
24,000/79,000 30 -0.84
20,000/65,500 50 -0.76
16,000/52,500 100 -0.35
14,000/46,000 150 -0.12
12,000/40,000 200 -0.01
9,100/30,000 300 0.10
6,500/21,500 500 0.05
3,000/10,000 700 0.06
1,500/5000 850 0.08
zero (surface) 1,000 0.13 (from HadCRU3)
As the data indicates, over the past two decades, temperatures have actually declined in the upper troposphere, even though there has been some minor upward trends in temperature at sea level and lower altitudes. This completely contradicts conventional global warming models. As Dr. Lindzen explained in his follow up email:
“I used this data to show that the trend at 300 hPa was not about 2.5 x the surface trend which is what greenhouse warming [models] requires.” Apparently climate models that predict global warming ala increasing levels of atmospheric CO2 assume increasing temperature trends in the troposphere, where CO2 concentrates, and the reality is the troposphere is not getting hotter, it is getting cooler.
Before we radically rearrange the political economy of the world because some scientists claim anthropogenic CO2 is the cause of climate change, it might be worthwhile for anyone taking a position on the topic to consider whether or not this is indeed “well settled science.”
I asked why we need climate models when even a child can read a thermometer: Follow the moneyOriginally Posted by fizzissist
Granted, some thermometers are more sophisticated than others, but the point is to use real data, not something made up for politicians.
Last edited by dynosor; 03-20-2008 at 01:43 PM. Reason: preposition
The news report I heard about the buoys quoted the 'Scientists'(?) as saying: "We did not get the temperature readings we expected...." or something to that effect.
Am I allowed to translate?
"The data do not support our preconceived conclusions.."
A few days ago my daughter the geophysicist went back a few years to look at snowfall records for our area. Guess what, the 'unprecedented' snow pack in some regions is more or less what was normal back 40 to 60 years ago.
This summer keep an eye on reports about Arctic sea ice melting; or maybe lack of reports? I think this one will be interesting; if it does not get back to the same conditions that prevailed last year before the freeze up started the explanations might make interesting reading.
An open mind is a virtue...so long as all the common sense has not leaked out.
I'd be interested to hear what your daughter has to say about Ross McKitrick and Pat Michael's paper on AGW and the data..... I haven't read it yet.
McKitrick, R.R. and Michaels, P.J. 2007. Quantifying the influence of anthropogenic surface processes and inhomogeneities on gridded global climate data. Journal of Geophysical Research 112: 10.1029/2007JD008465.
McIntyre has been roasting the MBH98 paper over on ClimateAudit, and given his relationship with Ross, I'm sure there's crossover study.
She will not even read stuff like this; from either side of the debate.
Almost as stubborn as her Daddy.
An open mind is a virtue...so long as all the common sense has not leaked out.
A guest post by Roy. W. Spencer
"While a politician might be faulted for pushing a particular agenda that serves his own purposes, who can fault the impartial scientist who warns us of an imminent global-warming Armageddon? After all, the practice of science is an unbiased search for the truth, right? The scientists have spoken on global warming. There is no more debate. But let me play devil’s advocate. Just how good is the science underpinning the theory of manmade global warming? My answer might surprise you: it is 10 miles wide, but only 2 inches deep.
Contrary to what you have been led to believe, there is no solid published evidence that has ruled out a natural cause for most of our recent warmth - not one peer-reviewed paper. The reason: our measurements of global weather on decadal time scales are insufficient to reject such a possibility. For instance, the last 30 years of the strongest warming could have been caused by a very slight change in cloudiness. What might have caused such a change? Well, one possibility is the sudden shift to more frequent El Niño events (and fewer La Niña events) since the 1970s. That shift also coincided with a change in another climate index, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.
The associated warming in Alaska was sudden, and at the same time we just happened to start satellite monitoring of Arctic sea ice. Coincidences do happen, you know…that’s why we have a word for them..........."
--best to read the entire article at:
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/
Hi fizzissist,
Very good article, I recommend everyone read it!
Take care,
xyzdonna
Dear fizzissist,
Thank-you the article by Spencer.
It hit all my buttons about AGW, but left a profound sense of gloom that this whole wretched runaway train may not be able to be stopped.
The author suggests that there is a thin thread of hope...
About the only thing that might cause global warming hysteria to end will be a prolonged period of cooling…or at least, very little warming
That is something for which we all need to pray.
Best wishes,
Martin
Anyone interested in helping educate on this subject over at DU?
http://www.democraticunderground.com...mesg_id=140139
An "educator" at DU would likely be labeled a Neocon....
No, I'm afraid I'd find myself less than welcome, given the dems prime candidate has a problem with the facts....
You've all heard about Hillary's trip to Bosnia and how CBS's video makes her look like she's lying???
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BfNqhV5hg4"]YouTube - CBS Exposes Hillary Clinton Bosnia Trip.
Well, the truth is she's a regular hero. She fought long and hard to secure the rights of Bosnians everywhere. She even established quality health care and zoos for them.
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDP_u2YDrFA"]YouTube - Hilary Bosnia Lie TRUE! New Footage- More At gps2wealth.com
When confronted with the CBS video's revelations, Chelsea said "..I support what she said.."
Meanwhile, back in Antarctica, Stanford's Stephan Schneider told PBS that the recent ice shelf loss is proof of impending doom. Remember though, this is the same guy who warned us of the impending ice age back in the early '70s, and has stated (as I have posted here in another thread long, long ago) that it's ok to overblow the facts. The end justifies the means. In other words, it's ok to lie.
It's the old, media misunderstanding science story again.
Definitions of 2 words by a scientist;
Hypothesis: I have this crazy idea about something....
Theory: My Crazy Idea has some experimental evidence that makes me think I am right I will continue to look for more evidence maybe I am still wrong but it looks less likely.
Definitions of 2 words by a politician/media type;
Hypothesis: The scientist is muttering again, lets point and laugh unless it gives weight to something we already said, then we will take it as gospel truth.
Theory: This time its got evidence its definitely right and beyond question.
The longer a theory stands and the more evidence proving it isn't wrong the less likely it is that it will be wrong (relativity has been tested many times but its still a theory just a very likely one)
Kelvin had a theory that the sun was less than 25 million years old and had experimental evidence that showed there was no way the sun could have burned for any longer than that, there was also a lot of evidence that the earth was older than 25 million years so his theory didn't last.
The point is there is plenty of evidence to support global warming but there is also plenty of evidence to the contrary, none of this makes it right or wrong as a hypothesis.
**parks bum on fence**
There is???????? So far, all the "evidence" to support global warming (the anthropogenic contribution, that is) is being blown out of the water!!
Posting Permissions
| | |
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
