Climate Modellers, Fearmongers In Denial, Oceans Are Cooling Too
0N0ZB
Lorne Gunter, National Post
March 24, 2008
http://www.nationalpost.com/most_popular/story.html?id=394939
They drift along in the worlds' oceans at a depth of 2,000 metres --
more than a mile deep -- constantly monitoring the temperature,
salinity, pressure and velocity of the upper oceans.
Then, about once every 10 days, a bladder on the outside of these buoys
inflates and raises them slowly to the surface gathering data about each
strata of seawater they pass through. After an upward journey of nearly
six hours, the Argo monitors bob on the waves while an onboard
transmitter sends their information to a satellite that in turn
retransmits it to several land-based research computers where it may be
accessed by anyone who wishes to see it.
These 3,000 yellow sentinels --about the size and shape of a large fence
post -- free-float the world's oceans, season in and season out,
surfacing between 30 and 40 times a year, disgorging their findings,
then submerging again for another fact-finding voyage.
It's fascinating to watch their progress online. (The URLs are too
complex to reproduce here, but Google "Argo Buoy Movement" or "Argo
Float Animation," and you will be directed to the links.)
When they were first deployed in 2003, the Argos were hailed for their
ability to collect information on ocean conditions more precisely, at
more places and greater depths and in more conditions than ever before.
No longer would scientists have to rely on measurements mostly at the
surface from older scientific buoys or inconsistent shipboard monitors.
So why are some scientists now beginning to question the buoys'
findings? Because in five years, the little blighters have failed to
detect any global warming. They are not reinforcing the scientific
orthodoxy of the day, namely that man is causing the planet to warm
dangerously. They are not proving the predetermined conclusions of their
human masters. Therefore they, and not their masters' hypotheses, must
be wrong.
In fact, "there has been a very slight cooling," according to a U.S.
National Public Radio (NPR) interview with Josh Willis at NASA's Jet
Propulsion Laboratory, a scientist who keeps close watch on the Argo
findings.
Dr. Willis insisted the temperature drop was "not anything really
significant." And I trust he's right. But can anyone imagine NASA or the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) or the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -- the UN's climate experts --
shrugging off even a "very slight" warming.
A slight drop in the oceans' temperature over a period of five or six
years probably is insignificant, just as a warming over such a short
period would be. Yet if there had been a rise of any kind, even of the
same slightness, rest assured this would be broadcast far and wide as
yet another log on the global warming fire.
Just look how tenaciously some scientists are prepared to cling to the
climate change dogma. "It may be that we are in a period of less rapid
warming," Dr. Willis told NPR.
Yeah, you know, like when you put your car into reverse you are causing
it to enter a period of less rapid forward motion. Or when I gain a few
pounds I am in a period of less rapid weight loss.
The big problem with the Argo findings is that all the major climate
computer models postulate that as much as 80-90% of global warming will
result from the oceans warming rapidly then releasing their heat into
the atmosphere.
But if the oceans aren't warming, then (please whisper) perhaps the
models are wrong.
The supercomputer models also can't explain the interaction of clouds
and climate. They have no idea whether clouds warm the world more by
trapping heat in or cool it by reflecting heat back into space.
Modellers are also perplexed by the findings of NASA's eight weather
satellites that take more than 300,000 temperature readings daily over
the entire surface of the Earth, versus approximately 7,000 random
readings from Earth stations.
In nearly 30 years of operation, the satellites have discovered a
warming trend of just 0.14 C per decade, less than the models and well
within the natural range of temperature variation.
I'm not saying for sure the models are wrong and the Argos and
satellites are right, only that in a debate as critical as the one on
climate, it would be nice to hear some alternatives to the alarmist
theory.
--
Warmest Regards
Bonzo
". researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Solar Research in Germany
report the sun has been burning more brightly over the last 60 years,
accounting for the 1 degree Celsius increase in Earth's temperature over
the last 100 years."
http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=287279412587175
Lloyd
> the climate change models are wrong
>
> Lorne Gunter, National Post
>
> March 24, 2008
>
> http://www.nationalpost.com/most_popular/story.html?id=394939
>
> They drift along in the worlds' oceans at a depth of 2,000 metres --
> more than a mile deep -- constantly monitoring the temperature,
> salinity, pressure and velocity of the upper oceans.
>
I see you didn't learn from the rebuke of your earlier post about
this. These drifting machines measure temp. only at one depth. And
even the researchers involved said they aren't sure if they're getting
good data.
The warming so far is not slight.
> A slight drop in the oceans' temperature over a period of five or six
> years probably is insignificant, just as a warming over such a short
> period would be. Yet if there had been a rise of any kind, even of the
> same slightness, rest assured this would be broadcast far and wide as
> yet another log on the global warming fire.
>
> Just look how tenaciously some scientists are prepared to cling to the
> climate change dogma. "It may be that we are in a period of less rapid
> warming," Dr. Willis told NPR.
>
Note that he did not say "cooling."
> Yeah, you know, like when you put your car into reverse you are causing
> it to enter a period of less rapid forward motion.
You are an idiot.
> Or when I gain a few
> pounds I am in a period of less rapid weight loss.
>
> The big problem with the Argo findings is that all the major climate
> computer models postulate that as much as 80-90% of global warming will
> result from the oceans warming rapidly then releasing their heat into
> the atmosphere.
>
> But if the oceans aren't warming, then (please whisper) perhaps the
> models are wrong.
>
Again, even the researchers aren't saying "the oceans aren't
warming." That's your claim. And we know you are a pathological
liar.
> The supercomputer models also can't explain the interaction of clouds
> and climate. They have no idea whether clouds warm the world more by
> trapping heat in or cool it by reflecting heat back into space.
>
> Modellers are also perplexed by the findings of NASA's eight weather
> satellites that take more than 300,000 temperature readings daily over
> the entire surface of the Earth, versus approximately 7,000 random
> readings from Earth stations.
>
> In nearly 30 years of operation, the satellites have discovered a
> warming trend of just 0.14 C per decade, less than the models and well
> within the natural range of temperature variation.
>
See what I mean about being a liar?
V-for-Vendicar
"0N0ZB" <0N...@doooooodoooooo.com> wrote
> http://www.nationalpost.com/most_popular/story.html?id=394939
If you read it in the National Post, you know it's a lie.
Business chiefs vow to lead fight against global warming
TOKYO (AFP) - Some of the world's top companies vowed Friday to step up
their
efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions, saying governments were failing to
show
sufficient leadership in the fight against global warming.
A dozen corporations including Sony Corp., Nokia Corp., Nike Inc. and
Hewlett-Packard Co. issued an urgent call for firms around the world to
reduce
the damage they inflict on the planet and to promote a "low carbon
lifestyle".
"There is no doubt that climate change is one of the most important issues
of
our time," Sony chief executive Howard Stringer told a meeting hosted by the
Japanese electronics giant and the WWF environmental group.
"Governments are more easily distracted by the crisis of today than the
crisis
of tomorrow," he said. "We need to act now."
The companies, which describe themselves as "Climate Savers", did not
announce
any new goals for reducing their carbon dioxide emissions as they have
already
committed to individual targets.
Instead they pledged to urge their business partners and other companies to
follow their lead, to develop energy efficient products and to encourage
their
customers to lead an environmentally friendly lifestyle.
"We are moving into a carbon-constrained world, a low carbon economy -- a
new
economy," said James Leape, director general of WWF International.
"We need champions. There are precious few political leaders in this world
yet
who are stepping up to the level of action that is required."
There is also an economic rationale for reducing greenhouse gas emissions,
business leaders said.
"I don't think ... any company is going to be able to survive if it is not
working in a sustainable way," said Jaime Santafe, an environment advisor at
Swiss-based packaging giant Tetra Pak.
The captains of industry issued their call as officials from the United
Nations
and 21 countries held a second day of talks in Tokyo as part of efforts to
forge
a new deal on fighting global warming by the end of next year.