Weather Channel Founder: Sue Al Gore for Fraud

[MORAY37]

this just in.
The Mystery of Global Warming's Missing Heat
by Richard Harris

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88520025

So Willis has been studying the ocean with a fleet of robotic instruments called the Argo system. 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.
"There has been a very slight cooling, but not anything really significant," Willis says.


One possibility is that the sea has, in fact, warmed and expanded — and scientists are somehow misinterpreting the data from the diving buoys.
----------It's a Fraking thermostat how do you misinterpret that....guys when the thermostat points to the number that's the one you read...got it

Kevin Trenberth at the National Center for Atmospheric Research says it's probably going back out into space. The Earth has a number of natural thermostats, including clouds, which can either trap heat and turn up the temperature, or reflect sunlight and help cool the planet.
-------------So what you're saying is You have no Fraking idea....thanks we'll tune in later.

That's great.  Let's check Challenger Deep as well.  That way the farther we get from the atmosphere the more likely it is that climate change isn't happening. 

It's called insulation and with depth, water is particularly good at it.

[MORAY37]

And... Raw data... Monthly average departure from mean,in degrees celsius,( ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/monthly.ocean.00N.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat) Northern Hemisphere Sea Surface Temperatures.  The ocean isn't warming?  Keep in mind... a "mean" or average is constantly recalculated to include the proceeding data into it.

1985  9    0.0340
1985 10    0.0012
1985 11    0.0773
1985 12    0.0427
1986  1   -0.0349
1986  2   -0.0052
1986  3   -0.0414
1986  4    0.0169
1986  5    0.0753
1986  6    0.0716
1986  7    0.0358
1986  8    0.0697
1986  9    0.0888
1986 10    0.0689
1986 11    0.0440
1986 12    0.0583
1987  1    0.0222
1987  2    0.0265
1987  3    0.1176
1987  4    0.1133
1987  5    0.1715
1987  6    0.1775
1987  7    0.2142
1987  8    0.2879
1987  9    0.3265
1987 10    0.2927
1987 11    0.3217
1987 12    0.2701
1988  1    0.2843
1988  2    0.2196
1988  3    0.2393
1988  4    0.2396
1988  5    0.1889
1988  6    0.1691
1988  7    0.2300
1988  8    0.1841
1988  9    0.1403
1988 10    0.0867
1988 11   -0.0180
1988 12   -0.0250
1989  1   -0.0212
1989  2    0.0293
1989  3    0.0283
1989  4    0.1296
1989  5    0.1278
1989  6    0.1887
1989  7    0.2413
1989  8    0.2467
1989  9    0.2157
1989 10    0.1417
1989 11    0.1488
1989 12    0.1477
1990  1    0.1419
1990  2    0.1965
1990  3    0.2719
1990  4    0.2566
1990  5    0.2794
1990  6    0.2560
1990  7    0.3165
1990  8    0.3585
1990  9    0.3619
1990 10    0.3837
1990 11    0.3723
1990 12    0.2838
1991  1    0.2951
1991  2    0.2464
1991  3    0.2704
1991  4    0.2928
1991  5    0.2485
1991  6    0.2831
1991  7    0.3352
1991  8    0.2672
1991  9    0.2125
1991 10    0.1668
1991 11    0.1852
1991 12    0.1238
1992  1    0.1097
1992  2    0.1490
1992  3    0.1831
1992  4    0.1665
1992  5    0.1956
1992  6    0.2037
1992  7    0.1363
1992  8    0.0713
1992  9    0.0367
1992 10    0.0269
1992 11   -0.0074
1992 12    0.0420
1993  1    0.1354
1993  2    0.1369
1993  3    0.1193
1993  4    0.1783
1993  5    0.2189
1993  6    0.2132
1993  7    0.1184
1993  8    0.0757
1993  9    0.1014
1993 10    0.0838
1993 11    0.1103
1993 12    0.0796
1994  1    0.1250
1994  2    0.1582
1994  3    0.1810
1994  4    0.2254
1994  5    0.2231
1994  6    0.2196
1994  7    0.3095
1994  8    0.3525
1994  9    0.3007
1994 10    0.3860
1994 11    0.3229
1994 12    0.3448
1995  1    0.2737
1995  2    0.2886
1995  3    0.2874
1995  4    0.2528
1995  5    0.2338
1995  6    0.3360
1995  7    0.3986
1995  8    0.4221
1995  9    0.2854
1995 10    0.3022
1995 11    0.2994
1995 12    0.2842
1996  1    0.2381
1996  2    0.1998
1996  3    0.1960
1996  4    0.2180
1996  5    0.2222
1996  6    0.2912
1996  7    0.2622
1996  8    0.3316
1996  9    0.2961
1996 10    0.1822
1996 11    0.1668
1996 12    0.1739
1997  1    0.1795
1997  2    0.2514
1997  3    0.2702
1997  4    0.2916
1997  5    0.3881
1997  6    0.4634
1997  7    0.5098
1997  8    0.4894
1997  9    0.5319
1997 10    0.5286
1997 11    0.5327
1997 12    0.5214
1998  1    0.5066
1998  2    0.5336
1998  3    0.4709
1998  4    0.4676
1998  5    0.4997
1998  6    0.5326
1998  7    0.5395
1998  8    0.5776
1998  9    0.4287
1998 10    0.3704
1998 11    0.3709
1998 12    0.3059
1999  1    0.2691
1999  2    0.2486
1999  3    0.2760
1999  4    0.2315
1999  5    0.2252
1999  6    0.2260
1999  7    0.2342
1999  8    0.2901
1999  9    0.2723
1999 10    0.2427
1999 11    0.1826
1999 12    0.1851
2000  1    0.1597
2000  2    0.1978
2000  3    0.1945
2000  4    0.2287
2000  5    0.3219
2000  6    0.2865
2000  7    0.3360
2000  8    0.4054
2000  9    0.3881
2000 10    0.3198
2000 11    0.2776
2000 12    0.2832
2001  1    0.2612
2001  2    0.2540
2001  3    0.3313
2001  4    0.3251
2001  5    0.3554
2001  6    0.4425
2001  7    0.4965
2001  8    0.4586
2001  9    0.4417
2001 10    0.4425
2001 11    0.4135
2001 12    0.3890
2002  1    0.3620
2002  2    0.3789
2002  3    0.4232
2002  4    0.4319
2002  5    0.4609
2002  6    0.5186
2002  7    0.3903
2002  8    0.4181
2002  9    0.4483
2002 10    0.4796
2002 11    0.4744
2002 12    0.4725
2003  1    0.4009
2003  2    0.3811
2003  3    0.4126
2003  4    0.4092
2003  5    0.4448
2003  6    0.4980
2003  7    0.5640
2003  8    0.6487
2003  9    0.6657
2003 10    0.6475
2003 11    0.5726
2003 12    0.5037
2004  1    0.4941
2004  2    0.4704
2004  3    0.4912
2004  4    0.5329
2004  5    0.4603
2004  6    0.4750
2004  7    0.5892
2004  8    0.6036
2004  9    0.6015
2004 10    0.6108
2004 11    0.5893
2004 12    0.5214
2005  1    0.4835
2005  2    0.4066
2005  3    0.4421
2005  4    0.5145
2005  5    0.6021
2005  6    0.6186
2005  7    0.6365
2005  8    0.6514
2005  9    0.6163
2005 10    0.5474
2005 11    0.5001
2005 12    0.4071
2006  1    0.3216
2006  2    0.3056
2006  3    0.3242
2006  4    0.3954
2006  5    0.4573
2006  6    0.5019
2006  7    0.5283
2006  8    0.5880
2006  9    0.6168
2006 10    0.6449
2006 11    0.6570
2006 12    0.5500
2007  1    0.4830
2007  2    0.4652
2007  3    0.4485
2007  4    0.4322
2007  5    0.3812
2007  6    0.4631
2007  7    0.4205
2007  8    0.4128
2007  9    0.4500
2007 10    0.3953
2007 11    0.3306
2007 12    0.3037
2008  1    0.2589
2008  2    0.2580

[lazs2]

moray.. it doesn't do your case much good when you show a chart that you have trimmed off at the year 2000...

Why would you (or whoever) do that? 

Because.. from that date on the global temp begins to drop in a dramatic way.. for the last 8 years it has been dropping.. at such a rate that..  A case could be made that if we don't do something NOW...  at this rate.. by the year 2100 we will all be meatcycles!!!!   

Co2 math doesn't add up.. even if it did.. we are 60-70% of the total that a doubling could possibly do and.. the temp didn't rise more than 0.7 degree.. most are saying now that the most co2 could do at this point is raise another 0.4 degree.. not enough to offset natural global cooling and far less than the plus or minus 2 degrees that is the margin of error.

How many trillions a year should we spend on that again?

lazs

[MORAY37]

moray.. it doesn't do your case much good when you show a chart that you have trimmed off at the year 2000...

Why would you (or whoever) do that? 

Because.. from that date on the global temp begins to drop in a dramatic way.. for the last 8 years it has been dropping.. at such a rate that..  A case could be made that if we don't do something NOW...  at this rate.. by the year 2100 we will all be meatcycles!!!!   

Co2 math doesn't add up.. even if it did.. we are 60-70% of the total that a doubling could possibly do and.. the temp didn't rise more than 0.7 degree.. most are saying now that the most co2 could do at this point is raise another 0.4 degree.. not enough to offset natural global cooling and far less than the plus or minus 2 degrees that is the margin of error.

How many trillions a year should we spend on that again?

lazs

Hey Lazs... Please go back to school and relearn how to read graphs.  Said graph ends at 2007...  See how the data goes past the year 2000 label?  Yet another indication that you don't do well with details.  If you'd pay attention, and make clear concise observations of things, you wouldn't miss the details that make them important. 
Each LARGE tick mark on the X axis of the graph is a 20 year marker.  In between those are 4 small ticks that represent 5 years.  AFTER the large label of 2000 there is one small tick mark and the data goes two years AFTER that... giving you, up to and including, YEAR 2007.


Also, all you crazies are all over this being an average one degree cooler year than the past 6.  Yet even at 1 degree celsius cooler... it is still one of the 20 warmest on record.  That, to me, sounds inanely stupid to use as a proof that climate change isn't happening.

You already know my position on this.  I personally think it is too late to change, and there are too many people that start with an opinion then look for supporting evidence, like yourself.  I already feel we've started a ball rolling down a hill, and it's only mitigation of loss, to me, at this point.  Scientists can't even get the lazy general public in the U.S. to learn the simple principles behind it.

[MORAY37]

 

Because.. from that date on the global temp begins to drop in a dramatic way.. for the last 8 years it has been dropping.. at such a rate that..  A case could be made that if we don't do something NOW...  at this rate.. by the year 2100 we will all be meatcycles!!!!   

Now you say temperature has... GONE DOWN for eight consecutive years?






PLEASE NOTE:  Both graphs DO NOT STOP DATA AFTER 2000.    The met station data and the combined surface/ocean data go up until year 2006.  I see no consistent  drop at the end of these graphs.  Please rethink your statement.

[Angus]

Moray,your data is scary.
I never saw data about the deep oceans warming like that, and that is outright, an enourmous amount of energy, vastly much more than the atmosphere measurements weight.
Well, when the puzzle comes together as the " ", then there is less and less reason to refuse it...

[lazs2]

the temperature has gone down the last 8 years.

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif

lazs

[Leek]

You've all obviously done a considerable amount of research, but it all comes down to this: Nothing we do will stop our inevitable extinction. Can we all do our part to extend our time on this planet? Sure we can. Will we all ever agree on the best way to save our planet? Never happen. You want to do your part? Log off this board, turn off your computer, conserve energy, and go read a book.

[MORAY37]

the temperature has gone down the last 8 years.

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif

lazs

Wow.. You quote a graph the met office in the UK stopped using.  Why don't you go to the UK met office and learn a few things.  Pretty funny on a site you quote as showing an 8 year cooldown... we see this...

Climate change - Fact 3
The current climate change is not just part of a natural cycle
Earth's climate is complex and influenced by many things, particularly changes in its orbit, volcanic eruptions, and changes in the energy emitted from the Sun. It is well known that the world has experienced warm or cold periods in the past without any interference from humans. The ice ages are good examples of global changes to the climate, and warm periods have seen grapes grown across much of Britain.

Over the several hundred thousand years covered by the ice core record, the temperature changes were primarily driven by changes in the Earth's orbit around the Sun. Over this period, changes in temperature did drive changes in carbon dioxide (CO2). Since the Industrial Revolution (over the last 100 years), CO2 concentrations have increased by 30% due because to human-induced emissions from fossil fuels.

The bottom line is that temperature and CO2 concentrations are linked. In recent ice ages, natural changes in the climate, such as those due to orbit changes, led to cooling of the climate system. This caused a fall in CO2 concentrations which weakened the greenhouse effect and amplified the cooling. Now the link between temperature and CO2 is working in the opposite direction. Human-induced increases in CO2 are driving the greenhouse effect and amplifying the recent warming.

and this...

Climate change - Fact 2
Temperatures are continuing to rise
The rise in global surface temperature has averaged more than 0.15 °C per decade since the mid-1970s. Warming has been unprecedented in at least the last 50 years, and the 17 warmest years have all occurred in the last 20 years. This does not mean that next year will necessarily be warmer than last year, but the long-term trend is for rising temperatures.

A simple mathematical calculation of the temperature change over the latest decade (1998-2007) alone shows a continued warming of 0.1 °C per decade. The warming trend can be seen in the graph of observed global temperatures. The red bars show the global annual surface temperature, which exhibit year-to-year variability. The blue line clearly shows the upward trend, far greater than the uncertainties, which are shown as thin black bars. The recent slight slowing of the warming is due to a shift towards more-frequent La Niña conditions in the Pacific since 1998. These bring cool water up from the depths of the Pacific Ocean, cooling global temperatures.

 
1998 saw an exceptional El Niño event which contributed strongly to that record-breaking year. Research shows that an exceptional El Niño can warm global temperatures by about 0.2 °C in a single year, affecting both the ocean surface and air temperatures over land. Had any recent years experienced such an El Niño, it is very likely that this record would have been broken. 2005 was also an unusually warm year, the second highest in the global record, but was not associated with El Niño conditions that boosted the warmth of 1998.

Another way of looking at the warming trend is that 1999 was a similar year to 2007 as far the cooling effects of La Niña are concerned. The 1999 global temperature was 0.26 °C above the 1961-90 average, whereas 2007 was 0.37 °C above this average, 0.11 °C warmer than 1999.

[Angus]

Well, not all the met offices agree, neither do all the scientists, although the majority of them establish pretty much the same facts as a melting icecube. It's warming....

Now, just a sec, is Lazs debating that again, or is he just against the Man-made part at the moment?

[lazs2]

angus.. just the man made part.   Also.. I think that we are due for a cooling and most real data shows that.  There has been a cooling.   despite one quote from moray.

I also believe that the margin of error is too great to really know.. what that means to me is that the warming (or cooling) is no real earth ender.. if we can't even notice it above the margin of error....

Moray says it is too late.. I say it matters not since nature will do as it pleases just as it always has and we have no control anyway.

When you think about it..  the conclusion is the same for both of us..  do nothing to stop any man made contribution.   Nothing that causes more harm than good at least.

In my case that means that I believe that we are not contributing significantly and that nature is the driving force of climate not man..  in his case.. it means that no matter what is causing the warming.. it is too late to do anything about it.. pretty much nothing can be done soooo.. why make things worse by trying..

now.. that does not mean that either of us is against screwing in some CFL bulbs in our fixtures at home.. so long as they work good and are cheap.    I don't think moray, and I know I don't, believe that spending trillions on shell game carbon scams is gonna do any good and will.... cause harm.

There is any number of things that can be done in between those two extremes that won't harm and can't help but be a good thing.   They need to proceed at their own pace tho in light of the fact that...

either we aren't significantly changing the climate of the planet or... it is too late anyway..

The climate is changing.. it has always changed.. it changes at different rates from time to time.. no year is like any other ever was.   

I for one have enjoyed this natural bounty of a few warm decades.. mild summers and mild winters... I know it will get cold soon enough... hopefully not for very long tho as cold is way worse than warm.

lazs

[Eagler]

where is the next Katrina when the dumbarsecrats need it???
LOL LOL LOL

[wrag]

More in............


http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23411799-7583,00.html

hmmm....................

[lazs2]

LOL...

"Duffy asked Marohasy: "Is the Earth stillwarming?"

She replied: "No, actually, there has been cooling, if you take 1998 as your point of reference. If you take 2002 as your point of reference, then temperatures have plateaued. This is certainly not what you'd expect if carbon dioxide is driving temperature because carbon dioxide levels have been increasing but temperatures have actually been coming down over the last 10 years."

"Duffy: "Is this a matter of any controversy?"

Marohasy: "Actually, no. The head of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has actually acknowledged it. He talks about the apparent plateau in temperatures so far this century. So he recognises that in this century, over the past eight years, temperatures have plateaued ... This is not what you'd expect, as I said, because if carbon dioxide is driving temperature then you'd expect that, given carbon dioxide levels have been continuing to increase, temperatures should be going up ... So (it's) very unexpected, not something that's being discussed. It should be being discussed, though, because it's very significant."

or this...

"Duffy then turned to the question of how the proponents of the greenhouse gas hypothesis deal with data that doesn't support their case. "People like Kevin Rudd and Ross Garnaut are speaking as though the Earth is still warming at an alarming rate, but what is the argument from the other side? What would people associated with the IPCC say to explain the (temperature) dip?"

Marohasy: "Well, the head of the IPCC has suggested natural factors are compensating for the increasing carbon dioxide levels and I guess, to some extent, that's what sceptics have been saying for some time: that, yes, carbon dioxide will give you some warming but there are a whole lot of other factors that may compensate or that may augment the warming from elevated levels of carbon dioxide.

"There's been a lot of talk about the impact of the sun and that maybe we're going to go through or are entering a period of less intense solar activity and this could be contributing to the current cooling."

What!!! the sun?  less sun activity?   are they saying we have prolonged this wonderful warm period but...  now.. the ride is over?  we are going to cool.. get cold?  seems so...  but what of co2?  surly it co2 must be the only thing causing warming or cooling????

"Marohasy: "That's right. The satellite was only launched in 2002 and it enabled the collection of data, not just on temperature but also on cloud formation and water vapour. What all the climate models suggest is that, when you've got warming from additional carbon dioxide, this will result in increased water vapour, so you're going to get a positive feedback. That's what the models have been indicating. What this great data from the NASA Aqua satellite ... (is) actually showing is just the opposite, that with a little bit of warming, weather processes are compensating, so they're actually limiting the greenhouse effect and you're getting a negative rather than a positive feedback."

great article... lots of more stuff..

lazs

[lazs2]

What??  Do you mean to tell me that data from a 2002 satellite is more relevant than an algore movie?? 

It goes on to say...

"Marohasy: "That's right ... These findings actually aren't being disputed by the meteorological community. They're having trouble digesting the findings, they're acknowledging the findings, they're acknowledging that the data from NASA's Aqua satellite is not how the models predict, and I think they're about to recognise that the models really do need to be overhauled and that when they are overhauled they will probably show greatly reduced future warming projected as a consequence of carbon dioxide."

Duffy: "From what you're saying, it sounds like the implications of this could beconsiderable ..."

Marohasy: "That's right, very much so. The policy implications are enormous. The meteorological community at the moment is really just coming to terms with the output from this NASA Aqua satellite and (climate scientist) Roy Spencer's interpretation of them. His work is published, his work is accepted, but I think people are still in shock at this point."

This is toooooo precious.. she will be pilloried....

"With catastrophe off the agenda, for most people the fog of millennial gloom will lift, at least until attention turns to the prospect of the next ice age. Among the better educated, the sceptical cast of mind that is the basis of empiricism will once again be back in fashion. The delusion that by recycling and catching public transport we can help save the planet will quickly come to be seen for the childish nonsense it was all along."

lazs