The First Crack in the Iceberg Of Global Warming...

Status
Not open for further replies.

Wildalaska

Moderator
Hows that for a mixed metaphor :)

L&P...I have always viewed the whole Global Warming Hysteria as being nothing more than an excuse to obtain control over the actions of thenation state for the purpose of a "common good" vis a vis the actual needs of each nation state...that further I view it as part of a long term trend to exert further government control of individual and businesses.

I have always contended that the Global Warming issue is further a farce, in that the insignificant insects that we are will either adpat, or die, and that nothing we can do can necessarily reshape or unshape our planet in light of geologic time.

Now, of course, the hysterics are confronted with the fact that hey, guess what, maybe they are wrong...
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88520025

he Mystery of Global Warming's Missing Heat

by Richard Harris



Morning Edition, March 19, 2008 · Some 3,000 scientific robots that are plying the ocean have sent home a puzzling message. These diving instruments suggest that the oceans have not warmed up at all over the past four or five years. That could mean global warming has taken a breather. Or it could mean scientists aren't quite understanding what their robots are telling them.

This is puzzling in part because here on the surface of the Earth, the years since 2003 have been some of the hottest on record. But Josh Willis at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory says the oceans are what really matter when it comes to global warming.

In fact, 80 percent to 90 percent of global warming involves heating up ocean waters. They hold much more heat than the atmosphere can. 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. So the buildup of heat on Earth may be on a brief hiatus. "Global warming doesn't mean every year will be warmer than the last. And it may be that we are in a period of less rapid warming."

In recent years, heat has actually been flowing out of the ocean and into the air. This is a feature of the weather phenomenon known as El Nino. So it is indeed possible the air has warmed but the ocean has not. But it's also possible that something more mysterious is going on.

That becomes clear when you consider what's happening to global sea level. Sea level rises when the oceans get warm because warmer water expands. This accounts for about half of global sea level rise. So with the oceans not warming, you would expect to see less sea level rise. Instead, sea level has risen about half an inch in the past four years. That's a lot.

Willis says some of this water is apparently coming from a recent increase in the melting rate of glaciers in Greenland and Antarctica.

"But in fact there's a little bit of a mystery. We can't account for all of the sea level increase we've seen over the last three or four years," he says.

One possibility is that the sea has, in fact, warmed and expanded — and scientists are somehow misinterpreting the data from the diving buoys.

But if the aquatic robots are actually telling the right story, that raises a new question: Where is the extra heat all going?

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.

That can't be directly measured at the moment, however.

"Unfortunately, we don't have adequate tracking of clouds to determine exactly what role they've been playing during this period," Trenberth says.

It's also possible that some of the heat has gone even deeper into the ocean, he says. Or it's possible that scientists need to correct for some other feature of the planet they don't know about. It's an exciting time, though, with all this new data about global sea temperature, sea level and other features of climate.

"I suspect that we'll able to put this together with a little bit more perspective and further analysis," Trenberth says. "But what this does is highlight some of the issues and send people back to the drawing board."

Trenberth and Willis agree that a few mild years have no effect on the long-term trend of global warming. But they say there are still things to learn about how our planet copes with the heat.

Related NPR Stories
[/COLOR]


WildallpartofthebattleAlaska ™
 
The hysteria part is certainly accurate. Much of the issue is exaggerated beyond the scope of the science behind it - and as usual, politicized by people in power that have no frakking idea what they're talking about - but it doesn't change the facts at hand.

While we may not be able to severely alter the planet's climate in the grand scheme of geologic time you have to remember that our presence on this planet is a tiny fraction of its history. It doesn't really matter to us if the earth will revert itself back to normal in ten thousand years because our survival depends on having a stable climate today.

What hasn't changed is the fact that the earth's climate - not just it's temperature - is affected by the amount of pollutants we put into the air. How much it's affected is still hotly debated but we do have an effect. There is no question of that. There is also no question that drastic climate change is bad for us, for other species and for the ecology as a whole.

This mystery heat certainly deserves more research and understanding, as does everything in science. It needs to be placed in the proper context, though.

Pollution is bad, no matter how you look at it. Doing everything in our power to cut it down is the right course of action and it needs to be done responsibly and logically and scientifically.
 
What hasn't changed is the fact that the earth's climate - not just it's temperature - is affected by the amount of pollutants we put into the air. How much it's affected is still hotly debated but we do have an effect. There is no question of that. There is also no question that drastic climate change is bad for us, for other species and for the ecology as a whole.
If is can't be measured, it does not exist. Rather than bleat over the boogie-man of global warming, perhaps our environmental guardians would be best served by defining the problem instead of proposing canned solutions which curiously track previous socialist or fascists initiatives.
 
If is can't be measured, it does not exist.
Oh how I wish more people would subscribe to this philosophy. :D

Rather than bleat over the boogie-man of global warming, perhaps our environmental guardians would be best served by defining the problem instead of proposing canned solutions which curiously track previous socialist or fascists initiatives.
I'm not bleating and the actual scientists at work in this field are doing their best to define the problem and solve it. The stuff you're talking about is just more politicizing; one side politicizing it for their purpose and the other side using some lame excuse about socialism and fascism to ignore the science.

The science is the only thing that matters. It has a neat little quality control feature called peer review. Another simple fact of the matter is that the vast majority - the overwhelming majority - of the scientific community (especially in the specific fields devoted to studying this very issue) have a consensus that humanity has a significant impact on the global climate. That is not under debate.

The exact nature of the problem, the minute specifics, the solution to the problem and the best way to tackle it are still being researched. I don't agree with any of the nonsense solutions put forth to date, especially ones that are in direct conflict with the economics and technological capabilities we have today. But it doesn't change the fact that this is a problem that needs to be addressed and it needs more research and we need to stop giving a damn what the politicians and celebrities have to say and listen to the people who actually know what they're talking about.
 
I always found it interesting that the world's temperature was supposed to have increased a full 1-degree over the last 100 years. I've often wondered about the accuracy of the instruments 100 years ago versus today, or the differences in data collection and recalibration regimes.

I wouldn't want a doctor basing his diagnosis on a 100-year-old microscope. Instead, I'd expect a contemporary instrument to be of better materials, construction, and accuracy.
 
Another simple fact of the matter is that the vast majority - the overwhelming majority - of the scientific community (especially in the specific fields devoted to studying this very issue) have a consensus that humanity has a significant impact on the global climate. That is not under debate.

No, no, no! That is the first myth. Many, many scientists including climatologists dispute the effect of humans on global warming. There is almost a perfect correlation between sunspot activity and global warming. The other factor is when huge volcanic activity has darkened large parts of the earth, causing a cooling.

I'm old enough to remember the theory in the 70's that carbon dioxide was causing global cooling. I remember when some alarmists claimed people were responsible for a hole in the ozone layer over the Arctic. Turns out, it was natural.

Even the co-founder of Greenpeace has recognized the scientific invalidity of the global warming theory.

For a very brief reference, see, http://www.lifestyleextra.com/ShowS...ine=global_warming_is_lies_claims_documentary
 
Fortunately the instrumental record from the 1800s is only one of the ways to gather climate data. :o Your doctor may not be using 100 year old instruments but he is still using medical practices and theories that are much older.
 
I'm old enough to remember the theory in the 70's that carbon dioxide was causing global cooling.
I remember articles in either Time or Newsweek (as if there's any real difference) showing artist renderings of Miami coated in ice. So I suppose global warming saved us from that fate.

Frankly, I don't care whether global warming is real or not. There's a lot of junk spewed into the air that I'd rather not breathe. I'm not particularly keen on contracting lung cancer. However, I see no reason to run pell-mell into panic when a calm and rational approach would help cleanse the air without gutting our economy.
 
The science is the only thing that matters. It has a neat little quality control feature called peer review. Another simple fact of the matter is that the vast majority - the overwhelming majority - of the scientific community (especially in the specific fields devoted to studying this very issue) have a consensus that humanity has a significant impact on the global climate. That is not under debate.

A major factor in this mess is that the fields devoting to studying this issue don't get any money without the hoax. They have the tiger by the tail, as without it they (and their fields) don't matter much more than the dude serving drinks on Love Boat. As implemented gathered and funded field really should have been called "man made global warming".

(Nonwithstanding the shrinking portion of the world where a global warming "holocaust denier" can even secure employment as a scientist, from their government, in nations where all research is government).

Go talk to a scientist who's ever had to really seek funding. Their main motivation is to tell the low-IQ peons whatever it takes so they can get back to their work.

I have not been made aware of anything solid linking human activity up, except the kind of red herrings and distortions akin to Al Gore's movie (although there are less "for-public" ad-hoc hypotheses, self-affirming models, and unlinked conclusions galore). There are plenty of terrible things out there harnessing people's misunderstanding of scientific method, correlation/causality, garbage tiny samples of disingenuous scale.

Perhaps some scientists have some secret connection between these things they don't tell Joe Sixpack. But Joe Sixpack was won over by seeing a picture of a polar bear and a smokestack, back to back, over and over again. . . .
 
WildmusthavemissedhismedstodayAlaska...

Bravo, sir. I heartily agree and find this uncharacteristic post of yours most refreshing. (I've always suspected you were a closet American!)

I don't believe in GW either. While I do believe that mankind does have an impact on the enviroment, I do not believe that it is significant enough to make any difference in the future. This planet, and all life, is self healing and set up in so delicate, and yet so efficient of a system that it defies logic almost. I think our scientists are smart and know some things, but it's too complex to be nailed down at this time so the biggest part of it is conjecture.

They do not all agree on almost anything. Different minds will perceive different things and no one has ALL the answers. Science & technology is not backing up the majority of the GW'ers...

Since the system was fully deployed in 2003, it has recorded no warming of the global oceans.

An evil mind entered the picture and got the idea of 'hey lets propagandaize GW for control purposes', as you said. They're thinking globally.

Who's the ones that always agree...they call that Physics, right?
 
Fortunately the instrumental record from the 1800s is only one of the ways to gather climate data. Your doctor may not be using 100 year old instruments but he is still using medical practices and theories that are much older.
Not the same. Methods and instruments are different things.
 
No, no, no! That is the first myth. Many, many scientists including climatologists dispute the effect of humans on global warming.
Not a myth and not "many". It's relatively few compared to the total number of people studying the issue.

There is almost a perfect correlation between sunspot activity and global warming.
Far from it. The sun is naturally a factor when speaking of temperature but there is not a perfect correlation.


http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v443/n7108/abs/nature05072.html
http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2006/brightness.shtml

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb/Radiative-forcings.svg

I'm old enough to remember the theory in the 70's that carbon dioxide was causing global cooling. I remember when some alarmists claimed people were responsible for a hole in the ozone layer over the Arctic. Turns out, it was natural.
First of all, global warming can indeed lead to global cooling because it disturbs the planet's natural temperature regulation. If the ocean currents are the disturbed the climate's main stabilizer stops doing its job and the earth could very well cool a hell of a faster than any warming agent could keep up with it.

Second, ozone depletion was not natural.
Even the co-founder of Greenpeace has recognized the scientific invalidity of the global warming theory.

For a very brief reference, see, http://www.lifestyleextra.com/ShowSt...ms_documentary
The co-founder of greenpeace has to compete with hundreds of other scientists that say he's wrong.

And many aspects of the documentary have been debunked, especially their use of material known to be inaccurate as well as misrepresenting the views of some of the scientists they interviewed.

http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/about_bas/news/news_story.php?id=178

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2007/mar/11/broadcasting.science
http://folk.uio.no/nathan/web/statement.html
 
Bravo, sir. I heartily agree and find this uncharacteristic post of yours most refreshing. (I've always suspected you were a closet American!)

No actually I am a critically thinking American...perhaps thats why you are surprised:p

Wildanditsuncharacteristicbecauseyouunderstandit?Alaska ™
 
A major factor in this mess is that the fields devoting to studying this issue don't get any money without the hoax. They have the tiger by the tail, as without it they (and their fields) don't matter much more than the dude serving drinks on Love Boat. As implemented gathered and funded field really should have been called "man made global warming".
Oh for frak's sake. :rolleyes: This is just a lame conspiracy theory.

There is no desire by scientists to profit from this. The scientific community as a whole does not just seek out problems in order to secure jobs. You don't get a PhD in any scientific field for the money. It's hard work, a hell of a lot of studying, ridiculously expensive with very little pay in the end. You'd be hard pressed to find any scientists that's going to waste his intellect and knowledge, waste all that time he spent becoming a scientist, just to make up data so he can have a paycheck every month.

Go talk to a scientist who's ever had to really seek funding. Their main motivation is to tell the low-IQ peons whatever it takes so they can get back to their work.
The main motivation for any scientists is the science. The science is not biased or political, the science doesn't give a damn what people think of the issue back home.

It's damned hard to seek funding for research, I know. But rarely will any scientist tell their funding sources anything but the data they have actually found. There is a code of ethics among the scientific community and while there are bad eggs in any field the very peer-review in science prevents people who fudge their data from lasting very long.

You're not going to tell me that you think thousands of scientists are all coming up with the same story just to get funding. :rolleyes:
have not been made aware of anything solid linking human activity up
Then I have to ask if you've actually read the IPCC's report.
 
Again what does this topic have to due with guns. Last time I checked, guns forums not exactly the place to go to for science on global warming, but hey keep throwing around conspiracy theories on the subject.
 
I do not believe that it is significant enough to make any difference in the future. This planet, and all life, is self healing and set up in so delicate, and yet so efficient of a system that it defies logic almost.
You're missing the issue. Of course the planet could self-heal over time but this could take thousands of years if the healing is on a global scale. And while the planet and the ecosystem will most likely last longer than our own species it doesn't change the fact that unstable climate today could have drastic effects on civilization.

This whole idea of the planet fixing itself is true but that doesn't mean jack squat to the six billion people that won't be alive when the planet fixes itself.
 
The main motivation for any scientists is the science. The science is not biased or political, the science doesn't give a damn what people think of the issue back home.

Sure, and when you tell the man with the $ what he wants to hear you can go back to the science. Honestly. . . .

You don't have to fudge anything. You just have to look the other way when the man with the $ comes to a conclusion that makes him like what you have.

The guy wants your top-notch study on an aerodynamics of a pig because he says they fly out of his a**, who are you to argue when he lists you as a source.

And unlike telling him your technology can be used to fly at 50x the speed of sound (not dwelling on the point that other factors will stop you actually reaching the speed of sound in reality), in this case kicking up a stink will get you fired or get nasty letters from the faithful. No thanks!

You can see better examples of this with the latest "animal X evolved from the dinosaurs" (note - don't you dare call me a creationist this is an example), or a history channel based on some dude finding a clay fragment of a chamber pot and inferring a whole civilization around it. A fun exercise and amusing; but even when done expertly, represents an inference from a ridiculously small amount of information, and is unactionable.

I'm going to pick on a detail that gets bandied around a lot (not claiming that you use it as a basis for your own conclusions, just picking on one). Carbon dioxide picked up out of ice at the south pole.

You can do the science perfectly on this and hand it off to someone who doesn't know correlation != causality. Then HE can bicker about which one changes direction before the other, and someone else can make a shoddy movie attacking this on an equal premise. Meanwhile, there's a different kind of person, a little more predisposed toward logic and honest representation of scale, who may question what everyone's doing with this crappy sample.

And that's how we get into these messes. But in gaining education from it, we can defer the next big hoax/misunderstanding/whatever one would call it.
 
Again what does this topic have to due with guns. Last time I checked, guns forums not exactly the place to go to for science on global warming, but hey keep throwing around conspiracy theories on the subject.

I can relate it back. Remember the movie "The Jerk"? There's a spot where someone is taking pot shots at Steve Martin with a scoped rifle while he's working out the front of a gas station - missing but hitting soda cans behind him.

Steve Martin: "there's something wrong with these cans! He HATES these CANS!"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top