Posted on 06/08/2007 11:22:45 AM PDT by dangus
As of May, 2007, the temperature at the surface of the Earth's seas reached the coolest have cooled off about .18 degrees since October, 2003. That month had been the warmest even recorded, except for in December, 1997, when an anomalously strong El Nino created the warmest seas ever recorded. Most of the cooling has occurred since November, 2006. The oceans are currently .08 degrees warmer than they were in 1944, following massive de-industrialization caused by war and economic depression, and .7 degrees warmer than they averaged in the first decade of the 20th century, before pollution controls removed particulates from the sky. Particulate pollution creates cloud seeding, and clouds reflect radiation back into space before it can warm the Earth. Scientists debate the extent to which particulate pollution may have offset "greenhouse gas" pollution during the 20th century.
Average Sea Surface temperatures bounce around less than Average low-altitude atmospheric temperatures because the oceans are slower to cool or warm, but also because the oceans are less susceptible to short-term, localized human effects, such as heat islands. Also, because the sea surface is a larger and more uniform surface than land surfaces, short-term weather occurences cause lesser effects.
The following temperatures are readings from the National Climatic Data Center, expressed as deviations from the 20th-century mean.
May, 2007: +.3722
April, 2007: +.4099
November, 2006: +.5166 (cessation of gradual warming trend.)
February, 2001: +.3236 (last time oceans were this cool)
January, 2000: +.2380 (short-term anomaly caused by La Nina effect, after the Super-El-Nino.)
December, 1997: +.5597 (the highest recording ever, a short-term anomaly, the Super-El-Nino.)
December, 1975: -.1814 (bottom of cooling trend, which had created the media hysteria about the "New Ice Age.")
January, 1969: +.2255 (temperature peak prior to the cooling trend of the "new Ice Age.")
Early 1950s: +.1000 (approximate average)
Source: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/monthly.ocean.90S.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat
(This is a listing of monthly average Sea Surface Temperatures since 1880, generated by the National Climatic Data Center. It could not be linked to as the Source URL, since FR links must be an http-prefixed URL, rather than an FTP. It is merely a text listing.)
To get the right kind of clouds in the right place, you really need to get the particulates into the stratosphere. With a high soot level, normal circulation EVENTUALLY does that. But, if you want to do it in a hurry, it seems to me that the easiest way is to use a jet fuel formulated to have a high sulfur content. You might want to have tanks of low sulfur fuel for takeoffs and landings. Burning the high-sulfur fuel at cruise altitudes will deposit sulfur oxides directly in the stratosphere, where, being highly hygroscopic, they will rapidly accumulate any surround water vapor and form coulds, thus changing the earth's albedo (and cooling it).
He was also detailing how the entire solar system was going haywire referencing a continuous storm on Saturn’s south pole and polar melting on Mars. Anyone know who I’m speaking of?
“Even though the ice raises above the top of the glass as you fill the glass, when the ice melts, it doesn’t cause the surface level of the water in the glass to rise.”
Water in solid form (ice) makes a greater volume displacement than itself in liquid form. This is why pipes burst when they freeze. (just to further your point in layperson terms)
Why can’t our planet just be like it used to be? :o(
From the Ad Hoc Committtee Report on the "Hockey Stick" global climate reconstruction (PDF) by Edward J. Wegman, David W. Scott, and Yasmin H. Said:
Two principal methods for temperature reconstructions have been used; CFR (climate field reconstruction) and CPS (climate-plus-scale). The CFR is essentially a principal component analysis and the CPS is a simple averaging of climate proxies, which are then scaled to actual temperature records. The controversy over Mann's methods lies in that the proxies are centered on the mean of the period 1902-1995, rather than on the whole time period. This mean is, thus, actually decentered low, which will cause it to exhibit a larger variance, giving it preference for being selected as the first principal component. The net effect of this decentering using the proxy data in (Mann, Bradley, and Hughes 1998 and Mann, Bradley, and Hughes 1999) is to produce a "hockey stick" shape. Centering the mean is a critical factor in using the principal component methodology properly. It is not clear that Mann and associates realized the error in their methodology at the time of publication. Because of the lack of full documentation of their data and computer code, we have not been able to reproduce their research. We did, however, successfully recapture similar results to (McIntyre and McKitrick, who published a critique of the "hockey stick" findings). This recreation supports the critique of the (Mann, Bradley, and Hughes 1998) methods, as the offset of the mean value creates an artificially large deviation from the desired mean of zero.CV of Dr. Edward Wegman.
Yasmin H. Said was a grad student of Dr. Wegman's, and has probably torpedoed his career by having his name associated with a document debunking a key tenet of the Church of Anthropogenic Climate Change.
I vote for it to be like it was 50 million years ago (about 13 degrees warmer than it is now). :-)
Sure you can. You just call it ClimateChangeTM instead of GlobalWarmingTM, insist it's still caused by human activity and eureaka! You've got all the bases covered!
Not really because as the ocean water evaporates (like all other bodies of water), it is then transformed into rain, some of which falls on land. Some of the rain enters the soil and does not return to the ocean. I am not sure that anyone has ever attempted to quantify the volume of net ocean evaporation, the volume of rain just on land, the volume of rain that does not run off back into the ocean, etc.
While global warmers can be quite aggravating, cogitator does NOT parrot Al Gore.
Great graphic!
Could be that the gulf streams is shifting. That is one of the listed possible causes for the ice-ages.
That’s ridiculous. The gulf stream accounts for about 4 degrees Celsius of warmth where it makes the greatest difference, which is the Western coast of the British Isles. That’s not even enough to bump back the urban heat island effect. And any change in temperature from such shifts would be compensated for elsewhere.
I’m rooting for another .05 degree decline, at which point I can truthfully say that the Earth is no warmer than it was in 1942, when the anomaly was +.3273!
NO, not ridiculous. The cold deep currents and the upper warm currents have a definite effect on weather patterns. During the last ice age they know that the warm currents were diverted further south which affected the weather and rain patterns worldwide. That along with the slight difference in the earth’s angle to the sun caused dramatic cooling effects in the northern hemisphere. It’s not global warming, just a recurring earth cycle.
The trend over the past 10 years from the satellite measurements of the lower atmosphere show exactly 0.0002C per year of warming. Ie. ZERO WARMING.
So the global warmers are falling all over themselves after the latest data from May 2007 of sea surface temperatures and lower atmosphere temperatures show there has been no warming over the past 10 years.
They are now working furiously to try to rewrite the historical records once again to show the warming continues (they have succeeded in doing this every time so far so the records will just be changed again.)
>> So the global warmers are falling all over themselves after the latest data from May 2007 of sea surface temperatures and lower atmosphere temperatures show there has been no warming over the past 10 years. <<
Any links so I can watch them do this?
Yes, it is ridiculous. There is a perfectly valid control study for the effect of a collapse of the thermohaline circulation: the Pacific Northwest. (I’d also suggest Patagonia and New Zealand, but the researchers I’ve read didn’t, so maybe there’s something I don’t know about affecting circulation there.)
>>During the last ice age they know that the warm currents were diverted further south which affected the weather and rain patterns worldwide. <<
Yes, but that’s not the same as causing the ice age. What it actually did is make the Middle East more fertile, for one.
>> That along with the slight difference in the earth’s angle to the sun caused dramatic cooling effects in the northern hemisphere. <<
That certainly is why the ice age was “lopsided” to the North, but doesn’t explain its occurence in the first place. The truth is that we don’t even know whether ice ages are caused by solar, orbital or planetary variations. One researcher noted that the Earth tends to have ice age cycles when there’s a continent over one pole, but couldn’t explain why that would cause an ice age, or why the ice ages came in cycles.
>> It’s not global warming, just a recurring earth cycle. <<
Actually, it’s a lot of nothing. It’s 0.7 degrees over an entire century. The question is whether its indicative of a growing trend, or whether its a little tiny blurp.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.