Bob Strong, Reuters
Posted on 03/24/2008 8:07:49 AM PDT by Clive
Perhaps The Climate Change Models Are Wrong
Lorne Gunter, National Post Published: Monday, March 24, 2008
Bob Strong, Reuters
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.
lgunter@shaw.ca
"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."
No, Galileo, I won't look through your telescope
Conventional wisdom is always wrong.
Global warming list PING!
NASA and NOAA are looking like junk scientists - Real scientist aren't vested in one outcome over another...
not a problem, the libs will say the data is just too complex for the average person. they’ll just remove access to it, and properly interpret it for us.
If the data doesn’t support your theory, ignore the data :)
Those little Argo “blighters” are clearly deniers. When are these instruments going to wise up and get with the program? Was this program funded by evil corporations?
The more accurate our methods of measuring temperature, the least likely the climate change fanatics will like the results. It is particularly bad when the can’t manipulate the data to meat their results.
I think the AGW alarmists will very quickly fix this problem. Mann and his cohorts will either just reprogram the buggers to get the result they want, or they will ‘adjust’ the raw data to ‘smooth’ the numbers. These people have no shame, it seems the more the evidnece disproves their goofy theories, the louder they become. The way to win an argument is with facts, but the AGW,liberal, socialist, marxist crowd has never believed facts matter, only their ideology matters.
I showed this to a warmist. He said that the reason for the cooling was all the glacial melt runoff due to warming. He cited his glass of tea after the ice melts.
To our eternal shame and detriment, mankind will never cast overboard the propensity to kill the messenger. Even if the messengers are just lowly "Argo deniers."
Correction to “Recent Cooling 1 of the Upper Ocean” Revised and Resubmitted 10 July 2007
Abstract. Two systematic biases have been discovered 9 in the ocean temperature data used by Lyman et al. [2006]. These biases are both substantially larger than sampling errors estimated in Lyman et al. [2006], and appear to be the cause of the rapid cooling reported in that work.
Most of the rapid decrease in globally integrated 18 upper (0–750 m) ocean heat content(OHCA) between 2003 and 2005 reported by Lyman et al. [2006] appears to be an artifact resulting from the combination of two different instrument biases recently discovered in the in situ profile data. Although Lyman et al. [2006] carefully 22 estimated sampling errors, they did not investigate potential biases among different instrument types. One such bias has been identified in a subset of Argo float profiles...
http://oceans.pmel.noaa.gov/Pdf/heat_2006.pdf
Is there a FR “the coming Ice age” ping list yet?
That technique has been used in the pre-historic science dating applications also.
In reading an article about the mothballing of the USS Kennedy I found this sentence:
“The 1,050-foot-long Kennedy, which displaces about 82,000 tons of water, is hard to maneuver, especially under tow.”
Which makes me wonder how much the ocean level is rising because the increasing size of ships being built, launched and sailed? The displaced water has to go somewhere, and the only logical place is for it to be rising all around the ship and along the shorelines. Therefore I propose that ALL BOATS AND SHIPS be immediately banded from the waters of the planet. All boats and ships, from the smallest dingy to the largest supertanker be docked and dismantled. This will lead to the droping of the level of the oceans and thus keep the world from flooding.
(No I’m not serious, but just hoping to beat an envionmentalist in proposing it.)
The global warming commission has determined that Greenland displaces more water than its glaciers absorb, therefore Greenland is now outlawed.
I don't know. You can find plenty of interesting activity on Robert Felix's site at http://www.iceagenow.com.
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.