Posted on 04/18/2007 7:03:00 AM PDT by cogitator
Linked from ClimateAudit:
Abstract:
"The recent cooling signal in the upper ocean reported by Lyman et al. [2006] is shown to be an artifact that was caused by a large cold bias discovered in a small fraction of Argo floats as well as a smaller but more prevalent warm bias in eXpendable BathyThermograph (XBT) data. These biases are both substantially larger than sampling errors estimated in Lyman et al. [2006]."
Roger Pielke Sr's blog has a comment (with comments, of course, some quite acerbic, if you like that kind of thing):
Correction To Paper on Recent Ocean Cooling To Be Available Soon
ping!
Whatever the cause, the warmo-philiacs will discount the event and tell you that mankind’s actions today override any natural fluctuation. Their flawed models can be excused when they “error” in opposition to the approved doctrine.
And I gotta wonder what difference a one foot rise in the sea level will make over a hundred years?
Run for your lives! The ocean is going to rise a tenth of an inch! We are all doomed!
Of course, the sea level rose 350 feet at the end of the last ice age. AND that ice age was brutal compared to the warmer temperatures we have now.
This is a bunch of envirowacko hysteria meant to promote a new communism. To a sane person, it’s a snoozer.
Of course they will. We all know they are not remotely similar to the wacko left in their exaggeration, willful ignorance of the facts and tendency to promote disinformation / sarcasm.
There will be no need to, as this "correction paper" explains at the very beginning: "The cooling will be shown to have been removed; however, the warming of the 1990s and up to 2002 will be shown not to have persisted. This will still be a challenge for the global climate modelers to explain,
Did you read the paper, or just its title/headline?
Of course that warm period was about .8 degree Celsius. We are already at at that point and still rising. Care to explain?
I was in the USAF from 1959-63 as a weather observer and held a position from 1966-70 at the US Navy Postgraduate school in Monterey as a meteorological technician.
Back then the weather service was in the process of switching from mercury thermometers and instrument shelters to electronic measuring tools; it has been my contention all along that instrument error has not received sufficient scrutiny in this whole issue and needs be re-examined.
The measuring points are so small that instrument calibration could easily be crucial to any single record and to a great number of sites if biases exist in a number of devices of similar manufacturer and positioning.
Since the political battle has won in favor of action (albeit unfocused) for the time being, we should avoid reading anything into headlines and concentrate on turning down the lights and taking the bus.
When I "debated" a co-worker about global warming, I put forth the argument that since Europe was warmer during the middle ages than it is now, how could human activity be blamed for current conditions?He firmly believed that cycle of global warming was caused by all the towns and villages burned by Viking raids.
It's a poor moonbat who doesn't have an answer (of sorts!) for everything! ;-)
Amazing how little perspective you have as the potential effects of storm surges and on populations that already live at sea level.
Hundreds of millions of refugees? Starvation? New Water patterns that require significant adaptation and severe economic disruption?
I guess the first step is the admitting that it is happening. We are at least beyond denial.
The second step is to stop believing what the wacko left is saying needs to be done and start realizing how basically easy and inexpensive the solutions will be. It will play to American strength as soon as you remove your head from your posterior. But most Americans already have.
“manufacturer” should read “manufacture.”
One of the best ways to win the debate and lose the argument is to get pushy and to resort to invective.
So the “medieval warm period” can be ignored simply because it involved less warming than we currently have? You want an explanation, how about this - the Earth’s temperature varies naturally. The last natural increase might be more or less than the current natural increase. You’re simply saying that we’re warming more now, so it must be man-made. Great logic. Tell me, do you still rely on the discredited “hockey stick” chart, too?
Actually I have never seen any evidence that the MWP was global. It appears to have been a phenomenon in Europe. You are welcome to show me otherwise.
I love this term: “hockey stick” . Ever heard of an “exponential growth curve”.
Can you show me how the growth in atmospheric CO2 is not exponential?
The current method of measuring Global Warming is like taking a photo of me running in a race, and trying to guess what I had for lunch.
You talk about the wacko left in the same breath that you buy their tale hook, line and sinker.
We are NOT the cause of any warming that may or may not be happening (instrumentation error, statistical bias, etc.). You also can’t base future predictions on past performance.
Now before you go all moonbat on me, I agree with one point, we need to advance technology beyond burning fossil fuels. BUT...we have the technology now to replace every coal and gas fired power plant, nuclear fission. BUT the greenies (moonbats) won’t let us build those either.
So in the end, we could probably remove all of the coal and gas fired plants in one fell swoop ten to fifteen years out in North America, if we start today. Just start building power plants.
I got another one for you. I had Global Warming moonbat tell me that the Little Ice Age was caused, get this, by the Black Plague which killed off most of the farmers, which meant that their field went fallow, which meant the forests of Europe reclaimed them, which meant more trees, which meant more CO2 being “scrubbed” from the atmosphere, which meant the Earth’s climate cooled. Amazing, huh?
Actually, I bet you also rely on the latest UN summary report. You know, the one written by political appointees, where the “scientific” research results will be “adjusted” if they differ from the political summary. You know, the one that cut the estimated temperature increase in half and that says their last report overstated humans’ impact on climate change by 1/3. If I came to you with evidence like that, you’d have a field day tearing it apart.
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.