FReepmail me to get on or off
Click on POGW graphic for full GW rundown
New!!: Dr. John Ray's
GREENIE WATCH
Ping me if you find one I've missed.
Posted on 12/17/2007 11:43:27 AM PST by dangus
In 2000, when scientists declared that the Earth's temperature was rising, much anxiety ensued, even though the increase was only half of a degree over sixty years. In just the past year, however, the Earth's temperature has reversed, yielding back one-half of that increase.
The past month's (November's) global oceanic data from the National Climatic Data Center has now been released, and the Earth's oceans surface is .2548 degrees warmer than the 1880-2007 average. That's down from .5250 last year and .5597 roughly a decade ago.
There have been drops of roughly a couple tenths of a degree previously, in spite of the general warming trend. But such drops, blamed on "La Ninas," have occured immediately following temperature spikes. What makes this current La Nina unusual is that the current temperature drop follows an imperceptibly small temperature spike.
As a result, the cold snap is pulling down even the six-year running average of temperatures.
This does not mean that the warming trend has necessarily reversed itself; there have, indeed been declines in running averages even longer than that during this decline. In fact, a cooling trend lasted from the 1940s through the 1970s.
However, unable to justify drastic temperatures with fears of the temperature rising a single degree or less next century, the global-warming doomsday-preachers have been asserting that the surge in global warming in the late 1990s indicated an acceleration of global warming.
The notion of such an acceleration seems difficult to reconcile with the new data: The world's oceans were warmer during warm spells of the 1940s.
Very cool graphic - it is really sad how all this is exaggerated - it leads to people wanting to dismiss the whole thing.
Talk more about Global Warming. It’s 15 below and now Fairbanks has issued an air pollution alert which means we shouldn’t drive or run our woodstoves.
Click on POGW graphic for full GW rundown
New!!: Dr. John Ray's
GREENIE WATCH
Ping me if you find one I've missed.
There hasn’t been a rise since measurements started to be kept in a consistent way, mid- to late-19th century. *Estimates* of how much rise has taken place has been fodder for the global warming demagogues.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise
“Sea-level rise can be a product of global warming through two main processes: expansion of sea water as the oceans warm, and melting of ice over land. Global warming is predicted to cause significant rises in sea level over the course of the twenty-first century.”
The demagogues claimed that the seas were warming at depth; the oceans are known to get cooler and more dense (heavier due to levels of salinity etc) with depth, and there hasn’t been any such warming. This is pretty typical of the claims of the demagogues. During the medieval warming, Norwich had access to the sea via a flooded channel (basically, a fjord) and was a port. Not so now. Ruins of period farmsteads are found at higher latitudes and altitudes than are possible today, which suggests a solution to a sealevel rise (other than scamming property insurance companies).
Not helpful to who?
They will figure out a way to say this is due to global warming, too. I’ve already seen a report that said all these ice storms are due to global warming. Facts are irrelevant to true believers.
>>BTW its not at all helpful to deny sea level rise nor global warming.
Not helpful for the effort to keep the U.S. from doing something stupid - like Kyoto or other efforts that would cripple our economy while leaving our adversaries free to grow.
The big factor is that once there are sufficient global warming gasses to completely trap a given frequency of electromagnetic energy, adding any more of that gas will not trap any more of that frequency of energy. In simpler terms: once something is opaque, it’s opaque.
>>The big factor is that once there are sufficient global warming gasses to completely trap a given frequency of electromagnetic energy, adding any more of that gas will not trap any more of that frequency of energy. In simpler terms: once something is opaque, it’s opaque.<<
Yes, but God help us if we ever get to that point...
>> Can it still be called a “spike” if it is “imperceptibly small”? <<
An “imperceptibly small temperature thumbtack” sounded funnier still. Seriously, spike to refer to shape (upward, then a sharp downward reversal), rather than scale.
Mr. Gore, Don’t Mess with Mother Nature......She’ll get you in the end.
As I remember, the “global” satellite monitoring system then was a little less mature than today.
However, I’m sure that they have some pretty good assurance to call it down to 0.2548 degrees... either Fahrenheit or Celsius!
>>>>>>>Bump!!!!!!
The ruins of some ancient Grecian and other Mediterranean port cities are now several miles inland from the sea and stand well above present sea level. If the oceans are rising due to melting icecaps why is the sea level lower now than it apparently was 2500 years ago?
>> It appears to me that such a minor change might be well within the normal measuring error. Too many variables to control to get a repeatable reading? What do you think? <<
Yes and no: You can see if the temperature has gone up or down, even if you can’t calibrate very precisely. And the goal of the NCDC is to get enough readings to statistically smooth over any chance invalidity. But such statistical smoothing presumes that the invalidities have no specific trend. It certainly has been proven that the data collection over the US mainland has been horribly invalid, with a known upward trend. The thought is that ocean temperature readings may be somewhat better, but that problem still exists.
>> They’re able to measure temperature to ten-thousandths of a degree precision?? I’d really like to see the thermometer that generated these numbers. (Yes, I know, these numbers are undoubtedly the result of averaging across a huge number of different thermometers. They’ve probably also applied ‘correction factors’ to the raw readings.) <<
I’m sure the bizzarre precision is the result of dividing the sum of so many readings by a very large denominator.
Nice chart! You'll notice that several recent, consecutive years are progressively cooler. At the very least, you can see how the SST has dropped below the 1974-2007 trend line. If there was an acceleration, it's slowing down again!
>> Centuries? Exponential? I’m not sure I agree with the adjectives and nouns in the sentence, but the idea is correct. <<
Google Malthus.
HA!
Pin the brainstem down & administer the mother of all pink bellies.
...he'll talk.
I agree but it certainly implies a ridiculous level of precision in the measurements.
My bad for not having written clearly: These are Sea Surface Temperature readings, not the temperature of the entire ocean, which is why they are prone to fluctuations.
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.