New NASA data= oceans cooling off....

[JoeWPgh]

spookmineer.....it's obvious that climate change is an on-going thing. But the "greenhouse" effect that Gore talks about, points directly to a warming effect caused by a decreasing ozone layer. The new NASA data tends to cast more doubt on Gore's theory. Now if you take that as a personal attack.....

It does no such thing, unless you are pre-convinced that all observable changes to climate and oceans are simply hallucination, and all scientific answers to explain said changes are some evil scheme to make life miserable. That would be an extraordinary claim, requiring extraordinary evidence. All that you've presented is an isolated data set that the scientists who collected it are at a loss to explain.
Yet somehow, you come to the conclusion that this proves what you obviously wish to be true.

From there, you put the cart before the horse, and make this about Gore - as if he is personally conducting and directing climatologists, oceanographers and their research, as opposed to simply giving it a higher public profile. That is just plain silly.

These threads get locked because of childish thread trashing and spamming, demonstrated by some of the several posts already appearing in this thread.

I'd say it starts with your inflammatory sig. That sets the bar pretty low, if you indeed cared about civil debate. It opens the door for me to point out, that as a conservative, you believe that anything you disagree with is an assault to be fought off, at any cost in truth or civility - because that's just the way conservatives are. That's no more an attack than your sig, and you set the bar. I suspect you will disagree with that, because conservatives also think that they should be held to a lower standard of decency in public discourse than those they disagree with - a handicap, or an affirmative action, if you will.

Personally, I think these sorts of broad, blunderbuss, political 'insights' are a waste of time, if not counter-productive. But again, you set the bar.

Too bad this new data doesn't quite fit into current PC beliefs.....that's the bad news. The good news is that this new computer data seems to indicate that climate change isn't quite as drastic as the Gore theory would have you believe...... maybe much less so.

This new data cannot be described as good or bad news until it is understood by the scientists themselves. The opinions of liberal bashing conservatives don't carry an ounce of scientific weight.

[Bluefront]

"make this about Gore - as if he is personally conducting and directing climatologists, oceanographers and their research, as opposed to simply giving it a higher public profile"

Gore alone has placed himself as the figure-head of this "global-warming"/man-created climate change. Nobody elected him to that position. For whatever reason that view of the changing climate has become PC. For the most part, scientists who have to rely on grant money, have to follow PC, or lose their grant money. It follows that most new scientific "findings" will mirror Gore's beliefs......the scientists are in effect being "directed" by Gore-speak.......IMHO, with only a few exceptions.

Take a guess yourself....how can the ocean water temperature go down when the sun is warming the earth more fiercely, according to the current view of climate change?

[floffe]

Take a guess yourself....how can the ocean water temperature go down when the sun is warming the earth more fiercely, according to the current view of climate change?

One possible explanation was pointed out above: These are surface temperatures (the top mm or so), not overall water temperatures. If the heat moves down into the seas, the oceans will take more space since warm water is less dense than cold, which could explain some of the sea rise we've seen lately.

And yes, I agree with JoeWPgh that your sig has a tendency to push buttons. How about you just copy in that line in political posts? That said, I don't agree with the crusade against you by a certain poster, whose argument really isn't furthered by making personal attacks in pretty much every thread.

[VanWaGuy]

JoeWPgh,

Have you ever been part of a minority and felt discrimination? It is not a pretty thing.

as a conservative, you believe that anything you disagree with is an assault to be fought off, at any cost in truth or civility - because that's just the way conservatives are.

Joe, your open discrimination towards conservatives is really an ignorant generalization on your part. Mindless conservative bashing on your part does not carry any more weight than the liberal bashing that you allude to.

There are intelligent, kind, tolerant, respectful, diplomatic conservatives or liberals or libertarians or fill in the blank. And, there are the opposite. Almost any way you want to divide people, you will find this is true. Rich/poor, male/female, white/black, christian/jew/muslim/hindu etc.

If you respect the rights of others to think for themselves, and maybe to have developed ideas other than your own, then it can be educational and enjoyable to discuss or debate your differences.

I have heard members from many of these groups just assume that because they are in one group, the other must be ignorant and wrong because they are not in the right group.

I have heard people say things like "are xxx's really that stupid", or "why don't xxxx's think" about groups on both sides of this sort of division.

If you already assume that the other person is less than you because you label them a conservative, then you have no point talking with them. You have already assumed that they will not accept your opinions, and you will not respect theirs.

[JoeWPgh]

Gore alone has placed himself as the figure-head of this "global-warming"/man-created climate change. Nobody elected him to that position. For whatever reason that view of the changing climate has become PC. For the most part, scientists who have to rely on grant money, have to follow PC, or lose their grant money. It follows that most new scientific "findings" will mirror Gore's beliefs......the scientists are in effect being "directed" by Gore-speak.......IMHO, with only a few exceptions.

Again, the cart is in front of the horse. We should ignore the peer reviewed research in favor of some vague, fuzzy, hunch about PC? Gore has been away from the levers of g'ment and g'ment spending for almost 8 years. For the most of this time, the g'ment has been in the hands of conservatives. Sorry, but your math doesn't add up.
But this line of reasoning is typical of modern conservatives, who are dedicated to their own self-victimhood. When faced with evidence contrary to their beliefs, they lash out and blame whatever appears the easiest target - be it liberals, PC, media, courts, etc. When they get no traction there, they concoct elaborate conspiracies from incomplete information and surface level contradiction. This is a perfect example of that. The scientists behind the research have yet to determine what this means in the larger scope of known facts, but you do? Sorry, but it doesn't pass the silly test.

Take a guess yourself....how can the ocean water temperature go down when the sun is warming the earth more fiercely, according to the current view of climate change?

The scientist from your link suggested that the warmer water may somehow be sinking deeper in the oceans. Me? I wonder if what's being measured isn't so much an overall lowering of temperature as it is a shifting of ocean currents, which could obviously show lower temperatures in unexpected places. Shifting ocean currents have long been a major concern in climate change. I'm not claiming this is the case here. There's not enough evidence to make any conclusion, let alone a political football. But you never need much evidence to bash liberals, do you?

[VanWaGuy]

JoeWPgh,

Please explain the physics of how this warmer, less dense water somehow develops the ability to sink below the colder, more dense water?

[JoeWPgh]

JoeWPgh,

Have you ever been part of a minority and felt discrimination? It is not a pretty thing.

Sure I have. But I think you missed my point. My "mindless conservative bashing" was a measured response to the original poster's inflammatory rhetoric, specifically his sig, which seems to serve no purpose but to incite.
My feeling here is that I am every bit as free to ridicule it as he is to post it.

I have plenty of conservative friends with whom I enjoy spirited and respectful debates. Then there's the other kind. The kind who are happy to parrot Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, et al. They revel in being bombastic, inflammatory, and as 'in your face' as they can manage. The problem for conservatives is that they have allowed these flame-throwing, media screech monkeys to become the spokespeople for their movement. Like it or not, it reflects directly upon modern conservatism. But that was their choice, not mine. As such, it's a rich target for ridicule. YMMV

[JoeWPgh]

JoeWPgh,

Please explain the physics of how this warmer, less dense water somehow develops the ability to sink below the colder, more dense water?

I do not need to explain it, as it's not my supposition. That's from the scientist Bluefront cited in his original post. I merely quoted his own source.

[VanWaGuy]

This is an almost laughable example of what I was just saying.

But this line of reasoning is typical of modern conservatives, who are dedicated to their own self-victimhood. When faced with evidence contrary to their beliefs, they lash out and blame whatever appears the easiest target - be it liberals, PC, media, courts, etc. When they get no traction there, they concoct elaborate conspiracies from incomplete information and surface level contradiction

Both sides do this, and both sides pretend not to.

Just for examples, I am not at all saying only Dems do this, but for Joe who is blaming this on conservatives.

Wasn't it the Clintons who made up the laughable "Great Right Wing Conspiracy"?

And look at the current Dem race. Just yesterday or the day before, was it Wright or Sharpton saying that Hillary has not been called the N word, and that blacks have to work twice as hard as whites for the same recognition. How soon till we hear that Barack has never been called the B word, and that they plagerized the feminist line that a woman has to work twice as hard as a man to get recognition. I am predicting that we will see more competing "who is the bigger victim" before this campaign is over.

Anyway, I am not here for Dem bashing, just to point out that what Joe accredits to conservatives is not at all unique to them or a fair stereotype.

[VanWaGuy]

JoeWPgh,

Please target your shots a little better then. Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter do not represent all conservatives.

I consider myself more conservative than not, and there are many innocent folks that also fall under the catagory of your attacks.

I do not like arrogance at all, and I find Hannity in particular to be arrogant beyond belief, and in acting so to do his cause more harm than good.

[JoeWPgh]

JoeWPgh,

Please target your shots a little better then. Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter do not represent all conservatives.

I consider myself more conservative than not, and there are many innocent folks that also fall under the catagory of your attacks.

I do not like arrogance at all, and I find Hannity in particular to be arrogant beyond belief, and in acting so to do his cause more harm than good.

As I've said, I took a measured (if mocking) tone to the original poster's rhetoric. Specifically his sig:

"At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child - miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied, demanding, ill disciplined, despotic, and useless. Liberalism is the philosophy of sniveling brats." - P.J. O'Rourke

Care to defend how that sets the ground rules for polite conversation? I didn't make the guy type that. But I do think it opens the door to the scattershot blunderbuss I responded with. Do I actually think all conservatives fall into this category? Of course not. But I take my amusements where I find them, and I couldn't pass that one up.

[VanWaGuy]

Agreed Joe,

What is a little ironic to me is that his previous sig was one my all time favorites, but you are correct, most of what I said also applies to his current sig. line.

[jaganath]

Bluefront@the "greenhouse" effect that Gore talks about, points directly to a warming effect caused by a decreasing ozone layer.

actually, ozone depletion has led to a very minor cooling effect:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depl ... _depletion

"observed stratospheric O3 losses over the past two decades have caused a negative forcing of the surface-troposphere system"[38] of about −0.15 ± 0.10 watts per square meter (W/m²).[39]

===============================================

Please explain the physics of how this warmer, less dense water somehow develops the ability to sink below the colder, more dense water?

remember temperature is not the only factor in water density, salinity is also very important. it's actually quite common for the water at the bottom of a frozen lake to be warmer than at the surface. this also applies in polar regions with ice sheets, I believe.

[NeilBlanchard]

Greetings,

I'll try to take this back on topic:

The greenhouse effect is very real -- it is what keeps the earth from freezing to near outer-space temperatures. The only debate is the relative changes (or not) of the greenhouse effect, and/or the causes of the change.

Secondly, I doubt that the data in the article that Carl posted shows that ALL temperatures in ALL the world's oceans are decreasing. Please remember that most of all climate scientists all around the world agree that there is a global climate change: there is a general increase in the average temperatures -- but this means different things in different areas of the world! Some areas are getting warmer, and some areas are getting cooler -- because the overall change affects the patterns of energy flow.

Thirdly, there are very quantifiable changes that are pointing more and more to overall warming: the minimum amount of sea ice in the Arctic (on or around September 15th of each year) has decreased from ~9,000,000 square kilometers in the late 1970's -- to around ~4,300,000 square kilometers in 2007.

The sea ice is shown in magentas and red:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere ... p.1784.png


Another image showing the 1979-2000 median area in magenta outline vs the actual coverage in 2005 and 2007:
http://nsidc.org/news/press/2007_seaice ... extent.png


[Edit: I've resized these from the originals, so click the link for the higher resolution version.]

[aristide1]

The opinions of liberal bashing conservatives don't carry an ounce of scientific weight.

And the reverse does?

I wonder if what's being measured isn't so much an overall lowering of temperature as it is a shifting of ocean currents, which could obviously show lower temperatures in unexpected places. Shifting ocean currents have long been a major concern in climate change. I'm not claiming this is the case here. There's not enough evidence to make any conclusion, let alone a political football. But you never need much evidence to bash liberals, do you?

You mean you couldn't tell that BF has his PhD in oceanography?

Over the last 15 years you can witness for yourself the political extremists hard at work. Hillary called for a Palestine State long ago, and the republicans bashed her to no end. When Rice suggests the same thing it's considered great diplomacy. Its the same thing with the OP, this thread would not even exist of a republican had stood up and made the exact same claims. The hell with the message, let's focus on the messenger.

Bluefront isn't trying to get a Nobel prize for his guesses though.

Well given that Gore did meet the Nobel criteria for winning the prize how exactly did he try? He should not have won, period. But the same lack of reasoning can also be given to the OP.

That doesn't discredit what info is provide by ice trapped for thousands of years, scientific facts that don't suit the blind hatred shown in the OP.

[Bluefront]

Damn....Neil violates his own rules on picture size.

The data from the original post was not garnered from a few temperature probes......we're talking about thousands of probes in many different places, at different depths, sending temperature data over a period of at least five years.

This info started to appear a few days ago.... and probably a more in-depth analysis will be seen soon enough. I suppose the pro-Gore people will bash the data, or attempt to spin it. And the anti-Gore people will welcome this turn of events. After-all...... we all benefit if Gore's gloom and doom predictions are proven false.

FWIW....I didn't compose the sig I currently use. It's a quote I mostly agree with, and the spam-type posts in this thread, re-enforce that belief.

[aristide1]

An unsubstantiated quote by a comedian.

Added - Sorry wrong choice of words, replace unsubstantiated with unconfirmable.

[xan_user]

Question's and an experiment for global warming non-believer

If you put a glass of water in an open window in the sun, the water remain fairly cool as the breeze blows by, right? (Earth prior to industry)
A>

Now what would happen if i closed the window, so the heat from the sun can't disipate as fast? (Earth after industry)
A>

Now after it heats a little, drop some ice cubes into it. What happens? (Glaciers and poloar ice caps melt into sea)
A>

Just after the ice melts do you suppose the water in the glass will be warmer or colder than before the ice fell in and melted? (Ocean temps as reported by OP)
A>
>Come back an hour later. Is the water still cool or is it to warm to drink? (Near future)
A>


Please run this experiment, and report your findings.
Every time i try it i get the same results, a hot glass of water. Actually now I just ad a tea bag, and have a nice cup of global warming tea.

I am really curious to hear some results from posters in "red" states, as it would appear that the outcome must be the opposite there....

I hope for all our sakes that its just my window that has this issue.

[aristide1]

In other experiments an initial increase in CO2 in the atmosphere benefits plant growth while additional increases cause disaster. But don't let the initial finding stop it from being used for political bashing or the acceptance of more lobby funded corporate pollution.

[aristide1]

For the most part, scientists who have to rely on grant money, have to follow PC, or lose their grant money.

Where does that place scientists funded by Exxon/Mobil or all those scientists from the 1960s that worked for tobacco companies?

[spookmineer]

Aristide, Joe already debunked this comment:

Gore alone has placed himself as the figure-head of this "global-warming"/man-created climate change. Nobody elected him to that position. For whatever reason that view of the changing climate has become PC. For the most part, scientists who have to rely on grant money, have to follow PC, or lose their grant money. It follows that most new scientific "findings" will mirror Gore's beliefs......the scientists are in effect being "directed" by Gore-speak.......IMHO, with only a few exceptions.

Again, the cart is in front of the horse. We should ignore the peer reviewed research in favor of some vague, fuzzy, hunch about PC? Gore has been away from the levers of g'ment and g'ment spending for almost 8 years. For the most of this time, the g'ment has been in the hands of conservatives. Sorry, but your math doesn't add up.

Money can only buy so many things.

[aristide1]

Aristide, Joe already debunked this comment:

Gore alone has placed himself as the figure-head of this "global-warming"/man-created climate change. Nobody elected him to that position. For whatever reason that view of the changing climate has become PC. For the most part, scientists who have to rely on grant money, have to follow PC, or lose their grant money. It follows that most new scientific "findings" will mirror Gore's beliefs......the scientists are in effect being "directed" by Gore-speak.......IMHO, with only a few exceptions.

Again, the cart is in front of the horse. We should ignore the peer reviewed research in favor of some vague, fuzzy, hunch about PC? Gore has been away from the levers of g'ment and g'ment spending for almost 8 years. For the most of this time, the g'ment has been in the hands of conservatives. Sorry, but your math doesn't add up.

Money can only buy so many things.

The you are implying the OP is filthy rich?

[spookmineer]

No... implying that the assumption of the OP "money can direct what statements scientists will make [i.e. politically correct]" is wrong.
Why would conservatives grant money to research of which they don't like the results?

Or... maybe I'm being naive, and money already dictates which results are being published (and how), depending on the contributing party.

Perhaps that is what is happening with the new data, but that's guessing on my part.

[aristide1]

No... implying that the assumption of the OP "money can direct what statements scientists will make [i.e. politically correct]" is wrong.
Why would conservatives grant money to research of which they don't like the results?

Or... maybe I'm being naive, and money already dictates which results are being published (and how), depending on the contributing party.

Perhaps that is what is happening with the new data, but that's guessing on my part.

Actually in the last 7 years in the US "money already dictates which results are [NOT] being published (and how), depending on the contributing party.

It does no such thing, unless you are pre-convinced that all observable changes to climate and oceans are simply hallucination,,,,,

Hmmm, whereas I initially stated the OPs guess was that others were guessing, you extended it to say he's hallucinating that they're hallucinating.

I stand corrected.

[NeilBlanchard]

Hello,

So if there is no global climate change, what is causing the sea ice to melt ~45% more than it did nearly 30 years ago? (See images above.)

We are not scientists, folks (well, I'm not) and I will be waiting to hear if this new data (if it is real!) has any affect on the working theory of global climate change. I'm not going to to jump to any conclusions, based on what I think I understand.

I have heard specific data on the surface temperature of the oceans, in certain areas that are warming. There are also changes afoot in pH and chemical make up of the ocean, and changes in the salinity, too.

[Edit: Carl: the rules are not "my" rules -- but I should have adhered to them -- I'm sorry. I've reposted smaller versions -- so you can't ignore them!]

[aristide1]

He claims to need an excuse to ignore facts?

Oh brother.

[neon joe]

He claims to need an excuse to ignore facts?

I don't think he really ignores the facts.
I think he deliberately acts like he ignores them to get a hostile response from people here, and then pulls out the 'I don't like liberals' or 'stop being PC' argument (to get another hostile response).

I could be wrong of course, he might be so convinced that Gore is wrong that he's focusing on the only data that doesn't confirm that global warming is a fact...

Either way, he's wrong

[NeilBlanchard]

Hello Carl,

You're conflating global climate change with ozone issues. Carbon dioxide, methane, etc. are the main greenhouse gases -- they are what makes it possible for us to have the climate we have. The problem is now we have increased the carbon dioxide (and the other GH gases) very rapidly -- and rapid change is bad.

Check out all this NASA data:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Observ ... avhrr.html
http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a003300/a003376/
http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a002700/a002754/
http://mynasadata.larc.nasa.gov/preview ... &passid=51
http://science.hq.nasa.gov/oceans/physical/SST.html

Straight from the horse's mouth...

[aristide1]

I think he deliberately acts like he ignores them to get a hostile response from people here, and then pulls out the 'I don't like liberals' or 'stop being PC' argument (to get another hostile response).

That's his "fix", and he's totaly addicted, no self control whatsoever. Yeah remember how he milked that Clinton killed Vince Foster with no evidence?

Either way, he's wrong

A situation he's places himself in on a regular basis.

Hello Carl, ....
Check out all this NASA data:

You mean there's data that Bush hasn't deleted yet?
Now that's a surprise.

Bush tactics hard at work to protect his beloved profits:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23764861/

Straight from the horse's mouth...

Well when W speaks he would never say such things, so that means when W speaks the sounds are coming out the other end?


Added - My thanks to xan_user and his eloquent response to all of OP's scientific accusations. Should I wait for a peer reviewed response from the OP?

[floffe]

Carbon dioxide, methane, etc. are the main greenhouse gases -- they are what makes it possible for us to have the climate we have. The problem is now we have increased the carbon dioxide (and the other GH gases) very rapidly -- and rapid change is bad.

In fact water vapour is the GHG with most effect, however water is in a short enough cycle for this level not to be affected significantly by humans on a larger scale (obviously excepting watering fields and similar).