NOAA baffled over ocean readings

[Papa Bear]

NOAA has reported that it Ocean Robots placed to monitor ocean temperatures are showing colder than they expected and no sign of Global Warming! (Temperatures have dropped) According to a NOAA spokesman "We need more time to see if we can make sense from these reading" "We can't understand why 1993 was one of the warmest in the ocean but they have been cooling ever since" "This is not what we thought was happening and it has us stumped"! Well I guess the sky isn't falling after all, but look to pay more at the pump. The Dumocrats in the US want to raise gas tax by 3.00 per gallon "To ween us off oil". According to a Dumocrat strategist on Fox news. "Drilling for more oil here would be like giving crack to an addict".

Guess all my years of travel and the temps I recorded were right. ALGORE was wrong and I have been trying to tell everyone. Where is my prize? But it goes to show you there is something else going on here: CONTROL

[lottie]

Papabear - do you know where about in the oceans (as in which oceans) they've had their robots?

The waters down here have been colder over the past couple of months - down to 26C..brrr..freezing for me - but maybe i'm acclimatizing lol

[thalassamania]

Papabear - do you know where about in the oceans (as in which oceans) they've had their robots?

The waters down here have been colder over the past couple of months - down to 26C..brrr..freezing for me - but maybe i'm acclimatizing lol

Argo is a global array of 3,000 free-drifting profiling floats that measures the temperature and salinity of the upper 2000 m of the ocean. This allows, for the first time, continuous monitoring of the temperature, salinity, and velocity of the upper ocean, with all data being relayed and made publicly available within hours after collection.

Positions of the floats that have delivered data within the last 30 days (20 March 2008)

Important notice to Argo users (pressure offset errors, 2nd notice): This is to provide an update to the earlier notice (see http://www-argo.ucsd.edu/Acpres_offset.html), with regard to progress in correcting pressure offset errors.

1. Pressure offset errors in WHOI/FSI Argo float profiles include a subset (a) that can be corrected exactly using automated procedures and a subset (b) that requires expert examination to produce an approximate correction.
   1. Profiles in subset (a) have now been corrected, and replacement of GDAC files for these profiles will be completed by 20 October. Procedures for real-time correction of these profiles are in place as of 10 October. These floats have been removed from the greylist as of 10 October, meaning the profiles will be available on the GTS.
   2. Profiles in subset (b) are undergoing expert examination and the files are being replaced on the GDAC as they are completed. Errors are noted in the files corresponding to the uncertainty in the pressure correction. Since these profiles cannot be corrected automatically, the corresponding instruments continue to be greylisted (i.e. profiles are not on the GTS).
2. While studying the pressure offset errors, a related problem was discovered in a group of WHOI/SBE profiles. Reported pressures from these instruments corresponded to the bottom pressure of bins rather than to the mid-bin pressure. This ½ bin pressure offset error is generally less than for the profiles noted in (1) above. For the affected WHOI/SBE instruments, all profiles have now been corrected and are available on the GDACS. The real-time data stream for these instruments has been corrected (as of 14 September). These instruments are not greylisted.

WMO ID numbers for the affected instruments in each of the groups discussed above are posted below. The Argo project will continue to improve procedures for detection and correction of data quality problems, and Argo endeavors to provide data of highest possible quality. Users should note that near real-time data are subject only to automated quality checking, and the best quality data for climate research applications are available only in delayed-mode (“D” files). Users can assist by reporting any data quality problems to support@argo.net and to the AST co-chairs if the problems persist.
Dean Roemmich and Howard Freeland, on behalf of the international Argo Steering Team

[Papa Bear]

Lottie, they are free drifting all over the world oceans! They are reporting the same thing I have recorded no warming beyond normal variations! You have to also understand that we shut down 2/3rd of the coldest reporting stations when the USSR closed their doors in 1992! So they had to average thus the false reading! Some, like at NASA are politically motivated to hid the truth! This is a new program in geologic terms and I to have noticed the cooler water in the last 8 years or so from the Caribbean to the South Pacific! We will get more data and track the changes better in the future! The best indicator is still that fact that the ocean has risen at the same rate for the last 35000 years on average! 3/4 inch per year!

All this while MARS is also going through planetary warming and we just came off a solar cycle of high activity! We live in an open system and CO2, as a diver you know, is only .o47% of ambient air! Hardly beyond the Oceans carrying capacity for CO2 witch is nothing more than Carbon that is free until a green plant uses it! Poor science by political scientists!

[thalassamania]

Lottie, they are free drifting all over the world oceans! They are reporting the same thing I have recorded no warming beyond normal variations!

Actually here is what NOAA has to say:

Question: Is the climate warming?

Yes. Global surface temperatures have increased about 0.6°C (plus or minus 0.2°C) since the late-19th century, and about 0.4°F (0.2 to 0.3°C) over the past 25 years (the period with the most credible data). The warming has not been globally uniform. Some areas (including parts of the southeastern U.S.) have, in fact, cooled over the last century. The recent warmth has been greatest over North America and Eurasia between 40 and 70°N. Warming, assisted by the record El Niño of 1997-1998, has continued right up to the present, with 2001 being the second warmest year on record after 1998.


Linear trends can vary greatly depending on the period over which they are computed. Temperature trends in the lower troposphere (between about 2,500 and 26,000 ft.) from 1979 to the present, the period for which Satellite Microwave Sounding Unit data exist, are small and may be unrepresentative of longer term trends and trends closer to the surface. Furthermore, there are small unresolved differences between radiosonde and satellite observations of tropospheric temperatures, though both data sources show slight warming trends. If one calculates trends beginning with the commencement of radiosonde data in the 1950s, there is a slight greater warming in the record due to increases in the 1970s. There are statistical and physical reasons (e.g., short record lengths, the transient differential effects of volcanic activity and El Niño, and boundary layer effects) for expecting differences between recent trends in surface and lower tropospheric temperatures, but the exact causes for the differences are still under investigation (see National Research Council report "Reconciling Observations of Global Temperature Change").


An enhanced greenhouse effect is expected to cause cooling in higher parts of the atmosphere because the increased "blanketing" effect in the lower atmosphere holds in more heat, allowing less to reach the upper atmosphere. Cooling of the lower stratosphere (about 49,000-79,500ft.) since 1979 is shown by both satellite Microwave Sounding Unit and radiosonde data, but is larger in the radiosonde data.


Relatively cool surface and tropospheric temperatures, and a relatively warmer lower stratosphere, were observed in 1992 and 1993, following the 1991 eruption of Mt. Pinatubo. The warming reappeared in 1994. A dramatic global warming, at least partly associated with the record El Niño, took place in 1998. This warming episode is reflected from the surface to the top of the troposphere.


There has been a general, but not global, tendency toward reduced diurnal temperature range (DTR), (the difference between high and low daily temperatures) over about 50% of the global land mass since the middle of the 20th century. Cloud cover has increased in many of the areas with reduced diurnal temperature range. The overall positive trend for maximum daily temperature over the period of study (1950-93) is 0.1°C/decade, whereas the trend for daily minimum temperatures is 0.2°C/decade. This results in a negative trend in the DTR of -0.1°C/decade.


Indirect indicators of warming such as borehole temperatures, snow cover, and glacier recession data, are in substantial agreement with the more direct indicators of recent warmth. Evidence such as changes in glacier length is useful since it not only provides qualitative support for existing meteorological data, but glaciers often exist in places too remote to support meteorological stations, the records of glacial advance and retreat often extend back further than weather station records, and glaciers are usually at much higher alititudes that weather stations allowing us more insight into temperature changes higher in the atmosphere.
Large-scale measurements of sea-ice have only been possible since the satellite era, but through looking at a number of different satellite estimates, it has been determined that Arctic sea ice has decreased between 1973 and 1996 at a rate of -2.8 +/- 0.3%/decade. Although this seems to correspond to a general increase in temperature over the same period, there are lots of quasi-cyclic atmospheric dynamics (for example the Arctic Oscillation) which may also influence the extent and thickness of sea-ice in the Arctic. Sea-ice in the Antarctic has shown very little trend over the same period, or even a slight increase since 1979. Though extending the Antarctic sea-ice record back in time is more difficult due to the lack of direct observations in this part of the world.

You have to also understand that we shut down 2/3rd of the coldest reporting stations when the USSR closed their doors in 1992! So they had to average thus the false reading! Some, like at NASA are politically motivated to hid the truth! This is a new program in geologic terms and I to have noticed the cooler water in the last 8 years or so from the Caribbean to the South Pacific! We will get more data and track the changes better in the future! The best indicator is still that fact that the ocean has risen at the same rate for the last 35000 years on average! 3/4 inch per year!

None of what you write there is true. I suggest that you come up with some references.

All this while MARS is also going through planetary warming and we just came off a solar cycle of high activity! We live in an open system and CO2, as a diver you know, is only .o47% of ambient air! Hardly beyond the Oceans carrying capacity for CO2 witch is nothing more than Carbon that is free until a green plant uses it! Poor science by political scientists!

NASA says:

Human Activities Add to Atmospheric (CO2) Atmospheric CO2 has increased about 25 percent since the early 1 800s. Climatologists at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md., estimate the increase since 1958 has been about 10 percent. Currently, the level of atmospheric C 2 is increasing at a rate of about 0.4 percent a year.

But then, of course, you have more accurate data and better interpretive skills, right?

[Papa Bear]

Eight Reasons Why ‘Global Warming’ Is a Scam

Written By: Joseph L. Bast
Published In: Heartlander
Publication Date: February 1, 2003
Publisher: The Heartland Institute



When Al Gore lost his bid to become the country’s first “Environment President,” many of us thought the “global warming” scare would finally come to a well-deserved end. That hasn’t happened, despite eight good reasons this scam should finally be put to rest.


It’s B-a-a-ck!

Similar scares orchestrated by radical environmentalists in the past--such as Alar, global cooling, the “population bomb,” and electromagnetic fields--were eventually debunked by scientists and no longer appear in the speeches or platforms of public officials. The New York Times recently endorsed more widespread use of DDT to combat malaria, proving Rachel Carson’s anti-pesticide gospel is no longer sacrosanct even with the liberal elite.

The scientific case against catastrophic global warming is at least as strong as the case for DDT, but the global warming scare hasn’t gone away. President Bush is waffling on the issue, rightly opposing the Kyoto Protocol and focusing on research and voluntary projects, but wrongly allowing his administration to support calls for creating “transferrable emission credits” for greenhouse gas reductions. Such credits would build political and economic support for a Kyoto-like cap on greenhouse gas emissions.

At the state level, some 23 states have already adopted caps on greenhouse gas emissions or goals for replacing fossil fuels with alternative energy sources. These efforts are doomed to be costly failures, as a new Heartland Policy Study by Dr. Jay Lehr and James Taylor documents. Instead of concentrating on balancing state budgets, some legislators will be working to pass their own “mini-Kyotos.”


Eight Reasons to End the Scam

Concern over “global warming” is overblown and misdirected. What follows are eight reasons why we should pull the plug on this scam before it destroys billions of dollars of wealth and millions of jobs.

1. Most scientists do not believe human activities threaten to disrupt the Earth’s climate. More than 17,000 scientists have signed a petition circulated by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine saying, in part, “there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” (Go to www.oism.org for the complete petition and names of signers.) Surveys of climatologists show similar skepticism.

2. Our most reliable sources of temperature data show no global warming trend. Satellite readings of temperatures in the lower troposphere (an area scientists predict would immediately reflect any global warming) show no warming since readings began 23 years ago. These readings are accurate to within 0.01ºC, and are consistent with data from weather balloons. Only land-based temperature stations show a warming trend, and these stations do not cover the entire globe, are often contaminated by heat generated by nearby urban development, and are subject to human error.

3. Global climate computer models are too crude to predict future climate changes. All predictions of global warming are based on computer models, not historical data. In order to get their models to produce predictions that are close to their designers’ expectations, modelers resort to “flux adjustments” that can be 25 times larger than the effect of doubling carbon dioxide concentrations, the supposed trigger for global warming. Richard A. Kerr, a writer for Science, says “climate modelers have been ‘cheating’ for so long it’s almost become respectable.”

4. The IPCC did not prove that human activities are causing global warming. Alarmists frequently quote the executive summaries of reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a United Nations organization, to support their predictions. But here is what the IPCC’s latest report, Climate Change 2001, actually says about predicting the future climate: “The Earth’s atmosphere-ocean dynamics is chaotic: its evolution is sensitive to small perturbations in initial conditions. This sensitivity limits our ability to predict the detailed evolution of weather; inevitable errors and uncertainties in the starting conditions of a weather forecast amplify through the forecast. As well as uncertainty in initial conditions, such predictions are also degraded by errors and uncertainties in our ability to represent accurately the significant climate processes.”

5. A modest amount of global warming, should it occur, would be beneficial to the natural world and to human civilization. Temperatures during the Medieval Warm Period (roughly 800 to 1200 AD), which allowed the Vikings to settle presently inhospitable Greenland, were higher than even the worst-case scenario reported by the IPCC. The period from about 5000-3000 BC, known as the “climatic optimum,” was even warmer and marked “a time when mankind began to build its first civilizations,” observe James Plummer and Frances B. Smith in a study for Consumer Alert. “There is good reason to believe that a warmer climate would have a similar effect on the health and welfare of our own far more advanced and adaptable civilization today.”

6. Efforts to quickly reduce human greenhouse gas emissions would be costly and would not stop Earth’s climate from changing. Reducing U.S. carbon dioxide emissions to 7 percent below 1990’s levels by the year 2012--the target set by the Kyoto Protocol--would require higher energy taxes and regulations causing the nation to lose 2.4 million jobs and $300 billion in annual economic output. Average household income nationwide would fall by $2,700, and state tax revenues would decline by $93.1 billion due to less taxable earned income and sales, and lower property values. Full implementation of the Kyoto Protocol by all participating nations would reduce global temperature in the year 2100 by a mere 0.14 degrees Celsius.

7. Efforts by state governments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are even more expensive and threaten to bust state budgets. After raising their spending with reckless abandon during the 1990s, states now face a cumulative projected deficit of more than $90 billion. Incredibly, most states nevertheless persist in backing unnecessary and expensive greenhouse gas reduction programs. New Jersey, for example, collects $358 million a year in utility taxes to fund greenhouse gas reduction programs. Such programs will have no impact on global greenhouse gas emissions. All they do is destroy jobs and waste money.

8. The best strategy to pursue is “no regrets.” The alternative to demands for immediate action to “stop global warming” is not to do nothing. The best strategy is to invest in atmospheric research now and in reducing emissions sometime in the future if the science becomes more compelling. In the meantime, investments should be made to reduce emissions only when such investments make economic sense in their own right.

This strategy is called “no regrets,” and it is roughly what the Bush administration has been doing. The U.S. spends more on global warming research each year than the entire rest of the world combined, and American businesses are leading the way in demonstrating new technologies for reducing and sequestering greenhouse gas emissions.


Time for Common Sense

The global warming scare has enabled environmental advocacy groups to raise billions of dollars in contributions and government grants. It has given politicians (from Al Gore down) opportunities to pose as prophets of doom and slayers of evil corporations. And it has given bureaucrats at all levels of government, from the United Nations to city councils, powers that threaten our jobs and individual liberty.

It is time for common sense to return to the debate over protecting the environment. An excellent first step would be to end the “global warming” scam.

[thalassamania]

NOAA has reported that it Ocean Robots placed to monitor ocean temperatures are showing colder than they expected and no sign of Global Warming! (Temperatures have dropped) According to a NOAA spokesman "We need more time to see if we can make sense from these reading" "We can't understand why 1993 was one of the warmest in the ocean but they have been cooling ever since" "This is not what we thought was happening and it has us stumped"! Well I guess the sky isn't falling after all, but look to pay more at the pump! The Dumocrats in the US want to raise gas tax by 3.00 per gallon "To ween us off oil" According to a Dumocrat strategist on fox news! "Drilling for more oil here would be like giving crack to an addict"!

Guess all my years of travel and the temps I recorded were right! ALGORE was wrong and I have been trying to tell everyone! Where is my prize? But it goes to show you there is something else going onb here! CONTROL!

As I posted elsewhere:

In a paper published in 2006 it was incorrectly reported that ocean temperatures had dropped. (Johnson, G. C., S. Levitus, J. M. Lyman, C. Schmid, and J. K. Willis (2006), Ocean heat content variability, in Annual Report on the State of the Ocean and the Ocean Observing System for Climate: FY 2005, edited by J. M. Levy D. M. Stanitski, and P. Arkin, pp. 74-84, NOAA Climate Program Office, Silver Spring, MD)

Last year that report was revised. (Correction to “Recent Cooling 1 of the Upper Ocean” Josh K. Willis, John M. Lyman, Gregory C. Johnson and John Gilson, Revised and Resubmitted 10 July 2007 to Geophysical Research Letters.)

In that revision it was noted by the authors that: "Most of the rapid decrease in globally integrated 18 upper (0–750 m) ocean heat content anomalies (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 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. This error will ultimately be corrected. However, until corrections have been made these data can be easily excluded from OHCA estimates (see Link for more details). Another bias was caused by eXpendable BathyThermograph (XBT) data that are systematically warm compared to other instruments [Gouretski and Koltermann, 28 2007]. Both biases appear to have contributed equally to the spurious cooling."

Bottom line: There was a problem in the data and in the latest analysis, the cooling has disappeared.

When you make sweeping claims it is usually considered to be a good idea to keep up on the field. Failure to do so leaves one operating in a mindset that shares more with those who believe that you can turn lead to gold and that the Sun revolves around the Earth rather than with modern science.

"The discovery of truth is prevented more effectively, not by the false appearance things present and which mislead into error, not directly by weakness of the reasoning powers, but by preconceived opinion, by prejudice." - Arthur Schopenhauer