Global Cooling Chills Summer

[Midnight Marauder]

You guys must be stuck in some sort of time warp. Nobody... and I do mean, NOBODY [but the most dense] pretend to say that the Earth isn't warming

Nobody you've ever heard, because their dissenting voices are squelched.

One example:

“For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?" - Geologist Dr. David Gee, the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.

Another scientist opines, on the squelching of dissenting voices:

“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.

Another, ties it all together:

“Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.” - Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.

Two more opine:

“CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.” - Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.

“The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds.” - Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata.

Science? Or religion? Faith-based:

“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” - Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.

There are thousands more. You never hear their voices.

Why does the AGW Church fear debate and dissent?

All of your opininos except the first one talk about AGW, which is exactly what I'm saying: The debate is whether there is A global warming [as in ANTHROPOGENIC] or whether it is NOT A GW, as in NOT-ANTHROPOGENIC global warming. The fact is the earth is warming and the climate is changing, the debate is whether these changes are ANTHROPOGENIC [man-made] or NOT anthropogenic [non-man-made]. The notion that you can post the temperature in Florida or Virginia or any bumble-fuck place in America does not suffice to silence the GIGANTIC majority of everyone who watches WORLD-WIDE WEATHER.

If you think that the warming of the earth's WORLD-WIDE ATMOSPHERE [not just your fucking idiot bumblefuck american neighborhood] is warming because of NATURAL causes and NOT because we've been pumping the big majority of stored carbon inside the earth's crust into the aforementioned atmosphere, feel free to post and debate. To debate that worldwide temperature trends have shot up for the past 50 years is just stupid. I would guess you would take the latter; arguing that the rise in temperature WORLD-WIDE is a product of naturally occuring phenomena, and NOT man-made phenomena. So start with those threads, and don't waste our time trying to deny the reality of things.

:yawn:

First of all, since reading comprehension doesn't seem to be your strong suit, I will point out to you again that I intentionally addressed the "warming" issue with only one quote, then went on to other points. The one quote belied your statement that "Nobody... and I do mean, NOBODY [but the most dense] pretend to say that the Earth isn't warming." The scientist I quoted clearly isn't dense. And he says the earth is NOT warming.

Now...

Evidence continues to mount that the planet is NOT warming at all, it has been in fact COOLING.

I present to you, the Argo Buoys for a start. You probably never heard of them, since they did not give the desired data. They showed the oceans -- the great heat sink of the planet -- have been COOLING. However, had they shown even the slightest little bit of warming, they would have been hailed as the greatest measuring instrument mankind has ever invented. They would be rock stars. There would be tee-shirts, bumper stickers, bobble-head dolls, Saturday morning Argo Adventures cartoons for the kids, you name it. But because these 3000 nifty little robots didn't follow the script, few have ever heard of them.

The Mystery of Global Warming's Missing Heat : NPR

In fact, 80 percent to 90 percent of global warming involves heating up ocean waters. They hold much more heat than the atmosphere can. So Willis has been studying the ocean with a fleet of robotic instruments called the Argo system. The buoys can dive 3,000 feet down and measure ocean temperature. Since the system was fully deployed in 2003, it has recorded no warming of the global oceans.

"There has been a very slight cooling, but not anything really significant," Willis says.

Of course, this scientifically gathered data has been pretty much dismissed, a unpicked cherry left on the tree of facts, because it didn't look sweet to the AGW disciples. Cooling measured accurately over five years by 3000 robots who dive down, come back up, dive down again, taking measurements all along the way 24/7/365 for five freaking years, is "not anything really significant?" The hell it's not.

You're simply dishonest if you believe the jury isn't still out on whether the planet has been actually cooling instead of warming, no matter the supposed cause.

The FACT is, we don't really know.

And that's how science begins, by saying "I do not know" instead of what we see here, "We DO know so let's cherry-pick data, rig models, come up with bogus "hockey sticks," and of course play the emotional guilt and blame game -- and like Goebbels -- continue to lie louder and longer against the truthful opposition -- in hopes that the AGW lie will become accepted as truth."

And meanwhile, demonize naysayers and doubters, call them "deniers" trying to pigeonhole them with Holocaust deniers and flat-earthers, try to baffle with bullshit because they cannot dazzle with brilliance, because the truth isn't on their side. And they freakin know it isn't.

 

[edthecynic]

Nobody you've ever heard, because their dissenting voices are squelched.

One example:

“For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?" - Geologist Dr. David Gee, the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.

Another scientist opines, on the squelching of dissenting voices:

“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.

Another, ties it all together:

“Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.” - Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.

Two more opine:

“CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.” - Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.

“The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds.” - Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata.

Science? Or religion? Faith-based:

“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” - Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.

There are thousands more. You never hear their voices.

Why does the AGW Church fear debate and dissent?

All of your opininos except the first one talk about AGW, which is exactly what I'm saying: The debate is whether there is A global warming [as in ANTHROPOGENIC] or whether it is NOT A GW, as in NOT-ANTHROPOGENIC global warming. The fact is the earth is warming and the climate is changing, the debate is whether these changes are ANTHROPOGENIC [man-made] or NOT anthropogenic [non-man-made]. The notion that you can post the temperature in Florida or Virginia or any bumble-fuck place in America does not suffice to silence the GIGANTIC majority of everyone who watches WORLD-WIDE WEATHER.

If you think that the warming of the earth's WORLD-WIDE ATMOSPHERE [not just your fucking idiot bumblefuck american neighborhood] is warming because of NATURAL causes and NOT because we've been pumping the big majority of stored carbon inside the earth's crust into the aforementioned atmosphere, feel free to post and debate. To debate that worldwide temperature trends have shot up for the past 50 years is just stupid. I would guess you would take the latter; arguing that the rise in temperature WORLD-WIDE is a product of naturally occuring phenomena, and NOT man-made phenomena. So start with those threads, and don't waste our time trying to deny the reality of things.

:yawn:

First of all, since reading comprehension doesn't seem to be your strong suit, I will point out to you again that I intentionally addressed the "warming" issue with only one quote, then went on to other points. The one quote belied your statement that "Nobody... and I do mean, NOBODY [but the most dense] pretend to say that the Earth isn't warming." The scientist I quoted clearly isn't dense. And he says the earth is NOT warming.

Now...

Evidence continues to mount that the planet is NOT warming at all, it has been in fact COOLING.

I present to you, the Argo Buoys for a start. You probably never heard of them, since they did not give the desired data. They showed the oceans -- the great heat sink of the planet -- have been COOLING. However, had they shown even the slightest little bit of warming, they would have been hailed as the greatest measuring instrument mankind has ever invented. They would be rock stars. There would be tee-shirts, bumper stickers, bobble-head dolls, Saturday morning Argo Adventures cartoons for the kids, you name it. But because these 3000 nifty little robots didn't follow the script, few have ever heard of them.

The Mystery of Global Warming's Missing Heat : NPR

In fact, 80 percent to 90 percent of global warming involves heating up ocean waters. They hold much more heat than the atmosphere can. So Willis has been studying the ocean with a fleet of robotic instruments called the Argo system. The buoys can dive 3,000 feet down and measure ocean temperature. Since the system was fully deployed in 2003, it has recorded no warming of the global oceans.

"There has been a very slight cooling, but not anything really significant," Willis says.

Of course, this scientifically gathered data has been pretty much dismissed, a unpicked cherry left on the tree of facts, because it didn't look sweet to the AGW disciples. Cooling measured accurately over five years by 3000 robots who dive down, come back up, dive down again, taking measurements all along the way 24/7/365 for five freaking years, is "not anything really significant?" The hell it's not.

You're simply dishonest if you believe the jury isn't still out on whether the planet has been actually cooling instead of warming, no matter the supposed cause.

The FACT is, we don't really know.

And that's how science begins, by saying "I do not know" instead of what we see here, "We DO know so let's cherry-pick data, rig models, come up with bogus "hockey sticks," and of course play the emotional guilt and blame game -- and like Goebbels -- continue to lie louder and longer against the truthful opposition -- in hopes that the AGW lie will become accepted as truth."

And meanwhile, demonize naysayers and doubters, call them "deniers" trying to pigeonhole them with Holocaust deniers and flat-earthers, try to baffle with bullshit because they cannot dazzle with brilliance, because the truth isn't on their side. And they freakin know it isn't.

Here's the Argo chart and take note that the last point on the chart is the very highest point on the whole chart at a little above 14, and if you count back 5 years the starting point is at a little above 12. The first of those 5 years is up and the second year is down but not as low as the starting point, the third is up again just a little more than the starting year, the fourth year is down again but again not as low as the second year's low. And the fifth year is up again even higher than the third year's high. The most you pathological liars could honestly say is the continued long term warming trend has slowed, but it is still warming.

This Argo chart has been posted SEVERAL times in this thread already, but you continue to lie about it. You deniers think because the Argo floats are not well known you can LIE with impunity. It's like deniers saying that the warmest decade in the history of direct instrument measurement is a decade of cooling. But not everyone is as deliberately MISINFORMED and as STUPID as a CON$ervative.

 

[cbi0090]

OMG! The argument, to me, is just not so complicated.

1) The earth has been warming since the last ice age (fact)
2) It has done so in the past (see ancient tree stumps coming to view from under receding glaciers)
3) The weather does not behave linearly. (never has, never will, will always be up and down)
4) Man is contributing to/accelerating the change (Maybe, it hasn't been proven, we don't know, it's a hunch that seems logical)
5) Can we do something about it? (See 4)
6) Do we want to destroy our economy in the process of trying to do something about it? (Absolutely not, the country would revolt if the politicians tried)
7) Do we want to become energy independent (Absolutely, our dependence on oil is destabilizing)
8) Are alternative energy sources good? (See 5 and 7)

 

[code1211]

All of your opininos except the first one talk about AGW, which is exactly what I'm saying: The debate is whether there is A global warming [as in ANTHROPOGENIC] or whether it is NOT A GW, as in NOT-ANTHROPOGENIC global warming. The fact is the earth is warming and the climate is changing, the debate is whether these changes are ANTHROPOGENIC [man-made] or NOT anthropogenic [non-man-made]. The notion that you can post the temperature in Florida or Virginia or any bumble-fuck place in America does not suffice to silence the GIGANTIC majority of everyone who watches WORLD-WIDE WEATHER.

If you think that the warming of the earth's WORLD-WIDE ATMOSPHERE [not just your fucking idiot bumblefuck american neighborhood] is warming because of NATURAL causes and NOT because we've been pumping the big majority of stored carbon inside the earth's crust into the aforementioned atmosphere, feel free to post and debate. To debate that worldwide temperature trends have shot up for the past 50 years is just stupid. I would guess you would take the latter; arguing that the rise in temperature WORLD-WIDE is a product of naturally occuring phenomena, and NOT man-made phenomena. So start with those threads, and don't waste our time trying to deny the reality of things.

:yawn:

First of all, since reading comprehension doesn't seem to be your strong suit, I will point out to you again that I intentionally addressed the "warming" issue with only one quote, then went on to other points. The one quote belied your statement that "Nobody... and I do mean, NOBODY [but the most dense] pretend to say that the Earth isn't warming." The scientist I quoted clearly isn't dense. And he says the earth is NOT warming.

Now...

Evidence continues to mount that the planet is NOT warming at all, it has been in fact COOLING.

I present to you, the Argo Buoys for a start. You probably never heard of them, since they did not give the desired data. They showed the oceans -- the great heat sink of the planet -- have been COOLING. However, had they shown even the slightest little bit of warming, they would have been hailed as the greatest measuring instrument mankind has ever invented. They would be rock stars. There would be tee-shirts, bumper stickers, bobble-head dolls, Saturday morning Argo Adventures cartoons for the kids, you name it. But because these 3000 nifty little robots didn't follow the script, few have ever heard of them.

The Mystery of Global Warming's Missing Heat : NPR

In fact, 80 percent to 90 percent of global warming involves heating up ocean waters. They hold much more heat than the atmosphere can. So Willis has been studying the ocean with a fleet of robotic instruments called the Argo system. The buoys can dive 3,000 feet down and measure ocean temperature. Since the system was fully deployed in 2003, it has recorded no warming of the global oceans.

"There has been a very slight cooling, but not anything really significant," Willis says.

Of course, this scientifically gathered data has been pretty much dismissed, a unpicked cherry left on the tree of facts, because it didn't look sweet to the AGW disciples. Cooling measured accurately over five years by 3000 robots who dive down, come back up, dive down again, taking measurements all along the way 24/7/365 for five freaking years, is "not anything really significant?" The hell it's not.

You're simply dishonest if you believe the jury isn't still out on whether the planet has been actually cooling instead of warming, no matter the supposed cause.

The FACT is, we don't really know.

And that's how science begins, by saying "I do not know" instead of what we see here, "We DO know so let's cherry-pick data, rig models, come up with bogus "hockey sticks," and of course play the emotional guilt and blame game -- and like Goebbels -- continue to lie louder and longer against the truthful opposition -- in hopes that the AGW lie will become accepted as truth."

And meanwhile, demonize naysayers and doubters, call them "deniers" trying to pigeonhole them with Holocaust deniers and flat-earthers, try to baffle with bullshit because they cannot dazzle with brilliance, because the truth isn't on their side. And they freakin know it isn't.

Here's the Argo chart and take note that the last point on the chart is the very highest point on the whole chart at a little above 14, and if you count back 5 years the starting point is at a little above 12. The first of those 5 years is up and the second year is down but not as low as the starting point, the third is up again just a little more than the starting year, the fourth year is down again but again not as low as the second year's low. And the fifth year is up again even higher than the third year's high. The most you pathological liars could honestly say is the continued long term warming trend has slowed, but it is still warming.

This Argo chart has been posted SEVERAL times in this thread already, but you continue to lie about it. You deniers think because the Argo floats are not well known you can LIE with impunity. It's like deniers saying that the warmest decade in the history of direct instrument measurement is a decade of cooling. But not everyone is as deliberately MISINFORMED and as STUPID as a CON$ervative.

Ed, this chart goes back in time for a long term, but the Argo Buoys were only activated in the early 2000's. Here's a decent article on them and they do in truth reveal that there is oceanic cooling.

Perhaps The Climate Change Models Are Wrong

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.

 

[Sinatra]

Outstanding piece!

Quadrant is a great publication.

That article by the way, opens with this quote which I'm sure you saw:

The idea that human beings have changed and are changing the basic climate system of the Earth through their industrial activities and burning of fossil fuels—the essence of the Greens’ theory of global warming—has about as much basis in science as Marxism and Freudianism. Global warming, like Marxism, is a political theory of actions, demanding compliance with its rules.

Marxism, Freudianism, global warming. These are proof—of which history offers so many examples—that people can be suckers on a grand scale. To their fanatical followers they are a substitute for religion. Global warming, in particular, is a creed, a faith, a dogma that has little to do with science. If people are in need of religion, why don’t they just turn to the genuine article?

—Paul Johnson

Fantastic quote.

As many others have said, science long ago took a backseat to dogma regarding the man made global warming agenda...

 

[edthecynic]

:yawn:

First of all, since reading comprehension doesn't seem to be your strong suit, I will point out to you again that I intentionally addressed the "warming" issue with only one quote, then went on to other points. The one quote belied your statement that "Nobody... and I do mean, NOBODY [but the most dense] pretend to say that the Earth isn't warming." The scientist I quoted clearly isn't dense. And he says the earth is NOT warming.

Now...

Evidence continues to mount that the planet is NOT warming at all, it has been in fact COOLING.

I present to you, the Argo Buoys for a start. You probably never heard of them, since they did not give the desired data. They showed the oceans -- the great heat sink of the planet -- have been COOLING. However, had they shown even the slightest little bit of warming, they would have been hailed as the greatest measuring instrument mankind has ever invented. They would be rock stars. There would be tee-shirts, bumper stickers, bobble-head dolls, Saturday morning Argo Adventures cartoons for the kids, you name it. But because these 3000 nifty little robots didn't follow the script, few have ever heard of them.

The Mystery of Global Warming's Missing Heat : NPR

Of course, this scientifically gathered data has been pretty much dismissed, a unpicked cherry left on the tree of facts, because it didn't look sweet to the AGW disciples. Cooling measured accurately over five years by 3000 robots who dive down, come back up, dive down again, taking measurements all along the way 24/7/365 for five freaking years, is "not anything really significant?" The hell it's not.

You're simply dishonest if you believe the jury isn't still out on whether the planet has been actually cooling instead of warming, no matter the supposed cause.

The FACT is, we don't really know.

And that's how science begins, by saying "I do not know" instead of what we see here, "We DO know so let's cherry-pick data, rig models, come up with bogus "hockey sticks," and of course play the emotional guilt and blame game -- and like Goebbels -- continue to lie louder and longer against the truthful opposition -- in hopes that the AGW lie will become accepted as truth."

And meanwhile, demonize naysayers and doubters, call them "deniers" trying to pigeonhole them with Holocaust deniers and flat-earthers, try to baffle with bullshit because they cannot dazzle with brilliance, because the truth isn't on their side. And they freakin know it isn't.

Here's the Argo chart and take note that the last point on the chart is the very highest point on the whole chart at a little above 14, and if you count back 5 years the starting point is at a little above 12. The first of those 5 years is up and the second year is down but not as low as the starting point, the third is up again just a little more than the starting year, the fourth year is down again but again not as low as the second year's low. And the fifth year is up again even higher than the third year's high. The most you pathological liars could honestly say is the continued long term warming trend has slowed, but it is still warming.

This Argo chart has been posted SEVERAL times in this thread already, but you continue to lie about it. You deniers think because the Argo floats are not well known you can LIE with impunity. It's like deniers saying that the warmest decade in the history of direct instrument measurement is a decade of cooling. But not everyone is as deliberately MISINFORMED and as STUPID as a CON$ervative.

Ed, this chart goes back in time for a long term, but the Argo Buoys were only activated in the early 2000's. Here's a decent article on them and they do in truth reveal that there is oceanic cooling.

Perhaps The Climate Change Models Are Wrong

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.

You gotta just love how deniers will continue to lie in the face of the facts. The Argo chart clearly shows a RISE in temperature from 12 to 14 over the last 5 years which deniers say "scientists" say is cooling. And CON$ wonder why they have no credibility.

What is Argo?

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 (AIC, updated daily):

Lack of sustained observations of the atmosphere, oceans and land have hindered the development and validation of climate models. An example comes from a recent analysis which concluded that the currents transporting heat northwards in the Atlantic and influencing western European climate had weakened by 30% in the past decade. This result had to be based on just five research measurements spread over 40 years. Was this change part of a trend that might lead to a major change in the Atlantic circulation, or due to natural variability that will reverse in the future, or is it an artifact of the limited observations?

In 1999, to combat this lack of data, an innovative step was taken by scientists to greatly improve the collection of observations inside the ocean through increased sampling of old and new quantities and increased coverage in terms of time and area.

That step was Argo.

Where is Argo now?

Argo deployments began in 2000 and by November 2007 the array is 100% complete. Today's tally of floats is shown in the figure above.

 

[code1211]

Here's the Argo chart and take note that the last point on the chart is the very highest point on the whole chart at a little above 14, and if you count back 5 years the starting point is at a little above 12. The first of those 5 years is up and the second year is down but not as low as the starting point, the third is up again just a little more than the starting year, the fourth year is down again but again not as low as the second year's low. And the fifth year is up again even higher than the third year's high. The most you pathological liars could honestly say is the continued long term warming trend has slowed, but it is still warming.

This Argo chart has been posted SEVERAL times in this thread already, but you continue to lie about it. You deniers think because the Argo floats are not well known you can LIE with impunity. It's like deniers saying that the warmest decade in the history of direct instrument measurement is a decade of cooling. But not everyone is as deliberately MISINFORMED and as STUPID as a CON$ervative.

Ed, this chart goes back in time for a long term, but the Argo Buoys were only activated in the early 2000's. Here's a decent article on them and they do in truth reveal that there is oceanic cooling.

Perhaps The Climate Change Models Are Wrong

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.

You gotta just love how deniers will continue to lie in the face of the facts. The Argo chart clearly shows a RISE in temperature from 12 to 14 over the last 5 years which deniers say "scientists" say is cooling. And CON$ wonder why they have no credibility.

What is Argo?

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 (AIC, updated daily):

Lack of sustained observations of the atmosphere, oceans and land have hindered the development and validation of climate models. An example comes from a recent analysis which concluded that the currents transporting heat northwards in the Atlantic and influencing western European climate had weakened by 30% in the past decade. This result had to be based on just five research measurements spread over 40 years. Was this change part of a trend that might lead to a major change in the Atlantic circulation, or due to natural variability that will reverse in the future, or is it an artifact of the limited observations?

In 1999, to combat this lack of data, an innovative step was taken by scientists to greatly improve the collection of observations inside the ocean through increased sampling of old and new quantities and increased coverage in terms of time and area.

That step was Argo.

Where is Argo now?

Argo deployments began in 2000 and by November 2007 the array is 100% complete. Today's tally of floats is shown in the figure above.

Ed, Ed, Ed... Vascillation within a range over a very short period of time is hardly cause for any conclusion.

However, when a widely flung network of data gathrering devices like Argo defies the results of years of data gathering from obviously flawed systems, it would make a rational person question the results of the previous data.

Only those with an agenda would not question this.

Is it your position that the best technology of orbital and oceanic research is wrong and the ridiculously innnaccurate and endlessly adjusted readings of the Earth stations is right?

I suppose if we cannot find the desired answer in the best research, we should seek any research that supports the conclusions we desire.

 

[Oddball]

Ed, Ed, Ed... Vascillation within a range over a very short period of time is hardly cause for any conclusion.

However, when a widely flung network of data gathrering devices like Argo defies the results of years of data gathering from obviously flawed systems, it would make a rational person question the results of the previous data.

Only those with an agenda would not question this.

Is it your position that the best technology of orbital and oceanic research is wrong and the ridiculously innnaccurate and endlessly adjusted readings of the Earth stations is right?

I suppose if we cannot find the desired answer in the best research, we should seek any research that supports the conclusions we desire.

And that pretty much 'splains it all.

 

[Old Rocks]

I see. Then these people know so much less than yourself;

Climate Change: NASA's Eyes on the Earth

NOAA 200th Top Tens: Breakthroughs: Warming of the World Ocean

And here is the defining article on what really happened to the "ocean cooling".

Correcting Ocean Cooling : Feature Articles

 

[Oddball]

Logical Fallacy: Appeal to Misleading Authority

 

[elvis]

I see. Then these people know so much less than yourself;

Climate Change: NASA's Eyes on the Earth

NOAA 200th Top Tens: Breakthroughs: Warming of the World Ocean

And here is the defining article on what really happened to the "ocean cooling".

Correcting Ocean Cooling : Feature Articles

they don't know what causes it. so get off your high horse, fuckface.

 

[edthecynic]

Ed, this chart goes back in time for a long term, but the Argo Buoys were only activated in the early 2000's. Here's a decent article on them and they do in truth reveal that there is oceanic cooling.

Perhaps The Climate Change Models Are Wrong

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.

You gotta just love how deniers will continue to lie in the face of the facts. The Argo chart clearly shows a RISE in temperature from 12 to 14 over the last 5 years which deniers say "scientists" say is cooling. And CON$ wonder why they have no credibility.

What is Argo?

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 (AIC, updated daily):

Lack of sustained observations of the atmosphere, oceans and land have hindered the development and validation of climate models. An example comes from a recent analysis which concluded that the currents transporting heat northwards in the Atlantic and influencing western European climate had weakened by 30% in the past decade. This result had to be based on just five research measurements spread over 40 years. Was this change part of a trend that might lead to a major change in the Atlantic circulation, or due to natural variability that will reverse in the future, or is it an artifact of the limited observations?

In 1999, to combat this lack of data, an innovative step was taken by scientists to greatly improve the collection of observations inside the ocean through increased sampling of old and new quantities and increased coverage in terms of time and area.

That step was Argo.

Where is Argo now?

Argo deployments began in 2000 and by November 2007 the array is 100% complete. Today's tally of floats is shown in the figure above.

Ed, Ed, Ed... Vascillation within a range over a very short period of time is hardly cause for any conclusion.

However, when a widely flung network of data gathrering devices like Argo defies the results of years of data gathering from obviously flawed systems, it would make a rational person question the results of the previous data.

Only those with an agenda would not question this.

Is it your position that the best technology of orbital and oceanic research is wrong and the ridiculously innnaccurate and endlessly adjusted readings of the Earth stations is right?

I suppose if we cannot find the desired answer in the best research, we should seek any research that supports the conclusions we desire.

Yet you deniers concluded that 5 years of Argo data was enough to say the oceans were COOLING even though the data showed warming, not to mention choosing 2003 to start rather than 2000. And your own link admits that satellite data shows warming too!!!!!

From your own link:
"In nearly 30 years of operation, the satellites have discovered a warming trend of just 0.14 C per decade"

It's my position that the satellite and Argo data confirms the surface data.

 

[jreeves]

Right.

Global warming is responsible for global cooling.

Good thing ya have all the bases covered.

Don't you know when global temps raise its a result of global warming.

Then when global temps drop its a result of global warming.

Oh yeah, if global temps stay the same, then that also would be a result of global warming.

Good God, you guys really need some education on the effects of man made global warming.

If we get more rain in the year that is also a result of AGW.
If we were to get less rain in the year...you guessed it, a result of AGW.

 

[Oddball]

A rather comprehensive list of the things that have been blamed on gullible warming:

warmlist

 

[code1211]

You gotta just love how deniers will continue to lie in the face of the facts. The Argo chart clearly shows a RISE in temperature from 12 to 14 over the last 5 years which deniers say "scientists" say is cooling. And CON$ wonder why they have no credibility.

Ed, Ed, Ed... Vascillation within a range over a very short period of time is hardly cause for any conclusion.

However, when a widely flung network of data gathrering devices like Argo defies the results of years of data gathering from obviously flawed systems, it would make a rational person question the results of the previous data.

Only those with an agenda would not question this.

Is it your position that the best technology of orbital and oceanic research is wrong and the ridiculously innnaccurate and endlessly adjusted readings of the Earth stations is right?

I suppose if we cannot find the desired answer in the best research, we should seek any research that supports the conclusions we desire.

Yet you deniers concluded that 5 years of Argo data was enough to say the oceans were COOLING even though the data showed warming, not to mention choosing 2003 to start rather than 2000. And your own link admits that satellite data shows warming too!!!!!

From your own link:
"In nearly 30 years of operation, the satellites have discovered a warming trend of just 0.14 C per decade"

It's my position that the satellite and Argo data confirms the surface data.

There is not much disagreement on whether or not there has been warming up to the year 2000 or so. The question is always as to what is the cause.

All of the CO2 that is the cause cited by the AGW proponents is still there plus the amounts accumulated since 2000.

The globe has cooled since 2001.

What does that prove about the cited cause?

 

[edthecynic]

Ed, Ed, Ed... Vascillation within a range over a very short period of time is hardly cause for any conclusion.

However, when a widely flung network of data gathrering devices like Argo defies the results of years of data gathering from obviously flawed systems, it would make a rational person question the results of the previous data.

Only those with an agenda would not question this.

Is it your position that the best technology of orbital and oceanic research is wrong and the ridiculously innnaccurate and endlessly adjusted readings of the Earth stations is right?

I suppose if we cannot find the desired answer in the best research, we should seek any research that supports the conclusions we desire.

Yet you deniers concluded that 5 years of Argo data was enough to say the oceans were COOLING even though the data showed warming, not to mention choosing 2003 to start rather than 2000. And your own link admits that satellite data shows warming too!!!!!

From your own link:
"In nearly 30 years of operation, the satellites have discovered a warming trend of just 0.14 C per decade"

It's my position that the satellite and Argo data confirms the surface data.

There is not much disagreement on whether or not there has been warming up to the year 2000 or so. The question is always as to what is the cause.

All of the CO2 that is the cause cited by the AGW proponents is still there plus the amounts accumulated since 2000.

The globe has cooled since 2001.

What does that prove about the cited cause?

It proves you are not telling the truth about cooling since 2001.

 

[code1211]

QUOTE]

There is not much disagreement on whether or not there has been warming up to the year 2000 or so. The question is always as to what is the cause.

All of the CO2 that is the cause cited by the AGW proponents is still there plus the amounts accumulated since 2000.

The globe has cooled since 2001.

What does that prove about the cited cause?[/QUOTE]

It proves you are not telling the truth about cooling since 2001.[/QUOTE]

*sigh*

All of the data except the adjusted figures from NOAA say we are cooling. That you feel that all of the science is wrong cannot adjust the data that is collected and presented without adjustment.

Have you ever wondered why, if the Earth station data is so good, why it must be adjusted? Have you ever wondered why it is in varience with the data that is collected with technology that is about 500 years more recent?

Have you wondered why you prefer that outdated data to the data collected by satelites?

It's a little like sailing the oceans and choosing to use charts from Amerigo Vespucci over satelite images when both are available.

 

[edthecynic]

There is not much disagreement on whether or not there has been warming up to the year 2000 or so. The question is always as to what is the cause.

All of the CO2 that is the cause cited by the AGW proponents is still there plus the amounts accumulated since 2000.

The globe has cooled since 2001.

What does that prove about the cited cause?

It proves you are not telling the truth about cooling since 2001.

*sigh*

All of the data except the adjusted figures from NOAA say we are cooling. That you feel that all of the science is wrong cannot adjust the data that is collected and presented without adjustment.

Have you ever wondered why, if the Earth station data is so good, why it must be adjusted? Have you ever wondered why it is in varience with the data that is collected with technology that is about 500 years more recent?

Have you wondered why you prefer that outdated data to the data collected by satelites?

It's a little like sailing the oceans and choosing to use charts from Amerigo Vespucci over satelite images when both are available.

None of the data says we are cooling. After being caught lying about the Argo data saying the oceans have been cooling the last 5 years when it actually showed warming, and your own link admitted the satellite data showed warming, why do you think repeating the same lies will make them any more believable rather than you less credible.

Here's the latest satellite data from Ditto-Dopers Christy and Spencer and even THEY admit this decade has been WARMING:

Information from Global Hydrology and Climate Center, University of Alabama - Huntsville, USA The data from which the graphs are derived can be downloaded here.
Temperature Variation From Average:
Lower Troposphere:
Global:
June 2009: +0.01 °C
Northern Hemisphere: +0.04 °C
Southern Hemisphere: -0.02 °C
Peak recorded anomaly:
February, 1998: +0.76 °C
Current relative to peak recorded: -0.75 °C
DECADAL TREND:
Global: +0.12 °C
Northern Hemisphere: +0.19 °C
Southern Hemisphere: +0.06 °C
Last update: July 7, 2009

 

[code1211]

There is not much disagreement on whether or not there has been warming up to the year 2000 or so. The question is always as to what is the cause.

All of the CO2 that is the cause cited by the AGW proponents is still there plus the amounts accumulated since 2000.

The globe has cooled since 2001.

What does that prove about the cited cause?

It proves you are not telling the truth about cooling since 2001.

*sigh*

All of the data except the adjusted figures from NOAA say we are cooling. That you feel that all of the science is wrong cannot adjust the data that is collected and presented without adjustment.

Have you ever wondered why, if the Earth station data is so good, why it must be adjusted? Have you ever wondered why it is in varience with the data that is collected with technology that is about 500 years more recent?

Have you wondered why you prefer that outdated data to the data collected by satelites?

It's a little like sailing the oceans and choosing to use charts from Amerigo Vespucci over satelite images when both are available.

None of the data says we are cooling. After being caught lying about the Argo data saying the oceans have been cooling the last 5 years when it actually showed warming, and your own link admitted the satellite data showed warming, why do you think repeating the same lies will make them any more believable rather than you less credible.

Here's the latest satellite data from Ditto-Dopers Christy and Spencer and even THEY admit this decade has been WARMING:

Information from Global Hydrology and Climate Center, University of Alabama - Huntsville, USA The data from which the graphs are derived can be downloaded here.
Temperature Variation From Average:
Lower Troposphere:
Global:
June 2009: +0.01 °C
Northern Hemisphere: +0.04 °C
Southern Hemisphere: -0.02 °C
Peak recorded anomaly:
February, 1998: +0.76 °C
Current relative to peak recorded: -0.75 °C
DECADAL TREND:
Global: +0.12 °C
Northern Hemisphere: +0.19 °C
Southern Hemisphere: +0.06 °C
Last update: July 7, 2009

"This decade" started with a deep temperature depression in 2000. Not quite the anamoly that 1998 was in the opposite direction, but still, it was an outlier.

That the folks you cite use this as a start point point further demonstrates the the legitimacy of their presentation and that you edit the presentation further illustrates the calliber of yours. That they avoid the use of 1998 as a starting point, which can be supported as the start of a ten year cycle, their integrity is further bolstered.

Starting in 2001, which is a year with results more in line with the norm, we see a pretty dramatic fall off to today.

The amount of CO2 is ever increasing. The temperature is not. What does this do to your theory?

Your prediction is that warmning will occur with added CO2. The data shows that the warming you predict is not happening. Do you accept the new data and re-examine your conclusion or stick with your conclusion and adjust that data?

For a guy with "Cynic" in your name, it's odd that you seem to have a hook, line and a sinker in your throat.

http://rankexploits.com/musings/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/rss_may_2009.jpg

 

[code1211]

Here's the latest satellite data from Ditto-Dopers Christy and Spencer and even THEY admit this decade has been WARMING:

Information from Global Hydrology and Climate Center, University of Alabama - Huntsville, USA The data from which the graphs are derived can be downloaded here.
Temperature Variation From Average:
Lower Troposphere:
Global:
June 2009: +0.01 °C
Northern Hemisphere: +0.04 °C
Southern Hemisphere: -0.02 °C
Peak recorded anomaly:
February, 1998: +0.76 °C
Current relative to peak recorded: -0.75 °CDECADAL TREND:
Global: +0.12 °C
Northern Hemisphere: +0.19 °C
Southern Hemisphere: +0.06 °C
Last update: July 7, 2009

[/QUOTE]


Woopsie! Forgot to highlight this in the original response, but I suppose this does desrve its own response:

+.76 down to -.75 seems to be about a point and a half reduction.

By the by, our high in Indy yesterday was about 67 degrees compared to an average high of about 84.

Brrrrrrrr!