On Mar 24, 9:51 pm, "0N0ZB" wrote:
the climate change models are wrong

Lorne Gunter, National Post

March 24, 2008

http://www.nationalpost.com/most_pop...html?id=394939

They drift along in the worlds' oceans at a depth of 2,000 metres --
more than a mile deep -- constantly monitoring the temperature,
salinity, pressure and velocity of the upper oceans.


I see you didn't learn from the rebuke of your earlier post about
this. These drifting machines measure temp. only at one depth. And
even the researchers involved said they aren't sure if they're getting
good data.

Then, about once every 10 days, a bladder on the outside of these buoys
inflates and raises them slowly to the surface gathering data about each
strata of seawater they pass through. After an upward journey of nearly
six hours, the Argo monitors bob on the waves while an onboard
transmitter sends their information to a satellite that in turn
retransmits it to several land-based research computers where it may be
accessed by anyone who wishes to see it.

These 3,000 yellow sentinels --about the size and shape of a large fence
post -- free-float the world's oceans, season in and season out,
surfacing between 30 and 40 times a year, disgorging their findings,
then submerging again for another fact-finding voyage.

It's fascinating to watch their progress online. (The URLs are too
complex to reproduce here, but Google "Argo Buoy Movement" or "Argo
Float Animation," and you will be directed to the links.)

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.

In fact, "there has been a very slight cooling," according to a U.S.
National Public Radio (NPR) interview with Josh Willis at NASA's Jet
Propulsion Laboratory, a scientist who keeps close watch on the Argo
findings.

Dr. Willis insisted the temperature drop was "not anything really
significant." And I trust he's right. But can anyone imagine NASA or the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) or the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -- the UN's climate experts --
shrugging off even a "very slight" warming.


The warming so far is not slight.

A slight drop in the oceans' temperature over a period of five or six
years probably is insignificant, just as a warming over such a short
period would be. Yet if there had been a rise of any kind, even of the
same slightness, rest assured this would be broadcast far and wide as
yet another log on the global warming fire.

Just look how tenaciously some scientists are prepared to cling to the
climate change dogma. "It may be that we are in a period of less rapid
warming," Dr. Willis told NPR.


Note that he did not say "cooling."

Yeah, you know, like when you put your car into reverse you are causing
it to enter a period of less rapid forward motion.

You are an idiot.

Or when I gain a few
pounds I am in a period of less rapid weight loss.

The big problem with the Argo findings is that all the major climate
computer models postulate that as much as 80-90% of global warming will
result from the oceans warming rapidly then releasing their heat into
the atmosphere.

But if the oceans aren't warming, then (please whisper) perhaps the
models are wrong.


Again, even the researchers aren't saying "the oceans aren't
warming." That's your claim. And we know you are a pathological
liar.

The supercomputer models also can't explain the interaction of clouds
and climate. They have no idea whether clouds warm the world more by
trapping heat in or cool it by reflecting heat back into space.

Modellers are also perplexed by the findings of NASA's eight weather
satellites that take more than 300,000 temperature readings daily over
the entire surface of the Earth, versus approximately 7,000 random
readings from Earth stations.

In nearly 30 years of operation, the satellites have discovered a
warming trend of just 0.14 C per decade, less than the models and well
within the natural range of temperature variation.


See what I mean about being a liar?

I'm not saying for sure the models are wrong and the Argos and
satellites are right, only that in a debate as critical as the one on
climate, it would be nice to hear some alternatives to the alarmist
theory.

--

Warmest Regards

Bonzo

". researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Solar Research in Germany
report the sun has been burning more brightly over the last 60 years,
accounting for the 1 degree Celsius increase in Earth's temperature over
the last 100 years."http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=287279412587175