846806-ef5dc9ae-d908-11e3-8693-526588c1a688

Try to follow this if you can:

Antarctic sea ice has hit its second all-time record maximum this week. The new record is 2.112 million square kilometers above normal. Until the weekend just past, the previous record had been 1.840 million square kilometers above normal, a mark hit on December 20, 2007.  Mark Serreze, director of the National Snow and Ice Data Center, responded to e-mail questions and also spoke by telephone about the new record sea ice growth in the Southern Hemisphere, indicating that, somewhat counter-intuitively, the sea ice growth was specifically due to global warming.

“The primary reason for this is the nature of the circulation of the Southern Ocean  – water heated in high southern latitudes is carried equatorward, to be replaced by colder waters upwelling from below, which inhibits ice loss,” Serreze wrote in an e-mail. “Upon this natural oceanic thermostat, one will see the effects of natural climate variations, [the rise] appears to be best explained by shifts in atmospheric circulation although a number of other factors are also likely involved.”

 

“What we’re talking about is water that is 60 degrees south and more southerly than that, and so the basic thing is you have got surrounding the Antarctic continent a band of fairly strong and somewhat steady west-east winds, which they call the Roaring 40s, but then you’ve got this thing called the coriolis force, which wants to turn things to the left. What happens is that water at the high latitudes, what happens is that as we heat that water, you set up what’s called an Ekman drift, which at the surface transports that water from the high southern latitudes toward the equator.

What happens is you have to set up a continuity that has to occur so that what happens is that there’s an upwelling of cold waters from below, there’s a whole circulation loop where water sinks in the lower southern latitudes, then there’s a return flow that brings the same amount of mass to the higher latitudes. 

Basically, what happens is that in the Arctic you can warm that surface water up and it doesn’t get transported away. It stays there, and it helps melt more ice, but in the Antarctic, the water gets carried away. “

 
——————————————————————————————-
I think I experienced an Ekman drift while reading this. Maybe we need to force half the worlds population to move to the south latitudes and pollute more so we can balance this thing out….or, um, oh, never mind.

 

Pages: 1 2



  1. bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist striving to become a Nerd says:

    Tim off the tangent and addressing the issue directly says:
    7/7/2014 at 11:10 pm

    “”universally accepted by all but the crazies and the paid.

    I’d go as far as to call that a lie. /// Well, that is the basis for the action taken by the BBC. The anti-AGW is just not founded in science but rather anything other than. What did the link report…”marginalized interests” or whatever….. and so it is. co2 is a green house gas. You pirouette around that unavoidable fact. I sincerely wish you were right….. but my god is reality and reality is best understood by science…. and science says we are cooking ourselves in our own shit.

    I’m not the one clammouring for enslavement /// Straw Man–I am clammoring … but not for enslavement but rather life and liberty…. there is no liberty without life…

    and waving around a chicken-little *theory* /// chicken little applies only when the warning is for something false… not the truth which can be called false only in that the warning is 75 years early so that the consequences can be avoided.

    which is scant on exhibit A’s //// air and sea temps going up “on average” , seal level steadily rising on average, glaciers in Northern latitude disappearing, islands and deltas disappearing, hottest days on record one after another, ocean acidifying, permafrost melting with release of methane, artic ice diminishing to the point that a Northern Passage is established….and on and on like a Mountain of Evidence, Exhibits A thru Z. I’d go so far as to call that a lie.

    and the ones it presents tend to clear the client. //// As well as I can follow that…. just the opposite as stated just above: the evidence showing AGW is overwhelming.

    It is not for me to come up with an alternative. //// Thats true, you just lack credibility in such failure.

    That would be like being on trial for smoking a joint and when things aren’t going the way the prosecutor, Mr. Stompyfeet, expects then he switches context to whether I murdered the dealer or not — leaving it up to me to prove that he’s not dead. //// Good example of your argument/thought process because thats exactly what does not happen. Heh, heh. Off tangent, and still not making any sense.

    Time will tell.

  2. NewFormatSux says:

    >NONE of us are qualified to form independent valid scientific opinions on climate science.

    More like everyone but you.

    • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist striving to become a Nerd says:

      Pop Quiz: what do you call someone who negates basic scientific facts and principles?

      • Tim says:

        A statist.

        • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist striving to become a Nerd says:

          Well….. you got that wrong too…… but I see the humor.

      • NewFormatSux says:

        Basic science tells us that 3<4. But for climate scientists, they feel free to declare the opposite.

  3. Tim says:

    that’s quite mundane. Don’t I know you from somewhere??

  4. bobbo, we think with words, and flower with ideas says:

    I wish you boys would engage your brains rather than in isolation only your mouths.

    When you hold positions you cannot defend, you should at least return to a neutral position.

    When you defend your positions by using incorrect basic science facts, you should at least recognize your argument is specious.

    Both of you are basically arguing that co2 is NOT a green house gas. But it is. NO ONE DISAGREES about that. Your arguments are those of children playing with their own shit. You got no toys.

    To argue that AGW is based on 3 is more than 4 is just down right brain rotted out STUPID. To flat out state that co2 is not a green house gas is just objectively wrong in a flat earth sort of mentality.

    IE====both of you can and do think better than this but “something” regarding this subject is blocking you. Scientific theories are built on facts. Facts upon facts until you have a theory. Arrange the facts correctly, the often the theory will jump out at you.

    Start with co2 is a green house gas: it heats the atmosphere. The atmosphere heats the ocean. The warmer the ocean the less ice there is. co2 was in “Gaea Balance” the kept all natural sources of co2 in balance with fairly steady climate norms.

    Now take that status quo and change any of the variables. Remove some of the atmosphere. Add more water vapor, increase the temp of the sun or have us orbit closer, have aerosols in the air, introduce heavy particulates. Will that climate system stay the same or will the balance point move?

    And of course… it depends on what the variable is and how much the change is.

    So….. just take co2 and burn coal and petroleum for 100 years putting trillions of tons of co2 into the atmosphere changing its concentration just a tiny bit from 350ppm to 400ppm. Incredibly small change…. but the best science says that will raise the average global temp by 2 Degree Centigrade. Another very tiny change……….but its enough to melt Greenland in 150-200 years thereby raising sea level by 30-60 feet (I forget).

    To argue that there was/is fraud in some set of numbers changes only dithering details at the edge of things. Its a distraction. Poking holes in data does not disprove a theory or a fact.

    This is how you think. Your own brain is doing this but you don’t accept the conclusions of your own consciousness. Thats emotions. Denial. Bias.

    In this case: it is severe. I actually envy you two. Eventually you will see the light and you will have the opportunity to consider how you got something so basic so wrong.

    I did it on this very subject. Its true===all right here on DU. It is I suspect most of the reason that Pedro calls me wishy washy.

    Quite a dither. I’ll tell you mine, if you tell me yours……. your choice but at the least, you should tell yourself.

    Stop being wrong about basic science.

    • Tim says:

      tl;dr

    • Tim says:

      “”Eventually you will see the light and you will have the opportunity to consider how you got something so basic so wrong.

      o.k. Co2 is a greenhouse gas — how could I have been misled for so long??

      It’s like your first joint — you didn’t really die and go to driving school, you didn’t chop up your mommy, you didn’t grow tits {well, don’t blame that on the pot}, and you didn’t get any stupider. You’re gonna spend your life in jail {true, more often than not, unfortunately}.

      ^^ Those things were lies, weren’t they? Who told you those? It turned out not to be so detrimental. I’m gonna smoke my joint. I don’t want to be rehabbed off marijuana. You should stay in church — there’s some likeminded assholes here:

      http://scienceagogo.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=postlist&Board=6&page=1

      • bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo says:

        Timmy—you just engage in the same defective arguments by analogy that you have made before.

        The IPCC is uniquely different from the Gubment trying to enforce the law and favor tobacco interests by keeping MJ illegal and its different from BigBiz trying to sell bubblegum.

        IT SCIENCE.====Knock, knock…… is anybody home?

        Regarding your example, start with the first proposition: is MJ harmful or addictive in the same way Heroin is? And throughout the fiasco and stupidity of our drug wars you would find a great many scientists saying no. See how that works?

        Endlessly fascinating how the brain works…… and doesn’t work.

        Now that you accept co2 is a greenhouse gas: STEO TWO===what will eventually happen if you keep adding a greenhouse gas to an atmosphere?

        Go===============> Follow what your own reason and intellect will tell you.

        ((((Nice website your link to…. I might peruse but as you link to it===what particular argument/thread did you find persuasive?—or is it just a collection of defective arguments such as you have presented so far?))))

      • NewFormatSux says:

        >and you didn’t get any stupider.

        YOU didn’t.

    • NewFormatSux says:

      Funny it has changed from 350 to 400 ppm, and it is not 2C warmer.

    • Tim says:

      “”Facts upon facts until you have a theory

      Theory?? These people don’t even support a valid hypothesis yet… You’re one of those that grew up with Schoolhouse Rock thinking ‘bills’ went through congress and shit, are you not?

      Personally, I hanker for a hunk of cheeze. to go with my joint. that i grew with co2. the earth made humans so there could be more co2 and plastic delivery mechanisms so that little timmy could smoke more dope.

      silly doomans

  5. jpfitz says:

    Don’t be fooled by news of the Americans JUST looking for new life forms. Russia dropped a flag pole into the N. pole.

    “On August 2, 2007, a Russian expedition called Arktika 2007, composed of six explorers led by Artur Chilingarov, employing MIR submersibles, for the first time in history descended to the seabed at the North Pole. There they planted the Russian flag and took water and soil samples for analysis, continuing a mission to provide additional evidence related to the Russian claim to the mineral riches of the Arctic.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_claims_in_the_Arctic#The_Russian_Federation

  6. jpfitz says:

    Oops my comment is on the opposite pole. I didn’t read the complete comment.

  7. bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo says:

    From Timmy’s link:

    http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs2-00/

    where the U.S. Geological Survey people claim that;

    the Greenland ice sheet melting will raise sea-level 6.55 meters (21.5 feet),

    the West Antarctica ice sheet melting will raise sea-level 8.06 meters (26.4 feet),

    the East Antarctica ice sheet melting will raise sea-level 64.8 meters (212.6 feet),

    and all other ice melting will raise sea-level 0.91 meters (3 feet).

    For a grand total of 80.32 meters (263.5 feet).

    The U.S. Geological Survey people also claim that a 10-meter rise in sea level would flood approximately 25 percent of the United State’s population. That is a 10-meter rise.

    http://scienceagogo.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=36963#Post36963

    Sounds like 4 is less than 3 talk to me.

    • Tim says:

      Well, the sum total of those numbers seem to add up as Earths’ sea level modulates about 300 ft over the ages.

      As for that site, I’ve not visited since 2007. At his invite, I followed a climate activist NGO with a background in biology there. Interesting fellow. Seemed honestly on fire to save everyone from co2. Smart fellow. Lots of facts, reasonings, and links. He’d keep you engaged all night as long as it was climate change. I’ve no doubt that he could easily obtain grants and smartly put together a team and do some good research watching a camel piss away its’ hump so long as it maligned co2.

      Deceptive fellow. Pretended ignorance everytime; “what is this ‘co2 tax’ you keep bringing up?” And then a State of Fear reference. That set him off. He linked me to his pet site {realclimate, I think} to a synopsis of the book. There, they had completely REVERSED the roles of antagonist and protagonist in their description — it didn’t get fixed for a while. That’s when I’d seen enough to conclude that these types are particularly ‘cult like’ in their compartmentalized pushing for control of all life and particularly dangerous. I’m not sure he realized then what he was part of. Just somewhat ‘dedicated’. I’d have sworn he came up with “Denier” himself as much as he tossed it around.

      These are some hotbuttons for listseekers:

      climate ‘skeptic’
      the government did 9/11, 7/7, OKBOMB, …
      anti GMO
      anti federal reserve
      anti UN takeover
      pro hemp
      pro 3rd party candidates
      talking about rights

      ———————-

      If I could find it {first seen on Cryptome.org years ago} I’d link to *circumstantial* documentation marked ‘law enforcement sensitive’ which tend to bear out that the ‘big issues’ like co2 tax and the will of Monsanto with GMO is known and planned well ahead of any public knowledge of such technology or policy.

      You’re basically playing for the ‘right’ team — the one which tries to quell dissent toward governmental {corporate} policy. You don’t seem uncomfortable with this; could it be that you simply had zero a priori knowledge of the subject and no background which lead to a natural early life of observing nature before you became infused with Corporofascist dogma?

      My example was to be a leaked ‘advisory’ to law enforcement to be wary of certain veiwpoints.

      In stupid cop fashion, one of those veiwpoints was *antigenetic modification* <– yes, that's how it was in the document.

      ^^ that was from when the majority had never heard anything about rBGH in their milk and moth genes in their tomatoes.

      The 'global' stranglehold on hemp/marijuana is exacly the same thing as the global stranglehold over co2 — This is exactly what the corporations want. You pay the tax while at the same time are not allowed to be decentralized or independant or off-grid — not green enough even if you're a million times greener. The corporations make you slave more for less.

      Just like those stupid cops that don't even know food grows somewhere but shelves are indoctrinated to see as dangerous something they themselves know nothing about are so many closeted statists.

      • bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo says:

        I’ve not heard that the gubment has an interest in getting rid of oil and coal, just the opposite as a matter of fact. Your constant nattering about falling prey to such a conspiracy is a straw man picking up a red herring……..Algore is NOT the gubment. Just an old oil money man looking to get the corner on the next big market.

        Maybe a pointer to some good ideas there Timmy but woefully lacking in any substance.

        Thats why I like SCIENCE. It starts with the premise that many people don’t like just to begin with: by DISPROVING statements. The null hypothesis.

        A man of science BELIEVES in disproving everything he thinks. When he’s stuck and he can’t: thats the best explanation.

        Cool. So unlike a silly hooman.

        • Tim says:

          “”by DISPROVING statements.

          or by pointing out false data used to derive the statements??

          Let us imagine, without any other prior input, that perhaps increasing co2 were warming earth — say our data goes back to 1998 when the internet was invented and we had a copy of *raw* data before subjective adjustment.

          Now. Increasing co2? yes. Increasing global mean? no. Decreasing global mean? yes. Increasing rate of sea level rise? no. Drowning polar bears? no. Lack of Gingers? unfortunately, not.

          http://handbag.com/beauty-bag/news/a582770/is-red-hair-becoming-extinct-due-to-global-warming.html

          I wonder why anyone gave us all those trillions just to brownian-bounce around in the noise floor to begin with.

          • Tim says:

            Oh, yea… 1998 and noise floors…

            **Either man-made and natural climatic effects have conspired to completely offset the warming that should have occurred due to greenhouse gasses in the past decade, or our estimation of the ‘climate sensitivity’ to greenhouse gasses is too large.

            **This is not an extreme or ‘sceptic’ position but represents part of the diversity of scientific opinion presented to the IPCC that is seldom reported.

            a reader comment:

            “”I was going to make a lame joke about the ever-increasing number of epicycles, then I realized the analogy doesn’t work. The Ptolemaic system wasn’t wrong, it was just vastly less elegant than the Galilean system. You can still choose the Earth as the center of the solar system if you’re willing to do a lot of unnecessary math.

            “”The CO2 system is wrong. Disproved. Falsified. This is an EX-science. No amount of math will make it right.

        • NewFormatSux says:

          And scientists have failed to disprove the null hypothesis of natural variation. And they don’t go around trying to disprove themselves in climate science. That would invalidate too many papers.

          • Tim says:

            Oh no. They are too busy being trendy instructing everyone how they go now so algore can meet his carbon offset.

            I bet, if we could point out all the sudden monumental release of long built up mercury, et. al. from the incenerating of themselves then we could win back the true environmental movement.

  8. Tim says:

    this ‘yarnbombing’ thing is about the most obnoxious piece of schtick i’ve heard since assclowns on segways gave intermittant squeezes of a goose-honk horn.

    I don’t like the icon because the creepy eyes follow you around the room. I don’t like the name because I think you’re probably an entrepreneurial and cerebral child molester…

    Pretty much, this thing has hit all my wrong buttons. People, I’m starting to get the impression this is just another psyop.

    • NewFormatSux says:

      What about rolling coal?

      • Tim says:

        That is the most obnoxious shit. I’d light their shit on fire when it hit my car body charged to 60 kv.

        hehe. We used to do a thing called ‘boulevard blastoff’ where you cut the ignition for a while flooding the exhaust and then BANG! If someone were way too close on a mountain road then they’d usually back off pretty quick once that fireball rolled under them. of course, the standard flames were to pull a plug wire, route it to the back exhaust outlet and onto a plug… Sometimes, it was consistently stupid.

        Also, if it wasn’t already a ‘cherry bomb’ shaped muffler but an oval one, then it was round after the first bang — noisy, to.

  9. bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo says:

    Timmy—-your understanding/application/permissiveness in allowing yourself to be misled…. is very comic.

    Very………….basic……….scientific…………..ignorance.

    Or logic, or commons sense, or logic. You link to an article that red heads will become extinct because of GW? No connection is made…its just a dog whistle to the already convinced.

    And incase you did not double reverse stooge me, and you are just this simple minded….. the amount of sunlight is not going to change and that stimulus for creating red heads is not going to change. The fact that higher % of co2 is going to make the earth hotter has nothing to do with it.

    Jebus that sure is stupid. So…… holding you in too high esteem, I think you are joking. but you keep pushing for the same conclusion. You know………you keep on being this stupid and eventually I’m going to accept the null hypothesis!

    What else did you “argue” above?

    1. A very non specific “co2 is not as sensitive” /// Well that is what makes it all “very complex” isn’t it…correlating past co2 levels to temperatures with the lag or lead time and all the other interacting factors and I do assume resulting in “a range” of probable values and effects which is why the science cant tell you if its going to rain on your house in 2088. So===lets just pretend co2 will have no effect at all and go on with bidness as usual because $$$$$.

    BS.

    2. Global mean temps of air and water have been going up. Zig zags and stalls but still the trend line is up. Always UP. Do you have anything specific against this other than the temp gauge in
    Albuquerque was over a Mac Donald’s exhaust fan?

    3. Increasing rate of sea level rise.. no. //// I only make the point that wiki does…. that it is constantly rising. Its an objective stand in for all the more ice/less ice BS that floats around. Most of the bad trends are increasing in the predicted (conservative) rates, but I don’t know/care if sea level rise is one of them. Such a notion, like co2 sensitivity only goes to the timing issue. So the IPCC in fact has it all wrong—and Greenland won’t melt in 100 years…. it will take 200. Do you think that hypo with all the corrected data factors changes the point that we have to stop buring carbon?….. Hint: it doesn’t.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise //// Ha, ha. The first sentence does say the rate of rise is increasing. How about that?

    4. From your link: “It is good news that the authors recognise that there has been no global temperature increase since 1998. //// BS. Lots of articles on: “Where is the missing heat?” and they found it at ocean depths deeper than 10,000 feet that they thought were stable. All part of tweaking the model because science does not accept MAGIC that increased co2 does not act to heat the earth.

    And that why when I stopped doubting the science, I adopted the rising sea level as the net/net/net measure of all the variables. And so can you.

    5. Not yours, but dumb enough to be from nfs: And scientists have failed to disprove the null hypothesis of natural variation. /// No. All known natural variation is included in the model. Only a retard would make such a flat statement and not identify what variable is not included or included incorrectly. That issue came up recently in the bruhaha over cosmic radiation. forget the details on that…… but its retard bait.

    6. Algore, carbon taxes, mercury===all dog whistles for knee jerk science denying flat earth Devo’s.

    Silly Hoomans.

    • Tim says:

      “”this is a significantly larger rate than the sea-level rise averaged over the last several thousand years”, and the rate may be increasing ain’t doin’ shit.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise

      What does this graph tell me??

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png

      it tells me they certainly cut that statement off the year before the “last several thousand”.

      Just what nit are you picking at? I hinted at it being contagious. You probably finally went down there and got you a couple refugee kids cheap… too bad they were all picked over. What’d ya get? A ms13 or a couple zetas?

      • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist and junior real politik reporter says:

        Timmy—I recognize we are pushing each other back and forth and as kiddies everywhere do most likely we will have fun until one of us feels hurt and abused…….me doing it more than you what with my liberal use of “stupid” as my evaluation of your analysis.

        ……………..but………….I really don’t understand what you are trying to communicate above other than you disagree in some way?

        The graph and the text at the first link both say the sea level rise accelerating. If you disagree… why… or what link/authority do you have to disagree with the wiki? Just saying “ain’t doing shit” is brain dead stupid.

        Your second point is eqally vague stupid and inadequate. All charts stop someplace. If the chart had covered earlier time periods, what difference to the point of the chart would have been demonstrated?

        The nit that I did not find in brief review was your disagreeing with certain temps taken at certain times. As I stated thereafter, even if you are right, all that would do is act as a variable on when the full effect of AGW would hit===not that it would not hit at all. This all goes to the FACT that co2 is a green house gas. Something you dance all around and go back and forth about.

        When was the last time you recognized you were wrong…. or at least had a new idea?

        SCIENCE—approaching the truth by discarding wrong ideas. Old Fucks don’t like doing that.

        • Tim says:

          “”For instance, during the depths of the last ice age 18,000 years ago when hundreds of thousands of cubic miles of ice were stacked up on the continents as glaciers, sea level was 120 metres (390 ft) lower, locations that today support coral reefs were left high and dry, and coastlines were miles farther outward.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise#The_sedimentary_record

          Looks to me that because of some reason, somebody is missing out on their Eden interglacial period, this time around. Why don’t we make them feel real bad about that by telling them if they don’t slave more to make it worse then Kardashians might be cancelled.

        • Tim says:

          “”The graph and the text at the first link both say the sea level rise accelerating. If you disagree… why… or what link/authority do you have to disagree with the wiki? Just saying “ain’t doing shit” is brain dead stupid.

          hmmmm… what is an asymptote?

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png

    • Tim says:

      –…the amount of sunlight is not going to change and that stimulus for creating red heads is not going to change. The fact that higher % of co2 is going to make the earth hotter has nothing to do with it.

      nu uh.

      “”The study on the coat color of the Himalayan rabbit with relation to the temperature reveals the effect of temperature.”

      http://biotechnologyforums.com/thread-1798.html

      “I think you are joking.”

      It was a *red hairing*

  10. NewFormatSux says:

    Sea level has been rising for centuries, and the planet has been getting warmer for centuries. Somehow the natural equilibrium wasn’t quite so equilibrious.

    Declaring that deep oceans swallowed the missing heat, means you have to adjust the models for more heat going into the oceans, assuming they didn’t already predict that the oceans would heat up.

    What we are seeing is heating of the deep oceans on the level of a few hundredths of a degree, at least according to their reanalysis model. The ARGO floats don’t have nearly enough deep ocean coverage to measure, plus the individual thermometers would have an error rate higher than their detected warming.

  11. bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo says:

    This thread appears to have been fubar’d by the website? Material from elsewhere has been pasted onto the discussion taking place otherwise.

    Quite confusing.

    anyhoo–timmy says the sea level used to be lower. So what? That is a true fact but how does that address the issue of AGW? I can’t guess what import you give this factoid in a vacuum. I would say most likely the ice core samples from that same time period would show co2 levels below the 350ppm which only emphasizes that co2 is a green house gas and that as co2 has not been above 350ppm for a million years…. AGW is going to kill off future generations of Big Brained Apes.

    If you know how to construct an argument: start now.

    NFS dwaddles on and says:
    7/9/2014 at 3:11 pm

    Sea level has been rising for centuries, and the planet has been getting warmer for centuries. Somehow the natural equilibrium wasn’t quite so equilibrious. /// FACTUALLY: you are wrong. The “natural cycles” would have us COOLING OFF RIGHT NOW if it weren’t for AGW. Science is based on FACTS–not blithering stupidity.

    Declaring that deep oceans swallowed the missing heat, means you have to adjust the models for more heat going into the oceans, assuming they didn’t already predict that the oceans would heat up. /// That is a restatement of the issue. A bit garbled but yes, the model said the ocean would heat up and by the measurements taken it wasn’t so there was a mystery. The ANSWER was that science was only measuring the heat of the top 10,000 feet. All a resource allocation issue. Deeper water was measured to find the missing heat and they did and now science understands that the entire ocean is involved in the heat storage/release system of Mother Earth.

    What we are seeing is heating of the deep oceans on the level of a few hundredths of a degree, at least according to their reanalysis model. The ARGO floats don’t have nearly enough deep ocean coverage to measure, plus the individual thermometers would have an error rate higher than their detected warming. /// Ok.

    So…… you got nothing.

    • Tim says:

      The link to *Earth Light dimming* is completely bogus. Shill.

      http://sci-tech-today.com/

    • bobbo, the only true Libertarian posting here who recognizes its a nice concept the precepts of which should not be applied as an absolute unless you are alone on your own little island says:

      Hey NFS…good to see you reviewing the literature. You have a lot of dots there. What would you connect them to?

      I looked at 4 of them and though “maybe so” but not really proof of anything.

      When Iceland slips into the sea and sea level goes up 20 feet overnight, I assume most people will agree that the ocean is warming up. Some will still deny its co2 and blame the underesea volcanoes. A few more will say there is still no proof for it being human caused….. and they will be right because that is the nature of proof.

      What would you want your grandkiddies to think?==you know, carrying around 1/4th of your very own dna??

  12. bobbo, the only true Libertarian posting here who recognizes its a nice concept the precepts of which should not be applied as an absolute unless you are alone on your own little island says:

    And Heads Up===new DU “standards” automatically close threads after 10 days. Its an anti-spam measure supposedly.