The Mystery of Global Warming's Missing Heat

[RWSchilz]

Morning Edition (http://www.npr.org/templates/rundowns/rundown.php?prgId=3), March 19, 2008 · Some 3,000 scientific robots that are plying the ocean have sent home a puzzling message. These diving instruments suggest that the oceans have not warmed up at all over the past four or five years. That could mean global warming has taken a breather. Or it could mean scientists aren't quite understanding what their robots are telling them. This is puzzling in part because here on the surface of the Earth, the years since 2003 have been some of the hottest on record. But Josh Willis at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory says the oceans are what really matter when it comes to global warming. 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. So the buildup of heat on Earth may be on a brief hiatus. "Global warming doesn't mean every year will be warmer than the last. And it may be that we are in a period of less rapid warming."
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88520025

I know why! Because it is not happening.:)

[Biblenuggetlady]

Quick, put up the red phone and call Al! :hehee

[felixthecat]

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm where's all the HEAT?

LOL!

It's not the "red scare" anymore. The "red scare" is dressed up to be the "green scare".

Global warming is a joke.

I hope the founder of the weather channel, John Coleman takes these global warming morons to task and ENDS their ridiculous socialistic grab for self gain.

Weather Channel Founder: Sue Al Gore for fraud


"Is he committing financial fraud? That is the question," Coleman said.

"Since we can't get a debate, I thought perhaps if we had a legal challenge and went into a court of law, where it was our scientists and their scientists, and all the legal proceedings with the discovery and all their documents from both sides and scientific testimony from both sides, we could finally get a good solid debate on the issue," Coleman said. "I'm confident that the advocates of 'no significant effect from carbon dioxide' would win the case."

Coleman has long been a skeptic of global warming, and carbon dioxide is the linchpin to his argument.

"Does carbon dioxide cause a warming of the atmosphere? The proponents of global warming pin their whole piece on that," he said.

The compound carbon dioxide makes up only 38 out of every 100,000 particles in the atmosphere, he said.

"That's about twice as what there were in the atmosphere in the time we started burning fossil fuels, so it's gone up, but it's still a tiny compound," Coleman said. "So how can that tiny trace compound have such a significant effect on temperature?

"My position is it can't," he continued. "It doesn't, and the whole case for global warming is based on a fallacy."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,337710,00.html

I dare say that the one degree is hardly a crisis and that degree was neutralized with cooler temperatures.

[John730]

but I don't understand the perspective of many posters on this Web site that the possibility of global warming, and more specifically, the possible anthropogenic (i.e., man-made) influences on global warning are somehow implausible, ridiculous, and/or that the arguments for such a cause and effect are some kind of liberal conspiracy (ala. Al Gore, etc.). How can you be so sure of your opinion about this? Is there a scientific basis to your conclusions or is it some sort of gut feeling?

I'm an engineer, not a climate scientist, but I do know that climate science (similar to meteorology) is a very difficult and inexact science that, in the case of global warming, relies on complex mathematical models to simulate the long-term effects of increased greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the atmosphere. It's probably naive to ignore the potential effect of the huge amounts of GHGs that have and continue to be released by man's industrialization, power generation, and transportation infrastucture since the industrial revolution.

If indeed there is the possibility that global warming is real and there is a possible cause and effect from man's GHG generation, perhaps caution is a smarter path (i.e., reduction of GHG production rates) before the tipping point is reached where the effects might take on a life of their own. JMHO!

[I'm all 67X]

Wow john- this is just way too much to go into- I would encourage you to investigate for yourself and deduce based on what you find. For me, it's common sense. A few points to ponder, not scientific:

*look at where these weather stations are located: airports, deserts, under a/c units, in parking lots, etc.
*follow the money- 'nuff said.
*consider UN agenda 21- CO2 causes it, humans exhale CO2, sustainable population...:tinfoil?
*this earth was created thousands of years ago, we have been measuring weather for how long? And we can arrive at a definable conclusion? Right.
*Majority of pop-science exists to disprove God, or a creator...'nuff said there too.
*power and control...how else to exert it....? Global warming! yeah- we are the scourge of Gaia's planet (which appears to be Al's religious deity of choice).
*doctored photos, or opportune locations for shots of ice sheets, ignoring the expanding ones just down the way...

The info is out there, but if you follow mainstream news only, you will get the mainstream view = the secularly view = the worldly view, and who hates you more than the world and it's secular humanists?

It's up to you what to make of it, but it never once entered my head that it was possible. I'm no scientist, again, but I was a biology buff in HS and college- honors student...which amounts to hooey, but I can process a thought.

[Bernardd]

One would think that if it WERE possible to hear the planet a few degrees, we'd be feverishly trying to do so since it's a proven fact that more people die each year to exposure to the cold than to the heat. It's also a proven fact that a warmer earth yields a greater abundance of crops and vegetation. You say there's not enough food? Fine. Turn on the Global Warming apparatus and let's get some crops growing to feed the hungry hordes. (hoards?)

I saw a segment on the news last night in which people were interviewed about what they thought of increased gas prices to "save the earth" from ravaging heat. Suffice it to say, just a very select few were in favor of paying anything. Ironically, it turns out that even if every last car on the planet were immediately taken away, the reduction in GHG would be negligable.

Global WArming? Absolutely! We need a little more heat to save some lives and feed the hungry.

Note -- Here comes the rebuttle about how Global Warming is impacting weather patterns and causing catastophic storms etc. I'll let history be my guide. Warmer weather has historically improved living conditions on planet earth.

I've also noticed that termperatures on other planets have increased as well (while temps on other planets have decreased). How on earth did we manage to do that?

[I'm all 67X]

Oh, yeah, I completely forgot about planetary heating! Jupiter is up, Mars is up, guess that's us too, sort of a "second hand" heating. :aha

(hordes is correct- ;))

You are so right Bernardd- one study showed that if we did EVERY LAST LITTLE thing recommended by the GW crowd, we would effectively reduce the worldwide temp by about 0.3 degrees in 10 year's time. OH BOY!!! Where do I sign up to be sacrificed for the goddess?

:yeahright

[lyngraphics]

Has anyone seen the new Global Warming commercial? I couldn't even watch it all!!

[RWSchilz]

but I don't understand the perspective of many posters on this Web site that the possibility of global warming, and more specifically, the possible anthropogenic (i.e., man-made) influences on global warning are somehow implausible, ridiculous, and/or that the arguments for such a cause and effect are some kind of liberal conspiracy (ala. Al Gore, etc.). How can you be so sure of your opinion about this? Is there a scientific basis to your conclusions or is it some sort of gut feeling?

I'm an engineer, not a climate scientist, but I do know that climate science (similar to meteorology) is a very difficult and inexact science that, in the case of global warming, relies on complex mathematical models to simulate the long-term effects of increased greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the atmosphere. It's probably naive to ignore the potential effect of the huge amounts of GHGs that have and continue to be released by man's industrialization, power generation, and transportation infrastucture since the industrial revolution.

If indeed there is the possibility that global warming is real and there is a possible cause and effect from man's GHG generation, perhaps caution is a smarter path (i.e., reduction of GHG production rates) before the tipping point is reached where the effects might take on a life of their own. JMHO!

The Problem is making policy for million of Americans based on theory and climate models created with incomplete data or evolving data. Example: The ethanol industry which is a result of global warming hysteria has proved to be a disaster for our economy and for our environment because of the land, water and energy used to produce it. E85 was promised to be friendly to the environment and ease the cost at the pump for consumers which it has failed to do. On top of that Hydrogen Technologies has been suppressed for 50 years by the energy and automotive industries because of poor stewardship of our resources and sinful greed. If it were not for the inventor Denny Klein which you can read about at http://www.hytechapps.com and Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HHO_gas#HHO_gas we would not have any idea of the great possibilities for energy use and a cleaner environment from the gift of water.:):hat

[Bernardd]

Brilliant researchers? We'd really need to examine what is meant by "brilliant." Shakespeare was brilliant as was Beethoven.
Alexander Hamilton was brilliant,,,,