Global Warming ...

[HAPe4me]

Inconclusive is something I would agree with, but certainly not "cancelled" as was implied with the title. Many variables come into play including El Ninas and Ninos and for that matter shifting currents among many other things.

The short of my final post on this thread is that a piece of data (or in this case a class of data- "underwater temps") provides only one part of the picture. Anecdotal data ("we sure had a cold/warm winter/spring/summer fall") are meaningless to the topic of GW also.

Perhaps some are more concerned than others with what legacy we leave our children and future generations to come. Maybe not. All I know is there is no reason for this topic (or most any other topic) to rile anyone like it has. I quit it.

[rhino]

The short of my final post on this thread is that a piece of data (or in this case a class of data- "underwater temps") provides only one part of the picture. Anecdotal data ("we sure had a cold/warm winter/spring/summer fall") are meaningless to the topic of GW also.

I really don't see who is riled ... but 5 years of global ocean measurements down to 6500 feet is not "anecdotal data".

That is the hardest of data, as far as I see ... worth gettin excited about ... It may be "inconclusive" that we broke a warming trend, but it is very hard data that we have not warmed in the face of increased CO2 ... so that is the issue ... as I see it.

As far as concern over the legacy we leave ... Rachel Carson meant well with her Silent Spring bad data, that in the name of envionmentalism, killed millions by eliminating DDT as an effective weapon against deadly virus carrying mosquitoes. We are just now bringing it back as an effective weapon to save lives.

Edited March 23, 2008 by rhino

[rhino]

I guess we won't get free analysis from Rumrunner on the Argos data, except that it is inconclusive ... but links to previous posts on the general global warming science from RumRunner are here and here and here.

In general I'd summarize his thoughts are that it is all inconclusive ... except that there is some warming over the long term, which has not been disputed. One of those RumRunner quotes ...

It is true that there is distinct evidence of global warming and it is also true that it is unclear how much of the cycle is natural and how much humans have contrbuted too. Humans love to hate each other. However a couple of points to remember. There plenty of evidence for

"ice ages" where polar ice sheets ran all the way down into the continental U.S.

After a few thousand years the globe warmed... and you have a nice sweet temporate zone in the northern hemispher that is hospitable to us warm-blooded crunchy things. You pick

:)

Second issue which is still out is the cloud physics. Global warming will, theoretically produce larger quantites of greenhouse gases. They are called that, possibly erroneuosly, because originally it was, and still is in many circles, thought that those gases will result in increased, perhaps global cloud cover. The clouds hold the heat, the self feeding cycle gets worse.

But WAIT THERE'S - a pack of Ginzu knives - oops wrong channel - let's go back the the clouds again. Every cloud physicist has this great dilemma. Where do we GET our heat in the first place? Well some is internal but almost every bit of it is from solar energy. Clouds are white - well mostly - but we wont go there. If they are white and they are global then they REFLECT SUNLIGHT...which means less energey getting under the cloud layers and less terrestrial heating.

And hears the kicker -

the best cloud physicist in the world can't tell you which way it would really go

. All of the models and simulations suffer in that the slightests tweaks will make a model pick the other choice.

To me, the stability in the ocean temps seems a very good indicator that the world is not coming to an end, despite increased CO₂ levels. We just had some snow on Easter, so another one degree rise in temps over the next 100 years is OK by me.

Edited March 23, 2008 by rhino