The Great Global Warming Swindle (1Hr 15Min.)

[White_Male_Canada]

[edited just for ilcb]

John Christy

Lead author IPCC

“ I`ve often heard it said there`s a consensus of thousands of scientists on the gw issue and humans are causing a catastrophic change to the climate system. Well I am one scientist and there are many that simply think that is not true.”

Running time 1 Hr. 15 Min. :

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9005566792811497638&q=The+Great+Global+Warming+Swindle&hl=en

[White_Male_Canada]

John Christy

Lead author IPCC

“ I`ve often heard it said there`s a consensus of thousands of scientists on the gw issue and humans are causing a catastrophic change to the climate system. Well I am one scientist and there are many that simply think that is not true.”

Running time 1 Hr. 15 Min. :

http://www.hungangels.com/board/posting.php?mode=newtopic&f=13&sid=bfb2ef8d98b2167ea2d68e0324f42ea0"

Looks like you've finally lost it "Prof."! Posting a link to the "Post a new topic" page? What's the bets he edits it 4 times?

My apologies to you and algore, the "scientist"

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9005566792811497638&q=The+Great+Global+Warming+Swindle&hl=en

[guyone]

Yes it's true! The Bolsheviks do NOT want developing countries to fully develop, because it's must easier to control an underdeveloped nation so they come up with this nonsense to keep the nation crippled. Another case of the boot of the dastardly Bolshevik stomping on a human face, forever.

DOWN with Bolshevism!
LONG LIVE THE REPUBLIC!

[guyone]

Ha ha! This whole thing started by Thatcher. I wonder what the Bolsheviks think about that?

[guyone]

Ya see??? As Bob Hope says "They're all zombies!".

[guyone]

Here's a picture of one of Denise Richards meat flaps.

[White_Male_Canada]

Ha ha! This whole thing started by Thatcher. I wonder what the Bolsheviks think about that?

The earth worshippers must lover her now/sarc off. 8)


And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie

[North_of_60]

A little supplement for the denialist idiots...

Report to Warn of Coming Drought

- Hundreds of millions of Africans and tens of millions of Latin Americans who now have water will be short of it in less than 20 years. By 2050, more than 1 billion people in Asia could face water shortages. By 2080, water shortages could threaten 1.1 billion to 3.2 billion people, depending on the level of greenhouse gases that cars and industry spew into the air.
- Death rates for the world's poor from global warming-related illnesses, such as malnutrition and diarrhea, will rise by 2030. Malaria and dengue fever, as well as illnesses from eating contaminated shellfish, are likely to grow.
- Europe's small glaciers will disappear with many of the continent's large glaciers shrinking dramatically by 2050. And half of Europe's plant species could be vulnerable, endangered or extinct by 2100.
- By 2080, between 200 million and 600 million people could be hungry because of global warming's effects.
-About 100 million people each year could be flooded by 2080 by rising seas.
- Smog in U.S. cities will worsen and "ozone-related deaths from climate (will) increase by approximately 4.5 percent for the mid-2050s, compared with 1990s levels," turning a small health risk into a substantial one.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070311/D8NPKSRG2.html

[guyone]

To young for "Invasion of the Body Snatchers", eh guyone?
http://imdb.com/title/tt0077745/

"Invasion of the Body Snatchers" = piss-take of McCarthyism paranoia = piss-take of "Global Warming is all a Commie Plot" paranoia
http://www.filmsite.org/inva.html

One of the few movies where the remake was as good or better than the original.

- - - - -

They make a pretty convincing argument that sunspots have more to do with our climate changes than CO2 concentrations.

[White_Male_Canada]

A little supplement for the denialist idiots...

Report to Warn of Coming Drought


The only fools in here are on the left. Last time, co2 does not cause temps to rise. Ice core data has proven so.

Don`t forget about the coming ice age they predicted 50-100 years in the future. Even though they can`t predict the weather for the next 7 days. 8)

[White_Male_Canada]

A close examination of the CH4, CO2 and temperature fuctuations recorded in the Antarctic ice core records does in fact reveal that yes, the temperature moved first in what is, when viewed coarsely, a very tight correlation.

Problem is , lies don`t hold up to the facts. That`s why algore won`t openly debate anyone.


To distil this to the inescapable, simply note that the demanded response is exactly the same for both the "scientific certainty" of catastrophic man-made global cooling in the 1970s and the "scientific certainty" of catastrophic man-made global warming, both of which we have been falsely assured of. The same movement and even same people drove both alarms. Yet although every single bill on Capitol Hill and even the UN's Kyoto Protocol is demanded in the name of 'it's-real-it's-bad-it's-here-now-it's-our-fault-we-can-impact-it-but-we-must-act-now-it's-a-moral-issue', not one such proposal would under any scenario, under any set of assumptions, according to any champion, actually have a detectable impact on that which it purports to address: the climate. Seems a bit odd. In fact, the reasonable conclusion is that this agenda isn't really about the climate at all, but instead about the one thing that we all agree would result, which is the attainment of longstanding policy objectives of making energy more scarce and moving energy sovereignty to a supranational body -- something called the UNFCCC (www.unfccc.int).



And those longstanding policy objectives are held by the constituent parts of the Kyoto Industry, environmentalist pressure groups who seek to radically redistribute wealth, move the decisions of governing to the least accountable levels, all in the name of dramatically reducing that which they view as pollution: any global human population above 2 billion.



And the only way to have the agenda escape scrutiny is to scare the dickens out of people and shriek both that the debate -- which no one can recall having -- is over and, as is ritual now on all such "greatest threats", "we must act now!"

A belief in both the certainty of catastrophic man-made global warming and the horrors of capitalism are matters of faith, which tend to be held in tandem. No society in its right mind is going to wilfully do to itself what the environmentalist industry, at its core, desperately seeks: massive diminution of individual liberties and ceding of most decision making to the least accountable level of governance possible, in the name of creating an Edenic world, a Goldilocks world, where man's population, growth, energy use and impact is "just right"; this, by the way, is to be judged in the eyes of people who believe there are just enough of them and way too many of everyone else. In the meantime, environmentalists insist that wealth is the root of all evil; capitalism is the root of such wealth; ergo, capitalism must go. I quote them to this effect, in my book, in their moments of candor. No evidence, no data, no observations are sufficient to disown such people of the faith, despite the unavoidable reality that wealthier is healthier, and cleaner, that only wealthy societies impose the expensive form of showing that one "cares", that is environmental regulations; and that only healthy growing economies agree to layer on more and more. They just cartoonishly scream "big business" and the ritual, accompanying rants.

The biggest-ticket item is that which underlies Al Gore's movie and every proposal offered in the name of averting climate catastrophe: that atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations drive temperatures. This is absurd. Al Gore even shows this -- without focusing on it -- in his movie. Just look closely at the data he shows in chart form as he rides the hydraulic lift upward to where, on the wall, he claims that temperatures will go unless we agree to the "World War II-style" commitment that for some reason he refuses to provide the details of. This data was published in Science magazine in June 2006 and quite plainly reveals that temperatures drop before CO2 concentrations drop, and that the intimated cause-effect relationship actually doesn't exist. Which is precisely why Gore elected to not superimpose the two charts. Further, the other famous data set, with better historical resolution in the data, also shows that temperatures historically increase before CO2 concentrations increase.

If you want correlation over any period of time that might actually be meaningful -- that is, more than a convenient couple of decades when things might match up -- then look at the sun, and cosmic waves. They correlate over the 20th century -- which is when we have the best data, that is observations and not "proxies" but also in prior centuries -- and CO2 quite plainly does not correlate. After all, as emissions rose it cooled from the 1940's thru the 1970s sufficient to start a "global cooling panic", then as emissions and contributions continued to climb, temperatures reversed. One can only try to be clever -- or ignorant -- with the "it's warmed since the 1970s and emissions have risen since the '70s" syllogism, as one declared Republican presidential candidate confidently informed me when I was given the opportunity to brief him. Yes, and cell phone use has gone up since the 1970s, too. Correlation, however, doesn't mean causation of temperatures in that example any more than it does with a very tiny timeframe with CO2 and temperature. Move your baseline year to 1940 and the whole argument implodes.


Christopher C. Horner, an attorney in Washington D.C. specializing in environmental policy and regulation, particularly international agreements and "global warming". He is affiliated with classical liberal think tanks in Washington and Europe, in which capacity he has testified before U.S. Senate committees and spoken on numerous occasions in the European Parliament and before policy leaders in numerous EU capitals from Madrid to Warsaw.

[White_Male_Canada]

Nice chart,

proves the factual point that co2 doesn`t cause temps to rise.

It`s the other way around.

[trish]

Nice chart,

proves the factual point that co2 doesn`t cause temps to rise.

It`s the other way around.

We've all nailed you on this a dozen dozen times before. You're a slow learner, professor white-male-canadian. The causes of temperature variation are manifold. CO2 concentrations can drive Earth's annual mean temperature up...but sometimes it happens the other way (as in the chart above) when the Earth's secular motion causes the temperature to rise and the extra heat releases CO2 from terrestrial sources and increases its concentration in the atmosphere. Imagine, Professor, if you will an Earth for which your favored 15 micron band is not saturated and then imagine the geological processes that vent enough CO2 into the atmosphere to saturation that band making it opaque from space. Sure THAT would cause a lot of warming. I'm not claiming this scenario is historical, only that this scenario should convince you that the causality CAN go both directions. Perhaps, as you claim, current warming isn't caused by increased concentrations of CO2 (a theory that doesn't have my support as you know) but given that each can cause the other, the above chart has no bearing on the question.

[guyone]

Sun spots.

[trish]

Sun spots.

I'm sorry, you say you're breaking out with a case of acne?


Real sun spots are a cyclic phenonmenon with a periodicity measured in decades not centuries. They ARE responsible for fluctuations in the energy flux of the sun incident to Earth, BUT that flux has NOT shown any statistical increase or decrease for since we've learned to measure it more than a century and a half ago. The current statistical increase in the mean annual temperature goes back two centuries.

[guyone]

...One interesting aspect of solar cycles is that the sun went through a period of sunspot inactivity from about 1645 to 1715. This period of sunspot minima is called the Maunder Minimum. Sunspots were measured during this timeframe, although the more detailed, daily measurements began in 1749. The "Little Ice Age" occurred over parts of Earth during the Maunder Minimum. So the question remains, do solar minimums help to create periods of cooler than normal weather, and do solar maximums help to cause drought over sections of Earth? This question is not easily answered due to the immensely complex interaction between our atmosphere, land and oceans. In addition, there is evidence that some of the major ice ages Earth has experienced were caused by Earth being deviated from its "average" 23.5 degrees tilt on its axis. The Earth has tilted anywhere from near 22 degrees to 24.5 degrees on its axis. The number of sunspots alone do not alter the overall solar emissions much at all. However, the increased/decreased magnetic activity which accompanies sunspot maxima/minima directly influences the amount of ultraviolet radiation which moves through the upper atmosphere.


FROM:

[trish]

Climate models are computer simulations which are used to examine understanding of climate behavior. Some models use constant values for solar irradiance, while some include the heating effects of a variable Sun. A good simulation by GCMs of global mean temperature over the last 100 years requires both natural (solar; volcanic) and human (greenhouse gas) factors.

In 2003, Stott et al found that "current climate models underestimate the observed climate response to solar forcing over the twentieth century as a whole, indicating that the climate system has a greater sensitivity to solar forcing than do models." and concluded that "The best estimate of the warming from solar forcing is estimated to be 16% or 36% of greenhouse warming depending on the solar reconstruction."


from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation

(boldfacing mine)

[trish]

oh, for those you like visuals :arrow:

[guyone]

Yeah I can make up graphs too!

[White_Male_Canada]

Yeah I can make up graphs too!

Here`s one I just made up:

The research team had already in 2003 found evidence that the Sun is more active now than in the
previous 1000 years. A new data set has allowed them to extend the length of the studied period of time
to 11,400 years, so that the whole length of time since the last ice age could be covered. This study
showed that the current episode of high solar activity since about the year 1940 is unique within the last
8000 years. This means that the Sun has produced more sunspots, but also more flares and eruptions,
which eject huge gas clouds into space, than in the past. The origin and energy source of all these
phenomena is the Sun's magnetic field.


Max Planck Society
for the Advancement of Science

[White_Male_Canada]

Sorry, you`re worng. co2 increases after temps do, not the other way around as you and algore claim.

He`s so eaily debunked I laughed :

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9005566792811497638&q=The+Great+Global+Warming+Swindle&hl=en

[guyone]

Hey wait a minute! CO2 killed 'The Blob' and that was cold!

[trish]

Yeah I can make up graphs too!

that's nice. this one can be found at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation#Carbon-14_production

and the data sources are:

(light blue) Law Dome CO2 Data: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/antarctica/law/law_co2.txt
(blue) Mauna Loa CO2 data:http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/co2_mm_mlo.dat
(red) Temperature Data: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3gl.txt
(orange) Sunspot data:http://sidc.oma.be/DATA/yearssn.dat

[trish]

WMC says,
Sorry, you`re worng. co2 increases after temps do, not the other way around

But WMC also says,
doubling CO2 from its value in the late 19th Century (about 290 ) to double this (i.e., 580) causes a 2% increase in radiative forcing, then to obtain another 2% increase in radiative forcing we must increase CO2 by an additional 580 ppmv rather than by another 290 ppmv.

(http://www.hungangels.com/board/viewtopic.php?t=15821&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=50)

WMC must be one of those wild post modernists asserts p&~p.

[White_Male_Canada]

WMC says,
Sorry, you`re worng. co2 increases after temps do, not the other way around

But WMC also says,
doubling CO2 from its value in the late 19th Century (about 290 ) to double this (i.e., 580) causes a 2% increase in radiative forcing, then to obtain another 2% increase in radiative forcing we must increase CO2 by an additional 580 ppmv rather than by another 290 ppmv.

(http://www.hungangels.com/board/viewtopic.php?t=15821&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=50)

WMC must be one of those wild post modernists asserts p&~p.

Trish, really girl.

The historical data (vostok) proves co2 lags behind temps.

The second statement was not historical and dealt with how co2 has to expand exponentially to obtain the same increase in rad. force.

Look Trish, it`s over. Man-made co2 is a minor contributor to climate change, very minor. Strict adherence to Kyoto would only
potentially lower the temp by 0.003221076 °C by the year 2050.

You may continue to believe algore and his minions but in 10-15 years from now we will be laughing at this fools predictions.

[trish]

The historical chart you continually refer to shows that when the Earth’s secular motion drives climate change, CO2 concentrations lag temperatures changes. Well duh! The mechanism is known here. When the Earth’s tilt to the Sun is extreme enough to become the primary driving force behind climate changes then CO2 is not the primary driving force. These changes are known to occur on the order of, what, every 22000 years? That is the context of your historical data. But the assertion you make,


co2 doesn`t cause temps to rise.

It`s the other way around


is not historical, is it? It’s not in the past tense, it lacks a statement of historical context and it’s flat out false. It’s doesn’t claim the more modest (and true) assertion that CO2 is not the cause of the ice ages and their intermittent warming periods. As long as you inflate true and modest claims into false and sweeping universals, this conversation will not be over.

By the way, there you go with Kyoto again. I don’t give a flying fuck about Kyoto. But it’s obviously the real reason behind all your insane claims. OOOOoooooOOooooooooooooOooooo KyoooOOOoooOOTOOOooooOOOOooooo. Afraid you’re gonna lose money on the stock market or something…is that it?

[White_Male_Canada]

co2 doesn`t cause temps to rise.

It`s the other way around



As long as you inflate true and modest claims into false and sweeping universals, this conversation will not be over.

I`m not the author of that claim. Scientists who have more knowledge of the subject than you and I and algore put together have come to that scientific conclusion:



http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9005566792811497638&q=The+Great+Global+Warming+Swindle&hl=en

[trish]

co2 doesn`t cause temps to rise. WMC’s bible tells me so.

Realizing his chart only addresses the ice ages, and by no means the period from 1800 to the present, WMC is reduced to argument by authority:


Scientists who have more knowledge of the subject than you and I and algore put together have come to that scientific conclusion
[By the way professor, you can’t point to any passages where I cited Al Gore as a source…so why bring him up? You really are one hundred percent ideologically motivated, aren’t you?]

I thought you didn’t believe in consensus science. I thought you encouraged people to think independently and for themselves. Well, never you mind that “scientist” behind the curtain…he’s not pulling your strings.

[White_Male_Canada]

co2 doesn`t cause temps to rise. WMC’s bible tells me so.

Realizing his chart only addresses the ice ages, and by no means the period from 1800 to the present, WMC is reduced to argument by authority:


Scientists who have more knowledge of the subject than you and I and algore put together have come to that scientific conclusion
[By the way professor, you can’t point to any passages where I cited Al Gore as a source…so why bring him up? You really are one hundred percent ideologically motivated, aren’t you?]

I thought you didn’t believe in consensus science. I thought you encouraged people to think independently and for themselves. Well, never you mind that “scientist” behind the curtain…he’s not pulling your strings.

Trish,


Facts are stubborn and arrogant. They are not malleable and refuse to change. It`s been fun but you will never prove anthropomorphic warming as THE CAUSE of climate change. Man-made co2 plays a minor factor not a major one. There`s nothing left to say because you`ve given me nothing that would require serious rebuttal.

[trish]

You're right...this


Scientists who have more knowledge of the subject than you and I and algore put together have come to that scientific conclusion:


does not require serious rebuttal. Not only is it an argument by authority...you don't even name the authority! In your words, "ssshhheeesh."

[By the way, how many times have you declared a thread dead...but dragged it along because you couldn't resist getting in the word :lol: )

[muhmuh]

http://ocean.mit.edu/~cwunsch/papersonline/channel4response
In the part of the "Swindle" film where I am describing the
fact that the ocean tends to expel carbon dioxide where it is warm,
and to absorb it where it is cold, my intent was to explain that
warming the ocean could be dangerous---because it is such a gigantic
reservoir of carbon. By its placement in the film,
it appears that I am saying that since carbon dioxide exists in the
ocean in such large quantities, human influence must not be
very important --- diametrically opposite to the point I was making---
which is that global warming is both real and threatening in many
different ways, some unexpected.

http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article2347526.ece
Professor Wunsch said: "I am angry because they completely misrepresented me. My views were distorted by the context in which they placed them. I was misled as to what it was going to be about. I was told about six months ago that this was to be a programme about how complicated it is to understand what is going on. If they had told me even the title of the programme, I would have absolutely refused to be on it. I am the one who has been swindled."

When told what the commission had found, he said: "That is what happened to me." He said he believes it is "an almost inescapable conclusion" that "if man adds excess CO2 to the atmosphere, the climate will warm".

He went on: "The movie was terrible propaganda. It is characteristic of propaganda that you take an area where there is legitimate dispute and you claim straight out that people who disagree with you are swindlers. That is what the film does in any area where some things are subject to argument."

[White_Male_Canada]

http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article2347526.ece
Professor Wunsch said: "I am angry because they completely misrepresented me. My views were distorted by the context in which they placed them. I was misled as to what it was going to be about. I was told about six months ago that this was to be a programme about how complicated it is to understand what is going on. If they had told me even the title of the programme, I would have absolutely refused to be on it. I am the one who has been swindled."

What part of his words does he think he misspoke about :

Professor Wunsch:
25:43 The ocean is the major reservoir into which carbon dioxide goes when it comes out of the atmosphere or to from which it is re-emitted to the the atmosphere. If you heat the surface of the ocean, it tends to emit carbon dioxide. Similarly, if you cool the ocean surface, the ocean can dissolve more carbon dioxide.

Professor Wunsch:
26:44 - The ocean has a memory of past events ugh running out as far as 10,000 years. So for example, if somebody says oh I'm seeing changes in the North Atlantic, this must mean that the climate system is changing, it may only mean that something happened in a remote part of the ocean decades or hundreds of years ago who's effects are now beginning to show up in the North Atlantic.

Professor Wunsch:
49:22 - The models are so complicated, you can often adjust them is such a way that they do something very exciting.

Professor Wunsch:
50:46 - Even within the scientific community you see, it's a problem.
If I run a complicated model and I do something to it like ugh melt a lot of ice into the ocean and nothing happens, ugh it's not likely to get printed. But if I run the same model, and I adjust it in such a way that something dramatic happens to the ocean circulation like the heat transport turns off, ugh it will be published. People will say this is very exciting. It will even get picked by the media. So there is a bias, there's is a very powerful bias within the media, and within the science community itself, toward results which are ugh dramatizable. If Earth freezes over, that's a much more interesting story than saying well you know it ugh fluctuates around, sometimes the mass flux goes up by 10%, sometimes it goes down by 20%, but eventually it comes back. Well you know, which would you do a story on? That's what it's about.

Wunsch then said, " “I explained that warming the ocean was damaging
because it will release more carbon dioxide. They used it to claim that carbon dioxide is all natural.”

I do not recall the program stating all co2 is of natural origin. I`d have to view the movie again to verify but we all accept that man-made co2 only represents somewhere between 3.4 and 5 % of all co2.

[muhmuh]

which bit of this sentence is it that you dont get?
> My views were distorted by the context in which they placed them.

[White_Male_Canada]

which bit of this sentence is it that you dont get?
> My views were distorted by the context in which they placed them.

What parts were distorted? What part of the transcript above was false due to editing ?

Wunsch then said, " “I explained that warming the ocean was damaging
because it will release more carbon dioxide. They used it to claim that carbon dioxide is all natural.”

I do not recall the program stating all co2 is of natural origin. I`d have to view the movie again to verify but we all accept that man-made co2 only represents somewhere between 3.4 and 5 % of all co2.

[guyone]

Sun spots.

[muhmuh]

What parts were distorted? What part of the transcript above was false due to editing ?

Wunsch then said, " “I explained that warming the ocean was damaging
because it will release more carbon dioxide. They used it to claim that carbon dioxide is all natural.”

what he said was that man made global warming will cause even more co2 to be released from the oceans thus speeding the process up not like they portraied it that co2 always follows temperature changes with no influence of its own on temperatures

just read what he posted on his webspace:
In the part of the "Swindle" film where I am describing the
fact that the ocean tends to expel carbon dioxide where it is warm,
and to absorb it where it is cold, my intent was to explain that
warming the ocean could be dangerous---because it is such a gigantic
reservoir of carbon. By its placement in the film,
it appears that I am saying that since carbon dioxide exists in the
ocean in such large quantities, human influence must not be
very important --- diametrically opposite to the point I was making---
which is that global warming is both real and threatening in many
different ways, some unexpected.

[White_Male_Canada]

What parts were distorted? What part of the transcript above was false due to editing ?

Wunsch then said, " “I explained that warming the ocean was damaging
because it will release more carbon dioxide. They used it to claim that carbon dioxide is all natural.”

what he said was that man made global warming will cause even more co2 to be released from the oceans thus speeding the process up not like they portraied it that co2 always follows temperature changes with no influence of its own on temperatures

just read what he posted on his webspace:
In the part of the "Swindle" film where I am describing the
fact that the ocean tends to expel carbon dioxide where it is warm,
and to absorb it where it is cold, my intent was to explain that
warming the ocean could be dangerous---because it is such a gigantic
reservoir of carbon. By its placement in the film,
it appears that I am saying that since carbon dioxide exists in the
ocean in such large quantities, human influence must not be
very important --- diametrically opposite to the point I was making---
which is that global warming is both real and threatening in many
different ways, some unexpected.

Very interesting. But according to NOAA, things are a changing, specifically, sea temps :

Abstract. We observe a net loss of 3.2 (± 1.1) × 1022 J of heat from the upper ocean
between 2003 and 2005. Using a broad array of in situ ocean measurements, we present
annual estimates of global upper-ocean heat content anomaly from 1993 through 2005.
Including the recent downturn, the average warming rate for the entire 13-year period is
0.33 ± 0.23 W/m2 (of the Earth's total surface area). A new estimate of sampling
error in the heat content record suggests that both the recent and previous global cooling events are significant and unlikely to be artifacts of inadequate ocean sampling.

We have detected a new cooling event that began in
2003 and is comparable in magnitude to the one in the early 1980s. Using highresolution
satellite data to estimate sampling error, we find that both the recent event and
the cooling of the early 1980s are significant with respect to these errors.


John M. Lyman1,2,3, Josh K. Willis4, and Gregory C. Johnson1

1 NOAA/Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory, 7600 Sand Point Way N.E.
Bldg. 3, Seattle Washington 98115-6349, U.S.A.
2 JIMAR, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI

4 Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA

[muhmuh]

Very interesting. But according to NOAA, things are a changing, specifically, sea temps :

Abstract. We observe a net loss of 3.2 (± 1.1) × 1022 J of heat from the upper ocean
between 2003 and 2005. Using a broad array of in situ ocean measurements, we present
annual estimates of global upper-ocean heat content anomaly from 1993 through 2005.
Including the recent downturn, the average warming rate for the entire 13-year period is
0.33 ± 0.23 W/m2 (of the Earth's total surface area). A new estimate of sampling
error in the heat content record suggests that both the recent and previous global cooling events are significant and unlikely to be artifacts of inadequate ocean sampling.

We have detected a new cooling event that began in
2003 and is comparable in magnitude to the one in the early 1980s. Using highresolution
satellite data to estimate sampling error, we find that both the recent event and
the cooling of the early 1980s are significant with respect to these errors.


John M. Lyman1,2,3, Josh K. Willis4, and Gregory C. Johnson1

1 NOAA/Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory, 7600 Sand Point Way N.E.
Bldg. 3, Seattle Washington 98115-6349, U.S.A.
2 JIMAR, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI

4 Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA

what has any of this got to do with the fact that the "documentary" misrepresented the scientists it quoted to paint a completely different picture of the matter?

[White_Male_Canada]

Very interesting. But according to NOAA, things are a changing, specifically, sea temps :

Abstract. We observe a net loss of 3.2 (± 1.1) × 1022 J of heat from the upper ocean
between 2003 and 2005. Using a broad array of in situ ocean measurements, we present
annual estimates of global upper-ocean heat content anomaly from 1993 through 2005.
Including the recent downturn, the average warming rate for the entire 13-year period is
0.33 ± 0.23 W/m2 (of the Earth's total surface area). A new estimate of sampling
error in the heat content record suggests that both the recent and previous global cooling events are significant and unlikely to be artifacts of inadequate ocean sampling.

We have detected a new cooling event that began in
2003 and is comparable in magnitude to the one in the early 1980s. Using highresolution
satellite data to estimate sampling error, we find that both the recent event and
the cooling of the early 1980s are significant with respect to these errors.


John M. Lyman1,2,3, Josh K. Willis4, and Gregory C. Johnson1

1 NOAA/Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory, 7600 Sand Point Way N.E.
Bldg. 3, Seattle Washington 98115-6349, U.S.A.
2 JIMAR, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI

4 Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA

what has any of this got to do with the fact that the "documentary" misrepresented the scientists it quoted to paint a completely different picture of the matter?

Only that Prof. Wensch has a degree in oceanography and that is his specialty, is it not?

"Scientists" ? Are there now more than one complaining of being mis-quoted?

So if his claim is that the oceans are still getting warmer due to man and releasing co2 then his opinion doesn`t jibe with the latest data.

[muhmuh]

Only that Prof. Wensch has a degree in oceanography and that is his specialty, is it not?

"Scientists" ? Are there now more than one complaining of being mis-quoted?

So if his claim is that the oceans are still getting warmer due to man and releasing co2 then his opinion doesn`t jibe with the latest data.

you have no idea what the bars in that graph mean do you?