Global cooling

[billvon 3,132]

Robert Felix is the latest contrarian in the debate over climate. He argues that massive undiscovered undersea volcanoes are heating up the ocean, and will therefore soon cause an ice age:

================
We’ve forgotten that this isn’t the first time our seas have warmed. Sea temperatures also shot upward 10º to 18ºF just prior to the last ice age.

As the oceans warmed, evaporation increased. The excess moisture then fell to the ground as giant blizzards, giant storms and floods (Noah's Deluge type floods), and a new ice age began.

The same thing is happening today.

It’s not global warming, it’s ocean warming, and humans have nothing to do with it. Our seas are being heated, I believe, by underwater volcanism. Here’s why:

* We are living in a period of vastly increased volcanism, said Dixy Lee Ray in her 1993 book Environmental Overkill, the greatest in 500 years.

* Eighty percent of all volcanism (say experts at NOAA) occurs underwater.

* Therefore, underwater volcanism should also be the greatest in 500 years.

* Our seas, heated by underwater volcanism, are leading us directly into the next ice age . . . and we don’t even know it.

* That's what El Niño is all about. Warmer seas send excess moisture into the sky, leading to increased precipitation.

* Worldwide flood activity is the worst since before Christopher Columbus. In Poland, it's the worst in several thousand years. In the U.S., precipitation has increased 20 percent just since 1970. This is no coincidence.

* When that precipitation begins falling in the winter, you have the makings of an ice age.
=====================

Now, some of you are going to go off and calculate the difference in heat between CO2-mediated forcing (on the order of 300 terawatts) to the potential heat of hundreds of imagined volcanoes (on the order of 10-20 terawatts.)

But if you did so you'd be missing the point. The _real_ point is that 30 years from now deniers will be able to point to this study and say "See? Scientists were predicting GLOBAL COOLING back in 2008 and now they're talking about GLOBAL WARMING! They can't even make up their minds!"

[speedy 0]

I thought the Argos bouys wern't showing any ocean warming since they were deployed. SST and to a depth to 3000 meters. Nothing being warmed up so what's with volcanos?

The guy is obviously taking out of his a****

Dave

Fallschirmsport Marl

[FallloutboyDAoC 0]

Everyday theres something new causing the apocolypse. w00t

[rushmc 23]

On another note. Did you see or hear of the EPA reaction to a court ruling today?

(I may not have correctly characterized the EPA as I just heard a snippet and I have been looking for some info)

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Robert Felix is the latest contrarian in the debate over climate. He argues that massive undiscovered undersea volcanoes are heating up the ocean, and will therefore soon cause an ice age:

================
We’ve forgotten that this isn’t the first time our seas have warmed. Sea temperatures also shot upward 10º to 18ºF just prior to the last ice age.

As the oceans warmed, evaporation increased. The excess moisture then fell to the ground as giant blizzards, giant storms and floods (Noah's Deluge type floods), and a new ice age began.

The same thing is happening today.

It’s not global warming, it’s ocean warming, and humans have nothing to do with it. Our seas are being heated, I believe, by underwater volcanism. Here’s why:

* We are living in a period of vastly increased volcanism, said Dixy Lee Ray in her 1993 book Environmental Overkill, the greatest in 500 years.

* Eighty percent of all volcanism (say experts at NOAA) occurs underwater.

* Therefore, underwater volcanism should also be the greatest in 500 years.

* Our seas, heated by underwater volcanism, are leading us directly into the next ice age . . . and we don’t even know it.

* That's what El Niño is all about. Warmer seas send excess moisture into the sky, leading to increased precipitation.

* Worldwide flood activity is the worst since before Christopher Columbus. In Poland, it's the worst in several thousand years. In the U.S., precipitation has increased 20 percent just since 1970. This is no coincidence.

* When that precipitation begins falling in the winter, you have the makings of an ice age.
=====================

Now, some of you are going to go off and calculate the difference in heat between CO2-mediated forcing (on the order of 300 terawatts) to the potential heat of hundreds of imagined volcanoes (on the order of 10-20 terawatts.)

But if you did so you'd be missing the point. The _real_ point is that 30 years from now deniers will be able to point to this study and say "See? Scientists were predicting GLOBAL COOLING back in 2008 and now they're talking about GLOBAL WARMING! They can't even make up their minds!"

I find it interesting thay you try and stiffel any debate on this by creating lables BEFORE anybody has a chance to comment.

Dam shamefull I think

All "deniers" are stupid nut cases looking for anything.
Yep, if you dont agree with a study it is pure bunk. I am glad you got all the answers
Nice

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,132]

>All "deniers" are stupid nut cases looking for anything.

If you say so.

>Yep, if you dont agree with a study it is pure bunk.

Do YOU agree with his study?

[rushmc 23]

http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSWBT00865620080327?feedType=RSS&feedName=environmentNews

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>All "deniers" are stupid nut cases looking for anything.

If you say so.

>Yep, if you dont agree with a study it is pure bunk.

Do YOU agree with his study?

Not the point and I dont know but, I will not dismiss it off handedly because it does not fit my perfered world view as you do.

You make it clear you think it is shit. Why?

I am not the one with the open mind wanting to learn. YOU are

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,132]

>You make it clear you think it is shit. Why?

Several reasons.

1) Basic math. Just run the numbers for the 2 watt/meter forcing vs. the thermal output of the sort of volcanoes he's talking about.

2) Data. The ocean is warming far more slowly than the land is (if at all.)

3) Observation. We haven't explored much of the ocean floor, but it is unlikely we would have missed several hundred undersea volcanoes erupting in the past 50 years.

>I am not the one with the open mind wanting to learn. YOU are

Again, if you say so.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>You make it clear you think it is shit. Why?

Several reasons.

1) Basic math. Just run the numbers for the 2 watt/meter forcing vs. the thermal output of the sort of volcanoes he's talking about.

2) Data. The ocean is warming far more slowly than the land is (if at all.)

3) Observation. We haven't explored much of the ocean floor, but it is unlikely we would have missed several hundred undersea volcanoes erupting in the past 50 years.

>I am not the one with the open mind wanting to learn. YOU are

Again, if you say so.

So, what do you say about the ocean temps cooling (as stated by NASA) in an post I made a short time ago?

You quote them !

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88520025

More supporting evidence of "Global Cooling"?

Nothing is settled yet

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

So, have you already identified the next "label" you are going to use to try and kill debate? You know, with anybody that is not as right as you are?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,132]

>So, what do you say about the ocean temps cooling

==================================
I'll let NOAA speak for me here:

Correction to “Recent Cooling 1 of the Upper Ocean”

Josh K. Willis, John M. Lyman, Gregory C. Johnson and John Gilson

Revised and Resubmitted 10 July 2007 to Geophysical Research Letters

Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA
NOAA/Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory, 7600 Sand Point Way Bldg. 3, Seattle, Washington 98115-6349, U.S.A.

18 Most of the rapid decrease in globally integrated 18 upper (0–750 m) ocean heat
19 content anomalies (OHCA) between 2003 and 2005 reported by Lyman et al. [2006]
20 appears to be an artifact resulting from the combination of two different instrument biases
21 recently discovered in the in situ profile data. Although Lyman et al. [2006] carefully
22 estimated sampling errors, they did not investigate potential biases among different
23 instrument types. One such bias has been identified in a subset of Argo float profiles.
24 This error will ultimately be corrected. However, until corrections have been made these
25 data can be easily excluded from OHCA estimates (see http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/ for
26 more details). Another bias was caused by eXpendable BathyThermograph (XBT) data
27 that are systematically warm compared to other instruments [Gouretski and Koltermann,
28 2007]. Both biases appear to have contributed equally to the spurious cooling.
===================================

[jenfly00 0]

Quote

All "deniers" are stupid nut cases looking for anything.
Yep, if you dont agree with a study it is pure bunk. I am glad you got all the answers
Nice

Not all are stupid nut cases. Some work for industries that produce large amounts of pollution. Their denials should be read as self-serving BS motivated by a fear of losing their jobs.

Theoretically, however, I suppose one could be both.

-----------------------
"O brave new world that has such people in it".

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>So, what do you say about the ocean temps cooling

==================================
I'll let NOAA speak for me here:

Correction to “Recent Cooling 1 of the Upper Ocean”

Josh K. Willis, John M. Lyman, Gregory C. Johnson and John Gilson

Revised and Resubmitted 10 July 2007 to Geophysical Research Letters

Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA
NOAA/Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory, 7600 Sand Point Way Bldg. 3, Seattle, Washington 98115-6349, U.S.A.

18 Most of the rapid decrease in globally integrated 18 upper (0–750 m) ocean heat
19 content anomalies (OHCA) between 2003 and 2005 reported by Lyman et al. [2006]
20 appears to be an artifact resulting from the combination of two different instrument biases
21 recently discovered in the in situ profile data. Although Lyman et al. [2006] carefully
22 estimated sampling errors, they did not investigate potential biases among different
23 instrument types. One such bias has been identified in a subset of Argo float profiles.
24 This error will ultimately be corrected. However, until corrections have been made these
25 data can be easily excluded from OHCA estimates (see http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/ for
26 more details). Another bias was caused by eXpendable BathyThermograph (XBT) data
27 that are systematically warm compared to other instruments [Gouretski and Koltermann,
28 2007]. Both biases appear to have contributed equally to the spurious cooling.
===================================

So the NEW stuff you ignore.

Cool

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

All "deniers" are stupid nut cases looking for anything.
Yep, if you dont agree with a study it is pure bunk. I am glad you got all the answers
Nice

Not all are stupid nut cases. Some work for industries that produce large amounts of pollution. Their denials should be read as self-serving BS motivated by a fear of losing their jobs.

Theoretically, however, I suppose one could be both.

Here it is for all to see.

We get to see an irrational emotional response someone will make when that person feels their religion, world view or belief system is being attacked or challenged.

Lies, innuendo and PA’s all in one post.

Nicely done. Nicely done indeed

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[likearock 2]

Quote

http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSWBT00865620080327?feedType=RSS&feedName=environmentNews

Quote

The Bush administration, which has resisted regulating carbon dioxide emissions, this spring will propose rules that could affect everything from vehicles to power plants and oil refineries, the top U.S. environmental official told Congress on Thursday.

So? How do you feel about that?

[masterrig 1]

Quote

Quote

All "deniers" are stupid nut cases looking for anything.
Yep, if you dont agree with a study it is pure bunk. I am glad you got all the answers
Nice

Not all are stupid nut cases. Some work for industries that produce large amounts of pollution. Their denials should be read as self-serving BS motivated by a fear of losing their jobs.

Theoretically, however, I suppose one could be both.

Like, oh... say... General Electric? If, this 'Green' thing really goes, they stand to make billions of dollars off it. Remember 'Green Week' on t.v.? Who owns the network who ran all the 'green message' shows? You guessed it! G.E.! I believe, our old world goes through weather/climate cycles and we are in the midst of one.


Chuck

[rushmc 23]

From the link

Quote

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.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Squeak 17]

Quote

Quote

Quote

All "deniers" are stupid nut cases looking for anything.
Yep, if you dont agree with a study it is pure bunk. I am glad you got all the answers
Nice

Not all are stupid nut cases. Some work for industries that produce large amounts of pollution. Their denials should be read as self-serving BS motivated by a fear of losing their jobs.

Theoretically, however, I suppose one could be both.

Here it is for all to see.

We get to see an irrational emotional response someone will make when that person feels their religion, world view or belief system is being attacked or challenged.

Lies, innuendo and PA’s all in one post.

Nicely done. Nicely done indeed

Fact of the matter is Jenfly00 is correct, i have personally worked for these organisations submitted envrironmetal impact statements and been told that's not the answers we wanted, go get the "right" ones. This was from a multi-national minning company.

the same things were done by the tobacco industry in an efforft to disprove the lung cancer health risks associated with tobacco.

You are not now, nor will you ever be, good enough to not die in this sport (Sparky)
My Life ROCKS!
How's yours doing?

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

All "deniers" are stupid nut cases looking for anything.
Yep, if you dont agree with a study it is pure bunk. I am glad you got all the answers
Nice

Not all are stupid nut cases. Some work for industries that produce large amounts of pollution. Their denials should be read as self-serving BS motivated by a fear of losing their jobs.

Theoretically, however, I suppose one could be both.

Here it is for all to see.

We get to see an irrational emotional response someone will make when that person feels their religion, world view or belief system is being attacked or challenged.

Lies, innuendo and PA’s all in one post.

Nicely done. Nicely done indeed

Fact of the matter is Jenfly00 is correct, i have personally worked for these organisations submitted envrironmetal impact statements and been told that's not the answers we wanted, go get the "right" ones. This was from a multi-national minning company.

the same things were done by the tobacco industry in an efforft to disprove the lung cancer health risks associated with tobacco.

Maybe the fact of your matter but far far from any kind of real point. Especially in the context of this post.

But just to help you understand her attack on me, I work for an energy company where one of the corps under the umbrella has started the process to build a new coal fired plant.

Whether or not the plant gets built has no impact on me as I am in the pipes and wires side of the business. But, that does not matter.

Does it

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Squeak 17]

[reply
Maybe the fact of your matter but far far from any kind of real point. Especially in the context of this post.

But just to help you understand her attack on me, I work for an energy company where one of the corps under the umbrella has started the process to build a new coal fired plant.

Whether or not the plant gets built has no impact on me as I am in the pipes and wires side of the business. But, that does not matter.

Does it

whether or not it matter would be entirely up to your moral concious,
do you think another coal fired pwoer station is going to be detrimental to the environment?,
do you care?
are you happy being one of the cogs in the machine that enable the production of coal fired power?


i cant answer those Qs for you. But i know what my responses would be

You are not now, nor will you ever be, good enough to not die in this sport (Sparky)
My Life ROCKS!
How's yours doing?

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>So, what do you say about the ocean temps cooling

==================================
I'll let NOAA speak for me here:

Correction to “Recent Cooling 1 of the Upper Ocean”

Josh K. Willis, John M. Lyman, Gregory C. Johnson and John Gilson

Revised and Resubmitted 10 July 2007 to Geophysical Research Letters

Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA
NOAA/Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory, 7600 Sand Point Way Bldg. 3, Seattle, Washington 98115-6349, U.S.A.

18 Most of the rapid decrease in globally integrated 18 upper (0–750 m) ocean heat
19 content anomalies (OHCA) between 2003 and 2005 reported by Lyman et al. [2006]
20 appears to be an artifact resulting from the combination of two different instrument biases
21 recently discovered in the in situ profile data. Although Lyman et al. [2006] carefully
22 estimated sampling errors, they did not investigate potential biases among different
23 instrument types. One such bias has been identified in a subset of Argo float profiles.
24 This error will ultimately be corrected. However, until corrections have been made these
25 data can be easily excluded from OHCA estimates (see http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/ for
26 more details). Another bias was caused by eXpendable BathyThermograph (XBT) data
27 that are systematically warm compared to other instruments [Gouretski and Koltermann,
28 2007]. Both biases appear to have contributed equally to the spurious cooling.
===================================

Ah, I see.... so, just like the information about false data in the "hockey stick", the observed solar forcing temperature events on other planets and now this... any data NOT fitting the "It's The Carbon Dioxide, Stupid" consensus gets thrown out... nice scientific method they have going, there.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kallend 2,184]

Quote

So the NEW stuff you ignore.

Cool

Here's something new. And it shows "warm", not "cool".

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

[reply
Maybe the fact of your matter but far far from any kind of real point. Especially in the context of this post.

But just to help you understand her attack on me, I work for an energy company where one of the corps under the umbrella has started the process to build a new coal fired plant.

Whether or not the plant gets built has no impact on me as I am in the pipes and wires side of the business. But, that does not matter.

Does it

whether or not it matter would be entirely up to your moral concious,
do you think another coal fired pwoer station is going to be detrimental to the environment?, No
do you care?Yes
are you happy being one of the cogs in the machine that enable the production of coal fired power?Yes


i cant answer those Qs for you. But i know what my responses would be

I know too

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln