Sea levels have been rising a lot longer than that. We were warming long before this apparent shift of the nino's; el and la, so it is mostly a matter of degree to me. The "man is causing all the warming with co2, we need carbon credits" crowd won't like this report. Someone on the weatherboard accused nasa of skewing a report the other day and I failed to follow it up. My confidence in our institutions of higher learning and safety, Nasa and Noaa is under fire. After learning about Goldman Sachs my faith in washington is severly shaken. That filters down to the reports we are allowed to see concerning climate change. Now that I know G/S are now involved in carbon credits I know I must carefully sift what the Government Departments say even as I tell myself that so many scientists are not corruptable. Then I remind myself that Goldman Sachs corrupted every single check and balance of ethics, legalities and elected representation we possess as a nation to single handedly bring our economy all the way to it's knees... what's a few scientists.
Yeah, Jim Hansen has performed his biggest whopper to date in order to drive up the bias of the GISS temperature record. While satellites show continued cooling, along with thousands of cold weather records getting smashed this year, he tried to pull a fast one on everyone by using less than honest thermometer methods to say we have warmed over the last few months by .63 degrees. Or the same amount as the entire 20th century. I took a powder over the last few months because I was spending alot of time and resources to help survey the more than 1200 USHCN surface stations for a huge project. These are the ones that NASA (GISS) and NOAA use to monitor and construct US and global temperatures. What we have found with these ground stations is beyond pathetic and worthy of its own thread. In short, we are about 85% done, and more than 80% of the stations we've seen so far fail to meet even the most basic siting requirements set by USHCN itself. I have ZERO confidence in the surface temperature record. Either way, it didn't take long to see the deliberate flaw in what Hansen did to arrive at such an assinine conclusion. He used very select stations, saying he had a good mix of urban and rural sites, but that was bull. In the US for instance, he used only 134 stations, with 121 of them being an airport station, with the other 13 being in cities. Why is this bad? Well, those 121 are reported as rural stations, and while they technically are, airports have their own urban heat island effect, and many times will be even hotter (up to 10 degrees) than their neighboring city station. In other words, Hansen deliberately used only stations that were corrupted by artificial heat sources (UHI). Yeah yeah, I know. They (Jim Hansen and Gavin Schmidt) love to tell everyone how they adjust for UHI, but there are 2 huge problems with that. First, these ***-clowns have no idea what shape their own temperature monitoring network is in. I however do know because I've helped survey it, and its in complete disarray. Second, their primary method to adjust, is to substitute many city stations with rural ones. Wanna know which rural stations????? You guessed it, more airports. So in essence, to adjust for UHI, they just use more UHI. For a while now, the "in-the-tank" global warmers who head up NASA (GISS)and NOAA seem to have been in a back and fourth competition to see who could drive the ground based temperature record up the highest. Hansen wins this one by a mile.
Healthy skepticism is nothing to be ashamed of and I, for one, was taught long ago to question anyone who is fanatical on most any subject. Having lived in Tenn. and watched first hand the dealings of Big Al I tend to question anything he puts his thumb into. While I'm sure there are many good people who honestly think that we, as humans, play some part in all of this I have to ask myself this question. Just where do we place our priorties and what good can be done with the resorces we have? Marty, if we aren't a healthy country money wise, first and foremost, plus we have 12 million illegals in the country and we can't get a handle on those two problems what makes you or anyone else think we can solve CO2 problems and save the planet? I do not say these things lightly but don't you think we need to solve the little problems we have at home first? Our Bridges are falling down and our roads are in disrepair. Just some thoughts from a fellow 13 button!
Good for you brother, because skepticism IS science. Science works by testing a theory through research that should be reproduceable. Those studies are then scruntinized and literally attacked by other scientists. If the study survives the process, it is then accepted as a reasonable theory. However, the scientific process was never present in this GW debate from the very beginning. That should tell you all you need to now about who or what kind of people we are dealing with here. The warministas never allowed questions on their assumptions, "The science is settled", "The debate is over" we heard over and over. If you dared, you were vilified and character assassinated. We've all seen it. We can absolutely do both at the same time. Look no further than the amazing smog reduction we've achieved in LA and NY over the last few decades. That is a perfect example on how we can deal with the enviroment and still allow business thrive. The only way it will work though, is to finally get off the ridiculous assumption that CO2 will cause runaway warming. Unfortunately, the AGW hysteria has been allowed to fester for too long, and has become a monster industry and beauracratic nightmare. The ungodly amounts of money we are talking about here has built up huge constituencies. I mean, what does it say about climate science today when faulty computer models, with no perdictive skill in long range forecasting, and an atrocious forecast record over the last 20 years, can occupy the upper echelon of the climate hierarchy? While at the same time, observations, that represent the truth and real world, now occupy the bottom rung? Only the millions (soon to be billions thanks to Obama) of dollars that these models cost, and their resulting constituencies and politics can cause this sad situation to happen.
Sorry to have gotten OT brother, but yeah, this is another great piece of the whole puzzle. And one of the co-authors who I've met, marine geophysicist Bob Carter, is my freakin hero. Love him. Most people are completely unaware of how much of the suns energy our oceans can actually store, for how long, and how they blow it back into the atmosphere in the form of an el-nino. In 1997-98, global temps spiked nearly a full degree as a result of a gargantuan el-nino. That was a massive amount of heat burbed out by our oceans. This heat had been stored for hundreds, even thousands of years, so to blame that temp spike on anthropogenic global warming just defies logic. The following picture, I actually lifted off of Dr. Alan Carlin's now infamous censored EPA report. As you can see, the step rise in global temperatures that followed the '98 el-nino was caused by another massive el-nino in 2001-2002, and another large event in 2004-2005. Again, this was an amazing amount of heat that was stored for perhaps centuries or more. Alamists again defied logic and blamed CO2 instead of the amazing heat transfer of ocean to atmosphere. Now however, we are seeing the ramifications of all that ocean heat loss during that time period. The fact is that because of this, the oceans (first 2000') have cooled significantly since that time (and the sun's lowered output is not helping either), and two things that are not supposed to happen, are happening: Sea level has flattened, and even dropped as of late, and Arctic sea ice is returning. Sea levels are flat and even dropping right now because: a) there is less thermal expansion in the oceans b) there is less ice melt due to a cooler Earth Remember, the two largest freshwater sources on Earth are Antarctica and Greenland. A study somewhere deep in my hard drive shows how Antarctic's annual ice accumulation lowers sea level by .038 mm. And, the amount of ice loss in Greenland below 1500 M is largely eclipsed by the greater ice accumulation on the upper icesheet, giving Greenland a net gain of ice accumulation to the tune of 2 inches annually. Again, thats more water coming OUT of the oceans. As far as Artic ice recovery, you first have to understand that its the ocean temp that melts that ice, and not air temps. By now we should all understand that the sun warms the oceans in the lower latitudes (equator), and currents then deliver that warm water to the poles. Well, after all that ocean heat loss we talked about earlier, the oceans have cooled, the PDO (pacific decadal oscillation) and AMO (Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation) have now gone negative. The warm water that melted gobs of sea ice up to 2005 is just not there now, so the water being delivered from low latitude to the Arctic is now cooler, and we've seen record ice accumulation two years ago (which alarmists said wouldn't last the summer melt), then to the shagrin of the ridiculous Catlin Artic Ice Survey this last year, they find second year ice (also said to not last the summer). Seriously, I am so waiting, with baited breath, to hear what these clowns will say when third year ice is discovered next year. Sorry for the rant.
