NOAA 5 years ago decided that it would be a good idea to monitor our oceans temperatures since the Climate Warming Modelers all predicted that our oceans would show significant warming trends even higher then land air temperatures. In order to monitor the oceans temperature, NOAA launched 3000 robots in the oceans which would monitor the oceans temperature on a continuous basis and send the information back to NOAA scientists.
Here's the link to location of those robots. http://sos.noaa.gov/videos/Buoywaterfall2.mov
So whats the outcome of this 5 year study....Ocean temperatures over the past 5 years have actually slightly decreased. That means no global warming. That means the main indicator of global warming that the IPCC has been so worried about has shown zero change in ocean temperatures.
But again when ever any information or scientific paper surfaces to contradict the myth of Global warming, the global warming alarmists squirm and actually try to find reasons why the reality does not match their predisposition to believe all things in their own flawed science.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88520025
One can't help but smile as these two scientists squirm in this NPR interview. Notice how they talk about how much there is to learn about our climate. Do you ever hear these same scientists parse thier words when it comes to talk about how the climate is warming?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
38 comments:
I read the story you linked to and you leave out quite a few pieces of important information regarding the "conclusions" that can be gained from the study.
I would submit that the very same claims of cherry picking you harbor against the IPCC is precisely what is happening with this particular blog.
Being a skeptic is one thing, but being atheistic is quite another. It appears that no matter what the science says you have your own personal beliefs and nothing will change that. That is not a skeptic. That is a close minded viewpoint.
I am agnostic but lean towards the global warming argument from all the information being distributed. Clearly the media likes gloom and doom and therefore highlight disproportionately the warming side of the debate. Given that, the consumer of this information is left to be an educated consumer and listen to all data equally. I use sites such as this one to help get a better perspective on the 'other side' of the debate but I find that most of these types of sites are short sighted in their outlook and aren't really trying to find the truth but instead bolster their own uninformed opinion. To make the claim - 'there is no global warming' is simplistic and arrogant. The simple truth is that nobody knows the future and anyone who claims they do is lying to themselves. As a species we are too ignorant of the complex nature of the planet to make wholesale judgements about the cause of every piece of information we record let alone make predictions about its future with any degree of certainty. Maybe in 50 years we will have a good grasp of the intricacies of our climate but as of right now everyone is making educated (or uneducated) guesses.
It's interesting that TC would use the words "athiest" and "agnostic." Global warming really has become a religion!
I wonder if it's "simplistic and arrogant" to say that there has been no global warming since at least 1999. Everyone agrees on that (except Al Gore, who launched Inconvenient Truth in 2004).
PMK,
I used those words ("athiestic" (not atheist) and agnostic) in a non-religious context. I use them on a nearly weekly basis in an engineering context for my job and they came out as a natural description of my desired thought.
I will admit though that anything that requires us to believe can be looked on as religious. Some consider science a religion.
As far as the 'no global warming since 1999' is concerned I have not (yet) seen any data points that show a trend of global cooling or leveling off of temperature. One or two anomalies on a graph does not a trend make...
If anyone has data that shows either of those trends I would happily take a look at it.
"Ocean temperatures over the past 5 years have actually slightly decreased. That means no global warming"
Global warming science is concerned with longer time periods than the last five years. 1998 was an all time high, and relative to that spike, recent years have been lower. There is a natural variation in the temperature graph http: and the last few years show a downswing. Climate science has to take the widest and longest view possible. Looking at the last 5 or 10 years is indeed an example of cherry picking.
Plus, whatever the results, whether they've been interpreted right or not, you can't ignore the fact that the ice caps are melting at an alarming speed - something's making that happen.
It IS strange, since marine biologists are reporting temperature rises from their own measurements. But I can't help feeling that this is another example of a sceptic jumping on an anomalous result and turning it to his own needs because so few results do seem to give the desired answers.
An interesting blog. Especially the juxtaposition of the CBS news stores on Antartica from a few years back.
I believe the point of this particular instance of "cherry picking" is that folks have to accept all the cherry picking or none at all. If five years can be casually dismissed as an anomalous result ... well ... warming in the 1990s can be dismissed as an anomalous result.
Or maybe, just maybe, there is so much natural variance in climate that future predictions even in theory are unlikely to ever be within mankind's grasp. Unless of course folks can predict the next eruption of the Yellowstone supervolano.
Simply put, I think the boat has sailed and many are still stranded on the shore of the island-debate of whether global warming is currently happening.
On the boat are those who 'get' that man's activities are not sufficient to impact global temperature, and that temperature rises PRECEDE, not presage, an increase in the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Moreover, carbon dioxide is NOT (DID YOU HEAR THAT?) NOT! a "pollutant." The ocean waters over the globe "respirate" with carbon dioxide and oxygen, as do the vegetation and flora. The oceans and their sea-life, and vegetation and flora all serve as the requisite variables by which an overall equilibrium is maintained.
From the get-go, it is apparent to any schmoe that the world has been lied to on this point. That there is still to take place a 'Climate Change Summit' in Copenhagen, and that "Queen" Elizabeth herself now has overtly appeared to clamor for an International Treaty, only further demonstrates that the entire lie of man-made global warming was to have been, and may still willfully be used as the fraudulent premise for a world-wide PONZI SCHEME to create the structural scaffolding for the development of an oligarchical, tyrannical WORLD GOVERNMENT.
See Al Gore’s response to Climategate here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ymxLA5oRYI
to not notice large change within 5 years is obvious. Climate is when you average the weather in a region over a span of at least 30 years. 5 years isn't enough time to bring in enough data. to simply think that if ocean temperatures don't rise within 5 years, all climate change is debunked it completely ridiculous. What about dendrochronology, ice cores, deep-sea sediment cores?
Something tells me you don't have a degree in geography or environmental studies.
I will let TC defend his use of agnostic as non-religious as the word means 'no knowledge'. When it come to atheistic however the word means 'no god' and there is no possibility of using this word in any other way than a religious context. Find another word. That the earth has recently cooled is also acknowledged by the consensusarians (to continue the religious feel). This at least seems to fly in the face of CO2 driven climate change theory. As to what constitutes personal belief TC, you are just as guilty. Belief is that which lies between doubt and absolute certainty. I submit that everyone on both sides of this debate lies somewhere in that realm. A consensus of opinion is nothing more than a belief based on some (not all) available evidence, not proof. I believe man walked on the moon based on some evidence but I have absolutely no proof of the event. You should reconsider your epistemology and get off your high horse.
@StevenW,
Thanks for the education of the word atheistic - I will indeed use a different word in the future. I have heard it used in non-religious contexts and assumed the word had popular meaning outside its religious context. My bad.
It is odd to me though that you think I am on a high horse. I am advocating that we are all too ignorant of this world to come to a reasonably informed opinion and that no one can accurately predict the future. I've never been called arrogant when admitting my ignorance before.
That I am just as guilty as far as personal belief goes is what I think I admitted to in my posts. I have no idea if warming is happening but I tend to believe from the data I've seen that the trend of the Earth's average temperature is positive. I am not saying it is a result of anthropogenic CO2 nor am I discounting that possibility. As I said before I am awaiting the answer in ignorance as I believe we should all be.
I recently listened to 'State of Fear' and I think he did a reasonably good job of describing just how complex the science is and how we are in our infancy in understanding it. Perhaps my 'high horse', as you call it, is that I find it arrogant that people think they 'know' the answer.
I am surprised though that this is considered a 'high horse' opinion.
Thanks for the reply TC. My reference to arrogance is mainly to the subtle digs about the educated vs the uneducated etc. There is no doubt that the consensusarian scientists are presenting their theories as fact. Would you describe these people as uneducated in spite of the acknowledged lack of proof? No level of 'education' or if one would prefer 'indoctrination' constitutes proof of anything. One man's statement of belief however is just as valid as another, one can hold a 'reasonably formed opinion' on either side of the debate. It is syllogistic reasoning that we must however be guarded against, 'most of the scientists say it is true, therefore it must be true'. This is where the thinking stops for most people unfortunately.
Hi Steven,
If I was being subtle before let me be less so. I believe that 99.99% of the time those who do something for a living have more expertise, knowledge and education in that area than those who do not. So I actually do not agree with your statement that everyone's belief is just as valid - especially with regard to issues like this one. I actually do understand where you are coming from - that if I do not know with absolute certainty then my 'guess' is no more valid than someone else's. What I would counter with is my guess about tomorrow's weather in Paris vs. a local meteorologist's. While neither of us is absolutely certain his forecast is MUCH more likely to be accurate than mine even though I may occasionally be right based solely on random chance.
I also have not read anywhere that says anthropogenic global warming is a fact. Highly likely - yes, but not a certainty nor a fact.
The question I find so interesting is why people care so much that they argue so passionately for their opinion? What is the big deal here? How does this really affect my day to day life? I will say, however, that this article shows some people whose lives are being affected by rising sea levels (whatever the cause).
I think this article is much better at making the point I was trying to in my last post.
Either we trust the scientists to gather the data, interpret it, debate it and come up with reasonable hypotheses or we just say they don't know what they are talking about.
Lot's of people didn't believe the scientists when they said the Earth was flat, the Earth orbited the Sun and space was made up of Ether. Through the scientific process those ideas were proved true, true and false. Anthropogenic climate change will also be proved true or false by the same process - not by ignorant people writing on blogs (like me :)
TC,
I believe the record is actually FALSE, true, false unless one is a member of the Flat Earth Society. We are not talking about 'guesses' here, we are talking about belief. If a person believes that ants climbing a wall means rain will come in 3 days rather than what the 'educated' weather prophet says, so what? Why is his belief less valid than yours? It is his belief and he has his reasons, whatever they may be, for believing it (experience + family or cultural education + whatever). What you are saying is tantamount to an assertion that the only beliefs that are really valid are those that are supported by the largest quantum of scientific opinion .
To go back to Galileo, who argued against the common scientific view, his views are according to you less valid because he did not have weight of scientific opinion on his side. Thank you for raising this issue and helping to make my point.
As to claims global warming is fact: 'The world's leading climate scientists said global warming has begun, is very likely caused by man, and will be unstoppable for centuries.... The phrase very likely translates to a more than 90 percent certainty that global warming is caused by man's burning of fossil fuels. That was the strongest conclusion to date, making it nearly impossible to say natural forces are to blame.' According to this statement (Wikipedia) global warming is fact AND it is 90% certain that it is man-made. Do you disagree that the claim is that global warming is stated as fact?
Finally, why is opinion important? Right now decisions are being made based on opinion about introducing new domestic taxes that will impact our lives. In addition to these taxes, the poor countries expect developed countries to pay billions of dollars in reparations and that will also affect your life and mine. This on top of the obvious undermining of national constitutions as we sign away our rights to make or own laws on these issues and place ourselves in the hands of an international bureaucracy.
Oh and one further point. Denis Island is a privately owned sand island that has a permanent population of bugger all and at its highest point is 2.5m above sea level. I submit to you that anyone building on an island like this takes their chances, global warming or not. Forgive me if I find this reference at least a little amusing :). Here is a site that supports my belief that rising ocean levels are a furphy:
Why Oceans are not Rising
This information from the Colorado university shows that oceans are not rising at all. This supports my belief but no doubt goes against yours.
Hi Steven,
LOL! You are right. I am not a member of the Flat Earth Society.
Thanks for the reply because it is your arguments that show how I am failing in my attempt to communicate my opinions.
As I said in my last post - I agree with you that every person's belief is just as 'valid' as everyone else's. But whether or not someone's opinion is valid is different from saying their argument holds value in a debate. For example, I can claim that I had a vision that gravity will cease to exist tomorrow. If a physicist and I are arguing the point you seem to be saying that I am just as likely to be able to sway a group of my peers as he is. Certainly my belief is valid but it does not have any credibility.
Similarly, I do not hold lay-persons opinions on blogs as credible - especially as is the case here where one news report is used as 'proof' that global warming is a hoax.
To Galileo - your comment helps me to better understand where my point is getting lost. I am actually NOT arguing that Galileo's views were less valid (to use your word). I am arguing that Galileo's and his peers' arguments are credible because they were educated in the science and math required to make reasoned and predictable claims.
I am also (and actually this is my real point) arguing that the opinion of Galileo's paperboy who believed Galileo is irrelevant. He has no credibility to make the assertion. Sure, he may be right but it's not because he understands it.
Let me be as clear as possible.
I do not believe in global warming and I do not believe global warming is a hoax. I am too ignorant of the subject to hold an informed opinion and I don't think it is appropriate to lobby based on an uninformed opinion.
To Denis Island, given my admitted ignorance of the Earth's processes I will go out on a limb and say that it seems like there are only two options - the sea is rising or the land is sinking.
Your last sentence though is the one that really made me realize we were not communicating.
"This supports my belief but no doubt goes against yours."
Again, I don't have a belief one way or the other. It is frustrating when people try to put me in a box. I am completely ignorant of the issue and have been trying to say that in this blog for months.
To your link about the seas rising and the question at hand, should I believe a guy who is watching his beach erode away due to 'rising seas' (or sinking land) or you who says sea levels aren't rising (in the last 3 years though the data shows it rose more than 30mm in the previous 12?) Your contention is that both beliefs are equally valid but yet you are choosing your belief as more 'valid' and apparently find the guy who is watching his beach erode amusing.
I also find it completely bizarre that the data you link to shows an average sea level rise of 3.2mm per year and yet you are claiming sea levels aren't rising. It's right there in black and white on your own graph for Heaven's sake!
How about this? The reason the sea levels haven't risen in the last three years is because with all the global warming enough ice has melted to cool the oceans thereby removing some of the thermal expansion caused by the earlier warmer waters. So once all the ice has melted and the air has warmed the waters the sea level will again rise dramatically.
You have to admit there is a certain logic to my conjecture even in the face of my stated ignorance.
For the record and to clarify my main point - my argument above should be taken with a grain of salt since I am uneducated/ignorant in the ways of water expansion, ice melting and global warming. ;)
TC,
My hamfisted comment was meant to convey the idea that there is no significant measurable increase in rising ocean levels. Oceans have risen steadily by minute amounts for thousands of years and that has nothing to do with man-made CO2. Now we read there is no statistically measurable movement at all. I also submit that 3.2mm is not worth all of the histerics that we are hearing and I defy anyone to identify a 3.2mm rise of ocean levels with the naked eye. if the water is rising on Denis it may be that the island is sinking rather than the sea rising (I take a leaf from your book to engage in pointless and baseless speculation here).
Let me clarify your belief, or rather be more accurate in describing the box I see you living in. You indeed do hold a belief on this issue in spite of your protestations just as surely as you believe the box labelled 'Vitamins' in your fridge contains vitamins (notwithstanding that you have never put this to the test).
You have already labeled yourself a climate change 'agnostic' and you like to hold out a stated BELIEF that we cannot know if man is responsible for climate change with any certainty. I find this approach dishonest and have a lot more respect for someone who takes a stand on one side or the other. You are holding the climate change issue to standards of proof that you do not require for a myriad of other beliefs that you hold and this is very easy to demonstrate.
I will be very arrogant now and unequivocally state that you believe in Napoleon, vitamin B12 and DNA. You have no direct proof for any of these things and your belief is merely based upon what you read in books, see on TV or hear by word of mouth. You also believe that the next chair you sit on will support your weight and will not check to see if it is sound before you sit down. There is the same standard of evidence in existence on both sides of the debate for anthropogenic climate change so there is no problem taking a position one way or the other and people ought not be criticized for doing so.
Agnosticism sounds all cool and intellectual but it is really just a cop out. Man up, take a position and argue it otherwise you really have nothing of value to contribute.
Your whole point seems to be to criticize those who want express a belief on the issue but a bit more criticism is reserved those on one particular side of the debate which smacks a little of hypocrisy given your stated belief in your own ignorance.
Hi Steven,
Your point is well taken that I do hold some beliefs to be true in the absence of sound proof. The examples you give though are well documented and lack the controversy of AGW. There is a similar debate within the scientific community about string theory and I have not taken a side in that argument either. I do not believe it is a cop out to not take a side in the absence of proof. Some of the greatest minds in the world do not agree - how arrogant would I be to say I am smarter and know more about the subject than those who do it for a living?
You are also correct that I am criticizing those who choose to believe one set of scientists over another set without a solid foundation into why one set may or may not be right. I have a problem with people claiming to be experts because the have read a few news articles, journals or papers. But that is my problem - not theirs.
I also agree that my input is without value and have been saying so. My point is that ALL of our input is without value. This was driven home to me yesterday when I read people's comments on a news story about a project I am working on. Some of them made all sorts of claims and accusations without knowing a wit about what we are doing or where it came from. The arrogance of those critics to believe they know the internal workings of my company and the value of the application we are developing is laughable. The same sort of uninformed debate goes on in these climate forums and I was truly trying to help people understand that they are ignorant about the issue and that that is ok. But some people have a problem admitting their ignorance because they wish to believe they are as smart as the next guy. You say man up and take a side - I say man up and admit you don't know what the heck you are talking about (not you specifically - 99%+ of people like me who don't have the knowledge or time to gain that knowledge.)
Either way - I agree that my contributions are of zero value and have hopefully made that abundantly clear. The pointless and speculative debate you speak of is exactly what I think ALL of this is.
So, you win - I will cease my criticism of people lying, cherry picking and distorting the data to their own ends. Let disinformation reign! (whichever side it comes from)
TC,
Truly sorry to hear about your experience at the hands of the media. I can say I am not surprised at anything I hear about some in this profession. If I were to summarise my perception of a media belief system it would be something like this:
1. Truth is unimportant. By all means exaggerate, misrepresent, embellish and lie
2. Feel free to destroy reputations, harass and bully to create a good story. You can always post a retraction on page 20 if you are wrong
3. By all means be partial in your investigations. After all, people would rather hear your opinions than get both sides of a story and reach their own conclusions
4. Above all, steer away from positive news stories. People only want to hear bad news.
5. There must always be someone to blame in every situation. We do not believe in accidents or natural disasters. We must have scapegoats to attack in every situation
I wish your project every success (whatever it may be). If the media is against it, in all likelihood it is probably a praiseworthy endeavour.
I would however humbly ask that you please not place those of us who do not believe in anthropogenic climate change in the same boat as those media parasites. I don't think anyone deserves that.
The media was quite favorable to the product. People leaving comments about the story were the uninformed ones.
The sceptic case is contradictory and confused, if a 100th of the scrutiny placed on AGW was placed on the sceptic case it would fall apart.
Sceptics disagree with each other and most admit temperatures are rising.
its all a fig leaf for coal and oil interests http://another-green-world.blogspot.com/2009/12/climate-sceptics-are-like-alcoholics.html
Let's not talk about the fig leaf of socialism that you are hiding behind. Take wealth from the richer countries and give to the undeveloped nations for the unsubstantiated claim damage that we are supposed to have done to the environment. What a croc! I work for a living. Your values smack of a welfare mentality. Coal is wonderful stuff. It powers your house, manufactures metals and products you use everday and is the biggest contributor to Australia's economy. It is the cheapest, cleanest realistic source of power and will remain so for at least the next 30 years. That is a fact. Our coal powered power stations are the cleanest they can be given the available technology and the stuff you see coming out the top of the cooling towers? 95% WATER VAPOUR!! You are ignorant of the facts so I suggest you come to the table with more than your unsubstantiated socialistic crap.
Firstly, let me say that I have never contributed to a website like this before. Secondly, that in between cooking dinner and feeding the kids, I have enjoyed reading the various views expressed and the eloquent way they have been voiced.
I studied environmental biology and geography 10 years ago and have forgotten more than I can remember. The most important thing I learnt was not about deep sea sediments, ice cores or how to track sea temperature changes using the thousands of different species of foraminferas with their different ranges of temperature tolerance or any of the other astoundingly clever and complimentary techniques available, but the ability to think critically. Hence me ending up here, in search of a cognitive and well constructed argument that challenges what I think.
On the value of opinion.
If somebody does not believe in gravity, what he believes is of no consequence when he jumps off a 100foot cliff. His is not a valid opinion and never was.
Science is, at its heart, a discipline of sceptics. Whilst it is possible to build a belief system around false theories, someone, somewhere will debunk it and that new view will be the new orthodoxy.
So far I have found nothing that undermines the theory of human caused global climate warming. According to most data sets, the seas are warming over a long period. According to most data sets the climate is warming over a long time. We are not talking about regional variations or anomalous spikes, we are talking trends.
cont...
cont...
Data suggests that anomalies do not divert the return to the rising mean trend.
I understand there is a belief that appearing on the cover of 'Sports Illustrated' is a curse and that it leads to a slump in form. It is not. People appear on the cover because they have been performing particularly well and they merely go back to how they were performing before. This is called a 'return to the mean value'. Many people interpret the spike as the norm and the norm as the anomaly. You can not always put Federer, Woods, Schumacher or
Bolt on the cover.
The point of science is to seek out the truth not distort it. Although of course some do.
In Britain autism has been linked to the MMR inoculations. Immediately any scientist worth his salt who had small children went to the original paper to see if there was any truth in it. I did, it was rubbish based on 12 cases that were almost predetermined and yet for years the media, even the broadsheets and serious broadcasters kept on promoting this hokum because it sold papers and, I suspect, went against the scientific orthodoxy. Even last week as the guy was struck off, parents of children screamed abuse at the scientists who gave evidence against him. These poor parents who perversely believe that they had given permission for their children to be harmed still believed in this guy. Children have died because they did not have proper immunisation.
Global warming is not an abstract idea with no impacts made up by ranting socialists supported by climatologists (no speech marks) happy to jump on the gravy train in an effort to redistribute money to themselves and the really poor.
Many human settlements are built near seas and are vulnerable to sea rise. Agriculture will be affected. Some of the impacts may be positive, lovely summers could make Britain more like Spain, we could grow grapes and make lovely wine (no Spanish wine jokes please). Or, the Gulf Stream could be turned off and Britain could loose it's lovely, if wet, temperate climate and get something 5 C below our averages.
The human race will adapt, ecosystems will recover (there is overwhelming evidence to suggest that a species diversity explosion occurs after environmental shocks).
But before we adapt, the outcomes could be truly horrific for many many millions of people.
By all means question human induced climate change, be sceptical about everything you read.
Somebody much brighter than me once said that if you wish to disprove a proposition, take its strongest argument and show it to be wrong. If you can do this then you will have turned climatology on its head and I for one will be glad to accept that as the new strongest theory.
And then I read the bit about sea level rise leveling out over the past few years, which prompted me to do a google search and I found this in 2 clicks of the mouse. I would call this a credible source at first glance. Please read the abstract too.
http://www.glaciology.net/Home/PDFs/Announcements/Recent-global-sea-level-acceleration-started-over-200-years-ago-
I must say that to try to apply 2 or 3 years worth of data to the interaction of temps to sea level rise is really really poor.
Bring it on.
Quote Opey
" On the boat are those who 'get' that man's activities are not sufficient to impact global temperature, and that temperature rises PRECEDE, not presage, an increase in the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere "
This is an excellent example of misunderstanding the science, which explains that ice ages were caused by small changes in the amount of solar energy reaching the earth due to changes in the earths orbit. The sea can hold lots of CO2 when it is cold but gives it up when warmed. The CO2 in turn magnifies any temperature changes, if it was not for this feedback there would not have been any recent ice ages. The difference is today we are artificially increasing the amount of CO2 in the air which we know will increase surface temperatures !
I think I find the backward and forward arguments of fellow bloggers more interesting than the topic itself.
I guess everybody is allowed their opinion, educated or not, and based on what they believe to be fact or not.
I think measuring the world's ocean temperature is a great point to start in determining the world's temperature trend. The more data the better, there is so much based on modelling and assumptions at this point.
It's my belief, and let me re-iterate that it is only my belief, that there is enough data to show a general trend of temperature increase over the past 100 years. I also believe there is enough data to have shown an increase in CO2 over the past 60 years. For my own reasons I think any other retrospective temperature or CO2 measurements are questionable as far as accuracey goes (I give details why in one or 2 of my blogs).
What does this all mean? I think that it's fair to say the earth's overall temperature has been slowly increasing, anything else is purely speculation. People can argue back and forward as much as they like as to what they believe to be fact but at this point it's just noise.
Very good article, just another piece of evidence suggesting that the world is cooling, not warming.
I would like to take a poll.
How many believe Global Warming is a hoax? Now, of those that believe, how many believe Global Warming is a hoax and can back it up with good sound scientific data? Now from the rest, how many believe Global Warming is a hoax based on their gut feeling?
Next group, how many believe Global Warming is a problem that needs addressing? How many believe Global Warming is a problem that needs addressing and can back it up with good sound scientific data? Finally of the rest of you, how many believe Global Warming is a problem that needs addressing based on thier gut feeling.
I have an old acquaintance who was an IRT (Ice Road Trucker) in Alaska and the Arctic. When he first started driving in the 60’s the road opened the second week of December and closed late April early May. He retired a few years ago from IRT for a few reasons; it got so he could only work from January to February because the ice road would be unsafe to drive with heavy loads; he got paid like everyone else, by the load and weight of the load, more of the drivers were getting careless and in a hurry to deliver their load so they could pick up the next one, the incidence of accidents increased; he put away enough money for the time he did drive to retire. He told me the waning of the open road season was a gradual occurrence. He did not infer anything or even make a comment about Global Warming but it sure does make you wonder.
Just wanted to point out, like TC did, that you are simply being dishonest. The article simply does NOT have the tenor you do, and in fact they pose an explanation you don't refute for the apparent data mismatch. The NOAA is pretty clear about the validity of global warming on their website, which you neglected to mention, and ocean warming is well-established:
Gille, S.T. (2002). Warming of the Southern Ocean Since the 1950s. Science Magazine. 295.
Nice try.
Like your study, I belong to Sedona Arizona & recently I have joined Gabriel of Sedona community. I am feeling very good. Our mission is protect the environment and to stand up for the poor and disenfranchised of the world. Anybody interested click here- http://gabrielofsedona.net
Post a Comment