• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

BBC on global warming

Oberon

Well-Known Member
Link to article

What happened to global warming?



By Paul Hudson
Climate correspondent, BBC News
999999.gif


_46521996_000150583-1.jpg
Average temperatures have not increased for over a decade

This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998.
But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures.
And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise.
So what on Earth is going on?
Climate change sceptics, who passionately and consistently argue that man's influence on our climate is overstated, say they saw it coming.
They argue that there are natural cycles, over which we have no control, that dictate how warm the planet is. But what is the evidence for this?
During the last few decades of the 20th Century, our planet did warm quickly.
_46522743_007440016-1.jpg
Recent research has ruled out solar influences on temperature increases

Sceptics argue that the warming we observed was down to the energy from the Sun increasing. After all 98% of the Earth's warmth comes from the Sun.
But research conducted two years ago, and published by the Royal Society, seemed to rule out solar influences.
The scientists' main approach was simple: to look at solar output and cosmic ray intensity over the last 30-40 years, and compare those trends with the graph for global average surface temperature.
And the results were clear. "Warming in the last 20 to 40 years can't have been caused by solar activity," said Dr Piers Forster from Leeds University, a leading contributor to this year's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
But one solar scientist Piers Corbyn from Weatheraction, a company specialising in long range weather forecasting, disagrees.
He claims that solar charged particles impact us far more than is currently accepted, so much so he says that they are almost entirely responsible for what happens to global temperatures.
He is so excited by what he has discovered that he plans to tell the international scientific community at a conference in London at the end of the month.
If proved correct, this could revolutionise the whole subject.
Ocean cycles
What is really interesting at the moment is what is happening to our oceans. They are the Earth's great heat stores.
o.gif
_46522612_005604304-1.jpg

start_quote_rb.gif
In the last few years [the Pacific Ocean] has been losing its warmth and has recently started to cool down
end_quote_rb.gif





According to research conducted by Professor Don Easterbrook from Western Washington University last November, the oceans and global temperatures are correlated.
The oceans, he says, have a cycle in which they warm and cool cyclically. The most important one is the Pacific decadal oscillation (PDO).
For much of the 1980s and 1990s, it was in a positive cycle, that means warmer than average. And observations have revealed that global temperatures were warm too.
But in the last few years it has been losing its warmth and has recently started to cool down.
These cycles in the past have lasted for nearly 30 years.
So could global temperatures follow? The global cooling from 1945 to 1977 coincided with one of these cold Pacific cycles.
Professor Easterbrook says: "The PDO cool mode has replaced the warm mode in the Pacific Ocean, virtually assuring us of about 30 years of global cooling."
So what does it all mean? Climate change sceptics argue that this is evidence that they have been right all along.
They say there are so many other natural causes for warming and cooling, that even if man is warming the planet, it is a small part compared with nature.
But those scientists who are equally passionate about man's influence on global warming argue that their science is solid.
The UK Met Office's Hadley Centre, responsible for future climate predictions, says it incorporates solar variation and ocean cycles into its climate models, and that they are nothing new.
In fact, the centre says they are just two of the whole host of known factors that influence global temperatures - all of which are accounted for by its models.
In addition, say Met Office scientists, temperatures have never increased in a straight line, and there will always be periods of slower warming, or even temporary cooling.
What is crucial, they say, is the long-term trend in global temperatures. And that, according to the Met office data, is clearly up.
To confuse the issue even further, last month Mojib Latif, a member of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) says that we may indeed be in a period of cooling worldwide temperatures that could last another 10-20 years.
_46522678_003489684-1.jpg
The UK Met Office says that warming is set to resume


Professor Latif is based at the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences at Kiel University in Germany and is one of the world's top climate modellers.
But he makes it clear that he has not become a sceptic; he believes that this cooling will be temporary, before the overwhelming force of man-made global warming reasserts itself.
So what can we expect in the next few years?
Both sides have very different forecasts. The Met Office says that warming is set to resume quickly and strongly.
It predicts that from 2010 to 2015 at least half the years will be hotter than the current hottest year on record (1998).
Sceptics disagree. They insist it is unlikely that temperatures will reach the dizzy heights of 1998 until 2030 at the earliest. It is possible, they say, that because of ocean and solar cycles a period of global cooling is more likely.
One thing is for sure. It seems the debate about what is causing global warming is far from over. Indeed some would say it is hotting up.
 

themadhair

Well-Known Member
To confuse the issue even further, last month Mojib Latif, a member of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) says that we may indeed be in a period of cooling worldwide temperatures that could last another 10-20 years.
Professor Latif is based at the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences at Kiel University in Germany and is one of the world's top climate modellers.
But he makes it clear that he has not become a sceptic; he believes that this cooling will be temporary, before the overwhelming force of man-made global warming reasserts itself.
This is getting embarrassing. Whatever happened to science journalism?

I think this video makes the point rather well on the Latif point:
YouTube - Birth of a Climate Crock
 

Troublemane

Well-Known Member
Propaganda isnt about science, so i cant beleive this is a shock to anyone. They even keep calling those who disagree with their "science" Climate-Deniers, as if their science was proven as fact...even while their own models have been disproven by the climate itself!...So what do they do? change their figures to match whats really going on, and then claim they knew it would happen, its all part of the natural cycle....Eh?

Its all part of the natural cycle? I thought that was the point of climate change, was it was man that was changing it! These guys are the opposite of scientists. Propagandists, trying to jump on the bandwagon for grant money. Its really sad.
 

ManTimeForgot

Temporally Challenged
1) Find models which are not based upon Hansen's work (which includes almost everything the IPCC uses).
2) Read internal documentation on IPCC data sets (there are horrible flaws in their data gathering; including virtual unknowns spanning WHOLE continents) and note their long term predictions regarding regional temperature variation (their internal documentation notes that industrial activity in the form of aerosols, while not as lasting as greenhouse emissions serve to cool rather than warm the planet).
3) Feel embarrassed that you have been taken in by "activist scientists" who cannot possibly be both activists and scientists.

Anyone who ask themselves how they can make their data look as scary as possible no longer counts as a scientist in my book, and there are IPCC "scientists" who are guilty of this.

MTF
 

Alceste

Vagabond
1. Recognize you are not personally qualified to come up with an informed opinion with regards to the global climate.
2. Discover who IS qualified to explain it to you. (Hint: think "climatologist", not "newspaper editor")
3. Read what that person or organization says is happening with the global climate.
4. Stop wasting my time.
 

themadhair

Well-Known Member
1) Find models which are not based upon Hansen's work (which includes almost everything the IPCC uses).
You want the really sad thing about comments like this one? The person making doesn’t even realise how far back the history of climate science even goes. As far back as the 50’s and 60’s the potential impact of increased CO2 was a concern. In the 70’s the research started to reach a consensus even back then when the realisation that increased CO2 could potentially start a feedback loop. The IPCC was formed in 88 because there concerns were widespread among the climate scientists even back then.

And if you think climate science is solely regarding models then you really need to wake up and smell the seaweed.
2) Read internal documentation on IPCC data sets (there are horrible flaws in their data gathering; including virtual unknowns spanning WHOLE continents) and note their long term predictions regarding regional temperature variation (their internal documentation notes that industrial activity in the form of aerosols, while not as lasting as greenhouse emissions serve to cool rather than warm the planet).
I read pretty much everything the IPCC puts out. The irony here is not that you have not done so, but are frankly too clueless to even begin comprehending what the IPCC reports and materials contain.

Consider the plethora of major science bodies such as the National Academy and AAAS that have firmly backed the IPCC conclusions. Why do you suppose that is? Maybe because the IPCC represents the concensus?
3) Feel embarrassed that you have been taken in by "activist scientists" who cannot possibly be both activists and scientists.
Let me see now. Climate scientists have an overwhelming consensus that anthropogenic climate change is real. Major scientific bodies of international repute have gone on record to state their support for the reality of anthropogenic climate change.

Are they all activist scientists???
Anyone who ask themselves how they can make their data look as scary as possible no longer counts as a scientist in my book, and there are IPCC "scientists" who are guilty of this.
Another comment from a clueless moron who hasn’t done the homework to ascertain the truth. When a scientist publishes their work it will get scrutinised by both their peers and their colleagues. If the data was being fudged or misrepresented they would get tore a new one in the literature when their fellow scientists get their hands on it.

That hasn’t happened in the field of climate change. Multitudes of papers and research supporting anthropogenic climate change and no showing the data is flawed or that the conclusions are wrong. The closest thing to this happen concerned a paper in 1998 by Michael Mann (the ‘hockey stick’). It became the subject of such intense controversy that the National Academy of Sciences where asked to weigh in on the issue by congress. There report in 2005 titled “Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the last 2000 years” backed Mann’s conclusions. I’m willing to bet that you had never heard of this or read about it. The reason is quite simple – you aren’t looking at the issue.
 

Oberon

Well-Known Member
That hasn’t happened in the field of climate change. Multitudes of papers and research supporting anthropogenic climate change and no showing the data is flawed or that the conclusions are wrong.

Completely and utterly false. There has been plenty of such research. It is a minority view, but it isn't at all unheard of, and to say that "no research" contradicts claims of AGW is either an outright lie or indicative of a total lack of familiarity with relevant research.

For example, satellites remain THE ONLY way to accurately measure global temperatures. Rather than actually being a result of averaging of various surface temperature readings, the satellites give a genuine average by measuring the microwave spectrum of atmospheric oxygen (itself dependent on temperature). However, these instruments have been around since 1978, don't show evidence of global warming, and even the National Academy of Sciences writes that they don't understand why the satellites don't cohere with surface temperature readings.

Also, Mann's graph is not the only reconstruction of temperatures for this time period, and other paleoclimatoligic reconstructions go back even further. Some show the MWP was warmer, some that it was slightly less. Yet even determining global average surface temperatures for YESTERDAY is not an easy task, because the vast majority of the earth does not have surface temperature readings. This is FAR more problematic when trying to look at tree rings and boreholes and whatnot and estimating temperatures of the centuries. And even if the MWP was only close to modern temperatures, that means that the temperatures during this time, prior to ANY industrialization OR massive land use (UHI), were close to the modern warming.
 

Dunemeister

Well-Known Member
Adding fuel to the fire is a British judge's decision that Al Gore's video An Inconvenient Truth contains nine crucial and devastating errors. This will have implications in Britain for what is taught in schools about climate. Here's a summary of the findings:

The Nine Lies Of Al Gore
 

Alceste

Vagabond
Consider the plethora of major science bodies such as the National Academy and AAAS that have firmly backed the IPCC conclusions. Why do you suppose that is? Maybe because the IPCC represents the concensus?
Let me see now. Climate scientists have an overwhelming consensus that anthropogenic climate change is real. Major scientific bodies of international repute have gone on record to state their support for the reality of anthropogenic climate change.

Are they all activist scientists???

I think this is a good time to reiterate:

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...c-consensus-anthropogenic-climate-change.html

exerpt said:
Joint science academies' statements: 32 national science academies have come together to issue joint declarations confirming anthropogenic global warming, and urging the nations of the world to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. The signatories of these statements have been the national science academies of Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Cameroon, Canada, the Caribbean, China, France, Ghana, Germany, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, India, Japan, Kenya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mexico, Nigeria, New Zealand, Russia, Senegal, South Africa, Sudan, Sweden, Tanzania, Uganda, United Kingdom, United States, Zambia, and Zimbabwe. In advance of the UNFCCC negotiations to be held in Copenhagen in December 2009, the national science academies of the G8+5 nations issued a joint statement declaring "climate change is happening even faster than previously estimated; global CO2 emissions since 2000 have been higher than even the highest predictions, Arctic sea ice has been melting at rates much faster than predicted, and the rise in the sea level has become more rapid."

dunemeister said:
Adding fuel to the fire is a British judge's decision that Al Gore's video An Inconvenient Truth contains nine crucial and devastating errors. This will have implications in Britain for what is taught in schools about climate. Here's a summary of the findings:

The Nine Lies Of Al Gore

What does Al Gore have to do with anything? You think the entire global scientific community (with the exception of a few shills for Exxon Mobil) is basing their climate predictions on Al Gore's personal opinion?

Man, Americans. I swear to God they think every issue in the world boils down to a political dispute between Republicans and the Democrats.
 

Oberon

Well-Known Member
I think this is a good time to reiterate:

Yes, lets: Global Warming survey of experts


The above is the survey YOU referenced on a different thread. According to that survery, most of those surveryed do believe in global warming:
"Eighty-four percent say they personally believe human-induced warming is occurring, and 74% agree that “currently available scientific evidence” substantiates its occurrence. Only 5% believe that that human activity does not contribute to greenhouse warming; the rest are unsure."

What is telling here is that while 84% believe that humans are causing the warming (at least in part), only 74% believe that that the evidence substantiates this conclusion. Now, why on earth would good scientists believe in like AGW without believing that the evidence substantiates this conclusion?

Also, the following results are telling:

1. "A slight majority (54%) believe the warming measured over the last 100 years is not “within the range of natural temperature fluctuation.”"

So, nearly half of those surveyed(46%) believe that the warming measured in the last 100 years is "within the range of natural temperature fluctuation."

2. Overall, only 5% describe the study of global climate change as a “fully mature” science, but 51% describe it as “fairly mature,” while 40% see it as still an “emerging” science. However, over two out of three (69%) believe there is at least a 50-50 chance that the debate over the role of human activity in global warming will be settled in the next 10 to 20 years.

Most experts don't even believe we really have the expertise necessary in this field. A full 40% see climate change science as less than even "fairly mature." Which makes it difficult to believe that we have enough evidence to substantiate much of anything.
 

Alceste

Vagabond
Yes, lets: Global Warming survey of experts


The above is the survey YOU referenced on a different thread. According to that survery, most of those surveryed do believe in global warming:
"Eighty-four percent say they personally believe human-induced warming is occurring, and 74% agree that “currently available scientific evidence” substantiates its occurrence. Only 5% believe that that human activity does not contribute to greenhouse warming; the rest are unsure."

What is telling here is that while 84% believe that humans are causing the warming (at least in part), only 74% believe that that the evidence substantiates this conclusion. Now, why on earth would good scientists believe in like AGW without believing that the evidence substantiates this conclusion?

Also, the following results are telling:

1. "A slight majority (54%) believe the warming measured over the last 100 years is not “within the range of natural temperature fluctuation.”"

So, nearly half of those surveyed(46%) believe that the warming measured in the last 100 years is "within the range of natural temperature fluctuation."

2. Overall, only 5% describe the study of global climate change as a “fully mature” science, but 51% describe it as “fairly mature,” while 40% see it as still an “emerging” science. However, over two out of three (69%) believe there is at least a 50-50 chance that the debate over the role of human activity in global warming will be settled in the next 10 to 20 years.

Most experts don't even believe we really have the expertise necessary in this field. A full 40% see climate change science as less than even "fairly mature." Which makes it difficult to believe that we have enough evidence to substantiate much of anything.


Bla bla bla bla bla.
 

themadhair

Well-Known Member
Completely and utterly false. There has been plenty of such research. It is a minority view, but it isn't at all unheard of, and to say that "no research" contradicts claims of AGW is either an outright lie or indicative of a total lack of familiarity with relevant research.
I stand by what I said. When AGW papers are challenged the result has been similar to the case of Mann’s paper where the later research and analysis backed the original conclusions. Or do you think the NAS were lying in that instance?
For example, satellites remain THE ONLY way to accurately measure global temperatures.
When you ignore the heat of the land and the ocean, particularly given there much higher specific heat capacities, then you are missing the bigger picture.

However, these instruments have been around since 1978, don't show evidence of global warming, and even the National Academy of Sciences writes that they don't understand why the satellites don't cohere with surface temperature readings.
I was under the impression that three papers in 2005 sorted all this out.
One of those papers:
Energy Citations Database (ECD) - Sponsored by OSTI

I’d need to see the NAS statement you are referencing to know if it was pre 2005.
Also, Mann's graph is not the only reconstruction of temperatures for this time period, and other paleoclimatoligic reconstructions go back even further. Some show the MWP was warmer, some that it was slightly less. Yet even determining global average surface temperatures for YESTERDAY is not an easy task, because the vast majority of the earth does not have surface temperature readings. This is FAR more problematic when trying to look at tree rings and boreholes and whatnot and estimating temperatures of the centuries.
As I said – take it up the NAS who were directed by congress to weigh in on this issue and verified Mann’s conclusions.
And even if the MWP was only close to modern temperatures, that means that the temperatures during this time, prior to ANY industrialization OR massive land use (UHI), were close to the modern warming.
I have already presented you with why the UHI is not a significant contributor to climate change. Yet you still keep banging this drum.

From the IPCC which I quoted to you previously:
“Urban heat island effects are real but local, and have not biased the large-scale trends. A number of recent studies indicate that effects of urbanisation and land use change on the land-based temperature record are negligible (0.006ºC per decade) as far as hemispheric- and continental-scale averages are concerned because the very real but local effects are avoided or accounted for in the data sets used. In any case, they are not present in the SST component of the record. Increasing evidence suggests that urban heat island effects extend to changes in precipitation, clouds and DTR, with these detectable as a ‘weekend effect’ owing to lower pollution and other effects during weekends.
….
In a worldwide set of about 270 stations, Parker (2004, 2006) noted that warming trends in night minimum temperatures over the period 1950 to 2000 were not enhanced on calm nights, which would be the time most likely to be affected by urban warming. Thus, the global land warming trend discussed is very unlikely to be influenced significantly by increasing urbanisation (Parker, 2006). Over the conterminous USA, after adjustment for time-of-observation bias and other changes, rural station trends were almost indistinguishable from series including urban sites (Peterson, 2003; Figure 3.3, and similar considerations apply to China from 1951 to 2001 (Li et al., 2004). One possible reason for the patchiness of UHIs is the location of observing stations in parks where urban influences are reduced (Peterson, 2003). In summary, although some individual sites may be affected, including some small rural locations, the UHI effect is not pervasive, as all global scale studies indicate it is a very small component of large-scale averages. Accordingly, this assessment adds the same level of urban warming uncertainty as in the TAR: 0.006°C per decade since 1900 for land, and 0.002°C per decade since 1900 for blended land with ocean, as ocean UHI is zero.”
 

Oberon

Well-Known Member
I stand by what I said. When AGW papers are challenged the result has been similar to the case of Mann’s paper where the later research and analysis backed the original conclusions. Or do you think the NAS were lying in that instance?

Why, because I argue that the not only the data but interpretation of the data is disagreed on by experts, does that mean I am arguing one group is lying? Taking Paleoclimatology by itself for a moment, numerous studies have been done over the years reconstructing the climate not only as far back as Mann did but even earlier. This is an incredibly difficult and complicated procedure, and all of it is guesswork, so naturally different studies have come to different conclusions, and some have recently favored a warmer MWP than the current climate.

However, let us assume, for the moment, than Mann (this time) hit the nail on the head. His graph shows fluctuating cycles of warming and cooling with two large warming periods, the lower in the middle ages, and the higher more recently. However, the two are comparable, and astronomical changes in urbanization and land use has occured since then. Every one agrees that such things cause heat, although we aren't sure how much. With that in mind, it is only nature for a previous warming cycle to not reach the hights the current one has. In other words, Mann's graph isn't necessarily any evidence for AGW, but to the contrary, can provide evidence against it. If comparable warming occured prior to massive CO2 emissions, and without the UHI factor, than AGW isn't necessary to explain the current trend.

When you ignore the heat of the land and the ocean, particularly given there much higher specific heat capacities, then you are missing the bigger picture.

You still seem to misunderstand how satellites work. They don't actually meausure the temperature, but rather measure the microwave spectrum ofatmospheric oxygen (dependent on temperature). In other words, they are the only way to directly obtain a global reading of atmospheric temperatures. This isn't to say the interpreting the raw data isn't problematic (e.g. the diurnic drift effect) but it is a more direct way of assessing temperatures.

What is interesting, however, is that the theory of global warming concerns atmospheric increase in heat due to greenhouse gasses. Yet it is precisely in the atmosphere that the least amount of warming (and sometimes cooling) is observed. To date, this is still a serious issue in climate science (and the reason why Hansen, despite working for NASA, would rather use surface data).

I was under the impression that three papers in 2005 sorted all this out.
One of those papers:
Energy Citations Database (ECD) - Sponsored by OSTI

Hardly. Take the recent remark (2009) made in an article in the Journal of Climate:
"The Microwave Sounding Unit (MSU) on board the NOAA polar-orbiting satellites is uniquely positioned to provide the global coverage needed for measuring atmospheric temperature trends. However, temperature trends obtained from these observations are still under debate; different results are obtained by different
investigators. Further investigation is required to reconcile these differences." p. 1662.

Zou et al. "Error Structure and Atmospheric Temperature Trends in Observations from the Microwave Sounding Unit." Journal of Climate. 22 (2009): 1661-1681.


I have already presented you with why the UHI is not a significant contributor to climate change. Yet you still keep banging this drum.


Yes, and I presented you with an study showing that the UHI effect is underestimated in temperature reconstructions: (Ian McKendry's article in Progress in Physical Geology: " that aren't subject themselves to the UHI (exceptions, such as antarctica, actually show no warming, and often cooling). UHI studies continue to be done even now, so to call the issue "closed" because of a IPCC article is not only naive it mistakes how research in climatology is being done. See, e.g. the 2005 article in Pure and Applied Geophysics by M.L. KHANDEKAR, T.S. MURTY, and P. CHITTIBABU: "The urbanization and land-use change impact is now considered as providing a climate forcing which may be equal to or even stronger than the GHG forcing." P. 1565
 

Alceste

Vagabond
What is interesting, however, is that the theory of global warming concerns atmospheric increase in heat due to greenhouse gasses.

As usual, you either misunderstand or intentionally misrepresent the problem. Ocean warming is the most problematic and worrying effect of AGW, with warming of the arctic tundra coming in a close second. I know you love your upper atmosphere readings - after all, they're the only readings that support your ridiculous point of view - but until you admit that the main problem is the rising ocean temperatures, nobody who knows what they're talking about is ever going to take you seriously.
 

Oberon

Well-Known Member
As usual, you either misunderstand or intentionally misrepresent the problem. Ocean warming is the most problematic and worrying effect of AGW, with warming of the arctic tundra coming in a close second..

You don't get it, do you? You are talking about predicted EFFECTS of global warming. I am talking about the theory itself. The theory concerns the atmospheric warming based on greenhouse emissions, and predicts effects like the ones you mentioned. However, according to the theory, this means that we should be seeing the MOST warming, or at least equal warming, in the atmosphere, not just the surphace (read lower atmosphere). Yet that is precisely where the least warming occurs, if indeed it is occuring at all.
 

Alceste

Vagabond
You don't get it, do you? You are talking about predicted EFFECTS of global warming. I am talking about the theory itself. The theory concerns the atmospheric warming based on greenhouse emissions, and predicts effects like the ones you mentioned. However, according to the theory, this means that we should be seeing the MOST warming, or at least equal warming, in the atmosphere, not just the surphace (read lower atmosphere). Yet that is precisely where the least warming occurs, if indeed it is occuring at all.

Whatever. It is a fact that the ocean is warming. Measuring the upper atmosphere to determine whether the ocean is warming is retarded when other people are actually measuring the ocean. The only reason somebody would use atmospheric measurements to argue the ocean is NOT warming is that it's the only place they can find any data that agrees with their preconceived and idiotic point of view.
 

Oberon

Well-Known Member
Whatever. It is a fact that the ocean is warming.
It is also a fact that the earth naturally goes through warming and cooling cycles.

Measuring the upper atmosphere to determine whether the ocean is warming is retarded when other people are actually measuring the ocean.

What is retarted is suggesting that, to confirm a theory which posits that atmospheric warming will CAUSE the ocean to warm, one ignores atmospheric temperatures.

The theory of global warming concerns the atmosphere, and our affect on it via emissions of greenhouse gasses. If the atmosphere is not warming, but the ocean is, then obviously the theory is incorrect. I am not saying that the atmosphere ISN'T warming, simply that measuring the ocean temperature tells us nothing about the theory of AGW if the atmosphere isn't warming. Which is why understanding the discrepency between atmospheric readings and surface readings (including lower atmosphere) is essential. To date, this is still a major issue.

The only reason somebody would use atmospheric measurements to argue the ocean is NOT warming

I'm not arguing that now, nor is it an issue in this thread or in whether AGW is a correct theory. The issue is whether and to what degree the theory of AGW is correct. If the ocean is warming 10 degrees a day, that doesn't say anything for the theory if the atmosphere is cooling 5 degrees a day. Neither, of course, is happening, but the point is the measurements of the ocean directly are meaningless with regards to the AGW theory if the atmosphere isn't warming. If the ocean is warming, and the atmosphere isn't, than obviously somthing else is causing the ocean to warm.
 

Alceste

Vagabond
Whatever, Oberon. You have no credibility with me after that other thread, especially since you're still using the same dishonest arguments and tactics and haven't learned a thing despite themadhair's considerable efforts to educate you on the subject.
 
Top