Are the climate change models wrong?

yllus

Elite Member & Lifer
Aug 20, 2000
20,577
432
126
I got into a related topic in another thread, so I thought I'd post this news item that I read in my daily paper a few days ago.

In summary, there are 3,000 modern buoys deployed in the world's oceans to measure ocean temperature and salinity. The data collected from these buoys is contradicting what the major climate computer models say should be happening right now. This evidence is seemingly dismissed or put in a "wait and see" queue - something global-warming-is-happening advocates don't seem willing to do in turn for their own pet theory.

Perhaps the climate change models are wrong

When they were first deployed in 2003, the Argos were hailed for their ability to collect information on ocean conditions more precisely, at more places and greater depths and in more conditions than ever before. No longer would scientists have to rely on measurements mostly at the surface from older scientific buoys or inconsistent shipboard monitors.

So why are some scientists now beginning to question the buoys' findings? Because in five years, the little blighters have failed to detect any global warming. They are not reinforcing the scientific orthodoxy of the day, namely that man is causing the planet to warm dangerously. They are not proving the predetermined conclusions of their human masters. Therefore they, and not their masters' hypotheses, must be wrong.

In fact, "there has been a very slight cooling," according to a U.S. National Public Radio (NPR) interview with Josh Willis at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, a scientist who keeps close watch on the Argo findings.

Dr. Willis insisted the temperature drop was "not anything really significant." And I trust he's right. But can anyone imagine NASA or the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) or the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -- the UN's climate experts -- shrugging off even a "very slight" warming.

A slight drop in the oceans' temperature over a period of five or six years probably is insignificant, just as a warming over such a short period would be. Yet if there had been a rise of any kind, even of the same slightness, rest assured this would be broadcast far and wide as yet another log on the global warming fire.

Just look how tenaciously some scientists are prepared to cling to the climate change dogma. "It may be that we are in a period of less rapid warming," Dr. Willis told NPR.

Yeah, you know, like when you put your car into reverse you are causing it to enter a period of less rapid forward motion. Or when I gain a few pounds I am in a period of less rapid weight loss.

The big problem with the Argo findings is that all the major climate computer models postulate that as much as 80-90% of global warming will result from the oceans warming rapidly then releasing their heat into the atmosphere.

But if the oceans aren't warming, then (please whisper) perhaps the models are wrong.

The supercomputer models also can't explain the interaction of clouds and climate. They have no idea whether clouds warm the world more by trapping heat in or cool it by reflecting heat back into space.

Modellers are also perplexed by the findings of NASA's eight weather satellites that take more than 300,000 temperature readings daily over the entire surface of the Earth, versus approximately 7,000 random readings from Earth stations.

In nearly 30 years of operation, the satellites have discovered a warming trend of just 0.14 C per decade, less than the models and well within the natural range of temperature variation.
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
This is because Global Warming is a Religion and not a science!

Only ignorant people refuse to believe facts.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Part of the problem may be a heat distribution anomaly. With these buoys basically measuring the AVERAGE heat in the oceans. When we already know that things are not quite as simple as that and the oceans are not like well stirred pot on a stove being uniformly heated.

Because we already know from other results that we are getting far less warming at the lower latitudes than predicted and far more warming at the poles. With much of the heat at the poles going into melting of ice on land or above water, something an ocean buoy would not measure.

When the models do not predict, one usually is reduced to scrapping the model. And not the other way around. But come to think of it, thats an idea, scrap the earth if it does not quite fit my ideal of how should act. For my next trick I shall stand on an ocean beach and will the tides not to come in. You all will be quite impressed if the tides happen to be going out at the time.
 

dphantom

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2005
4,763
326
126
Nah, its because so much freshwater is being dumped into the oceans from the glaciers and ice caps melting that the oceans are cooling. It's still because of MMGW.
 

ayabe

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2005
7,449
0
0
Originally posted by: piasabird
Only ignorant people refuse to believe facts.

Yeah I know, the glaciers are melting so that explains your position perfectly.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
33,426
7,485
136
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Because we already know from other results that we are getting far less warming at the lower latitudes than predicted and far more warming at the poles.

Oh man, we're in agreement. Now I'll show you an article that explains why this is true and the effects it will have. You won?t like this, lacks a certain dogma.

Deep-sea temperatures rose 1,300 years before atmospheric CO2, ruling out the greenhouse gas as driver of meltdown, says study in Science.

The article is wrong on one point. Ice core charts do indeed agree with us, that the temperature rises before the oceans release the CO2. The ice core charts show CO2 lagging behind temperature by ~500 years, which is a similar mechanic proven by the article, and as alluded to by you.
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
Originally posted by: dphantom
Nah, its because so much freshwater is being dumped into the oceans from the glaciers and ice caps melting that the oceans are cooling. It's still because of MMGW.

So explain why NASA satellites that take 40x more measurements than ground based satellites over 30 years has shown no material changes? In fact, those results are the same as the boueys.

Face it, religion disguised as junk science is still religion. Religious authorities tried to make man believe that everything revolved around the Earth, much the same as ecothiests are trying to make man believe everything is caused by man.

What's funny is that in both cases, religious zealots forget that the world is far more complicated than their tiny brains can wrap around.
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
Originally posted by: ayabe
Originally posted by: piasabird
Only ignorant people refuse to believe facts.

Yeah I know, the glaciers are melting so that explains your position perfectly.

So what if the glaciers are melting? I haven't even seen anything solid saying they are declining in total volume and mass to any significant measure.

Even if they are melting, the real question is *WHY* are they melting and what affect *WE* have on them. If we have no major effect and we are only responsible for 1% of it, then we should try to curb that 1%, but in the overall scheme of things, 1% is not a huge deal.

I personally think our affect on them is probably even less than 1%, but people are spending time and energy on it because they think, erroneously, that it's actually 50%+
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,099
5,639
126
The Models are there to attempt to Predict what GW?GCC will result in. If they are wrong, then they'll need to be fine tuned once the discrepancies between the Data and Model are figured out. Incorrect Models make Predictions rather difficult, but they do not change the fact that GW/GCC is occuring.
 

ayabe

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2005
7,449
0
0
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: ayabe
Originally posted by: piasabird
Only ignorant people refuse to believe facts.

Yeah I know, the glaciers are melting so that explains your position perfectly.

So what if the glaciers are melting? I haven't even seen anything solid saying they are declining in total volume and mass to any significant measure.

Even if they are melting, the real question is *WHY* are they melting and what affect *WE* have on them. If we have no major effect and we are only responsible for 1% of it, then we should try to curb that 1%, but in the overall scheme of things, 1% is not a huge deal.

I personally think our affect on them is probably even less than 1%, but people are spending time and energy on it because they think, erroneously, that it's actually 50%+

This is all I want and I think what most rational people want. Thank you for joining my side of the argument, this exactly the point I was trying to get across in the other thread.

Doing absolutely nothing, when we know for a fact that we are contributing(however small), and that our contribution is going to be increasing(however small) is the worst possible course of action.
 

ayabe

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2005
7,449
0
0
This is also an editorial and you can tell very plainly that the author isn't a neutral party.
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
So how far has the sea level rose?

When is Australia going to sink into the ocean???

So if you increase the water volume, wont that increas with higher temps, the volume of water, increase storm activity, and in the winter increase showfall and make even bigger glaciers?

Seems an awful lot is missing from these models. How do you know researchers are just not fudging the data so they can get more research money???

I think this is all about getting more research money.
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,567
6
81
Originally posted by: dphantom
Nah, its because so much freshwater is being dumped into the oceans from the glaciers and ice caps melting that the oceans are cooling. It's still because of MMGW.

This is what I was thinking.

If, say, 20% of the glaciers melt, dumping massive amounts of less-than-32-degree water into the oceans, would it be surprising if the oceans cooled slightly?

But's it's hard to believe existing models don't take this into account.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,398
6,077
126
It really strains my defenses and armament of denial to have to listen to this global warming crap. It's all I can do to pretend I don't hate myself. Please don't add on that my denial is causing my own extinction. Geez, all those beautiful children that will never be born and all because of me and my selfish ego. No No NO NOOOOO! Global warming ain't real. It's a fucking religion.
 

yllus

Elite Member & Lifer
Aug 20, 2000
20,577
432
126
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Part of the problem may be a heat distribution anomaly. With these buoys basically measuring the AVERAGE heat in the oceans. When we already know that things are not quite as simple as that and the oceans are not like well stirred pot on a stove being uniformly heated.

I'm not a scientist in this field, but I don't think what you said here makes sense. Measuring the average heat in the ocean? As opposed to what? The entire point of there being 3,000 buoys spread out all over the world is so they don't have to resort to averages. They're doing spot measurements.

Because we already know from other results that we are getting far less warming at the lower latitudes than predicted and far more warming at the poles. With much of the heat at the poles going into melting of ice on land or above water, something an ocean buoy would not measure.

Again, I don't think what you're saying makes sense. Article: "All the major climate computer models postulate that as much as 80-90% of global warming will result from the oceans warming rapidly then releasing their heat into the atmosphere." This is what the buoys are there to track and verify. If the oceans aren't warming rapidly, then something in the model is amiss.

When the models do not predict, one usually is reduced to scrapping the model. And not the other way around. But come to think of it, thats an idea, scrap the earth if it does not quite fit my ideal of how should act. For my next trick I shall stand on an ocean beach and will the tides not to come in. You all will be quite impressed if the tides happen to be going out at the time.

You'll have to point out where someone advocated scrapping all computer modeling for me. I thought this was simply about testing the predictions of those models.
 

ayabe

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2005
7,449
0
0
Here is another take on this same story, from the NPR website:

**********************************************************************
Some 3,000 scientific robots that are plying the ocean have sent home a puzzling message. These diving instruments suggest that the oceans have not warmed up at all over the past four or five years. That could mean global warming has taken a breather. Or it could mean scientists aren't quite understanding what their robots are telling them.

This is puzzling in part because here on the surface of the Earth, the years since 2003 have been some of the hottest on record. But Josh Willis at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory says the oceans are what really matter when it comes to global warming.

In fact, 80 percent to 90 percent of global warming involves heating up ocean waters. They hold much more heat than the atmosphere can. So Willis has been studying the ocean with a fleet of robotic instruments called the Argo system. 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.

"There has been a very slight cooling, but not anything really significant," Willis says. So the buildup of heat on Earth may be on a brief hiatus. "Global warming doesn't mean every year will be warmer than the last. And it may be that we are in a period of less rapid warming."

In recent years, heat has actually been flowing out of the ocean and into the air. This is a feature of the weather phenomenon known as El Nino. So it is indeed possible the air has warmed but the ocean has not. But it's also possible that something more mysterious is going on.

That becomes clear when you consider what's happening to global sea level. Sea level rises when the oceans get warm because warmer water expands. This accounts for about half of global sea level rise. So with the oceans not warming, you would expect to see less sea level rise. Instead, sea level has risen about half an inch in the past four years. That's a lot.

Willis says some of this water is apparently coming from a recent increase in the melting rate of glaciers in Greenland and Antarctica.

"But in fact there's a little bit of a mystery. We can't account for all of the sea level increase we've seen over the last three or four years," he says.

One possibility is that the sea has, in fact, warmed and expanded ? and scientists are somehow misinterpreting the data from the diving buoys.


But if the aquatic robots are actually telling the right story, that raises a new question: Where is the extra heat all going?

Kevin Trenberth at the National Center for Atmospheric Research says it's probably going back out into space. The Earth has a number of natural thermostats, including clouds, which can either trap heat and turn up the temperature, or reflect sunlight and help cool the planet.

That can't be directly measured at the moment, however.

"Unfortunately, we don't have adequate tracking of clouds to determine exactly what role they've been playing during this period," Trenberth says.

It's also possible that some of the heat has gone even deeper into the ocean, he says. Or it's possible that scientists need to correct for some other feature of the planet they don't know about. It's an exciting time, though, with all this new data about global sea temperature, sea level and other features of climate.


"I suspect that we'll able to put this together with a little bit more perspective and further analysis," Trenberth says. "But what this does is highlight some of the issues and send people back to the drawing board."

Trenberth and Willis agree that a few mild years have no effect on the long-term trend of global warming. But they say there are still things to learn about how our planet copes with the heat.


Text


I'm sorry but I don't think this is the magic bullet GW deniers are seeking and it's nice to get a little context.
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,567
6
81
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: ayabe
Originally posted by: piasabird
Only ignorant people refuse to believe facts.

Yeah I know, the glaciers are melting so that explains your position perfectly.

So what if the glaciers are melting? I haven't even seen anything solid saying they are declining in total volume and mass to any significant measure.

Even if they are melting, the real question is *WHY* are they melting and what affect *WE* have on them. If we have no major effect and we are only responsible for 1% of it, then we should try to curb that 1%, but in the overall scheme of things, 1% is not a huge deal.

I personally think our affect on them is probably even less than 1%, but people are spending time and energy on it because they think, erroneously, that it's actually 50%+
Really, this information isn't that hard to find.

Just the first site that I came across

Edit: Here's another that's a little more explicit. The first descriptive sentence is:

This figure shows the change in average thickness of mountain glaciers around the world.

World glacier thickness
 

dphantom

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2005
4,763
326
126
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: dphantom
Nah, its because so much freshwater is being dumped into the oceans from the glaciers and ice caps melting that the oceans are cooling. It's still because of MMGW.

So explain why NASA satellites that take 40x more measurements than ground based satellites over 30 years has shown no material changes? In fact, those results are the same as the boueys.

Face it, religion disguised as junk science is still religion. Religious authorities tried to make man believe that everything revolved around the Earth, much the same as ecothiests are trying to make man believe everything is caused by man.

What's funny is that in both cases, religious zealots forget that the world is far more complicated than their tiny brains can wrap around.

Sorry, LK. That was sarcasm.


I am no proponent of the MMGW religion. I will do everything I can to efficiently use the energy I consume, not pollute, etc... but as far as man being the primary reason of todays warming climate - not a chnace.
 

WHAMPOM

Diamond Member
Feb 28, 2006
7,628
183
106
Originally posted by: yllus
I got into a related topic in another thread, so I thought I'd post this news item that I read in my daily paper a few days ago.

In summary, there are 3,000 modern buoys deployed in the world's oceans to measure ocean temperature and salinity. The data collected from these buoys is contradicting what the major climate computer models say should be happening right now. This evidence is seemingly dismissed or put in a "wait and see" queue - something global-warming-is-happening advocates don't seem willing to do in turn for their own pet theory.

Perhaps the climate change models are wrong

When they were first deployed in 2003, the Argos were hailed for their ability to collect information on ocean conditions more precisely, at more places and greater depths and in more conditions than ever before. No longer would scientists have to rely on measurements mostly at the surface from older scientific buoys or inconsistent shipboard monitors.

So why are some scientists now beginning to question the buoys' findings? Because in five years, the little blighters have failed to detect any global warming. They are not reinforcing the scientific orthodoxy of the day, namely that man is causing the planet to warm dangerously. They are not proving the predetermined conclusions of their human masters. Therefore they, and not their masters' hypotheses, must be wrong.

In fact, "there has been a very slight cooling," according to a U.S. National Public Radio (NPR) interview with Josh Willis at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, a scientist who keeps close watch on the Argo findings.

Dr. Willis insisted the temperature drop was "not anything really significant." And I trust he's right. But can anyone imagine NASA or the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) or the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -- the UN's climate experts -- shrugging off even a "very slight" warming.

A slight drop in the oceans' temperature over a period of five or six years probably is insignificant, just as a warming over such a short period would be. Yet if there had been a rise of any kind, even of the same slightness, rest assured this would be broadcast far and wide as yet another log on the global warming fire.

Just look how tenaciously some scientists are prepared to cling to the climate change dogma. "It may be that we are in a period of less rapid warming," Dr. Willis told NPR.

Yeah, you know, like when you put your car into reverse you are causing it to enter a period of less rapid forward motion. Or when I gain a few pounds I am in a period of less rapid weight loss.

The big problem with the Argo findings is that all the major climate computer models postulate that as much as 80-90% of global warming will result from the oceans warming rapidly then releasing their heat into the atmosphere.

But if the oceans aren't warming, then (please whisper) perhaps the models are wrong.

The supercomputer models also can't explain the interaction of clouds and climate. They have no idea whether clouds warm the world more by trapping heat in or cool it by reflecting heat back into space.

Modellers are also perplexed by the findings of NASA's eight weather satellites that take more than 300,000 temperature readings daily over the entire surface of the Earth, versus approximately 7,000 random readings from Earth stations.

In nearly 30 years of operation, the satellites have discovered a warming trend of just 0.14 C per decade, less than the models and well within the natural range of temperature variation.

Let me explain this so you will understand. Cold water from the melting polar ice caps are flowing into the worlds oceans and cooling them. And these changes at our planet's poles are coming 25 years earlier then the models predict.
 

yllus

Elite Member & Lifer
Aug 20, 2000
20,577
432
126
Originally posted by: ayabe
In recent years, heat has actually been flowing out of the ocean and into the air. This is a feature of the weather phenomenon known as El Nino. So it is indeed possible the air has warmed but the ocean has not. But it's also possible that something more mysterious is going on.

...

That becomes clear when you consider what's happening to global sea level. Sea level rises when the oceans get warm because warmer water expands. This accounts for about half of global sea level rise. So with the oceans not warming, you would expect to see less sea level rise. Instead, sea level has risen about half an inch in the past four years. That's a lot.

...

It's also possible that some of the heat has gone even deeper into the ocean, he says. Or it's possible that scientists need to correct for some other feature of the planet they don't know about. It's an exciting time, though, with all this new data about global sea temperature, sea level and other features of climate.

That's actually rather interesting stuff. The rise in sea level is undeniable, but the temperature readings of both satellites and these buoys isn't indicating a warming of the oceans. The air sucking up more heat from the ocean explains a lot, and I wonder how that factors into "80 percent to 90 percent of global warming involves heating up ocean waters".

It's also possible that the buoys are straight-up incorrect, but when you consider there's 3,000 of them spread across the Earth, and satellite readings back them up as well...

This is all just based on five years worth of data, but it's certainly going to be helpful in refining those computer models of what's going on.

Originally posted by: WHAMPOM

Let me explain this so you will understand. Cold water from the melting polar ice caps are flowing into the worlds oceans and cooling them. And these changes at our planet's poles are coming 25 years earlier then the models predict.

Are you saying that the models aren't already factoring in melting ice? Again, admittedly I'm not an expert on this subject, but I find that highly doubtful.

If that's true and those models aren't factoring in something that would obviously occur in due to warming, they're not modeling reality anymore. They're modeling a hypothetical situation with some number of obviously important variables left out.
 

dphantom

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2005
4,763
326
126
Originally posted by: WHAMPOM
Originally posted by: yllus
I got into a related topic in another thread, so I thought I'd post this news item that I read in my daily paper a few days ago.

In summary, there are 3,000 modern buoys deployed in the world's oceans to measure ocean temperature and salinity. The data collected from these buoys is contradicting what the major climate computer models say should be happening right now. This evidence is seemingly dismissed or put in a "wait and see" queue - something global-warming-is-happening advocates don't seem willing to do in turn for their own pet theory.

Perhaps the climate change models are wrong

When they were first deployed in 2003, the Argos were hailed for their ability to collect information on ocean conditions more precisely, at more places and greater depths and in more conditions than ever before. No longer would scientists have to rely on measurements mostly at the surface from older scientific buoys or inconsistent shipboard monitors.

So why are some scientists now beginning to question the buoys' findings? Because in five years, the little blighters have failed to detect any global warming. They are not reinforcing the scientific orthodoxy of the day, namely that man is causing the planet to warm dangerously. They are not proving the predetermined conclusions of their human masters. Therefore they, and not their masters' hypotheses, must be wrong.

In fact, "there has been a very slight cooling," according to a U.S. National Public Radio (NPR) interview with Josh Willis at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, a scientist who keeps close watch on the Argo findings.

Dr. Willis insisted the temperature drop was "not anything really significant." And I trust he's right. But can anyone imagine NASA or the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) or the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -- the UN's climate experts -- shrugging off even a "very slight" warming.

A slight drop in the oceans' temperature over a period of five or six years probably is insignificant, just as a warming over such a short period would be. Yet if there had been a rise of any kind, even of the same slightness, rest assured this would be broadcast far and wide as yet another log on the global warming fire.

Just look how tenaciously some scientists are prepared to cling to the climate change dogma. "It may be that we are in a period of less rapid warming," Dr. Willis told NPR.

Yeah, you know, like when you put your car into reverse you are causing it to enter a period of less rapid forward motion. Or when I gain a few pounds I am in a period of less rapid weight loss.

The big problem with the Argo findings is that all the major climate computer models postulate that as much as 80-90% of global warming will result from the oceans warming rapidly then releasing their heat into the atmosphere.

But if the oceans aren't warming, then (please whisper) perhaps the models are wrong.

The supercomputer models also can't explain the interaction of clouds and climate. They have no idea whether clouds warm the world more by trapping heat in or cool it by reflecting heat back into space.

Modellers are also perplexed by the findings of NASA's eight weather satellites that take more than 300,000 temperature readings daily over the entire surface of the Earth, versus approximately 7,000 random readings from Earth stations.

In nearly 30 years of operation, the satellites have discovered a warming trend of just 0.14 C per decade, less than the models and well within the natural range of temperature variation.

Let me explain this so you will understand. Cold water from the melting polar ice caps are flowing into the worlds oceans and cooling them. And these changes at our planet's poles are coming 25 years earlier then the models predict.

Where in the world did you come up with that? A reference to that would be great. Do you really understand how large the oceans are and that the amount of melting of ice is trivial compared to how much water is in the ocean.