Perhaps The Climate Change Models Are Wrong

They drift along in the worlds’ oceans at a depth of 2,000 metres — more than a mile deep — constantly monitoring the temperature, salinity, pressure and velocity of the upper oceans.

Then, about once every 10 days, a bladder on the outside of these buoys inflates and raises them slowly to the surface gathering data about each strata of seawater they pass through. After an upward journey of nearly six hours, the Argo monitors bob on the waves while an onboard transmitter sends their information to a satellite that in turn retransmits it to several land-based research computers where it may be accessed by anyone who wishes to see it.

These 3,000 yellow sentinels –about the size and shape of a large fence post — free-float the world’s oceans, season in and season out, surfacing between 30 and 40 times a year, disgorging their findings, then submerging again for another fact-finding voyage.

It’s fascinating to watch their progress online.  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.

Read the rest of the story at National Post

20 Responses to Perhaps The Climate Change Models Are Wrong

  1. Angela March 26, 2008 at 2:56 pm #

    Let’s use our noggins here people. If giant chunks of ice are falling into the ocean because of global warming, don’t you think there would be a slight cooling of the water as this ice melts? It is so sad that there are people in the world who simply ignore the plethora of scientific evidence supporting the fact that GLOBAL WARMING IS REAL!
    I understand that many of us are uneducated or too lazy to do anything, but to waste time and effort to work against saving our planet and the people living on it baffles me. I urge anyone reading the words on this page to seek real scientific journals and articles to get the information you need to form educated opinions because this page is crap.

  2. Dan McGrath March 27, 2008 at 5:11 pm #

    Are you serious? Giant Icebergs floating in the ocean break up, and the pieces that fall into the sea will cool it more than the giant iceberg itself?

  3. Hiram Q. Pustule March 28, 2008 at 9:24 am #

    Angela, most people don’t deny that global warming is real. This big old ball of rock and water has warmed up, cooled off, warmed up, cooled off, etc. for (as my man Carl Sagan would have said) BILL-yuns and BILL-yuns of years.

    What most of us question is whether the current warming trend is caused by man-made factors–or even whether a totally natural warming trend is being amplified and/or accelerated by man-made factors. And we reject the political, ethical, and philosophical conclusions that flow from such an hypothesis. (We also view with suspicion *anything* that comes from the mouth or pen of a politician who tries to take credit for the development of the Internet.)

    I won’t speak for all anti-anthropogenic-global-climate-change adherents, but I, for one, do not want to live in a garbage heap. I absolutely agree that we need to understand that this is the only planet we have, and we hold it in trust for future generations, and have a moral responsibility to those generations not to totally honk up the ecosystem. But I do not believe that the causes of science and greater understanding are served by knee-jerk reactions to poorly-understood and wrongly-interpreted data.

    Take compact fluorescent bulbs, for example. What a wonderful invention! They provide equal brightness as the incandescent bulbs they replace, for about a third of the energy, and they give off less heat by-product, meaning that it decreases your energy needs for cooling as well. So they cost a little more than incandescent bulbs… well, OK, they cost significantly more; but since they’re not heating and cooling as dramatically as incandescents, they last longer, so the delta cost per lumen-hour is only a little more for fluorescents than incandescents, right? Ehhhh, maybe in theory. In actual practice, they last a little longer, but not to the extent that they cost more, and they’re not as useful for outdoor lighting in cold climates.

    But that’s nothing compared to the long-term environmental disaster that a wholesale migration to CFLs represents. Each CFL contains a small amount of mercury. You remember mercury, don’t you? The metal that’s liquid at room temperature, and when it leaches into the groundwater, and flows into our lakes and streams, and consumed by fish, it kills ’em? And if it doesn’t kill them before the bears catch them, it’ll kill the bears? Nice of us to be so concerned about the environment that we all switched to bear-killing CFLs, wasn’t it?

    Ethanol is another great example of an idea that looks great on the surface, but when you really look into it, it’s another environmental and economic disaster waiting to happen.

    It’s intellectually lazy to dismiss those who disagree with you as merely “uneducated or too lazy to do anything.” Practicing the discipline of respecting others’ viewpoints, and actually trying to understand them is sometimes difficult, Angela, but I think you’ll find it’s very much worth the effort.

  4. Drew March 28, 2008 at 8:48 pm #

    I remember Al Gore showing a clip of Antarctic ice breaking apart in his “crock”umentary. I looked at the date and it read March something or other from early 200-and-something. And now we see another chuck coming loose… in March, again. Hungh. Does anyone realize that it’s actually SUMMER in the Antarctic right now? Is there ice drastically breaking apart in the Arctic right now? Apparently not.
    By the way, major kudos on this site. I saw the billboard today and my interest was peaked. Keep up the good work. The truth will come out one of these days.

  5. Daniel E. Fall March 29, 2008 at 8:40 am #

    Global warming, ironically, isn’t measured purely by temperature.

    I’m not an educated scientist, but my brother is and this is what he states, not verbatim, but somewhat close.

    He said the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased from the inception of the industrial age and that this will result in the warming of the earth because of the way carbon dioxide behaves as an atmospheric agent.

    Given these fact, that indeed CO2 emissions are high and have increased from the beginning of the industrial age and atmospheric CO2 wouldn’t be found deep in the ocean, the Argos claim doesn’t hold much water for even a non-scientist like me.

    The threat of global climate change induced by the burning of fossil fuels is real, but equally real is that we won’t have fossil fuels long enough to intensely damage the earth, least not by my estimation.

    So, global climate change is real, flat out, undeniably real.

    Debate isn’t about that, the debate is about the impact.

    This website is a bit bizarre because if you accept the truth, you can move onto more logical arguments and they don’t here.

  6. Dan McGrath March 29, 2008 at 10:28 am #

    Global warming isn’t measured by temperature. Huh…

    You know, a growing number of climatologists and geologists are coming out and saying that CO2 doesn’t contribute to warming, but rather warming increases CO2. Going by the geologic record, increased CO2 follows warming periods, rather than precipitaing them.

    Of course atmosphereic CO2 isn’t found in the ocean! The global warming alarmists have been using ocean temperatures as a global warming gauge for years, though. Now that the science doesn’t match the hypothesis, ocean temperature must not have anything to do with it, I guess.

  7. Chuck March 29, 2008 at 9:45 pm #

    Much of the scientific fodder for this article had already been flagged as inaccurate on the Jet Propulsion Laboratory website nearly a year before this article was published. Both sides of this issue are guilty of spinning the story in their favor.

    “Recent analyses have revealed that results from some of the ocean float and shipboard sensor data used in this study were incorrect. As a result, the study’s conclusion that the oceans cooled between 2003 and 2005 can not be substantiated at this time. The study authors are currently working to correct these data errors and recompute ocean temperature changes.”

    BTW – The name of this site implies that someone is behind a “scam”. Who would benefit from a global climate scam? Al Gore? So he could sell some books and DVDs?

  8. Chuck March 29, 2008 at 9:58 pm #

    And for Hiram:

    This is from “fact sheets” from the Vermont Dept. of Health and Environmental Conservation:

    A trace amount of mercury is contained in each fluorescent light bulb, less than 5mg. The amount of mercury in a CFL (Compact Fluorescent Light bulb) is 1/5 the amount in a watch battery. Mercury is commonly found in thermostats and button cell batteries. Older household thermometers contain about 500 milligrams of mercury. It would take over 100 fluorescent light bulbs to equal that amount.

    The largest source of mercury pollution in the environment is from burining fossil fuels such as coal, the most common fuel used to produce electricity in the U.S. A coal burning power plant releases 10mg of mercury into the environment in order to produce the electricity to run an incandescent bulb in comparison to only 2.4mg of mercury to run a CFL for the same length of time.

  9. Dan McGrath March 31, 2008 at 9:40 am #

    Yes, Al Gore, for one. Carbon credits (useless pieces of paper) are set to become big business. Guess who’s going to broker them? CFL manufacturers are going to be raking in the money once Edison’s lightbulb is elimiated from the American marketplace. The ethanol industry is sucking down subsidies and jacking up the price of everything for short-term profits.

    There’s big money in the Climate Scam, and the profiteers are looking to use the force of law to make their money beacuase few people will buy their “products” unless they are forced to.

  10. Dan McGrath March 31, 2008 at 11:21 am #

    Regarding Mercury in CFLs, it’s true that the level in each bulb is low, relative to some other household items, but the key difference is in how likely they are to break open. Those old thermostat’s mercury switches don’t need frequent replacement, and so are never handled, and are thus very very unlikely to ever break open. Newer thermostats don’t have the mercury switches at all.

    Drop a CFL when replacing a bulb, and you’ve got a mercury spill right in your home. Schools have been evacuated after breaking open a mercury thermometer.

    Further, unlike Edison’s bulb, spent CFL bulbs can’t juet be thrown away – Because of the mercury. And, if you break one, recycling won’t take it. now what do you do?

  11. Blake April 5, 2008 at 2:21 pm #

    My god who in their right mind would believe in something like this crock, how do they know that Al Gore isn’t lying about this crap. He just says this because no one can prove him wrong, and why can’t they? Because no one has the kind of money to buy all of these “special” machines to test his theory. Also he says that he has “special” scientists to help him do research on the subject. The people are probably off the street that he is paying 5 grand to say that he is right. Finally he says “Save energy!” but yet he is the one with the huge mansion using more in a week than we do in a month. Thats all I have to say about the subject.

  12. joy April 7, 2008 at 10:46 am #

    I watch with interest for the inevitable climb down, side step or subtle smoothing over that will occur when the fullness of time reveals the truth
    : Man inducing climate change is nonsense and will look very silly. Stick to the mantra if you dare. I wonder who will jump which way… media revealing the scam as if they never subscribed to it in the first place, scientists saying they were misquoted and politicians saying, “well we didn’t know enough then,” or even worse, “never mind global warming there’s something even more pressing to fear… Vote for us and we’ll save you… the others don’t care!”
    It would be funny if it wasn’t so sad.

    And by “scientists” I mean the daft ones who can’t let go of their pet theory in the face of broad based and widespread sources of evidence. Shame on them… not for being wrong, that’s human, but not admitting error is the beginning of the corruption of a scientists virtue and merit.

  13. N.B. April 7, 2008 at 10:58 am #

    Blake. Your argument is lame. See below…

    Dan. This is America. Land of the Censored and Home of the Capitalists. The only freedoms that this country continues to protect (more than others) are the ones pertaining to making money. Of course big business is going to make $$ off of climate change. They will find a way to make money off of everything they possibly can and our government will continually enable them to do so. That does not mean that climate change is a scam. People make money off Jesus too. People make money off 9/11. People make money off this war. Get it?

    Drew. Lame argument. Just b/c an iceberg was breaking down in March global warming isn’t real? Good one buddy.

    Hiram. I don’t understand what CFL’s have to do with what Angela said. So you know some stuff about CFL’s. Big deal. That doesn’t mean she’s not right about the majority of people being too selfish and lazy to do anything about the environment. I guess I don’t even blame people really. There’s too much other stuff to worry about in our everyday lives sometimes. But that doesn’t mean we can’t all do a little here and there to help.

    Lastly. Who cares about Al Gore. The reason he made that movie and wrote that book was b/c many people wouldn’t even be interested in seeing something narrated by some guy they’ve never heard of. It needed a big name. I think it’s lame that his house wastes so much energy. He’s an idiot. But it’s also pretty idiotic to think that he paid some people off the street to say things. Do your research before you say stupid crap like that. People like YOU are the problem, Blake.

  14. joy April 8, 2008 at 7:24 am #

    To NB and Angela…”this site is crap” and “do your research”…very unhelpful and subjective arguments. If the site is crap then there are plenty of other sites which you may find pleasing on this subject.

    In answer to the Al Gore question, 1: Al’s financial interest as CEO of GIM is a conflict of interest with his environmental crusade. 2: Due to a recent high court ruling in this country (UK) he is not allowed to promote his carbon trading company as he will be in breach of racketeering laws. His movie has been with-held from our schools as teachers are not allowed to show the video without showing the nine flaws and untruths in the argument. If one does, The school showing the video will be in breach of education act for indoctrination.

    Is this not ringing any alarm bells with the well-meaning believers in the AGW theory? Yes, human beings are inherently selfish, but civilization relies on co-operation and an unselfsh outlook. I have not met anyone yet on either side of the debate who wants to “harm the environment” I am sure all the employees of “big oil” are not carefully selected because they are evil and don’t care about their environment.

    Hands up who doesn’t want to save the world? Just think about it. Furthermore, how many previous scares, and doom predictions have come true? I do feel that the truth is revealed on investigation of the scientific data. There is much disagreement, but there are points of agreement to be found and if one sticks to these then the flaws in the AGW theory reveal themselves.

    CO2 lags behind temperature rise and nowhere in the records is the climate shown to be driven by CO2. It is not a toxin but necessary for plant life, and in mammals levels of CO2 are monitered in the blood as part of respiration. Optimum CO2 levels for plants is 1000ppm. AGW theorists and opponents agree that if the warming is due to greenhouse gases then the warming must be greatest in the middle of the troposphere. The satellite data and weather balloons show that the greatest warming is on the surface. Arguing about a few tenths of a degree in a system which varies throughout timeover twenty or thirty degrees is daft.

    Many scientists who have written the assessment reports or reviewed the IPCC reports have left in disgust or merely stated that the summaries do not reflect the main body of the text.

    And as for Angela’s comment about cold ocean tempertures due to melting ice! well think on that one!

  15. Laila April 15, 2008 at 12:50 am #

    So, let’s see. We have ice cores going back 420,000 years indicating a spike in CO2 concentration unprecedented in both magnitude and slope on one hand (see website). We have 5 years of data from the ocean on temperature on the other. I don’t think we get to chuck what the ice cores are telling us, regardless of what the deep ocean buoys are telling us. In fact, it is altogether irresponsible to base *anything* to do with climate trends on just five years of data.

  16. Pezhead April 15, 2008 at 4:27 pm #

    I don’t proclaim to be an expert on the matter… In fact, I know less then the most ignorant of all of you (probably not but is sounds cool). Hence, I cannot in good conscience throw around ‘opinions’ about alleged facts be it the GW “supporters” or GW “unbelievers”. I will say that we do indeed need a new primary energy source (Nuclear? maybe even antimatter [unrealistic as of now]?). Biomass doesn’t cut it since we are indeed putting out a good deal of waste exhaust (air pollution exhists even if global warming doesn’t) and solar/hydro/tidal are just not reliable enough. Fossil fuels will indeed run out eventually and then we’ll be royally screwed if we haven’t gotten another energy source (how the hell am I Supposed to play Starcraft if there’s no energy?).

    CO2 isnt the only problem with “global warming”. Methane is a big problem (supposedly). Methane we produce what… 100 times more CO2 then methane? But methane stays in the atmosphere over 8 times longer and has a much more potent effect so to speak. So, perhaps discussion can turn towards methane and away from CO2? not likely since everyones favorite greenhouse gas is CO2…

    Lastly… we may or may not have global warming (caused by man or otherwise). If there is, there will be a point where we’ve screwed up so badly that it will be near impossible to fix and then we’ll all be dead (much better on the environment if you ask me) Or there will be no global warming/man made warming and we will continue to destroy the planet in other less subtle ways.

    Humanity is at the same time the worst thing thats happened to the earth and the only race that can fix everything.

  17. joy April 15, 2008 at 5:09 pm #

    Do not insult the intelligence of people who question the theory of AGW. NONE of the numbers show that any of the historical climate changes can be attributed to CO2. The ice core data shows that temperature leads CO2. If you want to look at the current graphs you will see that CO2 continues to rise as temperatures fall. For the last ten years the two have shown opposite trends. This was the same in the middle of the 20th century when temperatures fell as CO2 rose in the post war time. CO2 has in the past been up to 20 times what it is today. Ice cores show smoothed curves due to the long time frames and length of ice cores required to derive only one ice bubble in which the atmosphere is trapped.
    If the ocean buoys were the only evidence here you might have a point . Calling people whom you’ve never met irresponsible is a little unnecessary. I suppose this comes from someone who thinks the world needs saving! One needs to establish a basis of fact rather than making judgements on other people’s moral fibre on the basis of an unproven notion.

  18. Pezhead April 17, 2008 at 1:49 pm #

    Unproven yes… but it hasn’t been completely dissproven either. There are facts which both support and discredit the GW theory. I guess what I’m saying is on the off chance it does exist, do we risk it? The whole idea of “better safe than sorry” besides the fact that a lot of GW prevention is also beneficial to the environment tends to push me along the lines of…

    “What the hell do we have to lose? We’re gonna need to change all our stuff eventually, why not get it over with?”

  19. joy April 17, 2008 at 5:02 pm #

    He who makes the claim bears the burden of proof. There is not one shred of evidence in real world observations that humans are the cause for the last century’s modest warming trend of .5 degrees c. It is heartening to see more and more scientists and public figures who have a lot to lose coming out and stating that they feel this way. Some simply make a stand in other ways. This week Emanuel from MIT came out to state that he would reconsider his position on the link between warming and intensity of hurricanes. He was long an advocayte of Gore’s senarios. George Taylor of Oregon state university has now stated his opinion that man’ is not the most likely cause for the mild warming trend. Doing things which people perceive to be good for the environment is not what is being questioned here. That is a different issue. The prospect is that governments around the world are embarking on policies and laws that will hit the poorest people. I don’t expect it will affect me except to say that everything will become more expensive as the price of fossil fuels goes up sharply. Those who look forward to a time when they may have a car or travel on a train, have a washing machine, fridge: these people are the ones who will suffer the most. The likes of Gore will enjoy more wealth and likely much more power. I would urge anyone who thinks that there is evidence on both sides to go and look for it. It’s not there, it never was. The empirical evidence shows that the signature warming that should be measured in the troposphere is not there. The net antarctic ice extent is growing; sea levels continue to change eustaticaly at about 1 inch per decade. This has been happening for the last 15000 years from the last ice age. (due to thermal expansion not just melting ice). The earth is not as delicate as modelers would like to imply. There is now forthcoming data that proves that clouds have a strong negative feedback affect which stops the “runaway greenhouse” that is being proposed. Why of course, mother nature has got this particular avenue of danger covered! Why does this surprise people? Maybe because the human condition is to be pessimistic. Spot the danger and survive, fail to notice and get eaten by a tiger! Don’t worry peshead the earth is fine. This doesn’t mean that there is no incentive for cleaner and cheaper energy. This has always been the quest for scientists and even oil companies. After all they want to be the first to discover it and sell it to us mortals. This is nothing new. If it were there we’d already be using it.

  20. joy April 17, 2008 at 8:49 pm #

    See Junk Science: the sea level calculator

A project of Minnesota Majority, hosted and maintained by Minnesotans for Global Warming.