Letter - Climate-change critics want data, then ignore it

Advertisement

Armchair critics of climate-change science are fond of pointing out the rate of global mean temperatures has stabilized since the start of the millennium. But, as usual, their arguments are superficial and lack understanding of the issue’s complexities.

The Aug. 22 issue of Science has a number of relevant articles. The most revealing article is entitled, “Varying planetary heat sink led to global-warming slowdown and acceleration.”

It was written by scientists from the Key Laboratory of Physical Oceanography and the Department of Applied Mathematics at the University of Washington — people who know how to collect and analyze data.

Their data came from extensive measurement around the globe. Importantly, it included data from ocean depths to as much as 1,500 meters (about one mile). In general, they found increases in heat absorption in the layer between 300 and 1,500 meters. This tended to moderate warming in the top 300 meters.

This means surface temperature increases were being moderated because heat was being sequestered at greater depths. Surface temperatures strongly influence atmospheric temperatures.

Their analysis demonstrates much of the supposed “missing heat” has actually been stored in the depths of the Atlantic and southern oceans. It further seems to demonstrate the extensive “conveyor belt” mechanism at play in these oceans has been the key mechanism in this deep sequestration.

Other oceanographers and atmospheric scientists think ocean dynamics in the Pacific are at least as significant in deep ocean heat sequestration. In each of these scenarios the oceanic patterns oscillate over about a 20-to-30 year time frame.

The final conclusion of the main article states, “When the internal variability that is responsible for the current hiatus switches sign, as it inevitably will, another episode of accelerated global warming should ensue”.

In other words, the oceanic patterns are cyclical and when they return to the unfavorable phase of that cycle we will see accelerated warming. The longer-term trend, averaged over many cycles, is for unremitting increases in temperature.

The effects of deeper layers of the oceans periodically absorbing heat isn’t sustainable and may itself upset oceanic currents that moderate temperatures around the globe.

Scientists acknowledge the need for more data and improvements in their analytic methods. But, it is disingenuous of critics to ask for data, and then ignore what they are shown. They have no data themselves and their armchair methods aren’t likely to produce any.

Steven Luckstead

Walla Walla

Comments

namvet60 5 months ago

As a climate change critic I believe that there is a change - it is called Mother Nature and the four seasons are Winter, Spring, Summer and Fall. Very simple and I don't need an overpaid government scientist to bring along his predictions which are at best a 50/50 chance of being correct.

0

GeneandCassie 5 months ago

For working with data and statistics, and helping to interpret results and arrive at conclusions, this book is quite useful:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/stores/detail/-/books/0393310728/reader/1/102-4379401-6415301

First written in 1954, its still relevant; as its author says 'there is terror in numbers...'

Some phrases used above, like 'should ensue' and 'may itself upset'; containing the definitive words 'should' and 'may' suggest to me a situation still under debate....

0

NewInWW 5 months ago

You seem to be arguing with the language of science, which can only describe the anticipated results of current theory, not reveal the future with perfect foresight.

Scientists are attempting to understand what, if any, impact human activity is having on the global climate; climate change deniers seem to be starting from the position that human activity has had no impact on the global climate and attempt to prove that case.

I prefer the open mind and the scientific process.

1

downhillracer 5 months ago

Thank you, NewInWW. I have long given up on attempting meaningful discussions with the critics/deniers, particularly those who confuse weather with climate, and desire to simplify extensively reinforced analysis with the buzzwords of a simpleton to fit a very, very myopic narrative.

1

namvet60 5 months ago

OH I see said the blind man - The climate is here and the weather is elsewhere; OR - The weather is here and the climate is elsewhere; OR - Maybe they are related; OR - . . . . . . . . . . . . ?

Oh Well . . . . . . . . . . . . Check out the funnies, they are more interesting!

0

GeneandCassie 5 months ago

The 'average depth' of the ocean is about 14,000 feet; and the deepest part is about 36,000 feet; as per NOAA link:

http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/oceandepth.html

The original article only looks at 4,500 feet of ocean depth...... seems like a large portion of the 'ocean sink' is being ignored in this discussion...... why is that????? That is a lot of 'neglected volume of water......' I think a scientific reason is needed to explain this.......

Some use 'numerical models' to develop 'data' which can then even replace 'real data' actually measured; because the measured data 'doesn't fit what 'the model tells us.....'

If things were presently that definitive, the article's 'should ensue' would be replaced by 'would ensue' and 'may itself upset' would become 'will itself upset'.........

0

namvet60 5 months ago

If you send in enough box tops you get a Nobel Peace Prize like some of the bold illiterates displaying there lack of intelligence.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2014/08/30/arctic-ice-cap-expands-41-percent-two-years-al-gore-thought-it-might-be-

Just goes to show - follow the money and the scams arise . . . . . . . .

0

downhillracer 5 months ago

Newsbusters. Well there you go, a time-honored publication with the respect of journalists, nowhere, for sycophants to big oil, everywhere.

0

namvet60 5 months ago

And a great time-honored publication at that - thank you.

0

stvsngltn 5 months ago

Sung to the Kingston Trio's old tune:

Where has all the warming gone? Long time passing...

Where has all the warming gone? Seventeen years ago ...

Where has all the (CO2) warming gone?

Gone a mile down deep in the ocean ...

When will they ever learn? When will those armchair critics ever learn? (Yeah, right)

0

jubilado 5 months ago

stvsngltn: You apparently aren't keeping up. Scientists also wondered "Where has all the warming gone? They found it in the North and South Atlantic. Other scientists are looking at area in the Pacific. The ocean is sink for heat as well as CO2.

The ocean has maxed out as a sink for CO2 and is considerably more acidic (the CO2 creates carbonic acid) than it used to be, to the detriment of a lot of sea life.

You are so invested in your denial that I doubt that God yelling from the heavens "Steve! Steve! global warming is real and it is caused by you humans!" would make a whit of difference.

0

stvsngltn 5 months ago

Yes, I've actually been keeping up and consider this "Oceanic heat sink" theory just as silly as NOT considering how important is the impact on surface temperature readings of the "heat island" effects that have been giving false readings for average global temps for years. It's the satellite readings that have shown the leveling off and decline in temperatures (some are now reporting 19 years). Regarding acidity of the ocean, that appears to be another very questionable claim. For one thing, the amount of acidity varies (depending on where it's being tested in the vast expanse of our planet's surface). It's like getting an accurate measure of average sea level rise or fall when they speak of a centimeter or two on this planet's vast expanse of fluctuating oceans (tidal changes as well as wave action and erratic fluctuations of the earths's crust itself. Too many scientists and politicians are so invested in the anthropogenic climate change (whether for funding or just because they desperately do not want to admit they've been wrong) that they will grasp at any straw in a vain attempt to have us believe we should shell out money to fight a non-problem -- no matter how much it will cost us economically and in quality of life aspects.

0

NewInWW 5 months ago

The Breitbart piece is based on an article by an economics professor who paid to have it published without peer review or meaningful editorial review.

That doesn't mean it's nonsense, but you have to think that if the facts and science are right, it would have ended up somewhere else.

0

blue_streak 5 months ago

Namvet, just in case you're interested in what actual scientists say about actual scientific research, check out this article about new research from . . . wait for it: Oregon State University.

http://www.statesmanjournal.com/story/tech/science/environment/2014/09/02/greenhouse-gases-warming-pacific-northwest/14975303/

0

namvet60 4 months, 4 weeks ago

Apparently you missed the U-B article of the possibility of an El Nino and it doesn't take scientists to let us know that the water is warming because the salmon are doing a good job of that:

Some are not always inclined to take a human approach, pay attention to what is happening around you. If you touch a hot burner on a stove do you need a scientist to let you know that it was hot?

0

stvsngltn 4 months, 4 weeks ago

Speaking of climate conferences, there was an excellent 3-day 9th International Conference on Climate Change last July in Las Vegas. One can find all the lectures and comments online (including power point presentations, graphs, slides, etc.) And a photo with short bio on 53 of the speakers here: Http://climateconference.heartland.org/speakers/ .... includes some notable scientists in the field of climate science.

0

NewInWW 4 months, 4 weeks ago

From the Heartland Institute Wikipedia entry:

"In the 1990s, the group worked with the tobacco company Philip Morris to question serious cancer risks to secondhand smoke, and to lobby against government public-health reforms. More recently, the Institute has focused on questioning the science of human-caused climate change, and was described by the New York Times as "the primary American organization pushing climate change skepticism." The Institute has sponsored meetings of climate change skeptics, and has been reported to promote public school curricula challenging the scientific consensus on human-caused climate change."

It seems that they are available - with appropriate industry funding - to question any science.

0

namvet60 4 months, 4 weeks ago

Your comment is rather interesting - Your stating that it is NOT OK for a private group to post findings utilizing private funding but, it is OK for the "Green Energy experts" to utilize taxpayers funding for there so-called postings to shove down the taxpayers throat? How ironic is that.

0

GeneandCassie 4 months, 4 weeks ago

Here is an opportunity to mingle and engage in all things climatic on 9-21-2014:

http://peoplesclimate.org/

Wonder what the effect on the climate is from all the anthropogenic travel/fossil fuel use being done in the name of the climate, going to the various conferences....????

Perhaps a research paper on the topic is in order.....

0

stvsngltn 4 months, 2 weeks ago

Nice find. He joins a rapidly growing list of scientists who've become Fed up with the political-agenda of the IPCC. Some were at the 3-day climate conference in Las Vegas last July put on by Heartland.

0

namvet60 4 months, 4 weeks ago

Here's a Happy Birthday celebration for all the Global Warming Scientists:

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/09/05/Happy-18th-Birthday-No-Global-Warming

Please use your own money for the cake instead of the taxpayers.

0

Sign in to comment

Click here to sign in