Re: [greenyes] Climate Disruption - New Confirmation from Ocean Measurements

["Bruce Arkwright,Jr" <powerbysun@no.address>]

As bush would but it - this is not good science. Even
if it was a NASA scientist making the report it would
not be good enough science. 
Be the way, what is good science any ways? GOOD GOD I
BEEN bushTISIZED!!!

--- Peter Anderson <anderson@no.address> wrote:

> UPI in the WASHINGTON TIMES
> 
> Climate: Ocean warming supports models
> 
> 
> By Dan Whipple
> 
> Boulder, CO, Jun. 6 (UPI) -- Clear evidence of
> human-produced warming in the 
> oceans verifies some of the most important
> predictions of climate models, 
> suggesting it is time for action instead of argument
> about the existence of 
> greenhouse warming, according to a paper by Scripps
> Institution of 
> Oceanography scientists.
> 
> A paper appearing in the June 3 issue of the journal
> Science by Tim Barnett, 
> a marine physicist at Scripps, and colleagues
> reported that a strong warming 
> signal has penetrated the world's oceans over the
> last 40 years that cannot 
> be explained by natural internal climate variability
> or by solar or volcanic 
> forcings -- but is consistent with human causes.
> 
> "The thing that is nice about our deal is that we
> found that most of the 
> heat increase has gone into the oceans, and the
> oceans are the flywheel of 
> the global climate system," Barnett told UPI's
> Climate. "We looked at where 
> the biggest signal was. If your models are going to
> be any good, you'd like 
> to get that one right -- and they sure did."
> 
> Barnett's group found a close agreement between
> observed warming signals in 
> the oceans and the predictions of two prominent
> climate models: one called 
> the Parallel Climate Model used by the National
> Center for Atmospheric 
> Research in Boulder, Colo., and one used by
> Britain's Hadley Centre in 
> Exeter.
> The results indicate the climate models can be
> trusted for any important 
> predictions.
> 
> "Since the historical changes have been well
> simulated, future changes 
> predicted by these global models are apt to be
> reasonably good, at least out 
> to, say, 20 or 30 years into the future," the paper
> said, although Barnett 
> told Climate that the models' accuracy farther out,
> to 2050, for example, is 
> less reliable.
> Nevertheless, he said, the results are strong enough
> to settle the argument 
> about whether human activity is causing current
> warming.
> 
> "...
> "...
> "...
> "...
> 
> The paper by Barnett and colleagues comes on the
> heels of another paper in 
> Science a few weeks ago that found Earth is
> absorbing considerably more 
> energy from the sun than it is emitting back into
> space. That paper, by 
> James Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute
> for Space Studies, and 
> colleagues found Earth's heat balance has shifted
> substantially. Based both 
> on models and observations, they concluded the
> planet can expect global 
> warming of an average of 0.6 degrees Celsius (1.1
> degrees Fahrenheit), even 
> if carbon-dioxide emissions into the atmosphere were
> curtailed immediately.
> 
> "This energy imbalance is the 'smoking gun' that we
> have been looking for," 
> Hansen said in a news release. "It shows that our
> estimates of the 
> human-made and natural climate forcing agents are
> about right, and they are 
> driving the Earth toward a warmer climate."
> 
> The two papers are complementary. Together, they
> provide strong verification 
> of at least the larger mid-time-scale predictions of
> the climate models.
> "The statistical significance of these results is
> far too strong to be 
> merely dismissed and should wipe out much of the
> uncertainty about the 
> reality of global warming," Barnett said.
> 
> "...
> "...
> 
> The ocean-warming research results are strong
> enough, Barnett thinks, along 
> with the other recent research, to shift the debate
> away from whether 
> human-induced climate change is occurring.
> 
> "We need to do something about it," he said. "We
> need leadership. There are 
> a lot of things that can be done, and we're doing
> none of them, as a 
> country. If they think they've got Social Security
> problems in 2041, wait 
> until they see what this one looks like."
> 
> FOR FULL ARTICLE 
>
http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/20050606-111933-8954r.htm
> _________________________
> Peter Anderson, President
> RECYCLEWORLDS CONSULTING
> 4513 Vernon Blvd. Suite 15
> Madison, WI 53705-4964
> Ph: (608) 231-1100
> Fax: (608) 233-0011
> Cell: (608) 698-1314
> eMail: anderson@no.address
> web: www.recycleworlds.net
> 
>          CONFIDENTIAL
> This message, and all attachments thereto,
> is covered by the Electronic Communications
> Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C., Sections 2510-2521.
> This message is CONFIDENTIAL. If you are
> not the intended recipient of this message,
> then any retention, dissemination, distribution
> or copying of this communication is strictly
> prohibited. Please notify me if you received
> this message in error at anderson@no.address
> and then delete it. 
> 
> 


A Solar Day not Used is a Energy Source Wasted. 
So how much solar have you used today?


		
__________________________________ 
Yahoo! Mail 
Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour: 
http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html