GreenYes Archives

[GreenYes Home] - [Thread Index] - [Date Index]
[Date Prev] - [Date Next] - [Thread Prev] - [Thread Next]

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

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

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

> 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."
> _________________________
> Peter Anderson, President
> 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:
> 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:

[GreenYes Home] - [Date Index] - [Thread Index]
[Date Prev] - [Date Next] - [Thread Prev] - [Thread Next]