EnviroLink Forum

My take on all of this is it really does not matter who is driving the train, get off the tracks! My efforts in "green" housing design are NOT to reduce greenhouse gas production but rather to survive any sort of economic or "peak oil" or war sort of disaster. Who knows if nature has some surprises up her sleeves and we end up in a mini-ice age... could happen. I am planning for ANY weather we might be up against and don't care if it is human caused. Even if it is definitively proven to be 100% human-caused, people are going to be very slow to change until disaster forces faster actions. I hope to be prepared for such disasters so I do not need to change but rather make profit helping others change.

The data while somewhat sparse certainly exists. The graph you posted above appears to be misleading for a number of reasons. It specifies the number of readings per month while the actual readings were over taken over longer periods which leads to an artificially low number. The source of your graph is unclear despite the fact that it has the NOAA
symbol on it.The total number of readings probably run into the hundreds of thousands for the period prior to 2003. There is enough data available to construct a graph which is contrary to you claim that no data existed prior to 2003 for depths below 700 meters.
For example here is the data for the year 1970 at 1000 meters.

_________________
Pollution is not the solution

According to the site referenced in the graph, there were ~2000 profiles per month from 500 to 1000 meters from 90S - 90N starting in the early 1990s. The initial profiles started over 10 years prior.

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/G ... tion.shtml

Temperature profile numbers
Global
90S - 90N

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

I was at TES 2005-6 as mgopilot and again 2008-9 as Johnny Electriglide, but was kicked off for being anti-immigration/not politically correct. I guess being a staunch American is against their liberal European ideals.
Here are the rules for this place, listed directly above the forum;
"This is not a forum for debating environmental issues, but is meant for writers to share work, discuss ideas, etc."(sure, the second part is for the writing forum)
I have been a member here since 2005, and the record has continued to be that the warmest 9 out of 10 years of written record have been in the past decade. There is the vast consensus of 98% or so of scientists that AGW is happening and will get worse unless sufficient measures are taken in time to mitigate the worst of it.
There is no sense arguing a known fact like they do at TES.
I don't see anything of your statement here, Wayne;
faq.php?mode=rules
I suppose someone spouting off anti-AGW BS could be called a spammer or harasser (they are to me).

_________________
"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.
“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”
― Chief Seattle

Johnny,

The "rules" you quoted are for the sub-forum for Environmental writing not this forum, which is for the discussion and debate of environmental issues.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

.
I can well understand your frustration about people who are not willing to accept the facts or the science.
My own view is that somehow enough people have to accept the science before any action is going to be taken to do something about it. It is important the misinformation that is out there is challenged.
Personally I do not mind arguing about the climate change
1 because I like arguing
2 because trying to learn about a dry subject like climate change is pretty boring unless you are trying to prove a point.

I have learned a lot from participating in forums such as TES and I expect I will learn a good deal from this one.

_________________
Pollution is not the solution

That's because it's two different things that we're measuring, Wayne.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.

Well Ann, the problem with that stance is that you're combining Global Warming with what we should do with Energy in the future. :)

Why does it not matter to know what has been causing Climate Change over the past 30 years? That's what science is about, to possibly answer non-answered questions.

The idiot "skeptics" who don't want to switch to Green energy because they say it costs to much are being payed by the energy companies. Nothing more, nothing less.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.

Yes there's data, it's just VERY sparce, which is why I said "pretty much."

This is not an adequate dataset. There are practically no floats in the Southern Atlantic Ocean, the Eastern Indian Ocean, and large portions of the Pacific Ocean.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.

But you have no measurements for one, which by definition means only one thing is being measured, which was the point you keep missing.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

And there are how many measurements for your cloud hypothesis? One is accepted without measured data and the other condemned for the lack of sufficient measured data.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

I should clarify that I really appreciate the efforts of such debate as it may save lots of wildlife from extinction as we destroy the planet at rates along the lines of a large meteor hitting the planet. My problem is the money and time taken to debate the issue could have been better spent on simple laws to be more efficient on new houses and vehicles and financial intensives to upgrade older buildings or maybe researching energy storage to better utilize solar and wind. Yeah, those energy companies are worried about losing government financial support for R and D as well as the public changing their energy use but at the same time are raking in record profits from higher prices.

The only factor that could possibly explain an increase in diurnal temperatures (difference between daytime and nighttime temperatures)a few days after a FD is a sudden decrease in Cloud Cover, because Clouds reflect ISR and trap OLR. There's no way around it.

http://www.astrophys-space-sci-trans.ne ... 5-2011.pdf

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.

I'm all for forest conservation and switching to cleaner Energy, Ann. The debate is simply about Climate Change, nothing more, nothing less.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.

right... sorry for being off-topic then.