Thread: How 'bout them Argos Sensor Buoys, boys?

Deployed in 2003, three-thousand three-hundred and eighty-six recording floats report back to NASA this month that all ocean temperature models built by Global Warmists have been WRONG. The temperature of all of Earth's oceans at all measured depths has been cooling.

Well, what say you, cock-sure chickens?

Sigh....References???????????

First, of all where did you get this information from?

A summary of the network is here:
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/dac/gdp_drifter.html

It's a drifting buoy network of instruments which last for about a year and report their drift and temperature of the surface and subsurface ocean to satellites. They were put there not to confirm or deny global warming...but simply to measure temperature with better resolution and determine its depth which is useful to enhance forecast of some storms particularly in the tropic and subtropics. The network, like other sources of ocean temperature, have been reporting slight cooling at the wide base of this solar cycle minimum. Nothing surprising or alarming.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

A summary of the network is here:
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/dac/gdp_drifter.html

It's a drifting buoy network of instruments which last for about a year and report their drift and temperature of the surface and subsurface ocean to satellites. They were put there not to confirm or deny global warming...but simply to measure temperature with better resolution and determine its depth which is useful to enhance forecast of some storms particularly in the tropic and subtropics. The network, like other sources of ocean temperature, have been reporting slight cooling at the wide base of this solar cycle minimum. Nothing surprising or alarming.

"Nothing suprising or alarming"

What? Should we be alarmed if the ocean is not getting hotter?
Why? Because you global warmists had rather be right than cool?

Hmm?
Sometimes I think that global warmists wish bad things on good people.

There is an interesting item on the BBC web site. This is a partial extract.

Psychological tests I have carried out suggest that the more you believe in conspiracy theories the more likely you are to mistrust reported facts.

This is, on one level at least, obvious. But it is important to help us to understand how conspiracy theorists often deal with those taking a critical position.

For instance, when I first started working in the area I received a number of messages from individuals implying I was working for some secretive government organization or another. This, they claimed, must explain why I was asking the questions I was.

.........

People are also more likely to believe in conspiracy theories if they feel powerless in the face of large social authorities or institutions, and not part of the mainstream of society.

.........

We also hate gaps or inconsistencies in our knowledge. We want "closure" in our thinking and to believe that we live in a stable and predictable world, so we might seek out a simple account of a complex event.

As a rule people tend to accept supporting evidence at face value while subjecting contrary evidence to much more critical evaluation.

People show other cognitive biases in how they evaluate ambiguous evidence.

"Nothing suprising or alarming"

What? Should we be alarmed if the ocean is not getting hotter?
Why?

The simple answer to your question is a five year trend isn't climate change. If you actually look at either observations or the models, and the annual variability, we have been forecasting that there will be short periods sometimes over ten years, where there will be cooling embedded in the longer warming trend. Given the slightly lower solar forcing right now this is not surprising in the least.

There's actually a strong argument that is should be much cooler than it is at present, if not for the increased green house gas forcing compared to the past century. But regardless, changes of less than about twenty years (>=30 year means are by definition climate) aren't really indicators of climate change.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

"Nothing suprising or alarming"

What? Should we be alarmed if the ocean is not getting hotter?
Why?

The simple answer to your question is a five year trend isn't climate change. If you actually look at either observations or the models, and the annual variability, we have been forecasting that there will be short periods sometimes over ten years, where there will be cooling embedded in the longer warming trend. Given the slightly lower solar forcing right now this is not surprising in the least.

There's actually a strong argument that is should be much cooler than it is at present, if not for the increased green house gas forcing compared to the past century. But regardless, changes of less than about twenty years (>=30 year means are by definition climate) aren't really indicators of climate change.

How coincidental, Lynx, evidence accrues that there is a 27 year cycle of warming and cooling. So just when we thought we could safely call it a "climate" it gets hotter...then colder...then hotter...then colder...ad infinitum.

Not sure what exactly your point is. The 30 year definition of climate has been around for at least half a century. Trends much shorter don't really tell much, though based on the predicted warming and annual variability it might be possible to eek out meaningful change over periods as short as 20 years. As for specific ocean cooling, you'd only have to go back to 2000 to find a colder year than 2008, and there was only one warmer year (1997) in the twenty years between 1980 and 1999. Point being, even at the bottom of the prolonged solar minimum we're still pretty warm, even compared to the last 30 years.

The drifting buoy network is an excellent program and already helping refine weather and oceanographic models. With time it will also be a good tool to detect climate trends--it just hasn't been around long enough. Also, because they are relatively short lived instruments that have changed types a couple times, there might be some integration and calibration issues between types and with the stationary network, but I haven't read any of those reports yet. If you've seen one of those technical reports please put up a link--it might be of interest for several of us.

Originally Posted by milum

... it gets hotter...then colder...then hotter...then colder...ad infinitum.

Yes this is my understanding, and the overall trend is upwards. Cooling would have to be substantial enough to shift the average temperature below where we currently are, in order to say that there is no overall warming. In my understanding cooling spells bottom out at a warmer temp in each successive cycle.

Originally Posted by John Galt

There is an interesting item on the BBC web site. This is a partial extract.

Psychological tests I have carried out suggest that the more you believe in conspiracy theories the more likely you are to mistrust reported facts.

This is, on one level at least, obvious. But it is important to help us to understand how conspiracy theorists often deal with those taking a critical position.

For instance, when I first started working in the area I received a number of messages from individuals implying I was working for some secretive government organization or another. This, they claimed, must explain why I was asking the questions I was.

.........

People are also more likely to believe in conspiracy theories if they feel powerless in the face of large social authorities or institutions, and not part of the mainstream of society.

.........

We also hate gaps or inconsistencies in our knowledge. We want "closure" in our thinking and to believe that we live in a stable and predictable world, so we might seek out a simple account of a complex event.

As a rule people tend to accept supporting evidence at face value while subjecting contrary evidence to much more critical evaluation.

People show other cognitive biases in how they evaluate ambiguous evidence.

Good grief, Galt! Do you understand the world about you by reading Mickey Mouse psycho-babble by the BBC? Gee golly, Galt, such is the stuff of rejected fortune cookies and Psychology 101.
But what the hell, Johnny, you ain't such a bad sort. Tell you what, go buy a bottle of Jack Daniels, stop by the library and check out "The True Believers" by Eric Hoffer, and then read the story of your life late into the dark of night and even unto your awakening into a bright new world.
Scales will fall from your eyes and in the morning sun you will want to kiss me.

Originally Posted by milum

Scales will fall from your eyes and in the morning sun you will want to kiss me.

The severe hangover from the Jack Daniels may induce that reaction but more likly the urge to hit something.....

Originally Posted by milum

Good grief, Galt! Do you understand the world about you by reading Mickey Mouse psycho-babble by the BBC? Gee golly, Galt, such is the stuff of rejected fortune cookies and Psychology 101.
But what the hell, Johnny, you ain't such a bad sort. Tell you what, go buy a bottle of Jack Daniels, stop by the library and check out "The True Believers" by Eric Hoffer, and then read the story of your life late into the dark of night and even unto your awakening into a bright new world.
Scales will fall from your eyes and in the morning sun you will want to kiss me.

I rest my case: your 'response' confirms our suspicions.

Originally Posted by John Galt

Originally Posted by milum

Good grief, Galt! Do you understand the world about you by reading Mickey Mouse psycho-babble by the BBC? Gee golly, Galt, such is the stuff of rejected fortune cookies and Psychology 101.
But what the hell, Johnny, you ain't such a bad sort. Tell you what, go buy a bottle of Jack Daniels, stop by the library and check out "The True Believers" by Eric Hoffer, and then read the story of your life late into the dark of night and even unto your awakening into a bright new world.
Scales will fall from your eyes and in the morning sun you will want to kiss me.

I rest my case: your 'response' confirms our suspicions.

Does it now? Just who is "our" and what are y'all's suspicions?

I am curious not yellow.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Not sure what exactly your point is. The 30 year definition of climate has been around for at least half a century. Trends much shorter don't really tell much, though based on the predicted warming and annual variability it might be possible to eek out meaningful change over periods as short as 20 years. As for specific ocean cooling, you'd only have to go back to 2000 to find a colder year than 2008, and there was only one warmer year (1997) in the twenty years between 1980 and 1999. Point being, even at the bottom of the prolonged solar minimum we're still pretty warm, even compared to the last 30 years.

The drifting buoy network is an excellent program and already helping refine weather and oceanographic models. With time it will also be a good tool to detect climate trends--it just hasn't been around long enough. Also, because they are relatively short lived instruments that have changed types a couple times, there might be some integration and calibration issues between types and with the stationary network, but I haven't read any of those reports yet. If you've seen one of those technical reports please put up a link--it might be of interest for several of us.

Say what! Holy mokita*, Lynx_Fox. You mean you and other carbon creditors knew that the current 30 year cooling cycle was coming ten years ago but didn't tell us in fear we wouldn't be frightened enough into selling our SUV's?

That's low; really, really, low.

*mokita (Kirwina, New Guinea): [noun] Truth everybody knows but nobody speaks.

Neither NASA, NOAA, Hadcrue or to my knowledge the companies making the drifting buoys have anything to do with carbon creditors.

The past 30 year average is still significantly upwards, the current temp is still above the 30 year average and therefore continuing to reinforce that trend.

--
I came here to share interesting science discussion with others who know more about me in areas for which I don't have expertise. I also enjoy sharing knowledge of my own areas of expertise (meteorology, climate and military technology). I don't see your wild conspiratorial threads, and bad attitude towards others trying to nudge the thread towards meaningful information and discussion as part of those reasons.

milum, cut the baiting - i get the distinct impression that's your only reason for posting here

Originally Posted by marnixR

milum, cut the baiting - i get the distinct impression that's your only reason for posting here

Me too. No understanding of that which he attacks and no willingness to learn. Everyone on the other side of his conspiracy notions are part of it. He posts one bit of randomly acquired information that at first glance looks like opposing evidence to him and then follows it up with zero content, flippant jabs and wilful ignorance. Troll behaviour.

Originally Posted by milum

You mean you and other carbon creditors knew that the current 30 year cooling cycle was coming ten years ago but didn't tell us in fear we wouldn't be frightened enough into selling our SUV's?

We also haven't told you that it will be winter again in a few months.

Originally Posted by milum

Originally Posted by John Galt

I rest my case: your 'response' confirms our suspicions.

Does it now? Just who is "our" and what are y'all's suspicions?

The unsolicited responses from Marnix and Kalster give you a partial insight into who constitutes 'our' and a provisional view of some of 'our' suspicions.

Let me know if I can be of any further help.