I’m off this weekend – talk quietly and politely amongst yourselves. Don’t make me come back here.
If you have something worth posting on the front page, flag a moderator. In the meantime I have a couple of stories that will post using the WordPress scheduler. – Anthony
This deserves a thread of it’s own.
OSU ignores their own $9 million NSF-grant research.
I’ll clairfy below. .
I’ve raised this issue before where then OSU researcher/professor Jane Lubchenco fabricated and propagated a link between Oregon’s ocean dead zones and AGW.
Even though her OSU research team “cautioned that they were unable to establish the extent of the link, if any, to global warming”
Her fabrication, without science and contradicting her own work, was picked up and parroted around the globe by every science publication and more. Google it, it’s everywhere. So accepted is her farce that RC regulars argued that the link had been “established”.
You know, RC, where real climate is discussed.
It’s the ultimate example of phony science by scientists, publications and alarmist blogs.
Lubcheno’s reward for her global warming myth was appointment to head NOAA.
Well here we go again.
Yesterday’s front page story in our Oregonian.
http://www.oregonlive.com/environment/index.ssf/2009/10/summer_dead_zones_off_oregon_c.html
Lubcheno’s peers back at OSU are at it again.
Again they are suggesting a global warming link when they have literally zero to support such notion.
You may want to add a comment to that linked story/comment section when you read this.
You see, OSU conducted a 5 year/$9 million NAS study (below) on Oregon’s dead zones.
Lubchenco’s and Jack Barth’s research said in 2006 after the 5 year study completed with a prior $9 million.
(An important thing to remember is they are new to this research and have no historical record to make any claims that this is a new phenomenon).
OSU has apparently dismissed their own research as they echo global warming suggestions.
That research “Team” identified the “jet stream”,
a “volcanic seamount covering the entire dead zone” and
“the team found that sub-Arctic waters flowing into Oregon” to be possible causes of the seasonal dead zones.
NO GLOBAL WARMING
Yet global warming overwhelms the truth.
The story with the truth
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Oxygen-starved+sea+yields+clues+for+study-a0149622937
The study, funded by a $9 million grant from the National Science Foundation, found variations in the jet stream may be involved.
About once a month, the high winds in the atmosphere that make up the jet stream often wobble the research team found, changing the pattern of winds and the ocean’s response to them.
“The central Oregon Coast is affected by weather systems tracking along the jet stream,” OSU oceanographer Jack Barth said. “When it moves to the north, we tend to get good upwelling. When it moves to the south, the upwelling goes bad.”
The researchers sampled atmospheric conditions by plane and their effect on the ocean by boat.
“That link wasn’t clear before, because we didn’t have the simultaneous sampling,” said Pat Wheeler, an OSU oceanographer and principal investigator on the study.
In 2005, Barth said, the jet stream moved south, causing a delay in upwelling and problems for ocean species counting on the nutrients it brings to the water. Upwelling later rebounded dramatically, which led to this year’s dead zone.
Another finding in the study involves the Heceta Bank, an underwater seamount (Large submarine volcanic mountain rising at least 3,000 ft (1,000 m) above the surrounding seafloor) about 10 miles wide that stretches from Florence to Newport on the coast – the same area where dead zones have been discovered in the past five years.
The bank deflects north-south currents, scientists said, creating a still area in the ocean that incubates plankton. Shifts in the winds can either lead to severe upwelling or a lack thereof.
Finally, the team found that sub-Arctic waters flowing into Oregon bring cold, nutrient-rich water from the north, which could explain some of the overloading of plankton that’s happened in recent years. In 2002, for example, several storms in the Gulf of Alaska brought sub-Arctic water into Oregon’s system, and a rush of nutrients along with it.
vukcevic (05:08:38) :
rbateman (03:58:46) :
tallbloke (03:28:02) :
Excellent thought process. Cold water sinks, warm water rises. The troubling questions are:
1.) How long before the warm water is exhausted and
2.) How far will climate then plummet when the warmth is spent?
There is another component to it, particularly important for Artic Ocean. Hot waters of Gulf stream evaporates, increasing salinity, becomes heavy, sinks down; fresh waters of arctic rivers and ice melting are lighter and float on the top.
http://www.whoi.edu/cms/images/oceanus/2005/12/halocline_18008.jpg
Vuk, quite right. I commented on this in the
Temperature correlated to the AMO as much as 4°C – potential for sea ice effect
thread.
The thing is though, some oceanologists argue the rise in salinity isn’t enough to overcome the density differential due to temperature, while others do. I think it may depend on the locale. Long and short of it is, the mechanism by which heat is vertically transported up and down inside the ocean is poorly understood in the large.
I know others have already referenced this BBC article and it is also on Drudge. Nevertheless, in my opinion, it is of extreme importance. It is very unusual for a mainstream media source such as the BBC to raise any doubts whatsoever about AGW.
Therefore I suggest this article be posted as a discussion topic perhaps with a headline such as; “Is Main Stream Media Warming Up to Global Cooling?”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm
A minor question:
In the recent McKitrick article, http://www.financialpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=2056988&p=1, he states that the reason Mann revealed his full data was because of the rules of publication in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. Yet on the wikipedia article titled Hockey_stick_controversy, it states that the reason was because of a congressional investigation and the questions of Rep. Joe Barton.
Which is accurate?
Both. The former for the 2008 Hockey stick and the latter for the initial 2002 version.
Roger Sowell (08:44:09) Apparently, the warming is very shrewd and only appears where there are no thermometers, and we have to extrapolate data to find it. Very clever indeed, ….. 8^]
Taking a purely layman’s second look at AMSR-E sea ice chart a few days ago it occurred to me that the 2007 low was so far out of line with what had been happening over the previous years that that in itself argued against the contention that global warming was to blame.
Even allowing for the various scare stories and assuming that the basic science is correct a sudden leap like that should surely have been put down to freak weather rather than anything else and the 2008 and 2009 results would seem to confirm that since recovery from an extreme event (especially one involving something as fragile as ice) is always going to be slower than the original event itself.
Anyone think I’m reading this situation wrong?
Enjoy your time off
gtrip (05:45:22) :
I was thinking more along the lines of “Supper’s Ready” and “Cinema Show”, which are definitely not not black influenced.
Ah, now you’re talking. Mind you, Genesis went a bit soft after Peter Gabriel left. The Floyd took up the tiller of prog rock after that.
Grasping at straws. Believe me, there will be lots of regrets if the wealthy elite get their way to tax the worlds fossil fuels.
“No regrets” Policies in an Age of Climate Uncertainty
http://www.news-record.com/blog/52580/entry/72254
The cold coming out of Canada is brutal, at least by mid-October standards. Normally, air masses this extreme don’t start to appear until November….Canadian Prairies, the northern Great Plains, and the northern Rockies. In this broad area, temperatures will run 30 to as much as 40 degrees below normal this weekend, and many low temperature records will fall.
http://www.accuweather.com/news-story.asp?partner=accuweather&traveler=0&article=4
Ok…now this is getting serious…
Uncommon Cold
“The cold temperature in Denver has forced the postponement of Game 3 of the NLDS between the Phillies and Rockies.
A cold front moved into Denver overnight, dropping temperatures into the teens with record lows for the date. Coors Field was covered with a thin layer of snow and ice Saturday morning and flurries were expected to continue through the night. “ (emphasis added)
source: ESPN online at http://sports-ak.espn.go.com/mlb/index
Children have a 100% chance of facing dire consequence of runaway government spending and Federal Reserve irresponsibility. Children have a .001% chance of dire consequences due to man-made global warming.
tallbloke (09:41:55) :
The Floyd…
What exactly was it that happened between David Gilmour and Roger Waters?
Roger Sowell (10:09:03) :
Early snow and cold forecast for the northern central USA :
If the snow sticks, it would be the earliest recorded measurable snowfall in Chicago
http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local-beat/No-Kidding-Snow-on-Sunday–63751227.html
…temperatures will fail to climb above freezing this weekend, which is almost unheard of so early in the season.
http://www.accuweather.com/news-story.asp?partner=accuweather&traveler=0&article=3
When science nerds (geeks) attack, look out. Our protesting skills are precise.
More playoff cancellation news with picture.
I’ll try to find video.
http://www.9news.com/news/article.aspx?storyid=124819&catid=339
Roger Sowell (10:09:03) : Uncommon cold.
The new “green” power technologies will have to develope solar panels and windmills able to work under snow 🙂
AlanG says:
Correct.
Nope. That is not how a logarithmic function works [like T = A log(C/C_0) where C is the final concentration, C_0 is the initial concentration, T is the temperature, and A is a constant]. How it works is that the rise from 280ppm to 380ppm was an increase of 36%. So, it then takes another 36% increase from 380ppm, which is another ~136 ppm to cause the next 0.6 C temperature rise. And, then another ~188 ppm to cause the next 0.6 C temperature rise after that.
However, there are more fundamental problems with this argument: One is that it ignores the fact that, because the oceans have such a large thermal inertia, the earth is still out of radiative balance and there is warming “in the pipeline” that would occur even if CO2 levels were held constant. Another problem is that it neglects the cooling effects of the aerosols that we have emitted (and, admittedly, also the warming effects of some of the other greenhouse gases like CH4 and nitrous oxide). At the end of the day, it turns out that, because of these uncertainties (particularly the uncertainty in the aerosol forcing), the 20th century temperature record does not provide a very good constraint on the climate sensitivity. Better constraints are provided by combining it with other empirical data such as the climate response to the Mt Pinatubo eruption and the climate change from the last glacial maximum to now.
[quote]
When will CO2 reach another 200ppm? Not in your lifetime. Another 400 ppm after that looks impossible because there isn’t enough coal, oil and gas in the world to do that.[/quote]
Not sure where you are getting this information from, but in fact this paper in the peer-reviewed literature says that there are enough conventional reserves to get the CO2 levels up to 1200ppm and enough conventional + exotic reserves (like tar sands) to get it up to 4000ppm.
I believe CO2 levels are currently increasing about 2ppm / yr. However, that rate has been increasing over time as our emissions have increased. Note that even an increase of only 2% per year in emissions means that they would double in ~35 years.
Yes, the arctic region is warming faster than the rest of the world. However, it is also true that the warming is expected to be greater on the continents (especially the continental interiors) than the oceans…and since the world is 70% oceans, that means the warming on continents can be significantly larger.
And, of course, it is the melting of ice sheets on Greenland and West Antarctica that are expected to contribute the most to sea level rise beyond that just due to the thermal expansion of the ocean water itself.
So then, have the ‘smart guys’ agreed on the ‘date’ of the solar minimum yet?
Or are they moving the goalposts?
P.S. sunspot count: ZERO.
Sorry, I left out the link to the article about how much reserves of fossil fuels there are: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sci;302/5652/1923
gtrip (01:41:30) “The Left is moving forward with the belief that the science is settled.”
No. This issue does not divide along left-right lines.
Pedro X (04:21:52) “If the main stream media starts to cover the skeptics fairly it will cause problems for the AGW alarmists beofore Copenhagen.”
What do you mean “if”? The wave is underway.
DENVER (CBS4) ―
Denver shattered a 100 year old record low after dropping to 17 degrees Saturday morning. The old record was 25 degrees dating back to 1905.
http://cbs4denver.com/local/weather.denver.colorado.2.742188.html
Don’t get your hopes up about the BBC. They’ll jump back on the global warming bandwagon quicker than it takes you to blink twice. Jo Abbess is probably writing threats to them right now too, so perhaps 1.5 blinks is all it takes.
What is your reference for this questionable story? There is no such person “Paar Svinborg” on the Nobel committee (“Paar” isn’t a name at all and “Svinborg” translates into “Pork Borg”).
These are the real committee members
http://nobelpeaceprize.org/en_GB/nomination_committee/members/
The Chairman is Thorbjørn Jagland, admittedly not the “sharpest knife in the drawer” as we say here.
Make no mistake about it, I think this years peace price is a big mistake by the committe (as was the one awarded to Al Gore), but any criticism should be fact based.
I welcomed Obamas election last year, but the Nobel Peace price could have waited at least another 3 years, assuming he had actually done something for peace by then.