remains to be seen exactly how much mankind understands the science
of climatology. While global climate models continue to be produced,
disproved, corrected, and debated in the administration, there is
still some solid research being done. And that research keeps showing
that there's a possibility that climate science is missing large
tracts of data it needs.Recently DailyTech reported
on research concerning the Bering
Strait and how this comparatively small geological formation
might be responsible or at the least involved in the regulation of
the North American temperature via ocean currents. Oceans have been
understood to partially control temperatures and overall climate for
years, but marine science has only recently been getting any media
time with all the political hubbub over the global climate change
debates.A multi-institutional research team, led by Fiamma
Straneo, a Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution physical
oceanographer, has been studying
ice loss in Greenland, particularly in the Sermilik Fjord, which
connects the Irminger Sea to the Helheim glacier. The last decade has
seen accelerated ice loss in Greenland -- the Helheim glacier has
already retreated by several kilometers.Unfortunately, the
area has not been monitored regularly for long enough to perfectly
reconstruct the ice melts before the recent accelerated melt, but a
combination of ship and moored survey data, combined with temperature
and depth data taken from the radio collars of hooded seals in the
area have allowed them to piece together just how quickly things can
change.They found that changes in the North Atlantic ocean
currents have been bringing much warmer, subtropical water further
and further north. Water as warm as four degrees celsius was found
during the time data. That warm water combined with swift current
propagation has enabled the massive uptake in Greenland's glacial
ice. The warmer water quickly moves through the fjords, taking away
with it the melted ice and keeping the temperatures relatively
warm.Straneo explains, "This is the first extensive
survey of one of these fjords that shows us how these warm waters
circulate and how vigorous the circulation is. Changes in the
large-scale ocean circulation of the North Atlantic are propagating
to the glaciers very quickly — not in a matter of years, but a
matter of months. It's a very rapid communication."She
goes on to stress how little is known about ocean-glacier
interactions and that continuous observation will be extremely
important in coming to a full picture of how they affect each other
and sea-level regulation. It is also likely that understanding how
these entities cooperate will help understand how the ocean currents
and sea ice as a whole may affect regional and global climates. A
rapid influx of cool, fresh water could serve to disrupt the global
ocean current system, known as the Ocean Conveyor even as the area
appears to be warming.
quote: It shows the scientists involved are willing to discard the scientific method in favor of advancing their political beliefs. Why should we believe their conclusions, when they admit they'll falsify data to convince us?
quote: And now that even people like Phil Jones, previously one of the loudest prophets of AGW doom in the world, are admitting that the world stopped warming 15 years ago
quote: Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming....
quote: "He never admitted anything like that" Oh really? quote: Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon. And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Cl...
quote: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming? Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.
quote: So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.
quote: Q: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warmingYes, but only just.
quote: Q: Do you agree that from January 2002 to the present there has been statistically significant global cooling?No. This period is even shorter than 1995-2009. The trend this time is negative (-0.12C per decade), but this trend is not statistically significant
quote: Q: When scientists say "the debate on climate change is over", what exactly do they mean - and what don't they mean?I don't believe the vast majority of climate scientists think this. This is not my view. There is still much that needs to be undertaken to reduce uncertainties
quote: Q: Where do you draw the line on the handling of data? What is at odds with acceptable scientific practice? Do you accept that you crossed the line?This is a matter for the independent review.
quote: quote: Q: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming Yes, but only just. Porkpie: Clearly an admission the world has stopped warming . He follows with some weaseling about it being "barely statistically significant", but the fact remains it IS significant, and he admits as much. I'm sorry, but there is no room for debate on this. None. Zip. Zilch. Zero.
quote: The trend from 2001 is NEGATIVE, not positive.
quote: From 1995, the trend is so weakly positive as to be statistically meaningless.
quote: The phrase "there has been no statistically significant warming of the planet in 15 years" is accurate. Period.
quote: You also conveniently ignore the fact that GW modelers predicted strong and rapid warming from 2000-2010. Instead, the only data we have shows a negative trendline. Care to explain that one away?