On Nov 14, 8:34?am, "Del Cecchi"
wrote:
"Chuck Gould" wrote in message

ups.com...

snip

"The events of the 1990's may well offer a preview of how the Arctic
will respond over longer periods of time in a warming world". (looks
like the theme, "Global warming is a bs conspiracy dreamed up by
liberals" won't reallybe found anywhere in this article)

Of course not. Whether or not the authors believed global warming is
true or is not true, saying so in an article would be a "career limiting
move" at the least. It is dangerous to flout orthodoxy openly.

del

Nothing in this article directly addresses global warming as a general
phenomenon, although there are references to it existing in the
present and future projections of a possibly "warming world".

The scientist quoted has beach balls. "Last winter was pretty extreme,
but it now looks like the trend is turning around" Huh? What trend?
The last three weeks?

Oh well, it will be fun to hear what Rush does with this thing. I
wonder if he'll accuse the climatologists of relocating the
temperature probes "to the sunny side of brick buildings and closer to
the asphalt" in the arctic. :-)
Maybe not, because if you pull the *right* stuff out of context in
this item it supports the position that the climate isn't really
changing at all.

"Chuck Gould" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Nov 14, 7:25?am, "BillP" wrote:
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/loo...-20071113.html

"Our study confirms many changes seen in upper Arctic Ocean circulation
in
the 1990s were mostly decadal in nature, rather than trends caused by
global
warming"

People should, indeed, read the article in its entirety and not assume
that the two lines pulled out of context by BillP represent the
general theme. The study in question is primarily limited to the
circulation patterns and salinity of sea water.

I agree, you should read the whole article but the statement still stands on
it's own.

Before this study was published the GW movement blamed CO2 warming for the
reduction in the ice cap, now NASA is stating that "most" of the changes
seen in the upper Arctic Ocean were not cause by GW.

On Nov 14, 8:59?am, "BillP" wrote:
"Chuck Gould" wrote in message

ups.com...

On Nov 14, 7:25?am, "BillP" wrote:
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/loo...-20071113.html

"Our study confirms many changes seen in upper Arctic Ocean circulation
in
the 1990s were mostly decadal in nature, rather than trends caused by
global
warming"

People should, indeed, read the article in its entirety and not assume
that the two lines pulled out of context by BillP represent the
general theme. The study in question is primarily limited to the
circulation patterns and salinity of sea water.

I agree, you should read the whole article but the statement still stands on
it's own.

Before this study was published the GW movement blamed CO2 warming for the
reduction in the ice cap, now NASA is stating that "most" of the changes
seen in the upper Arctic Ocean were not cause by GW.

Not to pick nits, but from the concluding sentence of the lead
paragraph:
"The results suggest not all the large changes seen in Arctic climate
in recent years are a result of long term trends associated with
global warming."

How does one stretch from "not all of the large changes are associated
with global warming" to "most of the changes are not associated with
global warming"? Looks like an Olympic style broad jump, at least to
me.

"Chuck Gould" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Nov 14, 8:59?am, "BillP" wrote:

Not to pick nits, but from the concluding sentence of the lead
paragraph:
"The results suggest not all the large changes seen in Arctic climate
in recent years are a result of long term trends associated with
global warming."

How does one stretch from "not all of the large changes are associated
with global warming" to "most of the changes are not associated with
global warming"? Looks like an Olympic style broad jump, at least to
me.

Very simple- it is the writer of the article who states "The results suggest
not all the large changes seen in Arctic climate in recent years are a
result of long term trends associated with global warming.". The actual
scientist states "Our study confirms many changes seen in upper Arctic Ocean
circulation in the 1990s were mostly decadal in nature, rather than trends
caused by global warming".

On Nov 14, 9:20�am, "BillP" wrote:
"Chuck Gould" wrote in message

oups.com...

On Nov 14, 8:59?am, "BillP" wrote:
Not to pick nits, but from the concluding sentence of the lead
paragraph:
"The results suggest not all the large changes seen in Arctic climate
in recent years are a result of long term trends associated with
global warming."

How does one stretch from "not all of the large changes are associated
with global warming" to "most of the changes are not associated with
global warming"? �Looks like an Olympic style broad jump, at least to
me.

Very simple- it is the writer of the article who states "The results suggest
not all the large changes seen in Arctic climate in recent years are a
result of long term trends associated with global warming.". The actual
scientist states "Our study confirms many changes seen in upper Arctic Ocean
circulation in the 1990s were mostly decadal in nature, rather than trends
caused by global warming".

You are correct, but seawater circulation is only *one* of the many
changes in the arctic. The seawater circulation chagnes, specifically-
(rather than "most of the large changes") is not, in the opinion of
the scientist quoted, a result of global warming.

"BillP" wrote in message
news:3QF_i.13219$jH2.6882@trnddc01...

"Chuck Gould" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Nov 14, 7:25?am, "BillP" wrote:
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/loo...-20071113.html

"Our study confirms many changes seen in upper Arctic Ocean circulation
in
the 1990s were mostly decadal in nature, rather than trends caused by
global
warming"

People should, indeed, read the article in its entirety and not assume
that the two lines pulled out of context by BillP represent the
general theme. The study in question is primarily limited to the
circulation patterns and salinity of sea water.

I agree, you should read the whole article but the statement still stands
on it's own.

Before this study was published the GW movement blamed CO2 warming for the
reduction in the ice cap, now NASA is stating that "most" of the changes
seen in the upper Arctic Ocean were not cause by GW.



Pulling stuff out of your ass again BillP?

"Don White" wrote in message
...

"BillP" wrote in message
news:3QF_i.13219$jH2.6882@trnddc01...

"Chuck Gould" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Nov 14, 7:25?am, "BillP" wrote:
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/loo...-20071113.html

"Our study confirms many changes seen in upper Arctic Ocean circulation
in
the 1990s were mostly decadal in nature, rather than trends caused by
global
warming"

People should, indeed, read the article in its entirety and not assume
that the two lines pulled out of context by BillP represent the
general theme. The study in question is primarily limited to the
circulation patterns and salinity of sea water.

I agree, you should read the whole article but the statement still stands
on it's own.

Before this study was published the GW movement blamed CO2 warming for
the reduction in the ice cap, now NASA is stating that "most" of the
changes seen in the upper Arctic Ocean were not cause by GW.



Pulling stuff out of your ass again BillP?

Do you know of anyone in the GW movement that doesn't believe that CO2 isn't
the cause of the reduction in the ice cap?

"BillP" wrote in message
news:R9G_i.13221$jH2.5318@trnddc01...


Do you know of anyone in the GW movement that doesn't believe that CO2
isn't the cause of the reduction in the ice cap?



What they don't realize is that doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere
has virtually no effect on surface temperature. The first "layer" of CO2
had the most significant effect in earth's early history, raising the
temperature by about 6 degrees. Adding more CO2 now does nothing much ....
sorta like trying to insulate your house with 2 coats of paint.

Eisboch

On Nov 14, 10:25 am, "BillP" wrote:
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/loo...-20071113.html

"Our study confirms many changes seen in upper Arctic Ocean circulation in
the 1990s were mostly decadal in nature, rather than trends caused by global
warming"

And I suppose, in your brain, this is the decide all that there is no
global warming?

wrote in message
ps.com...
On Nov 14, 10:25 am, "BillP" wrote:
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/loo...-20071113.html

"Our study confirms many changes seen in upper Arctic Ocean circulation
in
the 1990s were mostly decadal in nature, rather than trends caused by
global
warming"

And I suppose, in your brain, this is the decide all that there is no
global warming?


Where did I say that, rocket surgeon?

By the way- what is the earths temperature supposed to be?