NASA Sees Arctic Ocean Circulation Do an About-Face
 

wrote in message
...


I think you'd be well advised to learn to comprehend what you've read.
Where is it in that article that says that without a doubt man made
CO2 isn't causing the ice caps to melt? What proof do they provide to
back that claim?

"During its strong counterclockwise phase in the 1990s, the Arctic
environment changed markedly, with the upper Arctic Ocean undergoing major
changes that persisted into this century. Many scientists viewed the changes
as evidence of an ongoing climate shift, raising concerns about the effects
of global warming on the Arctic."

I think it's safe to say that the "consensus" of these scientists that
viewed the changes in the Arctic as evidence of an ongoing climate shift
were focused on man-made CO2 as the culprit.

I wonder if the climate models will be adjusted to include this new data?

NASA Sees Arctic Ocean Circulation Do an About-Face
 

wrote in message
...
On Nov 14, 5:59 pm, "BillP" wrote:
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?

Awe, childish name calling. That certainly helps prove your point,
huh? By the way, I never, ever said anywhere that you "said" anything.
Notice the word SUPPOSE???

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

Lower than it is now.


And why is that?
Hasn't it been much, much hotter before?

NASA Sees Arctic Ocean Circulation Do an About-Face
 

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.