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"

On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 15:25:58 GMT, BillP penned the following well
considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

|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 this *proves* what?

--

Grady-White Gulfstream, out of Oak Island, NC.

Homepage
http://pamandgene.idleplay.net/

Rec.boats at Lee Yeaton's Bayguide
http://www.thebayguide.com/rec.boats
-----------------
www.Newsgroup-Binaries.com - *Completion*Retention*Speed*
Access your favorite newsgroups from home or on the road
-----------------

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.

Other lines pulled out of context from the same article:

"The results suggest that not all the large changes seen in Arctic
climate in recent years are a result of long term trends associated
with global warming" (Obvious inference, some of the changes are).

"While some 1990's climate trends, such as declines in Arctic ice sea
extent have continued, the results suggest at lest for the "wet" [art
of the Arctic- the Arctic Ocean- circulation reverted toconditions
live those prevalent before the 1990's." (some of the climate trends,
including the reduction of Arctic ice, continue).

"The winter of 2006-2007 was a high Arctic Oscillation year and summer
sea ice extent reached a new minimum. It is too early to say, but it
looks as though the Arctic Ocean is ready to start swinging back to
the counterclockwise circulation pattern of the 1990's again."
(So, as of last winter, the phenomenon was at a "high" state, arctic
ice has reached a new minimum, and even though this winter isn't
really even started yet the individual quoted ways it 'looks as
though' conditions will reverse. Some scientist.)

"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)

"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

"Del Cecchi" wrote in message
...

"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


This guy is not only qualified to speak on the subject but is entertaining
as well ....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI

Eisboch

"Gene Kearns" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 15:25:58 GMT, BillP penned the following well
considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

|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 this *proves* what?


It proves at least one part of human induced GW theory is incorrect.

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.

"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?