Buoy Meets Gore
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY Posted Wednesday, March 26, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Global Warming: Computer models used by environmentalists predict imminent and disastrous climate change. But actual temperature measurements by high-tech equipment show something completely different.
Read More: Global Warming
An early scene in the sci-fi disaster flick "The Day After Tomorrow," showing what allegedly will happen to the planet if we continue to ignore Al Gore's warnings on global warming, shows three of the film's secondary characters at some kind of scientific station in Scotland. They're watching as automated data buoys in the Atlantic Ocean report sudden drops in water temperature resulting from melting Arctic ice stopping the Gulf Stream, which warms the Northern Hemisphere.
"I don't understand what's supposed to be going on," says one of the three, an oceanographer.
Apparently neither do the film's creators, Gore or any of his climate-change cultists. For actual measurements of actual oceans by actual instruments have thrown cold water on the theory that such a scenario could ever occur or is in fact occurring now.
As Lorne Gunter reported Monday in Canada's National Post, the first of 3,000 new automated ocean buoys were deployed in 2003. They amounted to a significant improvement over earlier buoys that took their measurements mostly at the ocean's surface.
The new buoys, known as Argos, drift along the oceans at a depth of about 6,000 feet constantly monitoring the temperature, salinity and speed of ocean currents. Every 10 days or so a bladder inflates, bringing to the surface readings taken at various depths. Once on the surface, they transmit their readings to satellites that retransmit them to land-based computers.
The Argos buoys have disappointed the global warm-mongers in that they have failed to detect any signs of imminent climate change. As Dr. Josh Willis, who works for NASA in its Jet Propulsion Laboratory, noted in an interview with National Public Radio, "there has been a very slight cooling" over the buoys' five years of observation, but that drop was "not anything really significant." Certainly not enough to shut down the Gulf Stream.
Climate-change promoters also are perplexed by the observations of NASA's eight weather satellites. In contrast to some 7,000 land-based stations, they take more than 300,000 temperature readings daily over the surface of the Earth. In 30 years of operation, the satellites have recorded a warming trend of just 0.14C — well within the range of normal variations.
In January 2007, folks at the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration trumpeted the "fact" that 2006 was the warmest year ever recorded in the continental U.S. This was based on daily readings gathered by NOAA's climate data center and the 1,221 or so weather observation stations it monitors around the country.
As we've reported, the locations of some of these land-based stations are suspect. One in Forest Grove, Ore., stands just 10 feet from an air-conditioning exhaust vent. Another in Roseburg, Ore., is on a rooftop near an air-conditioning unit. In Tahoe, Calif., one is near a drum where trash is burned.
If the Argos buoys and satellites had confirmed the greenie computer models and Gore hype instead of natural temperature variations, it would have been big news. The silence speaks volumes.

Terry (12:32:36) :
This cannot be. We’ve had runaway global warming since at least 1988 (when we were first warned about it) and are nearing the tipping point. Instead of your lying eyes, you need to trust the peer reviewed scientific literature. These are the gold standard (and only true measure) of truth, along with The Models.
Everything that has happened is exactly what They expected, and the models have foretold.
Also – Rahmstorf know statistics, Schmidt is not afraid to debate, and Hansen is not crazy.
As it is written, so shall it be done.

Sune et al/on soapboxMy present understanding and opinion is the satellite data is the new "open" data source for air temperature. I have not read any accounts of Dr. Spencer hiding his algorithms or data.It has coverage that you can't possibly get with a ground based network. Ground based stations with the long term accuracy, stability, and durability are very expensive - and will always be subjected to changes in the local environment. You are also dealing with thousands of ground based sensors to monitor and maintain versus a satellite (or a dozen) with one sensor to maintain which is used for land and ocean temps. Whatever error band the satellite has is consistent for all measurements - unlike the ground/sea based network.
There are - as extremely well documented on this site - issues with proxy based reconstructions of past temperature as well as the present ground/ocean network. While it is "fun" to consider what climate was like in the past thousand years, it appears to me that the reconstructions do not have the accuracy or resolution required for more than general statements. Trying to extract more precision out of them with statistical algorithms is something I do not believe is possible. If "smart" folks with Phd's can only get "reasonably" looking global temperature reconstructions by picking out a particular tree ring on a mountain range in the western USA and giving it several hundred times the weight of the other proxies in the reconstruction (and that is just plain silly IMHO), then I don't think it can be done. While Steve has never said it is not possible, he has pointed out the flaws in the reconstructions used by IPCC.
The present ground network was not designed for the the purpose of monitoring climate change. The stations do well what they were designed to do - monitor local weather conditions for (mostly) agricultural purposes - not climate. Again - trying to extract a small climate signal out of them by creating models to "correct" the readings is not consistent or reasonable with their purpose and design. I think it is wishful "thinking" to claim that a small climate signal can be extracted with precision. Too many variables - too little measurement precision. Again, Steve has never claimed it cannot be done, but he also has never claimed that it is possible, either.My opinion./off soapbox -->