Ocean robots help to trace ocean warming to late 19th century

Apr 01, 2012
ocean

A new study contrasting ocean temperature readings of the 1870s with temperatures of the modern seas reveals an upward trend of global ocean warming spanning at least 100 years.

The research led by Scripps Institution of Oceanography at UC San Diego physical oceanographer Dean Roemmich shows a .33-degree Celsius (.59-degree Fahrenheit) average increase in the upper portions of the ocean to 700 meters (2,300 feet) depth. The increase was largest at the ocean surface, .59-degree Celsius (1.1-degree Fahrenheit), decreasing to .12-degree Celsius (.22-degree Fahrenheit) at 900 meters (2,950 feet) depth.

The report is the first global comparison of temperature between the historic voyage of HMS Challenger (1872-1876) and modern data obtained by ocean-probing robots now continuously reporting temperatures via the global Argo program. Scientists have previously determined that nearly 90 percent of the excess heat added to Earth's climate system since the 1960s has been stored in the oceans. The new study, published in the April 1 advance online edition of Nature Climate Change and coauthored by John Gould of the United Kingdom-based National Oceanography Centre and John Gilson of Scripps Oceanography, pushes the ocean back much earlier.

"The significance of the study is not only that we see a temperature difference that indicates warming on a global scale, but that the magnitude of the temperature change since the 1870s is twice that observed over the past 50 years," said Roemmich, co-chairman of the International Argo Steering Team. "This implies that the time scale for the warming of the ocean is not just the last 50 years but at least the last 100 years."

Although the Challenger data set covers only some 300 temperature soundings (measurements from the sea surface down to the deep ocean) around the world, the information sets a baseline for temperature change in the world's oceans, which are now sampled continuously through Argo's unprecedented global coverage. Nearly 3,500 free-drifting profiling Argo floats each collect a temperature profile every 10 days.

Roemmich believes the new findings, a piece of a larger puzzle of understanding the earth's climate, help scientists to understand the longer record of sea-level rise, because the expansion of seawater due to warming is a significant contributor to rising sea level. Moreover, the 100-year timescale of ocean warming implies that the Earth's as a whole has been gaining heat for at least that long.

Explore further: Hurricane Marie weakens off Mexico

Related Stories

Scientists say global warming is continuing

Jul 29, 2010

(AP) -- Scientists from around the world are providing even more evidence of global warming, one day after President Barack Obama renewed his call for climate legislation.

June Earth's hottest ever: US monitors

Jul 15, 2010

Last month was the hottest June ever recorded on Earth, the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said Thursday, amid global climate warming worries.

Recommended for you

Hurricane churns towards Bermuda, to impact US

15 hours ago

A strengthening Hurricane Cristobal had Bermuda in its sights Tuesday, US meteorologists said, warning of heavy rain, high winds and life-threatening rip currents in Florida and beyond.

TRMM and Aqua satellites gaze into Hurricane Cristobal

16 hours ago

NASA's TRMM and Aqua satellites have been providing views of the outside and inside of Hurricane Cristobal as it heads for Bermuda. The National Hurricane Center posted a Tropical Storm Watch for Bermuda ...

Satellite shows Hurricane Marie about to swallow Karina

16 hours ago

Massive Hurricane Marie appears like a giant fish about to swallow tiny Tropical Depression Karina on satellite imagery today from NOAA's GOES-West satellite. Karina, now a tropical depression is being swept ...

NASA sees huge Hurricane Marie slam Socorro Island

16 hours ago

NASA's Terra satellite passed over Hurricane Marie when its eye was just to the west of Socorro Island in the Eastern Pacific. Marie's eye may have been near the island, but the storm extended several hundreds ...

Hurricane Marie weakens off Mexico

17 hours ago

Hurricane Marie, which briefly reached the highest possible category five destructive power, is still potent but weakening in the Pacific off Mexico, weather officials said Tuesday.

User comments : 85

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Vendicar_Decarian
1.1 / 5 (50) Apr 01, 2012
And yet another nail in the Denialist coffin.

Now the oceanographers must be part of the conspiracy of science against their sick Conservative ideology.
entropyrules
2.5 / 5 (13) Apr 01, 2012
"And yet another nail in the Denialist coffin"

Sure Vendicar, unbelievable that people think the high intensity radiation of the sun penetrating up to 100 meters can heat up the ocean. The short wave IR that gets stuck in the top micrometers evaporation layer can do the job far better.
ECOnservative
2.5 / 5 (19) Apr 01, 2012
So the ocean was warming even before the wide use of petrochemical fuels? What could have caused that? Far from another 'nail in the deniers coffin', this points to other factors in the warming trend.
bg1
3.8 / 5 (11) Apr 01, 2012
So the ocean was warming even before the wide use of petrochemical fuels? What could have caused that? Far from another 'nail in the deniers coffin', this points to other factors in the warming trend.


Coal burning and forest clearing.
Howhot
2.9 / 5 (16) Apr 01, 2012
More and more the deniers have weaker and weaker arguments to fall back on. I think its high time the global warming deniers give up the unfruitful debate and start working to figure out how to get us out of this emergency!
pubwvj
2.6 / 5 (15) Apr 01, 2012
Alarming-ist.

A factoid they're ignoring is that in the 1870's we were coming out of a mini-ice age. Fortunately the Earth warmed. Otherwise we would all now be contending with glaciers. Given my druthers I will take global warming, any day, over global cooling. Ice ages are a disaster. They create enormous die offs. You want extinctions? Loss of bio-diversity? Have an ice age. You want diversity? Enjoy the global warming. All the periods of increased species diversity have been during the warming periods.

The problem is that modern humans have gotten used to things the whey they were at a particular recent time. They forget that during past centuries we had warmings and coolings. The reality is change. Change is normal. There is no need to deny change - it is. Embrace it.
NotParker
1.7 / 5 (18) Apr 01, 2012
And yet another nail in the Denialist coffin.


None of us deny that the 1800s were the coldest period in 10,000 years.

The Little Ice Age was horribly cold.

Or that luckily (and naturally) it warmed a small amount.

Strangely, after 1872 it kept getting colder

http://www.cru.ue...t2gl.txt

1910 Oceans were .34C COLDER than 1872.
NotParker
1.9 / 5 (18) Apr 01, 2012
You would think real scientists would mention the ocean getting colder for 40 years.

Why would they withhold that information?
NotParker
1.8 / 5 (16) Apr 01, 2012
1872 - Sea Temperature -0.281
1955 - Sea Temperature -0.307

Wow. CO2 is a mysterious gas ....
jimsecor
2.7 / 5 (12) Apr 01, 2012
So? It proves nothing because it is out of context: What where the temperatures BEFORE 1870? Answer: mini-ice age. And before that? Oh, my, god! Climate warming in the middle ages--one of the places to find a written record is the Saxon Chronicles. YES. there is global warming. NO. it is not solely due to Gore's idea of humanocentrism. All real scientists publish findings in peer reviewed journals, which Global Warming Armageddonists do not read. That's a whole lot of fine science to disregard in jumping on your bandwagon. It's kind of silly that this half-baked idea is published here!
StarGazer2011
2.2 / 5 (13) Apr 01, 2012
And yet another nail in the Denialist coffin.


None of us deny that the 1800s were the coldest period in 10,000 years.

The Little Ice Age was horribly cold.

Or that luckily (and naturally) it warmed a small amount.

Strangely, after 1872 it kept getting colder

http://www.cru.ue...t2gl.txt

1910 Oceans were .34C COLDER than 1872.


gee NotParker, you dont get it. This is 'post normalism' not 'science', data need not apply if it contradicts the central grant generating hypothesis.
NotParker
2.1 / 5 (20) Apr 01, 2012
I'd like to thank VD and the rest of his STD's for giving me another chance to point out how much warming occurred in the 20s-40s (which he denies rabidly).

HADSST2 ocean temepratures

1910 -0.615
1941 0.136

Notice - Sea temperatures rose .751C from 1910 to 1941

1955 -0.307

Then they dropped .443C in just 14 years.

1969 0.055

Then up again

1975 -0.206

Then down again.

And as of Jan 2012, Sea temperatures are a miniscule .065C warmer than 1941.

Howhot
3.2 / 5 (13) Apr 01, 2012
The facts are all documented in the United Nations reports on Climate Change. The numbers are getting Louder and Bigger with each new collection of Hard FACTs. Facts that you deniers are ignoring. You can make all of the Luntic whining rants you want but that doesn't change the facts.

In this case they have measured an INCREDIBLE RISE in GLOBAL ocean temperatures that would make your mothers hair turn white with fear. It's hard to raise the global ocean temperature that much. There is only on solution, a global effort by mankind to completely stop using fossil fuels. Everything will need to be made carbon neutral or carbon absorbing and then maybe we can keep this world alive and prospering.

You deniers are on the morally wrong end of this debate.
NotParker
2.1 / 5 (19) Apr 01, 2012
In this case they have measured an INCREDIBLE RISE in GLOBAL ocean temperatures


Actually, the biggest rise in the last 150 years was 1910 to 1941.

Since 1941 temps went down and up and down and up and now sit a teensy, tiny .065C warmer.
djr
4.1 / 5 (13) Apr 01, 2012
NotParker et al - I have a serious question. Every time there is an article that references global warming - you and others immediately jump on it - claim that you know better than the researchers who are doing this stuff as there full time work - and magically produce data that contradicts the study. When I do some quick checking on the net - I generally quickly find data that contradicts your data. So - for example - here is what jumped out when I did a quick search on ocean temp data - ftp://ftp.ncdc.no...mean.dat As u see - this totally contradicts your data set - and shows a pretty consistent warming trend - with a big jump in the last 30 yrs. Do you search until you find data that supports your view point - knowing that there is other contradictory data out there? It seems clear to me that you have an ax to grind - and will never miss an opportunity to muddy the waters - why? - could you help me with this one? Thx.
NotParker
1.8 / 5 (16) Apr 01, 2012
I generally quickly find data that contradicts your data.


Your data says:

1910 -0.4430
1944 0.2270

Thats a .67 rise. Considering how imperfect measure SST is, it matches my data really well.

1944 0.2270
2011 0.3969

Only .1699 in next 67 years

Thanks for confirming my data STD!

Remember, all the pre-1950 warming was natural. And 90% or more of the 20th century warming occurred before 1945.

CO2 warming is a con game. Natural warming is what happened.
Vendicar_Decarian
1 / 5 (46) Apr 01, 2012
It is funny to see Conservatives frothing at the mouth with such abandon.

"So the ocean was warming even before the wide use of petrochemical fuels?" - ECNservative

The observed warming is reported since 1870. In other words the warming occurred afterward.

Industrialization and the consumption of large quantities of coal started in the early to mid 1800's.

Anthropogenic warming attribution doesn't distinguish itself from other factors until the mid 1900's.

Climate Science 1956: A Blast from the Past

http://www.youtub...pp_video
Vendicar_Decarian
1 / 5 (46) Apr 01, 2012
Another Lie from ParkerTard...

"You would think real scientists would mention the ocean getting colder for 40 years." - ParkerTard

http://www.global...Temp.jpg

Once again, the data (above) shows that ParkerTard is a congenital liar.

One wonders why he continues to lie, knowing full well that he will be exposed.
Vendicar_Decarian
1 / 5 (44) Apr 01, 2012
"HADSST2 ocean temepratures" - ParkerTard

Graphed for convenience.

http://rhinohide....2009.png

I don't see the 40 year decline in ocean temperatures that ParkerTard lies about.
Vendicar_Decarian
1 / 5 (46) Apr 01, 2012
The little ice age was about 0.6'C cooler than average - globally.

"The Little Ice Age was horribly cold." - ParkerTard

Currently temperatures are 0.74'C warmer than average - globally.

I suppose this means that ParkerTard must believe that current temperatures are horribly hot.

Well, Tard Boy?

Vendicar_Decarian
1 / 5 (45) Apr 01, 2012
It occurs to me that that high intensity radiation hasn't changed much over the decades, before or after.

Why hasn't this occurred to you?

"Sure Vendicar, unbelievable that people think the high intensity radiation of the sun penetrating up to 100 meters can heat up the ocean" - Entropy

Perhaps you have an objectivist reason for ignoring reality.
NotParker
2.1 / 5 (18) Apr 01, 2012
I don't see the 40 year decline in ocean temperatures that ParkerTard lies about.


Right here. For the sane. I've given up hope VD can see any facts.

http://www.woodfo...75/trend

NotParker
2.1 / 5 (18) Apr 01, 2012

Currently temperatures are 0.74'C warmer than average -


.065C warmer than the 1940s.

All the warming took place from 1910 to the 1940s. As shown by the CRU data I references and the NOAA data referenced by your STD.

djr
3.8 / 5 (11) Apr 01, 2012
You are right Vendi - a liar - and a manipulator. Look at how you take an outlier year 1944 - and use that to make your point. If you move up just 2 years to 1946 - you then have more than .4. And if you stop at 2010 - you have more than .5. So thanks for answering my question (not) - and one more question for the group - can any one look at either of these 2 data sets - and conclude that 90% of the warming occurred before 1945? I guess you answer my question for me Parker - you are just out to manipulate the dialogue to promote your political agenda - no interest in the true facts or science.
NotParker
1.9 / 5 (17) Apr 01, 2012
Look at how you take an outlier year 1944


The peak year of 34 degrees of warming is not an outlier.

It is the peak year. Warming and cooling go in cycles. The peak, they bottom out, then change direction.

Noticing cycles is what happens when you look at the data realistically.

You, and the other STD's have no sense of perspective.

And on top of that you pass on VD's lies as if they are truth.

http://www.woodfo...42/trend

And dir, thanks for the NOAA data that confirms my data is true.

There was a huge amount of warming 1910 to 1942/44.
NotParker
1.9 / 5 (17) Apr 01, 2012
Currently temperatures are 0.74'C warmer than average - globally.


2012 - 0.218

1944 - 0.121

A miniscule .097C more than the peak year of the last spate of natural global warming.

I admit it cooled after 1944. But why does the post 1944 cooling never get blamed on CO2.

http://www.cru.ue...t3gl.txt
Vendicar_Decarian
0.9 / 5 (44) Apr 02, 2012
You have to wonder why ParkerTard spends so much time lying, when he knows that his lies will just be exposed.

He doesn't seem to care that he is being caught lying at all.

Clearly he is suffering from a Mental Disorder and should seek psychiatric help.

Howhot
3.5 / 5 (11) Apr 02, 2012
NotParker = Junk propaganda. It's an obvious political agenda being posed by the "deniers". Here he tries to obfuscate some facts;
2012 - 0.218; 1944 - 0.121. Here is what SCIENTIST from Scripps Institution of Oceanography at UC San Diego found; 0.33-degree Celsius (0.59-degree Fahrenheit) average increase in the upper portions of the ocean to 700 meters (2,300 feet) depth GLOBALLY!

Now 0.33 does not equal 0.218 does it?


Spacy
2.2 / 5 (12) Apr 02, 2012
When will everyone face the fact that the earth is getting hotter, sea levels are rising. I figure that somewhere in the neighborhood of 1700 to 2000 years, Greece will be the first to go under. Then, the southern Midwest. The Bahamas and some Hawaiian Islands will be gone long before then. A sobering fact is that all we can do to SLOW down this climate change is to stop, stop burning fossil fuels Now. One jetliner in transit from New York to California burns more fuel that 100'000 cars in in 5 hours. Wind Power, Solar Panels and Natural Gas are the answer. That is if they can find a way to get to the Natural Gas without further polluting the earths atmosphere. Now gentleman, That is not going to happen! We are beyond the point of no return! The next four or five generations will be left with the task of slowing down this inevitable course of doom & gloom. Maybe, just maybe, we will be making a breathable atmosphere on Mars. Or better yet, we will have found another planet to exploit.
djr
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 02, 2012
The peak year of 34 degrees of warming is not an outlier.

Sample of the data
1942 0.1415
1943 0.1228
1944 0.2270
1945 0.1905
1946 -0.0502
1947 -0.0907
1948 -0.0999
1949 -0.0739
1950 -0.0896

Yes - arbitrarily picking 1944 is manipulating your data - it is an outlier - you are deliberately deceptive.
lindamb296
2 / 5 (4) Apr 02, 2012
Why do people have NO problem believing in the ice age and the extinction of entire species but DO have a problem with nature being replete with cyclic processes?
Birger
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 02, 2012
(Sigh)...and on a related issue: "Science under fire from 'merchants of doubt': US historian" http://www.physor...ian.html
djr
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 02, 2012
lind - are you saying that believing in the cyclic nature of climate (which I of course do - as I accept what the scientists who study the climate tell us) excludes the possibility that human activity is also affecting the climate?
Birger
5 / 5 (1) Apr 02, 2012
Why do people have NO problem believing in the ice age and the extinction of entire species but DO have a problem with nature being replete with cyclic processes?


Cyclic processes are not cumulative in the long run. Adding huge amounts of greenhouse gases creates a cumulative effect on time spans relevant for humans.
Unless you are willing to wait hundreds of thousands of years for geological cycles to remove the CO2 as those geological cycles are far slower than anything else affecting climate.
NotParker
1.9 / 5 (14) Apr 02, 2012
arbitrarily picking 1944


I didn't arbitrarily pick 1944. I chose to find the peak year of a cycle.

http://www.woodfo...42/trend

Warming of oceans from 1910 to 1942/44 totally dwarfs the minuscule change in ocean temperature since 1944.

Reputable scientists acknowledge that all 1950 warming was natural. Therefore the massive 1910 to 1944 warming was all natural.

Miniscule warming post-1944 may have a teensy, tiny human component. But it is trivial warming compared to 1910-1944.

NotParker
1.9 / 5 (14) Apr 02, 2012
Now 0.33 does not equal 0.218 does it?


As I've shown, the oceans did cool from 1872 to 1910.

Then they warmed until 1944.

And then they cooled again.

Then they got a teensy, tiny bit warmer than 1944.
NotParker
1.6 / 5 (13) Apr 02, 2012

Unless you are willing to wait hundreds of thousands of years for geological cycles to remove the CO2


CO2 only lasts around 5 years in the atmosphere.

Notice the huge monthly fluctuation with the seasons?

http://www.esrl.n.../trends/
rubberman
3.7 / 5 (9) Apr 02, 2012
Here is a graph showing your "teensy bit". The web page is directed at grade school kids so it should be right up your alley of comprehension....

http://epa.gov/cl...ems.html

BTW..year to year temperature graphs are never linear so saying they cooled a bit after they warmed a bit is also pretty grade school. The decadal trend, as with everything else since 1870 is steadily ascending......that means if it was one of those 3 point graphs you like so much, the line goes up.
rubberman
3.5 / 5 (8) Apr 02, 2012

Unless you are willing to wait hundreds of thousands of years for geological cycles to remove the CO2


CO2 only lasts around 5 years in the atmosphere.

Notice the huge monthly fluctuation with the seasons?

http://www.esrl.n.../trends/


Are you that stupid....really?
CO2 lasts considerably longer than 5 years in the atmosphere...with the amount of info. available regarding CO2 posting something that incorrect is so far beyond weak...
NotParker
1.4 / 5 (10) Apr 02, 2012
CO2 lasts considerably longer than 5 years in the atmosphere


Then an 8ppm seasonal drop would be impossible.

More likely it only lasts months.
NotParker
1.7 / 5 (12) Apr 02, 2012
CO2 lasts considerably longer than 5 years in the atmosphere


Then an 8ppm seasonal drop would be impossible.

More likely it only lasts months.


"In a paper recently published in the international peer-reviewed journal Energy & Fuels, Dr. Robert H. Essenhigh (2009), Professor of Energy Conversion at The Ohio State University, addresses the residence time (RT) of anthropogenic CO2 in the air. He finds that the RT for bulk atmospheric CO2, the molecule 12CO2, is ~5 years, in good agreement with other cited sources (Segalstad, 1998)"

http://www.co2sci...EDIT.php
rubberman
3.8 / 5 (10) Apr 02, 2012
CO2 lasts considerably longer than 5 years in the atmosphere


Then an 8ppm seasonal drop would be impossible.

More likely it only lasts months.


LMAO....OK NP, try to peice together what happens when seasons change from summer to winter and how it relates to Hemisperical CO2 uptake...think about it dude.
NotParker
1.7 / 5 (12) Apr 02, 2012
think about it dude.


I do. Papers say 5 years. Natural fluctuations say 5 years or less.

And a miniscule amount of warming stopped 15 years ago as CO2 rose.

CO2 is meaningless ... except plants like it.
rubberman
3.8 / 5 (9) Apr 02, 2012
Also Your link calculates the atmospheric lifespan CO2 as part of the entire climate system. As usual if you comprehend what you are reading, you would understand as they clearly state in your link that the reason for the 5 year estimate was based on how long CO2 is in the atmosphere before being absorbed by one of the uptake mechanisms, not how long it lasts if it is never absorbed. Colder water holds more CO2, warmer....less. We are currently 112PPM over ANY natural varibility that has occurred over the last 800,000 years. This is a combination of our CO2 input and our effect on the Earths ability to absorb it.
Honestly, you need to understand what the links you post are saying before you attempt to use them as ammunition in a debate. They are seldom helpful to your argument for many various reasons.
Lino235
2 / 5 (8) Apr 02, 2012
Vendicar:

The last time we met, you were telling the world the same story: the reason why temperatures went up starting way back in 1840 was because of coal consumption.

Here's a link:http://www.wou.ed...ves.htm.

Look at Fig. 2. Do you notice that significant amounts of coal consumption and petroleum use began in 1900--not in 1870, nor in 1840?

And please also notice that high levels of petroleum and coal use didn't occur until 1925.

So, once again, Vendicar: what caused warming prior to 1900?

Man-made emissions is an affront to the truth, so don't offend our reason by invoking it. But, then again, why should facts get in the way of a good liberal mind.
rubberman
3.7 / 5 (9) Apr 02, 2012
think about it dude.


I do. Papers say 5 years. Natural fluctuations say 5 years or less.

And a miniscule amount of warming stopped 15 years ago as CO2 rose.

CO2 is meaningless ... except plants like it.


OK so this time you actually say that CO2 is meaningless...
You must not be aware that there isn't a single scientist that would debate CO2 is a GHG regardless of his or her stance on AGW.
Seriously, seek help.
NotParker
1.5 / 5 (15) Apr 02, 2012
You must not be aware that there isn't a single scientist that would debate CO2 is a GHG regardless of his or her stance on AGW.


Recent evidence suggest a negative feedback, meaning CO2 causes cooling.
djr
5 / 5 (4) Apr 02, 2012
Recent evidence suggest a negative feedback, meaning CO2 causes cooling. Reference please!
rubberman
3.5 / 5 (8) Apr 02, 2012
If you are talking about CO2 making oceans colder and colder oceans being able to store more CO2...you are doing so in a string of comments regarding an article on rising ocean temperatures......just to remind you....

djr
4 / 5 (4) Apr 02, 2012
I didn't arbitrarily pick 1944. I chose to find the peak year of a cycle.
Here is the full graph of the data set you referenced. Where do you see any cycles in this graph? http://www.woodfo...trendYou just make words up. A cycle would imply a sine wave shape curve. Yes there is a discontinuity around 1945. Now pay attention - it gets complicated. If you select a year in which there is a discontinuity - to then make statements about how much warming occurred in a period immediately after that discontinuity - you are being stupid - and using words like cycle - shows you don't know how to read graphs.
NotParker
1.3 / 5 (14) Apr 02, 2012
Where do you see any cycles in this graph?


Massive warming 1910 to 1943/44.

Cooling and then flat trend 1945 - 1980

Small warming 1980 to 1998

Then cooling from 1998 to where temperatures are lower than 1944.

http://www.woodfo...77/trend
lindamb296
2.3 / 5 (6) Apr 02, 2012
dir - I'm not saying that at all. Of course humans are a contributing factor. BUT... we are not THE factor. Global warming would happen with or without us. The only difference would be how quickly.
I think we are doing more harm to each other and to the creatures of this great world than we are to the climate.

lind - are you saying that believing in the cyclic nature of climate (which I of course do - as I accept what the scientists who study the climate tell us) excludes the possibility that human activity is also affecting the climate?
NotParker
1.3 / 5 (13) Apr 02, 2012
Recent evidence suggest a negative feedback, meaning CO2 causes cooling. Reference please!


"CO2 has a negligible effect upon climate and that water vapor acts as a negative feedback to global warming."

http://hockeyscht...ate.html
rubberman
3.6 / 5 (9) Apr 02, 2012
Again with counter productive links......nice.
Every intense warming trend is followed by a considerably less intense cooling, which is again followed by a more intense warming....since this is the site of the ever useful 3 point graph...do yourself a favor and start at the beginning of the graph with the number one on a ruler and make the ruler touch the last point on the graph. Look closely at the angle of the ruler...get it?
Now, one of three things can happen if we extend this graph another 30 years, it can plateau, it can go down, or it can continue trending the way your ruler is pointing. I'll bet the farm on option 3.
rubberman
3.5 / 5 (11) Apr 02, 2012
Recent evidence suggest a negative feedback, meaning CO2 causes cooling. Reference please!


"CO2 has a negligible effect upon climate and that water vapor acts as a negative feedback to global warming."

http://hockeyscht...ate.html


These are temperature vs. water vapor readings from a city on the equator @ 3pm, if there is no water vapour or clouds then it had better be hotter....you are an imbecile. And your source is a part time business teacher at a community college....did you meet him when you were dropping off a pizza?
lindamb296
2 / 5 (4) Apr 02, 2012
Cyclic processes are not cumulative in the long run. Adding huge amounts of greenhouse gases creates a cumulative effect on time spans relevant for humans.
Unless you are willing to wait hundreds of thousands of years for geological cycles to remove the CO2 as those geological cycles are far slower than anything else affecting climate.

So you're saying that either space/time & Earth itself stopped and no greenhouse gases were created & accumulated spanning the hundreds of thousands of years between the end of the dinosaurs and the age of modern man today that would have been relevant enough today for geological cycles to remove the CO2, or, are you saying that it all happened during the age of the dinosaurs as relatively quickly as now due to a huge increase in extreme dinosaur farts? Does that mean that we should put a limit on the number of cows permitted due to the high risk of cow farts?
rubberman
3.6 / 5 (9) Apr 02, 2012
lindamb - let's stick with the last 800,000 years since our planet hasn't changed a whole lot geologically and there is alot of info. regarding glacials and interglacials during this time.
Although I don't usually use Wiki, this is a good graph which has been used by many sources. One of the other posters claimed that co2 isn't a GHG....odd that there would be an IR absorbtion measurement for something that isn't a GHG...

http://en.wikiped...aciation

Note during EVERY warm interglacial CO2 PPM never goes above 285PPM. If natural variability was driving this warming, we have intensly amplified it with our CO2 input as it is over 100PPM higher than any natural variability.
NotParker
1.3 / 5 (14) Apr 02, 2012
Note during EVERY warm interglacial CO2 PPM never goes above 285PPM.


CO2 rose 100ppm during the Eemian (the last interglacial). CO2 rose after temperature rose. CO2 fell as temperature fell and the Eemian ended as the Holocene will end.

During the Eemian, sea level at peak was probably 4 to 6m (13 to 20 feet) higher than today.
NotParker
1.3 / 5 (13) Apr 02, 2012
if there is no water vapour or clouds then it had better be hotter


"three peer reviewed papers (Lindzen and Choi, Spencer and Braswell, and now Richard P. Allan) based on observations that show a net negative feedback for clouds, and a strong one at that."

http://wattsupwit...-budget/
rubberman
3.8 / 5 (10) Apr 02, 2012
NP, you have stated some nifty facts in you're last 2 posts, the reflectivity of clouds isn't under debate (nor is the insulating effect that they have at night) and the fact that CO2 levels rose 100PPM during the Eemian interglacial (130,000 - 114,000 years ago, making it the second to last interglacial and the PPM was still below 285) only supports it's standing as a GHG. Do you even know what point you're trying to make?
rubberman
3.5 / 5 (8) Apr 02, 2012
Scratch that last question...it doesn't matter. Whether it's the beginning of the string regarding the oceanic temperature measurements or our last back and forth, it's blatantly clear you don't have a clue and are just grasping for anything that remotely supports whatever position you are attempting to claim as your own at that particular time. Your debate can only dream of being elevated to the status of a joke.
NotParker
1.6 / 5 (14) Apr 02, 2012
the fact that CO2 levels rose 100PPM during the Eemian interglacial (130,000 - 114,000 years ago, making it the second to last interglacial and the PPM was still below 285) only supports it's standing as a GHG. Do you even know what point you're trying to make?


CO2 rise FOLLOWED temperature. CO2 did not cause the rise.

As Oceans warm they can hold less CO2.

Warming cycles like the MWP and the small runup to 1998 and the big rise from 1910 to 1944 are natural.

Eemian:

http://www.ferdin...ian.html

The 100ppm rise in CO2 after temperature rose did nothing to prevent the Eemian from ending.

The recent CO2 rise of slightly over 100ppm will do nothing to prevent the Holocene from ending.
Howhot
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 02, 2012
100ppm is huge. I mean wow, tack on 100ppm of CO2 to the current 400ppm we have and now the earth will be in Unknown territory with respect to the heat trapping potential of the atmosphere.

CO2 levels don't track global temperatures, it's just the opposite. Global ocean temperatures are rising and that tends to increase the solubility for CO2.

NotParker
1.4 / 5 (11) Apr 02, 2012
100ppm is huge.


110ppm from 1750 to present. Within the margin of error the same as the Eemian.

However, during the Eemian, temperature rose 7 - 10C.

Current temperatures are about .1C to .2C above 1944.

CO2 seems impotent in the Holocene.
Howhot
3.4 / 5 (5) Apr 03, 2012
What do you mean "CO2 seems impotent in the Holocene."? Do you mean that the scientists are discarding the heat trapping potential of CO2 as if it was just background noise. Far from it. The science behind the heat trapping capability of CO2 is very well known now.

lindamb296
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 03, 2012
ok rubberman. "established by fitting in to" (I can "fit" numbers in to an equation to come up with the answer I want), "approximate and only representative of the changes observed" (to me this is the same as 'eyeballing' it, or 'guesstimating'. Everything I've looked up for a definitive answer or result ends with a disclaimer of one form or another), "temperature changes at [one site] frequently exceed the changes observed in [another] or in the global average". In other words, I don't think scientists know one way or another for certain. Even though the "skeptical" scientists are few, I think the die-hards are secretly not totally positive about all their data.

At any rate, what the hell can we do except try to improve from here on out.
NotParker
1.4 / 5 (13) Apr 03, 2012
What do you mean "CO2 seems impotent in the Holocene."?


CO2 did not cause the MWP or the LIA or the Roman Optimum or the Holocene Optimum or the pre-1945 warming as examples of CO2's impotence.
rubberman
3.5 / 5 (8) Apr 03, 2012
ok rubberman. "established by fitting in to" (I can "fit" numbers in to an equation to come up with the answer I want), "approximate and only representative of the changes observed" (to me this is the same as 'eyeballing' it, or 'guesstimating'. Everything I've looked up for a definitive answer or result ends with a disclaimer of one form or another), "temperature changes at [one site] frequently exceed the changes observed in [another] or in the global average". In other words, I don't think scientists know one way or another for certain. Even though the "skeptical" scientists are few, I think the die-hards are secretly not totally positive about all their data.

At any rate, what the hell can we do except try to improve from here on out.


I can live with that!
rubberman
3.5 / 5 (8) Apr 03, 2012

At any rate, what the hell can we do except try to improve from here on out.


I can live with that.
Howhot
5 / 5 (5) Apr 05, 2012
At notpark; "Your debate can only dream of being elevated to the status of a joke." I SECOND THAT!
kaasinees
2.1 / 5 (7) Apr 05, 2012
100ppm is huge. I mean wow, tack on 100ppm of CO2 to the current 400ppm we have and now the earth will be in Unknown territory with respect to the heat trapping potential of the atmosphere.

CO2 levels don't track global temperatures, it's just the opposite. Global ocean temperatures are rising and that tends to increase the solubility for CO2.


We should start making fuel and water from seawater.
Howhot
5 / 5 (4) Apr 06, 2012
Kaa-dude you make a really good point "We should start making fuel and water..." Yeah we need to. Not to be an alarmist, but modern civilization is very resource needy. Needy of fuel, resources, land, food, waters and environments. It doesn't leave room for much else unless your a deep ocean sea creature.

lindamb296
3 / 5 (4) Apr 06, 2012
OMG Howhot! Seriously?
Firstly, We ALL know the United Nations is the absolute source of impregnable scientific fact (sarcasm intended).

Secondly, "The FACTS". This could be purely objective or subjective depending on how biased an individual is, for example... you?

Thirdly, "Luntic whining rants". Insolence is unnecessary and shows only the ignorance of the speaker. Have you listened to yourself lately?

And lastly, "You deniers are on the morally wrong end of this debate." Who are you to decide what is moral and what is not when it comes to scientific "fact" as you so strongly declare global warming is? You used a poor choice of words in your supposition of scientifically FACTUAL discourse (contradiction of words supposition & factual intended).

The facts are all documented in the United Nations reports on Climate Change... of Hard FACTs... they have measured an INCREDIBLE RISE in GLOBAL ocean temperatures .

You deniers are on the morally wrong end of this debate.
NotParker
1.3 / 5 (12) Apr 06, 2012

CO2 did not cause the MWP or the LIA or the Roman Optimum or the Holocene Optimum or the pre-1945 warming as examples of CO2's impotence.


Even more importantly, CO2 is impotent when humidity is low,. Desert temperatures can drop by 30C or more at night in the absence of water vapor (the #1 GHG if you've forgotten) and Antarctica is dry.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.5 / 5 (38) Apr 06, 2012
Claptrap.

"Global warming would happen with or without us." - LindabTard

Average solar output is at a low in the instrumental era. Hence the earth should be cooling, but the exact opposite is happening.

Anthropogenic CO2 emissions are the reason why the slope in global temperature is upward.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.3 / 5 (36) Apr 06, 2012
Since water covers 2/3rds of the earth's surface, the average global temperature set by CO2 concentrations determines the water content of the atmosphere.

"Even more importantly, CO2 is impotent when humidity is low,. Desert temperatures can drop by 30C or more at night in the absence of water vapor." - Parker Tard

Richard Alley The Biggest Control Knob: Carbon Dioxide in Earths Climate History

http://thingsbrea...history/
Vendicar_Decarian
0.4 / 5 (37) Apr 06, 2012
Correct.

"Firstly, We ALL know the United Nations is the absolute source of impregnable scientific fact" - LinDabTard

Well.. Actually the U.N. has no "scientists", but often assembles and sometimes employs independent scientists to summarize existing science or analyze a problem from a scientific standpoint.

http://thingsbrea...history/

http://www.wmo.in..._en.html
Vendicar_Decarian
0.4 / 5 (37) Apr 06, 2012
"We find that global temperature lags a bit behind the CO2 [levels]," explains paleoclimatologist Jeremy Shakun, a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration fellow at Harvard and Columbia universities, who led the research charting ancient CO2 concentrations and global temperatures. "CO2 was the big driver of global warming at the end of the Ice Age."

http://www.scient...-ice-age

"CO2 rise FOLLOWED temperature. CO2 did not cause the rise." - Parker Tard lying through his teeth yet again.

Vendicar_Decarian
0.4 / 5 (37) Apr 06, 2012
CO2 solubility in water decreases with increased temperature.

"Global ocean temperatures are rising and that tends to increase the solubility for CO2. " - HowHot
Vendicar_Decarian
0.4 / 5 (37) Apr 06, 2012
Because those were transient, regional temperature variations while CO2 is mixed into the atmosphere on a global scale and persists in the atmosphere for hundreds of years.

"CO2 did not cause the MWP or the LIA or the Roman Optimum or the Holocene" - Parker Tard

Vendicar_Decarian
0.4 / 5 (37) Apr 06, 2012
You can?

Please fit a real number into x for the equation y = x**2 such that y = -42.

"I can "fit" numbers in to an equation to come up with the answer I want" - LindabTard

Obviously you haven't managed to get past grade 9 algebra.
NotParker
1.4 / 5 (10) Apr 06, 2012
Because those were transient


400 years is a long time. Even 1910 to 1944 was 16 years longer than the ultra short transient 1980 to 1998 miniscule warming.

And Jan 2012 was colder than Jan 1944.

And Antarctica has been cooling for 30 years. Which means the teensy tiny 1980 to 1998 warming wasn't global.
Lurker2358
3 / 5 (6) Apr 06, 2012
So the ocean was warming even before the wide use of petrochemical fuels? What could have caused that? Far from another 'nail in the deniers coffin', this points to other factors in the warming trend.


Quite wrong, friend.

You see, before modern technology, people used dirtier forms of carbon fuel, including burning wood and coal directly for cooking and heating of the home, plus all work and metallurgy.

The early decades of the Industrial Revolution was incredibly dirty both in terms of soot and CO2 pollution, because their processes and engines were far less efficient than ours.

The soot likely ended up in the Artic, where it probably altered Albedo and melted sea ice and glaciers.

Also, back then they didn't fight forest fires with aircraft, although you can be sure forest fires were happening about as often, seeing as how people actually would be using open fires a lot more per capita as compared to modern times.
Lurker2358
2.4 / 5 (5) Apr 06, 2012
In general, stuff like blacksmithing before the invention of truly modern, ultra-efficient foundries would have been very filthy compared to modern processes.

We probably under-estimate the amount of energy used in the 1750's through the 1850's because it's not easy to quantify the private use of wood or coal in this time period, and it varies widely by region.

Imagine doing all your cooking over a wood or coal stove, where most of the heat escapes straight out of the flue, and you can see how you'd probably actually use a lot more energy than we use today. And again, it's very dirty with soot and other pollutants going straight into the air.

Most ships and trains still used coal-fired boilers up until around the 1930's or 1940's, which again would have been very dirty and inefficient compared to modern U.S. coal technology, nevermind modern diesel and gasoline technology.
lindamb296
1 / 5 (1) Apr 07, 2012
Vendicar_Decarian
Please don't attribute something I wrote to someone else. I don't even know who LinDabTard is other than that is who you claim to have quoted "Firstly, We ALL know the United Nations..."

Also, please do not use what I said out of context. My entire reply was to an earlier post by Howhot and taken in context was literally stated as "sarcasm intended".

Again, please do not attribute what I say to someone else, and, do not selectively take what I do say and use it out of context.

Best regards

Correct.

"Firstly, We ALL know the United Nations is the absolute source of impregnable scientific fact" - LinDabTard

Well.. Actually the U.N. has no "scientists", but often assembles and sometimes employs independent scientists to summarize existing science or analyze a problem from a scientific standpoint.

http://thingsbrea...history/[/q