Atmospheric warming altering ocean salinity

Apr 27, 2012
Surface salinity changes for 1950 to 2000. Red indicates regions becoming saltier, and blue regions becoming fresher. Image by Paul Durack/LLNL.

The warming climate is altering the saltiness of the world's oceans, and the computer models scientists have been using to measure the effects are underestimating changes to the global water cycle, a group of Australian scientists have found.

The water cycle is the worldwide phenomenon of rainwater falling to the surface, evaporating back into the air and falling again as rain.

The wetter parts of the world are getting wetter and the drier parts drier. The researchers know this because the saltier parts of the ocean are getting saltier and the fresher parts, fresher.

Records showed that the saltier parts of the ocean increased salinity -- or their salt content -- by 4 percent in the 50 years between 1950 and 2000. If the climate warms by an additional 2 or 3 degrees, the researchers project that the water cycle will turn over more quickly, intensifying by almost 25 percent.

Reporting in Science magazine, the researchers said the results of the change in climate would affect agriculture and the ability of drier areas to capture and use fresh water from rain, creating serious problems, including droughts and floods. But they had to look offshore to find their data.

"The oceans are really where the action is happening," said Paul Durack, the lead author.

The study uses 50 years of data -- from 1950-2000 -- gathered by instruments, some adrift on the ocean currents, some tethered in place. Some of the instruments are tiers of bottles that open at various depths as they are lowered into the sea, and they take measurements as far down as 9,000 feet.

Durack, who received his Ph.D. from the University of Tasmania, and is now in a post-doctoral fellowship at Lawrence Livermore Laboratory in California, said that "salinity shifts in the ocean confirm climate and the global water cycle have changed."

The oceans cover 71 percent of the Earth's surface. They contain 97 percent of the world's water; receive 80 percent of the rainfall, and have absorbed 90 percent of the energy produced by global warming.

The relationship between salinity in the sea and the water cycle is well documented, the scientists wrote. Changes in salinity could also affect water currents because saltwater is denser than fresh water and sinks.

Warmer air can absorb more water than cooler air, so as the climate warms, more water can evaporate into the air. The amount evaporated increases 7 percent for every degree Celsius the temperature increases, the scientists reported.

That intensifies the water cycle on both ends of the spectrum. In places where rainfall exceeds evaporation, the rain is increasing; in the places where evaporation rates are higher than rainfall, it gets drier.

Some of the change is directly caused by warmer temperatures. For instance, the ocean waters around Antarctica are getting less salty because the waters are being refreshed by the melting ice cap.

Arid areas that require rainfall to provide water for irrigation, for drinking and industry, will see less rainfall, he said. That is a more significant threat than just an increase in temperature.

"Changes in the global water cycle and the corresponding redistribution of rainfall will affect food availability, stability, access, and utilization," Durack said. "I come from Perth, in dry western Australia, and you can see the change."

Most computer models depend on land-based observation, which accounts for the difference, but Durack and his collaborators, Susan E. Wijffels and Richard J. Matea, think measuring the oceans gives a more accurate picture, what they called an "identifiable fingerprint." Their work covers 71 percent of the world's water cycle.

"The most important part of the research is the basic observation that the 50-year trend in salinization is indeed that the fresh water is getting fresher and the saltwater saltier," said Dean Roemmich, a professor of oceanography at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography. "It is a fundamental change."

Explore further: Lava creeps toward road on Hawaii's Big Island

More information: Ocean Salinities Reveal Strong Global Water Cycle Intensification During 1950 to 2000, Science 27 April 2012: Vol. 336 no. 6080 pp. 455-458. DOI: 10.1126/science.1212222

ABSTRACT
Fundamental thermodynamics and climate models suggest that dry regions will become drier and wet regions will become wetter in response to warming. Efforts to detect this long-term response in sparse surface observations of rainfall and evaporation remain ambiguous. We show that ocean salinity patterns express an identifiable fingerprint of an intensifying water cycle. Our 50-year observed global surface salinity changes, combined with changes from global climate models, present robust evidence of an intensified global water cycle at a rate of 8 ± 5% per degree of surface warming. This rate is double the response projected by current-generation climate models and suggests that a substantial (16 to 24%) intensification of the global water cycle will occur in a future 2° to 3° warmer world.

Journal reference: Science search and more info website

Provided by Inside Science News Service

3.8 /5 (22 votes)

Related Stories

Ocean study explores link with Australian rainfall

Jul 28, 2004

A five-nation oceanographic team is taking the first steps in a $3.6 million project studying the major flow of ocean currents between Asia and Australia and how they influence rainfall across Southern Australia and Indonesia.

Deep-ocean sentinels on northern climate watch

Jul 28, 2011

Three deep-ocean moorings have become the foundation for a new drive to measure change in currents linking the Pacific and Indian Oceans through the Indonesia Archipelago – a key factor influencing Australia’s ...

Indian Ocean pirates impede climate observations

Jul 14, 2011

Australian scientists have sought the help of the United States and Australian navies to plug a critical gap in their Argo ocean and climate monitoring program caused by Somali pirates operating in the western ...

Salty oceans provide early warning for climate change

Jun 08, 2007

Monitoring the saltiness of the ocean water could provide an early indicator of climate change. Significant increases or decreases in salt in key areas could forewarn of climate change in 10 to 20 years time. Presenting their ...

Recommended for you

Icelandic volcano sits on massive magma hot spot

Oct 24, 2014

Spectacular eruptions at Bárðarbunga volcano in central Iceland have been spewing lava continuously since Aug. 31. Massive amounts of erupting lava are connected to the destruction of supercontinents and ...

NASA sees Tropical Storm Ana still vigorous

Oct 24, 2014

NASA's TRMM satellite saw that Tropical Storm Ana was still generating moderate rainfall is it pulled away from Hawaii. The next day, NASA's Aqua satellite saw that wind shear was having an effect on the ...

User comments : 67

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

ubavontuba
2 / 5 (21) Apr 27, 2012
Wijffels said getting a clear picture of what had happened historically with rainfall was frustrating because there was little quality data, and most of this was collected on land, in particular in the northern hemisphere.
So what she's really saying here is, they guessed? Or worse, is she saying they made up a hypothesis and then just supposed the data (if they had any) would match?

"And the sense of the pattern is that areas that were already fresh have become fresher with lower salinity and areas that were already salty are becoming saltier."
Duh! How do you think they got that way to begin with? This is essentially as dumb as stating something like: Deserts stay dry, and swamps stay wet.

I mean, they're not called "weather patterns" because there's no rhyme or reason to 'em.
Egleton
3.9 / 5 (21) Apr 27, 2012
I came here for amusement. The Denialists never let me down.

Wait!! Perhaps the Bureau of Meteorology of Australia is in cahoots with Al Gore and Satan and the Illuminati to defraud us of millions.And enslave our children. And steal our lollies.

(Evil Laughter backstage)

All too easy.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.4 / 5 (15) Apr 27, 2012
Is that the way it seems to the scientifically illiterate?

"So what she's really saying here is, they guessed?" - UbVonTard/ParkerTard

Awwwwwwwwwwwwwww.....

Birger
4.2 / 5 (19) Apr 27, 2012
"The study uses 50 years of data -- from 1950-2000 -- gathered by instruments, some adrift on the ocean currents, some tethered in place"
When processed by denialists, this paragraph becomes "they guessed".
sstritt
2.1 / 5 (21) Apr 27, 2012
Calling skeptics "denialists" delegitimizes any subsequent arguments you make.
ubavontuba
1.8 / 5 (20) Apr 27, 2012
"The study uses 50 years of data -- from 1950-2000 -- gathered by instruments, some adrift on the ocean currents, some tethered in place"
When processed by denialists, this paragraph becomes "they guessed".
When processed by alarmists, this paragraph:

Wijffels said getting a clear picture of what had happened historically with rainfall was frustrating because there was little quality data, and most of this was collected on land, in particular in the northern hemisphere.
...becomes this:

The study uses 50 years of data -- from 1950-2000 -- gathered by instruments, some adrift on the ocean currents, some tethered in place
What a buffoon.
rubberman
3.7 / 5 (19) Apr 27, 2012
Calling skeptics "denialists" delegitimizes any subsequent arguments you make.


Calling a denialist a denialist doesn't.
NotParker
1.6 / 5 (20) Apr 27, 2012
There is just as much blue as red on the image. A tie.

"The researchers know this because the saltier parts of the ocean are getting saltier and the fresher parts, fresher."

Uh huh. And the wetter parts are .... wait for it .... wet.

This must be so humiliating for AGW cult members.
NotParker
1.9 / 5 (17) Apr 27, 2012
" Durack said. "I come from Perth, in dry western Australia, and you can see the change." "

Yup.

10 years later ZERO drought in Australia.

"Australia on Friday said it would be officially drought-free next week for the first time in more than a decade "

http://blogs.news...drought/
sstritt
3.2 / 5 (11) Apr 27, 2012
Calling skeptics "denialists" delegitimizes any subsequent arguments you make.


Calling a denialist a denialist doesn't.

Why not just call them "heretics". That's what you really mean.
rubberman
3.7 / 5 (19) Apr 27, 2012
Calling skeptics "denialists" delegitimizes any subsequent arguments you make.


Calling a denialist a denialist doesn't.

Why not just call them "heretics". That's what you really mean.


Actually...idiots is usually what I go with. It's not a religion, it's physics. When someone is skeptical that the warming trend we are in isn't all human induced, they are being logical. When someone says CO2 doesn't cause warming, they are an idiot. When we can prove that CO2 is 110PPM over natural variability as a direct result of human activities, again, saying we aren't amplifying any natural warming trend is flat out lying. If a group of scientists study 50 years of data and arrive at a conclusion, which is then peer reviewed and after the peer review process is published in SCIENCE magazine, I'll choose to believe their work and conclusions.
NotParker
2 / 5 (20) Apr 27, 2012
When someone says CO2 doesn't cause warming, they are an idiot.


Which part of the following chart was caused by CO2?

The cold part in the 60s, 70s, 80s and into the 90s?

The slightly warm part recently or the really long, really warm period from 1910 to 1958?

https://sunshineh..._bar.jpg
sstritt
2.6 / 5 (20) Apr 27, 2012
It's not a religion, it's physics.

I'm afraid it has become a religion for far too many. And unfortunately its not exactly physics either. Climate science is entirely reliant on computer models which can be tweaked to show almost anything. Now if you're talking Physics, I think the work of Svensmark may be shedding light on the really important driver of climate. He has a theory that is testable and thus far supported by research at CERN.
Shootist
2.6 / 5 (22) Apr 27, 2012
When the scientists try to stifle contrary views, that might fall under "business as usual" even though its card to call it science. But when thy try to hide their own contrary data and analysis, or manipulate (or fabricate) data to achieve the desired results (e.g. the "hockey stick"), it is hard to avoid concluding that they are perpetrating a hoax.

Shabs42
2.9 / 5 (12) Apr 27, 2012
There is just as much blue as red on the image. A tie.


Oh, good. So if the Americas and Australia warm up 100 degrees and Eurasia-Africa cools down by 100 degrees, we can just call it a tie and not worry about the consequences. Good to know.
NotParker
1.9 / 5 (18) Apr 27, 2012
There is just as much blue as red on the image. A tie.


Oh, good. So if the Americas and Australia warm up 100 degrees and Eurasia-Africa cools down by 100 degrees, we can just call it a tie and not worry about the consequences. Good to know.


The colors refer to ocean salinity from 12 years ago and more ... not temperature.

"Records showed that the saltier parts of the ocean increased salinity -- or their salt content -- by 4 percent in the 50 years between 1950 and 2000"

4% in 50 years. Since 1998 temperature has dropped. Possibly salinity has dropped as well. Or it didn't. We don't know.

"Fundamental thermodynamics and climate models suggest that dry regions will become drier and wet regions will become wetter in response to warming."

Models. Not real data. Yawn.
Infinite Fractal Consciousness
3.1 / 5 (15) Apr 27, 2012


"Fundamental thermodynamics and climate models suggest that dry regions will become drier and wet regions will become wetter in response to warming."

Models. Not real data. Yawn.


Parker does not like models, forecasts or predictions, he prefers real data from the future. Future data. Using time machines. Anything else is "Yawn."
A2G
2.5 / 5 (11) Apr 28, 2012
Last I checked water moves around quite easily. And when it moves it carries with it what ever is in it. Even salt. So the ocean has this range of salinity and it moves around a wee bit.

Those whose future funding depends on finding something "alarming" then "infer" from this movement of salinity on this map all kinds of things. They have used data to sound the alarm and get more funding.

As mice in a box can be trained to ring a bell to get food, unfortunately many researchers have been trained to ring an alarm to get more funding. No alarm. No funding.

It that really that hard to comprehend?
bbdk
3.9 / 5 (11) Apr 28, 2012

Since 1998 temperature has dropped.


That would be true if it wasn't an outright lie.

Since 1880...
9 of the top 10 hottest years recorded has been measured since 2000.

http://data.giss....mp/2011/
ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (13) Apr 28, 2012
Since 1998 temperature has dropped.
That would be true if it wasn't an outright lie.

Since 1880...
9 of the top 10 hottest years recorded has been measured since 2000.

http://data.giss....mp/2011/

Where have you been?

http://woodfortre...12/trend

But that's just one data set which shows this drop. Most flatten out between 10 and 14 years ago (the most conservative showing no net global warming for 10 years).

http://woodfortre...12/trend

bbdk
4.1 / 5 (9) Apr 28, 2012
I have no clue what you're trying to say since you present no arguments, but here's your source again;
http://woodfortre...rom:1880
deepblue111
3.3 / 5 (3) Apr 28, 2012
Good data wrong interpretation. North America , europe, and other industrial countries dump millions of tons of salt into the ocean daily. Especially in the winter to melt ice on roads. Most of this is mined from salt taken from the ocean when it flooded inland areas and evaporated repeatedly. Now the more the salinity of th ocean the more it heats and in turn heats the air. The Atlantic has had the most increase due to being in between north America and Europe who both use salt for road coverage during snowstorms.
ubavontuba
1.3 / 5 (13) Apr 28, 2012
I have no clue what you're trying to say since you present no arguments, but here's your source again;
http://woodfortre...rom:1880

How's that relevant to: "Since 1998..."

Here, this one's relevant:

http://woodfortre...12/trend
bbdk
3.9 / 5 (7) Apr 28, 2012
Ahh I get it. Only since 1998, seeing as that was an extremely hot outlier due to el ninõ, Let's only call the doctored graphs that correspond to your view of the world for relevant? That's... a way to argue I guess.

Try this:
http://woodfortre...12/trend
sstritt
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 28, 2012
Good data wrong interpretation. North America , europe, and other industrial countries dump millions of tons of salt into the ocean daily. Especially in the winter to melt ice on roads. Most of this is mined from salt taken from the ocean when it flooded inland areas and evaporated repeatedly. Now the more the salinity of th ocean the more it heats and in turn heats the air. The Atlantic has had the most increase due to being in between north America and Europe who both use salt for road coverage during snowstorms.

So now its the salt! Really?
NotParker
2.1 / 5 (15) Apr 28, 2012


"Fundamental thermodynamics and climate models suggest that dry regions will become drier and wet regions will become wetter in response to warming."

Models. Not real data. Yawn.


Parker does not like models, forecasts or predictions, he prefers real data from the future. Future data. Using time machines. Anything else is "Yawn."


Models are not data. Models are wild ass guesses on a decadal timescale made by people who can't predict the weather 2 days out.

Notice the data only goes to 2000. Why? What happened after 2000 to ruin their theory?
StarGazer2011
3 / 5 (8) Apr 28, 2012
Seems like a stretch. They have 50 years of salinity data, no idea what natural variation is and the world has neither constantly warmed steadily nor have all areas warmed similarly.
What are the yearly salinity changes, how do they correlate with warming and cooling periods in different geographies? How do they correlate with rainfall? Just getting 2000 data and subtracting 1950 data isn't really very interesting and doesn't tell anyone anything.
At least its falsifiable; if salinity drives water cycle changes, and salinity change is higher than predicted for 1950-2000 then all you have to do is see if dry areas got drier and wet areas wetter at twice the rate predicted by climate models. It should have already happened and already be in the data, interesting to see if anyone does the study (I'm not holding my breath).
NotParker
1.9 / 5 (13) Apr 28, 2012
Seems like a stretch. They have 50 years of salinity data, no idea what natural variation is and the world has neither constantly warmed steadily nor have all areas warmed similarly.
What are the yearly salinity changes, how do they correlate with warming and cooling periods in different geographies? How do they correlate with rainfall? Just getting 2000 data and subtracting 1950 data isn't really very interesting and doesn't tell anyone anything.


Excellent points. The temperature plunged (supposedly) from 1950 to 1980. What did salinity do for that period?
runrig
4.3 / 5 (4) Apr 28, 2012
"Models are not data. Models are wild ass guesses on a decadal timescale made by people who can't predict the weather 2 days out."

They can actually - and bloody well where I live. But then again I accept that some will be wrong in detail. Unreasonable people focus on the failures and disregard the majority successes.

Actually I thought this discussion was about climate. 2 days ahead is weather. A different profession.

Shabs42
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 28, 2012
It's truly amazing how good some of you are at missing the point. I used temperature as an example of how changes "balancing out" doesn't necessarily mean no damage is done and you jump on me for arguing about temperature instead of salinity, then proceed to only argue about temperature using cherry picked data for the rest of the discussion.

There's a lot that goes into "the climate", including temperature, salinity, ppm of dozens of gases, the health of the o-zone, and a myriad of other factors; some of which humans can and do affect, some of which we cannot. I think we all agree that we don't understand the entire system, and we should all agree that obtaining a better understanding of how these factors interact is extremely important. If our planet is becoming less hospitable to us, it would be nice to know about it as early as possible so we can fix it; whether we're the ones screwing it up or not. Maybe it's aliens!
StarGazer2011
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 28, 2012
Models arent data, models are a way of generating hypotheses from first principles which can then be compared with observation/experiment.
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (9) Apr 28, 2012
Ahh I get it. Only since 1998, seeing as that was an extremely hot outlier due to el ninõ, Let's only call the doctored graphs that correspond to your view of the world for relevant?
Okay then, from before the '97-'98 spike:

http://woodfortre...97/trend

...still shows a slight cooling trend.

That's... a way to argue I guess.
Ah, I get it. You're not interested in current trends. AGW is a religion for you.

Did you know some of your high priests are beginning to cast doubt?

The problem is we dont know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books mine included because it looked clear-cut, but it hasnt happened,

http://worldnews....nge?lite

ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (10) Apr 28, 2012
Ahh I get it. Only since 1998, seeing as that was an extremely hot outlier due to el ninõ, Let's only call the doctored graphs that correspond to your view of the world for relevant?
Okay then, from before the '97-'98 spike:

http://woodfortre...97/trend

...still shows a slight cooling trend.

That's... a way to argue I guess.
Ah, I get it. You're not interested in current trends. AGW is a religion for you.

Did you know your own high priests are beginning to cast doubt?

"The problem is we dont know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books mine included because it looked clear-cut, but it hasnt happened,"

http://worldnews....nge?lite
bbdk
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 29, 2012
ok...
You accuse me of being religiously not interested in current trends, while insisting on using only the lower tropics data?
That's rich, since you blatantly manipulate and cherry pick the data
If one uses the global mean data, you can't even provoke a downward slope using the '98 el ninô, but you already knew that, didn't you?
HADRCUT4 global mean 1998-present: http://woodfortre...98/trend
WoodForTrees Temperature Index 1998-present: http://woodfortre...98/trend
Part of my country is Greenland. I know very well what's happening, without having priests, or even nutjobs and big oil telling me otherwise.
Vendicar_Decarian
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 29, 2012
Since Climatologists don't predict the weather, not being able to predict the weather doesn't seem to be an impediment to Climatology.

"Models are wild ass guesses on a decadal timescale made by people who can't predict the weather 2 days out." - ParkerTard/UbVonTard

I can model the drawing of cards out of a loaded deck very precisely, even though I can not predict the order in which the cards will be dealt.

Poor ParkerTard/UbVonTard. He is as statistically illiterate as he is scientifically illiterate.
Vendicar_Decarian
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 29, 2012
Did it? Let's see...

http://woodfortre...80/trend

"The temperature plunged (supposedly) from 1950 to 1980." - UbVonTard\ParkerTard

Apparently it did.

Poor delusional ParkerTard
Vendicar_Decarian
4 / 5 (8) Apr 29, 2012
The cause is well established. Corrupt Capitalism protected by Corrupt Conservatives.

"If our planet is becoming less hospitable to us, it would be nice to know about it as early as possible so we can fix it; whether we're the ones screwing it up or not. Maybe it's aliens!" - Shabs
Vendicar_Decarian
3.9 / 5 (8) Apr 29, 2012
UnVonTard likes to lie by cherry picking statistically insignificant or otherwise inapplicable data that supports his ideological position. In this case he selects MSU which does not record surface temperature.

Ground base thermometers do and here is their data..

http://woodfortre...97/trend

"Okay then, from before the '97-'98 spike:" - UbVonTard

"Lovelock, 92, is writing a new book in which he will say climate change is still happening, but not as quickly as he once feared." - UbVonTard's link.

The first two words tell it all "Lovelock, 92".

That is Alzheimer talking baby....

StarGazer2011
1 / 5 (1) Apr 29, 2012
anything to add to my comments Vendicar?
Vendicar_Decarian
3.4 / 5 (5) Apr 29, 2012
UbVonTard's greatest hope is that a 92 year old who cant figure out why the planet hasnt warmed as rapidly as he anticipated.

At Lovelock's advanced age of 92, he no doubt finds many things to be confusing.

Fortunately Climate science isn't suffering from the same condition.

http://tamino.wor...roundup/

Vendicar_Decarian
2.6 / 5 (5) Apr 29, 2012
Just that you are correct in your assertion that models aren't data.

"anything to add to my comments Vendicar?" - StarGazer

But then no one said they were.
StarGazer2011
1 / 5 (1) Apr 29, 2012
@Vendicar:
Not that one, this one:

Seems like a stretch. They have 50 years of salinity data, no idea what natural variation is and the world has neither constantly warmed steadily nor have all areas warmed similarly.
What are the yearly salinity changes, how do they correlate with warming and cooling periods in different geographies? How do they correlate with rainfall? Just getting 2000 data and subtracting 1950 data isn't really very interesting and doesn't tell anyone anything.
At least its falsifiable; if salinity drives water cycle changes, and salinity change is higher than predicted for 1950-2000 then all you have to do is see if dry areas got drier and wet areas wetter at twice the rate predicted by climate models. It should have already happened and already be in the data, interesting to see if anyone does the study (I'm not holding my breath).


ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Apr 29, 2012
ok...
You accuse me of being religiously not interested in current trends, while insisting on using only the lower tropics data?
Where is this mythical "greenhouse effect" going to be strongest? At the poles? Hardly.

That's rich, since you blatantly manipulate and cherry pick the data
And how is what you're doing any different?

If one uses the global mean data, you can't even provoke a downward slope using the '98 el ninô, but you already knew that, didn't you?

HADRCUT4 global mean 1998-present:
Let's check the last 10 years:

http://woodfortre...02/trend

Part of my country is Greenland. I know very well what's happening, without having priests, or even nutjobs and big oil telling me otherwise.
It seems not.

So you mean you might be able to farm there again, like in Erik the Red's day? How awesome is that?
Vendicar_Decarian
3.3 / 5 (7) Apr 29, 2012
OK. Here are the potential trends over the last 10 years that are within the 2 sigma confidence limits.

https://docs.goog...UQ3JjSG8

The maximum potential trend is .25'C per decade
The minimum potential trend is -.25'C per decade.

Note that this hasn't changed since the last 20 times I've shown you this.

"Let's check the last 10 years:" - UbVonTard

http://www.skepti..._500.gif

"So you mean you might be able to farm there again, like in Erik the Red's day?" - UbVonTard

And again, as you have been told numerous times, there was never any real farming in Greenland.

They did however raise grazing animals and they did forage for berries and honey.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.3 / 5 (7) Apr 29, 2012
The Greenland Vikings lived mostly on dairy produce and meat, primarily from cows. The vegetable diet of Greenlanders included berries, edible grasses, and seaweed, but these were inadequate even during the best harvests.

During the MWP, Greenland's climate was so cold that cattle breeding and dairy farming could only be carried on in the sheltered fiords. The growing season in Greenland even then was very short. Frost typically occurred in August and the fiords froze in October.

http://www2.sunys...mwp.html

http://www.youtub...e=relmfu
Lurker2358
5 / 5 (2) Apr 29, 2012
So now its the salt! Really?


It's a non-zero number, though incredibly small. It probably does add some positive albedo feedback both on roads and on the lakes and oceans, but it would be very, very small.

A million tons of salt only increases the salinity of a cubic kilometer of water by 1 part per thousand.

You'd need a cubic kilometer of 100% pure salt added to the oceans to increase it's salinity by one part per BILLION.

It's unlikely humans have used as much as 10 cubic kilometers of salt in our entire history in all salt mines in the world combined, although 1 or 2 cubic kilometers may have been used...
Vendicar_Decarian
2.6 / 5 (5) Apr 29, 2012
The projection of natural variations are what the models are use to provide.

"They have 50 years of salinity data, no idea what natural variation is and the world has neither constantly warmed steadily nor have all areas warmed similarly." - StarGazer

Clearly you need to read the paper rather than it's synopsis.

ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 29, 2012
"So you mean you might be able to farm there again, like in Erik the Red's day?" - Uba


And again, as you have been told numerous times, there was never any real farming in Greenland.
"Vikings grew barley in Greenland"

http://sciencenor...reenland

They did however raise grazing animals and they did forage for berries and honey.
Oh, so it's down to definitions, is it?

farm (färm)
n.
1. A tract of land cultivated for the purpose of agricultural production.
2.
a. A tract of land devoted to the raising and breeding of domestic animals.

http://www.thefre.../farming

So by your own words: "They did however raise grazing animals..." it was farming, even without the barley.

bbdk
3.4 / 5 (5) Apr 29, 2012
ubavontuba.

You're a special kind of special. You do know there's actual hands on evidence of warming right?
Receding glaciers in the polar regions.
Shrinking or disappearing ice shelves.
Dwindling ice in alpine regions.

As it turns out, yes, the warming trend is particularly visible at high latitude.
StarGazer2011
1 / 5 (1) Apr 29, 2012
The projection of natural variations are what the models are use to provide.

"They have 50 years of salinity data, no idea what natural variation is and the world has neither constantly warmed steadily nor have all areas warmed similarly." - StarGazer

Clearly you need to read the paper rather than it's synopsis.



The whole point of the article is that the 50 years of data shows that the models were wrong and their predictions were 50% too low. To get a natural baseline you would need pre-industrial data right (according to the CAGW faith anyway).

Of course, being climate scientists, they completely ignore the possibility that something undiscovered is causing the change.

My real point is the authors are making 2 hypotheses:
1) Temperature change causes salinity change
2) Salinity change causes rainfall change

The data is available to examine these questions for the past 50 years, which means their claims can be easily falsified (or supported).
kaasinees
2 / 5 (8) Apr 29, 2012
It could be the magnetic pole shift.

Together with human activities ofcourse. Nothing has a sole factor but several.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (7) Apr 29, 2012
ubavontuba.

You're a special kind of special.
Thank you.

You do know there's actual hands on evidence of warming right?
Of course, I've never claimed otherwise. I've only claimed that currently it's stalled out, even though CO2 continues to rise, therefore suggesting a disconnect between CO2 and global temperature.

Receding glaciers in the polar regions.
Well that mostly depends on which pole you're talking about. Some grow, some shrink. Normal.
Shrinking or disappearing ice shelves.
Some grow, some shrink, some crack and break away. All normal.
Dwindling ice in alpine regions.
Depends on where you are. Normal.

As it turns out, yes, the warming trend is particularly visible at high latitude.
Really? I don't see it. You do know arctic sea ice is as expansive as it's been in a decade, right?

Vendicar_Decarian
4 / 5 (8) Apr 29, 2012
A statement that is statistically invalid.

"Of course, I've never claimed otherwise. I've only claimed that currently it's stalled out" - UbVonTard

The following analysis shows that over the 10 year time span that you love to childishly refer to, the data trend at 2 sigma significance can be anywhere from .25'C per decade to -.25'C per decade.

https://docs.goog...UQ3JjSG8

You might as well claim that since you haven't rolled a 6 in 5 rolls of a weighted pair of dice, that the dice are now fair.

http://www.youtub...k4JNHXdM
Howhot
3.7 / 5 (6) Apr 29, 2012
I'm afraid it has become a religion for far too many.
Yeah all of them deniers and it's a religion only in there minds.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (7) Apr 30, 2012
A statement that is statistically invalid.

"Of course, I've never claimed otherwise. I've only claimed that currently it's stalled out" - UbVonTard

The following analysis shows that over the 10 year time span that you love to childishly refer to, the data trend at 2 sigma significance can be anywhere from .25'C per decade to -.25'C per decade.
That's so much bull-oney. You're not actually saying anything.

To say it could shift this much this way, or that much that way, is to say the trend is currently flat. You aren't arguing that it's still warming, you're arguing it could start warming again, or it could move toward cooling, or it could go somewhere inbetween.

Currently, the measured temperatures are falling, so it seems likely it'll lean toward cooling.

Vendicar_Decarian
4 / 5 (8) Apr 30, 2012
"The following analysis shows that over the 10 year time span that you love to childishly refer to, the data trend at 2 sigma significance can be anywhere from .25'C per decade to -.25'C per decade." - VD

"That's so much bull-oney. You're not actually saying anything." - UbVonTard

Which illustrates your complete ignorance of statistics.

And yet you claim to be able to make statistical inferences such as 10 year climate trends. You are so spectacularly ignorant you don't even recognize the extent of your ignorance.

But you are sure as hell that you know that the world is cooling because your sub grade 7 level comprehension of statistics tells you that your knowledge is superior to 98 percent of all of the worlds scientists.

Idiot.
Vendicar_Decarian
4 / 5 (8) Apr 30, 2012
Wrong again Tard Boy. You can't say anything statistically significant about the trend without error bars. All you can say with some statistical confidence is that the trend probably lies between a slope of 0.25'C per decade and -0.25'C per decade. And it could even lie outside of that range, but with 2 sigma confidence it doesn't.

"To say it could shift this much this way, or that much that way, is to say the trend is currently flat." - UbVonTard

The probability of it being flat is 0.0000000000%

You remain clueless.

Flag down a 14 year old coming out of school and have them explain it to you.
Vendicar_Decarian
4 / 5 (8) Apr 30, 2012
And now you followup with another one of your chronic, perpetual lies.

"Currently, the measured temperatures are falling" - UbVonTard

http://www.woodfo...80/trend

No cooling trend there.

http://www.woodfo...00/trend

No cooling trend there...

http://www.woodfo...08/trend

No cooling trend there...

Moron.
bbdk
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 30, 2012
Really? I don't see it. You do know arctic sea ice is as expansive as it's been in a decade, right?


No. That is a blatant lie. Since measurements began in the early '70s, the multi-year arctic sea ice has only once had the small extent it has had during this winter. Which was during your alleged cooling period by the way (2008).
bbdk
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 30, 2012
Well that mostly depends on which pole you're talking about. Some grow, some shrink. Normal.


No again. The shrinkage is happening at both poles and in the high alpines. You're right in that a few grow. Caused by changes in local weather patterns - Warmer atmosphere able to contain more moisture which magnifies precipitation when the moist and warmer air rises over the glacier or surrounding area.

Nasa has recently published a very revealing gallery with 'then and now' pictures of glaciers.
I realize that Mr. tuba and his ilk will never be persuaded by something as elusive as concrete pictures (They're potentially photoshopped too), so the link to the gallery is for everyone else:
http://climate.na...aska.jpg
press the ICE link below the picture to just see the relevant pictures. Although the rest is interesting as well.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Apr 30, 2012
And yet you claim to be able to make statistical inferences such as 10 year climate trends.
You're the one who proved 10 years is statistically significant, with your own references.

You can't say anything statistically significant about the trend without error bars.
Sure you can. The error bars are just in case things change unexpectedly.

All you can say with some statistical confidence is that the trend probably lies between a slope of 0.25'C per decade and -0.25'C per decade. And it could even lie outside of that range, but with 2 sigma confidence it doesn't.
Nope. You can definitely say there's been no net global warming for at least 10 years (using GISSTEMP or the incomplete HADcrut4 data set) and perhaps as much as 15 years (using other data sets).

Your attempts to rationalize this away, are weak 9to say the least).
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Apr 30, 2012
"Currently, the measured temperatures are falling" - Uba


And now you followup


http://www.woodfo...02/trend

Cooling trend there.

http://www.woodfo...98/trend

Cooling trend there...

http://www.woodfo...09/trend

Cooling trend there...

Moron.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (6) May 01, 2012
Really? I don't see it. You do know arctic sea ice is as expansive as it's been in a decade, right?


No. That is a blatant lie. Since measurements began in the early '70s, the multi-year arctic sea ice has only once had the small extent it has had during this winter. Which was during your alleged cooling period by the way (2008).
How does "the early '70s" fit in with the current decade? Are you using some sort of quantum (or drug induced) time warp?

"...one of the higher March extents in the past decade."

http://nsidc.org/...icenews/

Anyway, it isn't as high as it was (relatively speaking) as last time I looked. It's recently dipped below the 2009-2010 season:

http://nsidc.org/...icenews/files/2012/04/Figure2.png

But it still looks good as opposed to most of the last 10 years:

http://nsidc.org/...icenews/files/2012/04/Figure3.png
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) May 01, 2012
Well that mostly depends on which pole you're talking about. Some grow, some shrink. Normal.


No again. The shrinkage is happening at both poles and in the high alpines. You're right in that a few grow. Caused by changes in local weather patterns - Warmer atmosphere able to contain more moisture which magnifies precipitation when the moist and warmer air rises over the glacier or surrounding area.
You just admitted what I said!

Nasa has recently published a very revealing gallery with 'then and now' pictures of glaciers.
And your link opens on Hubbard glacier. The caption states:

"Hubbard has been thickening and advancing toward the Gulf of Alaska since it was first mapped in 1895."

And the "ice" images are obviously biased, as the "current" images are cherry picked from different years (some a decade old, or older) and they predominately show ice melt. Why don't they show the most current, seasonally comparative images, and ice growth as well?
bbdk
4.2 / 5 (5) May 01, 2012
How does "the early '70s" fit in with the current decade? Are you using some sort of quantum (or drug induced) time warp?
Your reading comprehension skills seems to fit your severely limited ability to comprehend statistics and physics.

You just admitted what I said!
Again with the severe lack of reading comprehension. You missed a couple of words in my sentence.
"Warmer atmosphere able to contain more moisture which magnifies precipitation, when the moist and warmer air rises over the glacier or surrounding area."

And your link opens on Hubbard glacier. The caption [..]
Indeed my link opens on Hubbard glacier. Look at the geography of the area and my previous sentence makes sense (To anyone but you apparently)

And the "ice" images are obviously biased [..]
I do believe I advised that those images weren't for you. Really, I'm not going to dignify your conspiracy theories about NASA with an answer.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) May 02, 2012
Your reading comprehension skills seems to fit your severely limited ability to comprehend statistics and physics.
Says the idiot that confused "the early '70s" with the current decade.

Again with the severe lack of reading comprehension. You missed a couple of words in my sentence.
"Warmer atmosphere able to contain more moisture which magnifies precipitation, when the moist and warmer air rises over the glacier or surrounding area."
So we've had AGW since 1895 now? Really? Idiot.

Indeed my link opens on Hubbard glacier. Look at the geography of the area and my previous sentence makes sense (To anyone but you apparently)
As shown above, "your previous sentence" is false. Idiot.

I do believe I advised that those images weren't for you. Really, I'm not going to dignify your conspiracy theories about NASA with an answer.
All I did was ask questions. Why those particular images? Like they don't have anything recent? Are all their image sources broken now?
bluehigh
1 / 5 (1) May 02, 2012
What happens to the salt extracted from desalination plants?
Does the salt extraction affect the ocean content?
Is sea salt renewable? Did they have pineapples in Greenland?