Sea surface temperatures reach highest level in 150 years

Apr 26, 2013
ocean

Sea surface temperatures in the Northeast Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem during 2012 were the highest recorded in 150 years, according to the latest Ecosystem Advisory issued by NOAA's Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC). These high sea surface temperatures (SSTs) are the latest in a trend of above average temperature seen during the spring and summer seasons, and part of a pattern of elevated temperatures occurring in the Northwest Atlantic, but not seen elsewhere in the ocean basin over the past century.

The advisory reports on conditions in the second half of 2012.

Sea surface temperature for the Northeast Shelf Ecosystem reached a record high of 14 degrees Celsius (57.2°F) in 2012, exceeding the previous record high in 1951. Average SST has typically been lower than 12.4 C (54.3 F) over the past three decades.

Sea surface temperature in the region is based on both contemporary satellite remote-sensing data and long-term ship-board measurements, with historical SST conditions based on ship-board measurements dating back to 1854. The temperature increase in 2012 was the highest jump in temperature seen in the time series and one of only five times temperature has changed by more than 1 C (1.8 F).

The Northeast Shelf's warm water thermal habitat was also at a record high level during 2012, while cold was at a record low level. Early winter mixing of the water column went to , which will impact the spring 2013 plankton bloom. Mixing redistributes nutrients and affects stratification of the water column as the bloom develops.

Temperature is also affecting distributions of fish and shellfish on the Northeast Shelf. The advisory provides data on changes in distribution, or shifts in the center of the population, of seven key fishery species over time. The four southern species - black sea bass, summer flounder, longfin squid and butterfish - all showed a northeastward or upshelf shift. has shifted upshelf over time but at a slower rate than the southern species. Atlantic cod and haddock have shifted downshelf."

"Many factors are involved in these shifts, including temperature, population size, and the distributions of both prey and predators," said Jon Hare, a scientist in the NEFSC's Oceanography Branch. A number of recent studies have documented changing distributions of fish and shellfish, further supporting NEFSC work reported in 2009 that found about half of the 36 fish stocks studied in the Northwest Atlantic Ocean, many of them commercially valuable species, have been shifting northward over the past four decades.

The Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem (LME) extends from the Gulf of Maine to Cape Hatteras, North Carolina. The NEFSC has monitored this ecosystem with comprehensive sampling programs since1977. Prior to 1977, this ecosystem was monitored by the NEFSC through a series of separate, coordinated programs dating back decades.

Warming conditions on the Northeast Shelf in the spring of 2012 continued into September, with the most consistent warming conditions seen in the Gulf of Maine and on Georges Bank. Temperatures cooled by October and were below average in the Middle Atlantic Bight in November, perhaps due to Superstorm Sandy, but had returned to above average conditions by December.

"Changes in ocean temperatures and the timing and strength of spring and fall plankton blooms could affect the biological clocks of many marine species, which spawn at specific times of the year based on environmental cues like water temperature," Kevin Friedland, a scientist in the NEFSC Ecosystem Assessment Program, said. He noted that the contrast between years with, and without, a fall bloom is emerging as an important driver of the shelf's ecology. "The size of the spring plankton bloom was so large that the annual chlorophyll concentration remained high in 2012 despite low fall activity. These changes will have a profound impact throughout the ecosystem."

Michael Fogarty, who heads the Ecosystem Assessment Program, says the abundance of fish and shellfish is controlled by a complex set of factors, and that increasing temperatures in the ecosystem make it essential to monitor the distribution of many species, some of them migratory and others not.

"It isn't always easy to understand the big picture when you are looking at one specific part of it at one specific point in time," Fogarty said, a comparison similar to not seeing the forest when looking at a single tree in it. "We now have information on the ecosystem from a variety of sources collected over a long period of time, and are adding more data to clarify specific details. The data clearly show a relationship between all of these factors."

"What these latest findings mean for the Northeast Shelf ecosystem and its marine life is unknown," Fogarty said. "What is known is that the ecosystem is changing, and we need to continue monitoring and adapting to these changes."

Explore further: Predicting bioavailable cadmium levels in soils

More information: The Spring 2013 Ecosystem Advisory, covering the fall of 2012 with supporting information, is available online at www.nefsc.noaa.gov/ecosys/advisory/current/advisory.html.

Related Stories

Recommended for you

Predicting bioavailable cadmium levels in soils

14 hours ago

New Zealand's pastoral landscapes are some of the loveliest in the world, but they also contain a hidden threat. Many of the country's pasture soils have become enriched in cadmium. Grasses take up this toxic heavy metal, ...

Oil drilling possible 'trigger' for deadly Italy quakes

18 hours ago

Italy's Emilia-Romagna region on Tuesday suspended new drilling as it published a report that warned that hydrocarbon exploitation may have acted as a "trigger" in twin earthquakes that killed 26 people in ...

Snow is largely a no-show for Iditarod Trail Sled Dog Race

18 hours ago

On March 1, 65 mushers and their teams of dogs left Anchorage, Alaska, on a quest to win the Iditarod—a race covering 1,000 miles of mountain ranges, frozen rivers, dense forest, tundra and coastline. According ...

UN weather agency warns of 'El Nino' this year

18 hours ago

The UN weather agency Tuesday warned there was a good chance of an "El Nino" climate phenomenon in the Pacific Ocean this year, bringing droughts and heavy rainfall to the rest of the world.

Study shows less snowpack will harm ecosystem

19 hours ago

(Phys.org) —A new study by CAS Professor of Biology Pamela Templer shows that milder winters can have a negative impact both on trees and on the water quality of nearby aquatic ecosystems, far into the warm growing season.

User comments : 93

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

nauseous
1.8 / 5 (24) Apr 26, 2013
Question; What is oil used for? To lubricate engines and cool.

What the oil companies don't want you to know about it. There are to precautions to pull oil from the ground, 1. It will change earth temps as proof through the years and studies, the more oil we pull out from the earth the more it heats up. 2. If you pull oil from earth and don't replace it then you'll have issues with sink holes which we see proof each day.

3. How to resolve? We have other energy sources but the oil company refuse to use because they can't make money on it, and stop with fossil fuels immediately before it's to late.
gentlemanjim
1.8 / 5 (41) Apr 26, 2013
Did anyone tell these "scientists" that first of all, the earth has been warming since the end of the ice age. Duh. Second, the "global warming" hype has been thoroughly debunked. Nothing to see here. Move on.
freebobafett
4.1 / 5 (27) Apr 26, 2013
gentlemanjim - have you bothered to look at the rate of warming since both the dawn of the Industrial Revolution, as well as the start of the fossil fuel age?

Have you also bothered to look into who is funding the research which you claim debunks man-made global warming? It doesn't take too much effort to connect the dots between these "studies" and their corporate financiers.

The thing with Carbon Monoxide is that it acts as an insulation layer when the hemisphere you're in is experiencing summer (because a wider swath of sunlight is hitting the Earth during these months, and thus more heat gets in and less gets out), and a blocker during your hemisphere's winter months (as is the case with Summer, less sunlight gets in the more CO2 is in the atmosphere, but because less of the hemisphere in winter is experiencing direct sunlight, due to the Earth's rotation axis, when less heat gets in, we see colder than normal winters.
freebobafett
4.2 / 5 (31) Apr 26, 2013
Thus, people like you with no long-term perspective other than to flippantly say that the Earth has been on a warming trend since the end of the Ice Age point to record cold temperatures as proof that man-made global warming is a myth, when in fact, the data that you're pointing to is proof of just the opposite.

Regardless, what's the harm in acting even if you are right? Worst case scenario, we waste a couple bucks cleaning up the global ecosystem. Best case scenario, we save the species from near extinction.

With little to lose and everything to gain, I honestly don't understand people who share the attitude that you do.
antigoracle
1.6 / 5 (45) Apr 26, 2013
Warmer seas!! Time to hit the beach people. Enjoy it while it lasts, it won't be for long.
This whole AGW Alarmists lies will hit the fan soon. Their desperation is obvious with Alarmist's trash like this.
exceeding the previous record high in 1951

1951 when the globe was in a cooling trend.
DeeJay
1.8 / 5 (31) Apr 26, 2013
@freebobafett said:
"With little to lose and everything to gain, I honestly don't understand people who share the attitude that you do."

Little to lose: An entire economy built on fossil fuels that has since inception geared itself to shift cost to the consumer. You seem to think that there are alternatives that have the same cost/btu as oil - and there's not, and if there was it would already be here. We don't live in a fantasy world where complex things are drawn with CGI and all problems go away because of magical people with light sabers.

We live in a REAL world where people starve to death or freeze to death when cost structures change substantially. This is just ONE of several long term, complex examples that I honestly don't understand people who share the attitude that you do can't understand.
pianoman
1.8 / 5 (25) Apr 26, 2013
What warmed the water temp. 150 years ago?
barakn
4.7 / 5 (16) Apr 26, 2013
How did "The Lords Little Helper" violate the 1000 character limit? Please, folks, report this little garbage dumper so the admins will notice and analyze this bizarre post.
Neinsense99
3.2 / 5 (22) Apr 26, 2013
Lords Little Helper and sane people's Little Pest. That's if it is one person.

"What warmed the water temp. 150 years ago?"
Pianoman, that could be just length of available records for the study area. Nice try at the sowing of doubt though.
Rattle_1989
1 / 5 (11) Apr 26, 2013
So what should we do from behind the computer screen?

or what they expect us to do?
cantdrive85
1.7 / 5 (28) Apr 26, 2013
Have you also bothered to look into who is funding the research which you claim debunks man-made global warming? It doesn't take too much effort to connect the dots between these "studies" and their corporate financiers.


Conspiracy! Oh wait, it's only a conspiracy when it's anti-AGW, otherwise it's just the truth. Rubes!

How did "The Lords Little Helper" violate the 1000 character limit? Please, folks, report this little garbage dumper so the admins will notice and analyze this bizarre post.

You're just a character limit violater hater.



gregor1
1.8 / 5 (32) Apr 26, 2013
More alarmist spin. The title suggests the entire sea surface has warmed when the study concerns just one particular region. Spin doctors spreading disinformation have done much to muddy the water of climate science
Neinsense99
3.3 / 5 (26) Apr 26, 2013
"Spin doctors spreading disinformation have done much to muddy the water of climate science" Oh the irony....
djr
4.4 / 5 (19) Apr 26, 2013
freebob - "You seem to think that there are alternatives that have the same cost/btu as oil - and there's not"

Yes there is. Google the per mile cost of a Nissan Leaf - against a comparable vehicle such as a Honda Civic. What about Natural Gas? What about ethanol? What about Willie's bio diesel? Compare the cost of shipping freight by electric train - to diesel trucks, or planes.
gregor1
1.7 / 5 (33) Apr 27, 2013
@Dee Jay. Many in the environment movement are Malthusians who truly believe that mankind is a pestilence that needs to be killed off or, at the very least, trimmed back. Rationality is not their strong point. The promise of a future agrarian utopia is too alluring for them to accept the fact that it may not be necessary. They're modern day Noahs building imaginary arks while the poor sink to their deaths beneath the waves of excessive government regulation.
djr
4.4 / 5 (14) Apr 27, 2013
Freebob - sorry for the incorrect citation - what I quoted was from Dee Jay - apologies.
Mike_Massen
3.5 / 5 (27) Apr 27, 2013
gentlemanjim blurted propaganda (otherwise he would have checked if he got an education)
Did anyone tell these "scientists" that first of all, the earth has been warming since the end of the ice age. Duh. Second, the "global warming" hype has been thoroughly debunked. Nothing to see here. Move on.
Note: It is the rate of change which is the key indicator of AGW !

Sure the climate goes up and down all the time over *very* long periods, right now insolation is down for a while so one would expect gradual cooling but no, CO2 is way up as is the heat load produced globally, the rate of change of temperature correlates closely with CO2 rise in the last 100 years... Which is a very *short* time frame for geological processes, so get real gentlemanjim look at essential facts:-

1. Earth's climate system is essentially closed
2. Thermal properties of CO2 (& other greenhouse gasses)
3. Rate of rise is far more than any other cause...

Get an education *please* gentlemanjim
djr
4.5 / 5 (22) Apr 27, 2013
gregor1 "Many in the environment movement are Malthusians who truly believe that mankind is a pestilence that needs to be killed off"

Please give us some citations to support your claim. Pay attention to the fact that you said 'many in the environment movement' I want to see some support for what seems to me to be total bullshit.
Neinsense99
3.6 / 5 (26) Apr 27, 2013
djr, I suspect you'll never get any citations from gregor1, perhaps at most a suspect blog, funded propaganda or some misinterpreted study. Don't expect facts behind a gregorian rant.
Neinsense99
3.5 / 5 (21) Apr 27, 2013
Lords Little Spammer, er Helper made a post with 4767 characters (not counting spaces) in it, according to the word count feature in LibreOffice. The rest of us are limited to 1000. What gives?
Neinsense99
3.1 / 5 (17) Apr 27, 2013
Lords Little Spammer, er Helper made a post with 4767 characters (not counting spaces) in it, according to the word count feature in LibreOffice. The rest of us are limited to 1000. What gives?
gregor1
1.7 / 5 (24) Apr 27, 2013
"My three main goals would be to reduce human population to
about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure
and see wilderness, with it's full complement of species,
returning throughout the world."
-Dave Foreman,
co-founder of Earth First!
djr
4.2 / 5 (21) Apr 27, 2013
gregor1 - I looked up Earth First. Definitely a very radical group - and not one I would have anything to do with. Most of their links did not work - so they are not very good at keeping a web site. However - they do not consider man to be a 'pestilence that needs to be killed off'. They question the ability of the earth to sustain our current population - but that is a far cry from saying man should be 'killed off' In other words - you are a liar.

The problem I have is with your need to spam the internet with inflammatory lies. Every movement has it's radical wings - but why the need to spam a science web site with straw man arguments. Discuss the merits of the article at hand - stop spamming a neat science web site with your anti-science.
gregor1
1.6 / 5 (27) Apr 27, 2013
This is from the horse's mouth in Australia. It's rather long but well worth a read.
"Greens' policy subjugates the individual to the environment. It repeats the Malthusian fear of global overpopulation, contrary to the latest demographic evidence.[104] Combined with a rejection of economic growth, the Greens' ideal future is the civilisational death already under way in much of Europe.[105]

These policies are evidence once again that the Greens place no intrinsic value in human life. To them, human life is merely instrumental, because intrinsic value lies in the environment itself."
http://www.quadra...ednref52
Mike_Massen
3.3 / 5 (24) Apr 27, 2013
gregor1 is GUILTY of intellectual DISHONESTY with this rubbish
This is from the horse's mouth in Australia. It's rather long but well worth a read... {snipped to save b/w}
Blah blah opinion piece of propaganda - NO ACTUAL SOURCE FROM any Horse.

You write as if its an authoritative source of actual policy so you *try* to give an impression you have a reasonable source whereas you are frothing at the mouth because you dont and in fact you cant. I live in Australia and have read polices from all sitting members in senate or representatives, all are wide of the mark you claim, none are anywhere near it. Some horse gregor1 should be in the glue factory !

Guilty of Lying.
Guilty of Intellectual Dishonesty.
Guilty of attempted manipulation.
Guilty of Wasting all our time.

gregor1 has been caught out and so easily, sorely needs a basic education *and* a basic sense of morality you fake !

Actually I vote gregor1 should be Banned for such basic deception and zero integrity !

gregor1
2 / 5 (25) Apr 27, 2013
There are 86 citations at the end of the piece many directly from the green movement itself.You guys really love to smear people who provide evidence. The piece is well referenced Mike. You think the citations are fake?
PhotonX
5 / 5 (13) Apr 27, 2013
How did "The Lords Little Helper" violate the 1000 character limit? Please, folks, report this little garbage dumper so the admins will notice and analyze this bizarre post.
Jesus Christ! No kidding. His mass-o-rant wasn't even on topic, never mind being 5x the limit. He must have the Lord looking out for him. It's a miracle!
arq
5 / 5 (14) Apr 27, 2013
A lot of people here are blinded by political ideology....and refuse to accept anything that is contrary to their political beliefs.
VendicarE
4.2 / 5 (22) Apr 27, 2013
"the more oil we pull out from the earth the more it heats up" - Nauseus

Absolutely. This is because as you remove oil from the interior of the earth, the earth shrinks and the surface gets closer to the hot interior core, where the space aliens live.

VendicarE
4.1 / 5 (18) Apr 27, 2013
From GregorTard's mindless political article...

"What is at stake in the Greens' "revolution" is the heart and soul of Western civilisation, built on the Judeo-Christian/Enlightenment synthesis"

In other words, it is Conservative Christian Political Claptrap.
VendicarE
4 / 5 (16) Apr 27, 2013
Sounds like a good plan that the Christian God would approve.

"My three main goals would be to reduce human population to
about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure
and see wilderness, with it's full complement of species,
returning throughout the world." - GregorTard
VendicarE
4 / 5 (12) Apr 27, 2013
Yes, the Environmental movement is based on solid science.

"Many in the environment movement are Malthusians who truly believe that mankind is a pestilence that needs to be killed off or, at the very least, trimmed back" - GregorTard

I can't think of a single scientist to whom your statement does not also apply.
VendicarE
4.3 / 5 (17) Apr 27, 2013

"What warmed the water temp. 150 years ago?" - PianoAss

Nothing. 150 years is simply as far back as the study goes.

You can't really be as stupid as you present yourself, can you?
VendicarE
4.2 / 5 (15) Apr 27, 2013
No rational person would impose such an immoral world upon another.

"We live in a REAL world where people starve to death or freeze to death when cost structures change substantially." - DeeJay

What is your excuse for doing so?
VendicarE
4.2 / 5 (17) Apr 27, 2013
anti-gorical is caught telling yet another lie.

"1951 when the globe was in a cooling trend." - anti-gorical

http://www.global...cord_png

One wonders why it persists in lying in every one of it's posts.
VendicarE
4.3 / 5 (18) Apr 27, 2013
Gentleman JimboTard tells a whopper here.

"Did anyone tell these "scientists" that first of all, the earth has been warming since the end of the ice age." - GentlemanJimBoTard

Sorry JimboTard. The earth has been cooling since the peak that occurred just after the last ice age.

You have been corrected on this before. Yet you persist in repeating the same factually incorrect statement.

Some would call that a lie.

Note that the slope of the general curve (black) is to the right and down.

http://www.global..._Rev_png

Getting the basics wrong is why you are a tard.
Egleton
3.3 / 5 (16) Apr 27, 2013
thanks Guys. I came here like a blowfly to a barbie just for the inanities of the "please don't take my Nascars away" crowd.
An amusing little whine.
And yes. Malthus did maths.
You might want to do some to.
Here is the most important video you will ever see.
http://www.youtub...nrvcS6AQ
djr
4.2 / 5 (15) Apr 27, 2013
Gregor1 - This is from the horse's mouth in Australia.

I read your attack piece on the Green Party of Australia. No where in that article is there any support for your claim that "Many in the environment movement are Malthusians who truly believe that mankind is a pestilence that needs to be killed off"

So - we have an interesting article that studies sea surface temperatures - I agree with the criticism of the misleading title - I wish the journalists would be less alarmist - I guess they feel they need to attract eyeballs. Then your response is to make a ridiculous statement about many in the environment movement wanting to 'kill off' the human race. Nothing you have posted subsequently would come close to supporting your nonsense. So you have a political agenda - and need to spam a science web site with total crap. cont.
djr
4.2 / 5 (15) Apr 27, 2013
cont. Let me leave you with one quote from your article. Look at how this quote totally contradicts your stupid premise that ""Many in the environment movement are Malthusians who truly believe that mankind is a pestilence that needs to be killed off"

"It explains why the Greens support the "right of indigenous peoples to self-determination"

Do you see how this is totally contradictory - totally incompatible with your statement? In other words - you are a liar.
antigoracle
1.2 / 5 (19) Apr 27, 2013
Gentleman JimboTard tells a whopper here.

"Did anyone tell these "scientists" that first of all, the earth has been warming since the end of the ice age." - GentlemanJimBoTard

Sorry JimboTard. The earth has been cooling since the peak that occurred just after the last ice age.

You have been corrected on this before. Yet you persist in repeating the same factually incorrect statement.

Some would call that a lie.

Note that the slope of the general curve (black) is to the right and down.

http://www.global..._Rev_png

Getting the basics wrong is why you are a tard.
-- VendicarTurd
In one post this AGW Alarmist Turd has succeeded in providing a strong argument against AGW and proving that he is incapable of comprehension.
Now that pic is a true hockey stick.
runrig
4.2 / 5 (10) Apr 27, 2013
VendicarTurd
In one post this AGW Alarmist Turd has succeeded in providing a strong argument against AGW and proving that he is incapable of comprehension.
Now that pic is a true hockey stick.


Anti:
You may want to examine the x-axis. It is in thousands of years you know?
I'll spell it out. Therefore the post-industrial warming cannot be shown ( honestly - and you would approve of that, yes? ) because it is less than the thickness of the mean line ( black ). And so the "blade" is not depictable.
If you are alluding to the "shaft" - well the original "hockey-stick and all others prior to this new one going back 12k years stopped considerably short of that. So coming out of the IA was not shown.
Claudius
1.6 / 5 (21) Apr 27, 2013
3. Rate of rise is far more than any other cause...


And yet the "rate of rise" has been much less than expected/predicted, to the point that many think it has plateaued. So if this is your primary indicator of anthropogenic influence, it no longer applies.

In fact, no one here has ever provided clear evidence of AGW. I have been told the following:

1. CO2 is on the rise.
2. Temperature is on the rise.
3. We can't think of any other reason but anthropogenic CO2, therefore it IS anthropogenic CO2.

With this kind of reasoning, climate science has the same level of scientific credibility as psychology. Which is a wannabe science at best.
Claudius
1.4 / 5 (20) Apr 27, 2013
Sorry JimboTard. The earth has been cooling since the peak that occurred just after the last ice age.


Another example of defective AGW reasoning. If the earth had been cooling since the last ice age, what would that mean? First of all, we would still be in an ice age. Second, we would rejoice at the possibility that we could warm the earth.
Claudius
1.5 / 5 (19) Apr 27, 2013
anti-gorical is caught telling yet another lie.

"1951 when the globe was in a cooling trend." - anti-gorical

http://www.global...cord_png

One wonders why it persists in lying in every one of it's posts.


I followed your link. The graph >you< provided clearly shows that there was a cooling trend between about 1943 to 1960. Is this your idea of contradictory evidence? To provide evidence to support the idea that the earth was in a cooling trend to refute a claim that there was a cooling trend?
cantdrive85
1.4 / 5 (22) Apr 27, 2013
Earth's climate system is essentially closed

Catagorically false statement! Such philisophical assumptions will doom any attempt to correctly model the climate or weather. Without a proper understanding of why the atmosphere/magnetosphere exists any attempt to model will fail. The existence of the atmosphere/magnetosphere is to isolate the charged body that is Earth from the surrounding plasma produced by the Sun. As the energy in the solar plasma fluctuates, so to will the energy in the atmosphere. Until this electrodynamic connection is considered, success in modeling will remain feeble at best. How many models consider this connection? Exactly ZERO! How many models will be accurate? Exactly ZERO! AGW=FAIL!
Claudius
1.5 / 5 (22) Apr 27, 2013
"Mars's ice caps are melting, and Jupiter is developing a second giant red spot...thought to be the result of a sudden warming on our solar system's largest planet. Neptune's moon, Triton, studied in 1989 after the unmanned Voyageur probe flew past, seems to have heated up significantly since then. Even Pluto has warmed slightly in recent years, if you can call -230C instead of -233C "warmer." http://www.canada...e02dced7

"... the level of solar activity during the past 70 years is exceptional, and the previous period of equally high activity occurred more than 8,000 years ago." http://www.ncdc.n...nki2004/

Temps up, CO2s up, can't think of any other reason for warming than anthropogenic CO2. And at the same time that CO2 levels are increasing, temperature change has almost leveled out.

In any legitimate science, this would be reason for at least re-thinking the conclusion that CO2 is driving warming.
Porgie
1.4 / 5 (21) Apr 27, 2013
What we need to worry about are all the parasites, Ho's and deadbeats collecting taxpayer money. A geological warming trend is not our problem, its irresponsible, social and economic failures.
VendicarE
4.1 / 5 (9) Apr 27, 2013
Republicans like Porgie should have thought about that before they sent America's manufacturing sector to China.

"What we need to worry about are all the parasites, Ho's and deadbeats collecting taxpayer money" - Porgie

So choke on your own conservative vomit... Porgie.
djr
4.1 / 5 (14) Apr 27, 2013
Claudius - " We can't think of any other reason but anthropogenic CO2, therefore it IS anthropogenic CO2. "

Do you not think that it is good science to identify correlation - and then to inquire as to the nature of said correlation? You are incorrect on a mind numbing scale to imply that scientists have not identified the mechanism by which C02 may be causing warming. Scientists have a very solid understanding of climate, and the drivers of climate - ie Milankovich cycles, solar radiation, atmospheric content, ocean currents, weather patterns, etc. etc. The only one that provides an explanation of current warming is C02. If you know of another candidate (with an explanation) please submit your research. Last week the weather channel told us it was going to rain - and it did not. Do you feel this invalidates meteorology?
djr
4.3 / 5 (12) Apr 27, 2013
cantdrive "How many models consider this connection? Exactly ZERO! How many models will be accurate? Exactly ZERO! AGW=FAIL"

So how exactly do you know about this amazing purpose of our atmosphere - that all the other climate scientists are unaware of? Do you have a magic instrument that detects this strange phenomena, or did you read it in a magic book? Sometimes all of my incorrect assumptions about the basic rationality of the human species come crashing down on me. I know science works - I just sent a text on my cell phone. But how were we able to come so far, in the midst of such weirdness? Are we making progress in terms of moving to a more rational communal state? Is it like the frog in the boiling water - I am too immersed to notice the changing temperature, or do I suffer from delusions of rationality, in a world of voodoo?
Kron
1.5 / 5 (20) Apr 27, 2013
Funny, some are trying to decrease the practices contributing to Global Warming while my intent is to increase my contribution. It all boils down to personal bias of sorts. As they say, 'some like it hot.' Besides, I've got some real-estate which will become prime ocean front property if this whole AGW theory pans out.

Keeping my fingers crossed.
NotParker
1.4 / 5 (20) Apr 27, 2013
Previous record was 1951? Wow.
axemaster
4.1 / 5 (13) Apr 27, 2013
Funny, some are trying to decrease the practices contributing to Global Warming while my intent is to increase my contribution. It all boils down to personal bias of sorts. As they say, 'some like it hot.' Besides, I've got some real-estate which will become prime ocean front property if this whole AGW theory pans out.

Keeping my fingers crossed.

I wouldn't keep your fingers crossed... We appear to be on track for warming in excess of 2C by 2050 and >5C by 2100. And most scientists agree that modern civilization probably can't survive past 4C or so. It's sort of a mutual agreement that they won't discuss that though - they don't want to make people depressed and create a self-fulfilling disaster while there's still any hope of avoiding it.

So while you might make some cash in the short term, the fact that we'll be seeing the books starting to fall off the bookshelf in 30-40 years isn't something I look forward to. I won't even be old yet.
djr
4 / 5 (16) Apr 27, 2013
NotParker - "Previous record was 1951? Wow."

This exchange was from earlier on this thread -

"What warmed the water temp. 150 years ago?" - PianoAss

Nothing. 150 years is simply as far back as the study goes.

You can't really be as stupid as you present yourself, can you?

As can be seen clearly - NotParker can be and is as stupid as he/she presents himself/herself. I despair the fate of our species when we have to deal with such bullshit on a science board.
cantdrive85
1.2 / 5 (20) Apr 27, 2013
So how exactly do you know about this amazing purpose of our atmosphere - that all the other climate scientists are unaware of?


No magic book, just an understanding of plasma physics and Kristian Birkeland's Terella experiments. As he demonstrated 100 years ago a charged sphere immersed in plasma will develop a magnetic field and a wide range of other EM phenomenon. I guess these guys haven't studied Birkeland and understood the implications his research suggested. Narrow worldview I guess. You'll ask how the earth creates the energy to charge the sphere, since Birkeland used electricity to charge his sphere I must believe Zeus is responsible for plugging us in. Although hilarious, the fact the Earth is spinning as it orbits within the solar plasma it creates a homopolar or Faraday motor effect. No magic, just an electrodynamic solar system far more complex than the simplistic mechanistic view of the standard theory.
gregor1
1.7 / 5 (20) Apr 28, 2013
@ZClaudius "Guilty of Lying.
Guilty of Intellectual Dishonesty.
Guilty of attempted manipulation.
Guilty of Wasting all our time."

Burn the witch! Burn the witch! Burn the witch!....oh hey... the witch is me...

My Malthusian comment was in reply to Dee Jay who wrote
'We live in a REAL world where people starve to death or freeze to death when cost structures change substantially. This is just ONE of several long term, complex examples that I honestly don't understand people who share the attitude that you do can't understand."

Perhaps I am wrong but if that is so then Greens may be lacking in basic intelligence and are unable to reason through to the consequences of the proposals they advocate.
Then again maybe they just get caught up in group think which isn't always logical. The vehemence of you and Dir's response suggests the later, but then you are saving the world...
deepsand
2.5 / 5 (23) Apr 28, 2013
Perhaps I am wrong but if that is so then Greens may be lacking in basic intelligence and are unable to reason through to the consequences of the proposals they advocate.
Then again maybe they just get caught up in group think which isn't always logical. The vehemence of you and Dir's response suggests the later, but then you are saving the world...

Most descriptive of those who would rape Earth at all costs just for their own temporary personal comforts.
djr
3.9 / 5 (15) Apr 28, 2013
gregor1 - "The vehemence of you and Dir's response suggests the later, but then you are saving the world"

I am definitely guilty of being passionate on the issue of science - and often letting my passion show. You accuse us of group-think. I see myself as highly individualistic in my thinking, and very much out of step with the dominant culture I live in. I champion science - and deride religion. I think that position is one that stands against the dominant cultural group-think. Science is of course a communal process - literally millions of scientists over the centuries building on each other's work. We advocate exploring the universe with a structured process, not using a magic book. Your use of derogatory terms such as "greens" shows up your motivation - you are an idealogue with a political agenda to push. I will end with one question - cont.
djr
3.9 / 5 (15) Apr 28, 2013
cont. Every single article published on physorg that is in any way related to climate, is immediately spammed by the same group of commenters (antigoracle, notparker, shootist, claudius, uba, gregor1 etc.). Each time - the commenters claim the scientists are wrong, and the conspiracy theories start. So who is guilty of group think?
BSD
2.8 / 5 (18) Apr 28, 2013
cont. Every single article published on physorg that is in any way related to climate, is immediately spammed by the same group of commenters (antigoracle, notparker, shootist, claudius, uba, gregor1 etc.). Each time - the commenters claim the scientists are wrong, and the conspiracy theories start. So who is guilty of group think?


Anti-Science, Science Hate; the Right's new religion.
VendicarE
4.3 / 5 (12) Apr 28, 2013
There are a series of equations that describe the atmosphere. CO2 concentration is an input into one of those equations. Increasing the concentration of CO2 as the input into those equations produces a warming atmosphere just above the earth's surface.

The equations are not particularly complex, and can be distilled to a level of grade school science.

In fact grade 7 students prove the validity of the CO2 vs heating relationship every day all over the world.

"We can't think of any other reason but anthropogenic CO2, therefore it IS anthropogenic CO2. " - ClaudiusTard

It is really irrelevant if MORONS wish to not believe or are capable of understanding the proof or not.. It has been verified by experiments run by grade 7 public school students through to PHD scientists.

The results are always the same.... ClaudiusTard can't accept that. So he manufactures convenient lies to convince himself otherwise.

It is a mental illness.
VendicarE
3.9 / 5 (12) Apr 28, 2013
Correct.

"Claudius "Guilty of Lying.
Guilty of Intellectual Dishonesty.
Guilty of attempted manipulation.
Guilty of Wasting all our time." - GregorTard
VendicarE
4.1 / 5 (9) Apr 28, 2013
Statement "Todays high was 17'C at 3PM"

ParkerTard's dishonest misrepresentation of the statement ... "Previous Record high was 17'C"

"Previous record was 1951? " - ParkerTard
antigoracle
1.6 / 5 (20) Apr 28, 2013
There are a series of equations that describe the atmosphere. CO2 concentration is an input into one of those equations. Increasing the concentration of CO2 as the input into those equations produces a warming atmosphere just above the earth's surface.

The equations are not particularly complex, and can be distilled to a level of grade school science.

In fact grade 7 students prove the validity of the CO2 vs heating relationship every day all over the world.
It is a mental illness.
-- VendicarTurd
And yet, "climate scientist" executing those simple equations on supercomputers, fail to match reality.
Yours is truly a mental illness.

VendicarE
4.2 / 5 (10) Apr 28, 2013
"Mars's ice caps are melting, and Jupiter is developing a second giant red spot.." - ClaudiusTard

But according to you, just a few messages ago, the earth is cooling?

Have you decided to change your story?

Crock - Global warming on Mars, ice caps melting

http://www.skepti...mars.htm

djr
3.9 / 5 (15) Apr 28, 2013
Antigoracle -"And yet, "climate scientist" executing those simple equations on supercomputers, fail to match reality."

So how accurate have the climate models been Anti? - please provide data. A quick google search on the accuracy of climate models suggest that despite the overwhelming complexity of the system - the models have been quite accurate. Here is a couple of sites that support the premise that the models have been quite accurate.

http://e360.yale....es/2360/

http://www.rawsto...results/

cantdrive85
1.7 / 5 (24) Apr 28, 2013
Well, I'm sure if the models are so accurate this sea surface temperature rise was predicted. I'm sure these models also predict the highly localized warming that was observed. Fail.
runrig
4.3 / 5 (11) Apr 28, 2013
.............
In fact grade 7 students prove the validity of the CO2 vs heating relationship every day all over the world.
It is a mental illness.

And yet, "climate scientist" executing those simple equations on supercomputers, fail to match reality.
Yours is truly a mental illness.


Anti: The old "models are wrong" argument again. I and others have continually pointed out that CO2 forcing giving a monotonous few tenths of a degree global ave temp rise per decade is not, as many posts allude to .... the only algorithm to be solved. You're not so daft as to be unaware of the overlying climate drivers, that provide the noise in the system. Please have think about it and twig that some of the noise is a chaotic and as such climate forecasts will go wrong. That is they cannot be integrated over time with reliability.
View the vid here ....
http://thinkprogr...ntinues/
VendicarE
3.9 / 5 (14) Apr 28, 2013
Actually, they match reality very well. It is your dishonest and fanatical ignorance of them that does not match reality.

The models produce a range of results that depend upon a host of unpredictable factors like the depth of Conservative American Stupidity, Sporadic Volcanic Eruptions,

So the models are run numerous times and the statistical distribution of the individual results is the final modeling result.

"And yet, "climate scientist" executing those simple equations on supercomputers, fail to match reality." - AntiGorical

The lie you and all other denialists are guilty of is in taking the median of the results of these runs and then comparing it against current temperatures, and claiming that they aren't predicted.

In fact current global temperatures remain in the predictive envelope of those calculations and thus within the projected results from the models.

You have been told this in various ways on multiple occasions. Yet you continue to lie, and distort.
VendicarE
4 / 5 (13) Apr 28, 2013
Model resolution is not sufficient to produce reliable estimates of "highly localized warming"

"I'm sure these models also predict the highly localized warming that was observed. " - CantDriveTooOldAndStupid

Medical science can't explain why you had a bellyache last week. But it can tell you that you will die if your core temperature rises by 7'C for any appreciable length of time.

http://www.youtub...RIHFtk#!

Educate yourself, Lowlife.
djr
4.4 / 5 (13) Apr 28, 2013
cantdrive _ "Well, I'm sure if the models are so accurate this sea surface temperature rise was predicted. I'm sure these models also predict the highly localized warming that was observed. Fail."

Which of the models are you referring to? Have you been in contact with the developers of this model? Have you asked them if their model was actually designed to predict "highly localized warming?" Please share with us your credentials for being able to judge the validity of climate models...
gregor1
1.9 / 5 (23) Apr 29, 2013
@Dir So you are passionate about science but you refuse to accept the fact that all the major data sets troposphere stopped warming in 1998 despite the fact that CO2 levels continue to soar? For an hypothesis to be science is has to be falsifiable though I guess you will say this is just 'natural variation" . Applying Occam's razor to the warming of the 20 th century I say it's all natural variation and the mechanism is decline in cloud cover. There are several papers that document this and I've posted them in the past but now Physorg (and probably you too) consider them spam. I suggest interested parties use google.
djr
3.8 / 5 (17) Apr 29, 2013
@Dir So you are passionate about science but you refuse to accept the fact that all the major data sets troposphere stopped warming in 1998 despite the fact that CO2 levels continue to soar?

No I don't. See - once again you are wrong. How is it that after being shown repeatedly that you are wrong - you continue to post your opinion? Could it be that you are pushing a political agenda - and do not care about facts? Enough with the obfuscation about science having to be falsifiable. That statement is used over and over on this board, and shows you do not understand the situation. If the weather forecasts rain today, and it does not rain - do you pull out your little falsifiable statement, and conclude that meteorology is not science? The climate is an overwhelmingly complex system - and the scientists fully acknowledge that they are not even close to fully understanding it (same with weather) - do you propose we give up and stop trying?
cantdrive85
1.4 / 5 (21) Apr 29, 2013
If the weather forecasts rain today, and it does not rain - do you pull out your little falsifiable statement, and conclude that meteorology is not science?

It's not a question of whether or not it's science, it's a question as to the validity of the theory of how weather is created. The climate/weather sciences assume convection to be the driver of weather and climate on Earth. Convection is well understood. The theory of gas behavior in a convective system is developed with great exactitude. But the weather forecasts derived from convection theory are more than mere applications of theory: They are also tests of that theory, and a wrong forecast is a falsification of the theory. The significant fraction of erroneous forecasts by weathermen is an indication that the theory is missing something. Just throwing you hands in the air claiming "complexity" is the reason this science cannot be falsified is ridiculous. I'll agree it's complex, more complex than just convection of gas.
cantdrive85
1.4 / 5 (20) Apr 29, 2013
Have you asked them if their model was actually designed to predict "highly localized warming?" Please share with us your credentials for being able to judge the validity of climate models...

If the "models" (any model whatsoever, I'll let you cherry pick to find the one or more that is even close to being accurate or reflects this data) are correct, they should be "designed" to reflect/predict REALITY! If the reality, which is reported above to have caused highly localized heating and cooling for that matter, then that should be what the models reflect if they are accurate.
It seems to me that according to you the models could very well be "designed" to predict warming. Here I thought that models were to be made to reflect something, not to be "designed" for a particular outcome. If the model must be "designed" to produce a particular outcome such as the above observations then it's not much of a model is it?
cantdrive85
1.4 / 5 (19) Apr 29, 2013
Please share with us your credentials for being able to judge the validity of climate models...


I've got a JrGED, that is a Joonear hi ekwiv... eccuiv... equivalency dagree. It's more than enuff edukayshun to realize the climate models are inaccurate.
djr
4.1 / 5 (14) Apr 29, 2013
cantdrive - "It's not a question of whether or not it's science" Take that issue up with Gregor - Gregor is the one tossing around the "it aint science cuz it aint falsifiable"
cantdrive85
1.4 / 5 (18) Apr 29, 2013
cantdrive - "It's not a question of whether or not it's science" Take that issue up with Gregor - Gregor is the one tossing around the "it aint science cuz it aint falsifiable"

No, you're claiming it's not falsifiable because of the inherent "complexity". Maybe you'd like to address the points I made rather than changing the subject.
djr
4.1 / 5 (13) Apr 29, 2013
cantdrive - "The significant fraction of erroneous forecasts by weathermen is an indication that the theory is missing something."

Agreed. That does not mean we dismiss the entire field as 'unscientific'. This is what many on this site do - including gregor1.

"Here I thought that models were to be made to reflect something, not to be "designed"

I was not implying the models are designed to produce a particular outcome - I was saying they are designed to function on a certain level of detail. selecting details of climate that are not in line with the design parameters of the model is disingenuous.

Scientists undergo decades of training, and dedicate their lives to their craft. Your ged does not qualify you to determine that a whole branch of science is invalid. You have delusions of grandeur.

djr
3.9 / 5 (12) Apr 29, 2013
No, you're claiming it's not falsifiable because of the inherent "complexity". Maybe you'd like to address the points I made rather than changing the subject.

I am addressing the subject directly. Gregor said that it was not science because it was not falsifiable. I said that is wrong - a field can be 'science' even if it is not falsifiable. Read again. Maybe go get some college education so you can learn to read.
cantdrive85
1.4 / 5 (18) Apr 29, 2013
The climate is an overwhelmingly complex system - and the scientists fully acknowledge that they are not even close to fully understanding it (same with weather) - do you propose we give up and stop trying?


I doesn't stop them from making outrageous Chicken Little type claims does it? They are "not even close to understanding it", yet we have alarmist claims, attempts to change laws and collect taxes, and a constant barrage of definite outcomes that lead to calamity for humanity and the Earth as a whole. Do you not see the apparent dichotomy of your reasoning?

cantdrive85
1.5 / 5 (19) Apr 29, 2013
Climate science is real, there is no debate there. The question pertains to the theory of convection of gases and how that relates to weather/climate. Where most fall off the track is assuming that the currently accepted theory of weather creation IS climate science. What we need to realize is there is climate science, and under that there should exist MULTIPLE theories of how weather/climate is created. Unfortunately, convection of gas is the only accepted process of weather generation on Earth, an isolated closed system that cannot be influenced by external processes other than the radiant heating provided by the sun. This myopic POV ignores the fact that the Earth is a small charged sphere orbiting in a large body of inhomogeneous solar plasma and the multitudes of variables such an environment can produce. "Climate Science" cannot be falsified just as "Geology" cannot be falsified. However, the theories under a particular heading of science must be falsifiable
runrig
4.3 / 5 (11) Apr 29, 2013
The significant fraction of erroneous forecasts by weathermen is an indication that the theory is missing something. Just throwing you hands in the air claiming "complexity" is the reason this science cannot be falsified is ridiculous....


There are no physics missing, just parametrization of the complexity of the Earth system. The basic atmospheric physics are immutable. And indeed "complexity" is the main forecasting problem. Simply because that complexity cannot be completely captured at time T+0 in the forecast run. Then add to that the chaos inherent in the system. This is why ensemble forecasts are done. To reduce the PROBABILITIES of inaccurate forecasts. In weather the starting obs. and chaos win out, usually, by day 6. Climate is more determintistic. The drivers are known ( sorry, they are ) and can be modeled bar the frequency times in some (ENSO is the main one). Models show rising globally averaged temps, within an error boundary for these uncertain cyclic changes.
cantdrive85
1.4 / 5 (19) Apr 29, 2013
The drivers are known ( sorry, they are ) and can be modeled bar the frequency times in some (ENSO is the main one).


Got it all figured out, huh? That's why the atmospheric phenomenon on the other planets in our solar system are so well understood. Gas convection so clearly explains why the fastest winds in the solar system are on the coldest planet, Neptune. NOT! It explains so clearly the weather on the gas giants. NOT! Lightning is so well understood because gas convection explains it so clearly and concisely. NOT!

Yep, got it all figured out, just need to tidy up some loose ends, right? Delusional!

djr
4.6 / 5 (9) Apr 29, 2013
cantdrive "I doesn't stop them from making outrageous Chicken Little type claims does it?"

No it does not - and I am on record opposing the hyperbolic language that is often used. If you look carefully - a lot of that language comes from the media. NOW who is changing the subject?????????
djr
4.6 / 5 (9) Apr 29, 2013
cantdrive - "However, the theories under a particular heading of science must be falsifiable"

There is a theory regarding the extinction of the dinosaurs. Please explain how that theory is falsifiable. If it cannot be falsified - you in your great wisdom conclude that it cannot be science - is that correct?
cantdrive85
1.4 / 5 (18) Apr 29, 2013
Your theory must remain a hypothesis, as there is no verifiable evidence to support it. There are many examples of hypotheses that have attained an unwarranted theory status.
cantdrive85
1.3 / 5 (16) Apr 29, 2013
cantdrive "I doesn't stop them from making outrageous Chicken Little type claims does it?"

No it does not - and I am on record opposing the hyperbolic language that is often used. If you look carefully - a lot of that language comes from the media. NOW who is changing the subject?????????


I guess there is no argument against the fact that climate change has become politicized by corporations and individuals on both sides of the fence, each with their own agendas and goals. The idea that it's a one sided "conspiracy" is naive, there are many agendas on many levels, very few that are honestly aligned with the altruistic POV that were "saving ourselves from ourselves".
runrig
4.6 / 5 (9) Apr 29, 2013
The drivers are known ( sorry, they are ) and can be modeled bar the frequency times in some (ENSO is the main one).


Got it all figured out, huh? That's why the atmospheric phenomenon on the other planets in our solar system are so well understood. Gas convection so clearly explains why the fastest winds in the solar system are on the coldest planet, Neptune. NOT! It explains so clearly the weather on the gas giants. NOT! Lightning is so well understood because gas convection explains it so clearly and concisely. NOT!

Yep, got it all figured out, just need to tidy up some loose ends, right? Delusional!



Oh yeah, what are your qualifications for not being delusional?
Apart from intellectual arrogance of course.

I could tell you mine for knowing how the atmosphere works but I guess I'd receive more arrogance back. So I figure why bother.

PS: I actually agree with your post below. Though I reckon scientists doing the research have no POV. Just curiosity.
djr
4.6 / 5 (9) Apr 29, 2013
cantdrive: "Your theory must remain a hypothesis, as there is no verifiable evidence to support it. There are many examples of hypotheses that have attained an unwarranted theory status"

The question of when a hypothesis becomes a theory is above my head - which is no big deal for me to admit. Again - the question at hand is - if something is not falsifiable - does that mean it is not science? That is Gregor's premise - and one that is echoed around this board over and over again. I think you are agreening with me - that a subject can still be considered 'science' even if it is not falsifiable. I agree with runrig - that scientists are motivated by curiosity - (or love of science).
Howhot
4.2 / 5 (10) Apr 30, 2013
I guess there is no argument against the fact that climate change has become politicized by corporations and individuals on both sides of the fence, each with their own agendas and goals. The idea that it's a one sided "conspiracy" is naive, there are many agendas on many levels, very few that are honestly aligned with the altruistic POV that were "saving ourselves from ourselves".

No you are wrong. It has only become politicized by the rightwing who wish only to enrich themselves at the expense of everything else. It's not a "conspiracy", its a freakin mindset that if the environment trims just 2cents off of the profit margin, then "to hell with the environment, give me my 2cents." Regardless of what you think about global warming, this is a mindset the permeates the riightwing and it's always at the expense of the poor, the middle class and working people. I've never seen a republican do anything of worth.



deepsand
2.5 / 5 (16) Apr 30, 2013
... the theories under a particular heading of science must be falsifiable

FALSE.

Falsifiability is applicable to INDUCTIVE logic. It is NOT necessary that DEDUCTIVE reasoning be falsifiable in order to be sound.
Whydening Gyre
1.5 / 5 (11) May 01, 2013
cont. Every single article published on physorg that is in any way related to climate, is immediately spammed by the same group of commenters (antigoracle, notparker, shootist, claudius, uba, gregor1 etc.). Each time - the commenters claim the scientists are wrong, and the conspiracy theories start. So who is guilty of group think?

I guess that would depend on which group you are in.
Personally, I wouldn't belong to a group that would have me as a member...

More news stories

UN weather agency warns of 'El Nino' this year

The UN weather agency Tuesday warned there was a good chance of an "El Nino" climate phenomenon in the Pacific Ocean this year, bringing droughts and heavy rainfall to the rest of the world.

Patent talk: Google sharpens contact lens vision

(Phys.org) —A report from Patent Bolt brings us one step closer to what Google may have in mind in developing smart contact lenses. According to the discussion Google is interested in the concept of contact ...

Wireless industry makes anti-theft commitment

A trade group for wireless providers said Tuesday that the biggest mobile device manufacturers and carriers will soon put anti-theft tools on the gadgets to try to deter rampant smartphone theft.