Century-old science helps confirm global warming

May 23, 2013
Century-old science helps confirm global warming

(Phys.org) —Ocean measurements taken more than 135 years ago during the scientific expedition of HMS Challenger have provided further confirmation of human-produced global warming over the past century.

The researchers also found the thermal expansion of caused by this global warming contributed to around 40 per cent of the total sea level rise seen in tide gauges from 1873 to 1955. The remaining 60 per cent was likely to have come from the melting of ice sheets and glaciers.

"Our research revealed warming of the planet can be clearly detected since 1873 and that our oceans continue to absorb the great majority of this heat," said lead author Dr Will Hobbs, a researcher at the University of Tasmania's Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies and the Australian Research Council's Centre of Excellence for Science.

"Currently scientists estimate the oceans absorb more than 90 per cent of the heat trapped by , and we attribute the global warming to anthropogenic causes."

The Challenger expedition, from 1872-1876, was the world's first global scientific survey of life beneath the . Along the way scientists measured , lowering thermometers hundreds of metres deep on ropes made from Italian hemp during its voyage.

Researchers combined these data with modern observations and used both in state-of-the-art to get a picture of how the world's oceans have changed since the Challenger's voyage.

"The key to this research was to determine the range of uncertainty for the measurements taken by the crew of the Challenger," said study co-author Josh Willis, a at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory.

"After we had taken all these uncertainties into account, it became apparent that the rate of warming we saw across the oceans far exceeded the degree of uncertainty around the measurements.

"So, while the uncertainty was large, the warming signal detected was far greater."

Uncertainties around the Challenger's measurements were caused by the limited areas measured during the voyage; the actual depths the thermometers descended to and the likely natural variation in temperature that could occur in each region during the voyage.

To get the most reliable results the researchers used the most conservative estimates after taking into account the maximum possible variation caused by these uncertainties.

"Because we took the most conservative outcome, we are likely to have underestimated the true temperature rise," said Dr Hobbs.

"A simple analysis of our results suggests we may have underestimated the warming by as much as 17 per cent. In fact many of the stations most prone to bias were in the Eastern Pacific - a region showing one of the strongest ocean warming trends - so the true warming may be even larger than that."

In addition to determining the increase in temperatures, the measurements from the Challenger expedition revealed the amount of in in the oceans before the 1950s. Prior to this research, climate models offered the only way to estimate the change.

"This research adds yet another suite of compelling data that shows human activity continues to have a dramatic influence on the Earth's climate," said Dr Hobbs.

Explore further: NOAA establishes 'tipping points' for sea level rise related flooding

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Dire outlook despite global warming 'pause': study

May 19, 2013

A global warming "pause" over the past decade may invalidate the harshest climate change predictions for the next 50 to 100 years, a study said Sunday—though levels remain in the danger zone.

Recommended for you

UN sends team to clean up Bangladesh oil spill

16 hours ago

The United Nations said Thursday it has sent a team of international experts to Bangladesh to help clean up the world's largest mangrove forest, more than a week after it was hit by a huge oil spill.

How will climate change transform agriculture?

16 hours ago

Climate change impacts will require major but very uncertain transformations of global agriculture systems by mid-century, according to new research from the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis.

Report: Radiation leak at nuclear dump was small

16 hours ago

A final report by independent researchers shows the radiation leak from the federal government's underground nuclear waste repository in southern New Mexico was small and localized.

Confucian thought and China's environmental dilemmas

21 hours ago

Conventional wisdom holds that China - the world's most populous country - is an inveterate polluter, that it puts economic goals above conservation in every instance. So China's recent moves toward an apparent ...

User comments : 44

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Shootist
1.4 / 5 (19) May 23, 2013
Century-old science helps confirm global warming


I cannot wait to grow oranges in Alaska.
hopper
1.6 / 5 (20) May 23, 2013
"Our research revealed warming of the planet can be clearly detected since 1873 and that our oceans continue to absorb the great majority of this heat,"

"Currently scientists estimate the oceans absorb more than 90 per cent of the heat trapped by greenhouse gases, and we attribute the global warming to anthropogenic causes."
.................

The science is that the seas have slightly warmed & risen in the last 100 odd years-- The religion is that the ocean warming and rising is caused by man made C02.

Another story in physorg a couple weeks back-- discussed an Egyptian port of Heracleion Submerged under 150 feet of water, the site sits in what is now the Bay of Aboukir dating from the 1 century BC.

So in the last two millenium the sea levels have risen 150 feet and in the last century the sea levels have risen +-1 inch.
Claudius
1.8 / 5 (21) May 23, 2013
Our research revealed warming of the planet can be clearly detected since 1873 and that our oceans continue to absorb the great majority of this heat

Currently scientists estimate the oceans absorb more than 90 per cent of the heat trapped by greenhouse gases, and we attribute the global warming to anthropogenic causes.


This study establishes that the globe has been warming since 1873. The "attribution" that it is due to anthropogenic causes is unsubstantiated.

Once again, climate "science" discredits itself.

Neinsense99
3.3 / 5 (16) May 23, 2013
Ah, Claudius, at it again with the "I won't look at the evidence, so none must exist, now you prove me wrong" gambit, are you?
Yarking_Dawg
4.5 / 5 (15) May 23, 2013
Hopper you're an idiot. Do you bother to ever actually read anything?

The subsidence of the nile river delta as the sediment compacts is the reason that and other ancient Egyptian port cities are underwater.

It's in kids science books for god's sake.

gregor1
1.3 / 5 (16) May 23, 2013
There is only one problem. Back radiation from CO2 cannot warm the ocean. It is long wave radiation that only penetrates a fraction of a millimeter into the boundary layer (where it cools the surface by causing evaporation). Like wise the atmosphere can't transfer heat to the ocean either. The sun warms the ocean directly as shortwave radiation penetrates for hundreds of meters. The science is summarized here though it's badly translated from the Dutch it's worth persisting with.
http://hockeyscht...ise.html
gregor1
1.3 / 5 (16) May 23, 2013
And here is paper from the Journal Global and Planetary Change that refutes this as well. It is summarized here
http://hockeyscht...ade.html
Sinister1811
3.8 / 5 (16) May 24, 2013
This study establishes that the globe has been warming since 1873. The "attribution" that it is due to anthropogenic causes is unsubstantiated.


Are you telling us that there were no humans around during 1873? That timeframe seems to coincide with the rise of the Industrial Revolution.
http://en.wikiped...volution
gregor1
1.3 / 5 (16) May 24, 2013
If it's been warming since 1873 it can't be from human Co2 emissions. Here is the data for CO2 from Law Dome
http://i90.photob...1600.png
This is just more spin .
deepsand
3.1 / 5 (17) May 24, 2013
If it's been warming since 1873 it can't be from human Co2 emissions. Here is the data for CO2 from Law Dome
http://i90.photob...1600.png
This is just more spin .

And just how does the graph that you cited prove your conclusion?

And, how do you explain that Joseph Fourier postulated the greenhouse effect in the early 1820s, and that Svante Arrhenius, chemist, physicist and Nobel Laureate, building on the work of both Fourier and John Tyndall's works on thermal radiation, formally postulated in 1896 that the greenhouse effect was driven by CO2, in 1896? Even then, scientists had become aware of what you deny.
deepsand
3 / 5 (18) May 24, 2013
There is only one problem. Back radiation from CO2 cannot warm the ocean. It is long wave radiation that only penetrates a fraction of a millimeter into the boundary layer (where it cools the surface by causing evaporation)

ROTFLMAO. Cooling water causes it to evaporate? :shock:

Evaporation is caused by WARMING, which is caused by the absorption of long wave radiation..
gregor1
1.3 / 5 (13) May 24, 2013
There was no increase in co2 level in 1873. Atmospheric co2 didn't rise until well into the 20 th century.
Latent heat of vaporisation. The fraction of a millimetre that warms evaporates cooling the underlying water. Basic high school science.
runrig
4.4 / 5 (7) May 24, 2013
Greggy:
There is so much wrong with the work you link at "Hockey…" that I don't know where to begin. I'm flabbergasted at the rubbish printed there. If this is typical of the "science" you confine yourself to reading then there is no wonder you come on here and spout drivel.

First off though – in the 1st para it says …..
"Roger Pielke, Sr has noted that land surface temperature records (which comprise the vast majority of temperature records prior to the satellite era (1979-)) are unreliable due to land use changes and urban heat island effects"

Err no, as, among others, Mr Muller co-author of the BEST study found and stated that the UHI effect is insignificant.
"Muller said, "Our biggest surprise was that the new results agreed so closely with the warming values published previously by other teams in the US and the UK."

http://www.mother...ther-hit

cont
runrig
5 / 5 (6) May 24, 2013
cont

"Infrared radiation from 'greenhouse gases' causes evaporative cooling of the oceans rather than heating"

The process of heat transfer between ocean and atmosphere is complex but it can indeed be heated by back-radiation.
It is to do with creating a temp gradient across the surface skin layer of ocean ( by ocean/atmos processes ) this alters the heat flux from lower down such that with greater IR on the surface skin (~1mm) then the skin temp gradient is reduced and allows less heat to the surface ( via conduction ) and therefore reduces heat flow to atmosphere. See….

http://www.realcl...e-ocean/

It is (should be) just basic common sense. Why on earth would you expect a cooling when you heat an a fluid, evaporation or not? Would you expect a pan (properly insulated) of tepid water put into an oven at 35C to cool? That the evaporation from its surface would outway the conduction of heat through it?

cont
runrig
5 / 5 (6) May 24, 2013
cont

"The Second Law of Thermodynamics requires heat to flow one-way from hot to cold."

Classic bollocks ……
Point is that it ( cooler atmosphere ) does not "heat" a warmer (ocean/ground) object by back-radiation from that warmer object. It just slows its "rate of cooling". All objects in the universe absorb/emit radiation ( above 2.7K ). It is happening all the time. There is an exchange of energy. This happens in the atmosphere as IR back-scatters from WV/Cloud/GHg's. Vis Fog/frost on a clear/calm night NOT on a calm/cloudy one. Energy is just added to the "bank" in the warmer object. The concept of "temperature" is not the correct way to think of the process. The warm object does not know if the photon impinging on its surface has come from a hot or a cold emitter – it accepts it without discrimination. It is a misconception of the 2nd Law.

The heat capacity of the Oceans is also irrelevant as we are talking only of a very slow and increasing effect ~ 4W/m2 due doubling of CO2.
runrig
5 / 5 (6) May 24, 2013
There was no increase in co2 level in 1873. Atmospheric co2 didn't rise until well into the 20 th century.
Latent heat of vaporisation. The fraction of a millimetre that warms evaporates cooling the underlying water. Basic high school science.


Greggy:

That is not what it says.
Read again and think this time. You're not reading "hockey .. ".
From above ....
"Our research revealed warming of the planet can be clearly detected since 1873 and that our oceans continue to absorb the great majority of this heat, ....

This study was DONE in 1873. So therefore the changes we now see have happened SINCE 1873. Not FROM 1873.

Also see my posts on the evaporative cooling thing.
If you think that is basic high school science then some strange things are taught in your country.
Oh, did it not occur to you the realise that scientists as a profession are well aware of basic high school science?
runrig
5 / 5 (6) May 24, 2013
And here is paper from the Journal Global and Planetary Change that refutes this as well. It is summarized here
http://hockeyscht...ade.html


You're on a run in this thread eh Greggy?

Do a search on here for that paper - it has been addressed at least twice. It has been discredited due statistical errors. The vast compendium of data does not support its conclusions.
I really cant be bothered any more this session to debunk the drivel you're coming up with.
djr
4.5 / 5 (8) May 24, 2013
I really cant be bothered any more this session to debunk the drivel you're coming up with.

It is no win runrig - they have the upper hand - you can debunk every piece of nonsense they put out there - and tmrw it will be the same thing over again. I don't know if I have bloodied my head on the brick wall enough times to finally learn the lesson - or if I will wake up tmrw and have to learn it over. Good luck to you mate.
runrig
4.4 / 5 (7) May 24, 2013
It is no win runrig - they have the upper hand - you can debunk every piece of nonsense they put out there - and tmrw it will be the same thing over again. I don't know if I have bloodied my head on the brick wall enough times to finally learn the lesson - or if I will wake up tmrw and have to learn it over. Good luck to you mate.


Oh, I agree djr - my blood just boils at the ignorance spouted as surity.
The idea that "basic high school science" that is obvious to a layman ( it wasn't - but whatever ) but somehow not equally obvious to specialising climate scientists. It really does make one think that the lunatics have indeed taken over the asylum.

Reading a biased compendium of *science* as compiled by the likes of "Hockey..." makes it a self-fulfilling prophecy that they will not see the wider picture. It's like viewing just the tails of the normal distribution curve. You exclude the overwhelmingly most probable.
It is a psychological phenomena all right.
djr
4.5 / 5 (8) May 24, 2013
"It really does make one think that the lunatics have indeed taken over the asylum."

It can really look that way - but I suspect that the majority of rational folks are faster learners than me - and have long since understood that arguing with the inmates is a total exercise in futility. You just bloody your forehead on the brick wall. But the science moves forward - and i think we have to accept that this kind of forum is going to be monopolized by some pretty determined folks - and it really is a no win - just cycle after cycle of bloody foreheads.

gregor1
1 / 5 (11) May 24, 2013
The Best study was never adequately peer reviewed and had to be self published as no Journal would take it. It was part funded by the Koch bros.. The Urban Heat Island effect has been clearly established in China in a paper by Wang Zhang and Yan. From the Abstract
"The impact of urbanization on annual mean surface air temperature has been found to be more than 1 °C in urban areas, and the maximum difference is almost 2 °C."
http://hockeyscht...can.html
Yes more rubbish from highly respected journals
Your second point is too easy. The press release above clearly says
"Our research revealed warming of the planet can be clearly detected since 1873"
and
"we attribute the global warming to anthropogenic causes."
It can't have been CO2 so what was it. I suggest it was the planet coming out of the little ice age ie natural variation.
As for the take down of the papers I posted please post the links. I am genuinely interested.
runrig
5 / 5 (5) May 25, 2013
Greggy:

You said
There was no increase in co2 level in 1873. Atmospheric co2 didn't rise until well into the 20 th century.


I said:
"This study was DONE in 1873. So therefore the changes we now see have happened SINCE 1873. Not FROM 1873."

Why is that hard to understand?
The article doesn't say that CO2 has increased BEGINNING 1873
It says that CO2 has increased SINCE 1873.

Re links to my science – I gave relevant links. The one from Realscience gives links to the papers behind the science. Again think about it. Do not suspend common sense. How can extra energy applied to a substance cause an overall cooling of the object? Latent heat dynamics occur only on the surface skin of the oceans. Not the body. You have to think of the thermodynamical response of the water below the skin. Aside from that the "heat" doesn't just disappear ( Law of conservation of energy ) – and is released into the atmosphere as the WV re-condenses. Warming the system.

cont
runrig
5 / 5 (5) May 25, 2013
cont

I do not propose to get into defending the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
Please just think. What happens on a frosty night as opposed to a mild one in winter when the wind is calm. What is the difference? Clouds. A GHE. That is a cool atmosphere back-radiating some of the grounds IR and so SLOWING COOLING. It happens. Get over it. I have seen it happen countless times – even from thin Cirrus cloud at a temp of ~MS30C, 6miles up.

Look if you read the likes of Hockey… you will always get the extreme of the argument. Looking at the link you gave the ( if typical ) science there is gob-smackingly ignorant. A sensible person ( in the absence of a scientific grasp ) MUST look at all the evidence to obtain a balanced viewpoint. You look at it from the standpoint of it having already been filtered by bias. And no, it is no good saying that we, the "AGW crowd" are doing that. No we look at it all. And the consensus says what it says. Without resorting to denying 150 year old science.

co
gregor1
1 / 5 (11) May 26, 2013
runrig here is the basic science again. Read it if it's not too scary or uncomfortable for you.
http://hockeyscht...ans.html
It is true that cloud cover can trap heat and so be a positive forcing but over all the effect of cloud albedo is negative. In fact the effect of the decline in cloud cover during the late twentieth century is enough to account for the observed warming. Last week a paper appeared in the Journal of Geophysical Research - Atmospheres re the decline in cloud cover over the Arctic. The forcing is calculated to be 25 times that of CO2 and explains the sea Ice minimum in 2007
http://hockeyscht...ice.html
Howhot
4.3 / 5 (6) May 26, 2013
You deniers just don't get it do you. Anthropogenic Global Warming is the an extinction event just circling around use like vultures to a dying carcass. Rapid climate change has always caused rapid die offs and extinctions of species over the long history of the world. From the article;
"Our research revealed warming of the planet can be clearly detected since 1873 and that our oceans continue to absorb the great majority of this heat,"

I'm sure that signal detectable in 1873 is coming through loud and clear now! Correct deniers?
gregor1
1 / 5 (11) May 26, 2013
Yes Howhot and it has little to do with human activity. Your extreme religious ranting and name calling belongs some where else. In science we welcome the evidence of "blasphemers" as it arises. It is not "The End of Days" as punishment for man kinds sins. Deal with it.
runrig
5 / 5 (4) May 26, 2013
runrig here is the basic science again. Read it if it's not too scary or uncomfortable for you.
http://hockeyscht...ans.html


Look Greggy - as ever you miss the point.
I was not talking of albedo. I do know that clouds overall have a cooling effect.
But that is clouds. WV is in clear air as well you know. Just as there is CO2 - you cant see that but it has a back-radiative effect.
That was the discussion - the GHE effect and not clouds. I was using CLOUDS as an example you can SEE with your own EYES as a real world demonstration of the GHE.

No you read my link - a proper bit of science from a non-biased site ( if you follow the link to the papers source ).

I say again - how in this universe is it possible that more energy impinging an object can make it colder ... for Gods sake????????????

Just apply some bloody common sense!!!!
runrig
5 / 5 (4) May 26, 2013
Greggy:

The reason I discuss the GHE is because the site you think is always right and every one else wrong "because it is just basic high school science" is talking bollocks for the consumption of the gullible.

To deny that there is such a thing as the GHE effect is beyond mind-boggling. Akin to denying that the Earth orbits the Sun in my mind. I refuse to be sent back to the middle-ages because people like you are so uncomprehending and biased in your desire to see us "AGWists" defeated.
You may reciprocate this - in fact I would expect you to - But really I wonder sometimes how it is that mankind has advanced at all with the psychology you and your ilk display.

If you really want to make a credible point countering the AGW hypothesis then just stick to something that has a ounce of credibility on which to mount an argument.

And also deniers generally quit the politics - the science comes first - then human nature takes over. In the end science and democracy wins. Sorry.
gregor1
1 / 5 (11) May 26, 2013
And I'll say it again. The Hockey schtick is an aggregator blog that aggregates papers from the most respected journals in the Earth Sciences. Do you really believe these journals are part of a vast conspiracy? I have never seen a denial of the green house effect on there at all. The only part of the ocean that cools due to evaporation is the top few microns of the boundary layer. Please read the link. Over land short waver radiation hits the ground, heats it, is converted to long wave heat energy which is reflected back by co2. This doesn't happen over the ocean where short wave ration penetrates hundreds of meters. This warms the ocean and some of the heat escapes into the atmosphere. The tiny amount reflected back is mopped up largely by the boundary layer.
Howhot
4.4 / 5 (7) May 26, 2013
And I'll say it again
Oh please don't. There is only so much BS a reader can take. How is it you can say " This doesn't happen over the ocean where short wave ration penetrates hundreds of meters." but you can't describe why the Arctic is melting or every glacier in the world for that matter? Why can't you do the noble thing, swallow hard and admit that you have been wrong about AGW for years now. Your smart enough to describe how CO2 works as a greenhouse gas.

You might object to how dangerous I perceive AGW to be. But if you know how to project out current events into the future events, that's the way it falls for me. For you it might be different, but if you just agree AGW is fact and likely can have impact on the human condition, you'll make the group happier.
gregor1
1 / 5 (12) May 27, 2013
The Glaciers melting etc are signs of warming but says nothing about the cause of that warming and does little to implicate the anthropogenic component of the CO2 rise. Co2 is supposed to be a well mixed gas but, except for the Antarctic peninsular the Antarctic is cooling and the ice extent there at an all time record. The Arctic,however is warming at 4 times the global average so warming is regional. Such warmings have occurred roughly every 900 years and this one is right on cue.
Last week a paper appeared in The Journal of Geophysical Research - Atmospheres that appears to explain the Arctic warming and record low ice extent in 2007. The reduction in cloud cover produced a positive forcing 25 times greater than the extra CO2.
http://hockeyscht...ice.html
gregor1
1 / 5 (12) May 27, 2013
Cont.
As Freeman Dyson explained recently the alarming predictions we are all being so hysterical about were all the result of computer models generated with fudged figures for the effects of clouds and aerosols, GIGO. Until we have adequate data on these we are way better off keeping our mouths shut with crazy predictions that don't eventuate. False predictions are doing huge damage to the public image of Climate science and environmentalism (The associated religion). Such a hole may take an entire generation to climb out of.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (12) May 27, 2013
"This same practice of Lysenkoism has long been under way in western science in regard to the politically correct theory of man caused, catastrophic, global warming. That theory serves the political fashions of the day in promoting vastly increased government powers and control over the private economy. Advocates of the theory are lionized in the dominant Democrat party controlled media in the U.S., and in leftist controlled media in other countries. Critics of the theory are denounced as "deniers," and even still bourgeois fascists, with their motives impugned."
http://www.forbes...-theory/

"To the Horror of Global Warming Alarmists, Global Cooling Is Here"
http://www.forbes...-here/2/
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (8) May 27, 2013
IMO contemporary physicists and climatologists ignore the alternative theories of global warming way too much. Did you ever hear about research of Theodor Lanscheidt and/or Ivana Charvatova, for example? You see - why not?
runrig
4.3 / 5 (6) May 27, 2013
I have never seen a denial of the green house effect on there at all.


Then you haven't been looking.

"Greenhouse gas theory manages to not only violate the 1st law of thermodynamics, but the 2nd law as well. There are many ways of stating the second law of thermodynamics, such as "In a system, a process that occurs will tend to increase the total entropy". But Rudolf Clausius provided the simplest formulation of the second law:"

From:
http://hockeyscht...=2nd+law

The site is total bollocks and you are a gullible fool to believe anything on it.
runrig
4.2 / 5 (5) May 27, 2013
And I'll say it again. The Hockey schtick is an aggregator blog that aggregates papers from the most respected journals in the Earth Sciences. Do you really believe these journals are part of a vast conspiracy?

A best they are stupid and intent on arriving at their preffered solution by publishing any "science" that achieves that end.

The only part of the ocean that cools due to evaporation is the top few microns of the boundary layer. Please read the link. Over land short waver radiation hits the ground, heats it, is converted to long wave heat energy which is reflected back by co2. This doesn't happen over the ocean where short wave ration penetrates hundreds of meters. This warms the ocean and some of the heat escapes into the atmosphere. The tiny amount reflected back is mopped up largely by the boundary layer.


I read the link thanks – the difference between us is I can understand what it is saying and I tried to explain same in my first post with the link.

cont
runrig
4.2 / 5 (5) May 27, 2013
cont

Here again….
http://www.realcl...e-ocean/

You obtusely miss the point once more!

….That is - because the ocean skin is cooler ( than it was before the IR back-radiation ) then the bulk ocean cooling is slowed because the skin's rate of cooling to the boundary air is slowed ( smaller temp differential ) As this is where heat is lost from the ocean then there is less flux available to transfer to the atmosphere …… thereby causing SLOWER COOLING of the bulk water below. ie Heat conducted up from below. ie general warming. NOT cooling.

Look up the Stephan-Boltzmann law.
gregor1
1 / 5 (9) May 27, 2013
@runrig might I again remind you we are talking science here and not religion. We do not condemn people for blaspheming as you condemn the Hockey Schtick when they are wrong. Science moves forward by being wrong but religion circles the wagons and abuses the messenger as you and your tag team tend to do. Real climate was exposed as a disinformation blog set up by " the team" during the climategate scandal and is exactly what you accuse the Hockey Schtick of being.
gregor1
1 / 5 (10) May 27, 2013
The truth about realclimate is here
http://www.popula...org.html
with regard to your link (from the comments here as real climate censors comments http://hockeyscht...ns.html)
"The only paper they could find shows the relationship between sea surface temp and LW forcing is 0.002ºK (W/m2)-1. In other words, a doubling of CO2 concentrations [alleged to cause 3.7 Wm-2 forcing] would increase sea surface temperatures by .0074 degrees - essentially zero."
.0074 degrees is tiny compared to the heating caused by direct sunlight which has increased due to the decline in cloud cover through the warming period .
Now here's some homework for you. Take a metal bucket, fill it full of water and add a thermometer. Next try and heat the water from above with a heat gun. You'll find you can't due to surface tension.

Howhot
5 / 5 (4) May 27, 2013
Good call @runrig. I just learned a new one. I've never heard of the skin effect of water impacting heat exchange like that, but as I read through the article I can see I was missing a lot. So roughly there is about a 1mm layer retards the escape of infrared radiation (from CO2 AGWarming) resulting build up of heat in the upper layers of the ocean. Anyone who has skin-dived can tell you that temperature layers are very common, and can be especially pronounced in lakes where a warm layer will exist at the top 3meters or so, and then abruptly change to freezing cold. I would have never associated that with atmospheric warming. Very cool.
Neinsense99
2.8 / 5 (9) May 28, 2013
And I'll say it again.

Well, gregor, you got that part right. Again.
runrig
5 / 5 (4) May 28, 2013
@runrig might I again remind you we are talking science here and not religion. We do not condemn people for blaspheming as you condemn the Hockey Schtick when they are wrong. Science moves forward by being wrong but religion circles the wagons and abuses the messenger as you and your tag team tend to do. Real climate was exposed as a disinformation blog set up by " the team" during the climategate scandal and is exactly what you accuse the Hockey Schtick of being.


OK Greggy, I've done my bit for Mr Twain. There is just so much taking to a idiot I win with.

If you don't understand the science you have no right to preach on it.
I am a Meteorologist and therefor do. I have tried with logic and basic science to point out to you that ... schtick is crap. That site among other things seeks to discredit GW science by denying that there is such a thing as a GHE. You buy that do you?
And if you don't then why has the rest of the stuff on the site any credibility?

IR on water warms.
runrig
5 / 5 (4) May 28, 2013
Good call @runrig. I just learned a new one. I've never heard of the skin effect of water impacting heat exchange like that, but as I read through the article I can see I was missing a lot. So roughly there is about a 1mm layer retards the escape of infrared radiation (from CO2 AGWarming) resulting build up of heat in the upper layers of the ocean. Anyone who has skin-dived can tell you that temperature layers are very common, and can be especially pronounced in lakes where a warm layer will exist at the top 3meters or so, and then abruptly change to freezing cold. I would have never associated that with atmospheric warming. Very cool.


Yes, Greggy's link to the assertion that warming causes cooling is so against common sense. Of course warmth is still added to the system via evap/condensation but conduction plays a part too, such that the body of water cools slower and therefor is in imbalance.

I must thank Greggy for making me aware ...schtick is so desperately bad.
Howhot
5 / 5 (2) May 31, 2013
Well, on the skin effect, The Gregmyster has a point to a degree; However that effect has been happening since the beginning of Earth's oceans. For all water bodies. What the greg is missing though is how much energy *is* trapped by the greenhouse model, and how much of a heat sink the oceans can max. Conservation of energy dictates that the trapped energy must go somewhere. Does it go to the land? Or does it go into convection currents like the heating of the Arctic polar regions, which in-turn cases sea-level rise along with ocean water thermal expansion as the article points out.


Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.