Warming climates intensify greenhouse gas given out by oceans

Jun 08, 2014
This is a scanning electron microscope image of ocean plankton. Credit: University of Edinburgh

Rising global temperatures could increase the amount of carbon dioxide naturally released by the world's oceans, fuelling further climate change, a study suggests.

Fresh insight into how the oceans can affect CO2 levels in the atmosphere shows that rising temperatures can indirectly increase the amount of the greenhouse gas emitted by the oceans.

Scientists studied a 26,000-year-old taken from the Gulf of California to find out how the 's ability to take up atmospheric CO2 has changed over time.

They tracked the abundance of the key elements silicon and iron in the fossils of tiny marine organisms, known as , in the sediment core. Plankton absorb CO2 from the atmosphere at the ocean surface, and can lock away vast quantities of carbon.

Researchers found that those periods when silicon was least abundant in ocean waters corresponded with relatively warm climates, low levels of atmospheric iron, and reduced CO2 uptake by the oceans' plankton. Scientists had suspected that iron might have a role in enabling plankton to absorb CO2. However, this latest study shows that a lack of iron at the can limit the effect of other key elements in helping plankton take up carbon.

This effect is magnified in the southern ocean and equatorial Pacific and coastal areas, which are known to play a crucial role in influencing levels of CO2 in the global atmosphere.

This is a scanning electron microscope image of ocean plankton. Credit: University of Edinburgh

Researchers from the University of Edinburgh say their findings are the first to pinpoint the complex link between iron and other key marine elements involved in regulating atmospheric CO2 by the oceans. Their findings were verified with a global calculation for all oceans. The study, published in Nature Geoscience, was supported by Scottish Alliance for Geoscience Environment Society and the Natural Environment Research Council.

This is a scanning electron microscope image of ocean plankton. Credit: University of Edinburgh

Dr Laetitia Pichevin, of the University of Edinburgh's School of GeoSciences, who led the study, said: "Iron is known to be a key nutrient for plankton, but we were surprised by the many ways in which iron affects the CO2 given off by the oceans. If warming climates lower iron levels at the sea surface, as occurred in the past, this is bad news for the environment."

Explore further: Study shows iron from melting ice sheets may help buffer global warming

More information: Silica burial enhanced by iron limitation in oceanic upwelling margins, Nature Geoscience, DOI: 10.1038/ngeo2181

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Peering through the global carbon cycle

Aug 21, 2013

The oceans are one of the sink absorbing carbon dioxide derived from human activity. Yet fully quantifying the ocean's carbon uptake under a changing climate remains challenging.

Recommended for you

Sculpting tropical peaks

4 hours ago

Tropical mountain ranges erode quickly, as heavy year-round rains feed raging rivers and trigger huge, fast-moving landslides. Rapid erosion produces rugged terrain, with steep rivers running through deep ...

Volcano expert comments on Japan eruption

4 hours ago

Loÿc Vanderkluysen, PhD, who recently joined Drexel as an assistant professor in Department of Biodiversity, Earth and Environmental Science in the College of Arts and Sciences, returned Friday from fieldwork ...

NASA's HS3 looks Hurricane Edouard in the eye

17 hours ago

NASA and NOAA scientists participating in NASA's Hurricane and Severe Storms Sentinel (HS3) mission used their expert skills, combined with a bit of serendipity on Sept. 17, 2014, to guide the remotely piloted ...

User comments : 55

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Shootist
Jun 08, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
antialias_physorg
4.4 / 5 (16) Jun 08, 2014
warming is warming cooling is warming no change is warming raining is warming not raining is warming hurricanes is warming no hurricanes is warming

If you don't understand the difference between weather and climate or cannot comprehend what buffer systems are - why are you even here? What could you possibly understand about anything even remotely to do with science? More to the point: lacking such fundamental school-level knowledge: why are you trying to voica an opinion which cannot be anything but wrong?
antigoracle
Jun 08, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
VINDOC
1.9 / 5 (22) Jun 08, 2014
the planet has not warmed for 17 years and 9 months

http://www.climat...pt-1996/
s_rosborough
1.6 / 5 (19) Jun 08, 2014
The global warming fools are real funny when they say climate isn't weather. You can't separate the two. Weather gives you climate. If weather doesn't give you climate what does. How does a place get it's climate. The weather tells you what the climate is.
strangedays
4.4 / 5 (19) Jun 08, 2014
@VINDOC - if the planet has not warmed for 17 years - do you have an explanation for the increasing ocean temps?

http://www.realcl...warming/

I could also add a question about the glaciers, and the ice sheets - but probably best to leave at ocean heat content for now.

Thanks.
strangedays
4.5 / 5 (15) Jun 08, 2014
Antigoracle raises the perennial question about the relationship between C02 and temps. Here is a pretty good discussion of the issue - by climate scientists.

http://www.realcl...and-co2/
Eddy Courant
Jun 08, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
BaconBits
4.5 / 5 (15) Jun 08, 2014
@antig Climate doesn't change without some factor driving it. It is driven by the sun, the tilt in the earth's axis, CO2, albedo or some other phenomena. Climate appears to remain stable for hundreds of millennia at a time. Lucky for us, humans have developed agriculture and civilization in this recent 12,000 period of temperate climate.

The sun is not measurably hotter. The earth's axis is where it should be with no indication it's changed enough to influence climate. The albedo has changed but that's because it's gotten hotter and the ice caps and glaciers have melted. So it got hotter for some reason. CO2 has gone up by 40% since 1850. That's new and unprecedented in the history of human civilization. The CO2 increase is directly related to our actions. The carbon isotope ratios show it's from burning fossil fuels.

CO2 captures an re-emits infrared radiation. It's simple physics. It can't not do that. CO2 drives climate.

Solon
1.7 / 5 (18) Jun 08, 2014
Here is a pretty good discussion of the issue - by climate scientists.

http://www.realcl...and-co2/


Climate scientists? That's an oxymoron if ever there was one. Just as geology is not a real science, climate 'scientists' are just taking a best guess about what will happen in the future.
verkle
1.4 / 5 (18) Jun 08, 2014
Oh for the days of real science! This trying to lump "climate" into science is foolhardy. It belongs in the category of politics.
bluehigh
2.3 / 5 (6) Jun 08, 2014
It's a public holiday here so I am frittering away the hours in an offhand way.

As per a previous thread I wanted to know what happened to Oliver K Manuel. I found that he was charged with crimes but annoyingly I find no reference to the outcome. I do know he is alive and has some freedom because per chance I find a recent comment from him attached to an article partly related to the topic of this thread.

http://www.standp...e-change

So it's settled. Climate change alarmists are wicked evil doers.

1:41pm ... Too early for a beer?
chrisn566
2.3 / 5 (12) Jun 08, 2014
My god. This is like a cult or something.
Vietvet
4.5 / 5 (15) Jun 09, 2014
Here is a pretty good discussion of the issue - by climate scientists.

http://www.realcl...and-co2/


Climate scientists? That's an oxymoron if ever there was one. Just as geology is not a real science, climate 'scientists' are just taking a best guess about what will happen in the future.


"geology is not a real science" You are as stupid as verkle, shootist, and the rest of the ignorant deniers.
Grallen
4.6 / 5 (11) Jun 09, 2014
I often wonder if some of the deniers who post in support of each other an in fact the same person.

It's not a completely wild theory: Things like Shootist and VINDOC both foregoing the use of capitals and punctuation on the same day for example... I'm not saying they are the same person. But it makes you wonder.

Also the XKCD comic today is on the topic of climate. I think it's worth 2 minutes to read. :)
http://xkcd.com/1379/
runrig
4.4 / 5 (14) Jun 09, 2014
It has already been established that CO2 follows warming, so this is just another waste of millions of dollars by the AGW Cult.

And it has already been established that you are a stupid unthinking denier who will not, cannot perhaps think multi-dimensionally about a complex subject, and get it into your thick head that CO2 is BOTH a driver and a follower of temperature. The former because it is a GHG (empirical and unarguable science) and the later because of the carbon cycle - which can be found explained at the twitch of a finger via Google. FFS
Infinitarian
1.7 / 5 (11) Jun 09, 2014
The title of this article is very misleading. The oceans still ABSORB CO2 rather than actually emitting it. It's still a carbon sink rather than source, and if a sink became a source that would make all the difference. If that actually happened it would mean the end of the world. The article is subtly disseminating a sentiment of panic. In the name of the researchers who conducted this study and for the sake of their respectability to the rest of the world, this title needs to be changed.

Go to http://phys.org/help/feedback/ to contact physorg about this.
antialias_physorg
4.3 / 5 (12) Jun 09, 2014
It's still a carbon sink rather than source, and if a sink became a source that would make all the difference.

Erm...how about: no? It's teh sum over all sinks and sources that count. And if one of the sinks (in this case the major sink) becomes less effective then that sum goes upward. That's 3rd grade math. If you can't find arguments that are (a lot!) stronger than that then you're really grasping at straws made out of unicorn dust.
strangedays
4.6 / 5 (11) Jun 09, 2014
Solon
Climate scientists? That's an oxymoron if ever there was one. Just as geology is not a real science, climate 'scientists' are just taking a best guess about what will happen in the future.


I notice that you did not address the actual question - just attacked geology as 'not science.' Could you elaborate on that one for us? Seems to me that the study of the composition of the earth is very much a valid science.
Skepticus_Rex
1 / 5 (9) Jun 09, 2014
@VINDOC - if the planet has not warmed for 17 years - do you have an explanation for the increasing ocean temps?

http://www.realcl...warming/

I could also add a question about the glaciers, and the ice sheets - but probably best to leave at ocean heat content for now.

Thanks.


You may want to consult the following (2010):
http://www.pas.ro...inal.pdf
The Alchemist
1.8 / 5 (10) Jun 09, 2014
My CO2 meter reads 417 ppm at 0630 am. What does yours read?
I live 30km from two large cities, and 50 km from a major city.

The most interesting bit is, even outside, my being within 3 meters of the device, the count goes up 80 ppm. Inside the house, me being nearby raises it 200 ppm.

Mona Loa research station is on top an active volcano, again, why do they take readings there?

Just observing: The reason we don't want CO2 to increase is our own health, CO2 ~1000ppm begins to fatigue you and stiffen muscles. Indoor/outdoor is about 2-3x. You can do the math...
The Alchemist
1.9 / 5 (9) Jun 09, 2014
When I was young, the oceans would sink about 80% of CO2, today it is down to 50%. Why is no one asking "why?"

If there is a major change, that's it.
Maggnus
4.3 / 5 (11) Jun 09, 2014
You may want to consult the following (2010):
http://www.pas.ro...inal.pdf


And a more recent response to it:http://www.skepti...DK12.pdf
Maggnus
4.3 / 5 (12) Jun 09, 2014
Mona Loa research station is on top an active volcano, again, why do they take readings there?
Back for more? This has been answered previously, several times. WHy continue to repost after the way you so shamefully withdrew from your "collaboration" with thermodynamics?

Why Mona Loa: http://earthobser...-record/
Maggnus
4.3 / 5 (11) Jun 09, 2014
When I was young, the oceans would sink about 80% of CO2, today it is down to 50%. Why is no one asking "why?"

If there is a major change, that's it.

They are: http://www.worldw...ode/6323

I think a better question for you, is why do you continue to post questions that any 10 year old can find the answers to, like they are some kind of mystery? A major change, for you, would be to actually do some research on your own.
antigoracle
1.6 / 5 (13) Jun 09, 2014
It has already been established that CO2 follows warming, so this is just another waste of millions of dollars by the AGW Cult.

And it has already been established that you are a stupid unthinking denier who will not, cannot perhaps think multi-dimensionally about a complex subject, and get it into your thick head that CO2 is BOTH a driver and a follower of temperature. The former because it is a GHG (empirical and unarguable science) and the later because of the carbon cycle - which can be found explained at the twitch of a finger via Google. FFS

Wow, riggy the multi-dimensional thinker. They really need to up your meds riggy.
Only in your cult's doctrine does CO2 drive temperature on earth.
antigoracle
1.7 / 5 (12) Jun 09, 2014
I often wonder if some of the deniers who post in support of each other an in fact the same person.

It's not a completely wild theory: Things like Shootist and VINDOC both foregoing the use of capitals and punctuation on the same day for example... I'm not saying they are the same person. But it makes you wonder.

Also the XKCD comic today is on the topic of climate. I think it's worth 2 minutes to read. :)
http://xkcd.com/1379/

Yep and the men in the white suits are out to get you. Don't take the blue tablets.
Solon
1.6 / 5 (13) Jun 09, 2014


I notice that you did not address the actual question - just attacked geology as 'not science.' Could you elaborate on that one for us? Seems to me that the study of the composition of the earth is very much a valid science.


Well, just river formation for one. There are no computer simulations that can show, based on the known properties of the river bed rock composition, the abrasive properties of particle laden water, fluid dynamics, laminar flow, etc, any model that can account for river formation. The New River is a case in point, estimates are from 3 to 300 million years old, but even though we can supposedly model the universe as it was micro-seconds after the big bang, there is no simulation at all for river formation, and that is because they know it would fail miserably. The same with glaciers cutting U-shaped valleys, no simulation based on known mechanics and material properties can ever show such a process in action.
thermodynamics
4.3 / 5 (11) Jun 09, 2014
Solon:
Well, just river formation for one. There are no computer simulations that can show, based on the known properties of the river bed rock composition, the abrasive properties of particle laden water, fluid dynamics, laminar flow, etc, any model that can account for river formation. The New River is a case in point, estimates are from 3 to 300 million years old, but even though we can supposedly model the universe as it was micro-seconds after the big bang, there is no simulation at all for river formation, and that is because they know it would fail miserably.


Do you really believe this or are you just trolling? Google "river formation dynamics" and you will find it describes a class of algorithms for the formation of rivers. They are NP-hard and I hope you understand what that means and why. If not, look it up. If you can't do that, ask and I will try to walk you through it. You, apparently, don't understand the limits of measurement involved.
Skepticus_Rex
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 09, 2014
You may want to consult the following (2010):
http://www.pas.ro...inal.pdf

And, yet, the response has not gone through the all-important peer review. Let me know when it has. :-)
The Alchemist
1.4 / 5 (11) Jun 09, 2014
@Forum
Caliban, Magnnus, Captain Stumpy and Thermodynamics are either the same person, or a cache of mutual brown-nosers whose goal seems to be to chase thought off this site. They probably use other screen names, Caliban/Magnnus are easy to recognize they're simply offensive. They recently compromised "themselves" on another discussion. I wouldn't bother with them.
Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (9) Jun 09, 2014
@Forum
Caliban, Magnnus, Captain Stumpy and Thermodynamics are either the same person, or a cache of mutual brown-nosers whose goal seems to be to chase thought off this site. They probably use other screen names, Caliban/Magnnus are easy to recognize they're simply offensive. They recently compromised "themselves" on another discussion. I wouldn't bother with them.
That's it? That's the best you can muster? Holy, no wonder you can't convince anyone of anything.

I guess its better than what you did in the last thread: "WAAAHHHHH you guys cheated, I'm going home!!! WAAAAAHHHH!!!!"

Some chemist there crybaby! LOL!!!
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (8) Jun 10, 2014
@Forum
Caliban, Magnnus, Captain Stumpy and Thermodynamics are either the same person, or a cache of mutual brown-nosers whose goal seems to be to chase thought off this site. They probably use other screen names, Caliban/Magnnus are easy to recognize they're simply offensive. They recently compromised "themselves" on another discussion. I wouldn't bother with them.


ROFL. Who compromised who?

You are the one who ran screaming from the discussion. You continue to show you have zero technical capacity (as seen by your zero dimensional model of the atmosphere that I showed can not model the gradient in the atmosphere). Chemist my ass. What a whiner.
The Alchemist
1.9 / 5 (9) Jun 10, 2014
@Forum
Ran screaming

Thermo developed over the last few weekends of May 2014, a model that was posted on phys.org Dec 2012, with the same banter. They also didn't notice that despite their mutual brown-nosing of victory, gross over-compensation of CO2 physical properties, they still fell short by 2-3 orders of magnitude.
Nothing but cyber-bullies with one point of view. The following quote best expresses their education, and thus the import of their opinion.

What is a mol? What are moles?...I continue to await your explanation of why you think it it of use here.
-Maggnus, May 26, 2014 On how to count total CO2 in the atmosphere.

thermodynamics
5 / 5 (8) Jun 10, 2014
Alche said:
On how to count total CO2 in the atmosphere.


You quoted Magnus out of context. I will let him respond to this, but I will state why this was an incorrect assumption on your part. Your "model" lumps the atmosphere into one node. You average over the atmosphere as though it was homogeneous. In fact, the atmosphere has gradients in it. The most important of those are the gradient of water vapor and the gradient of temperature (referred to as lapse rates). You have ignored those and, instead, lumped the atmosphere into one node (a zero dimensional model). The model I produced is one dimensional in that I take gradients into consideration. It is not close to the power of a 3D model that the pros make, but infinitely more realistic than yours because it does use lapse rates. When you refer to a single number for the number of molecules you are doing so in a bulk and that has no meaning when temperature and water vapor gradients are present. Continued
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (7) Jun 10, 2014
Continued:

I will be glad to continue the discussion here or anywhere else on this site if you want to, since you ran from the other discussion without understanding the gradients in the atmosphere. Just so everyone knows, I agree that water vapor is the major GHG in the atmosphere but it is not the only effective GHG in the atmosphere. The gradient of water vapor is important and I would like to know how you take that into consideration in your zeroD model (0D) Alche.

For those who would like to brush up on the modeling effort to-date, you can find it at:

http://phys.org/n...firstCmt

It looks like I will have to follow Alche all over the site to get him back in the conversation. Instead, he pouted, took his marbles, and ran home. So, Alche, if you want to get back in the discussion, answer the questions I have asked and we can light this discussion off again.
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (9) Jun 10, 2014
They recently compromised "themselves" on another discussion
@Alch
who is the "they" you are referring to? all four of us?
Caliban, Magnnus, Captain Stumpy and Thermodynamics
we are not the same person, and anyone who claims a degree (or to be a chemist) like you do SHOULD be able to do a side-by-side forensic evaluation of posts comparing syntax, grammar etc and see that we are not all the same person
They probably use other screen names
if we did, you would have far more down votes. I don't need sock-puppets like you do, alch
They also didn't notice that despite their mutual brown-nosing of victory
you moron, YOU LEFT. that is simply the END. you bailed out and quit because you couldn't handle what was being done. I guess that is a victory of sorts... but all I see is an unresolved collaboration to which you cheated yourself out of. the only BIG VICTORY was your whining stopped on that thread!

and say what you want... you ARE a whiner. SEE ABOVE for proof!
3432682
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 10, 2014
It is beyond well-known and beyond obvious that warmer temperatures drive CO2 from seawater (and soda pop). Fortunately CO2 is not, apparently, causing higher temperatures. The heart of the CO2-warming theory simply is not working as predicted.
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (8) Jun 10, 2014
@ShillKing,
You may want to consult the following (2010):
http://www.pas.ro...inal.pdf

And, yet, the response has not gone through the all-important peer review. Let me know when it has. :-)
You may want to consult the following (current) :-)

http://www.nodc.n...CONTENT/

And yes, it has indeed gone through the all-important peer review. :-)

I hope your head explodes :-)

:-)
The Alchemist
1.4 / 5 (9) Jun 11, 2014
@Captain Stumpy-I'm so glad you chimed in.

You can answer some questions as only you should be able to...

As a self-proclaimed PhD, how is it that Thermo's plagiarism of work done more than two years ago does not upset you to the bone. I mean we've all had it happen to us, advertently and inadvertently. Yet instead you criticize me, odd reversal.

Me, I left when I discovered that thermo to was a liar.
He also has never heard of Einstein Co-efficients and missed references to Magnetohydrodynamics. Perhaps he's a phlebotomist plasma worker?

And as an self-proclaimed military officer, how is it you can endorse Cali and Maggie, isn't morality and integrity part of that system?

And so how is it you criticize everyone but those above?

Syntax: You all four have the subtlety of an epileptic attack, I could emulate your syntax from here. Sounds more like a lame defense.

Honestly, how could you expect different? if you're not the same you brown nose each other as if you were.
Skepticus_Rex
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 11, 2014
@ShillKing,
You may want to consult the following (2010):
http://www.pas.ro...inal.pdf

And yes, it has indeed gone through the all-important peer review. :-)

I hope your head explodes :-)

:-)


Went to obtain the raw data--got "Content not found." Internal peer review rather than external peer review? Sorry, not yet buying it until I can run the numbers for myself. No head explosions for you... :-)
thermodynamics
4.9 / 5 (8) Jun 11, 2014
Alche said:
As a self-proclaimed PhD, how is it that Thermo's plagiarism of work done more than two years ago does not upset you to the bone. I mean we've all had it happen to us, advertently and inadvertently. Yet instead you criticize me, odd reversal.


Actually, I am a self proclaimed P.E. (mechanical), not a PhD. Get it straight. Just one more example of you not knowing how things work. Please give me a reference to my "self proclaiming my PhD."

I assume you can give us a reference to the "plagiarism of work done more than two years ago" that you seem to think is in my posts.

Come on, lets see the references to any of this. They should be available because the thread is still there for all to see.
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (8) Jun 11, 2014
Looks like someone answered with the wrong account.

Whoops.
thermodynamics
4.6 / 5 (9) Jun 11, 2014
Looks like someone answered with the wrong account.

Whoops.


Have you completely lost your mind? This is thermodynamics answering your charge that I have plagiarized and claimed a PhD (when I am a P.E. and proud of it). What are you talking about? Where are your references?
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) Jun 11, 2014
As a self-proclaimed PhD
@alche
who is a self proclaimed phd? you?
Thermo's plagiarism of work
where is the proof of that?
Yet instead you criticize me
I critisized you for leaving the collaboration before it was done, or did you miss that whole part where I said
you moron, YOU LEFT
or
you bailed out and quit because you couldn't handle what was being done
or[qbut all I see is an unresolved collaboration to which you cheated yourself out of therefore I am legitimately critisizing you based upon FACTUAL EVIDENCE that can be viewed by ANYONE here: http://phys.org/n...nia.html
I left when I discovered that thermo to was a liar
again you make an accusation but I see NO PROOF/links/nothing... just lip-service
cont'd
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) Jun 11, 2014
And as an self-proclaimed military officer
@alche
I worked for a living. I was an NCO, not an officer. I was an OFFICER in the FIRE DEPARTMENT, not the military, and I've NEVER proclaimed to be an officer IN the military. EVER
how is it you can endorse Cali and Maggie, isn't morality and integrity part of that system
show me where they are WRONG and I will consider revoking my endorsement. So far, you've given a lot of whining, but NOT ONE SHRED OF EVIDENCE
I could emulate your syntax from here. Sounds more like a lame defense
then you KNOW we are not the same person. but I also know Mag and Thermo outside of this site, so that only makes you look worse.

All I have seen so far is whining, some appeals to unfair treatment (which I have NOT seen) although Mag's was rough with you, it is deserved given your history. MAN UP or SHUT UP

I never could stand a whiner...

Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) Jun 11, 2014
Looks like someone answered with the wrong account.

Whoops.
@alche
are you a retard? do you have special crayons, a bib and a plastic helmet that you wear? if you do, I will stop picking on you. I don't like picking on the mentally challenged.

I don't know WHERE your claims are coming from. Don't believe I am who I am, ask Otto. Ask him to give you the links proving I am who I am... or search it out yourself, There is nothing hidden, ya whiner. is your Google broke?

YOU make a LOT OF CLAIMS. YOU WHINE A LOT but I have not seen a single piece of EVIDENCE either. I was an investigator. I don't see proof, I am not just gonna run out and believe because it feels good... I WANT PROOF

you start providing it, I might change how I see you.
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (8) Jun 11, 2014
@ShillKing,You may want to consult the following (2010):
http://www.pas.ro...inal.pdf

And yes, it has indeed gone through the all-important peer review. :-)

I hope your head explodes :-)

:-)


Went to obtain the raw data--got "Content not found." Internal peer review rather than external peer review? Sorry, not yet buying it until I can run the numbers for myself. No head explosions for you... :-)
Really? And where did you go looking for that data? If it was your brain, I'm not surprised regarding the missing content.

Oddly enough, for me all of the following links work quite well:

http://www.nodc.n...bal.html

http://www.nodc.n...month700

http://www.nodc.n...onth2000

And all the file links there I tried, work just fine.

Maybe no head explosions, because there's nothing in there to explode... Oh well, par for the course.
Skepticus_Rex
1.7 / 5 (6) Jun 11, 2014
And all the file links there I tried, work just fine.

Maybe no head explosions, because there's nothing in there to explode... Oh well, par for the course.


That's analyzed data, not raw data. I want RAW data. That you cannot tell the difference between raw data and analyzed data is...well...telling. :-)
runrig
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 12, 2014
And all the file links there I tried, work just fine.

Maybe no head explosions, because there's nothing in there to explode... Oh well, par for the course.


That's analyzed data, not raw data. I want RAW data. That you cannot tell the difference between raw data and analyzed data is...well...telling. :-)


You blind?
The RAW data is there for me!!

Look again, and get your laptop to work with Excel and prove the scientists are lying socialist scum.

Come back when you have my friend.
The Alchemist
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 12, 2014
@Captain,
Ah, your response is one that is expected, an attack rather than something a rationale.

Why should I desire to change how you see me? I wasted enough time on you and your little band of little bullies before.

My premise and conclusion are simple and observed: Mankind's affect on the environment is primarily the ice/water. Temperature and CO2 are secondary at best. If you dispute this, then why are there so many disputes over those two?

That's evidence, it will eventually show up in Journals. As did it being accepted Polar/glacial ice was retreating, some 20 and more definitively and recently 40 years after it was obvious.

I'll add Otto to the list of people to ignore. Thanks.
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Jun 12, 2014
your response is one that is expected, an attack rather than something a rationale
@alche
so I guess that means that (yet again) you are not going to answer the questions?
Why bother to open a dialogue with someone if you are going to sit in the corner and pout/cry about mistreatment? ANSWER the questions! you made allegations, now PROVE IT:
who is a self proclaimed phd?
where is the proof of Thermo's plagiarism? (this is a SERIOUS allegation)
did you miss that whole part where I critisized you for leaving the collaboration?
Where is the proof that Thermo LIED?

Now, I CAN prove that you are making fallacious statements with
And as an self-proclaimed military officer
&
Looks like someone answered with the wrong account
as well as your abandonment of the collaboration here: http://phys.org/n...nia.html

so what now? do you want us to throw you a pity party? give succor? start by PROVING YOUR POINTS and answering FACTUALLY
Skepticus_Rex
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 12, 2014
You blind?
The RAW data is there for me!!

Look again, and get your laptop to work with Excel and prove the scientists are lying socialist scum.

Come back when you have my friend.


Every single link takes me to analyzed data and global analyzed data. Not one of those links is to raw data. I want to see the raw data and not one piece of analyzed data.
Skepticus_Rex
1 / 5 (5) Jun 13, 2014
Also tried to obtain data from this address from which I formerly could get it and got 404:

http://www.nodc.n.../PRODIP/

Apparently, runrig has a very short memory. Doesn't anybody else remember what happened to the ARGO network data? When data began being studied everybody was excited. But, when the data was showing declines when everybody expected inclines, a "materials error" was declared. Now, suddenly, all the data is showing inclines?

So, the question is, what'd they do to the data as corrective? Where's the methodology for correction stated? Where's the original source code and mathematical correctives so others can replicate the results with raw data? If there truly were a "materials error" the raw data should still be showing something unexpected.

So, where is the raw data? All I am seeing is analyzed data and former links to raw data and those containing raw and realtime data are going 404. Maybe all is going where NASA's "ice-free Arctic by 2013" prediction went.
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (5) Jun 13, 2014
SR: We all know what happened to ARGO as well as the XBTs.

http://earthobser...age3.php

Go to the papers that were written and learn how data are corrected, and when they can be and when they can't be.

Please give us specifics at to how you think the data were manipulated so we can examine your dubious claim?

I, will, gladly look over anything you want me to as long as it is not from a biased web site of a news group.
Skepticus_Rex
1.7 / 5 (6) Jun 13, 2014
This isn't my claim. It was reported on the NASA website itself that declines were being seen and that it had to have been a "materials error" because there should not have been declines in temperatures when everybody knew that there should have been warming. That page is 404, along with the one that contained the announcement of the modeled NASA prediction of an ice-free Arctic by 2013 (that very obviously failed to come to fruition because the model failed). I have nothing for you to look over at the moment. I wish I had archived the pages but I didn't. But, apparently, you also seem to have a short memory, too.
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (5) Jun 13, 2014
This isn't my claim. It was reported on the NASA website itself that declines were being seen and that it had to have been a "materials error" because there should not have been declines in temperatures when everybody knew that there should have been warming. That page is 404, along with the one that contained the announcement of the modeled NASA prediction of an ice-free Arctic by 2013 (that very obviously failed to come to fruition because the model failed). I have nothing for you to look over at the moment. I wish I had archived the pages but I didn't. But, apparently, you also seem to have a short memory, too.


SR: OK, since you can't give me a link to refute the link I sent you, would you please tell us how temperature is measured by the different oceanic samplings over the years? For instance, how were the majority of the temperatures of the ocean measured prior to WWII?

How about after up until the buoys?

How about after the buoys?

Any idea of the uncertainty?
sirchick
5 / 5 (6) Jun 14, 2014
The global warming fools are real funny when they say climate isn't weather. You can't separate the two. Weather gives you climate. If weather doesn't give you climate what does. How does a place get it's climate. The weather tells you what the climate is.


The "weather" is a symptom of the climate not the other way round. So if the climate drastically changed tomorrow the weather will reflect that.

The weather does not cause climate change, this is stuff we learn in high school...

At no point does the weather this summer or the next give any indication of the climate's slow change over thousands of years. So when it comes to global warming, ignore weather - only focus on the climate!

If teenagers understand this then what is your excuse for not ?

Climate is mainly driven by the sun, the atmosphere's composition (where we are involved), the ocean currents and jet streams, and some other minor things.
But equally any change in any of these also changes the others.