Oceans Smaller And Warmer

May 20, 2010 By Jason Socrates Bardi
Credit: Anderson Mancini

Two new studies out this week give the best scientific estimates of the average depth of the world's oceans, the total amount of water they contain, and the extent to which this water warmed over the last two decades - the latter being an important measure of climate change.

In the first study, reported in the journal Oceanography, a team from Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts analyzed global satellite data and made the best-ever estimate of the amount of in the world's oceans. They put the figure at more than 1.3 billion cubic kilometers. Though that's slightly less water than scientists had previously estimated, it's still enough to fill more than 1.5 million Olympic-size swimming pools for each person in the United States.

The Water-Climate Relation

The second study, reported in this week's issue of the journal Nature, addresses how all this water can help scientists track and predict its effects.

Led by John Lyman at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, this study involved a team of researchers from the United States, Germany, and Japan. They analyzed several different sets of ocean temperature measurements collected around the world from 1993 through 2008.

These measurements were made by different groups over this 16-year period using different assumptions. Some discrepancies between them arose because of the way the data was processed. Some swaths of ocean were not sampled as widely or as often as others. Changes in instrumentation have confused the issue further.

However, Lyman and colleagues standardized all the measurements and in doing so they found the same general trend for all the data.

"Although you see differences, they are all fairly consistent,” said Lyman.

They also averaged the results from these groups, which gave them the best estimate to date of the extent to which the top layers of the ocean have warmed over the last two decades. Lyman said that information is important because it is a good measure of global warming.

"Ninety percent of the energy [trapped by increased greenhouse gasses] goes into the ocean," said Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, an expert who was not involved in the NOAA study.

"It's important to track this in order to properly understand what is happening in the climate system," Trenberth said. "If you dump heat in the ocean and it gets moved around and reappears somewhere, it has consequences in terms of the weather patterns."

A climatologist at NASA who was not involved in the research said this week that the long-term trends in warming presented in the new study have confirmed other results in the field.

"That's what the climate models were predicting would be happening," said Gavin Schmidt, the NASA climatologist. "It's a great paper."

Explore further: They know the drill: UW leads the league in boring through ice sheets

Provided by Inside Science News Service

3.7 /5 (22 votes)

Related Stories

'Missing' heat may affect future climate change

Apr 15, 2010

Current observational tools cannot account for roughly half of the heat that is believed to have built up on Earth in recent years, according to a "Perspectives" article in this week's issue of Science. Scientists at the ...

Study Calculates Volume and Depth of the World's Oceans

May 18, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- How high is the sky? Scientists have a pretty good handle on that one, what with their knowledge of the troposphere, stratosphere an the other "o-spheres." Now, thanks to new work headed by ...

Recommended for you

NASA sees remnants of Nilofar go to cyclone graveyard

2 hours ago

Wind shear has caused the demise of former Tropical Cyclone Nilofar in the northern Arabian Sea. NASA's Aqua satellite passed over Nilofar on Oct. 31 and captured an image that shows strong wind shear has ...

User comments : 78

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

TegiriNenashi
2.3 / 5 (9) May 20, 2010
Are Argo data stored in SQL database? Then I don't see why they can't provide a simple query interface so that anybody could run something like

select year, avg(temp) from temperature_data
group by year

instead of blindly believing to what Gavin says.
JayK
2.9 / 5 (11) May 20, 2010
Argo data isn't gospel, there is other data. Argo data was also primarily deep ocean, not surface temperature. Did you actually read the article, TegiriTroll or are you just doing your normal idiocy out of habit?
PinkElephant
3.3 / 5 (12) May 20, 2010
He's got a vendetta against Gavin, apparently. Never mind that the study in question is by Lyman and an international team, and the news blurb above actually states explicitly that Gavin wasn't involved.

Frankly, I don't even know why we call them trolls. It seems "ass" would be more descriptive.
PPihkala
2.5 / 5 (8) May 20, 2010
Take home message is again that oceans are warming and we must bear the resulting climate change. And let's not forget they are more acidic too, because of increasing CO2 levels in air.
out7x
3 / 5 (8) May 21, 2010
"Ninety percent of the energy [trapped by increased greenhouse gasses] goes into the ocean,".........balderdash. No one understands the air-ocean energy transfer interface.
ZeroX
1.8 / 5 (10) May 21, 2010
Evidence of global warming can be observed across whole solar system.
http://tinyurl.com/y3bu7ya
There are another indicia of hypothesis, Earth is passing through dark matter cloud, which possibly surrounds the approaching invisible massive object. Excentricity of Sedna planetoid indicates, it revolves some massive object outside of solar system.
Massive objects would swell in more dense vacuum surrounding the invisible object and kilogram or meter prototypes would expand and lost its mass, when compared with younger copies of it.
http://www.physor...759.html
http://www.physor...s64.html
The change of vacuum density influences the speed of light and distances between planets
http://physics.ve...699.html
In this context it may be significant, the decay speed of some radioactive elements was observed increasing
http://physicswor...ws/36108
ZeroX
1.8 / 5 (10) May 21, 2010
Solar minimum caused the cooling of atmosphere, but the temperature of ocean is still raising. It looks like something is heating it from bottom up. The source could be the geothermal heat from faster decay of radioactive elements inside of Earth core.

http://physicswor...ws/42356

In this article the earthquakes became five times more energetic, then before.
http://tinyurl.com/y3bu7ya

Do you remember the disaster 2012 movie? Maybe it was quite correct at both factual, both physical level.

I've nothing to say about this extrapolations - I'm just collecting various indicia and connections like other physicists. After all, this is why we are paying abstract research, which has no immediate usage. But when this research is done already, we should make some conclusions from it - or we are paying it uselessly.
ZeroX
1 / 5 (7) May 21, 2010
Note that repetitive astronomical observations are the only way, how to predict disaster situation in distant future just by using of naked eye. Maybe these civilizations observed some approaching dark massive star near solar system and extrapolated its motion to the future.

http://www.wnd.co...Id=75434

We ignored their experience, because we haven't both evidence, both any feasible explanation for it. But this is not a true anymore: we have theory for it and the indicia are emerging in increased speed.
ZeroX
1.5 / 5 (8) May 21, 2010
Radioactive Potassium May Be Major Heat Source In Earth's Core

http://www.scienc...2752.htm

Note that the marine watter contains rather large amount of potassium, too. The total activity of ocean water exceeds 3.8 x 10E+11 Ci (14000 EBq). What will happen, if some process would accelerate its decay by let say one percent?

http://www.physic...ural.htm
Skeptic_Heretic
4.2 / 5 (5) May 21, 2010
4 posts and not a hint of any sort of reasonable or rational information.
ZeroX
1.5 / 5 (8) May 21, 2010
The becquerel (Bq) unit equates to one decay per second. For comparison, natural potassium (40K) in a typical human body produces 4,000 disintegrations per second (i.e. 4 kBq of activity). The nuclear explosion in Hiroshima (14 kt or 59 TJ) is estimated to have produced 8x10 E24 Bq. The 100 million curies (4 exabecquerels) of radioactive material were released initially in Chernobyl (~14 exabecquerels in total), the comparable amount (5.5 exabecquerels) were deposited by ninety atmospheric tests at the Nevada Test Site.
...4 posts and not a hint of any sort of reasonable or rational information...
The fact, you did understood nothing doesn't mean anything. Even silly dog could bark it after hearing about Pythagoras theorem for two days.
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (8) May 21, 2010
The fact, you did understood nothing doesn't mean anything. Even silly dog could bark it after hearing about Pythagoras theorem for two days.
There's a difference between not understanding and recognizing copy and paste bullshit.
Examples:
Note that the marine watter contains rather large amount of potassium, too. The total activity of ocean water exceeds 3.8 x 10E+11 Ci (14000 EBq). What will happen, if some process would accelerate its decay by let say one percent?

Bullshit.
Note that repetitive astronomical observations are the only way, how to predict disaster situation in distant future just by using of naked eye.
Bullshit
In this article the earthquakes became five times more energetic, then before.
Bullshit
Do you remember the disaster 2012 movie? Maybe it was quite correct at both factual, both physical level.
Bullshit.

Need I go on?
JayK
2.7 / 5 (7) May 21, 2010
Dense Foamy Santorum Aether is washing ashore and causing global warming of the black sands. Now give me attention!
JayK
2.7 / 5 (7) May 21, 2010
Dense Foamy Santorum glitters in the sunshine like a beautiful vampire boy.
ZeroX
1.5 / 5 (8) May 21, 2010
Sorry guys, without arguments you're just a transparent noise of causality for me.

For example, 2012 movie was based on idea, neutrinos gone wild and they melted the Earth core. It looks like apparent nonsense, but recently was found, the increase of neutrino flux can really accelerate the decay of heavy elements.

http://www.tasc-c...ino.html
http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.3283
http://www.astroe.../?p=1382

In addition, neutrinos are considered to be a constituent of dark matter. Active (left-handed) ones alone account for some 9.5% dark matter, so sterile (right-handed) ones with similar mass are needed to achieve about 19%.

http://dx.doi.org...86/59001

Of course, the trolls, who doesn't know about all these articles & connections could believe easily, the 2012 movie is based on pseudo-scientific baloney, because such articles aren't presented during regular TV shows.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (6) May 21, 2010
It looks like apparent nonsense, but recently was found, increasing of neutrino flux can really accelerate the decay of heavy elements.

You have that backwards.

Accelerated decay produces higher neutrino emissions, not higher neutrino interaction bringing about accelerated decay.
Of course, the trolls, who doesn't know about these articles & connections could believe easily, the 2012 movie is based on pseudo-scientific baloney, because such articles aren't presented during regular TV shows.

How about those of us who can read?
ZeroX
1 / 5 (7) May 21, 2010
you have that backwards. Accelerated decay produces higher neutrino emissions...
This doesn't explain annual period the decay constant of silicon-32 or manganese-54 elements.

http://physicswor...ws/36108

As you can see, it's too easy and seductive to say "Bullshit!" - but the physics is an experimental science and experiments always come first. You're just promoting theory, the neutrino flux doesn't change the decay speed of elements - but the experiments are contradicting it.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.3283

It's just you, who is crackpot here - don't you think?
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (6) May 21, 2010
This doesn't explain annual period the decay constant of silicon-32 or manganese-54 elements.
Nor would it because normal decay is not accelerated decay. Are you actually reading the whole paper before you post it as a reference?
Skeptic_Heretic
4.4 / 5 (7) May 21, 2010
Let me clarify, in the preprint there is no accounting for free roaming muons which are known to influence radioactive decay on long timescales. Unless they can account for and eliminate this known effect, the paper is worthless. Which is probably why it hasn't passed the pre-print phase.
ZeroX
1.6 / 5 (7) May 21, 2010
BTW I'm not the very first person, who realized, the so-called skeptics aren't skeptics too often - but simply another generation of halfeducated trolls:

Living in denial: special report: introduction to the articles like:

When a skeptic isn't a skeptic by Michael Shermer
Why sensible people reject the truth by Debora MacKenzie
How corporation manufacture doubt by Richard DeSmogBlog Littlemore Thanoneshit
Unleashing a lie by Jim Giles
Questioning science isn't blasphemy by Michael Fitzpatrick
The truth is our only weapon by Michael Shermer
Most of Britain now underwater: skeptics keeping it secret

http://www.newsci...ial.html
JayK
2.1 / 5 (7) May 21, 2010
My Foamy Dense Santorum can beat up your foamy dense aether.

Do you know why no one takes you seriously, Alizee? Do you remember the crackpot scoresheet? You score far too high to ever be taken seriously, you only deserve scorn and ridicule.
ZeroX
1.6 / 5 (7) May 21, 2010
Nor would it because normal decay is not accelerated decay.

Yes - this is why it's called so. Does it prove something? Does the fact, green apple is not yellow apple prove something?

Do you know, what the tautology is?
..in the preprint there is no accounting for free roaming muons which are known to influence radioactive decay on long timescales...

Free roaming muons? Do you understand the difference between neutrinos and muons?
GSwift7
1.4 / 5 (10) May 21, 2010
""Ninety percent of the energy [trapped by increased greenhouse gasses] goes into the ocean,".........balderdash. No one understands the air-ocean energy transfer interface. "

Yep, you've got that right out7x. Air's density is trivial compared to liquid water anyway, as is it's thermal conductivity and specific heat coefficient. The ability of air to affect water temperature is so small that it's actually funny the way they said that. Sunlight and cloud cover are the main contributors to water temp as far as I know, not air temperature. Anyone who's been to the beach knows that it's the water that influences air temp, not the other way around. It cools the air in day and warms the air at night. If you could condense all the thermal energy in the entire atmosphere, it would equate to the thermal energy of just a thin slice of the ocean's surface. You can cool water by blowing on it (even with warm air, because of evaporation) but heating water with air is difficult.
JayK
3.7 / 5 (6) May 21, 2010
Anyone who's been to the beach knows that it's the water that influences air temp, not the other way around.

Do you even remotely understand the conservation of energy? Did you think before you wrote that? Do you think anecdotal observations devoid of understanding are applicable to scientific use? Your entire comment is full of nothing but anecdotes with nothing approaching scientific insight, why did you even write it?
ZeroX
1 / 5 (6) May 21, 2010
Do you even remotely understand (something)..? Did you think before you wrote that? Do you think anecdotal observations .. Your entire comment is full of nothing .. why did you even write it?
Your comment is full of ad-hominem attacks without arguments, instead. GSwift pointed out physical facts: low conductivity & heat coeficient of air - and you have nothing against it, just a void personal offense. You've been reported.
JayK
2.9 / 5 (7) May 21, 2010
OH no, I've been reported, how ever will I handle it? Should I do it like you do, Alizee, and just cry for attention with nothing useful to add to a discussion?

There is a conservation of energy in the heat exchange of coastal areas that happens, and then there is the dimming effect that increases due to lowering albedo (algae blooms at higher temps and other feedback effects). Oceans cover massive parts of the world and absorb sunlight just like terra.

There are so many errors in GSwift's post and you just sat there and admitted that you didn't even see them. Good job, aether dip.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.2 / 5 (5) May 21, 2010

Yes - this is why it's called so. Does it prove something? Does the fact, green apple is not yellow apple prove something?
Yes, it proves that it is not green. Just as accelerated decay and normal decay have different operating mechanisms.

Do you know, what the tautology is?
Using different words to say the same thing isn't at play here. Are you just trying to yank long words from the dictionary and hurl them at me as though I don't understand what you're talking about?
Free roaming muons? Do you understand the difference between neutrinos and muons?

Ok so you're wholly ignorant of what allows for accelerated decay.

The only proved methodology of accelerating radioactive decay is muon bombardment, it's even in the article you linked. You didn't read it.

Going to google and typing in junk to help exemplify your point only works if you actually read it and it goes along with your point. Your theory is also wholly incorrect as we know the ocean is
ZeroX
1.5 / 5 (8) May 21, 2010
There are many effects, but it still doesn't prove anything. I'd recommend you to learn some logics, first.

The energy conservation law is invariant to the kinetic of heat exchange. This exchange can be quite slow, yet fulfilling the energy conservation law well.

You apparently didn't understand the point of GSwift's argument at all, because most of your posts and voting is motivated only by social negativism.
ZeroX
1.7 / 5 (6) May 21, 2010
..the only proved methodology of accelerating radioactive decay is muon bombardment, it's even in the article you linked. You didn't read it.
Which article, exactly? The article

http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.3283

doesn't contain "muon" word....

Neither this one

http://physicswor...ws/36108

Funnily enough, the only notion of muon at this page comes from me...;-)
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (5) May 21, 2010
Funny how you ignore your own links, and in that also fail to know the prevailing science involved in the papers you're reading.

http://physicswor...ws/36108

Above and beyond that, what would be the only source of free muons in nature? Oh yeah, a star. So hypothetically decay rates that can be accelerated using muon bombardment could and probably would be affected by changes in the distance from the Earth to the largest solar system nuclear reactor. Also of note, the fact you completely skipped the entirety of Earth Solar radioactivity interactions.
ZeroX
1 / 5 (5) May 21, 2010
Briefly speaking, you even didn't recognize, I used muons at this page as an argument for my hypothesis.

If muons can catalyze nuclear fusion, why the particles of solar wind (like the neutrinos) couldn't catalyze other nuclear processes?

Of course, the existence of muon catalyzed fusion cannot serve as an evidence against neutrino catalyzed fission at all - on the contrary.

Neutrinos are weak lepton charged particles only - they could come even much closer to atom nuclei, then the muons.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.2 / 5 (5) May 21, 2010
If muons can catalyze nuclear fusion, why the particles of solar wind (like the neutrinos) couldn't catalyze other nuclear processes?

Weak interaction vs energetic strong interaction. I'm not saying it's impossible, but increases in radioactive decay do not occur due to neutrinos or neutralinos otherwise fission reactors would be "magically" missing fuel, breeder reactors wouldn't work.
Neutrinos are weak lepton charged particles only - they could come even much closer to atom nuclei, then the muons.

But they won't do anything when they get there, while a muon would result in a higher energy state and greater periodic emission. Weak interaction vs strong interaction, it makes a HUGE difference.
TegiriNenashi
1 / 5 (4) May 21, 2010
Xcuse me: "weak laptop charge" means depleted battery, right? Sure one has to transfer it into "higher energy state"!
JayK
3 / 5 (8) May 21, 2010
You apparently didn't understand the point of GSwift's argument at all, because most of your posts and voting is motivated only by social negativism.

This is called "projection", broglia/Alizee/seneca/ZeroX. Look it up. I rate things as a 1 when they come from known crackpots or their contents deserve a 1. In your case, it just happens to be both.

Go troll somewhere else.
PinkElephant
3.3 / 5 (7) May 21, 2010
The trolls are having a fabulous feast today, it would seem...
GSwift7
1.6 / 5 (8) May 21, 2010
While I didn't get into all the other factors at work on the system in question, my comment isn't erroneous. Saying that the air warms the water is like saying that a person standing on the earth is holding the earth down. Sure there is interaction in both directions, but one is trivial compared to the other. What part of my post is wrong? I'll be happy to retract and apologize for any errors. This is a discussion amongst people with common interests of varying opinions, not a lecture by experts.
JayK
3.3 / 5 (7) May 21, 2010
What part of my post is wrong?

Mainly the part where you simplify the statement made into an air/ocean interface when that isn't what the statement said at all. Greenhouse gases work by trapping and reflecting IR wavelengths (those aren't the same thing), long term causing ground based temperatures to increase as there is a negative energy balance (summarized by the term "dimming"). This is all basic stuff, but the complex means by which heat trapped and reflected by the upper atmosphere can not be simplified down to the interface of energies at the ocean/air interface.
Alizee
May 21, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
JayK
2.6 / 5 (5) May 21, 2010
BTW Heat isn't reflected by the upper atmosphere.

Oh, really? Tell me that the dense aether theory teaches you this, please!?

http://en.wikiped...fect.svg Here is a simple picture for your simple little mind, Aetherfool.
PinkElephant
4.2 / 5 (6) May 21, 2010
@JayK,
as there is a negative energy balance (summarized by the term "dimming")

I hope you aren't confusing the greenhouse effect with global dimming. The latter is a phenomenon due to particulate and smog pollution, which creates a sunlight-reflecting haze and effectively shades the ground while boosting the overall albedo. The net effect is that of cooling, not warming. Of course, it's only achievable at the cost of massive air pollution...
GSwift7
1.2 / 5 (5) May 21, 2010
Heat is trapped and reflected in the lower atmosphere not the upper atmosphere. You can look that up just about anywhere. The upper atmosphere mostly just lets heat escape, and there's evidence that heat in the upper atmosphere can actually reduce cloud cover there and allow even more heat to escape, slowing down global warming considerably. Here's one story about it. There are others. http://www.scienc...2636.htm
GSwift7
1.6 / 5 (5) May 21, 2010
Correction: Heat is MOSTLY trapped and reflected in the lower atmosphere. Because that's where most of the water vapor and most of the greenhouse gasses are.
JayK
3.3 / 5 (7) May 21, 2010
You're correct, PinkElephant, I have been thinking that dimming was the application of the knowledge that the earth is absorbing more energy than it releases to space. I believe the correct term that I should have used is "radiative forcing". Thank you for the correction.

And yes, GSwift, I should have said lower atmosphere.

Would you now like to answer why you simplified the statement "Ninety percent of the energy [trapped by increased greenhouse gasses] goes into the ocean," down to the air/ocean interface? I've admitted the mistakes pointed out to me, would you like to admit yours?
PinkElephant
4.2 / 5 (5) May 21, 2010
@GSwift7,

All heat ultimately must escape into space through the upper atmosphere. That's the only path for Earth to shed the energy it absorbs from the Sun.

Greenhouse gases can make the upper atmosphere more opaque to infrared (escaping heat.) In fact, upper atmosphere is severely depleted in water vapor, whereas CO2 enrichment affects it just as much as lower atmosphere. As a result, and also because CO2 absorption wavelengths overlap with water vapor, particularly under higher pressures, CO2's greenhouse effect contribution is actually much more potent in the upper atmosphere, than it is in the lower atmosphere.

As for warming (and thus increased absolute humidity) resulting in fewer clouds which supposedly has a net cooling effect (even despite the increased absolute humidity), you'd have to forgive me for being extremely skeptical. Could it merely be that satellites see more "heat" when there are fewer clouds to block its escape?
GSwift7
2 / 5 (4) May 21, 2010
Okay, I think I see the problem here. Maybe I didn't make my point clearly and you seem to be taking it the wrong way. I'm not saying that heat from the atmosphere doesn't go into the ocean. I'm perfectly fine with assuming that the heat reflected back or absorbed by water vapor and greenhouse gasses will end up in the ocean. What I was trying to say is that the amount of heat that represents is miniscule compared to the ocean's own thermal energy. The total thermal energy contained in one cubic meter of water compared to one cubic meter of air at the same temperature is many orders of magnitude more. I was simply pointing out that they kind of have the cart pulling the horse, since it's the ocean which converts sunlight into the thermal energy and then radiates it up into the atmosphere where a small portion of that heat is absorbed or reflected back down to the ocean again. The ocean (or a land surface) is the source of the heat in the first place, unless I'm entirely mistaken.
JayK
3 / 5 (4) May 21, 2010
What I was trying to say is that the amount of heat that represents is miniscule compared to the ocean's own thermal energy.

Why did the question of the air/ocean interface even come up, then? It seemed trollish at the time, because yes, it is minuscule and really isn't even what anyone is talking about. So why did you then include this:
Anyone who's been to the beach knows that it's the water that influences air temp, not the other way around. It cools the air in day and warms the air at night. If you could condense all the thermal energy in the entire atmosphere, it would equate to the thermal energy of just a thin slice of the ocean's surface. You can cool water by blowing on it (even with warm air, because of evaporation) but heating water with air is difficult.
in your earliest post? It seems totally out of place.
GSwift7
2.3 / 5 (4) May 21, 2010
Oh come on Pink. The density of any gas, including water vapor and CO2 at any altitude above the troposphere is so thin that it's effect is nothing compared to the rest of the greenhouse gasses in the lower atmosphere. 80% of the atmosphere by mass is in the lower atmosphere. Even if the CO2 at higher altitudes is absorbing heat, it's low density will severly limit the amount of heat energy it can absorb. There's also the stratification of the different layers of atmosphere to account for. There's a severe limitation of any convection currents that might transfer heat back down to the troposphere from higher altitudes.

And yes, if a satalite sees more IR then more IR is escaping into space, otherwise it couldn't see it, right?
GSwift7
2 / 5 (4) May 21, 2010
okay, JayK, I think I understand your question. Is it the part where I compare thermal energy of the atmosphere to thermal energy of the ocean's surface? That was just a poor way of stating my more recent comparison between the termal energy of equal volumes of air and water at the same temperature. In the comment you just quoted I was keeping the energy and temp constant and comparing the difference in volumes between the two. I wasn't talking about the interface per se. The word interface was just mentioned in the quote I took from that other guy.
PinkElephant
4.2 / 5 (5) May 21, 2010
@GSwift7,
it's effect is nothing compared to the rest of the greenhouse gasses in the lower atmosphere
The lower atmosphere is quite 'saturated' with both H2O and CO2, to the point that photons of relevant wavelengths can't travel more than a couple of meters before getting absorbed. In the upper atmosphere, this mean free path will of course be longer. But to imply that the upper atmosphere is altogether transparent, is plain wrong.
Even if the CO2 at higher altitudes is absorbing heat, it's low density...
...is, of course, accounted for in the radiative transfer calculations.
There's also the stratification of the different layers of atmosphere
Not until you get into upper stratosphere; lower- to mid-stratosphere gases are still well-mixed, even if at the same time severely dessicated (with H2O tending to precipitate out as ice.)
There's a severe limitation of any convection currents
The *atmospheric* greenhouse effect is radiative, not convective in nature.
GSwift7
1 / 5 (1) May 21, 2010
come on pink. You, jay, heretic and I all have a prety good grasp on this stuff. It's just hard to make a good point in 1000 characters or less. First of all, the atmosphere as a whole is nearly transparent in IR wavelengths, otherwise we would be living on a cinder. If the atmosphere really did absorb IR waves in just a short distance, then groundbased IR atronomical observations wouldn't be possible, and neither would your television remote control or a heat seaking missile. I know, they all use different bands of IR, and the band that water absorbs most isn't used in your remote control. Water (and CO2) still don't absorb the majority of IR energy as it travels through the atmosphere. They only absorb a small fraction, even where they are most concentrated, and the upper atmosphere is so close to being transparent that it almost doesn't matter, even when you talk about astronomy. You need to look it up I think. I'm not going to argue known facts with you.
GSwift7
1 / 5 (1) May 21, 2010
Pink, the greenhouse effect is a complicated dance of both radiative and convective effects, in addition to an uncountable number of other factors such as conductive heat transfer in addition to convection and radiation. The positive and negative feeback loops, in addition to that, are so complicted that even the experts struggle with them, and we aren't experts. Well, I'M not an expert. When I look at the research and the data and the simulations, it seems like we are only seeing the tip of the iceberg in regard to understanding climate mechanisms and modeling them. I wonder if people a thousand years from now will think of us like we think of the "flat earth" people of our past, or if we are actually on the right track? We really don't know a lot of stuff right now. I'm of the opinion that we need to spend more time and money on this before we decide how things work. Our models should be a lot better before we trust them much, based on what I have read.
Alizee
May 21, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (9) May 21, 2010
The trolls are having a fabulous feast today, it would seem...

I could care less if I'm feeding them. When we let them run rampant and post bullshit, people read it and start thinking it's correct. If the media can't be accurate, I can be. I just need to reach more people. If the internet and physorg gives that power of reason and widespread education, I'm on board.

OK, try to explain, why/how global ocean temperature is rising, when the global atmosphere temperature goes down.

The oceans temperature is based on what has happened, air temp is far more fickle.

Once you descend about 2000m you won't find any warming. If the oceans were warming from the bottom up you would expect to see multiple anomalous thermal currents.
JayK
2.3 / 5 (6) May 21, 2010
Oh look, the seneca-troll has posted a graph! And look, it doesn't match what the troll said in the comment! Surprise, surprise.

Why are you looking at simulations, GSwift? Do you mean you are looking at projections and curve fits or are you looking at the results of climate models and somehow declaring them incorrect? What are you reading that is giving you the impression that there is something wrong? If it is anyone that thinks that Anthony Watts has something useful to say on the matter, then it isn't a serious site.

I love to see more data included in the proxy graphs, I understand why MBH98 didn't show a medieval warming, I can see where the IPCC07 encouraged climatologists to be too aggressive with their conclusions and I understand the dispute against temperature monitoring stations showing bias (I don't agree with the conclusions of it, however). Is there something specific you would like to have answered, you at least seem open.
GSwift7
1.8 / 5 (5) May 21, 2010
Like Neo in "The Matrix", it's the questions that drive me, not the answers or theories about the answers. I think the unknowns are the interresting part of science, and I like questioning people who propose incomplete theories, like what was stated in the original article. They collected some data and processed it in a new way, reaching different results than the people who orriginally got the data. That sounds suspicious to me, so I'm thinking about it out loud and inviting you guys to comment on my thinking so that I can reprocess my own thoughts based on your feedback. I learn a lot from people correcting me and from looking up things that people claim. This stuff is all cool, and you guys are all fun to talk/argue with. Just FYI.
GSwift7
1 / 5 (2) May 21, 2010
"OK, try to explain, why/how global ocean temperature is rising, when the global atmosphere temperature goes down"

If you look at the web sites and official statements from any of the authorities, they all say the same thing: there are uncertainties in the data and more info is needed. The atmospheric data is very questionable and largely limited to surface observations. Sea temps are even more limited than land temps. Upper atmosphere temps are mostly based on measurements taken in the past 50 or so years. Satalite temps are, statistically speaking, not very accurate based on the sample rate, sample length, and statistical error bounds. All of the temp records are estimates and the actual values of everything involved here, from temp to concentrations of aerosols and gasses are estimated with additive errors in statistical significance that make it very difficult to say with certainty that your statement is actually true, although the current opinion (and mine) agrees with you.
GSwift7
1 / 5 (2) May 21, 2010
It could all be wrong you know... even if it's only wrong by a tiny tiny fraction of a percent, the end result would be very different because of all the interactions, feedback loops, and timeframes far greater than our own lifespans. The data available is such a short timespan and such a small area of the total system that I'm not surprised when the models don't agree with reality. There are parts of the models which agree with reality but be carefull which pats you are looking at because some the parts of the models are arbitrarily set to agree with observations regardless of the statistical and mathimatical implications. It's a huge effort just to model the air temp, flow, pressure, etc on the deck of an aircraft carrier when it's moving, trust me on that. How they can claim to model the whole planet/solar interaction is beyond me. This is more complicated than they are admitting. It could be worse than Al Gore says it is, or it could be nothing. I am not convinced yet.
GSwift7
1 / 5 (2) May 21, 2010
@JayK:
I'd like to see a LOT more data over a LOT longer period of time. The El Nino events alone account for more noise in current data than the conclusions merrit, and that's just one deviation. When you combine all the deviations and the "corrections" in the simulations or models, you exceed the statistical signifigance of the effect you are measuring, right? They have only just began to study the effect of aerosals and they don't have funding to collect enough data in the ocean and atmosphere and earth as a whole. That's what this kind of article is about I think. They are trying their best to compete for funding against other underfunded projects. Why don't we just bail out another private venture and ignore the important science that really needs to be done before we even begin to understand what's going on? Because if the scientists admit that they don't understand something, then the politicians won't understand the trends and they will ignore them, right?
JayK
2.6 / 5 (5) May 21, 2010
Thanks for making me sorry I asked. You've repeated a significant number of common denialist arguments that have been addressed multiple times. Stop assuming the models are the only reason that AGW is such a well supported theory in climate science, and you might want to stop implying there is some kind of conspiracy, especially in relation to grant dollars.
GSwift7
2.2 / 5 (5) May 21, 2010
Oh boy, you have completely mischaracterized my remarks. I'm in full support of more grant money and more learning. I see a danger and I'd like to know more about it before it's too late. What part of that is bad? I'm not denying anything, I'm asking for more money and more date and more attention to the finer details that really matter. AWG is a well supported theory but so is the other side of the arguement. We need to really figure out who is right I think, before it's too late. Either way, no matter who is right, the cost is huge if either side is wrong. Let's learn and then act, I say. Is that so bad of a viewpoint? I realize that we're getting into the philosophical side of things now, but I think it's hard to argue against more extensive and more intensive research. Make the experts settle the disputes and leave little room for arguement and I'll be happy.
JayK
2.3 / 5 (6) May 21, 2010
AWG is a well supported theory but so is the other side of the arguement.

Both sides are equal, so vote Rand Paul?

Please provide proof that the other side of the argument is well supported, or supported at all.

And I don't think I'm mischaracterizing your arguments at all, you're giving off the impression I would get from a "concern troll" in order to sound reasonable.
jonnyboy
1.6 / 5 (7) May 22, 2010
About the only reason I read these posts anymore is so I can rate JayK, Alizee and (most of the time) Pink a 1
GSwift7
1.5 / 5 (4) May 22, 2010
JayK, proof doesn't exist on either side. That's my point. They both have sugestive evidence, estimates, models, projections, theories, and worst of all opinions. If you want to hear the viewpoint of the other side, check out the book titled "A Climate of Change". It's one of the better ones around. If you live anywhere near Orangeburg SC, then come by my book store and pick it up, lol. www.swiftbookstore.com

You could also use google and learn about the uncertianties in the data and the possible implications of all the unanswered questions. There are some very important climate factors that are not understood very well. Clouds and aerosols for example.

Rand Paul? That was a trolling comment. Nothing more than a personal attack. I try not to respond to stuff like that, or the part where you call me a concern troll, which is more name-calling and another personal attack.

Read that book I suggested and see what they have to say. I'm not saying it's 100% correct, but interresting
JayK
3.5 / 5 (8) May 22, 2010
The full title of the book you mention is evidence enough: "A Climate for Change: Global Warming Facts for Faith-Based Decisions"

No need to read it, it is useless pablum being sold to faithful morons. I'll stick to journals, thanks, you know those places where the "other side" has never actually published? Yeah, McIntyre published, but he was debunked within a month of publication.

You seem to be the same as a political "independent" running around claiming there is no difference between the parties, so vote for X. What I used was just a current meme that is going around for an attempt at humorous effect, not a personal shot.

And I said you remind me of a concern troll, and so far you don't seem to be changing my mind. It really does look exactly like you're just taking a soft-denialist approach, approaching things with faux-concern in order to hide your actual intentions.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.2 / 5 (5) May 22, 2010
You could also use google and learn about the uncertianties in the data and the possible implications of all the unanswered questions. There are some very important climate factors that are not understood very well. Clouds and aerosols for example.
Not anymore. You need to update. I had the exact same opinion that you do now, 8 months ago or so. There is a lot of very compelling evidence comming out now that the alarmists are out of the way.

Read that book I suggested and see what they have to say. I'm not saying it's 100% correct, but interresting
If it's not 100% correct, and it's interesting, it's not factual, it's entertainment. Please recognize it as such going forward.
GSwift7
1 / 5 (3) May 22, 2010
I'm sorry. I had the title wrong. I'm still asleep, so forgive me. The one I'm talking about is called "Climate of Extremes". Google has a scan of whole book and you can read it for free here: http://books.goog...;f=false

It's worth the time it'll take to read it. It's got plenty of good hard science and it's written by a credible source.
GSwift7
1.2 / 5 (5) May 22, 2010
okay skeptic, that's a good point. So the original article here is also just entertainment by that arguement, since it's also not 100% correct. I think that's not exactly a fair way to look at things. You have to think about what these people claim and be critical of them, but just because they are not 100% correct doesn't mean they are 100% wrong, does it?
Skeptic_Heretic
4.4 / 5 (7) May 22, 2010
So the original article here is also just entertainment by that arguement, since it's also not 100% correct. I think that's not exactly a fair way to look at things. You have to think about what these people claim and be critical of them, but just because they are not 100% correct doesn't mean they are 100% wrong, does it?

There's a reason why I keep the word Skeptic in my screen name. I question AGW only as much as I'm not 100% convinced, however, there is warming, there is ice loss, there are oceanic temperature increases, and no contradictory evidence for the established statement of AGW. At this time I must take it as our leading hypothesis until final compelling evidence is found (unlikely in the short term), or our hypothesis is validated through experimentation (global reduction of CO2 emissions). Yes, this is a very expensive experiment, but, we do need to engage in it, as scholars and scientists. Only then can we determine who's 100% wrong, and who wasn't.
GSwift7
1.4 / 5 (5) May 22, 2010
exactly. I agree 100% with everything you said. I just wish more people would read about it, before they get all emotional about it. It amazes me how strongly most people feel about this topic when most of them have never even done a google search about it, much less read anything more serious. You would probably like that book I suggested. It's not really anti-AGW in nature. It just points out the difficult parts of the science. Climate study is probably more complicated than sub-atomic particle physics in some ways, or at the very least, equally difficult.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.5 / 5 (4) May 22, 2010
Yes, but then why are you fighting the hypothesis with such emotional vigor yourself? Allow the time to pass, let people make their statements, and if the conclusive science showing AGW to be incorrect comes forward, we'll all know the truth of things, and that is only if AGW is incorrect, which it isn't. It's just not nailed down, but some would tell you otherwise to "entertain" your preconceptions.
GSwift7
1 / 5 (3) May 22, 2010
I've said repeatedly that I don't dispute AGW. Look back at my comments. The main thing I dispute is the predictive models. Some observation agrees with them and some doesn't. That says the models need more work. How much work is still unknown, but it could be a lot. Clouds and the water cycle are probably the biggest influence on climate change next to the sun's. The sun itself isn't all that well understood yet, and how clouds will respond to temperature changes is an even bigger mystery. The models can't be very accurate when the two biggest factors are only estimates with unknown error.
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (4) May 22, 2010
The models can't be very accurate when the two biggest factors are only estimates with unknown error.
Again, emotional presupposition that was evangelically passed down to you. The influence of the suns rays on the atmosphere is fairly well understood at this point in time. Now it's a matter of refinement, not complete revamp, as it was back in the 70's. We have much information on the composition and activity within the environment. Now we're learning interactions. The same can be said of clouds. It was questionable in the 80's, but since 95 it's been rather well nailed down.
JayK
3.9 / 5 (7) May 22, 2010
Who says they are the biggest factor? Not knowing how something works, precisely, doesn't mean that an approximation doesn't account for a significant enough portion of their actions/reactions. Models are only a small part of climate science, though, and your continued focus on them shows, again, that you're concern trolling.

As for your book, just reading the Editorial Reviews about it indicates deep flaws in their premises. The first one I found, and when I stopped reading, is that the authors try to say that permafrost thawing isn't going to cause massive releases of methane. In fact, we've already observed massive methane releases in the last 6 months which may be directly related to the warming of the Arctic. They were conclusive that wouldn't happen, which means they can't be taken seriously.
thermodynamics
4 / 5 (8) May 22, 2010
GSwift7: You posted an interesting link to the book you recommended. Take a look at the author and the fact that it is self published by the Cato Institute. The authors are well known AGW deniers and the Cato Institute is a famous conservative think tank. I have to say that I find that much less compelling than the peer reviewed technical articles that appear in respected journals. Nice try though. I am not sure that many even looked at the copyright information when you post a link like this.
JayK
3.9 / 5 (7) May 22, 2010
I'd strongly suggest you stop reading popular science books on AGW, and instead start reading journals and even the IPCC07. Books, even ones that agree with me, are not reviewed by other experts, and never ones with conflicting interests. They are entertaining and will give readers a look into how the author understands things, but they tend to have flaws and are too biased to be taken as any sort of factual science.

Journals, however, don't give a very big picture, which means you have to read through a lot to form a complete picture.
Alizee
May 22, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Sonhouse
3 / 5 (2) May 22, 2010
The fact, you did understood nothing doesn't mean anything. Even silly dog could bark it after hearing about Pythagoras theorem for two days.
There's a difference between not understanding and recognizing copy and paste bullshit.
Examples:
Note that the marine watter contains rather large amount of potassium, too. The total activity of ocean water exceeds 3.8 x 10E+11 Ci (14000 EBq). What will happen, if some process would accelerate its decay by let say one percent?

Bullshit.
Note that repetitive astronomical observations are the only way, how to predict disaster situation in distant future just by using of naked eye.
Bullshit
In this article the earthquakes became five times more energetic, then before.
Bullshit
Do you remember the disaster 2012 movie? Maybe it was quite correct at both factual, both physical level.
Bullshit.

Need I go on?


Well other than that he is perfectly right, right?:)
Skeptic_Heretic
4.3 / 5 (6) May 23, 2010
Regarding the hypothesis presented above this article may be of some importance, too...

Is The Sun Is About To Enter A Million-Degree Cloud Of Interstellar Gas?

http://www.scient...llar_gas

See GSwift? This is what improper "entertainment" science journalism does to you.
GSwift7
1 / 5 (4) May 24, 2010
Well, just a couple decades ago, the journals were full of peer-reviewed papers on global cooling. I think I'll continue to challenge those people when they make claims that don't seem well-supported.

Oh, and thanks for attacking my again with that last comment. Nice one. I guess when you come accross someone who is able to intelligently argue an opinion that doesn't agree with your, it's easiest to just compare me to some crackpot and laugh.

There is no denying the fact that climate study doesn't have very good data. If you go back and look at the full text of the original version of the above article, you'll see that this site chose to cut out part of the article where Mr. Lyman talked about the problems with his own data. He said that he hopes to get better data going forward by using the new sensors that he and his company are selling. HMMMMMM. Credible source?
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (3) May 24, 2010
@GSwift7,
Well, just a couple decades ago, the journals were full of peer-reviewed papers on global cooling.
Really? And are we to assume you've actually read these? In which case, please go ahead and recount the purported mechanism behind that global cooling hypothesis, a few decades ago. If you are able to do that, then please explain why that mechanism is physically invalid -- which would justify your ridicule.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (3) May 24, 2010
Oh, and thanks for attacking my again with that last comment. Nice one. I guess when you come accross someone who is able to intelligently argue an opinion that doesn't agree with your, it's easiest to just compare me to some crackpot and laugh.
I am not comparing you to Alizee, trust me. I'm not that low. Besides, Alizee/Marjon/the rest of the creation bots cannot argue intelligently.

I'm merely warning you before you become similar to them.

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.