Average ocean temperatures warmest on record

[Atheus]

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: Blackjack200
I know that we have a sense for global temperatures historically, but I don't know how precise our estimates would be.

Like this?
http://blogs.mbs.edu/fishing-i...temperatures-thumb.jpg

I like that medieval warm period. That must have been because of CO2...right?

Try that logic in court. Go into a murder case and say - here, this person died hundreds of years ago, and HE wasn't murdered, so this guy can't have been murdered either!

:laugh:

 

[Blackjack200]

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: Blackjack200
I'm not ignoring this, but I can't click on blog links at work. I'll have to pick this up later.

Notice the .EDU

That graph shows 50 year blocks and doesn't show any data from the last 15 years. I don't understand why you'd use a graph like that unless you were trying to support a pre-conceived conclusion.

 

[yllus]

I don't disagree with that article, but I would argue that's it's entirely acceptable to be skeptical of the findings and not horribly veer from a logical thought process.

In specific, this article is what immediately sprung to mind on this topic:

Little ocean tattletales fail to find right facts

When they were first deployed in 2003, the Argos were hailed for their ability to collect information on ocean conditions more precisely, at more places and greater depths and in more conditions than ever before.

These 3,000 yellow sentinels -- about the size and shape of a large fencepost -- free-float the world's oceans, season in and season out, surfacing between 30 and 40 times a year, disgorging their findings, then submerging again for another fact-finding voyage.

No longer would scientists have to rely on measurements mostly at the surface from older scientific buoys or inconsistent shipboard monitors.

So why are some scientists now beginning to question the buoys' findings? Because in five years the Argos have failed to detect any global warming. They are not reinforcing the scientific orthodoxy of the day, namely that man is causing the planet to warm dangerously. They are not proving the predetermined conclusions of their human masters. Therefore they, and not their masters' hypotheses, must be wrong.

In fact, "there has been a very slight cooling," according to a U.S. National Public Radio (NPR) interview with Josh Willis at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, a scientist who keeps close watch on the Argo findings.

A slight drop in the oceans' temperature over a period of five or six years probably is insignificant, just as a warming over such a short period would be. Yet if there had been a rise of any kind, even of the same slightness, rest assured this would be broadcast far and wide as yet another log on the global warming fire.

Modellers are also perplexed by the findings of NASA's eight weather satellites that take more than 300,000 temperature readings daily over the entire surface of the Earth, versus approximately 7,000 random readings from Earth stations.

In nearly 30 years of operation, the satellites have discovered a warming trend of just 0.14 C per decade, less than the models and well within the natural range of temperature variation.

The data that I've seen seems to say one thing, then the other.

I'm prepared to put my trust in the people who do this stuff for a living and say that, yes, we do seem to be in an accelerated period of warming and cooling, but I think it's also fair to say that people can be legitimately confused about what to think about the issue.

 

[jonks]

Does anyone actually deny the fact of GW anymore as much as they quesiton the cause of the warming?

"There's clearly a change in the climate," [ExxonMobile CEO Tillerson] said. "It's getting warmer."

 

[Blackjack200]

Originally posted by: yllus
I don't disagree with that article, but I would argue that's it's entirely acceptable to be skeptical of the findings and not horribly veer from a logical thought process.

In specific, this article is what immediately sprung to mind on this topic:

Little ocean tattletales fail to find right facts

When they were first deployed in 2003, the Argos were hailed for their ability to collect information on ocean conditions more precisely, at more places and greater depths and in more conditions than ever before.

These 3,000 yellow sentinels -- about the size and shape of a large fencepost -- free-float the world's oceans, season in and season out, surfacing between 30 and 40 times a year, disgorging their findings, then submerging again for another fact-finding voyage.

No longer would scientists have to rely on measurements mostly at the surface from older scientific buoys or inconsistent shipboard monitors.

So why are some scientists now beginning to question the buoys' findings? Because in five years the Argos have failed to detect any global warming. They are not reinforcing the scientific orthodoxy of the day, namely that man is causing the planet to warm dangerously. They are not proving the predetermined conclusions of their human masters. Therefore they, and not their masters' hypotheses, must be wrong.

In fact, "there has been a very slight cooling," according to a U.S. National Public Radio (NPR) interview with Josh Willis at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, a scientist who keeps close watch on the Argo findings.

A slight drop in the oceans' temperature over a period of five or six years probably is insignificant, just as a warming over such a short period would be. Yet if there had been a rise of any kind, even of the same slightness, rest assured this would be broadcast far and wide as yet another log on the global warming fire.

Modellers are also perplexed by the findings of NASA's eight weather satellites that take more than 300,000 temperature readings daily over the entire surface of the Earth, versus approximately 7,000 random readings from Earth stations.

In nearly 30 years of operation, the satellites have discovered a warming trend of just 0.14 C per decade, less than the models and well within the natural range of temperature variation.

The data that I've seen seems to say one thing, then the other.

I'm prepared to put my trust in the people who do this stuff for a living and say that, yes, we do seem to be in an accelerated period of warming and cooling, but I think it's also fair to say that people can be legitimately confused about what to think about the issue.

I have no problem with those that want to be skeptical, but the onus is on you to figure out what's solid and what is coming from spin machines. You can be skeptical on evolution, germ theory, gravity, HIV, Helio-Centric model of the solar system, official version of 9-11, moon landing, whatever you like, but you put yourself in a position different from established science, and you need to justify it or you will be igored by the scientific community.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: Blackjack200


I have no problem with those that want to be skeptical, but the onus is on you to figure out what's solid and what is coming from spin machines. You can be skeptical on evolution, germ theory, gravity, HIV, Helio-Centric model of the solar system, official version of 9-11, moon landing, whatever you like, but you put yourself in a position different from established science, and you need to justify it or you will be igored by the scientific community.

Comparing the established science of evolution, HIV, and gravity with "climate change"?

Oh man. :laugh:

 

[Blackjack200]

Originally posted by: jonks
Does anyone actually deny the fact of GW anymore as much as they quesiton the cause of the warming?

"There's clearly a change in the climate," [ExxonMobile CEO Tillerson] said. "It's getting warmer."

There was a climatologist that predicted pretty much the exact course of global warming like 40 years ago. He based his predictions on the amount of carbon we were putting into the atmosphere. There is very little controversy among real scientists.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Lions and tigers and bears...oh my!

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: Patranus

It?s not just the ocean off the Northeast coast that is super-warm this summer. July was the hottest the world?s oceans have been in almost 130 years of record-keeping.

Remember...The earth is more than 2000 years old (or whatever).....130 years is NOTHING.

No one is claiming that the earths temperature is not changing. What is debatable is WHY.

I lol'd

 

[Blackjack200]

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: Blackjack200


I have no problem with those that want to be skeptical, but the onus is on you to figure out what's solid and what is coming from spin machines. You can be skeptical on evolution, germ theory, gravity, HIV, Helio-Centric model of the solar system, official version of 9-11, moon landing, whatever you like, but you put yourself in a position different from established science, and you need to justify it or you will be igored by the scientific community.

Comparing the established science of evolution, HIV, and gravity with "climate change"?

Oh man. :laugh:

Yup. Now the question is, how much longer do you want to stay with the deniers? It was not so long ago that the theory of HIV causing AIDS was wildly controversial. Of course, it was not controversial among the pathologists.

The "controversy" over global warming is only a controversy with non-scientists, or scientists that are not climatologists.

 

[Cuda1447]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Cuda1447
I won't claim it is or isn't global warming. Instead I'll point to other areas of the debate. Every time someone shows evidence of our temperatures cooling, pro global warmers call the others whack jobs. So how is this any different? Its one study, that shows what you are a proponent of. I don't think it is conclusive evidence for or against. I will say that temperatures are cyclical, so when we look at any one study, we have to take it with a huge grain of salt.

Also, if this is true, we should have some really nasty hurricanes. Luckily, on the western side of the world at least, we haven't had any bad ones.

total fail.

*Looks over his back*


Are you following me? The total fail comments again? Really? I didnt even dispute that global warming was occurring! For all you know I am on your side in this!

All I said is that one study can be made to prove any point and that there had been a lot of studies saying we are cooling! Point being, I don't really know what to believe cooling/heating or neither.

But, as others have mentioned in this thread, its not unprecedented for the Earth to warm and cool, we know it is a cyclical pattern, we just don't know if what we are seeing is the norm, or something caused by man.


As for Dr. Pizza's comments about urricanes. I know, I was just saying if the ocean is heating, in general, that should cause hurricanes to be more severe. I know there are other factors though. I was simply making a pointless observation. Nothing to see here, run along

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: Cuda1447

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Cuda1447
I won't claim it is or isn't global warming. Instead I'll point to other areas of the debate. Every time someone shows evidence of our temperatures cooling, pro global warmers call the others whack jobs. So how is this any different? Its one study, that shows what you are a proponent of. I don't think it is conclusive evidence for or against. I will say that temperatures are cyclical, so when we look at any one study, we have to take it with a huge grain of salt.

Also, if this is true, we should have some really nasty hurricanes. Luckily, on the western side of the world at least, we haven't had any bad ones.

total fail.

*Looks over his back*


Are you following me? The total fail comments again? Really? I didnt even dispute that global warming was occurring! For all you know I am on your side in this!

No, he just has strong, ignorant opinions with very little to back them up. They lead to lots of these little one-line posts.

All I said is that one study can be made to prove any point and that there had been a lot of studies saying we are cooling! Point being, I don't really know what to believe cooling/heating or neither.

It's an acceptable position if you ask me - see my previous reply for just one reason why. It's not even about if that article is slanting the facts, is plain incorrect, et cetera - the point is there's so much conflicting information out there that skepticism seems wholly understandable.

As for Dr. Pizza's comments about urricanes.

Arcadio?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Cuda1447

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Cuda1447
I won't claim it is or isn't global warming. Instead I'll point to other areas of the debate. Every time someone shows evidence of our temperatures cooling, pro global warmers call the others whack jobs. So how is this any different? Its one study, that shows what you are a proponent of. I don't think it is conclusive evidence for or against. I will say that temperatures are cyclical, so when we look at any one study, we have to take it with a huge grain of salt.

Also, if this is true, we should have some really nasty hurricanes. Luckily, on the western side of the world at least, we haven't had any bad ones.

total fail.

*Looks over his back*


Are you following me? The total fail comments again? Really? I didnt even dispute that global warming was occurring! For all you know I am on your side in this!

All I said is that one study can be made to prove any point and that there had been a lot of studies saying we are cooling! Point being, I don't really know what to believe cooling/heating or neither.

But, as others have mentioned in this thread, its not unprecedented for the Earth to warm and cool, we know it is a cyclical pattern, we just don't know if what we are seeing is the norm, or something caused by man.


As for Dr. Pizza's comments about urricanes. I know, I was just saying if the ocean is heating, in general, that should cause hurricanes to be more severe. I know there are other factors though. I was simply making a pointless observation. Nothing to see here, run along

Your posts are just easy to respond to. I don't give "Fail" to just anyone or any Post.

 

[Cuda1447]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Cuda1447

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Cuda1447
I won't claim it is or isn't global warming. Instead I'll point to other areas of the debate. Every time someone shows evidence of our temperatures cooling, pro global warmers call the others whack jobs. So how is this any different? Its one study, that shows what you are a proponent of. I don't think it is conclusive evidence for or against. I will say that temperatures are cyclical, so when we look at any one study, we have to take it with a huge grain of salt.

Also, if this is true, we should have some really nasty hurricanes. Luckily, on the western side of the world at least, we haven't had any bad ones.

total fail.

*Looks over his back*


Are you following me? The total fail comments again? Really? I didnt even dispute that global warming was occurring! For all you know I am on your side in this!

All I said is that one study can be made to prove any point and that there had been a lot of studies saying we are cooling! Point being, I don't really know what to believe cooling/heating or neither.

But, as others have mentioned in this thread, its not unprecedented for the Earth to warm and cool, we know it is a cyclical pattern, we just don't know if what we are seeing is the norm, or something caused by man.


As for Dr. Pizza's comments about urricanes. I know, I was just saying if the ocean is heating, in general, that should cause hurricanes to be more severe. I know there are other factors though. I was simply making a pointless observation. Nothing to see here, run along

Your posts are just easy to respond to. I don't give "Fail" to just anyone or any Post.

For you, they probably are easy to respond to. I suspect you don't even read them, as doing so would be a waste of your time. After all, you couldn't possibly have an intelligent conversation with me based on the points being debated. All you have EVER responded to me with is one line garbage. You're nearly as bad as zegerman.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Cuda1447

Originally posted by: sandorski


Your posts are just easy to respond to. I don't give "Fail" to just anyone or any Post.

For you, they probably are easy to respond to. I suspect you don't even read them, as doing so would be a waste of your time. After all, you couldn't possibly have an intelligent conversation with me based on the points being debated. All you have EVER responded to me with is one line garbage. You're nearly as bad as zegerman.

Post something Intelligent, we'll talk.

Perhaps I'm being a little unfair to you, as you're not the only one to post Fail. You're just relatively new here and posting the same Fail many before you also Posted. It's tiring and I have posted counter-arguments on all these issues before. There just comes a time when one just says "Fuck it" and doesn't see the point in repeating oneself.

Pro Tip: You need to choose who to believe carefully. If you choose to believe those who spent decades denying ties between Cancer and Tobacco, you have chosen poorly and are going to, Fail.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Pro Tip: You need to choose who to believe carefully. If you choose to believe those who spent decades denying ties between Cancer and Tobacco, you have chosen poorly and are going to, Fail.

Translation: Believe only the Democrats or their allies.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: blanghorst

Originally posted by: sandorski

Pro Tip: You need to choose who to believe carefully. If you choose to believe those who spent decades denying ties between Cancer and Tobacco, you have chosen poorly and are going to, Fail.

Translation: Believe only the Democrats or their allies.

Incorrect. This subject is only Political to Deniers.

 

[microbial]

Originally posted by: jonks
Does anyone actually deny the fact of GW anymore as much as they quesiton the cause of the warming?

"There's clearly a change in the climate," [ExxonMobile CEO Tillerson] said. "It's getting warmer."

Exxon say it's getting warmer, but not Rush or the Fox nutbags...so not good enough.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: blanghorst

Originally posted by: sandorski

Pro Tip: You need to choose who to believe carefully. If you choose to believe those who spent decades denying ties between Cancer and Tobacco, you have chosen poorly and are going to, Fail.

Translation: Believe only the Democrats or their allies.

Incorrect. This subject is only Political to Deniers.

I don't believe I have seen anyone in this thread deny the fact that global warming is occurring. What I have seen is that there is debate over the actual cause.

EDIT: Time warp

 

[soundforbjt]

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: Blackjack200
I'm not ignoring this, but I can't click on blog links at work. I'll have to pick this up later.

Notice the .EDU

Oh, a college student blog...much more acceptable than a guy in his basement..this guy's in a dorm room.

 

[xj0hnx]

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: xj0hnx
Kind of like a Mayfly declaring that at noon it's the highest recorded tempurature ever so it must be an indication of global warming, and then claiming it is because of mayflies. What a joke.

And to rephrase my previous post - if it gets hot enough to kill all the mayflies, then they're perfectly justified in worrying about it, and trying to do something about it, regardless of whether it's a perfectly normal fluctuation or not...

The point flew over your head.

 

[xj0hnx]

Originally posted by: Blackjack200

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: Blackjack200


I have no problem with those that want to be skeptical, but the onus is on you to figure out what's solid and what is coming from spin machines. You can be skeptical on evolution, germ theory, gravity, HIV, Helio-Centric model of the solar system, official version of 9-11, moon landing, whatever you like, but you put yourself in a position different from established science, and you need to justify it or you will be igored by the scientific community.

Comparing the established science of evolution, HIV, and gravity with "climate change"?

Oh man. :laugh:

Yup. Now the question is, how much longer do you want to stay with the deniers? It was not so long ago that the theory of HIV causing AIDS was wildly controversial. Of course, it was not controversial among the pathologists.

The "controversy" over global warming is only a controversy with non-scientists, or scientists that are not climatologists.

Deniers of what is it this week? Global warming? Cooling? Climate change?

ZOMG teh recorded history!!!! oh boy, recorded history is not even .0000000001% of Earth existance, to think that this is proves anything is beyond ridiculous.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: woodie1
Does not history show that Earth's temperature has never remained constant.

This is very true. The question is whether or not we should be alarmed at the rate at which the Earth is warming. Have the global temperatures ever fluctuated this rapidly as they have in the past 200 years?

or were we in a period of global coolness, and are just going back up to the normal temps?

In order to declare Global Warming, or Cooling, we must establish a "normal" range, and i highly doubt that we have records of earths temps for the past 10000 years.

Ever hear of core samples?

 

[txrandom]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: woodie1
Does not history show that Earth's temperature has never remained constant.

This is very true. The question is whether or not we should be alarmed at the rate at which the Earth is warming. Have the global temperatures ever fluctuated this rapidly as they have in the past 200 years?

or were we in a period of global coolness, and are just going back up to the normal temps?

In order to declare Global Warming, or Cooling, we must establish a "normal" range, and i highly doubt that we have records of earths temps for the past 10000 years.

Ever hear of core samples?

Yes, now please explain how they provide temperature data for the last 10,000 years.

 

[dainthomas]

Originally posted by: txrandom

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: woodie1
Does not history show that Earth's temperature has never remained constant.

This is very true. The question is whether or not we should be alarmed at the rate at which the Earth is warming. Have the global temperatures ever fluctuated this rapidly as they have in the past 200 years?

or were we in a period of global coolness, and are just going back up to the normal temps?

In order to declare Global Warming, or Cooling, we must establish a "normal" range, and i highly doubt that we have records of earths temps for the past 10000 years.

Ever hear of core samples?

Yes, now please explain how they provide temperature data for the last 10,000 years.

Easy! The core samples indicate the earth used to be exactly 32 degrees F. We are now warmer than that, hence we're all going to die.