New Comparison of Ocean Temperatures Reveals Rise Over the Last Century

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,500
6
81
Just look what those crazy climatologists have come up with this time. Obviously, it's not possible that the ocean has been warming, since we KNOW that all of the measured temperature increases are due to placing weather stations near jet engines at airports (see the other thread for 100% PROOF of this). Clearly, this study is just another attempt by the Great CC Conspiracy to frighten us.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120401135345.htm

A new study contrasting ocean temperature readings of the 1870s with temperatures of the modern seas reveals an upward trend of global ocean warming spanning at least 100 years.

The research led by Scripps Institution of Oceanography at UC San Diego physical oceanographer Dean Roemmich shows a .33-degree Celsius (.59-degree Fahrenheit) average increase in the upper portions of the ocean to 700 meters (2,300 feet) depth. The increase was largest at the ocean surface, .59-degree Celsius (1.1-degree Fahrenheit), decreasing to .12-degree Celsius (.22-degree Fahrenheit) at 900 meters (2,950 feet) depth.

The report is the first global comparison of temperature between the historic voyage of HMS Challenger (1872-1876) and modern data obtained by ocean-probing robots now continuously reporting temperatures via the global Argo program. Scientists have previously determined that nearly 90 percent of the excess heat added to Earth's climate system since the 1960s has been stored in the oceans. The new study, published in the April 1 advance online edition of Nature Climate Change and coauthored by John Gould of the United Kingdom-based National Oceanography Centre and John Gilson of Scripps Oceanography, pushes the ocean warming trend back much earlier.

"The significance of the study is not only that we see a temperature difference that indicates warming on a global scale, but that the magnitude of the temperature change since the 1870s is twice that observed over the past 50 years," said Roemmich, co-chairman of the International Argo Steering Team. "This implies that the time scale for the warming of the ocean is not just the last 50 years but at least the last 100 years."

Although the Challenger data set covers only some 300 temperature soundings (measurements from the sea surface down to the deep ocean) around the world, the information sets a baseline for temperature change in the world's oceans, which are now sampled continuously through Argo's unprecedented global coverage. Nearly 3,500 free-drifting profiling Argo floats each collect a temperature profile every 10 days.

Roemmich believes the new findings, a piece of a larger puzzle of understanding Earth's climate, help scientists to understand the longer record of sea-level rise, because the expansion of seawater due to warming is a significant contributor to rising sea level. Moreover, the 100-year timescale of ocean warming implies that Earth's climate system as a whole has been gaining heat for at least that long.

Launched in 2000, the Argo program collects more than 100,000 temperature-salinity profiles per year across the world's oceans. To date, more than 1,000 research papers have been published using Argo's data set.

Obviously, all of these oceanic measurements were made near the venting ducts of nuclear power plants. There's no other possible explanation.
 

Nintendesert

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2010
7,761
5
0
So what? If you really had a problem and believed with global warming you'd stop being such a consumer whore with your electronics and go live on a hippie commune somewhere. Until then you're the reason any supposed problem would exist.
 

woolfe9999

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2005
7,153
0
0
So what? If you really had a problem and believed with global warming you'd stop being such a consumer whore with your electronics and go live on a hippie commune somewhere. Until then you're the reason any supposed problem would exist.

What exactly do you think you know about the OP's personal carbon footprint, and why is it relevant to the topic of the thread?
 

Nintendesert

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2010
7,761
5
0
What exactly do you think you know about the OP's personal carbon footprint, and why is it relevant to the topic of the thread?



It has everything to do with it. We either choose to believe it and turn back progress or keep going with industrialization and keep marching forward.
 

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,444
1
0
I'm sure it has nothing to do with the fact that in 1870 they took the ocean temps by tossing a canvas bucket off the ship and then read the temps with a thermometer that was accurate to + or - 1 degree. But hey anything that advances our knowledge is a good thing.

LOL, the Challenger took 300 readings and this paper is using them to establish a baseline of SST's for fuck sake, this is pitiful. In case you want to learn more about the Challenger.
http://life.bio.sunysb.edu/marinebio/challenger.html

more about SST
http://ghrsst-pp.metoffice.com/pages/sst_definitions/
 
Last edited:

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
I can say, without a doubt, that the oceans are warmer now than they were 11,000 years ago. I can also say, without a doubt, that we all say this is a good thing and are happy the planet warmed up like it does every 100,000 years or so, following the natural cycle which we have no power to change.
 

Texashiker

Lifer
Dec 18, 2010
18,811
198
106
We either choose to believe it and turn back progress or keep going with industrialization and keep marching forward.

Therein lays the root of the global warming debate.

Is current phase of global warming natural or manmade?

Global warming / global cooling is a naturally occurring event. But how much of the current cycle is being affected by mankind?
 

tydas

Golden Member
Mar 10, 2000
1,284
0
76
Therein lays the root of the global warming debate.

Is current phase of global warming natural or manmade?

Global warming / global cooling is a naturally occurring event. But how much of the current cycle is being affected by mankind?

Ahh, yeah, there is no debate...its all been pretty much proven and over with...the debate is how do we act...
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
Therein lays the root of the global warming debate.

Is current phase of global warming natural or manmade?

Global warming / global cooling is a naturally occurring event. But how much of the current cycle is being affected by mankind?

As much effect as it would if everyone on the planet jumped at the same time. Nothing.
 

Texashiker

Lifer
Dec 18, 2010
18,811
198
106
As much effect as it would if everyone on the planet jumped at the same time. Nothing.

I think humans are having an effect on the environment. How do you pump millions of tons of pollution into the atmosphere and "not" have an effect?

Our water is being polluted with mercury from coal burning power plants. Here locally we are advised not to eat more then a couple of 8 ounce servings of fish every month.

mercury-warning-dam-b-jasper-texas.jpg


Its clear that yes, we are having an impact, but is that impact affecting global warming?
 

xBiffx

Diamond Member
Aug 22, 2011
8,232
2
0
I think humans are having an effect on the environment. How do you pump millions of tons of pollution into the atmosphere and "not" have an effect?

Our water is being polluted with mercury from coal burning power plants. Here locally we are advised not to eat more then a couple of 8 ounce servings of fish every month.

Its clear that yes, we are having an impact, but is that impact affecting global warming?

The earth does a pretty good job itself throwing shit into the atmosphere. If the world were China I might agree with you but we do a tiny amount as humans compared to natural processes and other living creatures on this planet.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
Oh, we have an effect on the toxicity of the air...just no effect on the already existing cycle which has moved the planet into and out of ice ages for at least 400,000 years. Most pollution has nothing to do with warming or cooling the planet.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,798
6,772
126
To those who lack faith the Earth must surely look like a planet in the throws of a massive species extinction cause by the uncontrolled multiplication and exploitation of a cancer called humanity. But you would be wrong if you thought that. In fact what happened is that God created man to go forth and multiply and have dominion over the Earth so be strong. Nothing evil can happen to man. Everything is according to plan and any doubts are the work of Satin.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
35,901
10,232
136
Shira... your own quote... your OWN BOLDED SECTION:

"The significance of the study is not only that we see a temperature difference that indicates warming on a global scale, but that the magnitude of the temperature change since the 1870s is twice that observed over the past 50 years," said Roemmich, co-chairman of the International Argo Steering Team. "This implies that the time scale for the warming of the ocean is not just the last 50 years but at least the last 100 years."
You blame CO2 for a warming ocean 100 years ago? Hansen said that we're safe at 350ppm, that didn't occur until 1988. There's a significant gap in your basic logic between 1912 - 1988.

To make this perfectly clear, your own side claims we're responsible for the second half of the 20th century, not the first half. Giving us an article that points to greater warming in the first half does not help you.
 
Last edited:

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,444
1
0
I think humans are having an effect on the environment. How do you pump millions of tons of pollution into the atmosphere and "not" have an effect?

Our water is being polluted with mercury from coal burning power plants. Here locally we are advised not to eat more then a couple of 8 ounce servings of fish every month.
Its clear that yes, we are having an impact, but is that impact affecting global warming?

You might be interested in this article about environmental mercury. It's from a place I don't usually link to, but you seem interested.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/01/mercury-the-trickster-god/
 
Oct 25, 2006
11,036
11
91
The earth does a pretty good job itself throwing shit into the atmosphere. If the world were China I might agree with you but we do a tiny amount as humans compared to natural processes and other living creatures on this planet.

Completely untrue. Every single global warming report ever released the past decade accounts for these natural releases into the Athmosphere.

Humanity has accounted for the greatest increase for the amount of Co2 in the air, more than any other possible natural release mechanism.
 

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,444
1
0
Completely untrue. Every single global warming report ever released the past decade accounts for these natural releases into the Athmosphere.

Humanity has accounted for the greatest increase for the amount of Co2 in the air, more than any other possible natural release mechanism.

ummm, no. How could they when they had no idea how many sources of CO2(volcanoes and vents) there are in the oceans? How could they?
 

xj0hnx

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2007
9,262
3
76
Amazing, 100 years of data, an entire century, now if you could just produce something for the other 4.6 billion years we'll be on to something.
 

NeoV

Diamond Member
Apr 18, 2000
9,504
2
81
perhaps the concept of 'natural cycle' is too difficult to understand?
 
Oct 25, 2006
11,036
11
91
ummm, no. How could they when they had no idea how many sources of CO2 there are in the oceans? How could they?

I highly recommend you actually read some of these reports that the IPCCC releases. They are extremely enlightening and if deniers actually read some of these, they would know most of their 'arguments" have been shot down multiple times by the general scientific community. They are "ignored" because they offer nothing new and all their "alternative sources" have been accounted for.

Anyway, to answer your question, Oceans are a massive carbon sink and so they can measure the change of co2 dissolved in the ocean. Of course, there is a balance between co2 being absorbed and released by the ocean. They already account the data of the ocean releasing co2 and absorbing co2