Puzzle me this? Oceans COOLING?

Hmmmm. You get a different picture from this story, which seems to be from the same source:

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/49D...DD58A68937C.htm

The first implies a global cooling, while the second puts the cooling in the deep southern oceans.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TimBikes @ Sep 7 2006, 12:11 AM) [snapback]315601[/snapback]</div>

Yeah you're right - the ARGO float thing threw me. The study I linked had them releasing the ARGO floats, and the study you linked made use of them.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Sep 6 2006, 10:00 PM) [snapback]315600[/snapback]</div>

I know a lot of people hate FOX news, but Al Jazeera ... c'mon.

 

What's wrong with an Arab viewpoint? Oh well... very few on our octet of the world would understand.

On topic...

I don't know... but do we even have enough sensors in the ocean to even say what happened to all the heat?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mirza @ Sep 7 2006, 08:49 AM) [snapback]315654[/snapback]</div>

Melt enough glaciers and you get colder water...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(mikepaul @ Sep 7 2006, 07:57 AM) [snapback]315658[/snapback]</div>

Also; increased rainfall and Greenland glacier melting decreases ocean salinity. Salinity is the main force that drives the gulf stream conveyor that brings warm water from the tropics to the northern atlantic. If the Gulf stream is somehow impaired there will be lower temperatures overall in the northern atlantic.

 

Ok - I'm going to try posting this, and see how hard it gets smacked...

In my opinion, it is the height of hubris for us to assume we can anticipate what kind of impact any trend in any sliver of a subsection might have on the chaotic system that is the Global Climate. We can't even predict what is going to happen in a microclimate (the local forecast) with anything approaching statistical accuracy; what the he!! makes us think we can predict what's going to happen worldwide in the long term? At this juncture, humans simply do not have the capability to understand every single tiny thing that influences the global climate. We're just scratching the surface in a basic understanding of the chaos theory that underpins everything. The old saying about a butterfly flapping its wings in Mongolia causing rain in Kansas isn't too far off - we simply cannot comprehend how deep the complexity is, much less understand the depths of the complexity. Nostradamus was just as accurate in his long-term predictions as we are in ours.

Everything humans do and think about the global climate is reactive, based on observations. For one peer-reviewed prediction saying X, there is another peer-reviewed prediction saying not-X. The science is iron-clad on both sides of the debate; it all comes down to how you interpret the history and, from that, extrapolate the future. Thirty years ago, "the experts" were just as certain (and just as shrill, and just as nasty to the nay-sayers) that we were headed to another at-least-mini ice age. Now, with so many 24/7 "news" outlets, we're only going to hear doom and gloom anyway - "if it bleeds, it leads". Global warming is the panic du jour - give it a few years, and it'll be something else.

Glaciers in some parts of the world are shrinking. Glaciers in other parts of the world are growing. The arctic ice sheet grew at an unprecedented rate last winter. In some areas, icebergs are being calved faster and bigger than ever seen before, because the glaciers that spawn them are growing so fast. Sea levels are up, except where they're down.

My take on it is to read what I can on both sides of the debate, and not lose sleep over it. If anyone else wants lessons in Advanced Curmudgeonly Skepticism, just let me know.

 

I am a skeptic as the next one. What I have learned is to defer to the experts, e.i., people that publish in peer-reviewed journals ONLY.

Repeat after me:

CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
CO2 is at the highest its ever been and continues to climb.
Temperature will change because CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

Repeat as necessary..

 

The oceans should get colder. Both reasons posted above make sense.

Also Global Warming leads to warmer air over oceans, more evaporation, and that cools the water at the surface.
The bigger our storms get the more evaporative cooling for the oceans.

Why is anyone concerned about this? Long as the air is getting hotter we are still in trouble. We aren't quite ready with gills to move back into the water.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(glenhead @ Sep 7 2006, 10:23 AM) [snapback]315695[/snapback]</div>

Opinions are great - everyone has one, and that is fine. It is, however, not on the same standing as an expert viewpoint. And experts overwhelmingly concur that GW is happening, hubris or not.

This is a common fallacy. We can see exactly what has happened in the past to the climate esp. with respect to GHGs. We have 800,000 years of data which strongly correlate CO2 to Surface temperatures. We can then use this historical data as an input to models, etc to predict the future.

We don't need to understand "every tiny thing" - we are looking at macro trends - the major forcings that result in GW.

Sorry but that is bogus. Our understanding is increasing by leaps and bounds as data is added and research continues. There is **NO** serious, scientific challenge to the GW consensus.

No its not. Evidence is quite compelling and that is why the EXPERTS agree that GW is happening.

No, all those articles that claimed that there was a global cooling trend were published in NON-SCIENCE journals, Time, Newsweek, etc. There was no scientific consensus behind that little flap.

I try not to lose sleep either but the issue with Climate Change Denial is actually to postpone making important changes to behavior, etc. This is because that change represents a threat to earnings. Its quite simple - follow the money.

 

Why greenhouse gases heat the ocean

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TimBikes @ Sep 6 2006, 11:44 PM) [snapback]315599[/snapback]</div>

Interesting report. If it's correct, then global warming won't be such an issue around the equator, now or in the future. Still doesn't remove all the consequences of global warming however. We definitely need some good news on negative feedback mechanisms after the bad news about more positive-feedback mechanisms in the permafrost regions.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(glenhead @ Sep 7 2006, 10:23 AM)</div>

Hmm, sorry but the clear majority of peer-reviewed reports support global-warming. You hear a lot about the others, doesn't mean the evidence is the same, just who talks loudest. Go to someplace like friendsofscience.org (one of the better contrarian websites), then look up the extensive counter-arguments on realclimate.org. It takes some time and thought, but you can see anthropogenic global warming is the likely reason for most of the recent changes (along with some solar forcing) and the effects will continue. The problem is, the effects aren't completely known and monkey wrenches could be thrown into the works - we are performing a grand experiment with our global food production system and water supply, and the effects aren't reversible in a few decades like they are with the ozone hole - this time the effects will likely last centuries.

Regarding global cooling, that was occasionally in the popular press, but never a common theory among climatologists or peer-reviewed science journals even at that time. Even the movie "Soylent Green", produced in 1973, takes place in a future ravaged by global warming, so you can see that the idea of global-cooling being the consensus or even the prevalent thought back then is not true. Global cooling at any event was based on 30 years of data (and some knowledge of ice ages), global warming is based on 100+ years of data (and a more detailed study of the last half-million years of climate change than was possible 30 years ago).

 

Local cooling is not evidence against global warming. Some places will get hotter, and some will get cooler. Air and ocean currents will adjust accordingly. The scary part of the articles quoted above is the surprise expressed by the researchers at how fast changes are happening. We'll find out soon enough how adaptable we really are.

 

"For one peer-reviewed prediction saying X, there is another peer-reviewed prediction saying not-X."

"My take on it is to read what I can on both sides of the debate, and not lose sleep over it."

There is hard data on this question. If you look at a sample of peer-reviewed climate change publications, a total of 0% disagree with the hypothesis that the change is at least partly anthropogenic. In the popular media it is 50%. This is where the misconception of a debate comes from.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TimBikes @ Sep 7 2006, 01:37 PM) [snapback]315803[/snapback]</div>

Not seen any disputes of this study - can you provide sourcing for "highly disputed". I have read stuff on from the mouth breathers (National Review) but nothing from "disinterested" sources.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TimBikes @ Sep 7 2006, 12:37 PM) [snapback]315803[/snapback]</div>

I am not disputing the paper. I am disputing the interpretation that short-term cooling contradicts current thinking in climate change. Even if this short-term cooling was true, glaciers (including Greenland's) continue to melt at an accelerated rate. The latter is the most worrisome of facts.

BTW, can you reference a peer-reviewed article disputing Oreskes'?