The Mystery Of Global Warming's Missing Heat

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

The Mystery of Global Warming's Missing Heat

Morning Edition, March 19, 2008 · Some 3,000 scientific robots that are plying the ocean have sent home a puzzling message. These diving instruments suggest that the oceans have not warmed up at all over the past four or five years. That could mean global warming has taken a breather. Or it could mean scientists aren't quite understanding what their robots are telling them.

This is puzzling in part because here on the surface of the Earth, the years since 2003 have been some of the hottest on record. But Josh Willis at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory says the oceans are what really matter when it comes to global warming.

In fact, 80 percent to 90 percent of global warming involves heating up ocean waters. They hold much more heat than the atmosphere can. So Willis has been studying the ocean with a fleet of robotic instruments called the Argo system. The buoys can dive 3,000 feet down and measure ocean temperature. Since the system was fully deployed in 2003, it has recorded no warming of the global oceans.

"There has been a very slight cooling, but not anything really significant," Willis says. So the buildup of heat on Earth may be on a brief hiatus. "Global warming doesn't mean every year will be warmer than the last. And it may be that we are in a period of less rapid warming."

In recent years, heat has actually been flowing out of the ocean and into the air. This is a feature of the weather phenomenon known as El Nino. So it is indeed possible the air has warmed but the ocean has not. But it's also possible that something more mysterious is going on.

[phee]

Interesting artical...

[ttogreh]

Ok, we have data along three axes. We have global temperature, we have CO2 concentration, and we have atmospheric dust.

Correlation does not indicate causation, but you have to figure that when something happens in conjunction with another thing consistently for 420,000 years, or 70 times as long as recorded history... you tend to believe that even if one does not cause the other, it makes sense to be concerned when one axis dramatically changes.

I am concerned about the buildup of CO2... and so should you be.

[torn asunder]

Ok, we have data along three axes. We have global temperature, we have CO2 concentration, and we have atmospheric dust.

Correlation does not indicate causation, but you have to figure that when something happens in conjunction with another thing consistently for 420,000 years, or 70 times as long as recorded history... you tend to believe that even if one does not cause the other, it makes sense to be concerned when one axis dramatically changes.

I am concerned about the buildup of CO2... and so should you be.

i'd love to know where they got the data set for dust, CO2, and global temperature for even 1000 yrs ago, let alone 420k - obviously i'm not a scientist, but this smacks of projection and interpretation. there's no way (that i can see) that this data is real. are there records from 420k years ago? if not (heh) then how did they arrive at these numbers, unless they're just guessing? i'm curious...

[ttogreh]

Ok, calling into question the methodology is certainly valid. Go to wikipedia, type in "ice cores", and read up on what they are, how they are acquired, and how the data inside them is interpreted.

[torn asunder]

Ok, calling into question the methodology is certainly valid. Go to wikipedia, type in "ice cores", and read up on what they are, how they are acquired, and how the data inside them is interpreted.

will do, eventually, but seriously, how the fuck can they know the core samples they're taking are 420k years old? just seems highly innaccurate and open to interpretation...

[Msterbeau]

will do, eventually, but seriously, how the fuck can they know the core samples they're taking are 420k years old? just seems highly innaccurate and open to interpretation...

Just guessing, but probably the same way geologists can determine the age of sedimentary layers?

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

Charts are fun.

Lets look at this one... CO2 vs Global temp in geological time...

Hrmmm.. thats odd... CO2 seems to go up AFTER the warming.. every time.. including this one....

[ttogreh]

Uh-huh. I am still convinced that anthropogenic release of CO2 is a valid area of concern. Climate change is happening. Whether or not we are delaying a glacial period, or not releasing enough to cause any change in climate at all, CO2 is but one gas that is released when we burn carbon.

Controls on CO2 would mean controls on mercury, fine particulates, ozone...

No matter what, CO2 is cause for concern, because life is a spectrum, and CO2 release is not done in a vacuum away from other gases and pollutants.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

you should really get off that dead horse and stop beating it. Science is not backing your position. There is a soap box around here somewhere with the words "Mercury Poisoning" painted on it. Thats where you need to be.

[ttogreh]

Ok. Fine. Compare the scandal that is the hundreds of tons of mercury released when we burn coal to a "dead horse". Call the hundreds of fatal asthma attacks caused by ground level ozone a "dead horse". I am perfectly ok with you doing that.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

BTW... for clarity and to get rid of your confusion...

The "dead horse" I was speaking of is atmospheric CO2 and Man induced Global Warming.

What you are really concerned with, at least from what I can tell from your rants, is Mercury released into the air from burning coal. I have no problem with you harping on that subject and a commend you for doing it.

My point was that you need to stop trying to force the junk science of CO2 causing global warming to further your cause about Mercury. Get on the soap box and preach about mercury poisoning. Thats the cause you have so much passion for, it should be what your fighting for.

[ttogreh]

To be coy, CO2 and global climate change has sucked all of the oxygen out of the room. Ozone deaths and mercury poisonings aren't sexy. "Thousands of children will be developmentally disabled and hundreds of people will die from asthma attacks" can't hold a candle to "THE ICECAPS ARE MELTING POLAR BEARS ARE DROWNING ZOMG WTFBBQ!!!!".

If drawing down CO2 under false pretenses is the only way ozone, mercury, and fine particulates get drawn down as well... I am ok with that. I can't convince the scientific establishment to back off of a claim that they have staked their reputation on. If people understand that the stuff exiting their tailpipe does not just go away, even if they are focusing on the wrong gas, ALL of the gases and pollutants go down.

If Al Gore gets his way, and ONE less kid can go on without the scourge of mercury... I'll hand him as many prizes as he wants.

[dionysus1999]

BTW... for clarity and to get rid of your confusion...

The "dead horse" I was speaking of is atmospheric CO2 and Man induced Global Warming.

What you are really concerned with, at least from what I can tell from your rants, is Mercury released into the air from burning coal. I have no problem with you harping on that subject and a commend you for doing it.

My point was that you need to stop trying to force the junk science of CO2 causing global warming to further your cause about Mercury. Get on the soap box and preach about mercury poisoning. Thats the cause you have so much passion for, it should be what your fighting for.

Where did you get your degree in climatology? The Skeptical Inquirer did an excellent article with pages of references. Best evidence is that the global rise in temperature is due to human influence, most likely due to the levels of CO2 our cilivization is releasing. Who are your sources?

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

How long ago was that? have you read any study that has come out in the last two years? or any of themany links I have posted about this subject?

[torn asunder]

i was rather curious about the credentials of a paper called, "the skeptical inquirer" - sounds like a fringe mag - not that i have any clue whether it is or not...

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

Temperature Monitors Report Widescale Global Cooling

Solar Activity Diminishes; Researchers Predict Another Ice Age

Survey: Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory

Latest Research Erodes CO2's Role in Global Warming

An inconvenient fact

Global warming - is the Sun to blame?

Challenge to Scientific Consensus on Global Warming: Analysis Finds Hundreds of Scientists Have Published Evidence Countering Man-Made Global Warming Fears

[phee]

Temperature Monitors Report Widescale Global Cooling

Solar Activity Diminishes; Researchers Predict Another Ice Age

Survey: Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory

Latest Research Erodes CO2's Role in Global Warming

An inconvenient fact

Global warming - is the Sun to blame?

Challenge to Scientific Consensus on Global Warming: Analysis Finds Hundreds of Scientists Have Published Evidence Countering Man-Made Global Warming Fears

I was going to say... usually you are pretty good about citing your sources...

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

I can get more links if you like.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

BTW, I got my degree in climatology from the same place Al Gore did.