Warming of Oceans Confirmed:

Discussion in 'Earth Science' started by paddoboy, Jan 4, 2017.

  1. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225
    Study confirms steady warming of oceans for past 75 years
    January 4, 2017

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Ocean buoy (green) and satellite data (orange) measuring sea surface temperatures compared to updated National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration predictions concluded in 2015 (red) after adjusting for a cold bias in buoy temperature measurements. The Hadley data (purple) has not been adjusted to account for some sources of cold bias. Credit: Zeke Hausfather graphic, UC Berkeley
    A controversial paper published two years ago that concluded there was no detectable slowdown in ocean warming over the previous 15 years - widely known as the "global warming hiatus" - has now been confirmed using independent data in research led by researchers from the University of California, Berkeley, and Berkeley Earth, a non-profit research institute focused on climate change


    The 2015 analysis showed that the modern buoys now used to measure ocean temperatures tend to report slightly cooler temperatures than older ship-based systems, even when measuring the same part of the ocean at the same time. As buoy measurements have replaced ship measurements, this had hidden some of the real-world warming.

    After correcting for this "cold bias," researchers with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration concluded in the journal Science that the oceans have actually warmed 0.12 degrees Celsius (0.22 degrees Fahrenheit) per decade since 2000, nearly twice as fast as earlier estimates of 0.07 degrees Celsius per decade. This brought the rate of ocean temperature rise in line with estimates for the previous 30 years, between 1970 and 1999.




    Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2017-01-steady-oceans-years.html#jCp
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,360
    reading the similar article via BBC I wondered how they ascertained a cold bias in one rather than a heat bias in the other, but this article sets it out quite clearly, and it's the trend that matters rather than the absolute readings. So yeah, using the same equipment consistently rather than "smushing" (I like that word) data from different tools would seem not only sensible but something that they should surely have done from the start.
    Makes you wonder what other similar poor science is being (or has been) done and reported on that would need to be revised.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,691
    Any long term record of anything is going to incorporate advances (and other changes) in measurement and related technology, in circumstance and surroundings and technique. Simply swapping out different models of the same basic thermometer requires some attention to calibration. This is a common, routine, everyday issue in normal science - it comes into play any time anyone interprets data to draw a conclusion about physical reality.

    NOAA had just overlooked a couple of factors - partly because they were misinformed, in some cases, about the source of some of their data. Then they corrected for the oversights, after obtaining better information. But for some reason this correction was not accepted as routine science, which it was, but instead attacked as having a political agenda and cooking the books.

    So this new study had nothing to do with a better way to do the science, but instead was a large scale effort devoted simply to verifying that NOAA was doing the science just fine, and not cooking the books.

    No big deal - certainly not "poor science" on the part of any actual scientists.
     
    Last edited: Jan 6, 2017
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,573
    If you were not yet convinced, ask the fish populations that are no longer found in their usual habitat, because they moved to cooler water.
    Or the human populations of islands that are no longer above water.
     
  8. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,360
    To not recognise a cold bias at the time seems pretty poor to me, not necessarily by those who subsequently use that info in good faith.
     
  9. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,623
    It is done wherever possible. Sometimes it's not possible. For example, it would be great to get lower tropospheric temperatures from satellites going back to 1850. That's not possible - so other data sets are used.
     
  10. timojin Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,828
    Whatever , as the ocean gets warmer more evaporation will take place and that will remove some of the heat from the earth more rain will flood costal areas closer to the tropical zone . I the warm continues and the ice melts , the tilt might decrease and again the system will return to our present position.
     
  11. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,623
    That would be true if the water evaporated away from the Earth. It does not. It all stays here, so NET temperatures do not change due to evaporation.
    Do you actually think that the ice on our poles is what keeps the Earth "tilted?" And why would reducing tilt cool the planet? It would merely decrease the seasonal swing. Indeed, less ice = more heat absorbed by the planet = more warming.
     
  12. timojin Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,828
    Somehow the north pole and the south pole i believe are not melting at the same rate , The south pole have a protective cooling current and the temperature is not distributed evenly though the sphere , so I think there should be a change in the tilt on the axis.
    If you have a better thought, I would like to learn.
     
  13. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,623
    They're not. The north pole is melting much faster, since it's an ocean surrounded by land - and the land is heating up faster. The south pole is land surrounded by water - and the oceans are warming much more slowly. So melting there is happening much more slowly, and generally from beneath.
    A change in temperature does not cause a change in tilt.
     
  14. gmilam Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,663
    I don't follow your logic here.
     
  15. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225
    Huge Antarctic ice block set to break off: scientists
    January 6, 2017 by Marlowe Hood

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    This NASA photo released December 1, 2016 shows what scientists on NASA's IceBridge mission photographed in a view of a massive rift in the Antarctic Peninsula's Larsen C ice shelf on November 10, 2016
    A massive ice block nearly 100 times the area of Manhattan is poised to break off Antarctica's Larsen C ice shelf, scientists reported Friday.

    A slow-progressing rift suddenly grew by 18 kilometres (11 miles) at the end of December, leaving the finger-shaped chunk—350 metres thick—connected along only a small fraction of its length.

    The rift has also widened, from less than 50 metres (160 feet) in 2011 to nearly 500 metres today.

    "If it doesn't go in the next few months, I'll be amazed," said Adrian Luckman, a professor at Swansea University in Wales, and leader of Britain's Project Midas, which tracks changes in West Antarctic ice formations.



    Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2017-01-huge-antarctic-ice-block-scientists.html#jCp
     
  16. timojin Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,828
    I did not say that ( change in temperature does not cause a change in tilt.) . You extrapolated to far
    1
     
  17. timojin Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,828
    Check out the South pole curren cold water.
     
  18. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,623
    OK. In that case, to be more clear, neither a "protective cooling current" nor the fact that "the temperature is not distributed evenly though the sphere" has any influence on tilt.
     
  19. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,691
    It was the people who used the info in good faith who made the errors, since corrected.
    It was a warm bias they missed - water samples drawn through ship piping before being measured, picked up from the churned wake of an engine powered ship, etc.
    What they didn't recognize was how large the bias was, and that the data they were crunching still included such a high proportion of measurements made that way from shipping routes statistically altered by modern trade and economics.
    The measurements themselves were not normally made by scientists, but by commercial ship personnel. Weather records kept by ships in transit have been among the most valuable sources of scientific data since the invention of ships.
     

Share This Page