New proof that man has caused global warming (strongest evidence yet )

[G_j]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1489955,00.html

New proof that man has caused global warming

From Mark Henderson, Science Correspondent, in Washington

The strongest evidence yet that global warming has been triggered by human activity has emerged from a major study of rising temperatures in the world’s oceans.

The present trend of warmer sea temperatures, which have risen by an average of half a degree Celsius (0.9F) over the past 40 years, can be explained only if greenhouse gas emissions are responsible, new research has revealed.

The results are so compelling that they should end controversy about the causes of climate change, one of the scientists who led the study said yesterday.

"The debate about whether there is a global warming signal now is over, at least for rational people," said Tim Barnett, of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, California. "The models got it right. If a politician stands up and says the uncertainty is too great to believe these models, that is no longer tenable."

..more..

[lonestarnot]

1. Wow...no longer tenable! Thanks for the post!

"Models based on man-made emissions of greenhouse gases, however, matched the observations almost precisely."

[Poppyseedman]

2. Count me as irrational

There will be many looking back in 100 years after all the data is complete and say with a giggle. "These global warming people were as bad as the flat earthers"

Don't misunderstand me, I believe the globe is getting warmer, it's just got nothing to do with humans.

It's called the sun.

Also have a problem with scientist telling us: "There is no more data to understand. End of story. We have it locked down"

There are literally thousands of papers yet to be published in the next twenty years that will add to the knowledge base of global warming, some will be legitimate research paper that will refute this.

Flame away

[trotsky]

3. For everyone's sake I hope you're right. I really do.

The consequences of you being wrong would be very, very bad.

[Poppyseedman]

6. What are the consequence of

Billions of dollars spent that might have gone to more promising research or social issues.

I also don't buy into the worst case scenarios that global warming is going very, very, bad. The globe has before gone though temperature changes and there actually were good results because of it.

We will not become "Water World" or "The Day after Tomorrow"

[trotsky]

7. From the article:

It found that natural variation in the Earth’s climate, or changes in solar activity or volcanic eruptions, which have been suggested as alternative explanations for rising temperatures, could not explain the data collected in the real world. Models based on man-made emissions of greenhouse gases, however, matched the observations almost precisely.

Like I said, I really truly do hope you're right. But I'd much rather "waste" those billions of dollars trying to stop the phenomenon and be wrong than do nothing and be right.

Or do you not have any auto, home, or health insurance?

[rustydad]

46. God bless you,

Poppyseedman. I can now sleep at night knowing that my fleet of hummers and my 20,000 sq ft house I keep at 85 degrees (I hate sweaters) my olympic size pool, my weekly air flights, all the things that make my life so wonderful, have nothing to do with global climate change. Again, God bless the Poppyseedman! Consume on Amerika! Bob

[Blue to the bone]

98. Fleet of hummers?

Is that some sort of penis envy?

[SomewhereOutThere424]

80. People forget...

The ozone is more than temperature. It keeps our oxygen in. I agree maybe we won't all melt by next thursday, but I think it'd be plain ignorant to think punching holes in what keeps our oxygen in is less important than a century's worth of social issues. I agree, social issues are important, but instead of battling for supremecy on issues such as which is more important, it's important to study both. I really don't want to learn the consequences of destroying the ozone layer...

[Hillary08]

95. I thought that the ozone layer keeps UV out

not oxygen in. Seems like gravity pretty much handles tha latter. Did I fall asleep and miss something in physical science class?

[Blue to the bone]

99. What actually happened to that big hole in the ozone layer?

I've not heard anything about it for some time.

Anyone?

[Imperialism Inc.]

91. I'm so glad that we have people here that know better,

on intuition or ideology, than the top scientists.

Whew. Now I can sleep at night. Poppyseedman says the models , the math and the science are wrong and the wingers are right.

[Webster Green]

4. And you base your theory on what?

Do you scoff at the theory of evolution as well?

Sad that real science is being demeaned in favor of political expediency.

[Poppyseedman]

11. What theory did I postulate?

That the sun effects our climate?

I don't think I'll get any prizes for coming up with that whopper of truth.

All I said was the data is still coming in, this isn't the end of the story. It's isn't a closed case. We will be collecting data for another 100 years before we really truly understand global warming.

Any global warming / climate scientist that tells you, it's a closed case, either has got a political axe to grind or is looking for money.

[hatrack]

22. So, if the sun (not anthropogenic GHGs) drives current climate change . .

What would you expect to see in the Arctic? Would comparative winter/summer temperatures over the past 20 years, when plotted on a graph, be drawing closer together or farther apart?

In other words, would the temperature tracking curve be spiking or flattening?

On ed - headline

[yinkaafrica]

41. What is the answer?

[hatrack]

53. Temperature surveys show that the curve is flattening

The point is that if the warming were a product solely of solar forcing, you'd expect Arctic temperature differentials to sharpen.

That is, temperatures would rise higher in the summer, when the sun shines 24 hours a day, but likely remain the same during the winter, when incoming solar radiation is slim to non-existant (depending on latitude and date).

What the surveys have shown is that while Arctic summer temperatures are generally rising, winter temperatures are rising much faster. Since rising winter temperatures can't be produced by solar radiation that isn't hitting the planet's surface in that part of the world, something else is behind the changes.

I need to do some digging, but I'll try and find links to this in the next 24 hours or so.

[Hillary08]

96. Are 20 years enough?

I'm not saying yea or nay, but 20 years seems like a blink of an eye in geological timeframes.

I would actually feel better about the whole thing if the leading scientist posted some graphs somewhere and said, "See that mean temperature, notice it is rising continuously for x number of years? Notice that there is no other span in time for which this occurs in recorded history."

Is that out there? I've not looked for it, but am getting interested if data is finally getting conclusive.

[Viking12]

100. Yes (and not really)

If temperature measurements were only observations and physical data that the scientific literature relied then the answer to your question would be no.

However, there is a great deal more evidence than temperature data -- VERY well known radiative forcing properties of human produced GHGs (CO2, CH4, NO2, CFC, etc..) plus very well known levels of human contributions to the atmosphere changes in GHG levels (i.e. CO2 levels up 35% from pre-industrial, CH4 up, CFCs do not occur in nature, etc...) plus very identifiable changes in oceans, biology, glaciers, and other footprints.

So, despite the apparently short time frame, geologically speaking, we can make pretty solid conclusions about the anthropogenic influence on climate.

[retnavyliberal]

101. To be fair, even "recorded history"...

is a blink of an eye in geological terms. No one has temp readings from the years leading up to the ice age. I have no doubt we are not doing the planet any favors but I think the point is, it is the rare scientific discovery that is the "end all" of the information that can be found out. In my lifetime, I have seen many "proof positives" disclaimed by later studies. One example was "we have proof of a 10th Planet, we call it Planet X, that orbits outside of Pluto". oops.

[Poppyseedman]

12. I actually do scoff that the theory of evolution

or at least take a large dose of salt with it'

There are holes big enough in that theory to drive a truck though.

There are many unanswered questions and just as many, almost weekly, changes, additions, subtractions, new evidence, better studies, fraudulent claims, etc, etc, etc, etc being added to base knowledge of the many facets of the evolutionary theories as well.

[Webster Green]

15. Bwahahahahahaha!.....I knew it!

OK boss, whatever you say!

HaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHa!!!!!

OMFG!

[Poppyseedman]

21. Laugh if you want.

So you believe everything you are told to believe, falling into lockstep with whatever political is expedient for the day.

Would you have believed the flat earthers? It was the prevailing theory of the day. To not believe was punishable

There are many people, brighter and more educated than myself or you, for that matter, who has serious reservations about swallowing evolution and global warming hook line and sinker.

[Webster Green]

24. I suspect I would have believed it until science proved otherwise..

I would not ignore the scientific evidence and cling to my belief that the earth was flat, in spite of the evidence to the contrary.

As your analogy relates to the current topic of discussion, YOU would be the one believing in the flat earth theory in spite of available data suggesting otherwise, not I.

[Poppyseedman]

25. I'll be the first to admit

I'm treading upstream on this topic.

Conventional wisdom is not always so wise or conventional

My biggest beef with the article is the fact Barnett tells us that it's "case closed, Your not rational if your facts don't line with my facts"

I find it hard to believe, a scientist would be so dogmatic about it, since there still are masses of data out there being looked at and analyzed.

[nolabels]

66. You could try to separate lines of thought from things

They are not the same. The snip below is has a larger text at the link

Theory, Law and Fact in Science
(snip)
Newton generalized Galileo's work with his Theory of Mechanics (including the law F = ma) and his Law of Universal Gravitation (F = GMm/r^2), both presented in the monumental work, "Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy". These subsumed Galileo's Laws as approximate special cases. Newton's Law of Gravitation was based upon a mysterious attractive force between any two masses. The force is "mysterious" because it was, at least to Newton. He tried but never did succeed in formulating a theory of gravity, which would explain "why" his universal law was true or "how" it worked. Using his Law of Gravitation and his Theory of Mechanics, Newton was able to explain numerous facts (the motion of the planets in the sky, the movement of the tides, etc.) and laws (Kepler's and Galileo's).

Einstein did develop a theory of gravity, called General Relativity, which does explain "how" gravity works and "why" Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation is approximately true. The Theory of Relativity (Special and General) also predicted that Newton's Theory of Mechanics would be wrong at very high energies - that measurements of mass, time and distance would vary depending upon the velocity of the observer. This prediction has been verified in millions of experimental observations in particle accelerators. But under normal conditions - those encountered in everyday life - Newtonian Mechanics is an excellent approximation to these more correct theories; and it remains the basis of the science underlying most engineering applications.

Notice how the terms "fact", "law" and "theory" are used in the above examples. This is consistent with the way they are generally used and understood in science. Scientific facts, laws and theories are three very different types of statements. One sometimes hears the word "theory" used in place of the word "hypothesis" - as in "I have this theory that ..." - but this is an abuse of the word, possibly motivated to avoid the pretentious sounding word "hypothesis". If formal definitions of the terms are requested, one might offer:

A scientific fact is a controlled, repeatable and/or rigorously verified observation.

A scientific law is a statement of an observed regularity among facts, often expressible as a simple mathematical relationship.

A scientific theory is an integrated conceptual framework for reasoning about a class of phenomena, which is able to coordinate existing facts and laws and sometimes provide predictions of new ones.
(snip)
http://ourworld.cs.com/jamessfreeman16/TheoryandLaw.ht

Not a definitive, just a kind of broad outline of how to think about it maybe

[oneighty]

35. But one can

postulate the warming up sun as the earth warming up culprit with impunity.

Should the sun be warming fast enough that we can observe it I would bet we are in a world of hurt (as they say in tough guy movies).

180

[DrWeird]

45. Nevermind.

I'll just do what you said to and count you as irrational.

[Imperialism Inc.]

92. "There are holes big enough in that theory to drive a truck though"

LOL

[G_j]

5. have you ever flown in a plane

over NY, LA, Mexico City, Hong Kong, New Delhi etc.?
If you have, it is hard to imagine humans not effecting the climate.
I understand that is not science, but you just rejected all the scientific evidence, so I thought I'd try a more visceral approach.
:shrug:

[Poppyseedman]

9. In what way have I

rejected all scientific evidence?

You mean that this one study is the end all of global warming studies???

I just said that to draw a conclusion that global warming is a closed case is silly because we still are gathering data and will be for a long time.

...and yes I have flown planes over major cities. Many are far cleaner today than twenty years ago.

[0007]

83. Please name em!

[Cattledog]

13. ?

"It's called the sun."

Duh, are you saying the sun is getting hotter! Global warming is caused by increased carbon which is trapped in the atmosphere. I don't see any huge volcanos or other natural phenom spewing greenhouse gases. Prior Global warming in Earths past happened over hundreds of thousands of years,
today it is happening in terms of decades.

CD

[reprobate]

16. It's not constructive to argue with these types. You just confuse them.

It's a sign that American education has been destroyed. If students can go thru school and come out believing this tripe, it just means they spent their entire educational career without being exposed to the scientific principle.

How sad.

[Blue to the bone]

27. Scientific principle?

The problem I have with all of the "science" is that I recall perfectly clearly that in the early 1970's while attending university, I was being taught that there was a coming Ice Age.

[DrWeird]

48. That's right.

There should be a coming ice age if things were happening the way they were supposed to, instead things are heating up.

[hatrack]

54. Produce links to papers and scientists who said so

Feel free to post any peer-reviewed papers or conference proceedings or studies from the 1970s which said so. Feel free name any scientist who said so.

By the way, Time, Newsweek, US News & World Report, National Geographic and Popular Mechanics don't count.

[mccoyn]

58. Also, do the same for the topic article.

That article states a hell of a lot without showing its work. I'd like to see something peer-reviewed there too. Media outlets have a habbit of over stating most discoveries.

[Viking12]

61. Here's one.

2001. Detection of anthropogenic climate change in the world's oceans. Science 292:270-274.

On the study prompting the thread:

Conference Proceedings from the American Association for the Advancement of Science are usually published following the conferecne.

"Dr Barnett said the results, which are about to be submitted for publication in a major peer-reviewed journal"

[hatrack]

62. There's also this from a 2003 Atlantic survey

Startling signs that global warming is changing patterns of rain, snow and ocean currents that drive the climate system were reported Wednesday by scientists monitoring the ocean's saltiness.

According to oceanographer Ruth Curry, sea surface waters in tropical regions have become dramatically saltier over the past 50 years, while surface waters at high latitudes, in Arctic regions, have become much fresher. These changes in salinity seem to have accelerated in the 1990s.

'This is the signature of increasing evaporation and precipitation' occurring because of warming, Curry said, 'and a sign of melting ice at the poles. These are consequences of global warming, either natural, human-caused or, more likely, both.' These changes in saltiness reflect increased seawater evaporation in the warm tropical regions, leaving the surface water saltier. The increased evaporation leads to increased rainfall and snowfall -- plus more ice melting -- dumping fresher water at the poles.

Curry, a research scientist at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts, published the result with two colleagues Wednesday in the journal Nature. Her co-workers were Bob Dickson of the Center for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture in Lowestoft, England and Igor Yashayaev, at the Bedford Institute of Oceanography in Nova Scotia. Their data came from more than 40 years of salinity measurements taken in the Atlantic, between Iceland in the north and the tip of South America."

EDIT

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=115&topic_id=3422

[Blue to the bone]

77. My problem with so much of today's science.......

....in making comparisons to how things were hundreds of years ago, or even 50 years ago, is that we didn't have the tools then to measure these things the way we do today. There's got to be a lot of apples to oranges comparisons going on.

I've heard, and believe, that something on the order of 98% of the animal species that have ever inhabited this earth are now extinct. Surely man's presence can't be responsible for the disappearance of most of them.

And yet some in our society are prepared to put a mill stone around our necks at the expense of other countries. Well dammit, we've got a lot of people here in our society who need our help and I don't see how many of the proposals that I've heard that ultimately curb our ability to compete with the rest of the world are going to help the most needy amongst us. We surely can't count on other countries to do it for us.

There, I've had my rant.

[hatrack]

63. And this from just a few months back on Indian Ocean currents

PASADENA, Calif., Dec. 2 (AScribe Newswire) -- A NASA study suggests changing winds and currents in the Indian Ocean during the 1990s contributed to the observed warming of the ocean during that period. The findings, published in a recent issue of Geophysical Research Letters, have potential implications for long-term regional climate variability.

''Establishing this correlation provides an important missing piece to the global ocean-warming puzzle and provides vital information for regional governments and climate modelers,'' said Dr. Tong Lee, study author and researcher at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif. ''These findings from satellite data also advance space exploration by increasing understanding of how complex planetary system elements, such as winds and currents, in our home planet interact to drive climate change. Such technologies, which have been demonstrated to be critical in understanding Earth's climate system, may someday prove useful in studying climate systems on other planets.''

EDIT

Multi-decadal warming of the Indian Ocean in the past has affected the North Atlantic climate and was blamed for a devastating drought along the southern edge of the Sahara Desert in the 1970s and '80s. Understanding the cause of this warming and predicting its future evolution are major challenges to the climate community, as the ocean's warming is tied into a much larger global cycle of events. This research suggests the Indian Ocean is subject to the same type of long-term ocean-circulation oscillations that drive weather and climate patterns in the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans. ''The waning wind and ocean currents of the Indian Ocean might be a manifestation of decadal and longer climate variability. This could have significant effects on the ocean's ability to absorb atmospheric carbon dioxide and on the region's marine food web,'' Lee said.

Like vegetation, the ocean is a natural carbon dioxide ''sink'' that absorbs variable amounts of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, depending on winds, ocean currents and temperatures. The weakened wind and ocean currents, along with rising ocean temperatures, could hamper the Indian Ocean's ability to absorb carbon dioxide. Ocean phytoplankton, the base of the marine food web, relies on the nourishment brought up by cooler, nutrient-rich subsurface water to survive and reproduce. The slowed cycling of warm and cold water could also bring fewer nutrients from the depths of the ocean to the surface, resulting in a decrease in the region's biological productivity."

EDIT


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=115&topic_id=17433

[hatrack]

64. Oh, and then there's this on rapid paleoclimate changes from Australia

Tiny fossils dug up from deep below the ocean floor around Tasmania are being seen as evidence that when the global climate changes, it does so much quicker than previously thought. The fossil remains of marine plankton that lived more than 35million years ago challenge a long-standing belief of climate scientists that the Antarctic icecap developed because warm currents turned cold over millions of years.

Instead, scientist Matthew Huber said their existence showed that a cold current flowed past Antarctica for millions of years before the polar ice sheet developed.

EDIT

Dr Huber's work, published in the science journal Paleoceanography, is one of the most dramatic findings yet to emerge from studies of holes drilled hundreds of metres below the seafloor off Tasmania in 2000 by the international Ocean Drilling Program. As the continents drifted apart during the break-up of the supercontinent Gondwana 35million years ago, Tasmania was strategically placed, standing like a stepping stone between Antarctica and Australia.

Off its west coast was a shallow, warm bay. To the east was ocean, where a precursor to the East Australian Current was thought to carry warm water south. "To the east, we found only fossils of cold-loving dinoflagellates. That indicated there was no warm current flowing along that coast," Dr Huber said. A paleoceanographer at the University of Tasmania, Will Howard, said Dr Huber's work came as other scientists were making the case that a marine gateway opened between Australia and Antarctica 2million years before glaciation began at the pole. "This is the first time I am aware of that such arguments have been brought together in such a convincing way," he said."

EDIT


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=115&topic_id=18640

[hatrack]

65. Also this article about changes in ocean currents of California

EDIT

"Researchers examining what long-term data are available have uncovered alarming and portentous evidence of a changing world. One area where monitoring has been funded is in the southern portion of the California Current, a 600-mile-wide swath of southward-flowing water running along the western U.S. coastline, roughly from Oregon down through California. Part of a great subtropical gyre of currents in the northern Pacific Ocean, the California Current is the eastern end of a swirling seawater highway that circles from Japan to Oregon, south past California just into Mexico, across to the Philippines, and back up to Japan to begin again. Along the way the water changes. As it crosses the Pacific toward North America, more water comes in through rain than leaves through evaporation, so the overall current becomes less salty. As it comes down the U.S. coastline, it meets cold, salty water heading north on another current, mixing in great meanders and eddies that can be up to 300 miles wide. The current turns west again south of California to start the process again.

In 1949, a combination of state and federal organizations began monitoring physical, chemical, biological, and meteorological facets of the California Current under the auspices of the California Cooperative Oceanic and Fisheries Investigations program, known as CalCOFI. It was designed in part to track many factors affecting commercially important fish species such as mackerel and sardines. The data gathered under CalCOFI include air temperatures, wind speeds, nutrient levels, salinity, water temperature on the surface and deep below the surface, and the abundance of larval fish and zooplankton -- the smallest marine animals. The early monitoring cruises brought researchers as far north as the Oregon border, but the surveys were scaled down to meet budget demands in 1970. But those first 20 years of data were enough to show that what happens in the south and what happens in the north tend to be the same. The data since 1970 cover the area between San Diego and Santa Barbara. It is the largest, longest-term data set of its kind on the West Coast.

What happens if you watch those data change over the years? Your findings might echo those of John McGowan, an oceanography professor at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in San Diego: As water temperatures have risen, the base of the marine food chain off the coast of California has crashed. And one by one, the fish and birds farther up that food chain are crashing, too. Life in the ocean begins with tiny plants known as phytoplankton. Like all plants, phytoplankton need light to drive photosynthesis and nutrients to feed the process. Although it is somewhat counterintuitive, the richest and most nutritive ocean waters are the coldest and heaviest. Strong winds do the work of stirring the system and pulling the nutrient-rich waters up toward the light.

The first problems showed up in conjunction with El Niños, shortterm changes in ocean temperatures that tend to increase the warm water along the western U.S. coastline, reducing the food that boosts the phytoplankton. But researchers like McGowan noticed a difference between early El Niños and the later ones. Numbers of zooplankton -- the tiniest animals in the food chain, which depend on the phytoplankton -- dropped during the El Niño of 1957 to 1959 and then quickly rebounded. But after subsequent El Niños during the 1983 to 1984 and 1997 to 1998 seasons, the zooplankton did not come back. In 1995, going back through the accumulated years of data, McGowan reported a staggering finding in Science: Zooplankton numbers in the California Current had dropped by 70 percent. The CalCOFI data show a sharp increase in California Current water temperatures in 1977 -- at the same time the zooplankton numbers crashed. "It's the largest change ever measured in plankton productivity in the ocean," McGowan says. "This enormous change in the zooplankton in the California Current could not be detected from year to year. It several decades before we discovered this big drop, by at least 70 percent or even up to 80 percent."

EDIT


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=115&topic_id=18169

[G_j]

69. Excellent Newsfeed w/ Summaries here:

if you didn't know about this (and thanks for your great contributions to this thread!)

ClimateArk - Climate Change Portal

www.climateark.org/


Climate Change Newsfeed w/ Summaries
The original and most extensive climate change news tracking service, updated throughout the day. The Climate Change XML Newsfeed allows you to include news in your web site or news aggregator

www.climateark.org/news/

[hatrack]

72. Another excellent associated site:

http://www.eco-portal.com/news

[G_j]

90. hadn't seen this

looks great
thanks!

[mccoyn]

67. I wanted one about the topic article...

You know, this conclusive proof he alludes to without actually showing any of it. Yet he puts down anyone who doesn't believe it. Thats not science, thats Bush politics.

I have no problem with the global warming arguement. I have a huge problem with using this article to make that arguement.

[hatrack]

102. I'd suggest the Times is not the place to look for that proof

It may be that journal publication is pending, or that they're still reviewing their results. Whatever the reason, and for better or worse this is all that's available on this study so far. I hope greater detail is forthcoming as well.

The reason I included all the others is to show that rapid changes in salinity and temperatures is not some new radical supposition, nor is the scientific literature on these changes. In the context of recent oceanographic work, this fits well with other results.

Is this single study definitive, final absolute proof of anthropogenic warming? I don't know. But I don't know how much more proof some people need that things are destabilizing, and doing so rapidly.

I think that if an asteroid the size of Rhode Island fell into the Pacific Ocean, producing a seismic sea wave that obliterated all human life within 15 miles of the shore in a matter of hours, the knuckle-draggers would come crawling out of the woodwork, saying that scientists "don't really know", and offering an "alternative theory" that Satan smote the ocean with his scaly fist as punishment for our sins.

In addition, every time yet another study on climate breakdown comes out, showing how rapidly things are moving, low-count Freepers come swarming like maggots on a dead dog, bellowing that "there's really no proof" and "it's just a theory by the radical green left" - present company excepted, mccoyn - you raise a valid point on headlines and often sloppy science "journalism" these days.

[Blue to the bone]

76. The recent headline about NASA's confirmation of life on Mars..

....is a good example. I got all hard for nothing.

[Hillary08]

97. Hey! Wait a minnit!

You can't just arbitarily throw out Popular Mechanics!
I thought it was the authority on all things scientific and mechanical!

[Lydia Leftcoast]

68. There could still be an Ice Age in Europe as a paradoxical

result of global warming, because the melting ice caps could lower the salinity of the oceans and disrupt the Gulf Stream, which is what keeps Europe warmer than northern Canada.

[0007]

85. What university did you attend?

[Poppyseedman]

17. What percent of carbon absorbed occurred naturally in the oceans?

The sun heats up the oceans causing more or less carbon dioxide absorption?

As for the claim prior global warming periods were hundreds of thousands of years in earths history is simply not true.

[G_j]

20. so the sun is getting hotter?

and melting the ice caps etc.?
That is what you are saying.

[DrWeird]

47. Warmer oceans would cause less CO2 absorption.

And yes, the claim is true. The Earth has warmed one degree in the last hundred years, that's far faster than natural.

[mccoyn]

60. Warmer oceans promote algae growth...

Warmer oceans promote algae growth, which stores away carbon and stabilizes the worlds climate. There is a limit to how much this can help; We very well can push it past the limit.

That doesn't change the fact that warmer oceans store more carbon than cooler oceans.

[NickB79]

109. Actually no, temperature is but one factor in algae/plankton growth

Without sufficient nutrients and trace minerals such as iron in the water, no amount of warming will promote enough plankton growth to absorb the vast quantities of carbon needed to stabilize our climate. That's why some scientists have postulated "fertilizing" large areas of the ocean with iron, to promote plankton blooms. However, even experiments like these have hit roadblocks, with the blooms dying off too rapidly and then being decomposed by bacteria, releasing CO2 and methane in the process. This offsets the gains made on carbon sequestering via plankton/algae growth.

[Blue to the bone]

79. How do we KNOW that's far faster than natural?

How do we?

[lakeguy]

111. that's a good point....

the radiation from the sun has been lower than average over the last few decades, effectively masking any warming the planet has experienced over the same period.

[Delphinus]

19. Poppyseed,

I agree with this part of your statement:

"Also have a problem with scientist telling us: "There is no more data to understand. End of story. We have it locked down""

I don't think anyone will ever have the full truth.

I also agree that the sun has something to do with it. But to discount man's role in this ... I am not there.

Regardless of who or what is causing it, what are we going to do about it?

[Blue to the bone]

28. Excellent question Delphinus and.......

....what are we going to do about it? What are our options? Should we arbitrarily restrict growth in more 'advanced' societies that we believe are responsible for the problem? How does that effect the poorest in those societies?

Ever travel to third world countries? Wonder what ever happened to all those gas-guzzling, polluting autos that were driving on our streets in 70's? Many of them are alive and well and polluting even more today in those third world countries.

I don't know the answers but am also one who advocates thorough examination of the long term implications for the poorest in our society before we save the rest of the world.

[mordarlar]

30. Actually the garbage in our atmos. is PREVENTING the suns rays from...

hitting earth. It is deflecting them. This means the level of warming we are seeing due to the greenhouse affect is actully WORSE then it looks.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4171591.stm

[havocmom]

34. No, it's called Co2. We pump tons of it into the air and then take out

massive amounts of forests which work to suck it in and release O2. We also pump shit into the oceans, damaging that little mechanism for scrubbing the air.

We are to blame for the very rapid increase of pollutants.

Deny all you want to, you are in the same boat with the rest of the world and will pay the price too. Denial changes nothing.

[0007]

86. Where's poppyseed sitting in the "Ship of Fools"?

In The Ship of Fools Bosch is imagining that the whole of mankind is voyaging through the seas of time on a ship, a small ship, that is representative of humanity. Sadly, every one of the representatives is a fool. This is how we live, says Bosch--we eat, dring, flirt, cheat, play silly games, pursue unattainable objectives. Meanwhile our ship drifts aimlessly and we never reach the harbour. The fools are not the irreligious, since promiment among them are a monk and a nun, but they are all those who live ``in stupidity''. Bosch laughs, and it is sad laugh. Which one of us does not sail in the wretched discomfort of the ship of human folly? Eccentric and secret genius that he was, Bosch not only moved the heart but scandalized it into full awareness. The sinister and monstrous things that he brought forth are the hidden creatures of our inward self-love: he externalizes the ugliness within, and so his misshapen demons have an effect beyond curiosity. We feel a hateful kinship with them. The Ship of Fools is not about other people, it is about us.

[havocmom]

87. I tend to think of Ibsen's

The Iceman Cometh but you found a better illustration.

[0007]

93. That'll work also! LOL!

[muriel_volestrangler]

37. Give us a scientific reviewed report that says that

The reports that conclude that a major component of warming is man-made, such as this, take variations of solar radiation into account as well. The warming we've already seen is more than the sun, and other non-man-made casues, can account for. See eg the IPCC.

So yes, I think you're being irrational.

[retread]

40. "It's called the sun." If I use a magnifying glass to start a fire and

as a result my house burns down, I can say the sun did it!!

[jab105]

50. What in the world does "It's called the sun" mean?

I mean, here is EVIDENCE, and dismissing it with "it's called the sun"...ummm, not the strongest "evidence" there...do you have anything more to add to that?

Did you know that Venus is hotter than Mercury? Do you know why?
Because Mercury has a very thin atmosphere, whereas Venus has a thick CO2 atmosphere...CO2, which is created in excess from MAN-MADE EMISSIONS stays in the lower atmosphere and holds in Infrared rays from the sun in the form of heat...so you can dismiss it, and it "is" be the sun, but it also has a butt-load to do with MAN!!

There are not that many respected scientists right now that think that global warming is not happening...

[Viking12]

57. The double miracle hypothesis

I believe the globe is getting warmer, it's just got nothing to do with humans. It's called the sun.

The well known radiative forcings of GHGs (which are present) can't be responsible for the warming, but the well-known forcings of solar variability (which aren't present) can be. :wtf:

edit: spelling

[Lilith Velkor]

119. OK I will.

Count you as irrational, that is. :eyes:

[Triana]

8. A seperate article says oceans are cooling...

...are they cooling or warming.

Wha...?

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/49D12577-CF4E-405E-B81A-1DD58A68937C.htm

[Stuckinthebush]

14. I was wondering the same thing

What's going on?

[G_j]

18. this article answers your question (also published today)

http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/news/nation/10931016.htm

Posted on Fri, Feb. 18, 2005

Global warming outlook includes cooling

CAUSE WOULD BE FRESH WATER IN OCEANS

BY SETH BORENSTEIN


WASHINGTON - Knight Ridder washington bureau

New measurements from the world's oceans, announced yesterday, give the most compelling evidence yet that man-made global warming is under way and hint at a more dramatic and sudden climate change to come.

Two different sets of ocean readings presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advance of Science support the scientific underpinnings of global warming. They also point to an increased chance for a side effect depicted in last year's movie The Day After Tomorrow, in which global warming triggers a new ice age in the Northern Hemisphere.

"The debate is no longer whether there is a global warming signal," Tim Barnett, a marine physicist at Scripps Institution of Oceanography who analyzed 9 million ocean-temperature and salinity readings. "The debate is what are we going to do about it."

The new data show that the world's oceans have heated up just as predicted in global-warming computer models, and, more ominously, that massive amounts of fresh water from melting Arctic ice are seeping into the Atlantic Ocean, threatening to trigger a climate crisis.

What scientists have found could cause parts of the Eastern United States to cool by several degrees, according to new calculations announced by Ruth Curry, a scientist at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute.


..more..

[bloom]

26. "The debate is what are we going to do about it."

I heard the the Pentagon figures it won't hurt "us" - so they don't care.


I wonder if there is a way to subsidize people for not producing things - just like the do farmers for not growing things.

People could live with a lot less. Sustainable living and all that.

[G_j]

36. Pentagon: threat to global stability vastly eclipses that of terrorism

http://www.ems.org/climate/pentagon_climate_change.html

Pentagon Report Describes Global Warming Dangers

Last update: March 2004

An imminent scenario of catastrophic climate change is "plausible and would challenge United States national security in ways that should be considered immediately," according to a report commissioned by the Pentagon and obtained by media outlets in February 2004.

> Download the report
The report does not purport to be a forecast, but it identifies a plausible scenario in which global warming disrupts ocean currents that help moderate climate in North America and Europe, causing a five degree Fahrenheit drop in parts of North America by 2020 and a six degree drop in Northern Europe. It says global warming "should be elevated beyond a scientific debate to a U.S. national security concern."

The Pentagon went public with its report in early February when it provided a copy of the report to Fortune magazine.

----------
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1153513,00.html

Now the Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us

· Secret report warns of rioting and nuclear war
· Britain will be 'Siberian' in less than 20 years
· Threat to the world is greater than terrorism

Mark Townsend and Paul Harris in New York
Sunday February 22, 2004
The Observer

Climate change over the next 20 years could result in a global catastrophe costing millions of lives in wars and natural disasters..
A secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs and obtained by The Observer, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a 'Siberian' climate by 2020. Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world.

The document predicts that abrupt climate change could bring the planet to the edge of anarchy as countries develop a nuclear threat to defend and secure dwindling food, water and energy supplies. The threat to global stability vastly eclipses that of terrorism, say the few experts privy to its contents.

..more..

[bloom]

38. I suppose the idea

wasn't so much that they "didn't care" as it is that the US would suffer less than other countries and they expect the Pentagon will want to defend against people from other countries wanting to come to the US as a result.

"They also see the military’s being used to secure national borders against waves of refugees from less-hospitable regions like Scandinavia. As for how America should prepare, the authors mostly limit themselves to recommending more studies and the creation of better predictive computer models. " (2/27/04) usnews.com



Also at http://www.greenpeace.org.nz/news/news_main.asp?PRID=662

"The Pentagon's secret report says that global warming "should be elevated beyond a scientific debate to a US national security concern." It declares that "future wars will be fought over the issue of survival rather than religion, ideology or national honour."

It envisions the need to turn the US and other rich western countries into "fortresses," armed against an angry tide of people displaced by rising sea levels or unable to grow food, and running for their lives."

[G_j]

42. frightening scenario

of course there are probably people who would welcome the US being a "fortress" as insanity is so rampant these days. :crazy:

[Mojorabbit]

56. Wow

If the thaw continues at current rates, the shutdown scenario would occur in about two decades. What's worrisome, Curry said, is that the Greenland ice, which hadn't been melting with the rest of the Arctic, is starting to thaw


That is a pretty short timeline....

[mhr]

10. Yes, But Will The Freepers And Fundies Be Convinced ...

Since they despise, hate and fear science.

[freedom_to_read]

23. What's his name, and will he please cut it out?

Come on, this global warming stuff ain't fair to the rest of us.

[mordarlar]

29. The following says the oceans are cooling....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=1245737&mesg_id=1245737

confusing

[axordil]

31. Global warming really a misnomer

It is not only possible, but inevitable, that cooling in some areas will take place as warming takes place in others. "Global warming" is a simplistic misnomer for a set of climactic changes in which the worst-case scenario includes the shutting down of the deepwater ocean conveyer current as well as atmospheric warming.

In such a case some of the cold areas of the earth would get colder as the rest of the earth got warmer, since the conveyer current is the primary means by which heat is more evenly distributed. And that combination of events would be very, very bad for us, more so even than for animal and plant life. Animals can migrate. Plants can spread north or south.

People have things like cities and borders and whatnot that tend to make them stay put.

[hatrack]

55. "Climate disruption" or "climate breakdown" much better names

At least, IMHO.

[G_j]

here is the explanation

(from post #18)

Posted on Fri, Feb. 18, 2005

Global warming outlook includes cooling

CAUSE WOULD BE FRESH WATER IN OCEANS

BY SETH BORENSTEIN


WASHINGTON - Knight Ridder washington bureau

New measurements from the world's oceans, announced yesterday, give the most compelling evidence yet that man-made global warming is under way and hint at a more dramatic and sudden climate change to come.

Two different sets of ocean readings presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advance of Science support the scientific underpinnings of global warming. They also point to an increased chance for a side effect depicted in last year's movie The Day After Tomorrow, in which global warming triggers a new ice age in the Northern Hemisphere.

"The debate is no longer whether there is a global warming signal," Tim Barnett, a marine physicist at Scripps Institution of Oceanography who analyzed 9 million ocean-temperature and salinity readings. "The debate is what are we going to do about it."

The new data show that the world's oceans have heated up just as predicted in global-warming computer models, and, more ominously, that massive amounts of fresh water from melting Arctic ice are seeping into the Atlantic Ocean, threatening to trigger a climate crisis.

What scientists have found could cause parts of the Eastern United States to cool by several degrees, according to new calculations announced by Ruth Curry, a scientist at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute.

..more..
http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/news/nation/10931016.htm

[mordarlar]

33. Thank you both....

This is interesting also.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4171591.stm

[DU GrovelBot]

32. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v3.0
==================



This week is our first quarter 2005 fund drive. Democratic
Underground is a completely independent website. We depend almost entirely
on donations from our members to cover our costs. Thank you so much for
your support.

[Desertrose]

39. too bad its not referred to as "global climate changes" instead

since not every land area will heat up...the "warming" more refers to the atmosphere (buildup of CO2) which then triggers the melting of the icecaps (poles) which allows the freshwater to change the ocens ability to distribute heat/cooling which causes some areas to heat up & others to turn into colder & frozen areas.

The earth is connected by air & water if not earth...the fact humans live on the entire planet means we are all in this together- like it or not. To think that we don't affect the world we live in is blind and shortsighted....and most of all lazy. We humans need to learn that we have to clean up after ourselves ..... that leaving it to future generations just doesn't cut it.

The fact we now have the chimperor who who says FU to Mother Earth and is just waiting to be raptured out is the laziest most selfish and foolish thing I can imagine.

How anyone can say we don't affect this planet is surely not on the same earth I'm on.....

:hi: thanks for the post G_j :loveya::hug:DR

(Do you ever wonder if the movie "Day after Tomorrow" was in some way trying to give folks a big clue???)

[G_j]

43. I agree, that would be the best description

"Global Warming" always prompts people to ask why some ocean temps are cooling, while "Climate Change" sounds like it could just mean a bit of bad weather.

thanks for the input!
DR :loveya::hug:G_j

[Armin Tamzarian]

44. Has anyone ever bother to look at temperature charts ....

...for the past couple of 100,000 years or so?

They are available.

I am sorry but the history of this planent's climate did not begin 100 years ago as Scripps would have you believe.

The only thing that is going to effects climate is the Sun, and yes it is getting hotter.

[GOPBasher]

49. Welcome to DU! Here's a question:

I believe that it is definitely *possible* that the heating up of the planet is due to natural cycles over tens of thousands of years. But my question is, Don't Republicans believe that the world (and universe) is only 6000 years old, because the bible says so? If that's the case, how can global warming be the result of these cycles that take tens of thousands of years?

Again, I think what you say is possible, though it would be consistent for Republicans to admit that we shouldn't teach biblical creation in school.

[Armin Tamzarian]

104. re: "Welcome to DU! Here's a question:"

It would be wise for you to move forward without any pre-concieved notions.

[GOPBasher]

113. You didn't answer my question.

If you believe that global warming is a result of natural cycles that take place over tens of thousands of years (a legitimate opinion), you can't simultaneously believe that the universe and the world are only 6000 years old. Right?

[Armin Tamzarian]

114. re:

What in the world makes you think that I believe the world is 6000 years old?

[GOPBasher]

118. I didn't know for sure. I'm glad you don't, so you don't have

conflicting beliefs. Good for you. There are some who have both of those beliefs simultaneously, and I think that's impossible. They hold mutually conflicting beliefs. That's good that you don't.

[G_j]

51. those "temperature charts

for the past couple of 100,000 years or so" are called ice shelves, and they are falling away and melting as we speak.

[Armin Tamzarian]

105. re: "those "temperature charts"

Is there a point somewhere in that?

I have to wonder about all this ice melting here, there and everywhere..

Where's the water? You'd think at least New Orleans would be under it.

[NickB79]

110. The ice melting is already floating on ocean water

The vast majority of ice melting away right now is in the Artic, where it is in the form of floating ice sheets, not grounded glaciers. Since the ice displaces water as it floats, it doesn't increase sea-level changes when it melts. Think about it like a glass of lemonade with ice cubes in it. The cup doesn't overflow when the ice cubes melt, because they were already taking up space as they floated. The melting ice does, however, alter the salinity of the Artic and Northern Atlantic Oceans, with the potential to short-circuit the Gulf Stream and drop Europe into a miniature Ice Age.

The areas that WILL put New Orleans underwater are places like the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, which has recently been found to be becoming increasingly unstable. If it were to melt, it would raise sealevels 16 ft worldwide: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0202-04.htm

[G_j]

112. don't confuse em with the facts

even though scientists are watching and recording the ice breaking away and melting, it's still just a "theory". Remember, the earth revolving around the sun is just a theory too.
:shrug:

[Armin Tamzarian]

115. re: "The ice melting is already floating on ocean water"

So we are now supposed to believe that only water-based iceflows are melting?

How is that possible?

[NickB79]

117. Sigh. Nowhere in my post did I say "only waterbased iceflows"

What I said was the majority of the ice melting is water-based iceflows like those in the Arctic. Since these are already floating, their melting won't alter sea levels. Only land-based glaciers can do this. There simply isn't enough ice locked up in land-based glaciers anywhere on the planet other than Greenland or Antarctica to significantly alter ocean levels if they melted. Compared to those continent-covering masses of ice miles deep, the glaciers on mountain ranges elsewhere are nothing. However, I included a link for you to read showing those land-based glaciers in Antarctica ARE beginning to give way.

[jab105]

52. I think this post from another site answers this question very well...

Scroll down to "environmentalwakko"

http://understandingpolitics.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=486&start=30


Careful there, as you already stated, you are SimonJester wrote:
not a climatologist
. There is a term in thermodynamics known as 'heat capacity', which is basically the amount of energy needed to raise the temperature of a given substance by a certain amount. It is why it takes a pot of water several minutes to boil, even though it is exposed to temperatures well in excess of 100C during that whole time. I'm no expert either, but I think we can draw a reasonable parallel between this example and raising the temperature of the entire earth's surface--it's gonna take some time.
In addition, it is true that temperature records derived from satellites show either less warming than surface temperature data or even a cooling trend. Recent studies (most notably a study by the National Academy of Sciences published in 2000) found, however, that satellite data needed to be adjusted for some measurement and calibration problems. These adjustments bring surface and satellite records into better agreement, both showing a warming trend. It is important to note that many surface temperature records date back to 1860, while satellite records only date back to 1979. With such a short data record, observed trends can be strongly affected by extreme conditions -- such as the 1991 eruption of Mt. Pinatubo which decreased atmospheric temperatures for several years. In addition, satellite and surface data differ in what they record: surface thermometers measure the air temperature at the Earth's surface, while satellite data take temperatures of different slices of the atmosphere. Including records for the upper atmosphere -- where the depletion of the ozone layer has had a cooling effect -- will lower the overall temperature trends observed from satellites.
This point may not be entirely relevant, but can be used to illustrate some of the erroneous assumptions that have been made in behalf of the anti-global warming SimonJester wrote:
fan club


SimonJester wrote:

3. The Great Hockey Stick: Often (too often), graphs depicting Global Warming resemble hockey sticks – but they don’t show the whole picture. There was a period of global warming about 1100-1300 AD, which was called the Medieval Climate Optimum or the Medieval Warm Period. It is recorded in ocean deposits and ice cores. The temperatures were 1/2 degree C warmer than now. It was a bountiful time for the human race, with none of the adverse affects predicted for the future. It was followed by the Little Ice Age from about 1400-1850. This cool period was about 1/2 degree cooler than the present. All of this transpired without the energy consumption, environmental modification, etc. etc. of modern society.


What about this chart?

It does not look like a hockey stick....Actually, it appears that most, in fact all of the references show that in fact it is warmer now than during 1100-1300 AD, contrary to your statement above.
And as for your Little Ice Age, as I'm sure you are aware, most of the data in these charts are taken from the northern hemisphere.




Records for the southern hemisphere are much more sparse than for the north, and reliable reconstructions can only be extended back to around 1600. What is notable about these, however, is the apparent absence of the cooling that took place at this time in the northern hemisphere (the so called "Little Ice Age"). The strong warming in the 20th century can be clearly seen. Figure reproduced from Jones et al, Science 2001;292:662–667.

[Armin Tamzarian]

106. re: "I think this post from another site answers this question very well.

I don't believe that it answers anything at all. You wanna see hot and cold shifts on this planet?

Take a look at those same charts but look from today to 100,000 years ago.

I do believe in "Global Warming"
I dont' believe that we have anything to do with it.

[Imperialism Inc.]

94. I suggest the following.

Go rip all the insulation out of the walls of your house or apartment.

According to your logic the only thing that can affect how much heat is retained in an enclosed system (and yes the earth is such a system) is the intensity of the heat source. Therefore, the insulation in your walls is completely useless. All that matters is what the thermostat is set on.

Enjoy your higher heating bills.

[Armin Tamzarian]

107. re: "I suggest the following."

see the above reply.

According to your logic if people did not populate this planet then the temp would remain at a constant levels.

Is that what we are to believe?

[Imperialism Inc.]

108. What are talking about?

Which part of my post suggest anything like that?

You're ridiculous post that I responded to very clearly stated that the only thing that could effect the temperature of the Earth was how hot the sun is. My response is a very simple example showing just how incredibly foolish such a statement is. Lots of things can effect how warm things are. The insulative properties of the container is one of those things. For a house that would include insulation. If you pump the same BTUs (thermal units) into two houses, the one with insulation will remain warmer longer. For the Earth that would include the properties of its container, called the atmosphere.

How you jumped from that to me supposedly saying only humans can effect the climate I do not know. As far as your other replies. They are also incorrect. The evidence does not mesh with a theory that it is not human related in this particular case as is addressed in numerous places on this thread. You clearly have no idea what idea you are talking about re: the climate or the word "logic".

Welcome to DU and all that. Stick to topics you know something about. Goodbye.

[Armin Tamzarian]

116. re: "What are talking about?"

You're comparing apples and oranges in the most simplistic of ways.

Temperature cahnges can come from within, but from intense volcanic activity. People have not yet found a way to polute the way nature can.

Still, the Earth has fabulous ways to deal with even the most obnoxious of polutiants, but it can't compete with the Sun which is why we have a Summer and Winter.

To make a long stroy shory; You're wrong.

Goodbye

[Guckert]

59. And God created MAN. do the math Sheeple!!!!

God hates the Earth??? DUH!!!

[Blue_Tires]

70. it's all fuzzy math to bush

[mccoyn]

71. I've seen no math.

This article shows no evidence, yet claims to have found the strongest evidence yet. Its laughable. I certainly am not going to back a straw man.

[Blue_Tires]

73. I'm saying that Bush doesn't understand or care about the problem

[mccoyn]

74. Agreed.

This story just rubs me the wrong way.

[Viking12]

75. Blockbuster Panel at AAAS

If you're familiar with scientific publication, conference proceedings are usually not printed until after the conference is over. in teh meantime barnett is submitting the results to a "major publication." Barnett et. al.'s study is a follow up to their study published in Science Detection of anthropogenic climate change in the world's oceans. Science 292:270-274.


TRACK: Oceans and Coastlines
TITLE: Signatures of Anthropogenic Warming in the Oceans and Their Implications for Society
DATE: Friday, February 18, 2005
TIME: 1:45 p.m. - 4:45 p.m.
ORGANIZERS: Rana A. Fine, Rosenstiel School, University of Miami

PARTICIPANTS: * = invited, not yet confirmed.
Tim Barnett (Speaker), Scripps Institution of Oceanography
Observed Changes in Ocean Heat Content: Greenhouse or Natural?
Ruth Curry (Speaker), Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
Global Warming and Our Planet's Water Cycle
Sharon Smith (Speaker), Rosenstiel School, University of Miami
Dramatic Changes Due to Anthropogenic Warming in the Arctic Ocean, Circulation and Marine Ecosystems
Richard Feely (Speaker), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory
The Impact of Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide on the Oceanic Carbonate System
Ricardo Letelier (Speaker), Oregon State University
Geochemical and Biological Productivity Changes in the Pacific Ocean Due to Anthropogenic Warming
Klaus Keller (Speaker), Pennsylvania State University
Decision Making in Conditions of Uncertainty and Climate Change Impacts on Ocean Ecosystems

SYNOPSIS:
The oceans cover 71 percent of the Earth's surface and, because of their capacity to store, transport and exchange heat, freshwater and carbon dioxide, they are a major component of the global climate system. Observed changes in the oceans are being attributed to human activities as well as to natural climate variability. Increasing amounts of anthropogenic carbon dioxide are being taken up by the oceans, and the solubilities of carbonate minerals in the deep oceans have been affected. The amount of oxygen has been decreasing, and there are documented changes in ecosystem structures. Impacts of anthropogenic warming vary significantly between oceans and are particularly dramatic in high-latitude regions such as the Arctic Ocean. Fresh water from the melting of high-latitude ice and from increased evaporation in the tropics has been accumulating in the North Atlantic Ocean, which can alter the ocean currents, an integral part of the climate system. Scientists believe that eventually the effects of accumulating freshwater will cause a decrease in the strength of the "meridional overturning," or sinking of dense water, in the high latitudes of the North Atlantic. As a consequence, the northward flow of the warm Gulf Stream would slow and move southward, causing a major readjustment of our climate system. This symposium will describe changes occurring in the ocean due to anthropogenic warming and will discuss projections of possible effects and consequences for society.


Title:
Dramatic Changes in the Arctic Ocean, Its Circulation and Ecosystems, Due to Anthropogenic Warming

Presenter:
Sharon Smith

Authors:
Sharon L. Smith, The Rosenstiel School, University of Miami

Abstract:

For more than 20 years, models of global climate have shown us that warming associated with increased, anthropogenically-generated, carbon dioxide emissions will appear first - and be most intense - in the Arctic. Because the Arctic Ocean is bordered by wide continental shelves, has substantial freshwater input via rivers, and has limited connections with the north Atlantic and Pacific oceans, its circulation and its ecosystems have boundaries that aid us in our studies of change.

Extensive satellite data show us warming is happening now; warming reduces ice thickness and extends the duration of ice-free conditions, exposing the shallow shelves to different current regimes. Reduced ice content in the Arctic also will affect large-scale circulation, structure of the halocline, albedo, and surface heat budgets. If such climate change produces less transport of Arctic basin organisms onto the shelves, there will be reduced food for the birds, fish and baleen whales (the fish in turn support the seals and polar bears). If climate change instead produces increased transport onto the shelves (upwelling), then the food available for the upper levels of the food web could increase. Recent models show that the upwelling/no upwelling “switch” driven by ice cover could be very sensitive in the western Arctic region. Ice is also the platform on which seals, walrus and birds rest and reproduce.

The Arctic food web used by man in subsistence existence, and appreciated by naturalists, is supported by a complicated interplay of biology and physics which links the life cycle of marine organisms traveling between the surface and a thousand meters or more below the surface with the charismatic predators of the shelves. The match of the physical forcing and the life cycles of marine organisms is crucial; both need to be relatively predictable in time and space for evolution of this food web to have taken place. Climate change (warming) is acting to disrupt predictability, a situation which could cause the rapid demise of marine mammals and birds upon which subsistence human populations depend.


Title:
Global Warming and Our Planet's Water Cycle



Presenter:
Ruth Curry

Authors:
Ruth Curry, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

Abstract:

As the global thermometer continues its upward climb, it is expected to affect the hydrologic engine which cycles freshwater through the climate system. This engine is fueled by evaporation from the oceans, which pumps heat and water vapor from low to high latitudes where it precipitates and is returned to the ocean either directly or by river runoff from the continents. Sea ice and glaciers are components which store and release freshwater through the processes of freezing and melting. The hydrologic response to rising temperatures will include increases in the rates of evaporation, precipitation, and melting which in turn will profoundly affect our planet’s freshwater resources, sea level, ecosystems and economies.
Signs of changes in the global water cycle are already detectable as thinning sea ice and shrinking glaciers, increased river discharges from the Eurasian and North American continents, drought in the western U.S., and global shifts in ocean salinity distributions. Over the last forty years, low latitude surface waters have become dramatically saltier in the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian Oceans where rising upper ocean temperatures appear to be intensifying evaporation, removing extra freshwater from the surface ocean, and thus raising its salinity concentrations. That extra water vapor has been transported by the atmosphere toward the poles, especially in the northern hemisphere, where increased precipitation and river runoff have combined with melting polar ice causing ocean salinities there to plummet.
The resulting surge of freshwater into the Arctic and high latitude North Atlantic Oceans may have climate consequences of its own. These northern seas are special sites where cold, dense waters are formed, a process which drives a component of ocean circulation dubbed the thermohaline circulation (THC). If enough freshwater is added to these special sites, however, the resulting ocean density changes could alter the Atlantic THC, diminish the amount of heat delivered to the northern latitudes, and significantly affect wintertime climate in the northern hemisphere.

Title:
OBSERVED CHANGES IN OCEAN HEAT CONTENT: Greenhouse or Natural?


Presenter:
Tim Barnett

Authors:
K. AchutaRao, B.D. Santer, P. Gleckler; Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
T.P. Barnett, D. Pierce; Scripps Institution of Oceanography

Abstract:


Earlier work by several of us detected a change in observed ocean heat content that could be attributed to the planetary warming associated with anthropogenic forcing. In this work, we revisit that study, determining the impacts of revised observations and model uncertainty on our earlier conclusions.
The observed data set of oceanic temperatures in the upper few thousand meters is relatively sparse over most of the world’s oceans. It is becoming common practice in oceanography to overcome this situation by infilling the data voids by either optimal interpolation or more formal assimilation techniques. We have found that the infilled data generally have different statistical properties than the observed data. These differences can be unacceptably large. In contrast, the regridding necessary to examine covariability in observed and modeled heat content changes has a relatively small impact.
In the second part of this study, we examined output from a range of coupled climate models forced by a common 1% increase in atmospheric CO2. This experiment was part of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP2+). Use of a common forcing scenario helps to isolate model differences. We found that while ocean heat content increases in all eight CMIP2+ models examined, the total amount of heat gained by their respective global oceans varies by a factor of two. In regional ocean basins the models differed by a factor of as much as 8. Clearly, all of the models cannot be correct – nor can their predictions of future greenhouse impacts.
To test whether such large uncertainties in simulated ocean heat content changes critically impact previous detection results, we applied formal detection theory to the most recent set of IPCC runs. These were conducted with different coupled models, and involve more realistic anthropogenic and natural forcing than the CMIP2+ integrations. Our detection analysis considers uncertainties arising from: 1) Different model-based estimates of the anthropogenic signal; 2) Different model estimates of natural climate variability. Results of these new detection studies are compared with earlier work to test the robustness of previous detection claims

Title:
The Impact of Anthropogenic CO2 on the Oceanic Carbonate System

Presenter:
Richard A. Feely

Authors:
Richard A. Feely, Christopher L. Sabine; Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory/NOAA
Kitack Lee, Pohang University of Science and Technology
Will Berelson, University of Southern California
Joanie Kleypas, National Center for Atmospheric Research
Victoria J. Fabry, Calafornia State University San Marcos

Abstract:

Rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations over the past two centuries have led to greater CO2 uptake by the oceans. This acidification process has changed the saturation state of the oceans with respect to calcium carbonate. The penetration of anthropogenic CO2 into the ocean interior has caused an upward migration of the calcite and aragonite saturation horizons by about 40 - 200 m over large regions of the Pacific and Indian Oceans. Over time, these changes in the aragonite and calcite saturation state will have profound impacts on the health of coral reefs and other CaCO3 shell-forming organisms in the oceans. The calcification rate of almost all calcifying organisms studied to date decreased in response to decreased CaCO3 saturation state, even when the carbonate saturation level was >1. We also have estimated the water column CaCO3 dissolution rates for the global oceans from total alkalinity and chlorofluorocarbon data. Calcium carbonate dissolution rates, ranging from 0.003–1.2 µmol kg/yr, are observed beginning near the aragonite saturation horizon. The total water-column CaCO3 dissolution rate for the global oceans is approximately 0.5 ± 0.2 Pg CaCO3-C/yr, which is approximately 45–65% of the export production of CaCO3.

[mccoyn]

78. Thank you very much.

Thats the information I was looking for. I don't have a few minutes to look it over now, but I will.

[Viking12]

82. No problem.

I understand your reluctance to accept media reports of science. Inaccuracy is common.

[G_j]

89. thanks! n/t

[Conservativesux]

81. Everything is fuzzy when you have MBD like * . EOM

[applegrove]

84. Saw something on PBS

All we need is one catastrophic ice breakoff or massive lake creation of fresh ice-water in Greenland and the Gulf stream will be no more. That means that the climate of all of the east of Americas and all of the West of Europe will change and get very, very cold.

All it will take would be a big lake of melting freshwater to be created in Greenland and then burst out to the sea. That is it!!

And events like this will occur as greenhouse gasses make every ecosystem vulnerable to a catastrophic event. The tsunami alone should warn us how horrid nature can be.

[Megahurtz]

88. All I have to do where I live is

look up into the brown sky almost daily to be convinced that the atmosphere is being ruined by those fine fossil fuels.

[G_j]

103. Britain Slams US over Global Warming

Britain Slams US over Global Warming

http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=4147583

Britain Slams U.S. over Global Warming

Britain has bluntly criticised the US for being one of the world’s worst polluters and not doing enough to tackle global warming.

Britain’s ambassador to the UN, Sir Emyr Jones Parry, said yesterday: “It is important that climate change rises up the US agenda.”

Parry Jones singled out the US for its poor record on global warming at an event yesterday marking the entry into force of the Kyoto protocol.

The pact, which went into effect on Wednesday, imposes limits on emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases blamed for rising world temperatures, melting glaciers and rising oceans.

..more..

=====================
Why Bush advisers fight the evidence on climate change

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=612488

By Rupert Cornwell in Washington
19 February 2005


For the Bush administration, global warming and climate change have so far been the great unmentionables, topics that interfered with the march towards the promised land of the perfect free market.

Many say that the discovery by scientists that there is an unequivocal link between man-made greenhouse gases and a dramatic heating of the Earth's oceans, as reported to the American Association for the Advancement of Science, is unlikely to change that. "There's a denial of the science by the upper levels ," a spokesman for the Sierra Club said.

For "upper levels" read the President and vice-president. Their links with energy companies are well known and oil, coal and other natural resources companies have been prime contributors to campaign coffers.

In her book It's My Party Too, Christine Whitman, who resigned as head of the Environmental Protection Agency in 2003, wrote of the "obsession" of many in the energy industry and the Republican party "with doing away with environmental regulation". But there is also an ingrained and profoundly American opposition to the notions that climate change is harmful, that humans cause it, and that humans can do much about it.

..more..