PDA

View Full Version : Ocean temps warmest recorded



Dave Gray
08-21-2009, 03:47 PM
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/2009-08-20-record-ocean-temperatures_N.htm?csp=34

Copyright 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

This prevents a cut and paste.

Then there is this:
http://www.iceagenow.com/Pravda-Earth_on_the_Brink_of_an_Ice_Age.htm

whew! eight hundred years before we will have to worry about it.

TimH
08-21-2009, 04:37 PM
Boy I dont know. I put my hand in a couple days ago and it was still pretty cold.

botebum
08-21-2009, 04:44 PM
The oceans, like the earth are only like 6000 years old. Pretty young when you think about it huh? Think of it like a 6 year old kid. Gonna' do something differrent every day right? Quit worrying your pretty little head about it;)

Doug

Hal Forsen
08-23-2009, 11:06 AM
The oceans, like the earth are only like 6000 years old.
:eek:
You may want to check your figures.....

Pirate-at-heart
08-23-2009, 11:21 AM
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has reported findings of preliminary analysis from the agency's National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, North Carolina that shows global ocean surface temperatures for June broke the previous record set in 2005.

The combined average global/land and ocean surface temperature for June was the second warmest on record, 1.12 degrees Fahrenheit (0.62 degrees Celsius) above the 20th century average of 59.9 degrees F.

Ocean surface temperatures for June '09 were the warmest on record, 1.06 degrees F (0.59 degrees C) above the 20th century average of 61.5 degrees F.
The global land surface temperature for June was 1.26 degrees F above the 20th century average, and the sixth warmest June on record.

Article continues: http://www.globalwarmingisreal.com/blog/2009/07/20/noaa-reports-record-ocean-surface-temperatures-for-june/

worst news EVAR!

Tylerdurden
08-23-2009, 11:33 AM
Sorry....

http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c350/mudhutwarrior/3_2_1_03dd0.jpg

George Roberts
08-23-2009, 11:38 AM
Considering the small number of samples taken, it is hard to make a claim of record warmth.

While I accept global warming, one really needs to be careful with these claims.

bobbys
08-23-2009, 11:41 AM
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/2009-08-20-record-ocean-temperatures_N.htm?csp=34

Copyright 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

This prevents a cut and paste.

Then there is this:
http://www.iceagenow.com/Pravda-Earth_on_the_Brink_of_an_Ice_Age.htm

whew! eight hundred years before we will have to worry about it..

The whole town of Portland is at Hammond launching there boats today, I think to many of them are whizzing last nights brew pub beer in the Ocean!:)

Tom Galyen
08-23-2009, 03:14 PM
I'm with George for the following reasons,

1. While it is difficult to argue with the fact that the world is apparently getting warmer, the reasons for it are not that clear. People cite the melting of the polar ice caps, but about the year 1000 AD or (CE for the atheists on the WBF) there was no ice caps at all as we know them now and the Vikings who lived in Greenland at the time were growing wheat there. There was no industrial complex in the world to cause this phenomenon so is the return to that state normal or not?

2. The article says that measurements of the oceans temperature have been made since 1880, but until recently only with fairly crude instruments and at widely different points. In other words not in a scientific manner. It was not until the advent of the naval submarine that navies began to seriously measure the temperature of the ocean layers as an aid to their detection. Before that measurements were made to find and identify the currents in the ocean that could be of use to international shipping as the Gulf Stream was to the US and Europe. It was not measured as a scientific study of the worlds weather or eco systems. Therefore the data is suspect.

Captain Blight
08-23-2009, 03:25 PM
I'm with George for the following reasons,

1. While it is difficult to argue with the fact that the world is apparently getting warmer, the reasons for it are not that clear. People cite the melting of the polar ice caps, but about the year 1000 AD or (CE for the atheists on the WBF) there was no ice caps at all as we know them now and the Vikings who lived in Greenland at the time were growing wheat there. There was no industrial complex in the world to cause this phenomenon so is the return to that state normal or not?

2. The article says that measurements of the oceans temperature have been made since 1880, but until recently only with fairly crude instruments and at widely different points. In other words not in a scientific manner. It was not until the advent of the naval submarine that navies began to seriously measure the temperature of the ocean layers as an aid to their detection. Before that measurements were made to find and identify the currents in the ocean that could be of use to international shipping as the Gulf Stream was to the US and Europe. It was not measured as a scientific study of the worlds weather or eco systems. Therefore the data is suspect.Note that no one has any idea what was happening in Antarctica until very recently. A lack of ice caps in the North may well have meant increased glaciation down south.

No one really knows. I just think it's absolutely f***in' stupidity to say, "oh, we don't know why this is happening, so let's pollute anyway."

Anyone who thinks that is retarded.

Tom Galyen
08-23-2009, 03:54 PM
Dear Captain Blight on the Bilge,

Once again you have shown your ignorance in answering one of my posts.
First I said that there was no polar ice caps in Greenland in 1000 AD, and that no one has answered why. Your comment about "May well have meant increased glaciation down south" is not a scientific answer except that you prove my point that no one apparently knows.

Second, I never ever said anything about polluting anything, the words do not appear in any post except your attempt to turn something someone else wrote into your lie.

Third note the length of this post and the fact that not once have I had to resort to any childish cursing or swearing. You might try to do the same.

Pirate-at-heart
08-23-2009, 04:17 PM
s'nuthing funny about global warming folks.

its a big shame. the worst thing we've all done together... ever.
Just a heads-up... if you joke about global warming, others will hear you.
worst case scenario... they'll care less about it, because of you.
tragic thing, really.

PeterSibley
08-23-2009, 04:58 PM
Actually Tom ,you said "ices caps " ,plural .There's one North and one South .

Tom Galyen
08-23-2009, 06:54 PM
Peter,
You are right as I was referring only to the northern ice cap. The info that I have on the Vikings growing wheat in Greenland was from a National Geographic show on the archeology digs that are going on there as the retreating ice uncovers abandoned villages. In it they said that as the winters got worse the people had to resort to eating their dogs to survive as is shown by the bones of dogs found with marks of having been slaughtered and cooked. Since they used the dogs for hunting it would be akin to a modern hunter burning his guns to keep warm. Apparently the return of the ice cap was fairly quick in geological age because by about the year 1300 the Vikings were gone except in those areas not totally covered by ice. But wheat has not been grown in Greenland since at least 1100 AD.

One of the big questions I have is that according to scientists the heating of the oceans is not a good thing for mankind. But is it good or bad for the planet as a whole? Just because we took advantage of the low sea levels and built our cities on the edge of the oceans does this mean that mother nature cannot continue a natural cycle and melt the ice cap and return the sea to some earlier level? Possibly with the aid of man and his pollution? She does have this option right? What if the apparent warming that we are seeing is actually mostly part of a natural cycle and only partially caused by man. Then all the resources we put into halting it would be in vain because it would happen anyway.

Tom Galyen
08-23-2009, 07:19 PM
Tony,

I erred in giving the impression that the polar ice cap disappeared, it did however apparently retreat far enough that at the southern end the climate was temperate for the Viking settlers to grow wheat.

As you say "the surface layer of the ocean is accumulating thermal energy" and I believe that this is not good for mankind, but the melting and growing of the ice caps, is that a natural cycle that we have only recently discovered and is partly aided by man, or is it something that is totally caused by man and we do have some ability to control. If the former then it would be better for us to use our resources to prevent the cause of mans interference, and to prepare ourselves for the consequences of natures normal cycle. If its the latter then we can do a lot more to stop the cycle.

shamus
08-23-2009, 10:20 PM
That sea surface temperature- did the sun warm it up like that last month all of a sudden, or did some hot water come up from deep down?

WX
08-24-2009, 12:11 AM
As of 24 August 2009, the Earth's population (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population) is estimated by the United States Census Bureau (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Census_Bureau) to be 6.78 billion.

How could that many people not have an effect?

shamus
08-24-2009, 12:31 AM
it pretty much has to be the sun, it seems to me

I reckon it must be a pretty thin layer being measured then, to heat up so quickly with an max average input of 240w/m^2.
Poking about, I find that it's actually the warmest July SST, not 'hottest ever SST'. And it isn't the "ocean temperature". If we could actually get a reliable temperature for the whole ocean I suspect it wouldn't vary much.

WX
08-24-2009, 01:05 AM
It's enough to speed up the melting of the North Polar cap, expose more Greenland coastline and effect the ice shelves and glaciers of Antarctica.
SST here is 20.4c inshore, offshore it's 22c.
Hobart however is a balmy 12.9c

The Bigfella
08-24-2009, 01:13 AM
... and where does the earth's molten core figure in all this?

Don't changes in the molten interior reflect in surface changes?

shamus
08-24-2009, 01:35 AM
They mention geothermal heating at the end of this article. Personally I think the ocean is a big storage heater.


Changes in Net Flow of Ocean Heat Correlate with Past Climate Anomalies
Physicists at the University of Rochester have combed through data from satellites and ocean buoys and found evidence that in the last 50 years, the net flow of heat into and out of the oceans has changed direction three times.
These shifts in the balance of heat absorbed from the sun and radiated from the oceans correlate well with past anomalies that have been associated with abrupt shifts in the earth’s climate, say the researchers. These anomalies include changes in normal storm intensities, unusual land temperatures, and a large drop in salmon populations along the western United States.
The physicists also say these changes in ocean heat-flow direction should be taken into account when predicting global climate because the oceans represent 90 percent of the total heat in the earth’s climate system.
The study, which will appear in an upcoming issue of Physics Letters A, differs from most previous studies in two ways, the researchers say. First, the physicists look at the overall heat content of the Earth’s climate system, measuring the net balance of radiation from both the sun and Earth. And second, it analyzes more completely the data sets the researchers believe are of the highest quality, and not those that are less robust.
“These shifts happened relatively abruptly,” says David Douglass, professor of physics at the University of Rochester, and co-author of the paper. “One, for example, happened between 1976 and 1977, right when a number of other climate-related phenomenona were happening, such as significant changes in U. S. precipitation.”
Douglass says the last oceanic shift occurred about 10 years ago, and that the oceans are currently emitting slightly more radiation than they are receiving.
The members of the team, which includes Robert Knox, emeritus professor of physics at the University, believe these heat-flux shifts had previously gone unnoticed because no one had analyzed the data as thoroughly as the Rochester team has.
The team believes that the oceans may change how much they absorb and radiate depending on factors such as shifts in ocean currents that might change how the deep water and surface waters exchange heat. In addition to the correlation with strange global effects that some scientists suspect were caused by climate shifts, the team says their data shows the oceans are not continuously warming—a conclusion not consistent with the idea that the oceans may be harboring “warming in the pipeline.” Douglass further notes that the team found no correlation between the shifts and atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration.
“An interesting aspect of this research is that no reference to the surface temperature itself is needed,” says Knox. “The heat content data we used, gathered by oceanographers, was gleaned from temperature measurements at various ocean depths up to 750 meters.” The team also found that the radiative imbalance was sufficiently small that it was necessary to consider the effect of geothermal heating. Knox believes this is the first time this additional source of heat has been accounted for in such a model.
The team notes that it’s impossible to predict when another shift might occur, but they suspect future shifts might be similar to the three observed. Both Douglass and Knox are continuing to analyze various climate-related data to find any new information or correlations that may have so far gone unnoticed.

PeterSibley
08-24-2009, 03:37 AM
Have a link Shamus ?

and here's a bit more of the same subject , but revisions thereof .

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/06/ocean-heat-content-revisions/

shamus
08-24-2009, 05:56 PM
http://www.rochester.edu/news/show.php?id=3420

Peter Malcolm Jardine
08-24-2009, 06:03 PM
Sigh.

PeterSibley
08-24-2009, 06:22 PM
The two links posted , yours and mine deal with different systems ....apparently , deep ocean and surface .The data of the two sets seems to be in opposition , so perhaps it is possible for the two the coexist ? BTW ,if we start getting large changes in deep ocean temperature ,it's time to look for a new planet .

shamus
08-24-2009, 09:49 PM
http://i221.photobucket.com/albums/dd277/shamus1955/Global-SST-NCDC-vs-AMSRE.jpg

Our old friend Roy Spencer wonders why the buoys and the satellite measurements are increasingly diverging in their results

jbelow
08-24-2009, 10:47 PM
Note that no one has any idea what was happening in Antarctica until very recently. A lack of ice caps in the North may well have meant increased glaciation down south.

No one really knows. I just think it's absolutely f***in' stupidity to say, "oh, we don't know why this is happening, so let's pollute anyway."

Anyone who thinks that is retarded.

Tell that to China and India.

WX
08-24-2009, 11:37 PM
Tell that to China and India.

To not do anything because someone else is slow to or won't is not a valid argument.

jbelow
08-25-2009, 12:48 AM
To not do anything because someone else is slow to or won't is not a valid argument.

I will agree . Go tell China and India.

PeterSibley
08-25-2009, 05:23 AM
Tell that to China and India.

IIRC China is doing considerably more than you or us .

shamus
08-26-2009, 09:35 PM
I'll bet! The satellite monitoring he works on is suggesting that the conventional SST measurements have been underestimating the warming trend. Oops!

I don't know. Looks like something is going out of callibration. Sounds as though you know the 'true' temperature, Tony, mind sharing?

S B
08-26-2009, 09:50 PM
Peter,
You are right as I was referring only to the northern ice cap. The info that I have on the Vikings growing wheat in Greenland was from a National Geographic show on the archeology digs that are going on there as the retreating ice uncovers abandoned villages. In it they said that as the winters got worse the people had to resort to eating their dogs to survive as is shown by the bones of dogs found with marks of having been slaughtered and cooked. Since they used the dogs for hunting it would be akin to a modern hunter burning his guns to keep warm. Apparently the return of the ice cap was fairly quick in geological age because by about the year 1300 the Vikings were gone except in those areas not totally covered by ice. But wheat has not been grown in Greenland since at least 1100 AD.

One of the big questions I have is that according to scientists the heating of the oceans is not a good thing for mankind. But is it good or bad for the planet as a whole? Just because we took advantage of the low sea levels and built our cities on the edge of the oceans does this mean that mother nature cannot continue a natural cycle and melt the ice cap and return the sea to some earlier level? Possibly with the aid of man and his pollution? She does have this option right? What if the apparent warming that we are seeing is actually mostly part of a natural cycle and only partially caused by man. Then all the resources we put into halting it would be in vain because it would happen anyway.
The presumption that dogs were eaten because the climate got worse ,is typical of archelogists, Eating dogs may have been an everyday activity.

The Bigfella
08-27-2009, 05:16 AM
Oops. Not everyone agrees with the supposed highest temps. Here's a couple ....

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/08/26/spencer-analysing-alternate-satellite-data-suggests-july-2009-was-not-a-record-for-sea-temperature/

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/TMI-AMSRE-SST-comparisons-1998-2009.jpg

This one also says that based on a couple of research projects, the oceans are cooling

http://climatesci.org/wp-content/uploads/dipuccio-2.jpg

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/06/the-global-warming-hypothesis-and-ocean-heat/

So, if the oceans are cooling, where's AGW?

Art Read
08-27-2009, 07:49 AM
"How could that many people not have an effect?"

__________________________________________________

What's that work out to? Little over a hundred people per square mile?

Quick! start culling!:rolleyes: