Puzzle me this? Oceans COOLING?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TimBikes @ Dec 1 2006, 02:09 AM) [snapback]356110[/snapback]</div>

If you actually go to the site you link to, the rejection from Science states:

>>Dear Dr. Peiser,
After realizing that the basic points of your letter have already been widely dispersed over the internet, we have reluctantly decided that we cannot publish your letter. We appreciate your taking the time to revise it.
Best regards, Etta Kavanagh<<

There is nothing non-standard in a magazine not publishing a letter ALREADY DISSEMINATED over the internet. Most magazines, especially one of the stature of Science, prefer to publish their contents first, not second. This is not "supression of dissent"; it is simply standard publishing practice. In fact, it states as much on Science's own web page with submission guidelines for authors:
http://www.sciencemag.org/about/authors/fa...x.dtl#prior_faq
>>What about manuscripts that have been posted online before submission?
We do not consider manuscripts that have been previously published elsewhere. <<

Also, it's just a little humorous to think that a scientist could earn more money doing climate science at a university than he could working for an oil company. What were Exxon's profits again this year? CnnMoney.com from July 27, 2006: >>Profits at Exxon Mobil surged 36 percent to a near record $10.4 billion ...the second biggest ever reported by a U.S. company, behind only the $10.7 billion Exxon itself earned in the fourth quarter of 2005.<<

 

I think we should use up all the fossil fuel as fast as possible. When we run out, we will figure out a new way. Life goes on. People will not respond until they have no other choice.

 

I cannot prove that Peiser posted his results online before Feb 2005, although it still seems likely, but as I cannot prove it will concede this point. Nonetheless, the point is rather moot in that Peiser HIMSELF no longer stands by the content of his letter to Science.

From the ABC Australia Web site:
>>In fact over the last year and half since Benny Peiser wrote up his results, he's backed away from those claims.
Peiser now admits he didn't check the same articles that Naomi Oreskes used.
"Which is why I no longer maintain this particular criticism. In addition, some of the abstracts that I included in the 34 "reject or doubt" category are very ambiguous and should not have been included."
— Email from Benny Peiser to Media Watch
Read Benny Peiser's response to Media Watch's questions (http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/ep38peiser.pdf)
So how many of the 34 articles does Benny Peiser stand by?
How many really "reject or doubt" the scientific consensus for man-made global warming?
Well when we first contacted him two weeks ago he told us...
"Only [a] few abstracts explicitly reject or doubt the AGW (anthropogenic global warming) consensus which is why I have publicly withdrawn this point of my critique."— Email from Benny Peiser to Media Watch
And when we pressed him to provide the names of the articles, he eventually conceded - there was only one.
(Ad Hoc Committee on Global Climate Issues: Annual report, by Gerhard LC and Hanson BM, AAPG Bulletin 84 (4): 466-471 Apr 2000) <<

By the way, the AAPG bulletin is the publication of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists.

"I do not think anyone is questioning that we are in a period of global warming. Neither do I doubt that the overwhelming majority of climatologists is agreed that the current warming period is mostly due to human impact."
— Email from Benny Peiser to Media Watch, 12th October, 2006

In the interests of flogging dead horses and putting this to rest, a thorough evaluations of Peiser's study (who, it should be remembered, is a social anthropologist, not a climate scientist) have been done by several other websites and reveals that it did NOT replicate the prior study that it criticized:

From http://norvig.com/oreskes.html:
>>Benny Peiser attempted to replicate the study, and found 34 articles that "reject or doubt" the consensus view--that is, 3% rather than the 0% that Oreskes found in her sample. Note that Peiser has altered Oreskes' original category from "reject" to "reject or doubt" so it is logically possible that both are correct. <<

You can judge for yourself if you're really bored at work and read an entire list of Peiser's "reject or doubt climate change" abstracts in full at http://timlambert.org/2005/05/peiser/

If you don't want to read all 34, consider the one below, which Peiser claims "rejects or doubts" global warming; the abstract clearly "reject(s) or doubt(s)" the idea that greenhouse warming could cause more frequent or more severe hurricanes -- but it explicitly assumes global warming because of CO2. (credit http://www.inkstain.net/fleck/archives/001721.html).

Global Climate-Change and Tropical Cyclones
Lighthill J, Holland G, Gray W, Landsea C, Craig G, Evans J, Kurihara Y, Guard C
Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 75 (11): 2147-2157 Nov 1994
Abstract: This paper offers an overview of the authors’ studies during a specialized international symposium (Mexico, 22 November-1 December 1993) where they aimed at making an objective assessment of whether climate changes, consequent on an expected doubling of atmospheric CO2 in the next six or seven decades, are likely to increase significantly the frequency or intensity of tropical cyclones (TC). Out of three methodologies available for addressing the question they employ two, discarding the third for reasons set out in the appendix. In the first methodology, the authors enumerate reasons why, in tropical oceans, the increase in sea surface temperature (SST) suggested by climate change models might be expected to affect either (i) TC frequency, because a well-established set of six conditions for TC formation include a condition that SST should exceed 26 degrees C, or (ii) TC intensity, because this is indicated by thermodynamic analysis to depend critically on the temperature at which energy transfer to air near the sea surface takes place. But careful study of both suggestions indicates that the expected effects of increased SST would be largely self-limiting (i) because the other five conditions strictly control how far the band of latitudes for TC formation can be further widened, and (ii) because intense winds at the sea surface may receive their energy input at a temperature significantly depressed by evaporation of spray, and possibly through sea surface cooling. In the second methodology, the authors study available historical records that have very large year-to-year variability in TC statistics. They find practically no consistent statistical relationships with temperature anomalies; also, a thorough analysis of how the El Nino-Southern Oscillation cycle influences the frequency acid distribution of TCs shows any direct effects of local SST changes to be negligible. The authors conclude that, even though the possibility of some minor indirect effects of global warming on TC frequency and intensity cannot be excluded, they must effectively be "swamped" by large natural variability.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MegansPrius @ Dec 3 2006, 01:04 PM) [snapback]356994[/snapback]</div>

Thank you MegansPrius, that was thoroughly and accurately done.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TimBikes @ Dec 5 2006, 03:58 AM) [snapback]357850[/snapback]</div>

Tim,
You're the one who brought up Peiser. See
http://priuschat.com/index.php?s=&show...st&p=356110
http://priuschat.com/index.php?s=&show...st&p=356601

So don't pretend I'm "missing the point" when I provide evidence refuting claims you spent 3 posts and 350 words advancing.

As for the startling claim you cite in your non-response to my take down of Peiser, I can only say I'm shocked, shocked to hear there was ice buildup on a generator building in Antarctica! That would presuppose wild laws of nature, say, like the fact that generators generate HEAT in running, and that Anarctica is COLD, and that ICE might FORM on the ROOF and AROUND a HEATED building in Anarctica! My goodness, I just don't know how that could have occurred.

Ice forming around a building has nothing to do with the Antarctic Ice pack. For just one example of recent ice loss in the Antarctic, see http://nsidc.org/iceshelves/larsenb2002/ , from which I quote:
"For reference, the area lost in this most recent event dwarfs Rhode Island (2717 km2) in size. In terms of volume, the amount of ice released in this short time is 720 billion tons, enough ice for about 12 trillion 10 kg bags. This is the largest single event in a series of retreats by ice shelves in the Peninsula over the last 30 years. "

Your funding "color within the lines" assertion is false as well. Big Oil has much more money (see Exxon Mobil Profit Rises to $10.4B, the Second Highest Ever at Foxnews.com). And they use it. Last year Exxon provided 2.9 million to organizations that misinform the public about climate change. (See the letter from the Royal Society of Great Britain, asking Exxon to stop funding bad science http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guar...ttertoNick.pdf)

 

ever see "An Inconvenient Truth"...i dont mean the movie, the DVD. there is an update to what gore said with an additional year of data. maybe we should consider the loss of ice in Greenland and Antarctica recently.

in the 1960's my dad went to Greenland to help build the nuclear power plant at Camp Century. they built this plant on nearly 2 miles of ice. (they thought it was less than half a mile.) there was a group of scientists there that wanted to do core drilling. they were there on a 6 month project. the goal was to get as much sample as possible to study. it took them 14 months to complete the job because the thickness was much greater than they had anticipated.

also, when my dad was there, the entire northern part of the island was inaccessible by water for 10½ months a year because of ice. that time has been reduced to zero. (the ice no longer extends hundreds of miles out into the sea making it possible for cutters to make it to the shore)

granted we are talking about 45 years ago. but its only been the last 20 or so where anyone even noticed the ice disappearing. so is the ocean getting colder??? well, might have to do with the trillions of gallons of ice from Greenland that has slid off into the ocean.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MegansPrius @ Dec 5 2006, 10:11 AM) [snapback]357881[/snapback]</div>

I have been following this issue closely for over a decade, and it just boggles my mind how (or why) so many people, mostly in the US, don't seem to get it.

For global warming to be a "hoax" as some claim would require a massive, I would argue unprecedented, worldwide conspiracy of scientists from many different disciplines. And why, to what end? Not to get funding. That would not even begin to explain such a broad conspiracy. You have to totally abandon faith in virtually the entire scientific community to accept that explanation. You have to be willing to accuse the majority of scientists (in certain discipline areas) of being dishonest, immoral, and only in it for the funding. Thats preposterous.

On the other hand, you have the oil companies and the entrenched military industrial complex that drives the world economy. Do they have a motive to refute global warming? You bet, what could be more clear! Do they have the resources. You bet, and incredibly more so than the scientific research community! Have they been caught in the act of trying to misinform on the subject. Absolutely they have, and who could expect anything else? I would think it would be a virtual given that companies with as much money and influence as the oil companies would try to misinform on something like this. Yet there are still those, in the face of overwhelming evidence, who try to discredit the science and buy into the propoganda. Its incredible to me.

Go back the basics, known facts:

CO2 is a "Greenhouse gas" and its concentration in the atmosphere has been proven to be closely is related to atmospheric/global temperature.
Humans are dumping massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere.
Atmosphereic CO2 levels are rising rapidly.
Global temperture is rising.

Whats not to understand?

I'm not saying it is as simple as that, and I realize that global climate is very complex issue, but it doesn't make sense to me to debate about IF global warming is happening. We should move on, and start talking about WHAT to do about it.

 

global warming is not a hoax. only a fool still believes that. only its cause can be debated on even the broadest of terms.

i believe that the onset of global warming is accelerated by the actions of man by several HUNDRED years.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(DaveinOlyWA @ Dec 5 2006, 12:43 PM) [snapback]357966[/snapback]</div>

I agree. Why still the debate. So I did some more poking about. And found what this thread is. What this thread really is is an exercise in spin. It's a case study in how doubt on global warming is created.

While this story is told in many places online, I'll confine myself to the three primary sources, all of which purport to convey the same data: The original Geophysical Research Letters paper, a NASA press release (much replicated across mainstream media like MSNBC, etc.), and, of course, that bastion of reporting, the origin of the quotes that started this thread: an opinion column from the Orange County Register. That's right. An opinion column.

Basically, Lyman and colleagues found that a new system of measuring ocean temperatures is more accurate. His article is basically saying we can now detect bumps in temperature we couldn't see so clearly before, and please, keep funding all these satellite systems and ocean monitors so we can build increasingly accurate climate models.

The OC register uses this to cast doubt on global warming. And they throw some cloud study data from 2002 into the middle and make it sound like part of the same study. Excerpts from all sources are reproduced below for your viewing enjoyment.

From the OC Register by Dan and Alex Avery:

... startling news of ocean cooling ...
Lyman says the discovery of the sudden ocean coolings undercuts faith in global-warming forecasts because coolings randomly interrupt the trends laid out by the global circulation models. As Lyman puts it, "The cooling reflects interannual variability that is not well represented by a linear trend."
[here they break away from Lyman to cite "Weilicki's research teams say that the huge natural heat vent emitted about as much heat during the 1980s and 90s as would be expected from a redoubling of the carbon dioxide content in the air. They used satellites to measure cloud cover and long-range aircraft to monitor sea temperatures."
Weilicki, so far as I can tell had no part in Lyman's study, but in 2002 was quoted as saying:
"Clouds could hold down climate change" if increasing cover cools Earth, he said. But if warming due to greenhouse gases reduces the amount of cloud cover, "that could amplify global warming."
Weilicki said there is no doubt Earth is getting warmer, but clouds are the unpredictable factor that causes different climate models to predict global temerature changes from 1.5 degrees to 6 degrees Centigrade.
... "What it shows is remarkable," said Wielicki. "The rising and descending motions of air that cover the entire tropics, known as the Hadley and Walker circulation cells, appear to increase in strength from the 1980s to the 1990s. This suggests that the tropical heat engine increased its speed."]
... The more we look, the more we learn about the Earth's complex climate forces – though not much of the new knowledge comes from the huge, unverified global circulation models favored by the man-made warming activists.

From Nasa:

Short-Term Ocean Cooling Suggests Global Warming 'Speed Bump'
The average temperature of the water near the top of the Earth's oceans has significantly cooled since 2003. New research suggests global warming trends are not always steady in their effects on ocean temperatures.
... Willis said the findings have significant implications for global sea-level rise. "Average sea level goes up partly due to warming and thermal expansion of the oceans and partly due to runoff from melting glaciers and ice sheets," Willis said. "The recent cooling episode suggests sea level should have actually decreased in the past two years. Despite this, sea level has continued to rise. This may mean that sea level rise has recently shifted from being mostly caused by warming to being dominated by melting. This idea is consistent with recent estimates of ice-mass loss in Antarctica and accelerating ice-mass loss on Greenland," he said.
... Lyman said the recent cooling is not unprecedented. "While global ocean temperatures have generally increased over the past 50 years, there have also been substantial decadal decreases," he said. "Other studies have shown that a similar rapid cooling took place from 1980 to 1983. But overall, the long-term trend is warming."
...Another implication of the study is greater uncertainty in estimates of long-term ocean warming rates. "Understanding decadal rises and dips in Earth's ocean temperature is important in predicting Earth's climate," Lyman said. "Hopefully, the results of our study will help refine the ability of computer models to make these predictions."


From Lyman Willis and Johnson's Geophysical Paper

... Using a broad array of in situ ocean measurements, we present annual estimates of global upper-ocean heat content anomaly from 1993 through 2005. Including the recent downturn, the average warming rate for the entire 13-year period is 0.33 ± 0.23 W/m2 (of the Earth's total surface area). A new estimate of sampling error in the heat content record suggests that both the recent and previous global cooling events are significant and unlikely to be artifacts of inadequate ocean sampling.
... Past estimates of the global integral of ocean heat content anomaly (OHCA) indicate an increase of 14.5 × 1022 J from 1955 to 1998 from the surface to 3000 m [Levitus et al., 2005] and 9.2 (± 1.3) × 1022 J from 1993 to 2003 in the upper (0 – 750 m) ocean [Willis et al. 2004]. These increases provide strong evidence of global warming. Climate models exhibit similar rates of ocean warming, but only when forced by anthropogenic influences [Gregory et al., 2004; Barnett et al., 2005; Church et al., 2005; Hansen et al., 2005].
While there has been a general increase in the global integral of OHCA during the last half century, there have also been substantial decadal fluctuations, including a short period of rapid cooling (6 × 1022 J of heat lost in the 0–700 m layer) from 1980 to 1983 [Levitus et al., 2005]. Most climate models, however, do not contain unforced decadal variability of this magnitude [Gregory et al., 2004; Barnett et al., 2005, their Figure S1; Church et al., 2005; and Hansen et al., 2005] and it has been suggested that such fluctuations in the observational record may be due to inadequate sampling of ocean temperatures [Gregory et al., 2004]. We have detected a new cooling event that began in 2003 and is comparable in magnitude to the one in the early 1980s. Using highresolution satellite data to estimate sampling error, we find that both the recent event and the cooling of the early 1980s are significant with respect to these errors.
... Finally, the estimates presented here are made possible only by recent improvements in the global ocean observing system. The sharp decrease in the error since 2002 is due to the dramatic improvement of in situ sampling provided by the Argo array of autonomous profiling CTD floats, and the real-time reporting of Argo data made it possible to extend the estimate through 2005. Characterization of the error budget, which is of paramount importance in the estimate of such globally averaged quantities, was made feasible by the long-term maintenance of high quality altimeter missions such as TOPEX/Poseidon and Jason. The issues relating to sea level rise and the global water budget can only be addressed when the record of satellite gravity measurement from GRACE achieves adequate duration. GRACE, Argo, and satellite altimetry are core components of the global ocean observing system. Failure to maintain any one of these observing systems would seriously impair our ability to monitor the World Ocean and to unravel its importance to the climate system.

References
Avery version
http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/opini...cle_1245606.php
Lyman Geophysical
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/people/lyman/Pdf/heat_2006.pdf
Nasa press release
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2006/sep/H...an_Cooling.html
Weilicki 2002 Cloud data
is at sci-tech-today.com/story.xhtml?...id=011000M73ISU

 

Could it just be warming & cooling cycles?

http://tinyurl.com/h9kg7

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TimBikes @ Dec 6 2006, 03:11 AM) [snapback]358342[/snapback]</div>

Tim,

It is certainly is comforting to think of that 20% heat loss. Although that is ocean heat, not atmospheric. Although, as the paper states, there was a similar speed bump in the early 1980's, and temperatures have continued to rise afterward. Althougth it does appear less comforting when looking at a historical chart of of ocean temperature data. See the graph at the bottom of this post.

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/

And that 20% loss is actually 0.055 degrees.

It is also less comforting given that a cooler ocean should not be rising in its sea level, as lower temperatures reduce the volume of water.

As Lyman states:

>>The recent cooling of the upper ocean implies a decrease in the thermosteric component of sea level. Estimates of total sea level, however, show continued sea-level rise during the past 3 years. This suggests that other contributions to sea-level rise, such as melting of land-bound ice, have accelerated. This inference is consistent with recent estimates of ice mass loss in Antarctica and accelerating ice mass loss on Greenland but closure of the global sea level budget cannot yet be achieved.<<

Because he's a scientist, he can't go saying things like melting glacier ice accounts for the temperature change (re Ross Ice shelf, the size of Rhode Island, dissolving in 2002). Scientists, unlike opinion columnists, generally won't say things until they can absolutely prove them.

Take comfort in the cooling if you wish. I find a cooling ocean that is rising in sea level a horrifying conundrum, and expect that cooling will be a short-lived blip like the prior event in the 1980s.

I just hope our current administration doesn't cut the budget for any of the satellite/sensor programs Lyman needs to continue his research.

And Jim, a 1975 Newsweek article? I mean, c'mon. The misdirection in this thread will evidently never cease. That silly piece of "jounalism" has been thoroughly refuted in many places. See http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TimBikes @ Dec 6 2006, 01:29 PM) [snapback]358473[/snapback]</div>

Actually I didn't suggest it. Lyman did. You know, the scientist whose work started this thread:

Lyman said the recent cooling is not unprecedented. "While global ocean temperatures have generally increased over the past 50 years, there have also been substantial decadal decreases," he said. "Other studies have shown that a similar rapid cooling took place from 1980 to 1983. But overall, the long-term trend is warming."

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TimBikes @ Dec 6 2006, 02:03 PM) [snapback]358494[/snapback]</div>

Actually, let's have the full quote please:
"It isimportant to note that this decrease causes greater uncertainty in the long-term warming rate because the cooling reflects interannual variability that is not well represented by a linear trend. This cooling event, as well as the cooling in the early 1980s, illustrates the importance of accounting for interannual variability when determining long-term rates of ocean warming. This interannual variability complicates the task of detecting upper ocean warming due to anthropogenic influence, which is assumed to have a time scale of many decades."

He's not saying the oceans aren't warming. He's saying our new better tools make it more difficult to account for just what part of that warming is human-influenced, because there are greater interannual variations now detectable. Specifically regarding current models he's not saying time will tell. He says:
"Although these models do simulate the long-term rates of ocean warming, this lack of interannual variability represents a shortcoming that may complicate detection and attribution of human-induced climate influences."

But I mean, look at the graph from his paper below. There was a similar drop half as big from 1994-95, yet the graph still goes up.

Because he's a scientist, he's not saying this "proves" or "disproves" global warming. (I actaully doubt it's a question for him). He's telling the climate modellers that we now have better data and they need to be integrating it.

But see, that's the annoying thing with this so-called debate. A scientist raises an issue to improve research. His words are then distorted by the likes of Avery in an opinion column to cast doubt on global warming. The self-correcting methods of science turn into the perpetual-obfuscating methods of the media.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TimBikes @ Dec 6 2006, 12:03 PM) [snapback]358494[/snapback]</div>

What Lyman is saying is that there are short term trends that can effect global temperatures, so it's not as simple as saying CO2 level of x% over pre-industrial levels will give a temperature increase of y degrees, and we'll see that in year z. You need to take into account certain trends to get a good estimate for a particular year, and we're not to that level of understanding yet. However, on average these models are still accurate. They won't hold up if we just went thru an ocean cooling event, or overdue for the next one (assuming they happen regularly), but on average they will be pretty good. Apparently 80% of the ocean warming persisted, so it's not like we're suddenly off the hook for global warming.

Time will tell, as you say. But by the time it tells us, it'll be too late to affect any change. If it turns out NY, Miami and Venice and Amsterdam and Bangladesh are flooded and the midwest is semi-arid, shuttering our economy, then all those dollars we sent to terrorist-friendly countries for their oil (also our single-largest source of trade imbalance) will be in vain. Meanwhile Germany and Japan will be the economic superpowers because of their research into alternative energy and ending their oil addiction. I want better things for our country than that scenario, that's why we need to take some responsibility on this issue. IMO, it is a terribly irresponsible approach to push it off onto our kids' shoulders because we don't yet know _exactly_ what will happen, just _generally_, and we're so scared of change that we can't see how improving efficiencies makes our economy stronger. Desparately holding onto the status quo, somehow equating wastefulness with patriotism, is not what made this country great.

 

I read Realclimate.org and any other "unbiased" source on climate change that I can. I read more than enough books on the subject since the implications of accelerated global climate change have a huge impact on what I'm studying in my classes for an ecology degree.

I see no real disagreement in the scientific community that GW is here and even AGW is not much disputed. The only disparity I see in the scientific community is the acutal forecasts and this is due to chosing a CO2 sensitivity number and sheer overwhelming complexity of climate and its forcings and feedback loops. My Oceanography professor is ex-Navy (and a smart guy) and while he agrees that GW is occuring he doesnt seem too phased by it because he believes calcifying organisms will uptake a lot of the excess CO2 and help to sequester much of the excess carbon in the atmosphere once it is "scrubbed" out by rain and washed back into the ocean. One flaw to his line of thinking, in my opinion, is that he doesn't seem to share the "general" opinion that CO2 has a residency time of 50-100years in the atmosphere. There is also a recent article on Anthropogenic ocean acidification over the twenty-first century and its impact on calcifying organisms http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v437/...ature04095.html and how CO2 uptake by calcifying organisms could be inhibited by a PH drop currently taking place in our ocean. Just another wrench to throw into the complexity of climate predictions along with "Global Dimming"

I think the overall point to make is this. While we are not 100% certain of our climatic future we know enough know to be very concerned. Is it then morally acceptable to proceed with the IPCC "Business as usual scenario" in light of this knowledge simply because we cannot muster the courage and willpower to change the way we think about the world and life in general?