Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

135 Years of Records Reveals Deep Ocean Warming
scientificamerican.com ^ | 1 April 2012 | David Biello

Posted on 04/01/2012 9:40:29 PM PDT by smokingfrog

Her Majesty's Ship Challenger set sail in 1872. Stripped of her guns and outfitted for science, her mission was to sail around the globe sampling as she went.

Among other scientific triumphs, the Challenger gathered the first global set of ocean temperature readings, more than 260 in all. The British expedition measured from the surface to a depth beyond 900 meters.

In 2004, a set of drifting buoys began to make similar measurements. There are now more than 3000 of these floats bobbing in the world's seas, collecting oceanographic information.

Comparing the data sets, separated by more than a century in time, reveals that, yes, the ocean is warming. On average, the global ocean is warmer by roughly 0.6 degrees Celsius at the surface and 0.1 degrees at depth. The analysis appears in the journal Nature Climate Change.

(Excerpt) Read more at scientificamerican.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events; United Kingdom
KEYWORDS: 1872; catastrophism; climatechange; fraud; globalwarming; globalwarminghoax; leftwingliars; ntsa; steamingpile; totalbs
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-63 next last
Yes, I know it's April 1st, but this is NO JOKE!

/s

 

 
Podcast at link. Download MP3

1 posted on 04/01/2012 9:40:34 PM PDT by smokingfrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: smokingfrog

Four months ago I read a report that deep ocean warming hadn’t altered much.

Scientific American has become politicized, so I no longer credit them with veracity.


2 posted on 04/01/2012 9:42:15 PM PDT by SatinDoll (No Foreign Nationals as our President!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: steelyourfaith

Ping.


3 posted on 04/01/2012 9:44:46 PM PDT by Army Air Corps (Four Fried Chickens and a Coke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: smokingfrog
Yes it is. 0.1C over 140 years, and comparing the equipment and methods used...

APRIL FOOL'S!!!

4 posted on 04/01/2012 9:45:03 PM PDT by VanShuyten ("a shadow...draped nobly in the folds of a gorgeous eloquence.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll

.1 degrees change from readings taken 130 years ago. That has to be much less than the margin of error.


5 posted on 04/01/2012 9:45:42 PM PDT by djwright (2012 The White House Gets Another Coat Of Shellac)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll

If any of you have a 135 year-old diesel engine, I’ll buy it if it still runs.


6 posted on 04/01/2012 9:47:04 PM PDT by Rudder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: smokingfrog

it could very well be true. but, that it is because I drive a Tundra, not so much. projecting the cause onto ourselves
is self worship of a high order.


7 posted on 04/01/2012 9:47:54 PM PDT by RitchieAprile
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: smokingfrog

I don’t skin dive much below 900 meters anyway, it gets a bit tough to see anything down there;)


8 posted on 04/01/2012 9:47:59 PM PDT by Frank_2001
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach; Rurudyne; steelyourfaith; Tolerance Sucks Rocks; xcamel; AdmSmith; ...

No, it doesn’t. Fail! But thanks for playing. :’)

Thanks smokingfrog.


9 posted on 04/01/2012 9:50:35 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (FReepathon 2Q time -- https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: smokingfrog

.6C....that’s it. Over 135 years. Hell that’s meaningless.
It’s within the margin of error for analog measuring equipment.


10 posted on 04/01/2012 9:52:02 PM PDT by nvscanman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll

National Geographic also.


11 posted on 04/01/2012 9:52:16 PM PDT by RobbyS (Christus rex.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: 75thOVI; agrace; aimhigh; Alice in Wonderland; AndrewC; aragorn; aristotleman; Avoiding_Sulla; ...

Thanks smokingfrog.




12 posted on 04/01/2012 9:52:43 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (FReepathon 2Q time -- https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: smokingfrog

so what?


13 posted on 04/01/2012 9:53:36 PM PDT by television is just wrong
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: smokingfrog
WE'VE DOOMED!


14 posted on 04/01/2012 9:53:40 PM PDT by garjog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: smokingfrog

.6 Degrees by what margin of error over 135 years?

Good grief.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/22/the-metrology-of-thermometers/


15 posted on 04/01/2012 9:58:13 PM PDT by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll

It was very serious when humanists moved into business and science departments of University and culturally cleansed western ethics. Now it is realitivity and scientific process means nil. They always controled the soft sciences and they made no sense but everyone knew they were socialist political activists. Now they own hard science and so the West’s progress will decline accordingly.


16 posted on 04/01/2012 9:58:40 PM PDT by SaraJohnson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: smokingfrog

That depends on your definition of humor. The joke that keeps giving is government sponsored propaganda, how ever it is sad, because of all the people that are trained to follow blindly.

Do you prefer a blue or a red pill?


17 posted on 04/01/2012 9:58:59 PM PDT by foundedonpurpose (Be strong in truth!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: smokingfrog

” - - - On average, the global ocean is warmer by roughly 0.6 degrees Celsius at the surface and 0.1 degrees at depth.”

What is the margin or error?

What is the control for error between the various manufacturers for the last 135 years?

BTW, Opinion Polls have margins of error, thermometers have tolerance ranges, so why not margins of error for historical Scientific observations, by humans?


18 posted on 04/01/2012 9:59:40 PM PDT by Graewoulf ((Dictator Baby-Doc Barack's obama"care" violates Sherman Anti-Trust Law, AND U.S. Constitution.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: smokingfrog
global ocean is warmer by roughly 0.6 degrees Celsius at the surface and 0.1 degrees at depth.

"0.1 degrees at depth" = Meaningless taking accuracy of instrumentation into account.

"global ocean is warmer by roughly 0.6 degrees Celsius at the surface" = What was that nasty old sun doing during that time period?

19 posted on 04/01/2012 9:59:44 PM PDT by The Cajun (Palin, Free Republic, Mark Levin, Newt......Nuff said.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll
Scientific American has become politicized,
so I no longer credit them with veracity.
yhea..they went liberal @ least 25 years ago.

20 posted on 04/01/2012 10:00:48 PM PDT by skinkinthegrass (Kill all the terrorists; protect all the borders, ridicule all the (surviving) Liberals :^)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: smokingfrog

Scientific American - a once proud publication - has come to push a political agenda. No thanks.


21 posted on 04/01/2012 10:01:03 PM PDT by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: smokingfrog

What a stupid article...or an article for the stupid.

The 1872 measurements would only be significant if:

1. They had ocean temperature measurements from the same locations from 1737, from which they theoretically could establish a trend

2. They had ocean temperature measurements from the same locations immediately prior to and periodically after the industrial revolution and the associated increase in the use of CO2 producing hydrocarbon energy sources that came with it.

In other words, the article is complete BS.


22 posted on 04/01/2012 10:05:25 PM PDT by rottndog (Be Prepared for what's coming AFTER America....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SaraJohnson
Speaking of so-called “humanists”, ever see this comparison . . . ?
23 posted on 04/01/2012 10:12:59 PM PDT by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: rottndog

Actually, the title is a complete lie, because it says ‘135 Years of Records’ - but that’s not the case.

They’re only comparing a 135 year old record made by one ship to some modern day measurements.


24 posted on 04/01/2012 10:17:39 PM PDT by smokingfrog ( sleep with one eye open (<o> ---)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: rottndog

The earth as been warming since the last glacial period...

Evidence of warming over the long term isn’t in dispute.

The issue is man causing it.

So far there is zero evidence man is.


25 posted on 04/01/2012 10:20:47 PM PDT by DB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: smokingfrog
.1 degree in 135 years? Even without the "margin of error" and antiquated equipment, does anyone other than the nose-picking, hand-wringing, liberal donks really give a $h!+?

The ocean currents are in constant movement and variations that small mean nothing.

The only thing "revealed" by this hogwash is the left's desparation in trying to sell the rest of us on this global warming myth.
26 posted on 04/01/2012 10:26:05 PM PDT by FrankR
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll
Four months ago I read a report that deep ocean warming hadn’t altered much.

Scientific American has become politicized, so I no longer credit them with veracity.

So you consider an increase of 0.1 degrees to be an exaggeration?

27 posted on 04/01/2012 10:27:00 PM PDT by Doe Eyes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: smokingfrog
1600 AD -1850 : (LITTLE ICE AGE------ see LORD NELSON, CAPTAIN COOK) "Their studies have raised questions about modern climate change theories. A paper by Dennis Wheeler, a geographer based at Sunderland University, recounts an increasing number of summer storms over Britain in the late 17th century. Many scientists believe that storms are caused by global warming, but these [in the new study] came during the so-called Little Ice Age that affected Europe from about 1600 to 1850. The records also suggest that Europe saw a spell of rapid warming, similar to that experienced today, during the 1730s that must have been caused naturally." ------Lord Nelson and Captain Cook's shiplogs question climate change theories, Daily Telegraph (UK) ^ | August 4, 2008 | Tom Peterkin

http:/www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2496902/Lord-Nelson-and-Captain-Cooks-shiplogs-question-climate-change-theories.html Posted on Monday, August 04, 2008 6:18:54 AM by Cincinatus

28 posted on 04/01/2012 10:27:31 PM PDT by piasa (Attitude adjustments offered here free of charge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: smokingfrog

Yes, very lame.

Were the thermometers in use at that time even remotely that accurate? Did they have 0.1 degree C resolution? Especially one that could be lowered to 900 meters and brought back to the surface to read...

But these days anything goes in “science” that reinforces the required dogma.


29 posted on 04/01/2012 10:29:05 PM PDT by DB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Doe Eyes

I consider it completely meaningless.


30 posted on 04/01/2012 10:30:09 PM PDT by DB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: FrankR

As you say, there’s a large number of variables from ocean currents to el niño/la niña that makes a 0.1 degree difference 135 years ago meaningless.


31 posted on 04/01/2012 10:35:10 PM PDT by DB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: skinkinthegrass
yhea..they went liberal @ least 25 years ago.

Longer than that
As soon as PC reared its ugly head, I canceled. that was soon after the SA introduced its long article on Cognitive Dissonance. sometime in the 60s or 70s.

32 posted on 04/01/2012 10:37:35 PM PDT by Publius6961 (It’s easy to make phony promises you can’t keep. - Obama, Feb23, 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: DB

That’s generally what I was alluding to.


33 posted on 04/01/2012 10:40:46 PM PDT by rottndog (Be Prepared for what's coming AFTER America....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: smokingfrog
135 Years of Records Reveals Deep Ocean Warming

"Ocean warming, ocean warming! ....Man-made ocean warming! We must have an ocean warming tax!"

34 posted on 04/01/2012 10:45:07 PM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Doe Eyes
So you consider an increase of 0.1 degrees to be an exaggeration?

No.
More like a coincidence or random chance. Others have addressed that.
Repeatability is meaningless unless location and other parameters are tightly controlled.

35 posted on 04/01/2012 10:46:32 PM PDT by Publius6961 (It’s easy to make phony promises you can’t keep. - Obama, Feb23, 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: smokingfrog

It wouldn’t shock me.
Seismic activity seems to be at a peak.


36 posted on 04/01/2012 10:46:43 PM PDT by mylife (The Roar Of The Masses Could Be Farts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: foundedonpurpose

The blue ones stop you from screaming.


37 posted on 04/01/2012 10:49:33 PM PDT by mylife (The Roar Of The Masses Could Be Farts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: smokingfrog

I guess we’ll just have to add the “special chemical” to the oceans now.

The one that causes water to change color when folks pee in it.

They’ll have to be identified via the coloration change and then fined substantially for “warming” Mother Gaia.

It’s the only way this “alarming trend” can be stopped.


38 posted on 04/01/2012 10:51:51 PM PDT by SZonian (Throwing our allegiances to political party's in the long run gave away our liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Publius6961
proably...i first noticed SA in Sept. '77,
Microelectronics special issue..it WAS a great sci. mag.

39 posted on 04/01/2012 10:52:50 PM PDT by skinkinthegrass (Kill all the terrorists; protect all the borders, ridicule all the (surviving) Liberals :^)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

Thanks. I am too tired to get through that tonight but willl read it tomorrow. :)


40 posted on 04/01/2012 10:53:31 PM PDT by SaraJohnson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv

I’m glad it’s still above -2 degrees C, give or take a pinch of salt.


41 posted on 04/01/2012 11:09:29 PM PDT by BIGLOOK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: FrankR; All
The ocean currents are in constant movement and variations that small mean nothing.

Perpetual Ocean
42 posted on 04/01/2012 11:16:54 PM PDT by rottndog (Be Prepared for what's coming AFTER America....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: smokingfrog
In 1872, how did they obtain an accurate temperature measurement at 900 meters?

The instrument had to be pulled back on ship to read, correct?

At the very least, that means it spent 1 or 2 minutes in progressively warmer water.

Were temperatures read on deck in hot summer sunshine?

Were they read in freezing winter winds?

Has anyone rebuilt the 1872 instrument and tested it against the exquisitely precise 2012 instruments?

43 posted on 04/01/2012 11:19:00 PM PDT by zeestephen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SaraJohnson
It was very serious when humanists moved into business and science departments of University and culturally cleansed western ethics. Now it is realitivity and scientific process means nil. They always controled the soft sciences and they made no sense but everyone knew they were socialist political activists. Now they own hard science and so the West’s progress will decline accordingly.

Excellent point.

44 posted on 04/01/2012 11:23:40 PM PDT by VeniVidiVici (The Democrat Ku Klux Klan is alive and well nowadays as the NAACP and the Congressional Black Caucus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: smokingfrog

there are obviously too many fish in the ocean putting out much too much body heat - get yer fishin boats boys, we gotta go save the planet !


45 posted on 04/02/2012 12:17:12 AM PDT by blueplum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: smokingfrog

0.1 degrees 100 years ago?

i’m going with measurement error


46 posted on 04/02/2012 1:03:59 AM PDT by sten (fighting tyranny never goes out of style)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Doe Eyes

I don’t believe them.


47 posted on 04/02/2012 1:13:06 AM PDT by SatinDoll (No Foreign Nationals as our President!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Publius6961

Isn’t SA owned by Germans?


48 posted on 04/02/2012 2:17:49 AM PDT by Right Wing Assault (Dick Obama is more inexperienced now than he was before he was elected.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: zeestephen
In 1872, how did they obtain an accurate temperature measurement at 900 meters? The instrument had to be pulled back on ship to read, correct? At the very least, that means it spent 1 or 2 minutes in progressively warmer water. Were temperatures read on deck in hot summer sunshine? Were they read in freezing winter winds?

Those questions would not have mattered, since they would have been using simple but very accurate max/min mercury thermometers of the kind still used by gardeners in greenhouses. These have pins sealed into the u-shaped glass tube which are pushed by the two extremities of the mercury column. The pins stay at the maximum and minimum positions reached until reset by a magnet after a reading has been taken.

This would give a measurement of the coldest temperature reached in that sounding: but of course the coldest temperature would not necessarily be at the greatest depth. To check that would need repeated soundings at the same location, but at progressively reducing depths. Which, knowing the thoroughness of Victorian scientists, I've little doubt they did. I'd be wary, too, of underestimating the accuracy of Victorian scientific instruments.

49 posted on 04/02/2012 2:50:56 AM PDT by Winniesboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: smokingfrog

Isn’t the Challenger Deep, deepest part of the Marianas Trench, named after the British ship Challenger? I remember watching a show on History Channel, “How the Earth was Made” about the trench and the work the Brits did on the late 1800’s measuring the ocean, discovering the depth of the trench with a rope and an iron weight.


50 posted on 04/02/2012 3:08:40 AM PDT by submarinerswife (Insanity is doing the same thing over and over, while expecting different results~Einstein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-63 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson