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 ...
Scientific American - a once proud publication - has come to push a political agenda. No thanks.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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
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.
I consider it completely meaningless.
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.
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.
That’s generally what I was alluding to.
"Ocean warming, ocean warming! ....Man-made ocean warming! We must have an ocean warming tax!"
No.
More like a coincidence or random chance. Others have addressed that.
Repeatability is meaningless unless location and other parameters are tightly controlled.
It wouldn’t shock me.
Seismic activity seems to be at a peak.
The blue ones stop you from screaming.
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.
Thanks. I am too tired to get through that tonight but willl read it tomorrow. :)
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.