Rapidly Warming Oceans Set to Release Heat Into the Atmosphere

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: lostbook

Go fill your bathtub with cool water and blow your blow dryer over it How long does it take to heat the tub? (Note: do not get in the tub with the blow dryer)

You would been a saltwater bathtub with its own 'gulf stream' conveyor, and enough depth to increase pressure and trap the heat.

Atlantic hold key to global warming hiatus

The key to the slowdown in global warming in recent years could lie in the depths of the Atlantic and Southern oceans where excess heat is being stored – not the Pacific Ocean as has previously been suggested, according to new research.

But the finding suggests that a naturally occurring ocean cycle burying the heat will flip in around 15 years’ time, causing global temperature rises to accelerate again.

Key part is here:

A shift in the salinity of the north Atlantic triggered the effect around the turn of the century, the study says, as surface water there became saltier and more dense, sinking and taking surface heat down to depths of more than 300 meters.

a reply to: defcon5

You seem to forget the underlying cause of acidification... You do realize I hope, that the earth is a reasonably finite self contained eco-system with its own integral feedback network, right?

If too much CO2 goes into the oceans, more plankton is produced, if there is more CO2 in the air, land based plants grow better and faster, in both cases, plankton and other plants absorb and process CO2. Now, if plankton isn't on the rise and more land plant growth isn't occurring, there must be another problem interfering with the feedback mechanism of the eco-system, could that be pollution in general? Meaning the rampant and insane pollution of the oceans (and everything else) by multinationals and mega corporations, does BP bring anything to mind?

All of us "little people" have no control over how BP and other corporations run their businesses and destroy the planet. That is supposed to be up to "representative" government (laughing about that oxymoron). The problem there, is the government ONLY represents the corporations. So laws need to be put in place with interesting fines and sentences for massive contributions to planetary destruction, sentences like CEO's being tried and hung, and the same goes for the politicians that support this kind of destructive activity. Until we start getting laws that are enforced for the worst contributors, none of this means anything.

Until we get control over the corruption in governments, it can only get worse because we, the "little people" are being sacrificed along with the planet daily for the sake of power, greed and avarice.

All that being said, I still don't believe mankind is primary driver (or even a close second) of this alleged global climate change (it's called weather and the planets has cycles). I'm not narcissistic enough to believe that at this point in our technological evolution, we are capable of controlling the direction of an entire planet's eco-system. But to each their own, just keep your buddies in government the f*** out my wallet, because I have already reduced my energy footprint by 72% ;-)

Cheers - Dave

originally posted by: lostbook

According to an article in Scientific American, The Ocean is warming; rapidly. Even more rapid than scientists knew before. Apparently, for every 10 joules of energy produced by greenhouse gasses, 9 joules are absorbed into the ocean; thus we have the warming.

...

Oh well, it's coming Soon, I suppose. What says ATS?

Good.

It's about time.

I'm freezing over here, and every time I try to light a fire to get warm, someone starts bitching about a "carbon footprint".

They can bitch to the universe when the universe warms it up instead.

originally posted by: Greven
a reply to: pheonix358

Simple question: does adding CO2 to an atmosphere make it warmer, ceteris paribus?
"Yes" or "No" will suffice.

Simple answers are what the alarmists are banking - key, word there, "banking" - on people thinking to be sufficient. It's harder to pull the wool over folks' eyes if they get into the devils of the details, much easier if they can be led around by the "simple answers".

I don't know about everyone else, but as this is my first year in the tropical rain forest mountain region of the United States, I am going to say its fairly balmy this year.

At current moment it is 58 degrees and raining this non stop rain.. we have green grass and moss in the trees. So, while the rest of you are trapped indoors with cold, we are trapped by torrential rain.

Have fun with the cold!

a reply to: nenothtu

your only freezing because you have no fat on your body. Its 58 degrees and I can sit on the porch with no jacket or shoes - not even socks.

Suck it up baby!

You would need more than a blow dryer and a a bath tub to model ocean temperature variations. You would also need to use heat lamps, regular incandescent light bulbs and UV lamps to model solar radiation, plus a ceiling several thousand meters high to model the atmosphere and weather conditions such as clouds, rain and thunderstorms. You would also have to model the Coriolis effect that generates hurricanes. Then you would also have to model the ocean convection currents that transport water around the planet.

Solar radiation is around 2 kilowatt/square meter around the equator. That leads to the water on the surface heating up for millions of square kilometers to the point of evaporation. It takes several kilowatts of energy just to heat up a couple of kilograms of water in a kettle, so heating up an entire ocean takes terawatts of energy. And that does happen, leading to long period ocean circulation oscillations like El Nino/Nina:

www.whoi.edu...

These operate like automatic thermostats, where heat or cold buildup occurs until the circulation switches off, then the temperature in that area returns to normal, only to start up again. Some of these take 15 to 25 years to reach one extreme or the other, and there are a good number of such oscillations, so most of the time they are cancelling out each other.

a reply to: cloaked4u
Hey that's probably why they have been putting up clouds like crazy over populated areas, you know those funny clouds you get up every time in summer, some people call them chemtrails. There probably trying to compensate for that hole in the atmosphere. Maybe they should spray over the ocean...Like they could even if they would. Lots of a area to cover. And if there is a hole in the atmosphere, well who put it there?

a reply to: ANNED
That's the thing. It would be good for some places, and really bad for other places, so dry California may get more precipitation, or it may eventually get more sun and turn more into a desert slowly. So it may or may not be good because the weather wont so much tune up or down, more like shift, and in time you will see if its good or a bad thing.

a reply to: bobs_uruncle
That could be the thing, the output of the sun greatly effect the planet, a lower output or a higher even if a little, well like you said things can change drastically. In all its likely a combination of things, both man made and outside our influence which will dictate the change. If it was purely man-made, to tell the truth we should be so lucky to have so much under our control even if were not using it....I however do not think any species that ever existed on this planet was ever that lucky.

originally posted by: Bilk22
a reply to: lostbook

How come it's always "more than they knew" with these type of articles? The only thing that says to me is they really know nothing as fact.

...because we know the science enough to predict it will happen as a fact, but not enough to calculate an exact number, only a close estimate.

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle

originally posted by: Colbomoose
You joke about something that is going to decimate the planet. Read the IPCC report and your smug foolish attitude would change.
a reply to: theMediator

The IPCC report? You mean that fraudulent science chocolate coated turd?

We have been performing a side-study in Lake Ontario for 24 years (since 1990) that requires at-depth temperature measurement and data collection. Lake Ontario provides an excellent model due to its size and that it is an average holomictic lake with reasonable centre currents and mixing effects. Every year our 32 probes, monitoring at 10' from the lake floor, dropped in temperature by an average of between 0.11 and 0.14 degrees C (lower than the previous year) based on 86,400 samples per day per probe or roughly 31.5 million samples per year per probe. Now this has been consistent for the last 24 years and was funded by Canadian government research institutes and universities. The trend indicates an elongated cooling cycle, NOT A WARMING CYCLE.

It indicates that we are moving towards another (mini) Ice Age, or global cooling NOT global warming. We've seen the same effect in two meromictic lakes as well, that were tested in eastern ontario, not as dramatic as 0.11 to 0.14, but we still see a drop in average temperature of 0.07 to 0.09 degrees C. Now this could be happening for one of two reasons; 1. Global Warming (anthropogenic or natural) is a myth created to obfuscate the true nature of the climate problem or ; 2. The earth is expanding and the crust is "cooling", thermal transfer from core/magma to crust is decreasing. Now a third possibility has been offered by another physicist in our group, but so far we haven't been able to prove his hypothesis (it requires a great deal of funding), that being that due to the decrease in solar active and the possible decrease in the emission of neutrinos, the interaction (potential kinetic transfer) occurring in the giant MRI we call the "core" has decreased consistently causing the thermal transfer rate to the crust to decrease.

So, there you have it, choose your poison. Now wasn't that load of BS really easy to type? Believe the IPCC if you choose but it isn't real hard to make up a story and in their case flog the hell out of it.

Cheers - Dave

So instead of believing nearly all the world's scientists about climate change, or nearly every damn scientific organization that believes the world's oceans are warming, we're supposed to take your word for it because you and a couple of homies did a study in Lake Ontario of all places? Lake Ontario is smack dab in the middle of one of the coldest regions over the past couple of years, so it isn't hard to believe that their waters aren't warming, in direct contrast to the rest of the world, which is warming.

a reply to: lostbook

The ocean in the pacific is freezing, hoping it becomes like the Caribbean soon.

Ok, no one on this thread pointed out that the earths magnetic field moved. Someone pointed out the 'hole' that is caused by magnetic hole, or tried to anyway. SO, if the magnetic pole moved, then the weather moved with it. THAT is what we are seeing and that is part of the cycle of ice expansion and contraction. Ice has grown in some places and shrunk in others just like it would naturally do if the patterns have moved to some new arrangements as they surely have. Steven Goddard climatecrocks.com... gives me reasons to believe we are being lied to as well as any. Someone is lying and some truths are being put out there but ignored when summaries are written.

a reply to: Rezlooper

So instead of believing nearly all the world's scientists ...

Here is another from the "nearly all scientists" that joined sceptics:
Meteorologist Lennart Bengtsson Joins Climate Skeptic

And here an example of how the illusion of "nearly all scientists" is maintained:
Scientists accused of suppressing research because of climate sceptic argument - Telegraph

originally posted by: stormcell
You would need more than a blow dryer and a a bath tub to model ocean temperature variations. You would also need to use heat lamps, regular incandescent light bulbs and UV lamps to model solar radiation, plus a ceiling several thousand meters high to model the atmosphere and weather conditions such as clouds, rain and thunderstorms. You would also have to model the Coriolis effect that generates hurricanes. Then you would also have to model the ocean convection currents that transport water around the planet.

Solar radiation is around 2 kilowatt/square meter around the equator. That leads to the water on the surface heating up for millions of square kilometers to the point of evaporation. It takes several kilowatts of energy just to heat up a couple of kilograms of water in a kettle, so heating up an entire ocean takes terawatts of energy. And that does happen, leading to long period ocean circulation oscillations like El Nino/Nina:

www.whoi.edu...

These operate like automatic thermostats, where heat or cold buildup occurs until the circulation switches off, then the temperature in that area returns to normal, only to start up again. Some of these take 15 to 25 years to reach one extreme or the other, and there are a good number of such oscillations, so most of the time they are cancelling out each other.

I think you (and a few others) missed the point, the point wasn't to recreate the ocean to make a new, identical model on which we could conduct an experiment. It was simply to demonstrate what happens when the ocean temperature rises. At worst my bathtub experiment was missing a current to churn the water.

This experiment was about how fundamentally flawed the OP's article is. defies the laws of thermodynamics (or at least delays them for a ridiculous amount of time... 33 years.) No, I think this is just TPTB hedging their bets. They have a scientifically absurd paper to point to if the pause stops.

a reply to: Rezlooper

"So instead of believing nearly all the world's scientists about climate change, or nearly every damn scientific organization that believes the world's oceans are warming....."

Barely half of the American Meteorological Society supports the idea of AGW.

journals.ametsoc.org...

this is a survey of scientists with targeted atmospheric science expertise and who have demonstrated the skills and experience to qualify for AMS membership. This isn’t a poll of chemists or engineers, nor is it a position statement put together by a dozen or so members of a scientific group’s bureaucracy; it is a poll of more than 1,800 atmospheric scientists.

a reply to: defcon5

smog or sandstorm? Will you tell the truth?

originally posted by: TokiTheDestroyer
Well, the thing is, we don't have enough data from not even close to a long enough stretch of time to determine what is and what is not normal for our climate.

Exactly this.

What is the temperature of the Earth supposed to be?

originally posted by: Rezlooper

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle

originally posted by: Colbomoose
You joke about something that is going to decimate the planet. Read the IPCC report and your smug foolish attitude would change.
a reply to: theMediator

The IPCC report? You mean that fraudulent science chocolate coated turd?

We have been performing a side-study in Lake Ontario for 24 years (since 1990) that requires at-depth temperature measurement and data collection. Lake Ontario provides an excellent model due to its size and that it is an average holomictic lake with reasonable centre currents and mixing effects. Every year our 32 probes, monitoring at 10' from the lake floor, dropped in temperature by an average of between 0.11 and 0.14 degrees C (lower than the previous year) based on 86,400 samples per day per probe or roughly 31.5 million samples per year per probe. Now this has been consistent for the last 24 years and was funded by Canadian government research institutes and universities. The trend indicates an elongated cooling cycle, NOT A WARMING CYCLE.

It indicates that we are moving towards another (mini) Ice Age, or global cooling NOT global warming. We've seen the same effect in two meromictic lakes as well, that were tested in eastern ontario, not as dramatic as 0.11 to 0.14, but we still see a drop in average temperature of 0.07 to 0.09 degrees C. Now this could be happening for one of two reasons; 1. Global Warming (anthropogenic or natural) is a myth created to obfuscate the true nature of the climate problem or ; 2. The earth is expanding and the crust is "cooling", thermal transfer from core/magma to crust is decreasing. Now a third possibility has been offered by another physicist in our group, but so far we haven't been able to prove his hypothesis (it requires a great deal of funding), that being that due to the decrease in solar active and the possible decrease in the emission of neutrinos, the interaction (potential kinetic transfer) occurring in the giant MRI we call the "core" has decreased consistently causing the thermal transfer rate to the crust to decrease.

So, there you have it, choose your poison. Now wasn't that load of BS really easy to type? Believe the IPCC if you choose but it isn't real hard to make up a story and in their case flog the hell out of it.

Cheers - Dave

So instead of believing nearly all the world's scientists about climate change, or nearly every damn scientific organization that believes the world's oceans are warming, we're supposed to take your word for it because you and a couple of homies did a study in Lake Ontario of all places? Lake Ontario is smack dab in the middle of one of the coldest regions over the past couple of years, so it isn't hard to believe that their waters aren't warming, in direct contrast to the rest of the world, which is warming.

Did you not read the entire post? I was giving an example of how easy it is to write BS lol. This is what I mean, no understanding of what was written and cherry picking data points. You and every one that gave you a star fell right into the trap and that is the point.

Cheers - Dave