Deep oceans warming at an alarming rate

Originally posted by Britguy
Warmer water rises, it doesn't sink and warm up the water at lower depths. Therefore if they are saying that very deep water is warming, then that heat source must be coming from below, not above!
Of course, they never factor in natural warming sources such as undersea vents and volcanic activity. In fact, I remember seeing a rather startling quote a while back from one of the manic man-made climate change pushing "scientists", where he even admitted that they just don't know how many vents and volcanoes there are in the oceans, and so don't factor that into their calculations! Say what?

No it does not mean the warming it coming from below. The circulation of the oceans is dependant on temperature and salinity. Have a look at Thermohaline circulation if you are interested.

The term thermohaline circulation (THC) refers to a part of the large-scale ocean circulation that is driven by global density gradients created by surface heat and freshwater fluxes.[1][2] The adjective thermohaline derives from thermo- referring to temperature and -haline referring to salt content, factors which together determine the density of sea water.

en.wikipedia.org...

Hm, they didn't give a time frame for the "dramatic warming". If you're in the middle of summer, of course oceans will warm up.

And even if, as the guy in the link say, oceans do warm up not just seasonally but after years of study (which isn't specified in the article), it cites as cause, "human CO2". They obviously forgot that in 1940 the CO2 climbed up but the global temperature dropped as a result.

And "human" CO2 doesn't explain how come other planets in the solar system experiences climatic changes too.

www.newscientist.com...

Now I know this isn't just on oceans warming but also to do with methane gas rising from lakes and ocean beds, and also man made by fracking, but I thought it was an interesting snippet of an article on the dangers of methane gas potentially and not just heating the planet but potentially suffocating.

reply to post by swanne


i think u need to read this regarding CO2 and temperature.
www.skepticalscience.com...

Also if any of the planets are going under a climate change then you are right human co2 dosent explain that. I wonder why? You dont think its coz we are not living on those planets?.....
BTW heres a hint no planets path around the sun is a true circle....not to mention planets have its own internal heat which drives its weather.

If I'm not mistaken are not all the planets in the solar system heating up.

I am truly confused... not as to what's happening to the planet's climate, because that is itself essentially unknown by even the most advanced climatologists, but how the media can get away with such reports as this one.

The very first line raises red flags for me:

Despite mixed signals from warming ocean surface waters, a new re-analysis of data from the depths suggests dramatic warming of the deep sea is under way because of anthropogenic climate change.

Mixed signals (no reliable indication of warming) at the surface of the oceans... warming from the depths. Simple logic says the heat is coming from below and not above. If I am looking for an overheated component on a circuit board, I follow the heat to its source, not move away from the heat to check out something on cooler areas of the board. If I see a pot of water sitting on an appliance boiling, I do not assume the heat is coming from the air above it; I assume the heat is coming from the appliance underneath it.

The scientists report that the deep seas are taking in more heat than expected, which is taking some of the warming off the Earth’s surface, but it will not do so forever.

Too bad they do not go into the mechanism that allows heat to move into one area while bypassing another en route. I guess the heat is trying to get away from the cold ice.

I could go on for volumes about what is wrong with this article, but the real clincher for me is this:

“It's more than speculation and suggestion,” agrees climate scientist Gavin Schmidt of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, “and it's probably right to a reasonable degree. The fact of the matter is we'll never be able to get data from below 400 meters in the middle of the Pacific Ocean” because there is not enough money invested in ocean sensors to cover such places. “So we have to use physics to fill in the gaps.”

Translation:
"We think we're right. We can't prove it because we don't have enough money, so we have to guess at most of the data and theorize with assumed data, but we're right nonetheless."

Don't worry folks. We won't be freezing in a fiery flood tomorrow.

TheRedneck

reply to post by TheRedneck


Freezing in a fiery flood! That is so funny!!

reply to post by Elliot

I have to give credit where credit is due: that's a line I stole from Glenn Beck. Haven't listened to him in ages since he went off the deep end, but I do like that one line.

TheRedneck

reply to post by TheRedneck

If I see a pot of water sitting on an appliance boiling, I do not assume the heat is coming from the air above it; I assume the heat is coming from the appliance underneath it.

It's not going to be so simple to debunk these claims out of hand like you're trying to do with this 'oh duh' analogy. Did the oceans somehow not have currents or mixing at all over the past 135 years or so of oceanic warming?

Changing temperature throughout the oceans is a key indicator
of climate change. Since the 1960s about 90% of the excess
heat added to the Earth’s climate system has been stored in the
oceans1,2. The ocean’s dominant role over the atmosphere, land,
or cryosphere comes from its high heat capacity and ability to
remove heat from the sea surface by currents and mixing. The
longest interval over which instrumental records of subsurface
global-scale temperature can be compared is the 135 years
between the voyage of HMS Challenger3
(1872–1876) and
the modern data set of the Argo Programme4
(2004–2010).
Argo’s unprecedented global coverage permits its comparison
with any earlier measurements. This, the first global-scale
comparison of Challenger and modern data, shows spatial
mean warming at the surface of 0:59 C  0:12, consistent
with previous estimates5 of globally averaged sea surface
temperature increase. Below the surface the mean warming
decreases to 0:39 C  0:18 at 366 m (200 fathoms) and
0:12 C  0:07 at 914 m (500 fathoms). The 0:33 C  0:14
average temperature difference from 0 to 700 m is twice the
value observed globally in that depth range over the past 50
years6
, implying a centennial timescale for the present rate of
global warming.Warming in the Atlantic Ocean is stronger than
in the Pacific. Systematic errors in the Challenger data mean
that these temperature changes are a lower bound on the actual
values. This study underlines the scientific significance of the
Challenger expedition and the modern Argo Programme and
indicates that globally the oceans have been warming at least
since the late-nineteenth or early-twentieth century

Sorry for the formatting, obviously copied from a pdf.
Source

reply to post by Kali74

Yes, the analogy is greatly simplified, and yes, oceanic currents are plentiful. However, taken as a summation, there has to be as many currents rising as there are falling. It seems to me the effect would be a mixing, not a concentration of heat overall.

The general tendency is for warmer water to rise, as it would be of lower density than colder water. This will be offset to a large degree by salinity, as has been stated. The only way I can see the lower depths warming while the surface remains mixed would be if the vast majority of high-salinity waters were being warmed by the air and not the low-salinity waters. If you provide me with some reasoning behind how that is occurring, I might be able to reverse my position; I simply cannot grasp how such a thing would be happening. The different currents are widely distributed and warming from the atmosphere would be on the average fairly consistent across latitudes.

TheRedneck

reply to post by TheRedneck

If I am looking for an overheated component on a circuit board, I follow the heat to its source,

That would be the ice melt in Antarctica, but that is only the indicator of a problem, not the problem itself.

We have lots of components overheating at this time, and CO2 levels at one the highest rates ever according to the geological record is probably also a good indicator of what is wrong,

"Burning in water, drowning in flame." CB

Originally posted by Elliot
Ever read 'Not by Fire but By Ice' by Robert Felix?

Deep ocean warming could trigger severe climatic events and sudden global atmospheric cooling. An interesting theory, but so interesting that yes the oceans are warming rapidly with undersea volacanic activity increasing. All planets inthe solar system appear to be warming.

How odd.... a couple years ago I read, somewhere, that the solar system was moving into a region of space that contained "more ambient energy"... unfortunately I do not remember exactly what was meant and it was tied up in the 2012 stuff that I wasn't taking seriously at the time. The prediction, though, was that systems would become more energetic, such as vulcanism as well as the sun becoming more active.

I wish I could remember where I read that to go back and see if there was any truth or reality to it.

reply to post by TheRedneck


No, it doesn't work that way.

Temperature variability in a body of water is standard. When is the last time you went swimming It is not even close to being simple in the way you want to look at it. You need to look up those sources on your own if you are interested in the truth about GW, not expect people to spoon feed it to you.

I know you are smart enough to understand this, you are an excellent poster.

The deep water is still colder and more dense than water closer to the surface, but the deep waters are slightly warmer than what they were a decade ago, and before that, and that warming is causing the deep waters to expand.

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by TheRedneck

 

If I am looking for an overheated component on a circuit board, I follow the heat to its source,

That would be the ice melt in Antarctica, but that is only the indicator of a problem, not the problem itself.

We have lots of components overheating at this time, and CO2 levels at one the highest rates ever according to the geological record is probably also a good indicator of what is wrong,

"Burning in water, drowning in flame." CB

The problem with the current "global warming" models is that they do not take into account our weakening magnetic field as well as solar activity.
They are insistent on blaming man for all, but there is more solar radiation entering the atmosphere due to the weakened magnetosphere. The magnetosphere can dwarf any effect man can have on our climate.
Solar activity, whether increased or decreased will play a huge part in future climate change as well.

reply to post by bbracken677


Some parts of the solar system are warming, and some parts are cooling, overall the solar system is not heating up.

Yes, it is believed that we are starting to move to an area of space with higher energy, but we will not get there for thousands of years. We see it down the road, but we are not there yet.

reply to post by bbracken677


Can you provide a link to a scientific report from a credible source that backs this claim, or provide a credible explanation backed by facts to support such an idea, because I have never read anything that show that fluctuations in the Earths magnetic field allows more energy from the sun to warm our planet.

This explanation sounds more like clutching at straws to deny the obvious, because people with lots of money spread lots of propaganda to allow people to cling to denial about Global Warming.

Did you know that we have a huge Jupiter sized plasma sphere around our planet that protects the Earth from the sun, and there is that ozone layer damaged by Freon and hair spray.

Ships are sailing across the Arctic Ocean from the Atlantic to the Pacific due to ice melt. This is happening, it is real.

reply to post by TheRedneck


Science Daily

In the last half-century or so, the subtropical Atlantic has been getting gradually saltier -- a less than 1 percent increase in real terms, but an effect that is nevertheless significant. “It might sound like quite a small change,” says Stott, “but the overall salinity of our oceans is naturally relatively steady, so it’s actually a lot of freshwater being factored out of the ocean.”
Stott’s analysis suggests that global warming is changing precipitation patterns over our planet. Higher temperatures increase evaporation in subtropical zones; the moisture is then carried by the atmosphere towards higher latitudes (towards the poles), and by trade winds across Central America to the Pacific, where it provides more precipitation. This process concentrates the salt in the water left behind in the North Atlantic, causing salinity to increase.

The dots connect, no matter how often it's repeated that they don't.

reply to post by poet1b

Gonna combine both responses here for simplicity.

That would be the ice melt in Antarctica

Are you talking about the Arctic? It has lost a substantial amount of ice (and this is apparently due at least in part to an increase in temperature of incoming Pacific waters), but Antarctica has not. Glaciers must break off to balance the new snows across the interior. It's been happening since prehistory.

We have lots of components overheating at this time, and CO2 levels at one the highest rates ever according to the geological record

I'm not convinced of that. In the first case, there is a small number of CO2 sensors across the globe to measure concentration, and in the second place the detection processes themselves have some unanswered questions. Measuring the spectroscopy seems to be the most common method, but the data is somewhat muddled by the other 99.96% of the atmospheric components. Water vapor in particular has such a wide spectroscopy range (not to mention its variability in the atmosphere is huge) as to cover the CO2 range pretty effectively.

I'm also not convinced the CO2 levels are the highest they have been during the planet's life-sustaining existence. While I don't have the data right at hand, I do seem to remember that CO2 levels have been significantly higher at times. I'll try to find that information as soon as I have time.

When is the last time you went swimming

A very very very long time ago. I actually have a strangely dense body structure, meaning I do not float; I sink like a rock. Thus, I try to stay out of any body of water that is higher than five feet or so and never learned to swim.

I also have an abnormally high body resistance to electricity. Go figure.

The deep water is still colder and more dense than water closer to the surface, but the deep waters are slightly warmer than what they were a decade ago, and before that, and that warming is causing the deep waters to expand.

A fair enough explanation.

The question of a mechanism to move the heat into the lower depths is still not answered, however. Heat will over time move through conduction and convection in a medium. If the lower depths have warmed substantially and the surface has not done so, then what is keeping the heat isolated? It seems incredible to me that the heat energy is being contained below the location the heat is being produced without affecting the medium separating the two. Even taking currents into consideration, there should be at least a corresponding increase of temperature between the heat source and the heat sink.

Understand I am as curious as you as to what this will cause (if anything) and also curious as to why the water is warmer. I simply cannot in good faith attribute it to that demon we all have come to know and hate: CO2.

TheRedneck

reply to post by Kali74

God, I hate when this happens... I really do. I went to the article you quoted from expecting (I guess based on the name) to read some serious information. But the first line is:

We know that average sea levels have risen over the past century, and that global warming is to blame.

In the first place, I have yet to see a global map that shows land disappearing across the globe under a rising sea level. Forget calculations, assertions, suppositions, and scientific reports.... land is not disappearing across the planet. Seafront dwellers from America to Australia are not being forced to retreat as water covers their homes. Ergo, the sea is not rising.

(Incidentally, before anyone jumps, single-location reports of disappearing land are not evidence of a sea level rise... a sea level rise will occur planet-wide. It cannot occur any other way unless someone has figured out a way to alter gravity itself.]

Secondly, the cause of this non-existent phenomenon is not proven beyond any doubt to be carbon dioxide levels. This is a theory.

Once I get beyond all that, the article does mention increasing salinity levels and this does concern me. But even if the atmosphere is warming at the rate claimed, the increased evaporation rate would cause immeasurably small salinity changes. Ergo, the data may be accurate, but that does not mean the speculation in the article is accurate.

Actual scientific articles do not make such assertions, especially at the outset. They explain a theory and expound on evidence to support it. Unfounded and obviously biased assumptions indicate propaganda, not information.

You mention connecting dots, but that doesn't always give meaningful conclusions. I can connect the dots in the night sky and see Orion, the mighty hunter... that doesn't mean he is going to shoot a literal arrow into the moon.

TheRedneck

Originally posted by TheRedneck
"We think we're right. We can't prove it because we don't have enough money, so we have to guess at most of the data and theorize with assumed data, but we're right nonetheless."

Shh! You're spoiling the effect of the Great Global Warming Scare. If you're not a believer of the CO2 demon, you'll be considered heretic!

Nice posts.