Deep Parts of the Greenland Sea are Warming 10 Times Faster than the World Ocean

Since 1993, oceanographers from the Alfred Wegener Institute, Helmholtz Centre for Polar and Marine Research (AWI), have carried out regularly expeditions to the Greenland Sea on board the research ice breaker Polarstern to investigate the changes in this region. The programme has always included extensive temperature and salinity measurements. For the present study, the AWI scientists have combined these long term data set with historical observations dating back to the year 1950. The result of their analysis: In the last thirty years, the water temperature between 2000 metres depth and the sea floor has risen by 0.3 degrees centigrade.

'This sounds like a small number, but we need to see this in relation to the large mass of water that has been warmed' says the AWI scientist and lead author of the study, Dr. Raquel Somavilla Cabrillo. 'The amount of heat accumulated within the lowest 1.5 kilometres in the abyssal Greenland Sea would warm the atmosphere above Europe by 4 degrees centigrade. The Greenland Sea is just a small part of the global ocean. However, the observed increase of 0.3 degrees in the deep Greenland Sea is ten times higher than the temperature increase in the global ocean on average. For this reason, this area and the remaining less studied polar oceans need to be taken into consideration'.

This is very concerning news, as this is what is believed to be one of the reasons behind the global warming slowing down - the heat is still there, but more heat is going deeper into the ocean (around 30% more).

Graph of the surface warming:



I personally am the supporter of the theory, whatever some people might say. I am not a weather scientist nor a professional in the matter, although from the knowledge I have on the matter, from the conversations I have had with professionals in the field (including a very close friend) and the studies I have given my look at, in my opinion as an engineer, this is a very serious issue that will have very strong consequences in the not-so-far future unless it is not dealt with, if its not too late already.

reply to post by Cabin


And the Arctic sea ice, while larger in area, is much more shallow. Neither situation bodes well at all.

Bump.

I guess its safe too say,, that ,1. Pakistan has an new Island,, hmmm , from whence did it come i dont know, must be magic. 2. Alaska, has a new volcano forming,, (or a shale fire), 3. Italy got a new Volcano form in the middle of a streat.,,
and heat rises soooo ,, im guessing its more of a bottom area of heat distribution,,ie volcanic seams,, seems too be the obvious,, choice .

reply to post by BobAthome


To bad scientists don't seem to agree with you.

The sun is at a low now but temps are still climbing I hate to see what happens when the sun picks back up unfortunately I probably will.

reply to post by Cabin


As the temp. of the oceans change, so will the currents. Ocean currents are the determining factors of weather. Yes Cabin, this is potentially very serious indeed.

Nothing to see hear. It's cold somewhere, and they'll be alright. Just you listen to them. They'll assure you.

And it's inevitable anyway. So what, we can add more carbon to the atmosphere. Who cares, it's inevitable.

And we all die anyway, so what will it matter in 50-100 years. Your kids? They're probly snotty nosed xbox cretins and they'll know what to do. Pew pew, and they may be encased in a concrete tomb utilising googles artificial climate controls, with all the mod cons at their finger tips to avail themselves of social interaction as requested.

Just smoke a ciggy, throw the butt on the lawn, cast your empties adrift to the gyres and ponder, in awe, the magnificence of humans in all our glory. Masters of nature. Creators of innovation that help to expand our wealth at the expense of our environment. We are kings of the world. Lower animals? Let them eat polystyrene.

reply to post by Cabin


Link to AWI Study

From an interview with two scientists from the AWI.

AWI

If it is considered that a solar energy of 1369 watts per square metre hits the outer periphery of our atmosphere per second and 30 per cent of this is reflected, this change in relationship to the overall area of our planet is only 0.1 watts per square metre, i.e. just about three tenths per thousand. It creates a change in temperature of only a few hundredths of a degree and accordingly is not sufficient to explain the current climate fluctuations alone.

For this reason the IPCC Report also states very clearly that the natural fluctuations of the Sun account for only around five per cent of the temperature change.

You're an engineer, so you're required to think logically. If variations in solar activity are ruled out, then what were the causes for similiar or even higher warming rates and temperatures in the artic region over the past 2000 years? If it was not the sun or human CO2, then what was it?



Arctic Atlantic Region 2,000yr Recon.

They also said this. What would be considered normal in the context of thousands of years?

If we consider the global annual temperature data, we can see that we have not had a “normal year” since 1978. “Normal“ means that the annual average temperature is commensurate with the average values of the years from 1950 to 1980.

You will find this statement in the IPCC AR5 released tomorrow. They're only about 50% sure it's anomalous but cannot provide an explanation what has warmed the Arctic in the past and what is different today.

There is medium confidence from reconstructions that summer sea ice retreat and increase in sea surface temperatures in the Arctic over the past three decades are anomalous in the perspective of at least the last 2,000 years

And why has it stopped warming?

Max-Planck-Institute for Meteorology

In recent years, the increase in near-surface global annual mean temperatures has emerged as considerably smaller than many had expected. We investigate whether this can be explained by contemporary climate change scenarios.

In contrast to earlier analyses for a ten-year period that indicated consistency between models and observations at the 5% confidence level, we find that the continued warming stagnation over fifteen years, from 1998 -2012, is no longer consistent with model projections even at the 2% confidence level.