Monday, January 8, 2018

New Scientific Study Indicates Oceans Have Only Warmed 0.1 Degrees Celsius in Past 50 Years

The Scripps Institution of Oceanography published a new study in the January 4, 2018 issue of Nature which casts doubts on the anthropogenic global warming doomsday scenario that sharply rising ocean temperatures doom the planet.  In a summary, the Institution summarizes its the new technique for measuring ocean temperature and the findings in the study:
There is a new way to measure the average temperature of the ocean thanks to researchers at Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of California San Diego. In an article published in the Jan. 4, 2018, issue of the journal Nature, geoscientist Jeff Severinghaus and colleagues at Scripps Oceanography and institutions in Switzerland and Japan detailed their ground-breaking approach. 
Determining changes in the average temperature of the entire world’s ocean has proven
NASA has been a leader in sounding the alarm about rising sea levels
to be a nearly impossible task due to the distribution of different water masses. Each layer of water can have drastically different temperatures, so determining the average over the entirety of the ocean’s surface and depths presents a challenge. 
Severinghaus and colleagues were able to bypass these obstacles by determining the value indirectly. Instead of measuring water temperature, they determined the ratio of noble gases in the atmosphere, which are in direct relation to the ocean’s temperature. 
“This method is a radically new way to measure change in total ocean heat,” said Severinghaus. “It takes advantage of the fact that the atmosphere is well-mixed, so a single measurement anywhere in the world can give you the answer.”   
In the study, the scientists measured values of the noble gases argon, krypton, and xenon in air bubbles captured inside ice in Antarctica. As the oceans warm, krypton and xenon are released into the atmosphere in known quantities. The ratio of these gases in the atmosphere therefore allows for the calculation of average global ocean temperature. 
Measurements were taken from ice samples collected during the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) Divide coring project, of which Severinghaus is a leader. Over the course of six field seasons in Antarctica, a drill removed ice in cylindrical samples 2.7 meters (just under 9 feet) in length. The final sample was taken at a depth of 3,405 meters (over 11,000 feet) in 2011. This record spans nearly 100,000 years and the age of the layers can be determined to within 50 years. Earth’s atmosphere mixes on a scale of weeks to months, so a measurement of these air bubbles gives what is essentially a global average. For this study, scientists focused on samples 8,000 to 22,000 years old, and collected data in increments averaging 250 years in resolution. 
New insights into the glaciation cycles that occurred on Earth long before humans began affecting the temperature of the atmosphere and oceans are now possible using the technique of measuring noble gas quantities. The study determined that the average global ocean temperature at the peak of the most recent ice age was 0.9 ºC (33.6 ºF). The modern ocean’s average temperature is 3.5 ºC (38.3 ºF). The incremental measurements between these data points provide an understanding of the global climate never before possible. 
“The reason this study is so exciting is that previous methods of reconstructing ocean heat content have very large age uncertainties, [which] smooths out the more subtle features of the record,” said co-author Sarah Shackleton, a graduate student in the Severinghaus lab at Scripps. “Because WAIS Divide is so well dated, this is the first time that we've been able to see these subtle features in the record of the deglaciation. This helps us better understand the processes that control changes in ocean heat content.” 
This paper is the result of fifteen years of work for Severinghaus, along with graduate students and postdoctoral scholars in his lab. Discussions with another professor at Scripps, atmospheric scientist Ralph Keeling, brought about the idea. Keeling studies the argon levels in the atmosphere to get a similar record of ocean heat going back a few decades. However, air bubbles trapped in ice don’t preserve argon levels accurately. Severinghaus discovered that xenon and krypton are well preserved in ice cores, which provides the temperature information that can then be used by scientists studying many other aspects of the earth’s oceans and atmosphere over hundreds of thousands of years.
“Our precision is about 0.2 ºC (0.4 ºF) now, and the warming of the past 50 years is only about 0.1 ºC,” [Severinghaus] said, adding that advanced equipment can provide more precise measurements, allowing scientists to use this technique to track the current warming trend in the world’s oceans.
Alarmists have claimed that the ocean's temperature is rising .12º Celsius for each of the past five decades, or .6ºC total.  TThe fact that it has risen only 1º  over 50 years (and even that number is well within the margin of error so the oceans may have actually cooled) should cause the alarmists to rethink their "consensus."  Of course it won't because anthropogenic global warming climate change has always about the corruption of the scientific process to pursue a liberal environmental agenda.


Anonymous said...

(eyeroll) Here we go again with Paul's denial of climate change based on selectively truncated interpretation of data.

The study you reference, Paul, is not at odds with any other data supporting the FACT that the planet has been warming at an increasing rate during the industrial era. Previous studies have focused on sea surface temperature, and the current study considers the overall temperature of the ocean. While it's tempting to argue (which you probably will) that it's better to look at the whole ocean, it's what's going on at the surface that affects us, not what's going on 2 miles deep. Likewise, atmospheric changes affect the surface a LOT faster than they do the deeps. It takes a long time for the water to catch up because the oceans have about 1000 times more mass than the atmosphere and a correspondingly more massive heat capacity. When you think of it that way, a 0.1 degC rise in total ocean temperature is roughly equivalent to the amount of heat you'd get by increasing the temperature of the atmosphere by 100 degC!! What this tells me is that the oceans are absorbing a lot of heat that has been trapped by the atmosphere, which is old news to anyone who has been paying attention to the ice caps.

I can't wait to see how you try to claim this is all bunk.

Paul K. Ogden said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Paul K. Ogden said...

You gotta love the alarmists. The minute one of their factual claims supporting their theory is proven wrong, they simply move on to another one. (It reminds me of the 9/11 conspiracy nuts...that's exactly the strategy they employ.) Now the recent cold snap is being used as evidence that Al Gore's anthropogenic global warming theory is right...even though Gore in his book said nothing about more cold and ice proving his theory. Of course, weather isn't proof of climate...except when the alarmists are trotting out weather events in support of their climate theory...which is always.

This approach to argument is reflected in alarmists switching the label of their theory from "global warming" to "global climate change." That way EVERYTHING proves the theory. Of course, the Earth in its 4.5 billion year history has always had a constantly changing climate. So if the climate doesn't change, that's also proof of climate change theory. It's heads or tails, the alarmists are okay. And if in the unlikely event the coin lands on its side, they also win!

Veterans for Peace Indianapolis said...

Here's a 9/11 "Conspiracy": the terrorists attacked WTC in 93 and 01 for the same reason. Is it because Americans are "free" to debate climate change?

Anonymous said...

Paul has on his tin foil hat again. You're a fool.

Anonymous said...

Once again:

The study you reference, Paul, is not at odds with any other data supporting the FACT that the planet has been warming at an increasing rate during the industrial era.

Not "moving on" to other data. Everything is consistent. Want to try again?

Paul K. Ogden said...

Anon 9:19,

You're wrong. I have looked at report on the studies. While some focus on ocean surface temperatures, many studies have looked at temperatures deep into the ocean. These studies have always come with alarming conclusions about how the temperature rise even deep in the ocean has been dramatic, and more than expected. Here is but one of them:

The fact is the report I wrote about contradicts those deep ocean reports. The one I wrote about is hardly the first study to look at different water levels in the ocean.

Just move the goalposts again? After all, that's what the alarmists do so very well.


Anonymous said...

The article you cite is about heat content, not temperature. Where in there does it say the average top-to-bottom temperature of the oceans has risen more than 0.1 degC? I must have missed it...

In fact, if you actually click on the DOI link under "More Information" and READ the actual paper and not just the article about it (novel concept, right?) and look at Figure 3, it shows the 2010 temperatures in every basin being anywhere from 0.05 to 0.2 degC warmer than 1960. Remarkably similar to the "new" study, eh? Consistency is great!

Goalposts still in the same place. Your move.

Paul K. Ogden said...

You do realize that was just ONE of the studies on ocean temperature at depths beyond the surface. Now let me get this straight, you actually believe every such study shows the temperature of the oceans (not just the surface of the oceans) show the temps have risen only .1 deg C. You can't seriously believe that.

Why can't you just accept the fact, which the scientists discussed in the original article I wrote about, that measuring the temperature of the oceans has in fact been extremely difficult and previous methods have not proven to be accurate Indeed that was the entire reason the methodology used in the study was touted as a huge breakthrough. By your logic, there was no breakthrough...the previous methods were working just swell, recording accurate results.

Anonymous said...

Okay, show me one example of a peer-reviewed study that shows the temperature of the entire (top-to-bottom) ocean has risen more than 0.1 degC. I'd bet serious $$ that you can't, because such a temperature rise represents a remarkable increase in heat content, given the mass of the oceans. As I mentioned, if you were to add that much heat to the atmosphere, we'd have to talk about whether the temperature today is going to be above or below boiling.

I never claimed or implied the current paper wasn't a breakthrough. What I said is it's consistent with previous results. It's sort of akin to how New Horizons got some excellent pictures of Pluto. Those photos didn't tell us that Pluto didn't exist, or was a different color than we thought or was in a different location - they were consistent with what we already knew but added a lot more detail. But the new photos were a breakthrough in that for the first time, we are able to map the geography of Pluto. Same with this. We already had great data on sea surface temperatures, and now we know what's happening at deeper levels.

If it isn't obvious why the whole ocean isn't warming as fast as the surface, think about it this way. Imagine if you coated the surface of a swimming pool with gasoline and set it on fire. Would you expect the bottom of the pool to warm as fast as the top? In that scenario, you shouldn't point to the temperature at the bottom of the pool as evidence there's no fire.

Paul K. Ogden said...

Anon 5:36,

I don't really have time to do your research. Here though is a website you can use to research a wide number of issues, not just scientific research.