Filed under: Science + Tech | Tags: argo, argo system, cooling, global warming, Josh Willis, morning edition, oceans
Riddle me this: If, in theory, global warming should affect temperatures in the ocean even more drastically than in the atmosphere, why does recent data show that the oceans have cooled in the last five years?
Be not misled, you will not find the answer to this riddle in this post, nor any Highlights magazine. Scientists are asking the same question after Josh Willis, of NASA’s jet propulsion laboratory, distributed a fleet of 3,000 temperature-tracking devices into the oceans, only to record a slight decrease in temperatures over the last four or five years, according to NPR’s Morning Edition.
I bet a scientist who has studied climate change could pick out the flaw in this fairly easily (and please accept this as a personal invitation to do so), but the drop in temperatures fits right into how global warming goes in my head. If enough glaciers are melting to cause a rise in sea level, then wouldn’t there be enough freshly melted ice in the ocean to cool them a touch?
We’ve discussed the need to fight people’s (journalists and consumers of news alike) natural tendency to seek out an endpoint. Scientists are full of maybes, while we look to journalists to deliver conclusive facts. NPR’s update on the Argo system (the fleet’s functioning name) is just one more step in trying to understand our Earth.
However, I was not surprised to find an article or two that took NPR’s reporting and ran with it. I was surprised that the headline wasn’t, “See? Global warming’s not real!”
The only thing these numbers prove is that is that real “proof” is hard to come by. I like reading about the latest findings, but it’s a shame that public perception often equates new information with radical new truths.
Science is a work in progress. It’s an easy thing to know, but it’s difficult to believe.
-Sonya English
11 Comments so far
Leave a comment
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <pre> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Good article! That’s what science is all about and as you say, global warming is “a work in progress”. It’s difficult to prove a positive hypothesis….like man made global warming is happening (correlations between man madse CO2 levels & global temps is not a proof). So the onus falls on scientists to prove it is not happening.
Comment by leatherhead March 25, 2008 @ 4:50 pmMr Leatherhead
While the study the article refers to in no way proves that CO2 levels are not the major cause in increased global average temperatures, it does place a rather significant and so far inexplicable hole in the current theory of global warming as espoused by the latest IPCC report. What this definitively means is that the scientific debate on global warming is far from being over and may in fact still be in it’s infancy. It also provides strong evidence that scientist do not understand the climate as well as the IPCC claimed that they do. I would add that it’s a reminder not to hastily enter into any governmental action based solely or mostly on global warming fears.
And leatherhead, it is up to science to prove Global Warming exist and that it is primarily caused by CO2. To say that it is true unless disproven does not conform with the scientific model. One could say that Global Warming was caused by UFO’s and it would be impossible to disprove. In science something is unknown until proven.
Comment by lrbinfrisco March 26, 2008 @ 10:18 amIrbinfrisco,
Comment by j500 March 26, 2008 @ 12:37 pmThanks for joining in the conversation. I am not sure I understand your logic. As Sonya pointed out, the idea that melting glaciers are contributing to cooling waters makes sense. Are you suggesting that climate change is not real based on a different interpretation of that assertion?
Climate science is complex and evolving, but is a clearly substantiated phenomenon that President Bush, CEOs of major oil companies, Pat Robertson, and a majority of US citizens (per a CNN/ Stanford University poil from last year) believes is real. In your estimation, what additional proof is required?
Simran
Mr. Leatherhead, Thanks for the kind comment. I’ll disagree with you on one thing– In my opinion, it’s no easier to prove that the theory of global warming has no basis than to prove it does. Einstein could all but prove and disprove that light moved in waves and in particles, although conceptually they appear to be mutually exclusive.
That same idea leads me in my response to Irbinfrisco. Though I believe no governmental decisions should be hastily handled, I don’t think that imperfections in the theory of global warming should be the reason to halt actions against climate change. The environment is so complex, I think it is safe to say that humans will never have a full understanding of all its systems, same as the human mind or the universe. If we wait around for unanimous certainty we risk destroying our only habitat.
-Sonya English
Comment by Sonya March 26, 2008 @ 2:53 pmj500, 1st thanks for making me feel welcome. I do believe that the climate is changing as it appears to have been for the entire history of the earth. I have no expectations that the earth’s climate will ever stop changing. However I don’t equate climate change with the IPCC’s theories on Global Warming as documented in it’s latest report. That I believe to be substantially inaccurate and unproven to a degree where it should not be highly relied upon in making governmental policy decisions. While it is possible that Sonya’s hypothesis could be true, that hypothesis is as yet unproven and doubtful to be proven to be true in that it totally explains the descreptancy as to why ocean temperatures aren’t conforming to the behavior that is proposed by the IPCC’s theory. Mainly I don’t think the volume in energy reduction from water changing from a solid to a liquid state of a small portion of the earth’s total surface area (much less than 1%) combined with any global negative in sea ice coverage would offset the substantial greenhouse affect of CO2 concentratons that have been measured in the past 5 years on over 75% of the earth’s surface that are the oceans. Remeber that there has basically be a flat global atmosphere temperature over the past 5 years while CO2 has been building. It had been espoused that the reason was the heat was “hiding” in the oceans. Regardless of that the IPCC theory is build around the principle of the oceans heating 1st and then the air.
Climate science is complex and evolving, but there is clearly huge portions of how the climate works that we have little to no understanding of how it works. The whole theory that man made CO2 emissions is causing the vast majority of temperature increase and will dramatically raise the temperature to catostrophic levels in the next 9+ decades is called into question. This would be the equivalent of finding that repeatable tests show that light travels a variable speed of 100,000 to > 1,000,000 KM per second would call into question Einsteins theory of relativity.
It’s nice what the President, prominent religous and business persons and other believe in. But I’m more interested in assuring that major governmental policy are not based upon theories which are unsound as measured by the Scientific Method. Upon those princples the IPCC’s therory is currently unsound and needs further adjustments and research to explain the major descreptancy.
Sonya, while it is true that if we required 100% understanding of science before making any policy decisions on that science we would be immobalized from making any policy decisions based on science. I would agree with what I assume to be your opinion that this would be generally bad for us as citizens of that government.
However if we make decisions based on science that we know to be substantially wrong, we are highly likely to do more harm than good. I think that there is medium between these extremes where we can feel very comfortable that we understand the vast majority of the science that is applicable to the decisions that we need to make and that harm is very unlikely to occur. I don’t believe that we are even close to that point in our understanding of climate science. To where we can get to this point, we need to increase our understanding of climate science where we can accurately explain all of the major components that cause the climate to change to a level where we can make highly accurate predictions forward in time. This latest report is evidence that points to the conclusion that we aren’t close to that level of understanding of the climate. It also highly questions the assumptions that the IPCC has made on made made emissions of CO2 on the climate.
I would hope that the government makes no major policy decisions to respond to man made global warming. Now that are sound policy decisions that we can make now that would help to combat AGW, but render lots of other benefits based on better understood science. For example, nuclear power has proven to be very safe and can be used in a very environmental friendly manner. It is also very economically appealing as opposed to carbon based power generation. It does need to be highly regulated by the government to insure safety. By moving more of our power production to nuclear plants it would help remove us from foreign oil dependency, reduce pollutants like CO and sulfuric acid into the environment, reduce the cost of electricity to consumers, and yes reduce CO2 emissions.
Comment by lrbinfrisco March 27, 2008 @ 9:59 amWith all due respect there is no way that glacier melt is masking AGW if the latter were meaningfully present. The orders of magnitude difference in the melt and the mass of the oceans are so large as preclude any measurable short term effects. Even the most aggressive estimates of the melt rates barely scratch the surface.
Comment by Bernie April 3, 2008 @ 2:55 pmThe reality is that these new results are problematic for existing computer models.
Sonya,
There are seismic changes going on in the science of climatology. Have a read of this powerful article which argues (with very understandable data & charts that sun activity is th most influential variable on our global climate and we are entering a period of global cooling:
http://leatherheadblog.com/2008/04/04/scientist-argues-persuasive-case-for-global-cooling/
Mr Leatherhead
Comment by leatherhead April 4, 2008 @ 4:03 pmRegardless of climate change and its sources, we are polluting the air, water and land we use. Coal mining is causing more dramatic floods as well as increased rates of asthma. Coal power plants threaten our water supply by using vast amounts of fossil water and emitting pollutants like mercury, nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides and carbon dioxide. These issues are interrelated and clean, renewable energy addresses them all.
Bobby Grace
Comment by bobbygrace April 5, 2008 @ 2:39 pmMr Leatherhead, I appreciate you taking the time to link me to that. Bobby Grace made the points that I was inclined to respond with, but there is so much evidence supporting the idea of human-induced global warming that I think it is healthy to acknowledge theories that don’t support our beliefs. I’ve been talking about scientists’ pending conclusions and I’m making an effort to practice the same. My problem is one that I think I share with the majority: My understanding of the science behind climate change is not sufficient enough to make a distinction between the evidence I’m presented in the article you linked to and evidence from an IPCC report or an Al Gore movie. That’s not at all to say that I’m uninterested in hearing both sides.
Comment by Sonya April 7, 2008 @ 8:18 amSonya English
In the argument over climate change and its causes, I agree with Bobby’s position on this. And I wonder why this issue is even open for debate.
Even if you remove climate change from the equation, certain truths about fossil fuels (and nuclear power) remain. Burning fossil fuels pollutes the air water and land. This is evidenced by acid rain and smog (I see the air, here in LA) among other things. All of these are known to cause major health and environmental issues. There is nothing to debate.
While nuclear power appears to be a clean energy source, the radioactive waste produced by reactors is extremely dangerous and no one wants it in their backyard, nor should it be placed there. For this reason and the potential disasters associated with a meltdown or fuel rods being used in a terrorist attack make me wary of this as a long term solution. Just think of how much more nuclear waste there would be if all power came from nukes? That’s not a sustainable solution.
So, the clear choices for clean, sustainable energy are wind, solar and water. They each have their own negative aspects, but none are as negative as those of fossil fuels and nuclear energy. I have difficulty understanding how everyone does not clearly understand this fact.
Comment by dshawla April 11, 2008 @ 5:44 pmThe debate continues.
The amount of melting ice is insignificant compared to the volume of all the oceans.
All models predicted warming seas.
If all the scientists who created the current models are wrong about this then what else could be wrong?
Complex computer models are never correct on the 1st attempt. There is much more to learn about planetary scale modeling before we get it correct. Don’t be too depressed if version 1 gets scrapped.
Comment by tzen May 5, 2008 @ 9:47 am