From the latest Scientific American.

(Why don't you sceptics enumerate your debunking macros. Than just post the numbers and save yourselves a lot of time? The more interesting debate is the degree of anthropogenic climate forcing.)

The Heat is On

Skeptics, beware. One of the sturdiest pillars of the argument against global warming has crumbled under the weight of some 10 million newly compiled measurements of ocean temperature. These records, once scattered across the globe, together reveal a trend that many climatologists suspected, but could never prove: the worlds oceans--the Pacific, Atlantic and Indian basins combined--have warmed substantially in the past 50 years.

Exactly whats causing the increase is still up in the air. The most likely culprits are greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, according to many climatologists, because they trap heat at the planets surface. Indeed, James E. Hansen of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York and his colleagues reported in 1997 that the earth is absorbing about 0.5 watt per square meter of sunlight more than it is emitting back to space. Hansen speculated that this "missing heat" was probably in the oceans. But that wasnt enough to convince some doubters, who have ever since used the disparity to discount the potency of greenhouse gases.

The hitch is that the atmosphere's capacity to store heat is a factor of 20 less than that of the oceans, says Sydney Levitus of the National Oceanographic Data Center in Silver Spring, Md. "The oceans really are the memory of Earths climate," Levitus says. The problem is that this is one memory that is destined to come back and haunt us: heat in the ocean eventually makes its way back into the atmosphere--delaying, but not preventing, a heat wave at the surface.

That knowledge inspired Levitus and his colleagues seven years ago to launch a United Nations-sponsored global searchand-rescue operation for ocean data. The teams primary goal was to dig up every single temperature measurement they could find for the top 3,000 meters of the ocean, enough water to engulf a skyscraper seven times as tall as the World Trade Center. They knew that the deeper they looked, the more convincing any emerging temperature trends would be.

Numbers came in from all over the world. When the British Royal Navy told Levitus that it had hundreds of thousands of index cards of hand-written temperature profiles stashed away in a musty basement, the oceanographer jumped at the chance to add them to his growing database. He didnt have to go far. Officials loaded a ship with some 100 metal file drawers full of the cards and sent them across the Atlantic. His team also uncovered unexpected measurements from World War II at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in San Diego and rare numbers from the icy seas around Russia and Norway in an obsure book tucked away in the New York Public Library.

When they put the millions of numbers they gathered together with several million more that already existed, they discovered that the Pacific, Atlantic and Indian oceans combined warmed an average of 0.06 degree Celsius between 1955 and 1995. Whats more, that amount of warming accounts for a majority of Hansens "missing heat."

"Everything points to the fact that the warming is due to increases in greenhouse gases," Levitus says. "But," he admits, "we still cant discount natural variability being involved." Indeed, scientists at Scripps recently suggested that 1,800-year cycles of ocean tides could drive a natural rise in global temperatures. If theyre right, the planet has another five centuries of warming still to come.

--Sarah Simpson

-- (Hallyx@aol.com), April 21, 2000

Answers

Here's a nice little article to kick this to the top with:

CANADA: April 20, 2000

PANGNIRTUNG - He may be only a hunter in Canada's remote Arctic, but Steven Kooneeliusie certainly knows as much about the practical effects of global warming as any environmental scientist.

He and the other Inuit whose job it is to brave snow and ice to find caribou, seal and other animals say the signs of a gradual increase in temperature are everywhere.

"When I went hunting years ago I used to wear a full-length caribou skin coat, but now I just wear a light parka. It is so hot these days my snowmobile often overheats," Kooneeliusie said in the small town of Pangnirtung, some 1,500 miles (2,450 km) north of Ottawa nearly on the Arctic Circle.

"We're seeing animals here we've never seen before, and last year I spotted a swan. The sun is very hot, too hot. For the first time ever people are actually getting sunburned."

While arguments rage about whether global warming is primarily caused by pollution, the effects on the ground are all too real in the Arctic. One of the best places to observe them is the new territory of Nunavut, home to 27,000 people dotted across 750,000 square miles (2 million square km).

"The effect that global warming is causing in Nunavut today is being felt by a lot of people, especially those who travel outside of communities, both hunters and campers," Sustainable Development Minister Peter Kilabuk said.

Kilabuk, based in the Nunavut capital Iqaluit, grew up in Pangnirtung and has seen for himself the changes in the fjord that the town sits on.

"I know when I was probably 8 or 10 the ice wouldn't go out until July, sometimes not until the second week of July. But over the last few years we've seen the ice go out as early as May," he said. "To us the effects are real. Climate change is here and it's a real cause for concern."

MELTING IN 'THE LAND THAT NEVER MELTS'

Auyuittuq - "The land that never melts" - is famed for its enormous glaciers, but locals say even they are melting. "The glaciers have receded over the last 10 years and the ice is much worse," hunter Solomon Nakoolak said. U.S. government researchers say average global temperatures over the last 25 years alone have been increasing at a rate equivalent to 2 degrees Celsius (4 Fahrenheit) a century. Studies show the Arctic sea ice has also thinned over the last 30 years or so to six feet (1.8 metres) from 10 feet (3.1 metres) and has shrunk by around 6 percent since 1975.

This month, scientists from the United States and Europe said more than 60 percent of the Arctic ozone layer some 11 miles (18 km) above the Earth had vanished over the winter due to record cold and continued pollution - one of the most substantial ozone losses at this altitude ever recorded.

As the Arctic gradually heats up, precipitation increases and helps push the tree line ever further to the north. "People are already observing species which don't belong here such as grizzly bears, which have been moving north. We see a lot more wolverines further north than we used to," said Francois Rainville at Environment Canada's office in Iqaluit. "There are insects and birds which have not been seen here before. There is an impact. People are seeing change," he said. Last year one Iqaluit woman reported seeing a robin.[snip]

Story by David Ljunggren REUTERS NEWS SERVICE

-- (Hallyx@aol.com), April 21, 2000.

But Hallyx -- don't you know? Market forces will take care of global warming. See, the Club of Rome blah blah blah...

(laughter)

-- Mr. Skeptic (@ .), April 21, 2000.

An objective look at the evidence would indicate that we still don't have an answer to whether massive global warming is occuring or whether it is being caused by humans.

Folks, there has been a period in history, beginning around 1400 and lasting 500 years or so called the "Little Ice Age." It is why the Viking settlers had to abandon their colonies in Greenland. The climate went bad. It got way too cold. Right now we may simply be returning to the climactic average that we have known since the last Big Ice Age. The Little Ice Age may have been the climate anomoly, not the warming we are seeing now.

Right now it would APPEAR that there is global warming going on but how extensive is anyone's guess. It may well be that it's caused by solar fluctuations or deep ocean long period thermal cycles.

How much warming is from C02 and how much is from plain old solar activity? This is also difficult to answer. As anyone knows, a bottle full of soda gets flat more quickly when it is warm. The carbon dioxide in the liquid is more likely to be released into the air as gas. Carbon dioxide release ecauses a greenhouse effect. A greenhouse effect causes carbon dioxide release. Feedback loop. You get the picture. Temperatures and CO2 in the air go hand in hand--inextricably linked like yin and yang.

It gets more complicated. There may be mechanisms which keep global warming in check. When it is warmer, there is more water vapor in the air. Under conditions of severe global warming, the poles--usually deserts--may experience greater cloud cover and more snow storms. Clouds reflect light, generating a cooling effect. So do glaciers. It is possible the global warming could trigger a violent reverse effect-- a runaway glaciation. I doubt it could happen a la Art Bell's book but it certainly could occur within the span of a few centuries.

Another check on global warming and higher CO2 is increased plant growth. Most of this plant growth is in the form of algae in the oceans, which absorb CO2, die, and then sink to the cold ocean bottom in the form of limestone deposits. The more plants grow, the more CO2 they take out of the air. Another beneficial side effect is greater agricultural production.

Bottom line: nobody still knows whether global warming is genuine (atmospheric, surface, and ocean temperatures all reveal large discrepancies as to the magnitude and direction of the temperature change). Nobody knows how much of this temperature change is caused by man. Nobody knows if the overall consequences of this change are going to be hazardous or beneficial. Nobody knows--if draconian carbon emmission laws were passed--if they would stop the damage that has already been done. Nobody knows if countries would comply with them if they were enstated.

Yes I love the earth. I am proud to have hung with the grungiest of tree huggers. But some of the environmental movement tends towards socialist zealotry and pure Western guilt. In short, emotional not scientific arguments are at the heart of much environmental activist causes. But that doesn't mean I still don't love those kooky hippies.

-- coprolith (coprolith@rocketship.com), April 21, 2000.

Thanks Mr. Skeptic. I enjoy starting my morning off with a sardonic chuckle. You do a great Ken Decker impersonation. (laughter)

I've seen your posts over the years, Coprolith. Your environmental bonafides have not been established to my satisfaction. You seem about as Earth aware as Al Gore.

[Coprolith]An objective look at the evidence would indicate that we still don't have an answer to whether massive global warming is occuring or whether it is being caused by humans.

As for the first, we're still looking and the evidence mounts daily. Don't know what you'd need to be convinced---certainly less than the gov/corp, I presume. As for the second, (as I've said before) that's a far more interesting debate.

Folks, there has been a period in history, beginning around 1400 and lasting 500 years or so called the "Little Ice Age." It is why the Viking settlers had to abandon their colonies in Greenland. The climate went bad. It got way too cold.

The so-called "Little Ice Age" may well have been a local cooling phenomena caused by the slowing of the North Atlantic drift. Hard to get worldwide evidence from that period. But people who know more about it that you or I are looking into it.

Right now it would APPEAR that there is global warming going on but how extensive is anyone's guess. It may well be that it's caused by solar fluctuations or deep ocean long period thermal cycles.

Not just anyone's guess. Your guess and mine are not of equal value to NOAA's or IPCC's or countless other reputable research organizations. I think the recently conjectured 18,000 year ocean cycle is most interesting. As for solar cycles. Now that's a guess. We can't take core samples of the sun. There's no good way of knowing historical solar cycles. In any case, they're thought to be neutral in this eon.

Carbon dioxide release ecauses a greenhouse effect. A greenhouse effect causes carbon dioxide release. Feedback loop. You get the picture. Temperatures and CO2 in the air go hand in hand--inextricably linked like yin and yang.

I rather like a tropical ambience. Venus is a good example of a positive feedback loop.

It gets more complicated. There may be mechanisms which keep global warming in check. When it is warmer, there is more water vapor in the air. Under conditions of severe global warming, the poles--usually deserts--may experience greater cloud cover and more snow storms. Clouds reflect light, generating a cooling effect. So do glaciers. It is possible the global warming could trigger a violent reverse effect-- a runaway glaciation. I doubt it could happen a la Art Bell's book but it certainly could occur within the span of a few centuries.

Far to many "may's" and "could be's" in that paragraph for a good debunker argument, Cop. You must learn to be more assertive and definitive in your expostulating. May's and could's are for more conservative scientific types (you ought to see the IPCC report..sheesh)

Btw, a lot depends on the type of clouds. High stratiform is a more likely result of increased water vapor. Those are really nice warm blankets.

Core evidence suggests rapid dramatic cooling has occured in the past, as well as rapid warming, although as you say, centuries are more typical. I am disturbed more by the fact that there is no general dialogue on any of this by policy makers. In fact, funding is not available to address policy issues until we sign on to the Kyoto Accords. Fat chance there.

Another check on global warming and higher CO2 is increased plant growth. Most of this plant growth is in the form of algae in the oceans, which absorb CO2, die, and then sink to the cold ocean bottom in the form of limestone deposits. The more plants grow, the more CO2 they take out of the air. Another beneficial side effect is greater agricultural production.

About half of carbon sequestration is attributable to oceanic algae and diatoms which are adapted to current water temperatures. There is no assurance that they will remain as effective as ocean temps rise, as indicated in the Scientific American article cited above.

As for increased plant growth, that only applies if we continue to allow plants (other than crops) to grow---a condition contrary to my observations.

Current investigation into high-CO2 crop growth suggests lower nutrients and diminished disease resistance. (No, I don't have URLs for all this shit. I'm not a scholar. The info is out there.)

Bottom line: nobody still knows whether global warming is genuine (atmospheric, surface, and ocean temperatures all reveal large discrepancies as to the magnitude and direction of the temperature change).

But they're really trying hard to find out. That's what science is all about. In the mean time I feel justified in posting any and all intermediary evidence as part of the discussion. It's too bad that by time sufficient evidence is compled it'll probably be too late to react. (Who am I kidding? Imho, it's already too late.)

Nobody knows how much of this temperature change is caused by man. Nobody knows if the overall consequences of this change are going to be hazardous or beneficial. Nobody knows--if draconian carbon emmission laws were passed--if they would stop the damage that has already been done. Nobody knows if countries would comply with them if they were enstated.

True enough; nobody knows. We've never been in this position before. There are no precedents or analogies. We can't look back and learn from what we did last time; there was no last time like this. But enough is known to justify serious discussion among and beyond the scientific community---discussions such as we are having here. And certainly enough is known for everyone to diligently become informed of the issues involved. Hence my posting to this list.

Yes I love the earth. I am proud to have hung with the grungiest of tree huggers. But some of the environmental movement tends towards socialist zealotry and pure Western guilt. In short, emotional not scientific arguments are at the heart of much environmental activist causes. But that doesn't mean I still don't love those kooky hippies.

You should be embarrassed by having said that, Coprolith. While I'm sure that some Earth-aware people are doing it for the power kick or the guilt trip, the people I know who have the intelligence to understand the science are doing it out of raw fear...fear for the health and safety of their grandchildren's kids.

A more important reason to be concerned about burning fossil fuels (especially oil) at the current increasing rate is its waning availability. But that's a topic for another thread I expect to initiate as soon as I've gathered my rhetorical ammunition.

Let me level with you. I've been following the so-called "oil/energy crisis" long before I was distracted by Y2K. I'm back at it again. Global warming may well be one of a number of environmental problems that is about to fix itself within my grandchild's life. I'm not sanguine about the methodology of the fix.

Hallyx

"This is the first moment in the history of our planet when any species, by its own involuntary actions, has become a danger to itself -- as well as to vast numbers of others." ---Carl Sagan

-- (Hallyx@aol.com), April 21, 2000.

Halyx, you make some interesting points, and I don't doubt the sincerity or the integrity of lots of genuine climate researchers--or for that matter, people who are concerened about the environment. I'm not saying we don't have cause for concern; I'm saying that the hard evidence isn't here yet and that many of us are being asked to buy a whole bill of goods based on supposition and scientific ambiguities.

Save the whales? Sure, count me in. Stop acid rain and air pollution? Legislate away, Democrats! Reduce global carbon emmissions in America by 50% through draconian laws and ruin our economy while the rest of the world cheats? I don't know if that's the right course.

We are running out of gas, gradually. Eventually, my dream is that we will switch to a solar-hydrogen economy through market pressures, alone, and not totalitarian measures.

I admit to ignorance on global warming issues--my specialty is in cell biology. But I follow it as a concerned citizen and a scientist in training. As a person trying to hone his critical thinking skills, I have found that it is essential to try to shed light on the areas of certainty as well as where there is uncertainty. Global warming seems to have too many variables attached to it to attain a level of certainty required to enforce drastic measures which will hurt a large number of normally productive people.

Prosperity, alone, seems to be the best population and pollution control mechanism. People have fewer babies when they have more money. People can spend more on cleaner technology and industries when they are wealthier. What is more important than global pollution control is global economic health, which is not made any better through any kind of rehash of Marxist-Leninism or grand social engineering scheme of the kind required to implement the Kyoto accords.

Sorry this is rambling. I am in a hurry and have to go now.

-- coprolith (coprolith@rocketship.com), April 21, 2000.

Hallyx, great posts; Coprolith, you also have some good points. Although I think that if you were to study the relationship between pollution and wealth, you'd find a very high correlation. Don't we folks from the US contribute more than our share of pollution? And we're not exactly hurting for money/wealth.

Certainly there is room for conjecture on wheter or not the global warming is human caused, but with all the CO2 and fluoroarbons, and whatnot, it is a good bet thay we are a big part of the problem. I'm for putting a lot more energy and tax dollars into fighting the energy/pollution problem. Solar power is already available, as are other alternative energy sources; it's merely a matter of mass production to bring the prices down , I suspect.

JOJ

JOJ

-- jumpoff joe (jumpoff@echoweb.neet), April 21, 2000.

Now THIS is the calibur of debate and information sharing that you just don't get from the idiot box.

Keep your...

-- eyes_open (best@wishes.2all), April 21, 2000.