global warming and agriculture

[Old Rocks]

Portrait of a Warming Ocean and Rising Sea Levels: Trend of Sea Level Change 1993-2008 : News


Portrait of a Warming Ocean and Rising Sea Levels: Trend of Sea Level Change 1993-2008
August 13, 2008

Warming water and melting land ice have raised global mean sea level 4.5 centimeters (1.7 inches) from 1993 to 2008. But the rise is by no means uniform. This image, created with sea surface height data from the Topex/Poseidon and Jason-1 satellites, shows exactly where sea level has changed during this time and how quickly these changes have occurred. [To view the image, visit: ]No Results from Query
It’s also a road map showing where the ocean currently stores the growing amount of heat it is absorbing from Earth’s atmosphere and the heat it receives directly from the Sun. The warmer the water, the higher the sea surface rises. The location of heat in the ocean and its movement around the globe play a pivotal role in Earth’s climate.
Light blue indicates areas in which sea level has remained relatively constant since 1993. White, red, and yellow are regions where sea levels have risen the most rapidly – up to 10 millimeters per year – and which contain the most heat. Green areas have also risen, but more moderately. Purple and dark blue show where sea levels have dropped, due to cooler water.
The dramatic variation in sea surface heights and heat content across the ocean are due to winds, currents and long-term changes in patterns of circulation. From 1993 to 2008, the largest area of rapidly rising sea levels and the greatest concentration of heat has been in the Pacific, which now shows the characteristics of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), a feature that can last 10 to 20 years or even longer.
In this “cool” phase, the PDO appears as a horseshoe-shaped pattern of warm water in the Western Pacific reaching from the far north to the Southern Ocean enclosing a large wedge of cool water with low sea surface heights in the eastern Pacific. This ocean/climate phenomenon may be caused by wind-driven Rossby waves. Thousands of kilometers long, these waves move from east to west on either side of the equator changing the distribution of water mass and heat.
This image of sea level trend also reveals a significant area of rising sea levels in the North Atlantic where sea levels are usually low. This large pool of rapidly rising warm water is evidence of a major change in ocean circulation. It signals a slow down in the sub-polar gyre, a counter-clockwise system of currents that loop between Ireland, Greenland and Newfoundland.
Such a change could have an impact on climate since the sub-polar gyre may be connected in some way to the nearby global thermohaline circulation, commonly known as the global conveyor belt. This is the slow-moving circulation in which water sinks in the North Atlantic at different locations around the sub-polar gyre, spreads south, travels around the globe, and slowly up-wells to the surface before returning around the southern tip of Africa. Then it winds its way through the surface currents in the Atlantic and eventually comes back to the North Atlantic.
It is unclear if the weakening of the North Atlantic sub-polar gyre is part of a natural cycle or related to global warming.
This image was made possible by the detailed record of sea surface height measurements begun by Topex/Poseidon and continued by Jason-1. The recently launched Ocean Surface Topography Mission on the Jason-2 satellite (OSTM/Jason-2) will soon take over this responsibility from Jason-1. The older satellite will move alongside OSTM/Jason-2 and continue to measure sea surface height on an adjacent ground track for as long as it is in good health.
Topex/Poseidon and Jason-1 are joint missions of NASA and the French space agency, CNES. OSTM/Jason-2 is collaboration between NASA; the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; CNES; and the European Organisation for the Exploitation of Meteorological Satellites. JPL manages the U.S. portion of the missions for NASA's Science Mission Directorate, Washington, D.C.

##

Contact:

Alan Buis
NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory
818-354-0474
[email protected]
This text is derived from:
Catalog Page for PIA11002

 

[Old Rocks]

The Mystery of Global Warming's Missing Heat : NPR


Morning Edition, March 19, 2008 · Some 3,000 scientific robots that are plying the ocean have sent home a puzzling message. These diving instruments suggest that the oceans have not warmed up at all over the past four or five years. That could mean global warming has taken a breather. Or it could mean scientists aren't quite understanding what their robots are telling them.

This is puzzling in part because here on the surface of the Earth, the years since 2003 have been some of the hottest on record. But Josh Willis at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory says the oceans are what really matter when it comes to global warming.

In fact, 80 percent to 90 percent of global warming involves heating up ocean waters. They hold much more heat than the atmosphere can. So Willis has been studying the ocean with a fleet of robotic instruments called the Argo system. The buoys can dive 3,000 feet down and measure ocean temperature. Since the system was fully deployed in 2003, it has recorded no warming of the global oceans.

"There has been a very slight cooling, but not anything really significant," Willis says. So the buildup of heat on Earth may be on a brief hiatus. "Global warming doesn't mean every year will be warmer than the last. And it may be that we are in a period of less rapid warming."

In recent years, heat has actually been flowing out of the ocean and into the air. This is a feature of the weather phenomenon known as El Nino. So it is indeed possible the air has warmed but the ocean has not. But it's also possible that something more mysterious is going on.

That becomes clear when you consider what's happening to global sea level. Sea level rises when the oceans get warm because warmer water expands. This accounts for about half of global sea level rise. So with the oceans not warming, you would expect to see less sea level rise. Instead, sea level has risen about half an inch in the past four years. That's a lot.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The Mystery of Global Warming's Missing Heat : NPR


Morning Edition, March 19, 2008 · Some 3,000 scientific robots that are plying the ocean have sent home a puzzling message. These diving instruments suggest that the oceans have not warmed up at all over the past four or five years. That could mean global warming has taken a breather. Or it could mean scientists aren't quite understanding what their robots are telling them.

This is puzzling in part because here on the surface of the Earth, the years since 2003 have been some of the hottest on record. But Josh Willis at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory says the oceans are what really matter when it comes to global warming.

In fact, 80 percent to 90 percent of global warming involves heating up ocean waters. They hold much more heat than the atmosphere can. So Willis has been studying the ocean with a fleet of robotic instruments called the Argo system. The buoys can dive 3,000 feet down and measure ocean temperature. Since the system was fully deployed in 2003, it has recorded no warming of the global oceans.

"There has been a very slight cooling, but not anything really significant," Willis says. So the buildup of heat on Earth may be on a brief hiatus. "Global warming doesn't mean every year will be warmer than the last. And it may be that we are in a period of less rapid warming."

In recent years, heat has actually been flowing out of the ocean and into the air. This is a feature of the weather phenomenon known as El Nino. So it is indeed possible the air has warmed but the ocean has not. But it's also possible that something more mysterious is going on.

That becomes clear when you consider what's happening to global sea level. Sea level rises when the oceans get warm because warmer water expands. This accounts for about half of global sea level rise. So with the oceans not warming, you would expect to see less sea level rise. Instead, sea level has risen about half an inch in the past four years. That's a lot.

Hey, Rocks, I've got a shoe for you:

"Who, then, are ideologists? They are people needy of purpose in life, not in a mundane sense (earning enough to eat or to pay the mortgage, for example) but in the sense of transcendence of the personal, of reassurance that there is something more to existence than existence itself. Even in the most advanced economies, one will always find unhappy educated people searching for the reason that they are not as important as they should be."
It's from Dalrymple, "The Persistence of Ideology."

Did it fit?

 

[Old Rocks]

The Mystery of Global Warming's Missing Heat : NPR


Morning Edition, March 19, 2008 · Some 3,000 scientific robots that are plying the ocean have sent home a puzzling message. These diving instruments suggest that the oceans have not warmed up at all over the past four or five years. That could mean global warming has taken a breather. Or it could mean scientists aren't quite understanding what their robots are telling them.

This is puzzling in part because here on the surface of the Earth, the years since 2003 have been some of the hottest on record. But Josh Willis at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory says the oceans are what really matter when it comes to global warming.

In fact, 80 percent to 90 percent of global warming involves heating up ocean waters. They hold much more heat than the atmosphere can. So Willis has been studying the ocean with a fleet of robotic instruments called the Argo system. The buoys can dive 3,000 feet down and measure ocean temperature. Since the system was fully deployed in 2003, it has recorded no warming of the global oceans.

"There has been a very slight cooling, but not anything really significant," Willis says. So the buildup of heat on Earth may be on a brief hiatus. "Global warming doesn't mean every year will be warmer than the last. And it may be that we are in a period of less rapid warming."

In recent years, heat has actually been flowing out of the ocean and into the air. This is a feature of the weather phenomenon known as El Nino. So it is indeed possible the air has warmed but the ocean has not. But it's also possible that something more mysterious is going on.

That becomes clear when you consider what's happening to global sea level. Sea level rises when the oceans get warm because warmer water expands. This accounts for about half of global sea level rise. So with the oceans not warming, you would expect to see less sea level rise. Instead, sea level has risen about half an inch in the past four years. That's a lot.

Hey, Rocks, I've got a shoe for you:

"Who, then, are ideologists? They are people needy of purpose in life, not in a mundane sense (earning enough to eat or to pay the mortgage, for example) but in the sense of transcendence of the personal, of reassurance that there is something more to existence than existence itself. Even in the most advanced economies, one will always find unhappy educated people searching for the reason that they are not as important as they should be."
It's from Dalrymple, "The Persistence of Ideology."

Did it fit?

no

 

[FactFinder]

The Mystery of Global Warming's Missing Heat : NPR


Morning Edition, March 19, 2008 · Some 3,000 scientific robots that are plying the ocean have sent home a puzzling message. These diving instruments suggest that the oceans have not warmed up at all over the past four or five years. That could mean global warming has taken a breather. Or it could mean scientists aren't quite understanding what their robots are telling them.

This is puzzling in part because here on the surface of the Earth, the years since 2003 have been some of the hottest on record. But Josh Willis at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory says the oceans are what really matter when it comes to global warming.

In fact, 80 percent to 90 percent of global warming involves heating up ocean waters. They hold much more heat than the atmosphere can. So Willis has been studying the ocean with a fleet of robotic instruments called the Argo system. The buoys can dive 3,000 feet down and measure ocean temperature. Since the system was fully deployed in 2003, it has recorded no warming of the global oceans.

"There has been a very slight cooling, but not anything really significant," Willis says. So the buildup of heat on Earth may be on a brief hiatus. "Global warming doesn't mean every year will be warmer than the last. And it may be that we are in a period of less rapid warming."

In recent years, heat has actually been flowing out of the ocean and into the air. This is a feature of the weather phenomenon known as El Nino. So it is indeed possible the air has warmed but the ocean has not. But it's also possible that something more mysterious is going on.

That becomes clear when you consider what's happening to global sea level. Sea level rises when the oceans get warm because warmer water expands. This accounts for about half of global sea level rise. So with the oceans not warming, you would expect to see less sea level rise. Instead, sea level has risen about half an inch in the past four years. That's a lot.

Hey, Rocks, I've got a shoe for you:

"Who, then, are ideologists? They are people needy of purpose in life, not in a mundane sense (earning enough to eat or to pay the mortgage, for example) but in the sense of transcendence of the personal, of reassurance that there is something more to existence than existence itself. Even in the most advanced economies, one will always find unhappy educated people searching for the reason that they are not as important as they should be."
It's from Dalrymple, "The Persistence of Ideology."

Did it fit?

no

If one has ever seen the fog rising off a pond in the early morning in the autumn one knows why. Heat rises. The ocean is cooling because the air is cooling. This doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out. I know, it is difficult to turn to common sense while in the midst of hysteria. Relax, have a cup of coffee (maybe make that hot chocolate) then think on your strategy of how the hell you are going to keep warm next winter.

 

[elvis]

The Mystery of Global Warming's Missing Heat : NPR


Morning Edition, March 19, 2008 · Some 3,000 scientific robots that are plying the ocean have sent home a puzzling message. These diving instruments suggest that the oceans have not warmed up at all over the past four or five years. That could mean global warming has taken a breather. Or it could mean scientists aren't quite understanding what their robots are telling them.

This is puzzling in part because here on the surface of the Earth, the years since 2003 have been some of the hottest on record. But Josh Willis at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory says the oceans are what really matter when it comes to global warming.

In fact, 80 percent to 90 percent of global warming involves heating up ocean waters. They hold much more heat than the atmosphere can. So Willis has been studying the ocean with a fleet of robotic instruments called the Argo system. The buoys can dive 3,000 feet down and measure ocean temperature. Since the system was fully deployed in 2003, it has recorded no warming of the global oceans.

"There has been a very slight cooling, but not anything really significant," Willis says. So the buildup of heat on Earth may be on a brief hiatus. "Global warming doesn't mean every year will be warmer than the last. And it may be that we are in a period of less rapid warming."

In recent years, heat has actually been flowing out of the ocean and into the air. This is a feature of the weather phenomenon known as El Nino. So it is indeed possible the air has warmed but the ocean has not. But it's also possible that something more mysterious is going on.

That becomes clear when you consider what's happening to global sea level. Sea level rises when the oceans get warm because warmer water expands. This accounts for about half of global sea level rise. So with the oceans not warming, you would expect to see less sea level rise. Instead, sea level has risen about half an inch in the past four years. That's a lot.

Hey, Rocks, I've got a shoe for you:

"Who, then, are ideologists? They are people needy of purpose in life, not in a mundane sense (earning enough to eat or to pay the mortgage, for example) but in the sense of transcendence of the personal, of reassurance that there is something more to existence than existence itself. Even in the most advanced economies, one will always find unhappy educated people searching for the reason that they are not as important as they should be."
It's from Dalrymple, "The Persistence of Ideology."

Did it fit?

no

Karl Marx's would fit better.

 

[KittenKoder]

What a bunch of bs. The real scientists say there is no evidence of global warming..and that the true threat to humanity is from global COOLING.

My friends are farmers. They have had BUMPER crops and been paid sky high prices for wheat for the past 3 years.

They have been paid high prices because there is a shortage of the type of wheat that they grow.

Real scientists? Come on, now, Allie, the scientists that make up the scientific societies are not real scientists? And there is no evidence at all for 'global cooling'. In fact, we should be colder than we are right now, considering the La Nina and solar minimum. The fact that the past 13 years have had 11 of the warmest years on record is hardly an indictation of global cooling.

Anyone more interested in being part of a "society" isn't a real scientist. Worrying more about popularity makes people lie, cheat, and steal, and scientists are human so they do the same damned thing. Fringe scientists ... now those ones are honest, they don't care about being popular so they won't make up stupid shit like 'global warming' just to be popular, and thus are more likely to tell the truth.

If you don't think scientists can lie then you have to admit that all the evidence on both sides it 100% fact and accurate ... explain that one ...

 

[PoliticalChic]

unhappy educated people searching for the reason that they are not as important as they should be[/B]."
It's from Dalrymple, "The Persistence of Ideology."

Did it fit?

no

Based on the thousands of scientists who disagree with this global warming hoax, the fact that the manipulation of 'computer models,' the dearth of evidence that CO2 is an important factor, or the melting of ice, or the population of polar bears, all of which is quickly refuted, even in the face of hiding opposition views, and the clear motivation of governmental bodies, there must be a more personal meaning to you and the other lemmings who cling to this semi-religion.

I think that Dalrymple has hit the nail on the head. It gives you a reason to go on, to show your great knowledge.

It appears to be akin to the clergy in the middle ages who pounded the table about the number of angels on the head of a pin. Who can argue with experts like you, and to close the circle, I'll bet you guys would burn us 'denyers' at the stake if you could.

Therapy is an option.

 

[editec]

Well one thing I know for sure...

All of us are depending on experts for our opinions.

And most of us presume that our experts have a better handle on what is happening and what will happen that those who disagree with us.

FWIW, I seriously doubt anyone really knows what is happening.

They are all depending on computer modeling which is fruaght with assumption which may or may not have creditility.

And even if one or the other set has a superior computer model, I still have my doubts that the nature of the problem is as linear as most of us want to think it is.

I still say that random outcomes which are unpredicatable (even if our knowledge of the current state of affairs is 100% accurate!) is what we're facing.

I actually suspect there's a way to test that theory of mine.

Let BOTH scientific systems use whatever information they can find about the wealther patterns leading up to the "little ice age" run that information through their computer models.

If either model predicts the Little Ice Age coming (the one that happened in the 1600s) then possibly that would give us an indication which model actually has valitidy.

Did that make sense to everyone?

It's more difficult for me to describe to you all than it is for me to envision, I fear.

But if these models work, then since we cannot test their effecacy against the FUTURE, we OUGHT TO BE ABLE to test them against the KNOWN history of climate change.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Well one thing I know for sure...

All of us are depending on experts for our opinions.

And most of us presume that our experts have a better handle on what is happening and what will happen that those who disagree with us.

FWIW, I seriously doubt anyone really knows what is happening.

They are all depending on computer modeling which is fruaght with assumption which may or may not have creditility.

And even if one or the other set has a superior computer model, I still have my doubts that the nature of the problem is as linear as most of us want to think it is.

I still say that random outcomes which are unpredicatable (even if our knowledge of the current state of affairs is 100% accurate!) is what we're facing.

I actually suspect there's a way to test that theory of mine.

Let BOTH scientific systems use whatever information they can find about the wealther patterns leading up to the "little ice age" run that information through their computer models.

If either model predicts the Little Ice Age coming (the one that happened in the 1600s) then possibly that would give us an indication which model actually has valitidy.

Did that make sense to everyone?

It's more difficult for me to describe to you all than it is for me to envision, I fear.

But if these models work, then since we cannot test their effecacy against the FUTURE, we OUGHT TO BE ABLE to test them against the KNOWN history of climate change.

Fall back position?

 

[Old Rocks]

Well one thing I know for sure...

All of us are depending on experts for our opinions.

And most of us presume that our experts have a better handle on what is happening and what will happen that those who disagree with us.

FWIW, I seriously doubt anyone really knows what is happening.

They are all depending on computer modeling which is fruaght with assumption which may or may not have creditility.

And even if one or the other set has a superior computer model, I still have my doubts that the nature of the problem is as linear as most of us want to think it is.

I still say that random outcomes which are unpredicatable (even if our knowledge of the current state of affairs is 100% accurate!) is what we're facing.

I actually suspect there's a way to test that theory of mine.

Let BOTH scientific systems use whatever information they can find about the wealther patterns leading up to the "little ice age" run that information through their computer models.

If either model predicts the Little Ice Age coming (the one that happened in the 1600s) then possibly that would give us an indication which model actually has valitidy.

Did that make sense to everyone?

It's more difficult for me to describe to you all than it is for me to envision, I fear.

But if these models work, then since we cannot test their effecacy against the FUTURE, we OUGHT TO BE ABLE to test them against the KNOWN history of climate change.

I took part in a program that did just that. That is, my computer took part in the program. The parameters that best predicted the weather of the last century failed to predict the degree of warming that we have experianced this century.

Here is a site with some people making rather unequivocal predictions concerning the next decade.
Climate Models and Global Climate Change, ProQuest Discovery Guides

 

[KittenKoder]

The thing about all weather predictions ... they are predictions. Whether a computer is used or some other mathematics. Thing about predictions ... they are the chances of something occurring and are never better than 70% chance for weather, because weather is chaotic to us. There are so many variables and possible influences no one can know for certain what it will be. If they could then the meteorologists could tell you for certain, 100% of the time, what tomorrows weather would be, or even next weeks. But they can't. Ever notice, meteorologist is the only job you can be wrong more than 50% of the time and still keep your job?

 

[PoliticalChic]

The thing about all weather predictions ... they are predictions. Whether a computer is used or some other mathematics. Thing about predictions ... they are the chances of something occurring and are never better than 70% chance for weather, because weather is chaotic to us. There are so many variables and possible influences no one can know for certain what it will be. If they could then the meteorologists could tell you for certain, 100% of the time, what tomorrows weather would be, or even next weeks. But they can't. Ever notice, meteorologist is the only job you can be wrong more than 50% of the time and still keep your job?

Good point.

But in baseball you can "be wrong" 70% of the time and be an all-star!

 

[KittenKoder]

The thing about all weather predictions ... they are predictions. Whether a computer is used or some other mathematics. Thing about predictions ... they are the chances of something occurring and are never better than 70% chance for weather, because weather is chaotic to us. There are so many variables and possible influences no one can know for certain what it will be. If they could then the meteorologists could tell you for certain, 100% of the time, what tomorrows weather would be, or even next weeks. But they can't. Ever notice, meteorologist is the only job you can be wrong more than 50% of the time and still keep your job?

Good point.

But in baseball you can "be wrong" 70% of the time and be an all-star!

Okay ... pooh ... I don't like sports so I didn't know that.

 

[Old Rocks]

The thing about all weather predictions ... they are predictions. Whether a computer is used or some other mathematics. Thing about predictions ... they are the chances of something occurring and are never better than 70% chance for weather, because weather is chaotic to us. There are so many variables and possible influences no one can know for certain what it will be. If they could then the meteorologists could tell you for certain, 100% of the time, what tomorrows weather would be, or even next weeks. But they can't. Ever notice, meteorologist is the only job you can be wrong more than 50% of the time and still keep your job?

Uh, Kitten, there have been rather unequivicol predictions here concerning cooling. These scientists are just as unequivicol in predicting that within this decade we will see more than one year exceeding 1998 or 2005.

In other words, someone model will definately be proven wrong.