Peer reviewed paper shows no warming for at least 20 years.

westwall

WHEN GUNS ARE BANNED ONLY THE RICH WILL HAVE GUNS
Gold Supporting Member
Apr 21, 2010
95,928
57,078
2,605
Nevada
Here you go olfraud. In this decade of ever rising global temps as manufactured by your high priests we have this proxy that shows quite conviningly that no warming has occured for quite a long time now.


"Abstract

In recent decades, significant changes have occurred in high-latitude areas, particularly to the cryosphere. Sea ice extent and thickness have declined. In land areas, glaciers and ice sheets are experiencing negative mass balance changes, and there is substantial regional snow cover variability. Subsurface changes are also occurring in northern soils. This study focuses on these changes in the soil thermal regime, specifically the seasonally frozen ground region of Eurasia. We use a database of soil temperatures at 423 stations and estimate the maximum annual soil freezing depth at the 387 sites located on seasonally frozen ground. Evaluating seasonal freeze depth at these sites for 1930–2000 reveals a statistically significant trend of −4.5 cm/decade and a net change of −31.9 cm. Interdecadal variability is also evident such that there was no trend until the late 1960s, after which seasonal freeze depths decreased significantly until the early 1990s. From that point forward, likely through at least 2008, no change is evident. These changes in the soil thermal regime are most closely linked with the freezing index, but also mean annual air temperatures and snow depth. Antecedent conditions from the previous warm season do not appear to play a large role in affecting the subsequent cold season's seasonal freeze depths. The strong decrease in seasonal freeze depths during the 1970s to 1990s was likely the result of strong atmospheric forcing from the North Atlantic Oscillation during that time period."






IOPscience - Environmental Research Letters
 
Here you go olfraud. In this decade of ever rising global temps as manufactured by your high priests we have this proxy that shows quite conviningly that no warming has occured for quite a long time now.


"Abstract

In recent decades, significant changes have occurred in high-latitude areas, particularly to the cryosphere. Sea ice extent and thickness have declined. In land areas, glaciers and ice sheets are experiencing negative mass balance changes, and there is substantial regional snow cover variability. Subsurface changes are also occurring in northern soils. This study focuses on these changes in the soil thermal regime, specifically the seasonally frozen ground region of Eurasia. We use a database of soil temperatures at 423 stations and estimate the maximum annual soil freezing depth at the 387 sites located on seasonally frozen ground. Evaluating seasonal freeze depth at these sites for 1930–2000 reveals a statistically significant trend of −4.5 cm/decade and a net change of −31.9 cm. Interdecadal variability is also evident such that there was no trend until the late 1960s, after which seasonal freeze depths decreased significantly until the early 1990s. From that point forward, likely through at least 2008, no change is evident. These changes in the soil thermal regime are most closely linked with the freezing index, but also mean annual air temperatures and snow depth. Antecedent conditions from the previous warm season do not appear to play a large role in affecting the subsequent cold season's seasonal freeze depths. The strong decrease in seasonal freeze depths during the 1970s to 1990s was likely the result of strong atmospheric forcing from the North Atlantic Oscillation during that time period."
IOPscience - Environmental Research Letters
So these psychics can say that there was no decrease in freeze depths in 2008 using data that ended in 2000. And CON$ bitch about missing global warming data. :cuckoo:
 
Here you go olfraud. In this decade of ever rising global temps as manufactured by your high priests we have this proxy that shows quite conviningly that no warming has occured for quite a long time now.


"Abstract

In recent decades, significant changes have occurred in high-latitude areas, particularly to the cryosphere. Sea ice extent and thickness have declined. In land areas, glaciers and ice sheets are experiencing negative mass balance changes, and there is substantial regional snow cover variability. Subsurface changes are also occurring in northern soils. This study focuses on these changes in the soil thermal regime, specifically the seasonally frozen ground region of Eurasia. We use a database of soil temperatures at 423 stations and estimate the maximum annual soil freezing depth at the 387 sites located on seasonally frozen ground. Evaluating seasonal freeze depth at these sites for 1930–2000 reveals a statistically significant trend of −4.5 cm/decade and a net change of −31.9 cm. Interdecadal variability is also evident such that there was no trend until the late 1960s, after which seasonal freeze depths decreased significantly until the early 1990s. From that point forward, likely through at least 2008, no change is evident. These changes in the soil thermal regime are most closely linked with the freezing index, but also mean annual air temperatures and snow depth. Antecedent conditions from the previous warm season do not appear to play a large role in affecting the subsequent cold season's seasonal freeze depths. The strong decrease in seasonal freeze depths during the 1970s to 1990s was likely the result of strong atmospheric forcing from the North Atlantic Oscillation during that time period."
IOPscience - Environmental Research Letters
So these psychics can say that there was no decrease in freeze depths in 2008 using data that ended in 2000. And CON$ bitch about missing global warming data. :cuckoo:





Ummmm, this is just the abstract...if you actually get into the body of the study you will see how they derive their proxy data. Which is far more accurate then tree ring data that you've hung your hat on.
 
No global warming for the last 20 years? Well, then, what caused all the sweat on my balls back in August? I'd say that was global warming or something like it.
 
Here you go olfraud. In this decade of ever rising global temps as manufactured by your high priests we have this proxy that shows quite conviningly that no warming has occured for quite a long time now.


"Abstract

In recent decades, significant changes have occurred in high-latitude areas, particularly to the cryosphere. Sea ice extent and thickness have declined. In land areas, glaciers and ice sheets are experiencing negative mass balance changes, and there is substantial regional snow cover variability. Subsurface changes are also occurring in northern soils. This study focuses on these changes in the soil thermal regime, specifically the seasonally frozen ground region of Eurasia. We use a database of soil temperatures at 423 stations and estimate the maximum annual soil freezing depth at the 387 sites located on seasonally frozen ground. Evaluating seasonal freeze depth at these sites for 1930–2000 reveals a statistically significant trend of −4.5 cm/decade and a net change of −31.9 cm. Interdecadal variability is also evident such that there was no trend until the late 1960s, after which seasonal freeze depths decreased significantly until the early 1990s. From that point forward, likely through at least 2008, no change is evident. These changes in the soil thermal regime are most closely linked with the freezing index, but also mean annual air temperatures and snow depth. Antecedent conditions from the previous warm season do not appear to play a large role in affecting the subsequent cold season's seasonal freeze depths. The strong decrease in seasonal freeze depths during the 1970s to 1990s was likely the result of strong atmospheric forcing from the North Atlantic Oscillation during that time period."






IOPscience - Environmental Research Letters

No, Walleyes, that paper shows no increase in the depth of permafrost melting for the last 20 years. No decrease, either.

It does not show there has been no warming. That is a figment of your imagination. From the same publication;

IOPscience - The response of the climate system to very high greenhouse gas emission scenarios

Well informed decisions on climate policy necessitate simulation of the climate system for a sufficiently wide range of emissions scenarios. While recent literature has been devoted to low emissions futures, the potential for very high emissions has not been thoroughly explored. We specify two illustrative emissions scenarios that are significantly higher than the A1FI scenario, the highest scenario considered in past IPCC reports, and simulate them in a global climate model to investigate their climate change implications. Relative to the A1FI scenario, our highest scenario results in an additional 2 K of global mean warming above A1FI levels by 2100, a complete loss of arctic summer sea-ice by 2070 and an additional 43% sea level rise due to thermal expansion above A1FI levels by 2100. Regional maximum temperature increases from late 20th century values are 50–100% greater than A1FI increases, with some regions such as the Central US, the Tibetan plateau and Alaska showing a 300–400% increase above A1FI levels.
 
West......... love ya bro, but this is just another thread about temperatures that is essentially irrelevant. The prevailing view is that nobody knows dick for certain, thus, the gigantic public yawn these days if the topic comes up.
 
West......... love ya bro, but this is just another thread about temperatures that is essentially irrelevant. The prevailing view is that nobody knows dick for certain, thus, the gigantic public yawn these days if the topic comes up.




That is absolutely true. I just love needling olfraud and company. I do it now for amusement value only!:lol:
 
West......... love ya bro, but this is just another thread about temperatures that is essentially irrelevant. The prevailing view is that nobody knows dick for certain, thus, the gigantic public yawn these days if the topic comes up.
That is absolutely true. I just love needling olfraud and company. I do it now for amusement value only!:lol:
Of course, you miss the amusement value in claiming there has been no warming for 20 years using a study missing the data for the last 11 years! :rofl::lmao:
 
West......... love ya bro, but this is just another thread about temperatures that is essentially irrelevant. The prevailing view is that nobody knows dick for certain, thus, the gigantic public yawn these days if the topic comes up.
That is absolutely true. I just love needling olfraud and company. I do it now for amusement value only!:lol:
Of course, you miss the amusement value in claiming there has been no warming for 20 years using a study missing the data for the last 11 years! :rofl::lmao:





Yes they use the same methods as you guys and you claim foul because they don't see the same things you do. I get it!:lol:
 
That is absolutely true. I just love needling olfraud and company. I do it now for amusement value only!:lol:
Of course, you miss the amusement value in claiming there has been no warming for 20 years using a study missing the data for the last 11 years! :rofl::lmao:
Yes they use the same methods as you guys and you claim foul because they don't see the same things you do. I get it!:lol:
So you admit you have no data, but rationalize it's OK for you to have no data by simply falsely claiming nobody else has data and two wrongs make the Right. :cuckoo:
How amusing! :badgrin:
 
Of course, you miss the amusement value in claiming there has been no warming for 20 years using a study missing the data for the last 11 years! :rofl::lmao:
Yes they use the same methods as you guys and you claim foul because they don't see the same things you do. I get it!:lol:
So you admit you have no data, but rationalize it's OK for you to have no data by simply falsely claiming nobody else has data and two wrongs make the Right. :cuckoo:
How amusing! :badgrin:





No, I just enjoy pointing out how you guys do things. When the results agree with your pre concieved ideas you approve, when they don't you throw a conniption fit like my five year old.
 
Yes they use the same methods as you guys and you claim foul because they don't see the same things you do. I get it!:lol:
So you admit you have no data, but rationalize it's OK for you to have no data by simply falsely claiming nobody else has data and two wrongs make the Right. :cuckoo:
How amusing! :badgrin:
No, I just enjoy pointing out how you guys do things. When the results agree with your pre concieved ideas you approve, when they don't you throw a conniption fit like my five year old.
Sorry, but there IS satellite DATA from the last 40 years, collected by deniers Christy and Spncer at UAH, that says it has been warming for more than the last 20 years, so what you seem to enjoy doing is making up shit when the data does not agree with the lies you were programmed to swallow.
 
So you admit you have no data, but rationalize it's OK for you to have no data by simply falsely claiming nobody else has data and two wrongs make the Right. :cuckoo:
How amusing! :badgrin:
No, I just enjoy pointing out how you guys do things. When the results agree with your pre concieved ideas you approve, when they don't you throw a conniption fit like my five year old.
Sorry, but there IS satellite DATA from the last 40 years, collected by deniers Christy and Spncer at UAH, that says it has been warming for more than the last 20 years, so what you seem to enjoy doing is making up shit when the data does not agree with the lies you were programmed to swallow.





And that same data shows that the global temps have stalled since at least 1998 within the statistical ability to detect a change.
 
No, I just enjoy pointing out how you guys do things. When the results agree with your pre concieved ideas you approve, when they don't you throw a conniption fit like my five year old.
Sorry, but there IS satellite DATA from the last 40 years, collected by deniers Christy and Spncer at UAH, that says it has been warming for more than the last 20 years, so what you seem to enjoy doing is making up shit when the data does not agree with the lies you were programmed to swallow.
And that same data shows that the global temps have stalled since at least 1998 within the statistical ability to detect a change.
LOLOLOLOL......you are such a clueless fruitcake, walleyed.

Global warming since 1995 'now significant'
By Richard Black -
BBC News
10 June 2011
(excerpts)

Climate warming since 1995 is now statistically significant, according to Phil Jones, the UK scientist targeted in the "ClimateGate" affair. By widespread convention, scientists use a minimum threshold of 95% to assess whether a trend is likely to be down to an underlying cause, rather than emerging by chance. If a trend meets the 95% threshold, it basically means that the odds of it being down to chance are less than one in 20. Last year's analysis, which went to 2009, did not reach this threshold; but adding data for 2010 takes it over the line.

"The trend over the period 1995-2009 was significant at the 90% level, but wasn't significant at the standard 95% level that people use," Professor Jones told BBC News. "Basically what's changed is one more year [of data]. That period 1995-2009 was just 15 years - and because of the uncertainty in estimating trends over short periods, an extra year has made that trend significant at the 95% level which is the traditional threshold that statisticians have used for many years. "It just shows the difficulty of achieving significance with a short time series, and that's why longer series - 20 or 30 years - would be a much better way of estimating trends and getting significance on a consistent basis."

Professor Jones' previous comment, from a BBC interview in Febuary 2010, is routinely quoted - erroneously - as demonstration that the Earth's surface temperature is not rising.



Denier cult myth - "It hasn't warmed since 1998"

Denier myth debunked - What has global warming done since 1998?



***
 
Sorry, but there IS satellite DATA from the last 40 years, collected by deniers Christy and Spncer at UAH, that says it has been warming for more than the last 20 years, so what you seem to enjoy doing is making up shit when the data does not agree with the lies you were programmed to swallow.
And that same data shows that the global temps have stalled since at least 1998 within the statistical ability to detect a change.
LOLOLOLOL......you are such a clueless fruitcake, walleyed.

Global warming since 1995 'now significant'
By Richard Black -
BBC News
10 June 2011
(excerpts)

Climate warming since 1995 is now statistically significant, according to Phil Jones, the UK scientist targeted in the "ClimateGate" affair. By widespread convention, scientists use a minimum threshold of 95% to assess whether a trend is likely to be down to an underlying cause, rather than emerging by chance. If a trend meets the 95% threshold, it basically means that the odds of it being down to chance are less than one in 20. Last year's analysis, which went to 2009, did not reach this threshold; but adding data for 2010 takes it over the line.

"The trend over the period 1995-2009 was significant at the 90% level, but wasn't significant at the standard 95% level that people use," Professor Jones told BBC News. "Basically what's changed is one more year [of data]. That period 1995-2009 was just 15 years - and because of the uncertainty in estimating trends over short periods, an extra year has made that trend significant at the 95% level which is the traditional threshold that statisticians have used for many years. "It just shows the difficulty of achieving significance with a short time series, and that's why longer series - 20 or 30 years - would be a much better way of estimating trends and getting significance on a consistent basis."

Professor Jones' previous comment, from a BBC interview in Febuary 2010, is routinely quoted - erroneously - as demonstration that the Earth's surface temperature is not rising.



Denier cult myth - "It hasn't warmed since 1998"

Denier myth debunked - What has global warming done since 1998?



***





Ummmm, sure it did. Here is a graph from the AGW cultists you quote with diarhetic regularity...Note how there is all this heat in the oceans (that Trenberth can't seem to find, it's hiding down there somewhere in violation of all physical laws we know of, but it's down there) and the other graph is from ARGO. You'll notice the actual empirical data shows a slight decline in the oceans temp. Not some fanciful "I can't find the missing energy in the oceans because my damned dog at it" bullshit.
 

Attachments

  • $Total-Heat-Content.gif
    $Total-Heat-Content.gif
    12.1 KB · Views: 174
  • $Fullscreen capture 9212010 63447 AM.jpg
    $Fullscreen capture 9212010 63447 AM.jpg
    97.7 KB · Views: 177
And that same data shows that the global temps have stalled since at least 1998 within the statistical ability to detect a change.
LOLOLOLOL......you are such a clueless fruitcake, walleyed.

Global warming since 1995 'now significant'
By Richard Black -
BBC News
10 June 2011
(excerpts)

Climate warming since 1995 is now statistically significant, according to Phil Jones, the UK scientist targeted in the "ClimateGate" affair. By widespread convention, scientists use a minimum threshold of 95% to assess whether a trend is likely to be down to an underlying cause, rather than emerging by chance. If a trend meets the 95% threshold, it basically means that the odds of it being down to chance are less than one in 20. Last year's analysis, which went to 2009, did not reach this threshold; but adding data for 2010 takes it over the line.

"The trend over the period 1995-2009 was significant at the 90% level, but wasn't significant at the standard 95% level that people use," Professor Jones told BBC News. "Basically what's changed is one more year [of data]. That period 1995-2009 was just 15 years - and because of the uncertainty in estimating trends over short periods, an extra year has made that trend significant at the 95% level which is the traditional threshold that statisticians have used for many years. "It just shows the difficulty of achieving significance with a short time series, and that's why longer series - 20 or 30 years - would be a much better way of estimating trends and getting significance on a consistent basis."

Professor Jones' previous comment, from a BBC interview in Febuary 2010, is routinely quoted - erroneously - as demonstration that the Earth's surface temperature is not rising.



Denier cult myth - "It hasn't warmed since 1998"

Denier myth debunked - What has global warming done since 1998?



***
Ummmm, sure it did. Here is a graph from the AGW cultists you quote with diarhetic regularity...Note how there is all this heat in the oceans (that Trenberth can't seem to find, it's hiding down there somewhere in violation of all physical laws we know of, but it's down there) and the other graph is from ARGO. You'll notice the actual empirical data shows a slight decline in the oceans temp. Not some fanciful "I can't find the missing energy in the oceans because my damned dog at it" bullshit.
Dishonest CON$ always use the data from the defective ARGO floats, long after the defective floats were discovered and the problem corrected, that misread the depth and were recording temperatures at depths much deeper than their sensors recorded giving cooler temperatures.

Here is a chart from the journal Nature of the real ARGO data from floats reading the correct depth.

CGD 2010 Profiles in Science: Dr. Kevin Trenberth

Trenberth, K.E. and J.T. Fasullo. 2010: Global Change: The ocean is warming, isn't it? Nature, 465, 304-304, doi:10.1038/465304a.
trenberth2t.jpg


Figure 2: High resolution figure
A reappraisal of the messy data on upper-ocean heat content for 1993–2008 provides clear evidence for warming. But differences among various analyses and inconsistencies with other indicators merit attention.
Global atmospheric temperatures at Earth's surface are often taken as an indicator of global warming. Yet the atmosphere is battered by all sorts of natural variability associated with weather phenomena. More robust indicators of a warming planet come from evidence of increasing ocean heat content and associated sea-level rise. Yet observing systems that capitalize on these insights are in their infancy. On page 334 of this issue, a step forward is reported by Lyman et al.1 — they find a robust warming of the global upper ocean to be present in the data, in spite of considerable uncertainties arising from the observations themselves.


Figure caption: Changing heat content of the global ocean, with respect to the mean of 1993 to 2008.

465304a-f1.2.jpg
 
LOLOLOLOL......you are such a clueless fruitcake, walleyed.

Global warming since 1995 'now significant'
By Richard Black -
BBC News
10 June 2011
(excerpts)

Climate warming since 1995 is now statistically significant, according to Phil Jones, the UK scientist targeted in the "ClimateGate" affair. By widespread convention, scientists use a minimum threshold of 95% to assess whether a trend is likely to be down to an underlying cause, rather than emerging by chance. If a trend meets the 95% threshold, it basically means that the odds of it being down to chance are less than one in 20. Last year's analysis, which went to 2009, did not reach this threshold; but adding data for 2010 takes it over the line.

"The trend over the period 1995-2009 was significant at the 90% level, but wasn't significant at the standard 95% level that people use," Professor Jones told BBC News. "Basically what's changed is one more year [of data]. That period 1995-2009 was just 15 years - and because of the uncertainty in estimating trends over short periods, an extra year has made that trend significant at the 95% level which is the traditional threshold that statisticians have used for many years. "It just shows the difficulty of achieving significance with a short time series, and that's why longer series - 20 or 30 years - would be a much better way of estimating trends and getting significance on a consistent basis."

Professor Jones' previous comment, from a BBC interview in Febuary 2010, is routinely quoted - erroneously - as demonstration that the Earth's surface temperature is not rising.



Denier cult myth - "It hasn't warmed since 1998"

Denier myth debunked - What has global warming done since 1998?



***
Ummmm, sure it did. Here is a graph from the AGW cultists you quote with diarhetic regularity...Note how there is all this heat in the oceans (that Trenberth can't seem to find, it's hiding down there somewhere in violation of all physical laws we know of, but it's down there) and the other graph is from ARGO. You'll notice the actual empirical data shows a slight decline in the oceans temp. Not some fanciful "I can't find the missing energy in the oceans because my damned dog at it" bullshit.
Dishonest CON$ always use the data from the defective ARGO floats, long after the defective floats were discovered and the problem corrected, that misread the depth and were recording temperatures at depths much deeper than their sensors recorded giving cooler temperatures.

Here is a chart from the journal Nature of the real ARGO data from floats reading the correct depth.

CGD 2010 Profiles in Science: Dr. Kevin Trenberth

Trenberth, K.E. and J.T. Fasullo. 2010: Global Change: The ocean is warming, isn't it? Nature, 465, 304-304, doi:10.1038/465304a.
trenberth2t.jpg


Figure 2: High resolution figure
A reappraisal of the messy data on upper-ocean heat content for 1993–2008 provides clear evidence for warming. But differences among various analyses and inconsistencies with other indicators merit attention.
Global atmospheric temperatures at Earth's surface are often taken as an indicator of global warming. Yet the atmosphere is battered by all sorts of natural variability associated with weather phenomena. More robust indicators of a warming planet come from evidence of increasing ocean heat content and associated sea-level rise. Yet observing systems that capitalize on these insights are in their infancy. On page 334 of this issue, a step forward is reported by Lyman et al.1 — they find a robust warming of the global upper ocean to be present in the data, in spite of considerable uncertainties arising from the observations themselves.


Figure caption: Changing heat content of the global ocean, with respect to the mean of 1993 to 2008.

465304a-f1.2.jpg





Here's what NOAA has to say about your little graphs.


http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_update/gsstanim.gif
 
Ummmm, sure it did. Here is a graph from the AGW cultists you quote with diarhetic regularity...Note how there is all this heat in the oceans (that Trenberth can't seem to find, it's hiding down there somewhere in violation of all physical laws we know of, but it's down there) and the other graph is from ARGO. You'll notice the actual empirical data shows a slight decline in the oceans temp. Not some fanciful "I can't find the missing energy in the oceans because my damned dog at it" bullshit.
Dishonest CON$ always use the data from the defective ARGO floats, long after the defective floats were discovered and the problem corrected, that misread the depth and were recording temperatures at depths much deeper than their sensors recorded giving cooler temperatures.

Here is a chart from the journal Nature of the real ARGO data from floats reading the correct depth.

CGD 2010 Profiles in Science: Dr. Kevin Trenberth

Trenberth, K.E. and J.T. Fasullo. 2010: Global Change: The ocean is warming, isn't it? Nature, 465, 304-304, doi:10.1038/465304a.
trenberth2t.jpg


Figure 2: High resolution figure
A reappraisal of the messy data on upper-ocean heat content for 1993–2008 provides clear evidence for warming. But differences among various analyses and inconsistencies with other indicators merit attention.
Global atmospheric temperatures at Earth's surface are often taken as an indicator of global warming. Yet the atmosphere is battered by all sorts of natural variability associated with weather phenomena. More robust indicators of a warming planet come from evidence of increasing ocean heat content and associated sea-level rise. Yet observing systems that capitalize on these insights are in their infancy. On page 334 of this issue, a step forward is reported by Lyman et al.1 — they find a robust warming of the global upper ocean to be present in the data, in spite of considerable uncertainties arising from the observations themselves.


Figure caption: Changing heat content of the global ocean, with respect to the mean of 1993 to 2008.

465304a-f1.2.jpg





Here's what NOAA has to say about your little graphs.


http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_update/gsstanim.gif




And here's another graph that shows ocean sea level leveling off in contradiction of your predicitons.
 

Attachments

  • $UnivColorado%20MeanSeaLevelSince1992%20With1yrRunningAverage.gif
    $UnivColorado%20MeanSeaLevelSince1992%20With1yrRunningAverage.gif
    16 KB · Views: 73
Last edited:
Abstract

Subsurface temperature trends in the better-sampled parts of the World Ocean are reported. Where there are sufficient observations for this analysis, there is large spatial variability of 51-yr trends in the upper ocean, with some regions showing cooling in excess of 3°C, and others warming of similar magnitude. Some 95% of the ocean area analyzed has both cooled and warmed over 20-yr subsets of this period. There is much space and time variability of 20-yr running trend estimates, indicating that trends over a decade or two may not be representative of longer-term trends. Results are based on sorting individual observations in World Ocean Database 2001 into 1° × 1° and 2° × 2° bins. Only bins with at least five observations per decade for four of the five decades since 1950 are used. Much of the World Ocean cannot be examined from this perspective. The 51-yr trends significant at the 90% level are given particular attention. Results are presented for depths of 100, 300, and 500 m. The patterns of the 90% significant trends are spatially coherent on scales resolved by the bin size. The vertical structure of the trends is coherent in some regions, but changes sign between the analysis depths in a number of others. It is suggested that additional attention should be given to uncertainty estimates for basin average and World Ocean average thermal trends.

ocean_warming_fig1.jpg


Figure 1. Time series of some individual 1°x1° boxes at (a) 42°N, 66°W, 100 m; (b) trend lines for 42°N, 66°W, on same scale as other graphs; (c) 51°N, 131°W, 100 m; (d) 40°N, 155°W, 100 m; and (e) 23°N, 156°W, 500 m. Trend lines are fitted only by data within the periods they cover.




Harrison, D.E., and M. Carson. 2007. Is the World Ocean Warming? Upper-Ocean Temperature Trends: 1950–2000. Journal of Physical Oceanography, 37, 174-187.
 

Forum List

Back
Top