A few years ago there was a reassurance that ocean warming was slowing, to the delight of climate change deniers. But new research proves that the oceans continue to warm, and the error was due to the use of different measuring devices.
By Alina Arbitman, Angle, Science and Environment News Agency
While Donald Trump, the President of the United States, continues to sign orders that cancel the environmental policies of his predecessor Barack Obama and threatens to withdraw the USA's signature from the Paris Agreement to combat climate change, the waters of the Atlantic Ocean, on the shores of which is the famous mansion he owns in Palm Beach, Florida, continue to warm.
The oceans cover about 70 percent of the earth's surface, and global climate change does not spare them either. But in the ocean there is a constant flow of water, and water from the upper layers mixes with water from the deeper layers, which are colder. This perhaps explains why, according to the scientific knowledge front today, it seems that the water in the oceans warms "only" by a tenth of a degree every ten years - this compared to a faster warming of the temperature on the surface of the land.
A few years ago, scientists believed that starting in 1998, there was a slowdown in the rate of ocean warming to about one-third to one-half of the rate observed in the second half of the 20th century. This phenomenon even got its own nickname - "global warming hiatus", and was used by climate change deniers. Yet, study published in the magazine Sciencee two years ago caused a stir when he claimed that this hole did not exist and was not created, and that the simulated effect is related to the transition between different measurement methods. The study made it clear that the reason for this is that floats, which replaced the measuring instruments on the ships, tended to report slightly lower temperatures.
Now, New research conducted at the University of California and published in the journal Science Advances, confirms this conclusion with the help of independent information: the researchers examined the trend of the data obtained from various measuring devices: floats, satellites and robotic measuring devices, and found that in each of them the rate of warming was very similar and matched the conclusions of the study published two years ago - About 0.12 degrees on average per decade.
Which device to believe?
Prof. Hezi Gildor from the Institute of Earth Sciences at the Hebrew University estimates that this is not the last word in the study of ocean warming. "It is a change of only about a tenth of a degree over a decade, so it is difficult to separate it from the 'noise'," he says. "It does not mean that there is no warming, and it is even possible that it is twice as large as the accepted explanation, but it is important to remember that the trend is not uniform, and therefore we need more long-term data than we currently have in order to confidently conclude the true trend."
Gildor also has a conclusion regarding the scientific methods: "When we change the measurement method, it is important to be careful and recalibrate to make sure we get consistency in the data."
So how do you really measure sea temperature? Various different devices for measuring the temperature of the seas have been used in the past and in the present. Thus, for example, until World War II, the British who ruled the days used to insert a thermometer (thermometer) into a bucket of water that was brought aboard and thus measure the temperature of the water. After World War II, the days were dominated by the American Navy, which measured the temperature of the water that was pumped into the ship through a pipe in order to cool the engine room. As a result, between the XNUMXs and XNUMXs, the oceans seemed to be getting colder.
Then floats came into use, which sample the sea surface temperature, and today it is also measured using robotic tools called Argo, which sink to a depth of hundreds of meters and sample the deep water continuously for a week or more. In addition to this, the measurement is currently done with electronic CTD devices and by means of satellites, which measure the radiation emitted from the surface of the sea.
Good and bad news
And what is happening in our area? The southeastern part of the Mediterranean - south from Cyprus and along the coasts of Israel and Egypt - Warmed in the last 30 years by about 3 degrees, from an average of 24 degrees in summer to 27 degrees. This is a rate of about 0.1 degrees per year, which means that it is about 10 times higher than the average in the oceans and higher also compared to the western regions of the Mediterranean Sea.
Dr. Isak Gertman, an oceanographer from the Israel Seas and Lakes Research Institute, explains: "We are in a relatively protected area of the Mediterranean Sea: there is less mixing of the water with deeper and colder layers, and the exchange of water is less efficient compared to the oceans or other areas in the Mediterranean Sea. That is why we are more sensitive to atmospheric changes.'
The good (or bad) news is that in this case no significant measurement errors are expected to be discovered, primarily because the increase in the temperature of the Mediterranean Sea is much more pronounced than that observed in the oceans. It also turns out that for about 40 years, starting in 1978, CTD measuring devices have been used in Israel. These devices sample, in addition to the temperature, the conductivity of the sea (from which the salinity is calculated) and its depth. The CTD device is lowered into the sea using a steel cable connected to a crane, and it samples the sea water at different depths using sensors. Such devices are in regular use by the Sea and Lake Research Institute near the Hadera and Ashkelon beaches.
The increase in the temperature of the Mediterranean already giving her signals in the marine biological system. Dozens of species of marine animals have disappeared from Israel's shores in recent years, including sea urchins and several species of snails. The case of the sea urchins is interesting, as experiments indicate that the warming of the water plays a fundamental role in their disappearance: under laboratory conditions, they were unable to survive in a water temperature higher than 30.5 degrees, a water temperature common at the height of summer today, but they coped well with a temperature of 29 degrees, which was typical for summers of the nineties.
In most other cases, the reasons for the disappearance are not fully known, and are probably related to a combination of several factors - such as overfishing, seawater pollution andInvasion of invasive species from the Suez Canal Competing with local species for food sources, this is in addition to the effects of the warming of the water.
And what does the future hold for us? Gertman points out that the best forecast for the next ten years is based on what has been and will be: "The Mediterranean Sea will continue to warm at about the same rate of 0.1 degrees Celsius per year, as we have seen in the last 30 years," says Gertman, but also adds a reassuring message: "Our region It is the hottest and saltiest in the Mediterranean. We discovered that when there is an increase in temperature and salinity, vertical mixing of the water with deeper layers begins, and then the temperature drops."
19 תגובות
And one more thing, when you ask me to give a variety of opinions, only one of which is the truth, I sin against the term media. Media should tell the truth. Otherwise he is simply a propaganda tool.
Science should be the starting point for every political decision. According to you, the attack on Trump does not stem from his views on the issues of Russia or North Korea, but from a deliberate decision to ignore the scientific data - by the way, not only in the area of the environment, he also limited the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation in the areas in which they can give grants. Science should be free and that's the only way it progresses. If someone is wrong, you can criticize him even if he is the president of the United States.
angle is the origin — http://www.zavit.org.il/
Correction: Your links are not exactly the same article that was published in Science and Angle, as you write.
The above article courtesy of "Angle" published in "Yadan", edited and written in a one-pointed preaching and not in a scientific way.
Under the title of the article it says its source - the Angle website.
Now apologize for calling me a liar.
Satham…
To Ethan:
Pay attention to the titles of the articles whose links I posted:
Assessing recent warming using instrumentally homogeneous sea surface temperature records
Or: Collapse of the echinoid Paracentrotus lividus populations in the Eastern Mediterranean—result of climate change? (note the question mark)
It's exactly the same article except that where does it say that "the mystery has been solved" !!!? "" like the title of the article of the site "Angle" that was also published in "Yaden"?
And that just proves what I'm saying - it's a difference between scientific publication and propaganda and an attempt at populist brainwashing.
Miraculously, you burst into an open door and also bury Thrash in the sand.
1. I have not written even once that in my opinion the earth is not warming. Nor did I claim to have such an opinion at all.
What does exist is a legitimate debate that is trying to bring politics into it.
In real science, especially observational science there are no "facts" there are only theories and assumptions. And any scientific theory or assumption is legitimate to challenge and contradict.
2. Nor did I claim even once that the theory was incorrect.
What I did argue was the way things were presented, the presentation of the meaning of the measurements taken in the sea in an exaggerated way, the obsessive hiding of any other information, the huge investment in propaganda and brainwashing videos and articles, and the fact that a scientific topic is turned into political propaganda and religious belief.
For example, those who published the aforementioned article, "Angle", this coming Friday want to hold a political demonstration in Tel Aviv under a scientific guise, the real purpose of which is to attack the President of the United States, and perhaps also the Prime Minister of Israel - they are not even ashamed to state that this is their goal.
my father
What you are doing is bordering on dishonesty.
1) You do not understand at all what the word "theory" means. A theory is not something that is thought to happen, but an explanation of a process that does happen (that is, observed). You may mean to say that this is a hypothesis, but that is also not true:
a) The climate is warming. This is an observational fact.
b) There is a significant increase in the concentration of PAD in the atmosphere. This is an observational fact.
c) The increase in the concentration of PADH is a result of human activity. We know this through the percentage of carbon-14.
d) FDF is a greenhouse gas. This is an observational fact.
That's basically it. Do you really want to argue about that? Not true? So please stop throwing sand in your eyes!
my father
Either you are lying, or your reading comprehension is insufficient to reach the original articles (let alone read them)
My feeling is that it is a combination of the two.
Contrary to your claim, the original article does not come from the Israeli Association for Ecology and Environmental Sciences.
Like the science site, the aforementioned site shortened, simplified and translated the original article into Hebrew.
There is a link to the source in the body of the article:
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep13479
The rest of the information in the scientific article is from another article:
http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/1/e1601207.full
If you have any doubts about the credibility of the articles, you can send a letter to the editors of Nature and Science.
Successfully.
The original article is courtesy of Azula - a news agency.. of the "Israeli Ecology Society..". : and this is what they write about themselves:
"The Israeli Association for Ecology and Environmental Sciences ~……….~ Over the years, the association has oscillated between a desire to influence the public agenda and policy-making by expressing positions on environmental issues, and between a policy according to which positions should not be determined and published as an association, out of a desire to preserve a variety of opinions as is customary in academia .”
On the cover of their website there is a cartoon of the President of the United States blowing smoke on the Earth, a cartoon on the level of the anti-Semitic cartoons of a hundred years ago.
All other articles on global warming on this site are completely satirical preaching.
Apparently, in the end, "the desire to influence the public agenda and policy-making..." overcame the "desire to preserve a variety of opinions..."
To firm
As I have written several times, I have no argument for or against the theory of global warming, so I am not particularly interested in the original article in this case.
I am only disturbed by the way the topic is presented, the politics involved, and the brainwashing under the guise of a scientific article.
I do expect in the press, in any press, especially scientific and popular science, objectivity and honesty and to avoid preaching, and brainwashing under the guise of science.
Again and again "Rabbi Yadan" responds with a text drawn from... ?
The trouble is that there are still those who try to argue with him
Then all the dams of "information" are broken...
my father
I find it hard to believe that you really expect a popular science journalistic article to provide a non-sensational headline and link to addendums of statistical calculations and methodology.
Either you don't understand how a scientific article is structured and the difference between it and a blog article or you use a straw man argument and claim that due to inaccuracy on a site that is based on clicks, the scientific article is also wrong.
You seem to be reading Vala articles and confusing them with a peer-reviewed scientific paper.
We will try to read one such.
In addition, it seems that you are bothered by the lack of reference to sources and in addition it seems to bother you that in the body of an article there is a reference to a previous article with different results.
My feeling is that you have no real interest in the content of the articles but only in finding what you see as errors in order to strengthen your belief.
In light of your responses here, it seems that this does bother you. I would again recommend you read the source article.
Successfully
My intention was this research itself - how many samples, what depths, what is the significance of the results, and more.
It doesn't bother me so much that I will go check it out, I saw that the "denying" scientists claim that the measurements are not accurate enough to say that and I remember the deliberate hiding of the data that was carried out at the time and the media noise that was silenced quite quickly.
My problem with these articles is that they are structured as propaganda articles, and not a scientific article.
First of all, they always show only one side, they have a headline like "the mystery has been solved" while it is all about a few more measurements that tomorrow someone else will come and prove the opposite...
I read scientific articles every day. Today an article is published that such a drug is harmful and the next day another study is published that proves that the opposite is true, the difference is that these articles all include sample size data, statistical and significant inferences, the headlines are not "The mystery has been solved. Paracetamol is the one that causes heart attacks in the world..." but "The effect of paracetamol on the heart was examined and it was found that there is a probability that it has such and such an effect", and in a sample of such and such subjects were asked such and such factors such and such factors were taken into account or not taken into account out of such and such a percentage such and such lived longer so and so years and so on the probability is such and such the significance such and such that it is True and so and so and so it is not true, a linear fit was found in the regression coefficient so and so or fit to a U curve or a J curve and so on... and many times also a note that there are also studies that show otherwise and a reference to the same sources.
my father
The information is available online
If you would like to know how significance was reached in the measurements or the methodology behind the measurements, you only need to go through the relevant article of that group.
The same goes for the type of sensor and its level of accuracy. You can go over the SPEC and calibration data and error range.
(Example: http://www.seabird.com/sbe3plus-ctd-temperature-sensor)
It is not clear on what basis you decide that everyone is wrong and that the measurements are worthless.
You are clear that your letter showing methodological errors in the measurement will cause the article to be withdrawn and clarified in a future issue.
Do you think such a letter will be ignored as part of the scientists' conspiracy?
I'm in favor of keeping an open mind, I don't like science being raped with the help of politics and consensuses in any direction, Galileo Galilei didn't like it either, and other scientists who broke consensuses and religious and political opinions didn't like it.
Unfortunately, too much politics is involved in this issue, there are always one-sided sermons, and there are "theory deniers"... as if it were some religious belief that should not be denied.
After all, science is based on scientists who cast doubts and deny, otherwise we would still believe that the world was created five thousand years ago and the sun revolves around it.
The malicious concealment of the data on the cooling of the Earth in the decade before the UN decision from the UN committees that dealt with the issue is a well-known affair that was published in the media, it is wrong, and I don't care who is right.
Regarding the statistics or the accuracy, the uncertainty of the measurements and the significance of the results, I have not seen such data as it is customary to bring in a scientific article.
There is no connection between measuring temperature and measuring wavelengths. Inside the device that is placed in this TDC, there is a total RTD or thermistor temperature gauge. No different than those calibrated in my lab every day.
It is true that the accuracy can reach hundreds of degrees, but in the laboratory under very controlled conditions and there is a very large uncertainty in such exactness. And measuring the average of the entire sea over ten years with such accuracy is not something trivial, if you were involved in calibrating temperature instruments you would understand that there are a lot of errors that you have to include in the uncertainty equation of such a measurement and what is the statistical significance of calculating the average of all the temperatures of all the days in the world In general, and her change over the course of a decade...
The disappearance of species can be due to endless reasons, many of them due to man and the pollution he puts into the sea, not necessarily because of the temperature change.
I'm not against the theory of global warming, it seems to me to be true too, and I'm not in favor of the cowboy who was elected president of the United States, and I'm very much in favor of reducing pollution in the world, but there's also another side, and these props have no less reliable theories and they should be tested as well, and I don't like the This one-sided propaganda, the brainwashing that Schwarzenegger tries to insert into the videos he produces, and the politicization of the matter.
my father
1. It seems that according to your understanding, "politics" is a scientific study with which you do not agree.
2. Why do you think it is difficult to measure two digits after the dot in a calibration laboratory?
The COBE satellite is able to detect deviations of 1/100000 degrees of cosmic background radiation.
Is it possible that your familiarity with household thermometers and industrial calibration devices is enough for you to come to the conclusion that it is "very, very difficult" to measure deviations of two digits after the point?
3. There is enough information collected (from satellite measurements, analysis of air in ice core drilling, and much more) that show that there is an increase in the global average temperature at a rate not measured in the last 20,000 years. The information shows a correlation with an increase in CO2 levels. In contrast, there is no known correlation between the acceleration of global warming and solar, cosmic or volcanic activity.
4. The amount of data does not allow for "malicious concealment", it seems that it is important for you to believe this because it implies a conspiracy of scientists who do not agree with your beliefs. All the information collected is available online and in university libraries for your reference.
5. You wrote ""Many species disappeared" because of a temperature difference of 0.12 degrees?!". You don't seem to understand relatively basic concepts like average. You should understand the meaning behind this statistical tool before you can understand climate discussions (or any research that uses statistical tools).
Successfully.
Besides, "many species disappeared" because of a temperature difference of 0.12 degrees?!! is it serious
1. I suggest that the website remains scientific and does not mix politics with science.
2. Measuring 0.12 degrees Celsius is very, very difficult in a closed and controlled calibration laboratory. That's why it's a sad joke that they measured 0.12 degrees in the sea with measuring devices on ships.
3. The debate is not whether the earth is warming or not, everyone agrees that the earth is warming, the debate is what is the reason for this and whether it is man's fault or is it a natural process.
4. The fluctuation of the sea temperature in the decade before the UN decision, which according to certain scientists was actually in the direction of cooling, was published in the news at the time because it was a figure that was maliciously and unfairly hidden from the committees that discussed the UN decision. Even if it wasn't true or accurate, it was hidden with malicious intent and that's what the fuss was about and not about the actual debate as to whether the temperature went down or up.
5. Besides, what is the meaning of 0.12 degrees in an average of ten years? What is the standard deviation of the measurement? What is the uncertainty and what is the statistical significance of such a figure?