The full article referred to in this synopsis may be found at:

"We have discovered an 1,800 year tidal cycle that appears to match with recent climate change," said Keeling. "If this is a correct mechanism for understanding climate change over millennia, then temperatures will rise both because of weaker tidal mixing and because of the greenhouse effect, which is on the increase as well." The researchers say a period of tidal cooling around 1974 might have produced more cooling, but perhaps was masked by a simultaneous greenhouse warming. "If that is true, then it becomes pretty clear that if today's natural warming trend is combined with the greenhouse effect, then we'll soon see the effect of combined warming all over the world," said Keeling.

OK, all you Global Warming pollies, have at it.

Hallyx

-- (Hallyx@aol.com), March 22, 2000

Answers

We still need AlBore to tell us just which "man-made" pollutants or activities caused the multi-million year era of global warming during the dinosaur times. We really do need to know.

-- Politics (AndScienceJustDon't@Mix.com), March 22, 2000.

http://www.sio.ucsd.edu/supp_groups/siocomm/pressreleases/CKe eling.html

-- Jim Morris (prism@bevcomm.net), March 22, 2000.

On the way? It's already here dude!

Politics and science don't mix, perhaps you're right about that, and that's why people like you and the Rush Limbaugh crowd shouldn't let what Al Gore says alter your perspective. Global warming is real, no matter what Gore says, and good scientists already know this.

As far as the dinosaurs go, that was a huge asteroid off the Yucatan peninsula. The resulting cloud cover killed most vegetation, which dinosaurs consume in huge quanitities. They starved to death.

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), March 23, 2000.

Hawk, I think he was referring to the 60 million years PREVIOUS to the asteriod strike. Back in the era when the rocks they did up in Antartica show fossils of Magnolia trees and such.

-- Paul Davis (davisp1953@yahoo.com), March 23, 2000.

Ok, So you still believe in Global warming? Then how come the most respected climatologists in the world don't? Following is an extract from an open debate on temperature measurement.

Ten years ago, I believed the modelers that global warming was a serious problem that needed attention and intervention. As I studied the issue year by year, I became less and less convinced that the "problem" was truly serious. My current bottom line: while human activities doubtless influence climate (on a local, regional, and even a global scale), the human-induced climate change from expected increases in greenhouse gases will be a rather small fraction of the natural variations. I don't foresee global warming causing big problems, and believe that even if we controlled every molecule of human emissions we would still see substantial climate change, just as we always have.

George Taylor, State Climatologist - - President, American Association of State Climatologists - - Oregon Climate Service - - 316 Strand Ag Hall - - Oregon State University - - Corvallis OR 97331-2209 - - Internet email : taylor@oce.orst.edu - - Web site: http://www.ocs.orst.edu -

-- Malcolm Taylor (taylorm@es.co.nz), March 24, 2000.

Never heard of George Taylor, but I checked out his site. I would hardly call the head of a small weather department at a second-rate school one of the "foremost climatologists in the world."

This isn't dueling scientists, Malcolm and Paul. If you are incapable of understanding, or choose not to understand, the complexity of this issue, fine. No skin off my nose---or yours, for that matter.

May I offer my sincere regrets to your grandchildren?

Hallyx

"A pessimist is simply an optimist in full possession of the facts."---Edward Abbey

-- (Hallyx@aol.com), March 24, 2000.

Study: World's Oceans Warming

Thursday March 23 7:06 PM ET

By H. JOSEF HEBERT, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - Scientists have discovered a significant, even surprising, warming of the world's oceans over the past 40 years, providing new evidence that computer models may be on target when they predict the Earth's warming.

The broad study of temperature data from the oceans, dating to the 1950s, shows average temperatures have increased more than expected - about half a degree Fahrenheit closer to the surface, and one-tenth of a degree even at depths of up to 10,000 feet.

The findings, reported by scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, also may explain a major puzzle in the global warming debate: why computer models have shown more significant warming than actual temperature data.

Global warming skeptics contend that if the computer models exaggerate warming that already has occurred, they should not be trusted to predict future warming. The models have shown higher temperatures than those found in surface and atmospheric readings. But now, the new ocean data may explain the difference, scientists said.

In the NOAA study, scientists for the first time have quantified temperature changes in the world's three major ocean basins and at such depths.

``We've known the oceans could absorb heat, transport it to subsurface depths and isolate it from the atmosphere. Now we see evidence that this is happening,'' said Sydney Levitus, chief of NOAA's Ocean Climate Laboratory and principal author of the study.

Levitus and fellow scientists, who have worked on the project for seven years, examined temperature data from more than 5 million readings at various depths in the Pacific, Atlantic and Indian oceans, from 1948 to 1996.

They found the Pacific and Atlantic oceans have been warming since the mid-1950s, and the Indian Ocean since the early 1960s, according to the study published in the journal Science on Friday.

The greatest warming occurred from the surface to a depth of about 900 feet, where the average heat content increased by 0.56 degrees Fahrenheit. Water as far down as 10,000 feet was found to have gained on average 0.11 degrees Fahrenheit.

``This is one of the surprising things. We've found half of the warming occurred below 1,000 feet,'' Levitus said in an interview. ``It brings the climate debate to a new level. We can no longer ignore the ocean.''

The study did not pinpoint the cause of the warming trend over such a lengthy period, but said both natural and human-induced causes were likely.

Levitus discounted short-term climate phenomenon such as the El Nino effect as a significant factor.

``We're seeing a 35-year warming trend and El Nino occurs on a time scale of two to seven years. There's something much more significant occurring than just short-term variability,'' he said.

Other scientists who have argued that the ocean has masked actual global temperature increases called the findings a major breakthrough.

``It confirms that the earth is heating up,'' said Jim Hansen, director of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. He said a warming of the Earth from greenhouse gas emissions ``would tend to give you a warming of the oceans of that magnitude.''

Hansen is among the earliest proponents of the argument that heat-trapping manmade pollution - greenhouse gases, mainly carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels - is causing the Earth's warming.

A U.N.-sponsored panel of more than 200 scientists has predicted that average global temperatures will increase 2 degrees to 6 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century if current greenhouse gas emissions are not curtailed.

Such warming is believed by many scientists to have broad economic and environmental impact including sea level rise as well as changes in agriculture and human health.

Critics of these predictions believe that global mean temperatures have increased only about 1 degree Fahrenheit over the past 100 years and that computer models used to predict future climate change are not reliable.

While the oceans overall still are becoming warmer, there is evidence that parts of the deep waters of the North Atlantic have begun to cool. ``Which leaves the question, where is the heat going?'' Levitus said.

Likely, it is going to the surface, If so, Levitus suggested the warmer ocean temperatures ``may be an early indicator of the warming of surface, air and sea surface temperatures'' a decade from now.

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), March 24, 2000.

Hawk,

This is an interesting article that you cite. Here is the abstract of the original research by Dr Levitus as pubished in Science Magazine.

Warming of the World Ocean Sydney Levitus, * John I. Antonov, Timothy P. Boyer, Cathy Stephens

We quantify the interannual-to-decadal variability of the heat content (mean temperature) of the world ocean from the surface through 3000-meter depth for the period 1948 to 1998. The heat content of the world ocean increased by ~2 W 1023 joules between the mid-1950s and mid-1990s, representing a volume mean warming of 0.060 C. This corresponds to a warming rate of 0.3 watt per meter squared (per unit area of Earth's surface). Substantial changes in heat content occurred in the 300- to 1000-meter layers of each ocean and in depths greater than 1000 meters of the North Atlantic. The global volume mean temperature increase for the 0- to 300-meter layer was 0.310C, corresponding to an increase in heat content for this layer of ~1023 joules between the mid-1950s and mid-1990s. The Atlantic and Pacific Oceans have undergone a net warming since the 1950s and the Indian Ocean has warmed since the mid-1960s, although the warming is not monotonic.

A full summary of the findings are available on the NOAA website. with diagrams and charts that I can't reproduce here.

However the AP article that you have reproduced reads more into the article than the research itself indicates. The actual heat quantity change is not inconsistant with normal global fluctuations, and is within the range that can be expected in a post glacial period. What is of interest is the lapse rate of the water temperature, particularly in the 300 - 1000 m range. The other point to be aware of is that the error range is +/- 1.2oK which is +/- 2.1oF. Thus the rate of temperature range is still well within the margin of error.

I would like to see further research into this as it may well give more specific information on the severity of any coming El-Nino/La- Nina events.

-- Malcolm Taylor (taylorm@es.co.nz), March 24, 2000.