Sad, a new measurement system is deployed and to hear them talk, it will only be good for determining the effect of global warming.

It is a measurement system. Would it not be effective for measuring the effect of changes in general?

What if the data does not fit the re-conception?

The use of an automated system to help monitor and identify the temperatures in the ocean is a helpful idea. With the statement that it may help with identify the intensity of tropical storms and the changes over the years of global warming. Can this later be used to help predict Tropical storms so we now have in place a more reliable early warning system that will compliment our current monitoring of weather patterns?? Reply: I doubt it. The main advantage to this would be in predicting future storm intensity, which still can be very useful for emergency planning purposes in areas in the path of the storm.

Hmmm...All for more detailed survey of what is happening with the Planet as a whole but I'm really curious how researchers decided this project will give them an immediate view of how the oceans are changing due to climate change.

If I'm not mistaken in order to determine if any changes are happening, don't you kinda need a starting point? If you don't have a starting point then how do you know if something changed?

So, more properly, they will get an immediate baseline upon which to compare to in the future. Or, in accordance with the AGW mindset, will they just assume a basepoint and determine that this information represents some sort of change?

Sounds like the Argo floating robots would be a good tool as to when to place my TUNNELS in cooling stage prior to a hurricane impacting land. Knowing the temperature at depth would allow us to know how much mixing the TUNNELS need to accomplish in order to weaken the hurricane.

If the North Pole keeps growing at current rate it may end up "above normal" by december 07. The south pole still "above normal"

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.365.south.jpg

Also South America (south)temps well below normal this month so far it appears. In conjunction with Solar Cycle activity (very low) for past year Cycle 24 delayed) it will be very interesting to see what develops temperature wise for next 5-10 years.

Interesting...they just recently finished deploying these measuring devices and their purpose is to give scientists a better understanding of how global warming is affecting the world's oceans - doesn't the world's oceans also affect global warming? And how soon do you think it will be until we start to see the data from these devices showing up as evidence (I'm guessing really really soon) - even though it should take several decades until there would be anything to realistically to compare.

Sounds like the scene from "The Day After Tomorrow" where they suddenly discover that all their North Sea thermometers are plummeting into an ice age over a period of about 6 hours.

Speaking of which it is -61F in Greenland, on the verge of a meltdown.
http://www.wunderground.com/history/station/04416/2007/11/13/MonthlyHistory.html

Boondocks:
You have to remember for funding or publishing you MUST use the tag line of "...As is related to AGW" or no publish or money!
Speaking of money one can only imagine the cost of 3,000 the robots plus how much to place and maintain them in the ocean. It seems as if the Australians are getting their pockets picked too.
Hey wonder what the robot placed on top of the volcano in the antartic is going to show about the water temperature?????? I can't wait to hear a theory about how AGW and not the volcano is responsible for raising that water temperature.
Actually it is a good idea.
I just can't get it out of my mind that without the boogeyman called AGW this may not have gotten funded....

ummm... if they drop these robots beneath the ice in the Antarctic, how do they pop to the "surface" if the ice has refrozen? Are the satellite signals able to penetrate several meters of ice? Just asking. Reply: good question. I do not know the answer.

PAweather,

Did you not realize that prior to 1950, the oceans were totally unaffected by climate. It was not until the evil SUV was developed that changes in the oceans began to take place. And to think that "some" still believe that the sun has some role in climate.

Bwahahahahahah!!!!

/sarc off

Hi Guys,

Don't get me wrong but I think the more information the better. I agree with Darren in what is the starting point? Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the temperature in the deep ocean tell you what happened 100s if not 1000s of years ago. It not like if the surface temperatures change by ooh say .5 degrees that we will immediately see it 2K below the surface, it will take a couple of hundred years to see it there. But it may be able to slightly predict the AMO or PDO changes. Ted is right in that if you stick the AGW tag on it you get funded. Its like if you want to research te sex life of the Krill you say "How does AGW affect the sex life of the Krill" and you get funded with all new fancy instruments for you to use.

I'm willing to bet that some of the robots will report periods of time when they are recording rising temperatures at their location. I'm also willing to bet that we will hear all about those rising temperatures, and that the press release will include the words "global warming."

I made some casual temperature observations of water at a nearby pond this year. The pond warmed up by at least 40 degrees F between January and July 2007. That is an average rate of 8000 degrees per century. Even worse, the pond experienced 100% ice loss during that time.

Just a coincidence that there is a new Hummer dealership in town? I think not.

Although I am an "AGWer" I am emotionally attached to areas with cold climates. Thus this report made me happy. However, I have a policy: I never trust news I want to hear. By this I mean, I am automatically more skeptical of information that tends to supprt my desires and hopes. You could make an argument that such a policy makes me unduly pessimistic. While i agree it does put a pessimistic tint on my world-view, I consider it necessary to avoid the "blinders" effect, where I see only what i want to see.

Article states the probes will go up to 2K below the surface...make their measurements and the pop to the surface to transmit the data....If this is going to be an 'ongoing' data collection project....how are the probes being returned to their original measurement depth and location.???? Off the project as identified in the article...it sounds flawed.