Umm....what about all the pollution...what about that dead zone hundreds of miles around the Mississippi's outlet into the Gulf of Mexico, and surely all around the world with rivers of comparative industrial utility?

I think simply blaming global warming for it is short-sighted, of course that was the only reason I read the article so I guess it makes a good tagline.

Saying pollution and overfishing is causing the oceans to die is a no-brainer, and requires less faith than belief in the "its totally man-made global warming" religion.

Look at the pretty graph and world schematic....

Is the data accurate? How was the data compiled before those highly accurate satellites up there today were gathering the data?

Ah...so we are to deduct that, if accurate, the dark blue area's will eventually go black due to 'global warming'. What the Hysterics fail to do is wash out one side of their mouth before trying to speak out the other. The simple data is that there has been no mean world temperature increase in the past 8 years of longer. There has been substantially warmer years than this moment in time. Do the Hysterics actually assimilate this data or do they ignore it? When pinned down, they fall back on the tried and true "it's all part of global warming" platitude.

I can't wait to see how the 'brains' on this blog dissect this one.

During most of the Phanerozic, when life was evolving and flourishing in the oceans, temperatures and CO2 levels were much higher than the present.
http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/2005-08-18/dioxide_files/image002.gif

It is so sad that ocean life now collapses over a 0.2 degree change in temperature. What a miracle that we have any life left in the oceans after a 10 degree warm up during the last 15,000 years.

Changes in the ocean's biology couldn't possibly have anything to do with the massive amounts of heavy metals we dump, and the overfishing we do. It must be the CO2 - the ultimate evil.

So, what is this going to mean in the long run, do you think? Have marine biologists seen a direct effect on wildlife yet, I wonder.

- Linds@Go Green Blog

There is no pleasing these people.

First we are told that we are putting too much pollution into the oceans and causing the ocean to become too productive.

Now they are complaining because it's becoming less productive.

Get a grip

A 1/2 decree increase in temp will not cause this.
If the planet was that delicate every cycle the planet went though would kill us all.

Hmm. Those location of these ocean deserts remind me of a song.

Horse Latitudes
When the still sea conspires an armor
And her sullen and aborted
Currents breed tiny monsters
True sailing is dead
Awkward instant
And the first animal is jettisoned
Legs furiously pumping
Their stiff green gallop
And heads bob up
Poise
Delicate
Pause
Consent
In mute nostril agony
Carefully refined
And sealed over
Horse Latitudes

Iceman,

If you're listening, I think it's time we did a Nunavutwatch (TM) for February and for the December-February period. I'm curious to see how far northern Canada held up over the meterological winter.

"But with a nine-year time series, it is difficult to rule out decadal variation"

Much more than difficult - it is impossible. This is absurd.

Here's an idea: perhaps the enormous amounts of heavy metals we're dumping into the oceans - mercury from enviro-friendly compact fluorescent light bulbs, cadmium in the batteries of those enviro-friendly hybrid cars - have something to do with it?

Exactly what my "TUNNELS" do. They upwell deep cooler nutrient rich waters from deep below.They will eliminate desertification of ocean waters all while generating enough electrical power for the USA by tapping into the natural resource of KE of the Gulfstream.They solve the problem this article tells us.Anyone want to computer model them. This will prove the tunnels are valid.

UAH February data has been released.

Globally the coldest February since 1997.

Five consecutive months of below normal temperatures in Steve Bloom's "expanding tropics." Twelve consecutive months of near normal or below in the tropics.

The last three months in Antarctica have the largest negative anomaly on record. This must be the polar meltdown described in Gore's movie.

http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt

I'm here in Michigan and I am doing my best to contribute to Global Warming. We drive two big SUV's to work everyday and after I snowblow my driveway EVERYDAY, I leave my snow blower running for at least an extra hour. I hope and pray the global temperature goes up a good 5-10� that would be a blessing here!

They did a nice job tying this into AGW and got headlines (and their 15 minutes of fame) to a story that would never have been seen by the general public, unless of course you subscribed to “Geophysical Research Letters.”
Hmmmm maybe we should see just how much nutrient material was transported to the surface since the La Nina has been going on? La Nina has certainly un-stratified those waters. When that happens does it negate the desert effect? So many questions so few answers.
There may be many other causes for this phenomena none of which has to do with AGW.
Nine years by most standards is still just weather not climate.
Read, learn, and think! Sometimes it is not what is said as much as what was not said that makes these article interesting.

yep, pollution kills. I suggest we get those huge super trawlers that do all that overfishing and have them drift net all the garbage, scoop it up and recycle the stuff. Give them a job, give the fish and sea creatures a break. Clean up solid pollution polutants from the sea. While we do that lets stop polluting rivers and oceans with industrial waste effluents. Certainly there are many ways to do our industry less toxically. We do all that what do you think will happen to our oceans and water ways? Happy fish maybe?

Geez...I guess i should have taken this whole AGW thing more seriously.

If it can make an ocean a desert even when there is still SO much water on the black areas, Gosh, it is the ultimate evil.

OOP forgot I'm an evil conservative type, I have never gone to those areas, likely will never go to those areas, so what do I care?

Let them be desert.

Besides, I don't like seafood.

Guys,

Here's an interesting link I found on www.canadianweather.com

http://www.dailytech.com/Researcher+Basic+Greenhouse+Equations+Totally+Wrong/article10973.htm

Apparently, this guy claims to have found a major error in the basic equations used to model the greenhouse effect. I'm pretty skeptical, not because I'm closed minded, but because claiming to have found an error in equations that have been widely used, apparently for the better part of a century, is an extrodinary claim. Like Carl Sagan, I believe that an extrodinary claim requires extraordinary evidence.

I am immediately suspicious of the line

The equations also answer thorny problems raised by current theory, which doesn't explain why "runaway" greenhouse warming hasn't happened in the Earth's past.

If I'm not mistaken, paleoclimatologist have evidence of at least one (and probably more) runaway greenhouse episode: The Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM).

Also, to me, the general tone of this article seems too laudatory and credulous. Anyway, does anyone have any info on the proveneance and reputation of The site that this article is on, DailyTech?

"But with a nine-year time series, it is difficult to rule out decadal variation"

This is too true.

Also I have noticed a great lack of data concerning what the oceans are up to, especially down deep. I've tried to gain an overview of thermohaline circulation, and how it might influence climate, but have been generally frustrated because people who pointed in this direction, such as Dr. Bill Gray, were denied funding, and data wasn't gathered. I think funding the gathering of data about the seas is worth it.

At times I feel some scientists who need funding try to splice Global Warming into their reserch as a way to gain the funds to quietly go about their business. They themselves may feel Global Warming is a crock of bull, but they have to play the game. For example, would these fellows have been picked up by this site if they talked about the stratification of ocean waters WITHOUT mentioning global warming?

prediction: 12-24 months this site and others global cooling warming will not be here or anywhere this will become a non-issue

Hi cmbclean,

If "runaway global warming" had of occurred on earth in the past, we wouldn't be here to talk about it.

According to AGW theory, it should be impossible to come out of an ice age or an interglacial. 15,000 years ago temperatures were low. CO2 levels were low. Ice covered much of the earth causing the earth's reflectivity to be extremely high.

If the AGW theory was correct, the earth should have continued to get colder. CO2 should have continued to decrease. Snow cover should have continued to increase. Hansen's claim that "a very weak orbital forcing" ended the last ice age - is utterly absurd.

If "very weak forcings" can reverse temperature trends, why doesn't he simply come up with a "very weak" solution to global warming? Maybe he can get 600 million AGW activists to jump up and down all at once and shift the earth's orbit again?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Jump_Day

I wonder how this would affect the natural ocean CO2 sink? Seems like less plants would mean less CO2 being absorbed into the oceans in these areas. Am I barking up the wrong tree here?

I also wonder how ocean stratification affects ocean currents?

Hi Patrick Henry - Here's a link showing Antarctica today. Click anywhere on the map and it will give you a list of stations around Antarctica showing the temps. Very interesting. The very cold temps in the center of the continent would tend to drag down the average temperature for the whole continent, even though there are many areas in the 30'sF. So theoretically your statement could be true.

http://www.wunderground.com/global/Region/AN/Temperature.html?MR=1

Caleb,

Here's a paper by Lyman and Willis from 2006:

http://oceans.pmel.noaa.gov/Pdf/heat_2006.pdf

The link is actually the full report with a major correction from the initial study. Changes in the way bathy data was collected gave an initial cooling that was way off. In 2007, they correct thier estimates of near surface SSTs. Globally, the oceans began to cool in 2003. By 2005 (the endpoint of the study), our oceans cooled by 3.2 x 10^22 Joules, or about 1/5 the heat energy accumulated between 1995 and 2003. This is similar to a cooling period from 1983-1986.

cbmclean: It has been said here many times in the past; Scientific Concensus can be demolished by one person with the right answer.

Great find. Very telling.
I found the censorship from NASA to be the best indicator that this guy is likely absolutely correct.

cbmclean,

Here are some numbers for Nunavut:

February departure from average

Eureka +4
Shepherd Bay -1
Iqaluit -5
Resolute -3
Pond Inlet -3
Cambridge Bay -3
Alert -2

Dec-Feb departure from average

Eureka -3
Shepherd Bay +7
Iqaluit -4
Resolute -2
Alert -2
Cambridge Bay +2
Pond Inlet average

Because the Shepherd Bay anomaly was so high, I checked out a place called Pelly Bay, which is around 150 mi east.(Can't find anything else close) Interestingly, from Dec-Feb it came in only +2.

Overall, I'd say things held up pretty well up there this winter. What do you think?

BTW, looks like March has started quite cold up there.

Iceman,

Thanks for the numbers. I'm sorry I didn't add my contributtion. It was spring break week for me (my last one, as I graduate in May).

Anyway, I'm a little suspicious of the Shepherd Bay numbers myself. I know that they had a pretty warm January, but I know December was cooler than normal and apparently so was February. What source did you get your climatic averages from? Also, I suggest we check the numbers on a place called Taloyoak. It's fairly close to Shepherd Bay.

Patrick Henry,
If "runaway global warming" had of occurred on earth in the past, we wouldn't be here to talk about it..
When I say "Runaway Global Warming", I admit I'm engaging in a bit of hyperbole. What I mean to say is, "Global Warming causing a significant amoutn of warming." Obviously, the term "significant" is up for definition, but what I was trying to say was that there seem to have been recorded instances of significant global warming in the past. I wasn't suggesting that the earth burst into flames or anything.

Hansen's claim that "a very weak orbital forcing" ended the last ice age - is utterly absurd.

I don't see why the claim is absurd. It might be wrong, but it's not prima facie wrong. Complex systems sometimes display large reactions to small inputs. Now, I'm not saying that Hansen's claim is necessarily right. I just don't think that it's "absurd."

cbmclean,

Sorry, I made a mistake with Shepherd Bay. From Dec-Feb it was +4. That makes more sense.

JP

Thanks for the link. It was just what I wanted. Not only is there data to ponder, but it is a good springboard for further pondering.

I was glad to hear about the gadgets and gizmos they're using to study the sea. I want to learn more. You'll notice they found cooling and not warming.

I wonder if the cooling ties in with the lack of sunspots and less warming from the sun. It seems a sharp eye might have used this data to predict that 2007 would be cooler.

I appreciate how diplomatic they are, while suggesting Hansen's models might need some fixing:

"Furthermore, this variability is not
adequately simulated in the current generation of coupled climate models used to study
the impact of anthropogenic influences on climate [Gregory et al., 2004; Barnett et al.
2005; Church et al. 2005; and Hansen et al., 2005]. Although these models do simulate
the long-term rates of ocean warming, this lack of interannual variability represents a
shortcoming that may complicate detection and attribution of human-induced climate
influences."

Hi cmbclean,

Think about Hansen's first statement at Illinois Wesleyan

Chief instigator of climate change was earth orbital change, a very weak forcing.

How can a "very weak" influence also be the "chief instigator?" Particularly in light of the idea that inertial feedback from low atmospheric H2O, low CO2 and high albedo could have driven the planet to a tipping point 15,000 years ago. Whatever ended the last ice age was not a "very weak" influence. It had to have been "stronger" than the influence of low GHG concentrations and massive snow cover.

Hansen apparently believes (correctly) that he can get away with propagating any scientific drivel based on his wholly undeserved reputation in the AGW community.

If it were possible for a "very weak" influence to reverse warming or cooling trends, that would imply that a myriad of simple solutions were possible.