Slashdot Mirror
New Study Confirms the Oceans Are Warming Rapidly (theguardian.com)
An anonymous reader shares a report from The Guardian, written by John Abraham, who discusses the rising ocean temperatures and the important factors that affect ocean-temperature accuracy: The most important measurement of global warming is in the oceans. In fact, "global warming" is really "ocean warming." If you are going to measure the changing climate of the oceans, you need to have many sensors spread out across the globe that take measurements from the ocean surface to the very depths of the waters. Importantly, you need to have measurements that span decades so a long-term trend can be established. These difficulties are tackled by oceanographers, and a significant advancement was presented in a paper just published in the journal Climate Dynamics. That paper, which I was fortunate to be involved with, looked at three different ocean temperature measurements made by three different groups. We found that regardless of whose data was used or where the data was gathered, the oceans are warming. In the paper, we describe perhaps the three most important factors that affect ocean-temperature accuracy. First, sensors can have biases (they can be "hot" or "cold"), and these biases can change over time. Another source of uncertainty is related to the fact that we just don't have sensors at all ocean locations and at all times. Some sensors, which are dropped from cargo ships, are densely located along major shipping routes. Other sensors, dropped from research vessels, are also confined to specific locations across the globe. Finally, temperatures are usually referenced to a baseline "climatology." So, when we say temperatures have increased by 1 degree, it is important to say what the baseline climatology is. Have temperatures increased by 1 degree since the year 1990? Since the year 1970? Since 1900? The choice of baseline climatology really matters.
Maybe, but those other events were accompanied by mass extinctions and sea level rise of about 13.5 m in about 290 years...
The priesthood has spoken. AGW acolytes will be along shortly to mod anyone to -1 who dares question the IPCC Assessment Report holy book. The unadjusted data will be kept under lock and key while everyone is instructed to accept based on faith that the oceans are warming rapidly. The AGW cult is even more profitable than the LDS cult, and this will no doubt be used to justify even more wealth redistribution.
Richard Muller & his team looked at a truckload of "unadjusted data" in his examination of the surface temp record & came to the same conclusions & roughly the same trends as NOAA et al. Looks like the raw data lies as much as the adjusted.
As for wealth redistribution, Trumpcare is trying to fix that by giving an $800 billion tax cut to the 1% & will deprive about 20 million Americans of their healthcare
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
Ok.
It doesn't show an "increaase" in much of anything. It shows an increase in heat content, i.e., a quantity of energy per unit area as defined in equation 1, when integrated over an area. You'll note that the units are energy/(area^2), as in J/(m^2). You're correct that the number is based upon temperature, but then you go off the rails...
BZZT. The figure 1 data is not an average. It's a quantity integrated over depth (equation 1), then over the area of the ocean basin (figure 1), to give you a change in the quantity of thermal energy versus a comparison point -- modern day . You'll notice that the units on the Y axis are Joules, not degrees F or C.
Somehow a TOTAL of an ADDITIVE quantity (increase of thermal energy in each of four oceans making up the "global" ocean) of 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, and 0.6 added up to 1.8 -- x10^23 Joules. As everyone would expect.
For you and your reading comprehension skills. My children can read and understand a graph better than you.
Your quote is from November 28, 2006
Mine is from June 13, 2017
Apparently Doug has had the scientific decency to change his views on new data. Or, to use his words:
Surely we’ve earned our place in the pantheon next to the greatest ecological catastrophes of all time: the so-called Big Five mass extinctions of earth history. Surely our Anthropocene extinction can confidently take its place next to the juggernauts of deep time—the Ordovician, Devonian, Permian, Triassic and Cretaceous extinctions.
Erwin says no. He thinks it’s junk science.
it's in my head
That represents 4761904760 Hiroshima bombs of energy added to the system, or about 3.2 per second. About 4/5ths of that energy accumulated in the top 700 meters. The rate of warming is accelerating, meaning that the top of atmosphere energy imbalance is increasing. The impacts of the warming are already being observed, even at this early stage.
I refute your calculations with a single word: thermocline
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
When you find a left-leaning AGW zealot who wants more nukes, then I'll start taking the problem more seriously.
Here I am! I find man-made global warming to be very obviously real, and feel that some fourth generation nuclear plants would an excellent addition to our energy supply. You may now take the problem more seriously!
And here's another. Man-made global warming is real, 90-something percent of scientists and 99ish percent of climatologists agree. Nuclear baseload is where it's at. Gen IV reactors, especially MSRs could mitigate much of the problems of current reactor technology if the NIMBYs would let the technology progress.
Many believe the "It's settled science" party line, but there are quite a few people in the field of climate studies who don't.
Less than 1%, if you're talking about actual climate scientists.
1. How much actual control man really has? It is well known that the climate has varied greatly in the past.
Yes, everybody involved in climate studies knows this. They are also quite sure that man is responsible for this one. The science behind CO2 is well understood. CO2 has actually been responsible for quite a few climatic changes in the past (although on a much slower timescale)
2. How much actual harm does climate change actually represent? There are lots of theories about this, but the past predictions of catastrophic events have mysteriously not proven accurate (Al Gore, I'm looking at your "Inconvenient truth").
Al Gore is not a scientist. Real scientists are generally much more conservatives in their prediction. A few exceptions get a lot of press, because scary predictions sell papers. The real harm starts slow, and gets gradually worse over centuries. The problem is that the reverse is equally slow. So when we do get catastrophic events, it will be too late to stop them.
How much social and economic harm would come from some of the "save the world" initiatives being suggested?
Thank you for proving my point. You're debating policy again. A disease doesn't go away just because you don't like the cure.