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.
"...it does seem to me that the world has become more verdant over the past several decades..."
You do realize that as you age, your spectral sensitivities deteriorate? Specifically loss of sensitivity towards purple and yellow-green confusion. In other words, as you get older, the world simply appears greener:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/02/140220102614.htm
"... I have become immune to scary reports and will simply ignore this one."
Oh, that's something entirely different. This means that you are an idiot. This may be age related, but it is entirely possible that you have always been an idiot.
"But after 20+ years of exaggerations, and occasional falsification..."
Oh dear, you aren't only an idiot, you are a liar as well. What occasional falsification?
Just for your amusement, you may want to look into the Ocean Warming Studies of Richard Muller, funded by the Kochs. He started out as a "Sceptic"; he felt that not enough rigor had been applied. He came to the conclusion that the situation was worse than first appeared. The Kochs paid for it because they had long-term planning to do; they're continuing to deny Warming is but PR gibberish for Koch Suckers like you.
"Am I imagining this, or are increasing temperatures and CO2 levels causing plant life to flourish?"
Which is it, no Warming or only Good Warming? You really should make up your mind. That is, if you ever had one.
change in heat content since 1970=3 e23 J (from TFA)
SHC of water =4e3 J/kg/deg C
mass of oceans = 1.4e21 kg
temperature rise is 3e23/1.4e21/4e3, about 0.05 deg C
Hmm, in 50 years? Colour me unexcited.
As a person who has lived his whole life in Arctic I can tell you that the thousands of years old permafrost is melting. Biologists are fighting against time to preserve mammoth DNA because the carcasses are finally rotting.
Why do you have to be 'left' to support renewable energy? Renewable energy gives back control of your energy sources and localises them. This fully compatible with a conservative world view.
I must protest. Trump has no idea what's in that bill. It runs several pages long, which is several pages - one of attention span he doesn't have. His support is merely because he's trying to pee in all the corners Obama visited before him. He has no bright ideas of his own.
.Nuclear baseload. We've known how to do it for half a century. That alone would resolve most of the CO2 issues.
When you find a left-leaning AGW zealot who wants more nukes, then I'll start taking the problem more seriously.
As is, looks more like an attempt at social engineering (lowering everyone's standard of living except for the "Right People")
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Why do you have to be 'left' to support renewable energy? Renewable energy gives back control of your energy sources and localises them. This fully compatible with a conservative world view.
If you're asking seriously, I'll answer for you (although I'm not a conservative). "Renewable energy" is a left-wing dogwhistle for "let's throw government money at this". The actual idea of renewable energy is great as long as it's economically efficient. What we tend to get instead is Solyndra.
So, yeah, anybody with a brain is all for renewable energy. But anybody with a brain also wants the government to butt out and let the market handle it. (And, yes, I understand the concept of using government money to get production up to scale so it'll be more economically feasible - I understand it but I also understand the world doesn't work that way).
Do you have ESP?
As an _actual_ oceanographer
[Citation needed]
I did a quick search for work published by someone named "Anonymous Coward", but came up empty. The search just came back with a mountain of useless Slashdot comments.
If you're asking seriously, I'll answer for you (although I'm not a conservative).
Sure man, what are you then, a full-on reactionary?
"Renewable energy" is a left-wing dogwhistle for "let's throw government money at this".
That's the right-wing soundbite, actually. They scream it all the time. Attacking leftists, and meanwhile, they throw government money at EVERYTHING they want.
The actual idea of renewable energy is great as long as it's economically efficient. What we tend to get instead is Solyndra.
You mean a company that the right-wing dogmatically lies about, claims they don't even have a working product, and fails to admit that the reason for their failure was simply due to dropping solar prices, which was itself a result of MASSIVE Chinese subsidies?
Most can't even remember that it was part of a larger program, which was a great success overall, or even that it was wait for it, wait for it, a BUSH-PROPOSED program. That's right, compassionate conservative, Bush the Younger, came up with the idea. Yet who do you think they mysteriously blame?
Bad enough getting the circumstances wrong, the person blamed isn't even the right one.
So, yeah, anybody with a brain is all for renewable energy. But anybody with a brain also wants the government to butt out and let the market handle it.
Anybody with a brain remembers a little company called Enron that broke California's power system. Sorry, but the government exists to restrain such impulses, and it is necessary.
(And, yes, I understand the concept of using government money to get production up to scale so it'll be more economically feasible - I understand it but I also understand the world doesn't work that way).
So you think you understand, but you don't. Because it turns out that it does work that way, in China, in the US, in France, in the UK, in Germany, in Russia, in Japan,in India and all across the world.
Quite successfully too. With railroads, and highways, and power plants, and farms, and steel mills, and the Internet, well, the list goes on. It's so funny to see you chant your superior comprehension even as the words coming out of your mouth so you are so very mistaken.
When you find a left-leaning AGW zealot who wants more nukes, then I'll start taking the problem more seriously.
You've always got excuses, but the fact is that mining is shitty, and uranium mining is extra-shitty. Uranium is the least concentrated ore we mine, and we never seem to actually bother to clean up the toxic mine tailings adequately. Nuclear advocates also never seem to account for the full lifecycle costs, including decommissioning and making waste safe. Even if we were to reprocess the waste, the cost would be beyond astronomical, which is why that's a non-starter. Expecting an environmentalist to endorse open pit mining with radioactive tailings is not realistic, so you've built yourself a position which doesn't require you to change your lifestyle. That's very convenient.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
When you find a left-leaning AGW zealot who wants more nukes, then I'll start taking the problem more seriously.
People here seem to identify me as left leaning. I certainly support a strong regulatory framework, higher taxes than we have now, socialised healthcare and a strong welfare state. Do I classify as an AGW zealot? Dunno, but if you think global warming isn't happening or isn't caused by the CO2 we're releasing then I think you're a fucking moron. Does that make me a Zealot? You decide.
And I regularly come into nuclear and climate related threads advocating for nukes.
Finally if you think the opinion of a rando on the internet makes a difference whether or not AGW is a thing, then again you're a fool.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
New study confirms
Say instead that it 'suggests'....as it is we are talking as if humans are infallible and there is no political pressure around these issues....isn't it fair to discuss the data before proclaiming the confirmation of truth? Isn't this lack of logical process the source of all ignorance n the world?