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.
But after 20+ years of exaggerations, and occasional falsification, of climate data, I have become immune to scary reports and will simply ignore this one. The boy has cried wolf too many times before. I will not waste any more time looking into this one.
OT: In my travels, it does seem to me that the world has become more verdant over the past several decades. This is not a measurement, merely a personal observation. Am I imagining this, or are increasing temperatures and CO2 levels causing plant life to flourish?
Li'l hint: If you want to throw your hat into this game for the money, bet on the other team. The ones that want you to believe that everything is fine and that we shouldn't change a thing have way, way deeper pockets.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Why people always behave as though the left is composed of poor people and lead by poor people? That there are no billionaire liberals pushing the agenda as much as there are billionaires that fund the opposite view (if not more)? Why pretend that there is no side that has a vested interest in green energy?
I refer you to figure 1, from the article. It clearly shows a 1.8 deg C increaase in the ocean temperatures. Yet the data it came from - the Atlantic, Pacific, Southern, and Indian oceans - each show 0.2 to 0.6 deg C increase. Somehow an avarage of (0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.6) has yielded 1.8 deg C. That's a bit of a problem...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
A good example of the Salem Hypothesis in action.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
And then here we go. The science behind the global warming debate is not as settled as many believe. 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.
I point to the left's rhetoric on this issue as a reason why you don't hear about these decenters in the scientific community. You cannot disagree w/o being cast out, and many have tried. The message is loud and clear, much like the flat earth lobby of the past, you are NOT allowed to argue contrary to the party line, on pain of your professional career.
Personally, my perspective (as a lay person) is as follows. The climate is changing, but the questions are as follows:
1. How much actual control man really has? It is well known that the climate has varied greatly in the past.
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").
3. How much social and economic harm would come from some of the "save the world" initiatives being suggested? The problem I see with most of these is they assume that we are rushing headlong into catastrophic destruction and massive loss of life and use that debatable "truth" as justification for doing things that would cause grave social and economic damage and put us on a crash course with mass starvation, pestilence and war (and all the nearly certain death that comes with it)
I'm afraid that the "cure" for climate change will be worse than the "sickness" and I'm far from sure that the sickness being seen isn't mostly natural variations which we don't have much control over anyway.
Then why all the debate? Seems likely to me that it's about $$. There is money in climate change studies, in fostering government subsidies for "green" energy and things like that. Then there is the Big Government people who tend to support more socialist income redistribution schemes who don't have any problem with the government handing out cash. But if you follow the money, it gets pretty obvious that there is a lot of it involved in this issue.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Where do you think the materials for wind and solar power come from? You think that stuff is not mined in open pits? You think that making PV panels and rare earth magnets for windmills do not produce toxic waste?
These "biosphere loving" Democrats are going to get us all killed with the environmental disaster that is wind and solar power. I've seen the math on how much mining and land would be needed to replace nuclear with wind, solar, and energy storage, and it looks real good for nuclear.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.