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.
If we can get it warm enough the oceans will start to evaporate, countering global warming's rising sea level.
"...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.
The temperature effects are not distributed equally across the entire water column. Most of the warming is in the upper ocean, which is most relevant for us, because it's the layer where the energy is quickly transported back to the atmosphere.
The relatively small increase in temperature should make you excited, because it's means that the ocean isn't anywhere near equilibrium, so it will keep absorbing energy from the atmosphere at increasing rates, causing sea level rise through thermal expansion, and come back to us in bursts during the El-Nino season.
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.
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
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.
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!