Slashdot Mirror
Climate Change Has Doubled the Frequency of Ocean Heatwaves (nature.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Nature: Scientists analyzed satellite-based measurements of sea surface temperature from 1982 to 2016 and found that the frequency of marine heatwaves had doubled. These extreme heat events in the ocean's surface waters can last from days to months and can occur across thousands of kilometers. If average global temperatures increase to 3.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels by the end of the century, as researchers currently project, the frequency of ocean heatwaves could increase by a factor of 41. In other words, a one-in-one-hundred-day event at pre-industrial levels of warming could become a one-in-three-day event. The study has been published in the journal Nature.
doom really cared about it we'd have gone balls to the wall nuclear power decades ago and have safe hi tech nukepower oozing out of every orifice. But nope, instead they thought a better idea would be to use it as a chance to keep pushing to consolidate power and control in a few hands and tactics that have failed before and will continue to fail again like guilt people into living like monks to save a drop of carbon here and there.
It's sooo cute how you ignore words that might make a dent in your narrative.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
I briefly examined the references and as best I can tell, the term "marine heat wave" is a term invented in while cloth in 2016.
This isn't something researchers have been investigating for decades, and given the youth of the proposed idea, there is very little empirical data (their model results are not data) at all.
Maybe in the future will will learn that this is valuable science. At present, it is nothing more than problematic speculation, contradicting some real science.
SuperKendall is correct ....
Where 'correct' is newspeak for lying trough his suicidal teeth!
Instead of going dig back and digging up 2007 4th Assessment Report (the 5th AR was published in 2013, the 6th AR is due out next month), let's look at what the the IPCC Synthesis Report from 2014 has to say:
The increase of global mean surface temperature by the end of the 21st century (2081–2100) relative to 1986–2005 is likely to be 0.3C to 1.7C under RCP2.6, 1.1C to 2.6C under RCP4.5, 1.4C to 3.1C under RCP6.0 and 2.6C to 4.8C under RCP8.5 9 . The Arctic region will continue to warm more rapidly than the global mean.
So anywhere form 0.3C under the most optimistic to 4.8C in the worst case scenario. In point of fact the target of (no more than) 2C is what humanity is currently in the process of missing.
The write-up claims, the 3.5 degrees is the current projections by some unspecified researchers. There no "ifs" about that write-up's claims
If you want to split hairs like that, let's split them even finer!
SuperKendall didn't write that the summary claims that current projections of up to 3.5C exist. SuperKendall wrote that "the summary claims ... likley heating will be ... 3.5C" Which is something very, very different from what the words "If average global temperatures increase to 3.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels by the end of the century, as researchers currently project ..." means. [And I've highlighted the IF "about that write-up's claims" (yes, it's not an IF about the existence of said projections, duh) for your benefit.]
So sorry Mi, no banana.
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
The term doesn't matter. As the summary states, the data has been around longer. So no, your claim that "new term = new study" is complete bullshit.
Those who do not learn from commit history are doomed to regress it.
As we came out of the latest ice age the earth has been warming up continuously and will keep doing so.
No, as we came out of the last glaciation temperatures hit a peak about 8,000 years ago during the Holocene climatic optimum as you would expect from an examination of Milankovitch cycles. Since then temperatures were slowly cooling toward the next glacial maximum. They stopped cooling when human emissions of greenhouse gases (primarily CO2) increased to the point of overriding the current cooling effects of Milankovitch cycles. The increase in ocean acidification shows that the oceans are still absorbing more CO2 than they release.
China and a handful of other nations have a near monopoly on the materials needed to make wind and solar power cheap
How do you come to that retarded idea?
Solar panels are made out of: sand!
Wind turbines from carbon fiber positioned on steel masts.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
For the current stance of environmentalists to make sense, there needs to be just the right amount of climate change. Enough that we need to stop using fossil fuels ASAP. But not so much that we need to switch over completely to nuclear power ASAP. By their reasoning, the rate of climate change falls within a narrow band in between, where we must stop using fossil fuels, but we still have plenty of time to develop renewable power technologies so they become economically feasible.
That's the kind of messed up reasoning you come up with when you start with a conclusion ("we must develop renewables"), and then create a rationale to justify your conclusion. It's gradually becoming clear that we're far outside that narrow band, and need to go all-out nuclear to save life on Earth. That is, the fate of life on Earth is more important than your renewable power agenda.
Remember, nuclear power doesn't have to be the end game. All we need is to switch to it quickly enough to break our fossil fuel addiction and arrest non-cyclical CO2 emissions. Once we've done that and the global climate is no longer in danger, then we can develop renewable power at our leisure. And when it (and battery technology) becomes capable of taking over base load, we can use it to phase out nuclear power. This "the only acceptable solution is renewables" mentality is dangerous.
The write-up claims, the 3.5 degrees is the current projections by some unspecified researchers. There no "ifs" about that write-up's claims — SuperKendall is correct, while your narrative falls apart.
SuperKendall's own reference shows scenario A2 which projects ~3.5C by the end of the century. See table SPM.3: A2 scenario best estimate = 3.4, likely range = 2.0 – 5.4. The A1FI scenario has a best estimate of 4C by end of century.
How much we warm depends on how much we emit. Warming will not stop at the end of the century unless emissions cease, so it is only a matter of time before we reach 3.5C. We've warmed about 1.2C since the 1850s. Two thirds of that has happened in the last 50 years. At the current rate of warming since the 1980s - even assuming no further accelleration - we will hit 2.5C by the end of the century. Again, where we end up will depend on how much CO2 we emit.
It's blips in the noise.
The rate of global heat accumulation is equivalent to about 4 Hiroshima bomb detonations per second. That blip represents over 2.5 billion atomic bomb detonations worth of heat accumulating in the Earth's climate system since 1998, It's a lot of energy.
The wide range of projections arise because warming depends on how much we emit. We can decide to limit emissions and reduce warming. Or not. It's up to us.
I'm not sure why he has a problem with the coining of a term. Does he prefer they use another phrase, or rather that they not study the phenomenon at all? See no evil hear no evil I suppose? Regardless of what we call it, (and "marine heat wave" seems like a practical enough name) the evidence for the phenomenon is clear in the satellite data as well as in the economic impacts.
In 2007 IPCC FAR projected 0.2C/decade over the next two decades. So far we've seen 0.3C/decade since 2007, but it's early yet.
Climate sensitivity is about 3C for a doubling of CO2 with an likely range of about 30% on either side (not 100%). So probably between 2 and 4C. However, it is a "right-skewed distribution" suggesting that if carbon dioxide concentrations double, the probability of very large increases in temperature is greater than the probability of very small increases. So to the extent that there is uncertainty, it is not our friend.
Ultimately though, how much warming will depend on how much we emit. We can decide to limit emissions and minimize warming. Or not. It's up to us.
China and a handful of other nations have a near monopoly on the materials needed to make wind and solar power cheap
How do you come to that retarded idea?
https://www.worldatlas.com/art...
https://www.statista.com/stati...
Solar panels are made out of: sand!
No, solar panels are made of silicon and the USA produces very little of it. The kind the USA does produce is predominately low grade used in producing steel and aluminum.
https://minerals.usgs.gov/mine...
Wind turbines from carbon fiber positioned on steel masts.
And with rare earth magnets on top of those steel masts.
https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/...
Mining rare earth metals means also digging up a lot of other nasty minerals, like thorium and uranium, that unless there is a market for them they can contaminate the environment. What on earth could we possibly do with all this uranium and thorium? I'm just tossing out an idea here, nuclear power?
The USA does not have the capacity to produce solar panels, and has limited capacity to produce windmills, without imported materials. On the other hand the USA already produces several nuclear power plants every year to supply it's nuclear powered navy. Increasing the capacity to produce nuclear power in the USA is near trivial, we need only remove the political barriers to larger production. To produce more wind and solar in the USA would take years and billions of dollars to build the plants that can turn sand into PV panels and ore into rare earth magnets.
The monopoly that China has on silicon and rare earth metals is not in the raw material in the ground, it's in the factories that turn that raw material into something valuable. Overturning that monopoly will take lots of money and time in making factories.
The entire world is relying on China to play nice for it's supply of wind and solar power. By destroying their ability to produce domestic nuclear power these nations place a very vital resource, energy, at the whimsy of China. Much of Europe is now reliant on Chinese solar and Russian natural gas for energy. If there is ever a trade dispute then I can expect to see Europe get real dark and cold.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Warming will not stop at the end of the century unless emissions cease, so it is only a matter of time before we reach 3.5C.
Warming will not stop even if emissions cease, because the warming comes not from the emission of CO2 or heat, but because of the trapping of heat from the sun by that CO2.
To clarify, I meant further warming. And yes, AGW is expected to stop (approximately) when we get to zero emissions because of terrestrial and marine syncs:
A widely held misconception is that given the approximately 1 C warming to date, and considering the committed warming (warming that will inevitably happen) concealed by ocean thermal inertia, the 1.5 C target of the Paris Agreement is already impossible. However, it is cumulative emissions that define peak warming. When carbon emissions cease, terrestrial and marine sinks are projected to draw down atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), approximately cancelling the lagging warming. Although the sign of this ‘zero emissions commitment’ is uncertain, its contribution can be neglected for low-CO2 scenarios. Therefore, at least when considering CO2 emissions in isolation, keeping below 1.5 C of warming will remain physically achievable until the point that it is reached.