Startling New Research Finds Large Buildup of Heat in the Oceans, Suggesting a Faster Rate of Global Warming [Update] (washingtonpost.com)
The world's oceans have been soaking up far more excess heat in recent decades than scientists realized, suggesting that Earth could be set to warm even faster than predicted in the years ahead, according to new research published Wednesday.
From a report: Over the past quarter-century, the Earth's oceans have retained 60 percent more heat each year than scientists previously had thought, said Laure Resplandy, a geoscientist at Princeton University who led the startling study published Wednesday in the journal Nature. The difference represents an enormous amount of additional energy, originating from the sun and trapped by the Earth's atmosphere -- more than 8 times the world's energy consumption, year after year.
In the scientific realm, the new findings help to resolve long-running doubts about the rate of the warming of the oceans before 2007, when reliable measurements from devices called "Argo floats" were put to use worldwide. Before that, different types of temperature records -- and an overall lack of them -- contributed to murkiness about how quickly the oceans were heating up. The higher-than-expected amount of heat in the oceans means more heat is being retained within the Earth's climate system each year, rather than escaping into space. In essence, more heat in the oceans signals that global warming itself is more advanced than scientists thought.
"We thought that we got away with not a lot of warming in both the ocean and the atmosphere for the amount of CO2 that we emitted," said Resplandy, who published the work with experts from the Scripps Institution of Oceanography and several other institutions in the U.S., China, France and Germany. "But we were wrong. The planet warmed more than we thought. It was hidden from us just because we didn't sample it right. But it was there. It was in the ocean already." Wednesday's study also could have important policy implications. If ocean temperatures are rising more rapidly than previously calculated, that could leave nations even less time to dramatically cut the world's emissions of carbon dioxide, in hopes of limiting global warming to the ambitious goal of 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) above preindustrial levels. Updated on November 14 at 14:40 GMT: Scientists Acknowledge Key Errors in Study of How Fast the Oceans Are Warming.
In the scientific realm, the new findings help to resolve long-running doubts about the rate of the warming of the oceans before 2007, when reliable measurements from devices called "Argo floats" were put to use worldwide. Before that, different types of temperature records -- and an overall lack of them -- contributed to murkiness about how quickly the oceans were heating up. The higher-than-expected amount of heat in the oceans means more heat is being retained within the Earth's climate system each year, rather than escaping into space. In essence, more heat in the oceans signals that global warming itself is more advanced than scientists thought.
"We thought that we got away with not a lot of warming in both the ocean and the atmosphere for the amount of CO2 that we emitted," said Resplandy, who published the work with experts from the Scripps Institution of Oceanography and several other institutions in the U.S., China, France and Germany. "But we were wrong. The planet warmed more than we thought. It was hidden from us just because we didn't sample it right. But it was there. It was in the ocean already." Wednesday's study also could have important policy implications. If ocean temperatures are rising more rapidly than previously calculated, that could leave nations even less time to dramatically cut the world's emissions of carbon dioxide, in hopes of limiting global warming to the ambitious goal of 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) above preindustrial levels. Updated on November 14 at 14:40 GMT: Scientists Acknowledge Key Errors in Study of How Fast the Oceans Are Warming.
"It was hidden from us just because we didn't sample it right." This must have been the last remaining sampling error and from now on the science is settled.
Yeah religion can be self fulfilling. "Be fruitful and multiply. Fill the earth and govern it. Reign over the fish in the sea, the birds in the sky, and all the animals that scurry along the ground", is the main cause of the problems
Moron, this means the previous calculation was too conservative, and warming is happening faster than was previously proven/assumed. You're being 100% backwards-grade retarded.
Why crash on the GOP? Look at how the left/dems are blocking nuke energy from replacing fossil fuels. We can do that rapidly, but the far left is stopping it. And their fear is not founded on science or logic. Just fear. There really is NO difference between the far left and right. Both hate science and logic.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
I used to care. A lot. Until I noticed that it doesn't matter whether I care. It really doesn't matter at all. It only made me waste my time trying to reason with people who don't want to be reasoned with because it would mean that they might be inconvenienced slightly if they wanted to leave their kids more than a wasteland.
And then I realized that hey, I do not have kids. I will not be cursed by my descendants for being a selfish asshole, lacking said descendants.
And that's when I decided I'd just sit back, relax and watch the show.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
why do you think it mitigates the issue? My reading is that one of the biggest heat sinks we have is filling faster than we thought, reducing future ability to absorb heat.
Literally everything you used to post that stupid, butthurt message involved the use of petroleum products.
If you don't want to be a hypocrite, you will need to go live in a cave. Just remember not to burn wood for heat...CO2 and all that ya know.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
You mean like temperature measurements like at airports that have experienced large growth the past few decades? In high school, I helped maintain the weather station at my local airport. There was one runway, a tiny terminal, and no other buildings for over half a mile from the airport at that time. Now, there's three runways, two much larger terminals, and growth all around the airport on all sides. It's not shocking to see that there's been an almost half a degree rise in measured temperatures.
I wouldn't call it rejecting empirical data. It's more just cherry-picking data.
I used to care. The older I got, the more I realized that people WILL believe what they want to believe. They won't be convinced. They will come up with amazing, overcomplicated stories for how their version of reality is actually reality. They will believe that zaniness without proof over a simpler explanation with proof. Because we will believe in the conclusions we want to be true and then work backwards to cherry pick evidence, discount any non-supporting evidence, and engage in personal attacks on anyone who argues differently. I got tired of it. It's too draining. Too few want to honestly exchange ideas. We just want to sit in our tribes.
Your countdown was not needed since the people denying science were right there in the article.
They are claiming we should be worried despite admitting we had no idea the ocean could absorb heat a lot faster than we thought which seems like it helps mitigate the danger greatly, all models now being wrong in terms of some excess heat taken up by the oceans.
How is that denying science? Taking on board new evidence is how science is done.
Literally everything you used to post that stupid, butthurt message involved the use of petroleum products.
If you don't want to be a hypocrite, you will need to go live in a cave. Just remember not to burn wood for heat...CO2 and all that ya know.
Burning wood is a carbon neutral activity as long as you plant new trees to replace the ones you burn because that is a closed cycle. Pumping up billions of tons of sequestered carbon and releasing them into the atmosphere is not a closed cycle and if you are de-sequestering carbon at a scale that is on par with the carbon release that caused the great permian extinction you have a really serious problem. As for: "Literally everything you used to post that stupid, butthurt message involved the use of petroleum products." there is only one answer to that which is: "Well DUUUUUUHHHH!". Claiming that somebody is not allowed to comment on the folly of excessive carbon fuel use because they use them for lack of an alternative is like saying that you aren't entitled to criticise the navigational skills of your captain because you happen to be a passenger on a ship that is heading straight for an iceberg. Fortunately it is beginning to look as if the problem of petroleum product use will largely solve it self by the simple mechanism of petroleum products becoming an obsolete technology that is being economically outcompeted by renewable alternatives. One is only left to hope it is not too late. Now please go back to sorting your collection of MAGA hats and let the grownups work on sovling this problem in peace.
If someone falls of a roof that is not called a solar death.
I think confirmed deaths from Fukushimas is about 1. Plus maybe a dozen more statistical deaths. The tsunami killed thousands.
And that is the point. Nobody talks about the tsunami. The reactor is considered to have been far more dangerous than the ocean, even though the facts are quite different.
This makes nuclear untenable. Safety issues are over blown. Nobody is going to shut down the solar industry because someone falls off a roof. But think about what happens to nuclear investment if even one person dies.
Likewise the nuclear waste. It is a major issue precisely because it contains those two words, "nuclear" and "waste". Perceptions are reality.
So let's hope the price of solar falls before the globe cooks.