Slashdot Mirror
Ocean Warming is Accelerating Faster Than Thought, New Research Finds (nytimes.com)
Scientists say the warming of the world's oceans is accelerating more quickly than previously thought, a finding with dire implications for climate change given that almost all of the heat trapped by greenhouse gases ends up stored there. From a report: A new analysis, published Thursday in the journal Science, found that the oceans are heating up 40 percent faster on average than a United Nations panel estimated five years ago. The researchers also concluded that ocean temperatures have broken records for several straight years. "2018 is going to be the warmest year on record for the Earth's oceans," said Zeke Hausfather, an energy systems analyst at the independent climate research group Berkeley Earth and an author of the study. "As 2017 was the warmest year, and 2016 was the warmest year."
As the planet has warmed, the oceans have provided a critical buffer, slowing the effects of climate change by absorbing 93 percent of the heat trapped by human greenhouse gas emissions. But the escalating water temperatures are already killing off marine ecosystems, raising sea levels and making hurricanes more destructive.
Wasn't there a story here yesterday saying the oceans were getting colder?
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
Another conclusion they made: "Horrific Air Pollution in Europe Reaches 7 cigarettes per day equivalent, a pack a day in India and China"
http://berkeleyearth.org/horrific-air-pollution-in-europe/
Very interesting.
We are in hot water now... DEEP hot water..
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
How much of this warming is caused by floating plastic particles?
Older faster than previously thought.
just in time for the push back from the other side... kind of odd and "coincidental" again?
"Arhc-Angel" (SIC) are you obfuscating trying to pretend that other story (posted by known obfuscator Schwit) somehow "disproved" global warming, or did you really not read it carefully enough to know it didn't at all?
It seems to me you're walking the path of denialist FUD again. Or was this just a big misunderstanding, you really didn't know that AGW models actually predicted exactly such range variability in undersea currents?
It sure looks like you're obfuscating and trying to insinuate something you know isn't true.
Deniers faster to deny the evidence without looking at it, studies show. Refer to flat earth and soundstages for Moon landings.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
this story must be pasted to one blade of a windmill and is posted everytime a 360 degree revolution is completed
If I go swimming in the ocean, there is enough of a difference between the surface and a few feet down that I can feel the difference.
There is enough seasonal difference that there are actual "water temperature" reports to let vacationers know what it feels like.
These are things that I know of in my everyday life where I have experienced noticeable differences in water temperatures that are in the range of several degrees. These changes are natural and have occurred my entire life (>50 yrs). No one reasonable will contest that.
This study is claiming that a few tenths of a degree difference are destroying ecosystems. Am I a denialist if I ask how can these species easily live through constant fluctuations, and yet are killed off by temperature shifts that are an order of magnitude lower?
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
Or was it generated by AI?
Your local observations aren't what they're talking about, AS YOU KNOW ALREADY, it's the aggregate mean/median/average over time, you intentional dipshit.
It's either showing up in floods, storms, and the like, or it's getting stored somewhere, sunshine.
Science doesn't care about your denial.
Enjoy coastal flooding and more severe weather patterns!
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
... just say'n lol
There are too many people. Especially, there are too many people of low quality.
That is the problem. Population reduction, humanely, voluntarily, in a subsidized and educated fashion, is the only solution, and you all know it.
Note: White people are 11.5% of the global population.
burping cows.
Glub Glub Glub! Look at how much the sea has risen over the years!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e82smfcypUc&t=1s
Latest the greatest release of Global Climate Scare 110.20
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
Really, no one cares. It's a worry for worriers.
Nothing can be done about it anyway, at least within the bounds of the politically possible, so it's safe to worry and whine. Keep at it.
Ah yes, the weekly Climate Fear Mongering article from NY Times.
Without reading it (and the attendant report) I know exactly how it goes:
1. A preamble about how its even worse than worse.
2. Then description of how researchers put new scarier variables in a video game oracle of some kind.
3. Followed by dour descriptions that the video game oracle now says that its all that much more terrible.
4. A doom-day has to be quoted if we don't repent (all cults work this angle); so something like 2050 or 2100 and we're Venus, unless...
5. The "unless" narrative that follows essentially says we need to just shutup and implement statist schemes...or its Venus.
6. Trump - or the entire USA somehow - gets tossed under rhetorical bus somewhere somehow.
I can't help but think back to November. It may not have been the 5th, but this story seems an awful lot like the error-riddled study back in November. Heck, I might be mistaken, but it seems to me that this article cites the very study: L. Resplandy et al., Nature 563, 105 (2018). Maybe November was too close to the print deadline, and they hopped it would go unseen. Judging by the comments it seems like most believers truly have blind faith.
The model is proving accurate, they're saying the reality is outpacing the model significantly as new data comes in. That's bad news. You don't have to agree, but you don't disagree with any teeth here.
Yes, there is a delay between data being compiled and it being fully integrated into new modeling data. 10 years actually isn't a long time in a study on this topic.
To pretend that because they correlate data with modeling that's somehow "bad" without specifics is just classic Republicanism desperate to deny science any hold over their snowflake emotional denialist response.
I haven't used my snowblower yet this year helping to reduce the acceleration I suppose.
Pretty much everything you said is wrong.
It isn't new information. The newest citations are in 2016
Nope. There are 15 citations. Three are from 2018. Two are from 2017. Did you think nobody would check?
and they're citing studies that were done entirely with models... that is not data.The data being cited is often about ten or more years older.
Wrong again. I did a quick skim of the Google Search links provided in the bibliography. My rough guess is that about half of them discuss data, and the other half discuss models that include comparisons to data. A couple of titles had the word 'prediction'.
Models are not data, but they are built and tested with data.
article title says "Ocean Warming is Accelerating Faster Than Thought, New Research Finds "
Yes, the NYT article. But the article in Science has the title "How fast are the oceans warming?"
The research is not "new"... it is old stuff in a new box.
False. See above.
How many people that actually cite this stuff actually read any of it? I feel they're headline readers. Do better.
Oh the irony. I'll just let that stand.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
"Imbalance" is a bullshit word in this context.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
So you're saying the oceans aren't warming provably, C02 in the atmosphere isn't measurably increased along with other insulating pollutants? Gee. Source? Because you're not listing any.
Maybe you're just another intentionally-distracting Republican faggot of no value to any scientific debate or study? We've seen your narrative.
Imbalance is a bullshit word? Lol. You mean like "Republicanintegrity"?
"...the oceans are heating up 40 percent faster on average than a United Nations panel estimated five years ago..."
And alternative title could be "Experts estimates off by 40%; still vehemently claiming they're 'experts'."
Did we forget this posting from the ancient days of ...yesterday?
https://news.slashdot.org/stor...
-Styopa
Really, no one cares. It's a worry for worriers.
Nothing can be done about it anyway, at least within the bounds of the politically possible
That comment reminds me of the scene in Austin Powers where the steam roller ever so slowly moves towards a man who is screaming in terror rooted in spot instead of running away, despite having plenty of time.
It's not like we haven't known about Global Warming for decades now, but we haven't shifted policy an inch. There are things we can be doing, but we're like that man waving his arms around screaming as 1mph steam roller slowly inches towards him.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
So how fast is thought accelerating?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Those fish fuckers are just trying to destroy our industries with their propaganda - FAKE NEWS
Or in cartoons where a tree is falling and the character runs along rather than across.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
The paper notes that there are four new ocean heat content estimates and all have a larger OHC trend than the observations published in IPCC AR5.
But none of that says anything about acceleration. The paper does note that "All four recent studies show that the rate of ocean warming for the upper 2000 m has accelerated in the decades after 1991 to 0.55 to 0.68 W m^2", but far from "Accelerating Faster Than Thought", instead it notes "The recent OHC warming estimates are quite similar to the average of CMIP5 models, both for the late 1950s until present and during the 1971–2010 period highlighted in AR5"
The fault seems to be in the original NYT article. The line "The results converged at an estimate of ocean warming that was higher than the I.P.C.C. predicted and more in line with the climate models." seems especially confused since the paper referenced the same CMIP5 models that are referenced in IPCC AR5.
Did anyone else notice that the source basically says nothing of the sort (and sure as heck isn't alarmist in its tone)? Did a millennial submit this? I swear to Zeus, millennuals, with their pea-brains and ignorant emotionalism wreak more havok on our societies than the climate changing could ever hope to. The purpose of science is to learn, not to justify rhetoric or hysteria.
""It's not like we haven't known about Global Warming for decades now, but we haven't shifted policy an inch"
Who is the "we" here? The world is not one people with one policy.
The converse is also true. You denialists have unshakeable faith that it's not happeneing and no amount of evidence will change your mind. The sinking of Hy Brasil (Atlantis) in the movie Erik the Viking was made specifically about you guys. Now sing me a goddamned song!
The article actually says the current measurements are convergent and in conformance to the models. Of course it puts that right at the end.
Slashdot needs to stop reporting on science. Science journalism is crap overall and worse on Slashdot.
The world is not one people with one policy.
Don't worry - they're working on that too.
https://thinkprogress.org/stud... ... From TFA:
Climate change from human activities mainly results from the energy imbalance in Earth's climate system caused by rising concentrations of heat-trapping gases. About 93% of the energy imbalance accumulates in the ocean as increased ocean heat content (OHC). The ocean record of this imbalance is much less affected by internal variability and is thus better suited for detecting and attributing human influences (1) than more commonly used surface temperature records. Recent observation-based estimates show rapid warming of Earth's oceans over the past few decades (see the figure) (1, 2). This warming has contributed to increases in rainfall intensity, rising sea levels, the destruction of coral reefs, declining ocean oxygen levels, and declines in ice sheets; glaciers; and ice caps in the polar regions (3, 4). Recent estimates of observed warming resemble those seen in models, indicating that models reliably project changes in OHC.
Last year was very likely the hottest year on record, according to the authors of a new study in the journal Science.
The study examined “multiple lines of evidence from four independent groups” measuring ocean heat and concluded “ocean warming is accelerating.” Researchers found the rate of warming for the upper 2,000 meters of ocean has increased by more than 50 percent since 1991.
As a result, “2018 is shaping up to be the hottest for the oceans as a whole, and therefore for the Earth,” a press release accompanying the study explains.
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
"Faster than thought"
How fast is a "thought"? Is it a measure of speed or time?
A better analogy is socialism.
People love it for other people. But they themselves won't change their behavior until you put a gun in their face.
And again. Stop fucking TELLING us about how fucked we are!
We need realistic engineering solutions to combat it.
If you can't provide that, doing your Chicken Little impression ACCOMPLISHES NOTHING!
"There are things we can be doing, but we're like that man waving his arms around screaming as 1mph steam roller slowly inches towards him."
Perhaps you didn't look close enough, his shoe was glued to the ground, the empty glue bottle was there clearly labeled "capitalism "
Actually, you are dumb. You claimed that microplastic, by basis of being "inert" (your term) can not possibly cause any health effects even at concentrations inside human cells. I mean, as far as dumb shit?
That wins, Luckyo.
Denialist faggots will never be "people". I don't want to "hang out" with "republican faggots", I don't need your "mental AIDS" or "dishonesty." You lie to yourselves instead, watching Trump hang and pretending it's unfair lol.
When your "ilk" (-derp) die off? Your children will be educated about exactly how petulant, pussy, ignorant, and unworthy their parents were. We'll raise a generation that knows what Republican faggotry was all about.
That's your legacy, liars, faggots. You earned that. Now watch Trump get fucked to pieces, he earned that.
Really, no one cares. It's a worry for worriers.
Nothing can be done about it anyway, at least within the bounds of the politically possible
That comment reminds me of the scene in Austin Powers where the steam roller ever so slowly moves towards a man who is screaming in terror rooted in spot instead of running away, despite having plenty of time.
It's not like we haven't known about Global Warming for decades now, but we haven't shifted policy an inch.
Wha? We've engaged in all sort of policy shifts. What we haven't done is accomplished anything.
I would suggest we get cracking with nuclear and technological solutions.
I would suggest we get cracking with nuclear and technological solutions.
I drank too much alcohol and crashed my car. The solution is...more alcohol!
"That comment reminds me of the scene in Austin Powers where the steam roller ever so slowly moves towards a man who is screaming in terror rooted in spot instead of running away, despite having plenty of time."
Would be more apt if the man who is screaming wasn't moving because he was busy pickpocketing a bunch of other people who had their backs to the steam roller while an acquaintance was distracting them.
Nothing is happening on climate change, not because we can't move, but because there are very wealthy vested interests who are doing everything they can to keep the status quo.
Go read it again, this time read what was written, not what felt nice inside your brainpan. It said some of the ocean was still cooling from the ice age. You DO know that "some of" is not the same as "all of", right? You're just misreading because you WANT to misrepresent, like any denier does, rather than a cognitive disability, yes?
That's why the models "do more warming" than the IPCC prediction. Because oil producing countries and those making wads of cash off oil products or unrestrained capitalism won't accept the models because theyre "too alarmist" (read, "accurately predict"), so they have to be toned down or they will refuse to sign off.
They don't have to do it 1000 light years away, they do it now. The heat change from 1000 years ago takes time to pass through 1.8km of water, around 1000 years, so measuring the temps 1.8km down measures the temperature 1000 years ago, fuckwit.
Your statement that "we haven't shifted policy an inch" is easily dismissed as hyperbole.
Anywho.... Maybe if all the people screaming about climate change would ante up then they'd need not have to wait for governments to take the situation in hand. If environmentalism with an eye on climate change was a living, breathing culture instead of a political talking point then new markets would arise that would help the transition along to a solution. But too many of this ilk are seriously deluded into thinking that buying an EV (when the range and charge times become more accommodating, of course) and the stroke of a government pen is going to fix things. This is false. It's a step in the right direction but not enough of a step. These people need to get serious about how their personal lifestyles are causing this problem instead of ranting on about "the right" not being in line with their ideals. We're never going to get to a point where everyone agrees and acting like they can't just do the right thing today is a scapegoat for never wanting to have to make the sacrifices needed. If you lay it out as a challenge to them they'll just keep crying "Muh bacon, muh Disney cruise, muh children!!!111!!!"
It's not taken seriously because the people who "believe" in it don't even take it seriously.
The NYT headline, isn't especially useful, but but poking around in the links, there is actually a good article hidden in there.
https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2019/01/04/1808838115
It describes building an ocean model for tracking energy flows.
I found it clear and easy to read.
Easiest and most effective way to stop global warming is to not have children. Yet people are breeding left right and centre. We're doomed.
They'd focus on feeding the public - because they know the #1 reason why governments are overthrown is starving populations. Politicians of any ilk are concerned most about retaining power. And under socialist systems, they'd have to concentrate on feeding the public exclusively, because productivity will be for shit.
The environment will come a distant, distant second. Ask those in the Eastern Bloc about how wonderful the environment was before 1990.
Really, the biggest mistake neo-Commies make is presuming that the "means of production" works at the same speed regardless of the government in place and its policies. It doesn't, and we have objective proof all over the place if you choose to look at it.
English civil war... was starvation a factor? No. American Revolution... was starvation a factor? No. Revolutions across Europe in the 1840s... was starvation a significant factor? No. Iranian revolution... was starvation a particular factor? No.
You could make an argument for starvation being a factor in the Russian revolution, and the French one. Even in China the revolution was at the start of the 20th century and largely political, and the Communists winning the civil war took until thirty years later.
The rate of growth is at least falling. Improving women's rights, access to birth control and old age pensions help significantly. Where children are still used as labor stopping that and improving processes and machinery so that people don't immediately starve (or maybe providing food for families for each child that goes to school?) might help too.