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
We are in hot water now... DEEP hot water..
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
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
Or was it generated by AI?
Meh...AGW Models predict EVERYTHING
It's like buying all the possible combinations to the lotto.
Things like coral are very sensitive to temperature changes. Even a 2 degree temperature change will kill some coral. Basically the perfect global temperature existed 400 years ago and we need to go back to that.
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.
Because there was no coral before then..
5 out of 6 people enjoy Russian Roulette & 6 out of 7 Dwarfs are not Happy
Correct.
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! --
A dire amount. An amount with dire consequences.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
... just say'n lol
So you might actually give him some credit.
It's a perfectly valid question to ask, which has a complex answer that I can't summarise very well here.
But the gist is: you are thinking about weather (local, seasonal change). They are talking about climate (the sum of all whether for a large region/the planet, over a longer period. Years, decades)
What you say and what you experience IS TRUE. But you can't hold in your mind the variations that happen over decades all over the world, human brains just don't normally do it. We can focus only on more immediate things, like the weather in the area where you live. That's why people record these things.
Over time, the average has been raising. But keep in mind that an average is the sum of many parts, which means that there will be places where it's a lot more or a lot less. Also keep in mind that you won't be able to tell the difference reliably from memory vs 50 years ago if the average change is one or two degrees.
Next, some species are more fine tuned to specific conditions. Their body chemistry and metabolism and reproduction cycles developed over millennia in more or less stable conditions, and for them, these changes you don't notice are a big deal.
Finally, climate change isn't the only problem. Pollution and acidification also change their environment, making it difficult to maintain their usual way of living. Then there is overfishing. And these are just direct factors. Things like rain, wind and ocean currents are affected by fluid dynamics that can change by a lot at global scale.
So, yes, your questions are reasonable, but there isn't a yes/no answer.
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.
Let's say you are a coral and you can live in water of temperature 20-24 degrees Celsius. Which is convenient, because the water you live in is usually between 21-23 degrees. Now add global warming, over the course of the last century the water temperature increased by ~0.4 degrees on average. Before you could survive a hot period where the water temperature increased by a full degree, which is not an unreasonable increase for El Nino years. Now, however, you can only survive a hot period of 0.6 degrees before you start to die off. By the end of the century, if ocean temperatures increase by another 0.6 degrees, you may have trouble surviving every summer that not a La Nina year and you may be devastated if not completely wiped out by a moderate El Nino year.
If we're lucky, you will be replaced by a coral that is better adapted to those warmer temperatures, if we're not, the coral in your area goes extinct.
The fluctuations neither help nor hinder, because the baseline increase increases both the minimum and maximum values, and if the maximum values will kill you, you only have to hit those values once to get killed. The fact that you didn't die on a different day doesn't help you much, you're still dead.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
That is why we need to keep the ocean temperatures exactly like they were for all of history before humans showed up (21-23 degrees in this case).
Great post. Moderators, please note.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
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.
I haven't used my snowblower yet this year helping to reduce the acceleration I suppose.
Not hardly.
A model that predict ever possible outcome isn't a model and it isn't predicting anything.
But, you knew that.
I'm going to have to add the word "obfuscate" and its variations to my global warming story drinking game. I already had "denier", "alarmist" "fud" "Hitler", "degree(s)", "models", "dire", "Nazi", "statistics", "ice" "hockey stick". But you just added 3 shots with you post alone.
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.
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."
burping cows.
How many cows do you see in the wild outside human dominion?
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
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.
Not separating the words "hockey" and "stick" tells me you are not serious about drinking...
tsk. tsk.
""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.
This study is claiming that a few tenths of a degree difference are destroying ecosystems
That's the average temp across the oceans and over 2000 feet deep, but the heat is not distributed evenly.
Not sure what the point of this bizarre response is.
Coral is not "very sensitive to temperature changes" but rather can live at a variety of depths and temperatures. Temps are also not the only threat to reefs.
Sigh. I can't tell if you're trolling, willfully ignorant, or just plain ignorant. This is a SUPER OLD question that's been answered thousands of times. I'm gonna make exactly one effort to explain it to you. Suspecting you're gonna reject it and come back at me with something inane, but here goes....
I'm gonna assume you're US and run on english units. So, your body temperature averages 98.6 on a good day, but sometimes it varies down a bit, and when you're really sick it shoots up to around 105 F. There's variance in your body temp. So, what happens if your average temp goes up by three degrees? For the sake of conversation, assume that you just add 3 to your temp all the time. That can't have a big effect, right? I mean, 3 degrees is absolutely nothing!
Well, actually, it has a huge effect effect. As in "you die fairly quickly" type of effect. If you're running at 98.6+3=101.3 degrees on average, you FEEL LIKE ABSOLUTE CRAP. Most of the time. It's like you have a constant minor flu. You have a hard time working, thinking, procreating, or doing anything else. Your body wears down really fast. You evolved to have a 98.6 body temp and 101.3 is not a good thing at all.
Furthermore, the first time you actually get sick, instead of hitting 105 (which you can recover from) you hit 108 (which kills you dead).
The bottom line: for most life, it's the increase at the extremes that makes the huge difference.
Same thing happens to ecosystems except they've been shown to be even more sensitive. In a green farmland area, the temp varies from some low to some high. During the hot summer, everything gets a bit brown but doesn't die out completely. However, there is a threshold temp at which a bunch of things will just flat-out die. A few degrees of increase in average temperature means that during some hot summer week, the temp goes above the threshold and kills a bunch of things instead of just making them go brown. The ecosystem then alters in terms of what grows back. Just a few die-offs like this will result in an alteration to desert, or some other ecosystem. In any case, it doesn't return to what it was before. Result: farmland becomes not-farmland.
I'm pretty sure you don't care about the environment for it's own sake, so let me put it this way. The human population depends on a fairly small number of "breadbasket" regions for a lot of its food. If a bunch of these become unproductive in a very short period of time, our civilization could get badly disrupted. Could we adapt? Yes. Might it be painful and worth avoiding? Probably.
The world is not one people with one policy.
Don't worry - they're working on that too.
If you and your ilk's goal is to drive people away from your position then congratulations...job done.
There's a little book called "How to Win Friends and Influence People". You should give it a read some time.
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?
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.
See? You actually need to study that stuff and not "use a common sense".
The ocean actually consists of two parts - the rapidly changing top layer that can cool and warm in the matter of days and an almost unchanging bottom layer. As a vacationeer you're only dealing with the top layer.
The border between the layers is called "thermocline" and you can actually _see_ it if you dive deep enough, it looks a bit like haze above a hot road. The water past thermocline doesn't mix with the top layer and the main heat transfer mechanism is simple diffusion (and a small contribution from marine animals like jellyfish). Diffusion is very slow so it can take almost 1000 years for the heat pulses to propagate to the bottom of the ocean.
It's so slow that we can still detect the cold pulse from the Ice Age propagating down. It's now being chased by the global warming induced heat wave and it'll be completely overwhelmed.
If you're ever contemplating typing something of the form "NOUN and PRONOUN verb", ask yourself "would this make sense if I dropped the "NOUN and" part? If the answer is "no", you picked the wrong pronoun.
Note that in this case, that test leaves you with "And thus him created the project". So, change the pronoun to "he" and you're golden.
Remember, you're supposed to be among the best and brightest. You don't need to write like a semi-literate six-year-old....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
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.
Try overlaying that map and the areas hit by blizzards in the last week.
Republican Faggots ?
Is that a Homophobic slur from a liberal ?
5 out of 6 people enjoy Russian Roulette & 6 out of 7 Dwarfs are not Happy