Ocean Warming is Accelerating Faster Than Thought, New Research Finds (nytimes.com) 190
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.
Bipolar (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Bipolar (Score:5, Informative)
Re: Bipolar (Score:4, Interesting)
"oceans are heating up 40 percent faster on average than a United Nations panel estimated five years ago."
or the papers abstract:
"Recent estimates of observed warming resemble those seen in models, indicating that models reliably project changes in OHC."
must be wrong...
Accelerating Faster Than Thought? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Republicans (nitwits, frauds) keep insisting billions of tons of insulating gasses being added to our atmosphere every year will have no effect because Jesus is coming back so it doesn't matter. How soon?
And meanwhile, the party that once summoned nuclear power into being won't let us use it to fix the problem. Perhaps we can use Franklin Roosevelt's rotating body as a power source.
Re: (Score:3)
Due to melting of ice. Man, these deniers have no idea how to even mix drinks.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Pepperidge farm remembers.
Re: Bipolar (Score:2)
Or rather deep enough that that mattered more than happened at the surface now.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Meh...AGW Models predict EVERYTHING
It's like buying all the possible combinations to the lotto.
Re: (Score:1)
Not hardly.
A model that predict ever possible outcome isn't a model and it isn't predicting anything.
But, you knew that.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
Not separating the words "hockey" and "stick" tells me you are not serious about drinking...
tsk. tsk.
Re: (Score:1)
This study took place in the South Pacific. Try to keep up.
Re: (Score:1)
Tony Heller talks about how it's all the same!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FnGglbIphGw
Re:Bipolar (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, they just put an IR thermometer on a space probe and send it 1000 light years away.
Re: (Score:2)
In the summary of that article, they indicate that the deep ocean is getting somewhat cooler while the surface is getting even hotter.
The ocean surface is the primary source of feedback into climate and weather, e.g., hurricane severity.
But if you can't even pay attention to the details in that two-paragraph summary, it's no surprise that you don't understand climate change.
Re: Bipolar (Score:1)
Yes there was such a report. It referred to the very bottom of the deepest oceans, where the waters are very slow moving. Only now are they getting the effects of the Little Ice Age.
On a topic such as this, you need to take care when posting, as yours could be part of the lies that travel halfway around the world while the truth is still getting its boots on. Google, for something as simple as going back 72 hours on /. , is your friend.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Science is not computer models, adjusted temps, 50 year predictions that can't be tested, let alone falsified.
Re:Bipolar (Score:4, Insightful)
Do you even realise how dumb it is to claim that "model is correct" and then literally follow it up with "model was incorrect"? Because if it's warming faster or slower than model predicted, MODEL IS WRONG. Direction is irrelevant in this regard. Model's point is to predict the outcome. If outcome falls OUTSIDE the model, model is WRONG.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course I'm dumb and you're smart. It's not like you didn't contradict yourself in majority of sentences you typed out in your previous post. Which I pointed out. Which you had to concede, and start grasping for straws like "error margin", which if you actually had any training in the field at all, you'd know is fit into the calculation itself when you do the modelling.
It's the religious zealots like you who think science is a religious entity and worship certain hypotheses to the point where even pointin
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Science says some of the water is warming, some of it is cooling. That is all science says.It suggests causes, but can't prove them. Models suggesting particular warming/cooling trends don't support measured reading in any reliable way. Models are constantly adjusted for differences between predicted and actual numbers is evidence that the models are in fact not accurate enough to make ANY long term predictions.
Further, models predicting weather and climate changes based on the models has been proven even m
Air pollution in Europe (Score:1)
http://berkeleyearth.org/horrific-air-pollution-in-europe/
Very interesting.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
You could always just break the filter off and smoke it without the cigarette.
Re: (Score:2)
Try overlaying that map and the areas hit by blizzards in the last week.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Most of the damage from smoking comes in the form of significantly decreased quality of life in the later years. People usually seem otherwise-healthy until they start losing their breath and never get it back.
It takes away an average 3 years of actual life, plus 15 extra years of being sick before you die.
Re: (Score:2)
So you might actually give him some credit.
Re: (Score:2)
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...
Well damm... (Score:3)
We are in hot water now... DEEP hot water..
Re: (Score:2)
Deniers faster to deny (Score:1, Insightful)
Deniers faster to deny the evidence without looking at it, studies show. Refer to flat earth and soundstages for Moon landings.
Re: (Score:2)
With articles like this, I feel the desire to become a "denier".
Shit is happening. Some of it looks pretty nasty. Regardless of what we can predict about the consequences, altering the chemistry of the air we breathe IS going to have an effect, likely a negative effect.
Articles like this that scream about percentages and how it is much worse than we thought and having it all served with a sauce of "the world is ending!", yeah. This was designed to create deniers, not to alert us to a problem that we should
Re:Don't care. No one really does. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Or in cartoons where a tree is falling and the character runs along rather than across.
Re: (Score:2)
""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.
Re: (Score:2)
The world is not one people with one policy.
Don't worry - they're working on that too.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Planting forests is a 100-years plan.
No, it's not. Thirty years [mnn.com] is enough to make significant changes [youtube.com]. If one guy can do this all by himself, imagine what could happen if millions of people did the same all over the planet.
If enough people do this, or something similar, it won't even take that long.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Because there was no coral before then..
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Republican Faggots ?
Is that a Homophobic slur from a liberal ?
Attention Denialist try-hard moron : (Score:1, Insightful)
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.
Re: Eco systems dying? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Great post. Moderators, please note.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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. [sciencenew...udents.org]
Re: (Score:1)
"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."
No you can't.
"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?"
No, you are a denialist for other reasons.
Re:Eco systems dying? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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 ma
Is this a real study? (Score:2)
People shocked energy has to go somewhere (Score:5, Insightful)
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!
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
that's kinda funny... I don't see the "believers" making any changes either. What I do see is that the "believers" keep expecting to give some bald face lying politician power to take people's money in a wealth redistribution plot.
If you actually believed in climate change you would be just as angry at the currently proposed solutions as the "deniers". The proposed solutions won't fix anything but because they are doing something, even if that something is the wrong thing you get all happy about it.
And wh
Re: (Score:1)
Um, guy, I live on the West Coast. We are doing something. That's why the carbon emissions impacts of buildings are dropping, due to new techniques, and where the basic science of using marine reefs to sequester carbon in clams and oysters while providing edible food and oil from the seagrass and seaweed planted amongst it comes from. And why the costs of renewable energies like solar and wind and tidal energy keep dropping.
Most of us have between 20 and 100 percent Renewable Portfolio Standards for our new
Re: (Score:2)
I would pay mind to your post except for this part...
"The markets and science care nothing about your views. They don't even care about your sunk costs fallacies."
Do you know what kind of people make statements like this are? Stupid people... What does it benefit you to antagonize people that do not believe you? Only a stupid person tries to get people upset when it does not benefit them.
https://qz.com/967554/the-five... [qz.com]
Your ignorant suppositions are easily challenged. Lets go ahead and start with the m
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Which probably has something to do with their GDP being so large and their population being so large.
That and all the campfires.
Re: (Score:2)
oh, overdeveloping coastlines has investments get hit with hurricanes and floods? Next you'll be telling me bears shit in the woods.
stop peeing in water then (Score:1)
latest the greatest (Score:2)
Latest the greatest release of Global Climate Scare 110.20
I've seen this narrative... (Score:1, Insightful)
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'r
Re: (Score:1)
Don't believe in climate fear if you so choose. However, the fish are voting with their fins and moving out of the tropics and temperate zones...enough that fishermen must spend more just to chase them.
However, you don't have to believe the fish either. You don't have to believe dumping greenhouse gases and in particular CO2 into the atmosphere is causing it. However, the CO2 is making the oceans more acidic. That will kill the base of the food chain. You have heard of the food chain, yes?
You don't have to
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure if you're a liar or an idiot. Not that there's a practical different.
Without reading it (and the attendant report) I know exactly how it goes:
1. A preamble about how its even worse than worse.
No it doesn't.
2. Then description of how researchers put new scarier variables in a video game oracle of some kind.
No it doesn't.
3. Followed by dour descriptions that the video game oracle now says that its all that much more terrible.
No it doesn't.
4. A doom-day has to be quoted if we don't repent (all
Re: (Score:1)
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.
Remember, Remember, The 5th of November (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
http://berkeleyearth.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/land-and-ocean-other-results-1950-large.png
This definitely needs more study.
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't that indicate the uncertainty interval (the shaded area) on that graph? So that there's only a 5% chance of the results falling out out that range?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Their graphs only indicate a 95% uncertainty.
http://berkeleyearth.org/wp-co... [berkeleyearth.org]
This definitely needs more study.
My guess is that it's a typo. Maybe they mean a 95% confidence level (i.e., two sigmas) for the grey band surrounding the Berkely data. It's hard to say just from the figure. You need the full context.
In any case, all of those data sources appear to agree with each other quite well.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
To also quote the person who found and documented the error
However, after correction, the Resplandy et al. results do not suggest a larger increase in ocean heat content than previously thought.
https://judithcurry.com/2018/1... [judithcurry.com]
Re: (Score:2)
No snow (Score:2)
Climate change from human activities mainly result (Score:2)
"Imbalance" is a bullshit word in this context.
Or... (Score:1)
"...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... [slashdot.org]
Ob (Score:2)
So how fast is thought accelerating?
All an Atlantean hoax (Score:1)
Those fish fuckers are just trying to destroy our industries with their propaganda - FAKE NEWS
Re: All an Atlantean hoax (Score:1)
Plant! Paid troll! Everyone look at this obvious fish fucker! How's the weather in the Marianas, you filthy seahorse hugger?
2018 is the Hottest Year on Record (Score:2)
https://thinkprogress.org/stud... [thinkprogress.org] ... 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 recor
Re:Read the list of sources (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
burping cows.
How many cows do you see in the wild outside human dominion?