Climate Crisis Has Tripled Length of Deadly Ocean Heatwaves, Study Finds (theguardian.com) 57
The climate crisis has tripled the length of ocean heatwaves, a study has found, supercharging deadly storms and destroying critical ecosystems such as kelp forests and coral reefs. From a report: Half of the marine heatwaves since 2000 would not have happened without global heating, which is caused by burning fossil fuels. The heatwaves have not only become more frequent but also more intense: 1C warmer on average, but much hotter in some places, the scientists said.
The research is the first comprehensive assessment of the impact of the climate crisis on heatwaves in the world's oceans, and it reveals profound changes. Hotter oceans also soak up fewer of the carbon dioxide emissions that are driving temperatures up. "Here in the Mediterranean, we have some marine heatwaves that are 5C hotter," said Dr Marta Marcos at the Mediterranean Institute for Advanced Studies in Mallorca, Spain, who led the study. "It's horrible when you go swimming. It looks like soup."
As well as devastating underwater ecosystems such as sea grass meadows, Marcos said: "Warmer oceans provide more energy to the strong storms that affect people at the coast and inland."
The research is the first comprehensive assessment of the impact of the climate crisis on heatwaves in the world's oceans, and it reveals profound changes. Hotter oceans also soak up fewer of the carbon dioxide emissions that are driving temperatures up. "Here in the Mediterranean, we have some marine heatwaves that are 5C hotter," said Dr Marta Marcos at the Mediterranean Institute for Advanced Studies in Mallorca, Spain, who led the study. "It's horrible when you go swimming. It looks like soup."
As well as devastating underwater ecosystems such as sea grass meadows, Marcos said: "Warmer oceans provide more energy to the strong storms that affect people at the coast and inland."
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Any article that uses "climate crisis" is instantly unreliable.
Thoughts and prayers won't make it go away.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
and carbon credits! Al Gore rode over on a private jet from his mansion with the carbon footprint of 20 families to tell me so! His carbon is offset by emission-free mining of lithium and cobalt, using carbon neutral kids in S. America and the Congo.
Re: (Score:2)
wow, an al gore reference, that brings me back. got any deep impact jokes while we're hitting these things at the height of their popularity
Re: (Score:2)
wow, an al gore reference, that brings me back. got any deep impact jokes while we're hitting these things at the height of their popularity
It's the same people who still fly into a rage about Franklin Roosevelt several times a year.
Re: (Score:2)
Al Gore has fuck all to do with this problem. You get your Maggot Rhetorical Point for today. Make sure you bring it up to your Elmo minder, they like that sort of thing.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It sure won't, unless you 1) cap and tax instead of cap and trade and 2) spend some of the money making sure that the carbon actually gets fixed. And even then you're not fixing it, you're just heading in the right direction. If I were regulating carbon fixation schemes somewhere (lol) I would want to make sure that the projects made some kind of sense as well. e.g. native species if those make sense, food production, some kind of public benefit beyond fixing a small amount of carbon.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
eerr.. so would renewables and even faster
What if I say I don't believe you? What if I show examples of numerous national governments and private corporations investing in nuclear power because they don't believe you? I'd expect some data to back that up. There's a few data points in this news article to back up growing belief that nuclear fission would be cheaper and faster than renewable energy alone: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news... [msn.com]
I'm not seeing any big push to abandon renewable energy, only a belief we need nuclear fission too for a compl
Re: (Score:2)
What if I say I don't believe you?
whoopeeeeee
What if I show examples of numerous national governments and private corporations investing in nuclear power because they don't believe you?
You'd have to show that they're actually doing it for that reason.
There's a few data points in this news article to back up growing belief that nuclear fission would be cheaper and faster than renewable energy alone
Oh look, MSN, what an authoritative source on technology. No wait, they're the opposite of that.
I'm not seeing any big push to abandon renewable energy, only a belief we need nuclear fission too for a complete and viable solution.
I see that a lot of people clearly believe that, and a lot more people claim to believe that, but I don't take what people say as honest without a reason.
If you have data to the contrary then please share for everyone.
It's been shared here ad nauseam and you have ignored it each time. Why should anyone jump to sharing it again? Renewables plus batteries are cheaper than anything else, and if they wou
Re: (Score:1)
You'd have to show that they're actually doing it for that reason.
I believe it safe to assume they aren't investing in nuclear fission because they want something that takes longer to build and costs them more money.
Oh look, MSN, what an authoritative source on technology. No wait, they're the opposite of that.
It's a reprint from the New York Post, are they the opposite of authoritative too? At least I gave something as a source.
I see that a lot of people clearly believe that, and a lot more people claim to believe that, but I don't take what people say as honest without a reason.
I don't know about that, if people tell you they are going to do something it is often wise to believe them.
It's been shared here ad nauseam and you have ignored it each time. Why should anyone jump to sharing it again? Renewables plus batteries are cheaper than anything else, and if they would just stick with batteries which aren't shit (unlike Vistra using LG NCM batteries at their Moss Landing facility, for example, what fucking clowns) they would actually be cost effective in practice and not just in theory. One has to wonder exactly what kind of scam Vistra is running.
Why not share something again? Maybe because it would have taken less time to post a link to something than explain why you would n
Re: (Score:1)
It's been shared here ad nauseam and you have ignored it each time. Why should anyone jump to sharing it again?
Translation: I know I'm wrong, so I'll act superior to cover up my ignorance.
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Your fallacy is very convincing, I think I'll switch to your side.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
But it is, clearly, a climate crisis. Why would accurate language make it unreliable?
Re: (Score:2)
But it is, clearly, a climate crisis. Why would accurate language make it unreliable?
Right, as Miami Florida is undergoing flooding events so regular they'f placed pumps to pump the regular seawater incursions (back into the ocean) https://www.miaminewtimes.com/... [miaminewtimes.com].
I suppose that they can install seawalls and more pumps https://www.tampabay.com/news/... [tampabay.com] But that kind of takes away from the city and any charm it has.
We might ask them if they think there is a crisis, they are living it.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
says the highly qualified slashdot climate expert from his/her basement
Re: (Score:2)
Unreliable for Different Reason (Score:3)
From what I understand from the paper they did nothing to check their model against observation e.g. by adding global warmin
Re: (Score:1)
Modern humans aren't even a blip in the scheme of things.
Sorry, that's not true. Humans turned the Sahara into a desert, will do the same to the Amazon... Humans are responsible for that big dust bowl back in the 30s. The wildfires have noticeably clouded the entire atmosphere, no more clear horizons at 30000 feet.
But hey, it's all good, soon we'll open up those arctic trade routes and ports
Re: (Score:2)
You can already do that. But you might want to wait for polar bears to go extinct first.
Re: Has anyone else ever attended Church? (Score:2)
It's all in his book: "You Eat The Bear, Or The Bear Eats You: And 37 Other Things My Brain Parasite Told Me."
Re: (Score:1)
I can't speak about the Amazon, but the Sahara was turned into a desert by the Bedouins, mistakenly called the "sons of the desert." You can always tell when Bedouins settle in a new region because no matter what the region was like before they arrive, it soon turns into a desert, because that's all they understand. In biblical times, Palestine was famously a land flowing with milk and honey, but by the time that the Zionists star
Re: (Score:1)
I can't speak about the Amazon, but the Sahara was turned into a desert by the Bedouins, mistakenly called the "sons of the desert." You can always tell when Bedouins settle in a new region because no matter what the region was like before they arrive, it soon turns into a desert, because that's all they understand.
That's pretty racist and ignorant. The Sahara was as dry as it is today 5000 years ago, yet the Bedouins didn't migrate to North Africa until the spread of Islam.
In biblical times, Palestine was famously a land flowing with milk and honey, but by the time that the Zionists started migrating there in the late 19th Century, almost all of the region was a desert, inhabited mostly by Bedouins. Now, much of it is productive farmland again, except in places that the Guess Who have managed to hang onto and mismanaged in their traditional way.
That's another disproven Zionist trope, that Palestine was a desert prior to the late 1800s. There's nothing quite like their invention of racist tropes to justify the ethnic cleaning and land stealing.
Re: (Score:2)
And that just goes to show what you don't know. Back in Roman times, the Sahara was lush and fertile. It didn't start to dry up until the Bedouins showed up.
That's another disproven Zionist trope, that Palestine was a desert prior to the late 1800s
There are lots of descriptions of the region from earlier times along with drawings and pain
Re: (Score:1)
That's pretty racist and ignorant. The Sahara was as dry as it is today 5000 years ago, yet the Bedouins didn't migrate to North Africa until the spread of Islam. And that just goes to show what you don't know. Back in Roman times, the Sahara was lush and fertile. It didn't start to dry up until the Bedouins showed up.
When did the desertification of the Sahara happen?
"between 8,000 and 4,500 years ago" - Smithsonian
"beginning approximately 8,200 years ago, the Sahara began a trend towards more and more arid conditions. Over the course of the next 3500 years, the landscape of northern Africa shifted from a diverse, wet ecosystem to conditions similar to those found today" - Frontiers in Environment journal
That's another disproven Zionist trope, that Palestine was a desert prior to the late 1800s There are lots of descriptions of the region from earlier times along with drawings and paintings to illustrate them. Care to give me a reason why all of them are lies?
The burden of proof is the person making the claims. You blame Bedouins for desertification of the Sahara millenni
Re: Has anyone else ever attended Church? (Score:2)
> LIARS that greatly enriched themselves off this grift.
It is true that research college professors do pretty well financially, but not nearly as excessive as even middle management in the energy sector. This has always been a baloney argument-that climate change is a scam perpetrated bu scientists for personal financial gain. In reality, those scientists might, toward the end of their careers, be driving 5 series bmw sedans, but they are a long ways from stinking rich like the fossil fuel people.
If clim
Re: Has anyone else ever attended Church? (Score:2)
George Soros invites climate scientists, journalists, and internet posters like myself onto his yatcht for a big Climate Change Hoax party. Where we laugh at people who aren't in on our world wide dupe, and help count the research grants that academics have secured. We must have made nearly $50m on this. In 200 years we'll be as big as the oil industry!
Re: (Score:2)
Grifters are gonna grift. Never let a good crisis go to waste. But that doesn't change the fact that there is a climate situation and we have played at least some part in creating it. Ignoring it just because there are some pieces of human excrement sucking up money like a hoover vacuum of lore over it is like avoiding leaving the house because sometimes crooks exist outside your home. Guess what? The Earth is our home, and the crooks are living in it. We still have to deal with the reality we live in, even
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
I don't know how anyone can pick a date to show climate trends due to human activity that pleases everyone.
I remember having a debate with a co-worker and said something about trends starting in 1850 or there about. He immediately got defensive. Why did you pick that year? I picked that because that was when we started getting reliable and science based weather data out of the US federal government. It's also when the Second Industrial Revolution started. This is about the time when coal power started
Scientists, think tanks, UN need to contribute $ (Score:3)
Steps:
Researcher, think tank, NGO, UN, nonprofit, agitator does
1. Releases research, press release, opinion piece that there is a "Crisis X needing immediate correction"
2. Gets publicity for themselves, their talk only institution, etc.
3. Calls for other people and taxpayers to fund a solution
4. Never proposes, with detailed and researched numbers, a plan to alleviate the crisis
and
5. Never is the first to contribute budget or salary money directly towards building a green energy solar panel generating plant
At this point, I agree that we need to reduce pollution; and, more importantly, talk-only institutions need to be first in line to pay their portion of money to directly build solar panel generating plants.
-
It is getting to the same point as having a large project and one of the team members only raises up "We have a problem" and never makes any suggestions or does any work to resolve that problem. Eventually, the person learns to provide a solution or work on a solution.
We're 50 years into this climate / pollution crisis talk-only research now and more research documenting what is happening is less priority than building green energy plants.
Re: (Score:1)
At this point, I agree that we need to reduce pollution; and, more importantly, talk-only institutions need to be first in line to pay their portion of money to directly build solar panel generating plants.
And make that investment in domestic production, not domestic to me, domestic to where the think tanks are. If things continue as they are then international trade could be a global problem. Every nation should seek energy independence, and solar is a path to that. I'm seeing news articles showing the USA is catching on, articles like this:
https://www.pv-tech.org/summit... [pv-tech.org]
Re: (Score:2)
I see you have moved on from denying the science to attacking the scientists now.
The reality is that clean, renewable energy will be cheaper for everyone. It's just getting there is going to upset a lot of very big and entrenched business interests, who don't want to see their investments devalued, or even worse have people generating their own energy instead of paying for it.
Re: (Score:2)
We can agree in basis on pollution is bad and needs to be reduced.
It's possible to advocate for a reasoned discussion on ranking what priorities to fund and what priorities to research in science.
Advocating discussion and ranking priorities for funding is not denying the research.
Money spent for only talk, like the tens of millions spent on COP25 climate summit, can be better spent to build a city scale solar panel generating plant.
The repeated "It's a crisis based on my research, and we have to do somethin
I'm glad the left.. (Score:1)
went from liking musk, and the eco frendly vehicles, and go green push , to burning the vehicles, thus making more pollution, raising earth temperature.
looks like them caring about climate change was made up.
acts of civil disobedience versus complicity (Score:1)
Not everyone is as obedient as you are.
And Shortened Length of More Deadly Cold Waves (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Net positive.
No, that's ignorant.
More greening around the world.
No, that's ignorant. Most plants cannot make use of increased CO2 to begin with; the remainder won't be able to either because of increased temperatures that cause them to shut down, stopping photosynthesis. Also, the increase in CO2 is very small, it doesn't take a large increase in atmospheric CO2 to cause a significant heating effect. CO2 enrichment doesn't affect plants significantly unless it is much greater than this increase.
We can handle the heat. We will be fine.
It's not just heat. That's ignorant. It's also increased
Re: (Score:2)
right. when you're dying of heatstroke because it's way too hot, strapping on an oxygen mask isn't going to do dick to save you