Ocean Warming Is Accelerating Faster Than Thought, New Research Finds

So you support marked expansion of nuclear power then? Because that's the only way we will reduce our carbon footprint anytime soon. Also, what's your plan for the developing world? The US is going to be a tiny fraction of carbon emissions in 10 years. They aren't going off carbon anytime soon.

joedirt wrote:

Nice news, but nobody is not guilty in the world of global warming. Obama tried to do more to control climate change than any other president, and global CO2 emissions continued to spiral up during his administration. This is because all of the penalties and restrictions he put on US industries simply fueled growth in Asia where they have been building coal plants like mad. Quite honestly Trumps tariffs and government shut down have the potential to due more to curb global warming by slowing the global economy than any anti-carbon policy that Obama implemented.

It has nothing to do with anybody being "guilty". Please try to raise your mind from the gutter of guilt, blame, etc. and join us in continuing to develop a better understanding of what the impacts are likely to be and what the best course of action is from where we are (hint: it is probably not "do nothing" and it is also probably not "stop all fossil fuel use next year")

Thanks!

Yes, I do support a substantial expansion of nuclear, wind and solar power. I also think that tamping down on population growth globally is a good idea if achieved through education and the changing of social norms regarding reproduction.

I do not think that a "plan for the developing world" can be reasonably described in a post on this thread. But I do think that "Let's do nothing because (fill in the blank)" is idiotic. Better to engage all nations of the world and move forward in a way that reasonably balances shorter term economic (human) needs and longer term environmental and economic (human) needs.

SAlly V wrote:

Well, if the so-called "experts'" predictions from five years ago were off by so much, that just shows how little these climate "scientists" actually know. Time and time again they have been massively off on their predictions. They don't know squat about what is going to happen.

When I saw this story I knew some idiot would come on LRC and criticize scientists for updating their research based on new data provided by improved sensor technology. Unlike deniers who just deny, deny, deny, with no regard for evidence or fact.

runnER/DR wrote:

So you support marked expansion of nuclear power then? Because that's the only way we will reduce our carbon footprint anytime soon. Also, what's your plan for the developing world? The US is going to be a tiny fraction of carbon emissions in 10 years. They aren't going off carbon anytime soon.

Speaking for many environmentalists, "Yes." That will only surprise you if you don't actually pay attention to the latest in environmental science, but get your "news" from Fox, or Hannity, or Rush... or worse.

18.3 GW of Solar and Wind Energy in 2000 vs. about 1118 gw in 2018 and a projected 1730 in 2021.

U.S. carbon emissions actually declined under Obama, and the U.S. changes did not prompt Asia to emit more, because the U.S. wasn't shipping energy over there in the first place. China has gone heavily into renewables in the past decade and is the largest producer of them now. It produces 36.6% of its electric needs through renewables and about 25% of total energy needs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_China

http://www.fi-powerweb.com/Renewable-Energy.html

I will guess b (less than 0.1 degrees). It would take an incredible amount of heat energy to warm the ocean by that small amount. Water has a high heat capacity. And the oceans are fvcking huge.

fisky wrote:

When I read this thread, my first thought was just how much was the ocean temperature increasing? That important bit of data was missing from the initial story. I had to dig through several links and charts in the actual study to find it.

It must be by a significant amount to garner this much hysteria, right? Since 1990, almost 30 years ago, how much would you guess that the oceans have warmed? Before I post the answer, what's your best guess?

a. None. The oceans are actually cooling

b. Less than 0.1 degrees in 30 years

c. Less than 1 degree in 30 years

d. Greater than 1 degree but less than 3 degrees

e. None of the above

fisky wrote:

When I read this thread, my first thought was just how much was the ocean temperature increasing? That important bit of data was missing from the initial story. I had to dig through several links and charts in the actual study to find it.

It must be by a significant amount to garner this much hysteria, right? Since 1990, almost 30 years ago, how much would you guess that the oceans have warmed? Before I post the answer, what's your best guess?

a. None. The oceans are actually cooling

b. Less than 0.1 degrees in 30 years

c. Less than 1 degree in 30 years

d. Greater than 1 degree but less than 3 degrees

e. None of the above

The answer is somewhere between .1 and 1 degree, anywhere from .2-.4 degrees C depending on the source (and about 1 degree C for the surface). However, the oceans are absolutely massive, and the heat capacity of water is fairly high, so the amount of heat that has been added to cause that temperature change I believe comes out to be 20 quintilion (10^18) kJ (feel free to check these numbers -- I don't have sources on hand since these are numbers from memory, but I'm confident the majority of sources will support me). I'm hoping that you're not trying to downplay the severity of climate change. The moment you take the time to research this subject the evidence only points to the conclusion that climate change due to human activities is a massive issue we are facing.

furloughednoaa wrote:

I will guess b (less than 0.1 degrees).

It would take an incredible amount of heat energy to warm the ocean by that small amount. Water has a high heat capacity. And the oceans are fvcking huge.

fisky wrote:

When I read this thread, my first thought was just how much was the ocean temperature increasing? That important bit of data was missing from the initial story. I had to dig through several links and charts in the actual study to find it.

It must be by a significant amount to garner this much hysteria, right? Since 1990, almost 30 years ago, how much would you guess that the oceans have warmed? Before I post the answer, what's your best guess?

a. None. The oceans are actually cooling

b. Less than 0.1 degrees in 30 years

c. Less than 1 degree in 30 years

d. Greater than 1 degree but less than 3 degrees

e. None of the above

The question is not entirely well posed. Fahrenheit or Celsius? Surface temperature or average temperature to some defined depth or average temperature including all depths? . . .

However, the sites that I have seen suggest that the average temperature gain has been about 0.1 degrees Celsius for surface waters down to a depth of 700 meters. Let's put that in some context regarding the amount of heat this represents.

The mass of water in a one square inch column 700 meters tall is about 995 lbs or about 67 times the mass of the atmosphere in similar one square inch column from sea level to infinity.

Further, water has a specific heat of roughly 4x the specific heat of air (specific heat is a measure of how much heat is required to change the temperature a given amount). So, the column of water has a total heat capacity of about 67 x 4 = 268 times that of the column of air.

Given that, a 0.1 degree change in the average temperature of the water to 700 meters would represent the same amount of heat energy as a 0.1 x 268 = 26.8 degree Celsius change in the average atmospheric temperature. For those more familiar with Fahrenheit that would be a change of 48 degrees Fahrenheit. This of course does not factor in that oceans do not cover the entire surface of the globe (more like 2/3) and that some of the ocean has a depth of less than 700 meters. I am too lazy to find numbers for these. But . .

The bottom line is that the answer to the original question posed is either b. or, as several sites suggest, actually about equal to 0.1 degrees Celsius. How much heat this represents suggests that the surprisingly small number (0.1 degrees Celsius) should not be cause to dismiss it as insignificant.

The problem is that the environmental movement is not pushing for realistic solutions. They are only pushing for wind and solar. These can only be supplemental. Nuclear is the only way to slash carbon emissions in the next 10 or 15 years. Solar and wind can be supplemental, but they can't do it alone(anytime soon at least).

As far as influence over the other 7 billion people in the world, good luck. They are going to do whatever benefits them geopolitically in the short term for the most part. China isn't planning on cutting emissions for a very long time. Same goes for most other developing countries. It sucks but it's the truth. They are going to churn out more and more carbon for a very long time.

This is good news. Just look at the idiots on this board. We deserve to die. The sooner the better.

"Buh the Cyantists are faking the data. I choose to beleeve the oil companies instead because they are run by honest business men who have my best interests at heart!"

The error in your logic is climate plans like the Paris accord involve funneling money from industrial nations to developing nations. This typically results in population increases and increased demand for electricity and other resources. Funneling money to developing nations is not a viable plan. The only viable plan is taxes on fuels that are offset by tax cuts. Honestly I think the military should be funded in part by taxes on imported oil just to wean ourselves off the stuff and eventually decrease the size of our standing army as we would have less incentive to be entangled in the Middle East. All that being said, as long as there is a double standard in these climate accords as to how countries are treated, all they will do is encourage manufacturing in the countries where the regulations are the least as has been occurring in the past years since Kyoto. Explosive economic growth in Asia in comparison with the stumbling economies of Europe.

Lovely and warm with loads of CO2, let me see. Plant life will thrive.....Oh no just realised that will mean that the plants will suck up all our oxygen and we will all .........oh wait a cotton picking minute.

Truth is Here wrote:

This is good news. Just look at the idiots on this board. We deserve to die. The sooner the better.

"Buh the Cyantists are faking the data. I choose to beleeve the oil companies instead because they are run by honest business men who have my best interests at heart!"

Yeah, not like scientist don't have a interest in lying about the data to get more funding.

runnER/DR wrote:

The problem is that the environmental movement is not pushing for realistic solutions. They are only pushing for wind and solar. These can only be supplemental. Nuclear is the only way to slash carbon emissions in the next 10 or 15 years. Solar and wind can be supplemental, but they can't do it alone(anytime soon at least).

As far as influence over the other 7 billion people in the world, good luck. They are going to do whatever benefits them geopolitically in the short term for the most part. China isn't planning on cutting emissions for a very long time. Same goes for most other developing countries. It sucks but it's the truth. They are going to churn out more and more carbon for a very long time.

I hope you're a better doctor than you are a reader or thinker, since a simple search will show increasing numbers of environmentalists considering nuclear as a viable option. The key is to plan ahead of time what to do with the nuclear waste. And while you're at it, don't build reactors on or near fault lines.

But you'll just keep pushing your stale talking points, won't you?

@SAlly V wrote:

SAlly V wrote:

Well, if the so-called "experts'" predictions from five years ago were off by so much, that just shows how little these climate "scientists" actually know. Time and time again they have been massively off on their predictions. They don't know squat about what is going to happen.

When I saw this story I knew some idiot would come on LRC and criticize scientists for updating their research based on new data provided by improved sensor technology. Unlike deniers who just deny, deny, deny, with no regard for evidence or fact.

Did you, well done, been here long have you?

Here is a little graphic for you that should put this debate to bed.

We should be focusing on pollution, not this C02 red herring.

Scientist never lie wrote:

Truth is Here wrote:

This is good news. Just look at the idiots on this board. We deserve to die. The sooner the better.

"Buh the Cyantists are faking the data. I choose to beleeve the oil companies instead because they are run by honest business men who have my best interests at heart!"

Yeah, not like scientist don't have a interest in lying about the data to get more funding.

Yeah, there's so much more money in science than there is in oil.

global warming is why american marathon times are slow, it's hard to break 212 with all that heat.

plus the polar bears are all dead now.

and al gore's beach side property is under 12 feet of water, and he can't even use the first floor, where he invented the internet,

god help us.

Truth is Here wrote:

This is good news. Just look at the idiots on this board. We deserve to die. The sooner the better.

"Buh the Cyantists are faking the data. I choose to beleeve the oil companies instead because they are run by honest business men who have my best interests at heart!"

That ice age we had in the 80’s didn’t freeze the chip off your shoulder then.