Ocean Warming Is Accelerating Faster Than Thought, New Research Finds

More grad students at work, "opening eyes" all around...

Geoscientists at the University of Massachusetts Amherst have reconstructed the longest and highest-resolution climate record for the Northeastern United States, which reveals previously undetected past temperature cycles and extends the record 900 years into the past, well beyond the previous early date of 1850.

""We see essentially cooling throughout most of the record until the 1900s, which matches other paleo-records for North America. We see the Medieval Warm Period in the early part and the Little Ice Age in the 1800s." An unexpected observation was 10, 50-to-60-year temperature cycles not seen before in records from Northeast U.S., he adds, "a new finding and surprising."

https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2019-01/uoma-uag010919.php

https://www.clim-past.net/14/1653/2018/

[quote]zxcvzxcv wrote:

China has gone heavily into renewables in the past decade and is the largest producer of them now.quote]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnparnell/2019/01/10/china-no-wind-or-solar-if-it-aint-as-cheap-as-coal

“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.”

According to his own data, 2018 had 8 only more "Zeta Joules" (about 1/2000 of a Kelvin per the top 2 kilometres of ocean) than 2017, while the data precision was only plus/minus 9 ZJ.

But even to believe that, given that there's only one Argo probe (4000 total) per roughly 100000 square kilometres of ocean, and I can't measure my bathtub water (much smaller area) to 0.004 Kelvin, how can they claim this?

OK, you get sqrt power in stats (assuming all measurements are equal, which is debatable ofc), so they are saying about a precision 0.25 Kelvin from each Argo thermometer, and simply ignore any real-world effects and take a "statistical" average?!

Do something wrote:

I guess we should maybe tax the rich?

Rich businessman? Yes. Rich politician's who will get on their private planes and fly to a resort town in Europe to discuss ways to stop the plebs from having access to cheap petrochemical energy? No, they get awards.

Its probably a bad idea to get so offended when someone offers a reasonable critique on your opinion. I'm really not understanding the need for your ad hominem tantrum.

I'm a level headed centrist politically. My only allegiance is to the truth. If you're offended by a centrist offering a reasonable rebuttal, it really smells like leftist tribalism.

I'm sure there are a number of environmentally conscious people that support nuclear energy. But the left environmental left is the primary reason nuclear power is not widely used in the US(and many other countries).

A degrees warmer and it will feel good to swim in.

Interesting that so many posters apparently did not read the article I linked to.

Call for action

Appeal to authority

Dire consequences if not followed

Name Calling (or worse) of any dissidents

Call for action

Lather, rinse, repeat.

For eons, despots have labored to make the simple appear to be complex; and the complex appear to be simple. They use these techniques to lead their unsuspecting victims down a primrose path-a path that generally leads to a place where their money or their free will is compromised.

Religious leaders do it, political leaders do it, and now-this wing of the so called scientific community does it.

The fervor with which people believe the dire predictions of Global Warming is inversely proportional to how many semesters of calculus and physics and thermodynamcis they have taken. Global warming hysteria is pseudo-intellectualism-warmly embraced by history majors, and skeptically considered by most true scientists.

Yes, increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere blocks long wave radiation from escaping to space, while allowing short wave radiation to enter the system. However, these effects are dwarved by buffering and feedback that occurs in the water cycle, and the enormous heat sink available in the oceans. The total energy in the top meter of the ocean is roughly equivalent to the total energy stored in the atmosphere.

Climate, like weather, changes-to expect it to remain constant is unnatural. Humans certainly have some impact on weather--but the thought that we can tweak CO2 emissions and adjust temperatures decades from now- like adjusting the idle on a carburetor- is ludicrous. The thought that we can model the atmosphere decades into the future is equally ludicrous. The atmosphere-ocean system is without a doubt the most mathematically complex and chaotic system in nature, what with turbulent flow, phase changes, and variable albedo. When Navier Stokes gets solved for 3D turbulent flow, I'll start listening--but I've run too many computational fluid dynamics models since 1985 to believe we're remotely close to understanding this system. The science is nowhere close to being "settled."

The politicians-on both sides-want you to think it's settled. They thrive on tribalism.

RE: Ocean Warming Is Accelerating Faster Than Thought, New Research Finds

the oceans are heating up 40 percent faster on average than a United Nations panel estimated five years ago

In other words, the actual article doesn't even say what the headlie does.

Dang, you understand this stuff better than the combined knowledge and expertise of the thousands of scientists who study it full time. You Da MAN!

(tee hee)

Oh, but wait, I didn't notice this before. Your handle is "Computational Fluid Dynamicist". Oooh, impressive! And without question an appeal to authority!

(tee hee)^n

"accelerating faster" = positive third derivative wrote:

RE: Ocean Warming Is Accelerating Faster Than Thought, New Research Finds

When so-called "scientists" can even get basic maths correct, you can bet they're conclusions are wrong too.

the combined knowledge and expertise of the thousands of scientists who study it full time.

Any student of Science would realize that this concept of "combined knowledge" is nebulous at best, and (more likely) simply wrong at worst.

Time and time again there's been examples where a small (often ostracized) group has turned out right.

The Big Oil companies use so-called "Computational Fluid Dynamics" to find oil reserves.

That's why it's controversial.

also called the jerk wrote:

"accelerating faster" = positive third derivative wrote:

RE: Ocean Warming Is Accelerating Faster Than Thought, New Research Finds

When so-called "scientists" can even get basic maths correct, you can bet they're conclusions are wrong too.

Are you familiar with the English language?

May I suggest that you might consider acquiring at least a rudimentary knowledge of the language prior to attempting to use it?

When Navier Stokes gets solved for 3D turbulent flow, I'll start listening

Even making reliable predictions (a basic concept of Science) by Climate Careerists is beyond their capacity.

And in 100 years from now, they'll think we're all doofuses wrote:

the combined knowledge and expertise of the thousands of scientists who study it full time.

Any student of Science would realize that this concept of "combined knowledge" is nebulous at best, and (more likely) simply wrong at worst.

Time and time again there's been examples where a small (often ostracized) group has turned out right.

- link -

Exactly! It is obviously MUCH more likely that some random clown on a running site message board has this figured out better than the IPCC. I'd give it at least a 98% probability. Wouldn't you?

(tee hee)

Nattyb wrote:

The Big Oil companies use so-called "Computational Fluid Dynamics" to find oil reserves.

That's why it's controversial.

Oh, but not at all controversial to me. We have the REAL "Computational Fluid Dynamicist" right here. Clearly, like Trump himself, one who knows WAY more than his generals (or in this case, the actual experts).

When Navier Stokes gets solved for 3D turbulent flow, I'll start listening

making reliable predictions (a basic concept of Science) by Climate Careerists is beyond their capacity.

The UN can always redefine "certainty" for them...