The Oceans Are Warming Fast, and Our Lives Are About to Change

Last week, an important uncertainty was resolved – and, like most news about climate change these days, it’s not a happy story. A paper published in the journal Science shows that the Earth’s oceans are warming at a rate that’s about 40 percent faster than indicated in the 2013 U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report. Because the world’s oceans work like a giant flywheel, capturing heat energy and then spinning it out over time, warmer oceans have huge implications for everything from the rate of sea-level rise to hurricane intensity for generations to come.

During the last century, as the world heated up from pumping fossil fuels into the atmosphere, about 90 percent of the extra heat going into the climate system has been absorbed by the oceans. “If the ocean wasn’t absorbing as much heat, the surface of the land would heat up much faster than it is right now,” Malin L. Pinsky, an associate professor in the department of ecology, evolution and natural resources at Rutgers University, told The New York Times. “In fact, the ocean is saving us from massive warming right now.”

The authors the new paper resolved the dilemma by using new data from a network of thousands of autonomous robots – called Argo floats –that dive down to depths of 2,000 meters or so and measure temperature, salinity, pH and other ocean characteristics as they slowly ascend. Once the Argo floats surface, the data they have collected is relayed back to scientists by satellite. The upshot of this new data: The climate models were right after all, and the oceans are warming much faster than anyone understood.

The implications are huge.

Fast-warming oceans are devastating to coral reefs. Coral reefs are vanishing five times more frequently than they were 40 years ago, and will be gone entirely within your lifetime.

Fast-warming oceans intensify hurricanes. For example, one recent paper linked the disastrous rains associated with Hurricane Harvey, which hit Houston in 2017, with the amount of heat stored in the ocean. Harvey dumped 60 inches of water on Southeast Texas (the most ever recorded from a single storm in U.S. history).

The study, published in the journal Earth’s Future, argued that the added ocean heat content not only increases a storm’s rainfall but also “invigorates and enlarges the storm,” turning it into an even bigger rain-producer. Two independent studies found climate warming boosted Harvey’s rainfall by about 20 to 35 percent.

Hotter oceans also means faster sea-level rise, in part because as water warms, it expands.

But fast-warming oceans are also melting the great ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica from below, which has the potential to greatly increase the rate and height of sea-level rise. The warming of the Southern Ocean is particularly alarming, because it could destabilize West Antarctica and lead to the collapse of ice sheets that could raise global sea levels by 10 feet.

Fast-warming oceans also mean that Big Fix technologies like geoengineering and carbon removal, which are increasingly seen as last resort measures to cool the planet, will be less effective. It’s one thing to throw up a sun shade beside a pool; it’s another thing entirely to try to cool down the water in the pool itself.

If there is an upside to this recent paper, it’s this: It’s further proof that climate science — and knowledge about the risks we face in the future — are getting better, more accurate and more sophisticated. We may or we may not be doomed, but we can’t say we weren’t warned


rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/oceans-temperatures-rising-778581/

Attached: temperature dec 31 2017 9am.jpg (968x507, 97.94K)

Other urls found in this thread:

vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/5/15/15634538/china-coal-cleaner
dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4601848/Trump-calls-mayor-tiny-island-disappearing-underwater.html
skepticalscience.com/sea-level-rise.htm
npr.org/2013/02/02/170779528/the-inconvenient-truth-about-polar-bears
agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2009EO030002
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

That's the temp here in TO last winter.
Since global warming is for sure, hurry up

Temp here in TOronto 4 yrs ago

Attached: temp jan 13 16.JPG (822x489, 53.01K)

So paid "climate scientists" are assuring us that climate science is for real? That's really convincing. And it's not like there are any extremely obvious, extremely lucrative multinational crusades for enormous economic and legislative shifts that would taint this pure science.

IS that supposed to mean anything?

That'd make data at best suspicious, but do you have any actual problem with it? i mean do you think they're wrong or outright lying?

In reality, the earth's greenhouse effect is a good thing. If not for the greenhouse effect, earth's average surface temperature would be -18°C (Celsius), or -40°F (Fahrenheit). Instead, our planet exists at a livable 15°C, or 59°F. We need more CO2, not less.

CO2 is a life giving gas for plants, Commercial greenhouses are aware of this and commonly use CO2 generators to maximize production.CO2 is actually a planet-saving nutrient that could multiply food production rates and feed the world more nutritious, healthy plants and ecosystems. The greenhouse effect is why we have life on Earth. It is a good thing. Water is the most important greenhouse gas.

In the process of CO2/photosynthesis, phytoplankton release oxygen into the water. Half of the world's oxygen is produced via phytoplankton photosynthesis. The other half is produced via CO2/photosynthesis on land by trees, shrubs, grasses, and other plants. So if you want oxygen to breath you need CO2.

Man made global warming models and Climate change theory is best described as " a beggar, wrapped in purple, whom ignorant people mistook for a king." Their theory is a mass of errors and deceptive ideas and opposed to common sense.

The CO2 story is #FakeScience - a political construct - to justify carbon taxes, and UN control over nation states.

No, I just want global warming to hurry up.
We still have cold winters here in Canada

China has to leap directly from coal to renewables. That’s difficult as hell.

When assessing US and Chinese approaches to coal, it’s important to remember one key background fact: The US is blessed with abundant, accessible, cheap natural gas; China is not. This difference crucially shapes climate strategy.

Basically, it gives the US a huge advantage. Because natural gas is less carbon-intensive than coal, simply shifting from coal to natural gas can push emissions down. As a bonus, natural gas plants tend to be faster and more nimble than coal plants, which makes them well-suited to balancing out swings in wind and solar.

That’s how the US has reduced carbon emissions in recent years: Renewable energy and energy efficiency are both booming, but the bulk of the work is being done by the coal-to-natural gas shift. Natural gas is providing the US with a buffer, some running room, as it scales up renewables.

China doesn’t have that option. Its natural gas reserves are less plentiful and more difficult to access; the infrastructure is not there to develop them.

So China has to leap directly from coal to renewables. That is … tricky.

For one thing, without natural gas to help, it will take absolutely stratospheric levels of growth in renewables to back out coal. In Paris, China pledged to develop 800 to 1,000 gigawatts of new renewable energy capacity by 2030 — the equivalent of the entire US electricity system. Even if it achieves that, it still won’t be nearly enough to replace coal.

China has 1.3 billion people to our 325 million. It needs lots of power.

So it can’t get rid of coal as fast as the US can. It has to keep some coal around. But the pollution crisis means it also has to clean coal up. What to do?

China is building clean(er) coal plants

The top US plants are older, built between 1967 to 2012, while China’s were built between 2006 and 2015. Of China’s 100 top plants, 90 are ultra-supercritical; the US, by contrast, boasts exactly one ultra-supercritical plant.


vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/5/15/15634538/china-coal-cleaner

Why don't we just eradicate half the population of the planet? Surely that will solve all our problems? :^)

We're all/almost all dead in 5-10 years. 18 of the past 19 years hottest on record. co2 hasn't been this high in millions of years, and we managed it in around 250 years. 4.7 BILLION Hiroshima bombs worth of extra energy that we've added into our environment in 250 years, via our pollution etc. Our planet is a mostly closed system, and much of it is trapped here. That extra energy has consequences. You are a dumbass if you disagree with that fact.

Extinction event happening a magnitude faster than any known comparison. Rate of change a magnitude faster than any known comparison. Dozens of net positive warming feedbacks. 30+ year lag-time between cause and effect means we still haven't even felt the full effects of the pollution from the 90's until the present.

IPCC reports are disingenuous. Paris accord is irrelevant. We're fucked folks. We can delay the inevitable and prepare to deal with the global collapse coming within the next decade or so, or we can stick our heads in the sand and not even talk about reality until one day there's no food left to go around.

Smart people will tune in and prepare by moving away from high/moderate population centers soon, since it's rather obvious we're not reversing course.

Remember when the same "scientists" lied about the dangers of the approaching ice age? I do.

Attached: dog on a beach.jpg (474x398, 24.75K)

ha hee hoo
yoo be ded soon punk

opinion discarded

I was born dying.

no it's all bullshit NWO propaganda. some brit debunked it last year. they even had to admit they "made oversights" (like anyone would believe that lie)

5 years!

Imma gonna get drunk every day for the next 5 yrs and if your wrong, ima gonna kill you

Attached: index.jpg (300x168, 6.57K)

Sarcastic yes, but trips of truth.

I've been hearing this bullshit from the 80's, and nothing has changed these false prophets have cried wolf too many times

Our lives were ended by the ice caps melting in 2015 as predicted by Al Gore in the nineties. Sorry to burst your bubble.

I do too.

Attached: September 11, 1972 - FreeLanceStar.png (314x707, 222.72K)

i love how "deniers" take singular weather events and think that indicates a pattern. great schooling! your momma must be proud of all those Ds you got you through high school!

people post that single article over and over. this was ONE scientist. meanwhile, the other couple thousand were saying differently. INCLUDING the scientists at oil companies who were hired to investigate, who also said that burning of fossil fuels was causing global warming, but the oil companies naturally hid their reports.

Science is not about numbers. You're confusing being scientific with being popular.

I've been hearing this for a long long time about how the planet would freeze, and some who said the opposite of it burning up. Fact is ALL predictions have been wrong, every single prediction and timeline. I'm sick of the all this false hyperbole, world will be fine as long as we don't pollute too much (this including dumping waste into our oceans too). If anything will wipe out humanity its governments and/or another world war.

who is 'jaxon bailey'?

Low-quality sources get put in my pile of potential disinfo. The climate does change. With/without human intervention.
Take for example solar cycles: I've seen good sources argue that solar activity is the primary driver of temperature changes. We had virtually zero sunspots last year. Some argue we're likely headed into a grand solar minimum.
Another scientist has tracked solar activity with cloud activity and again, shocking, but if the big yellow ball in the sky gets cranky, it gets hot.
Another took core samples and tested the level of radiation at the isotopic level. Then graphed it; compared to historic recorded temperatures. It matched exactly. Junk science? Seemed solid. As solid as the "pool gets warm" model, proposed here.

The research I mention isn't in the propaganda we see. The elite pay the mainstream media to tell one side of the overall narrative, because they stand to make huge profits.
For example, because these brave scientists disagree with (((them))). It took up to 4 years to get a dissenting theory peer reviewed, much less published (then memory-holed).
Do your own research on climate science, if you dare. Don't forget the NASA insider who archived all the data before it was "revised". His credentials check out. Maybe venture beyond a Rolling Stone article… seeing as they also botched that campus rape story so famously.
Sorry not to be the bringer of links… I'm just over it. Stopped wasting time on it. Unless we find some green way to destroy China and India, we'll bankrupt the entire 1st world many times over propping up the 3rd world with middle class tax dollars. Keep in mind, this massive redistribution of wealth is meaningless to the top 1%.

I've moved on from "saving the environment" to saving the world. Ideology, ethics, politics.
I feel like working to convince people to respect themselves, their culture, their countrymen is far more useful than yelling at the sun. Or worse, blaming/shaming my peers because it is hot outside. Making them pay higher fuel taxes.

It was the same cult claiming this would happen in the 80s and teaching it in school in the late 80s. Do not worry kid when you have been around for more than 15 years you will become more wise to the scams created to trick you and separate you from your property and money while working you five times as hard as the previous generation.

I just turned the heat down in my house. Therefore the entire globe can't be warming, so it's all fine.

Why exactly are the 'elite' paying mainstream media, and who are the people benefiting from that.

This is what a lifetime of reading unsourced jpgs and blogs does to your critical thinking.

Holy fuking clueless treetard

Attached: retard-receiving-certificate-congratulations-youre-retarded.jpg (489x400, 105.75K)

Ok…seriously. What you gotta do, and this will cool the oceans, you have GOT to Get your dicks OUT for Harambe.

Denial ain't just a river in Egypt.

Attached: dfabf9c6-83bc-4056-a55c-47fce42dda70.mp4 (360x240, 147.96K)

see science is a religion and it never changes or goes under review to correct things that were once believed to be fact :^)

Sheeeeeeeeiiiit

Attached: 60c340b5-f5c7-4675-84cd-663f96f044c4[1].jpg (510x381, 30.89K)

The jetstream changed so winters flip back and forth for days at a time here.

So edgy all…

Look, I'm as skeptic as they come and this is no laughing matter.

It's serious.

Attached: 5IGDv.jpg (1280x928, 185.61K)

Fukishima is still leaking into the ocean. But retards worship the slant niggers that killed off the Ainu. Degenerates needed a third nuke

Al Gore said Manhattan would be under water by now. The NASA glow niggers even admitted in the early 00s that the earth cooled. That’s why the narrative switched from “global warming” to “climate change”. But hey if you want to volunteer to kill yourself to stop global warming and save humanity, we won’t stop you

sauce

Gore said it would be under water if the ice in greenland melted. That hasn't happened yet, although a lot of ice in greenland has melted at rates faster than ever. It's part of the reason why there were sea rises of a few inches. There are towns and cities in the US that are threatened, like Tangier, in Virginia, who are trump supporters, and when they asked for help from trump he called them up and told them don't worry, your island won't disappear, as though he believes just saying it will keep the water at bay.

dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4601848/Trump-calls-mayor-tiny-island-disappearing-underwater.html

Meanwhile trump's own golf courses in florida are spending money protecting themselves against the rising sea levels. Island nations like Maldives and Tuvalu are disappearing.
Here's the facts on all things climate change related. A great site that compiles all the facts and actually is full of scientists in the comments sections hashing it all out.

skepticalscience.com/sea-level-rise.htm

I'm emitting CO2 and methane just to spite your stupid fucking ass

Playing golf at a time like this

Attached: images.jpg (300x168, 9.08K)

uuuuuhhhhh…Al Gore Invented the Internets so…check MATE!

Attached: 8e3e6c6ebe7aad93ae4578ac2835aca3cb9e4e194dccda00ac1b93c852e8ee88.png (1080x1920, 411.32K)

>npr.org/2013/02/02/170779528/the-inconvenient-truth-about-polar-bears

2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?
als in total). Of these specialists, 96.2%
(76 of 79) answered “risen” to question 1 and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to ques- tion 2. This is in contrast to results of a recent
>agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2009EO030002

Pay you're corbon tax & shut up goy.

F*cking global warming. F*cking goddamned rethuglicans and their f*cking RRRRREEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!