Global Warming Underestimated by up to 50%

[kat-pottz]

Man, this kind of stuff makes me really sad that I can't really do anything to change it. While driving an electric car might alleviate some of your guilt it aint gonna help change the situation. Unfortunately the people who actually have the power to change the situation, our lunkhead presidents and CEO's, are ignoring the issue, instead wasting their money on frivolous wars and cheap & quick formulas for mass production.

 

[Plunkies]

The excuse for the "pause" is usually that the deep ocean is absorbing all of this heat despite the fact that global warming was never about the ocean getting warmer but the climate getting warmer.

The "pause" does not need an excuse. A more exact explanation would be great, which is why lots of people are pursuing one. There have been repeated pauses before, and the rate of warming from, say, '86 to '88, was not remotely sustainable. But here's the thing: It's not going back down, either. It's not a temperature spike that's we're recovering from. It went up, it plateau'd, it went up again, it plateau'd again, it went up again, it plateau'd again, and it went up again, now it's plateau'd. What happens next? The data looks like a staircase, not a jaggy and not a flat line.

Apparently it does need an excuse because it flies in the face of every single climate model that we have relied upon to make sweeping economic changes and public policy decisions. The global average temperature, according to multiple different satellite data sets, shows a flat line since 1997. Sitting at the same temperature for nearly 20 years is not a "spike" as you call it. There was only one spike, and it was caused by El Nino. But some people will just continue to call anything global warming by moving the goal posts whenever the facts don't fit their conclusions.

Speaking of goal posts, I love how you note that temperature isn't going down. I suppose anything short of reentering another little ice age won't convince you otherwise. Of course, then we'd just go back to the whole Global Cooling scare of the 1970s.

The most you can argue from that position is that Global Warming has happened and isn't going away (and the ice is still melting), but there's very little reason in the data to suspect that the ballyhooed pause is anything but temporary.

Yeah the ice is still melting...except when Antarctic sea ice is hitting 35 year highs. Funny which things matter and which don't. Those individual parts, as you say....

The study says ocean heat over a 35 year period has been underestimated. Not global warming.

Scientists do a lot of analysis, which means breaking things down and looking at the individual parts.

Yes, and then people decide whether those individual parts indicate PANIC GLOBAL WARMING. Of course, the parts that don't support global warming are largely ignored because they don't fit the narrative. Almost like the whole thing is political and there's a massive confirmation bias going on.

 

[Remus]

The problem with the article is that no units of measurement are given, only percentages. If it's a difference between 5 degrees C and 10 degrees C, that's alarming. But if it's the difference between .05 and .1 degrees, good luck making the argument to the general public. The ocean absorbs the greater amount of heat for 2 reasons - 1)71% of the Earth is covered by water, and 2) Liquids retain heat better than solids, due to the energy being transferred more easily throughout, rather than just a thin surface layer. It is simultaneously dense enough to retain energy while thin enough to allow it to pass through.

I truly believe we are ruining our planet and it will take an event of such enormity that it will have global implications for years to come in order to force us to change our path. But vague articles like this, where no units are given, nor the effects that this discovery may have, do not help the dialogue they are trying to present.

 

[Strazdas]

Yeah the ice is still melting...except when Antarctic sea ice is hitting 35 year highs. Funny which things matter and which don't. Those individual parts, as you say....

This again? The western ocean of Antarctica has record high Ice. Arctic and eastern part of Antarctica is melting like butter in the oven. the overall ice mass in the world is decreasing. its called global warming because on average worldwide its getting warmer, not because its getting warmer in all places equally.

The problem with the article is that no units of measurement are given, only percentages. If it's a difference between 5 degrees C and 10 degrees C, that's alarming. But if it's the difference between .05 and .1 degrees, good luck making the argument to the general public.

Sadly true. what general public will miss is that entire species of plants and animals will go extinct by as little as 0,1C change. If you really want to scare them - chinas deserts are expanding. arable land retreating. this will lead to china starving. 1,7 billion hungry people looking to conquer arable land - not a good thing.

 

[Kameburger]

So the real question in all this is something that no one is touching on, but how is this going to play into the new season of keeping up with the Kardashians? Are we talking about some new exotic beach for Kim to sun bath on? Perhaps they'll be a lot of inter family tension because they have to sell one of their hummers? Is Kanye going to get super mad that they don't make a black leather Hummer that runs on electricity? (and yes that means the outside of the car would be black leather instead of paint) When people explain to Kanye that this is impossible; that you would never be able to drive this car in the rain or in the sun, how many people will Kanye scream at before he gets his way? Will his out burst be at an award show?

C'mon CJ, these are the global warming questions I'm interested in. Where are my answers?

Also where can I buy that black leather exterior electric hummer that I made up? C'mon people! We're never going to get this climate crisis solved if we can't figure out these most basic problems.

 

[havoc33]

Man, this kind of stuff makes me really sad that I can't really do anything to change it. While driving an electric car might alleviate some of your guilt it aint gonna help change the situation. Unfortunately the people who actually have the power to change the situation, our lunkhead presidents and CEO's, are ignoring the issue, instead wasting their money on frivolous wars and cheap & quick formulas for mass production.

It's so easy to say oh but I'm just a common man who can't do anything, but yet if every common man took drastic changes to his everyday approach, we WOULD see results. But everyone is just looking at the next guy and ultimately don't give a shit. Us humans are basically too selfish to ever take the necessary steps to save the planet as we know it. There's plenty of things we can do that would make an impact; travel less, eat less meat, opting for more environmental friendly options, although it will cost more... I mean there's loads. But that means less comfort, less fun, so ultimately we don't do it.

And in the end the root to all our problems is a topic no politician is willing to touch; overpopulation. It would be the greatest thing ever for this planet if the human race would decrease drastically. But where is this going to happen? Not in the western world that's for sure. Our capitalist society won't allow that.

 

[Bruce]

The excuse for the "pause" is usually that the deep ocean is absorbing all of this heat despite the fact that global warming was never about the ocean getting warmer but the climate getting warmer.

The "pause" does not need an excuse. A more exact explanation would be great, which is why lots of people are pursuing one. There have been repeated pauses before, and the rate of warming from, say, '86 to '88, was not remotely sustainable. But here's the thing: It's not going back down, either. It's not a temperature spike that's we're recovering from. It went up, it plateau'd, it went up again, it plateau'd again, it went up again, it plateau'd again, and it went up again, now it's plateau'd. What happens next? The data looks like a staircase, not a jaggy and not a flat line.

Apparently it does need an excuse because it flies in the face of every single climate model that we have relied upon to make sweeping economic changes and public policy decisions. The global average temperature, according to multiple different satellite data sets, shows a flat line since 1997. Sitting at the same temperature for nearly 20 years is not a "spike" as you call it. There was only one spike, and it was caused by El Nino. But some people will just continue to call anything global warming by moving the goal posts whenever the facts don't fit their conclusions.

Speaking of goal posts, I love how you note that temperature isn't going down. I suppose anything short of reentering another little ice age won't convince you otherwise. Of course, then we'd just go back to the whole Global Cooling scare of the 1970s.

The most you can argue from that position is that Global Warming has happened and isn't going away (and the ice is still melting), but there's very little reason in the data to suspect that the ballyhooed pause is anything but temporary.

Yeah the ice is still melting...except when Antarctic sea ice is hitting 35 year highs. Funny which things matter and which don't. Those individual parts, as you say....

The ice mass is shrinking.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/aug/24/incredible-polar-ice-loss-cryosat-antarctica-greenland

Your figure is based on the area covered by the ice sheet. It is like saying you have more ice cream, because it has begun to melt and now covers more of the bottom of the bowl.

 

[nodlimax]

We got another warning about climate change. You may start to panic now:

On a serious side, can someone remember when we stopped calling "IT" climate warming and started using the words climate change? In addition how is climate change always bad? And why is bad when the climate overall on the planet is warmer? There have been periods on this planet when the average temperature on this planet has been higher and that wasn't to long ago (500 years). Oh and please show me real prove that the current climate change is caused by humanity. Please keep in mind that the climate is always changing....

Also why again was greenland called greenland? Because it was full of ice when it was named, right?

So many questions and yet so many possible answers. Let me direct one advice at the people working at the escapist. Please stay away from these kinds of news topics. It'll only heat up your forums.

 

[AgedGrunt]

WEATHER FORECAST GETS IT WRONG

FILM AT ELEVEN (AFTER WEATHER FORECAST)

Yeah, this is why I don't take global warmingism seriously. "Nobody's talking about us at the moment, let's announce some even more ridiculous numbers".

It's not even an announcement, but it's true that climate change isn't taken seriously because it's basically high level weather forecasting and apocalypse hysteria that would embarrass the Mayan theorists.

Here's the thing though: this is the process of science, going back with modern technology to better understand and finding out that there's more going on than previously thought. What's interesting to me is how climate science has exploded in recent years, the technology and information, but there's no connection being made between it as a maturing field and our understanding of earth's climate, which is directly influenced by our science. Basically, if you're still learning the science behind something, you don't have the conclusion yet, but for some reason we've gone ahead and made the conclusion while the science is still catching up.

 

[Hero in a half shell]

WEATHER FORECAST GETS IT WRONG

FILM AT ELEVEN (AFTER WEATHER FORECAST)

Yeah, this is why I don't take global warmingism seriously. "Nobody's talking about us at the moment, let's announce some even more ridiculous numbers".

I work in an environmental body, and we're literally watching the waters around Ireland heat up. Every year new warm water plants, animals and invertebrates arrive at the bottom of Ireland and steadily travel North every subsequent year.

In the 90s none of these creatures could have survived here. Now there are worries that some may become dangerously invasive species as they not only settle but thrive.

Every survey we do we find animals that wouldn't have survived in Ireland 20 years ago gradually traveling North, and the Salmon and Trout stocks are traveling further North/South in the Oceans depending on whether they prefer warm or cold water.

The climate is changing, there is no doubt about that.
Are humans the main cause? Can we stop it? Do solar panels and wind turbines cut carbon emission? I don't have a damn clue, but I'd prefer to try and do something.

 

[Hero in a half shell]

Also why again was greenland called greenland? Because it was full of ice when it was named, right?

Actually yes. Erik the Red named it Greenland in what is probably the first ever recorded case of blantant tourism propaganda in human history.

The place was a frozen block of ice back then, but the nice name encouraged settlers to say "Yeah, that sounds better than Iceland, let's move to Greenland." And it bloody worked

Some things never change.

 

[Dirkie]

Global warming worse than it used to be!
Ice Age ended 10.000 years ago!
Climate changes anyway!
Taxpayers need to pay more tax, because erm... (hold on, can we scare a little more money out of them, we had global warming, climate change, mightbe global cooling, an ozon hole that is on it's way to recovery, we recycle a lot of materials already) Sea temperatures on the surface are rising!

Ever since "The Day After Tomorrow" I hoped for a decent winter and wolves roaming my area, but noooo, no matter how much carbondioxide I produce, nothing like that happens, all I have to do is pay more tax and nothing else changes.

 

[Ukomba]

Wow, the sea ice better get melting then, it's supposed to be all gone by next year. It's already 2 years late to hit the old prediction.

 

[Plunkies]

The ice mass is shrinking.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/aug/24/incredible-polar-ice-loss-cryosat-antarctica-greenland

Your figure is based on the area covered by the ice sheet. It is like saying you have more ice cream, because it has begun to melt and now covers more of the bottom of the bowl.

Amazing. I love your objective article where everything is alarming and incredible. Of course, they never mention that at the rate of loss it would take over 2000 years to lose even 1% of its ice mass or their terrifying "doubling of sea-level" is smaller than the thickness of a human fingernail. But no, it's all very alarming. I appreciate the warning. I think I'll go build a boat in my backyard to prepare for waterworld.

 

[Bruce]

The ice mass is shrinking.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/aug/24/incredible-polar-ice-loss-cryosat-antarctica-greenland

Your figure is based on the area covered by the ice sheet. It is like saying you have more ice cream, because it has begun to melt and now covers more of the bottom of the bowl.

Amazing. I love your objective article where everything is alarming and incredible. Of course, they never mention that at the rate of loss it would take over 2000 years to lose even 1% of its ice mass or their terrifying "doubling of sea-level" is smaller than the thickness of a human fingernail. But no, it's all very alarming. I appreciate the warning. I think I'll go build a boat in my backyard to prepare for waterworld.

Here is the thing, that article was based on figures from people who actually do climate research. His source is the ESA.

Now I am going to trust people who actually do climate research when they reach a consensus. Why? Because they have looked at the evidence involved.

I am not going to trust you, because frankly you're on a level with anti-vaxxers, repeating discredited bullshit and misquoting research specifically to boost your case.

You need there to be a conspiracy among climate scientists. You actually have to form a conspiracy of over 90% of world scientists in relevant fields to have your ideas make the slightest bit of sense.

And that is just not going to happen, because climate change does not serve the economic interests of anybody.

In fact generally you denialists have this habit of linking to research and saying it says one thing, and when somebody checks they find it says something completely different.

As people pointed out you doing with that Nasa article.

You want to say rising sea levels aren't a problem, that is very easy for you to say because you don't live on the Kiribati islands.

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-25086963

This is not something that is happening in the future, this is happening right now. It is affecting people right now.

We can see it in fisheries right now - and somebody mentioned higher up in the thread, but you are going to plug your ears and yell "LALALALALA" at the evidence because you don't give a shit about evidence.

To you it is all politics and if we all agree hard enough, well reality will be bent to our will. Unfortunately reality doesn't actually work that way.

 

[Plunkies]

Here is the thing, that article was based on figures from people who actually do climate research. His source is the ESA.

You don't care about the source or you would have linked directly to the source. Instead you posted an obviously biased article that launches into hysterics every other paragraph. And now that the cherry picking is finished you'll move onto ad hominems....

Now I am going to trust people who actually do climate research when they reach a consensus. Why? Because they have looked at the evidence involved.

I am not going to trust you, because frankly you're on a level with anti-vaxxers, repeating discredited bullshit and misquoting research specifically to boost your case.

You need there to be a conspiracy among climate scientists. You actually have to form a conspiracy of over 90% of world scientists in relevant fields to have your ideas make the slightest bit of sense.

Of course, anyone who is skeptical of shaky science propped up by political agendas is a "denier" like anti-vaxxers or holocaust deniers or JFK conspiracy theorists. Good, insult and belittle those that disagree with you. Silly name calling is the most important part of the scientific method.

You should look up the concept of "group think" and then reconsider whether a conspiracy is required. You've got people with a feeling of moral superiority who think they're saving the world combined with financial motivation to come to specific conclusions in an environment where alternative ideas are quickly vilified or ignored entirely. Like you have. That's not a recipe for good science.

And I see you brought up the ridiculous 90% consensus (Don't you mean 97%) which has been debunked probably a million times by now. That Cook et al. paper has had so many holes punched in it that you could use it to strain noodles. Don't talk about discredited research while bringing up absolute junk like that. Science is not determined by "consensus" and you'd think you'd be careful about using such a logical fallacy considering the word is a running gag at this point in regards to global warming.

And that is just not going to happen, because climate change does not serve the economic interests of anybody.

This one must be a joke. I assume the 100+ billion dollars has just dissipated into the atmosphere without serving anyone at all. And that's the US alone.

You want to say rising sea levels aren't a problem, that is very easy for you to say because you don't live on the Kiribati islands.

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-25086963

This is not something that is happening in the future, this is happening right now. It is affecting people right now.

You're right, I don't live there. Instead of clicking on that silly article that I'm sure is just full of people complaining about how their island is going to be underwater in a matter of weeks, let's instead check the sea level....

http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/stations/1371.php

lol.

To you it is all politics and if we all agree hard enough, well reality will be bent to our will. Unfortunately reality doesn't actually work that way.

Reality? No, here's the reality...

First you have to prove the Earth is significantly warming

Then you have to prove the primary cause is anthropogenic, and not natural variation

Then you have to prove it will have a negative effect on the planet overall

Then you have to prove the negative effect is capable of being reversed (particularly with China outputting more CO2 than the US and EU combined).

Then you have to prove reversing it is worth the massive economic cost that will be required.

Two decades and we're still struggling on the first one.

 

[Dragonlayer]

So am I going to burst into flames tomorrow or not? The anticipation is killing me, ironically enough!

 

[havoc33]

You guys can discuss till you're blue in the face about what is causing climate change. But that is actually overlooking the overall theme here, which is undisputable, humans are ruining the planet. Species are becoming extinct because of us overhunting and/or taking over their natural habitat (you can throw global warming into the mix there as well if you will). Entire ecosystems are being destroyed because of our interference (rain forest, great barrier reaf etc etc). I for one do not feel very comfortable trying to explain to my grandkids in the future how our own arrogance and self indulgance kept up this sort of ridiculous behaviour. If any other race behaved like this we would view them as parasites.

 

[Suhi89]

We got another warning about climate change. You may start to panic now:

On a serious side, can someone remember when we stopped calling "IT" climate warming and started using the words climate change? In addition how is climate change always bad? And why is bad when the climate overall on the planet is warmer? There have been periods on this planet when the average temperature on this planet has been higher and that wasn't to long ago (500 years). Oh and please show me real prove that the current climate change is caused by humanity. Please keep in mind that the climate is always changing....

Also why again was greenland called greenland? Because it was full of ice when it was named, right?

So many questions and yet so many possible answers. Let me direct one advice at the people working at the escapist. Please stay away from these kinds of news topics. It'll only heat up your forums.

"On a serious side, can someone remember when we stopped calling "IT" climate warming and started using the words climate change?" No. When did this happen. Was it in 1992 when we had the [a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Framework_Convention_on_Climate_Change"]United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change[/a] (I was only 2 years old so I don't remember it. Or maybe it was 1988 (before I was born) when we had the founding of the [a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change"]Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change[/a] Maybe it was in 1975 when the term Global Warming was first used by Wallace Broecker in his paper "Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming? (funny that this was in the 70s when apparently the scientific consensus was that we were going to have global cooling. Huh).

Actually, the terms climate change and global warming [a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-global-warming-basic.html"]Have been used interchangeably for several decades[/a]

I'm just going to leave [a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm"]this here[/a] to let you know some of the negatives. They include species going extinct, farm land becoming unworkable, severe droughts, severe floods and more.

"Also why again was greenland called greenland? Because it was full of ice when it was named, right?" According to [a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland#Etymology"]Wikipedia[/a] it was "supposedly in the hope that the pleasant name would attract settlers."

And here's Skeptical Science again with a discussion of this point and also the [a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/greenland-used-to-be-green.htm"]Medieval Warm Period[/a]

 

[Something Amyss]

I dunno. Some stupid blog called "nasa" or something.

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=4321

Seriously, whenever I see one of these clickbait articles posted on global warming there's always something easily found that contradicts it. It's just alarmism.

Did you...Ummm...Did you read the article?

It doesn't say there's been no warming in two decades. It says that there is warming. It says there hasn't been when you get below a mile into the ocean. It says the ocean is still rising, warming is still occurring, etc.

Why do you claims always seem to come back to a source that doesn't back up your claims?