Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Wednesday August 21 2019, @12:25AM   Printer-friendly
from the that's-science-for-you dept.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/scientists-have-been-underestimating-the-pace-of-climate-change/

Recently, the U.K. Met Office announced a revision to the Hadley Center historical analysis of sea surface temperatures (SST), suggesting that the oceans have warmed about 0.1 degree Celsius more than previously thought. The need for revision arises from the long-recognized problem that in the past sea surface temperatures were measured using a variety of error-prone methods such as using open buckets, lamb's wool–wrapped thermometers, and canvas bags. It was not until the 1990s that oceanographers developed a network of consistent and reliable measurement buoys.

[...] But that's where the good news ends. Because the oceans cover three fifths of the globe, this correction implies that previous estimates of overall global warming have been too low. Moreover it was reported recently that in the one place where it was carefully measured, the underwater melting that is driving disintegration of ice sheets and glaciers is occurring far faster than predicted by theory—as much as two orders of magnitude faster—throwing current model projections of sea level rise further in doubt.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 21 2019, @08:20AM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 21 2019, @08:20AM (#883019)

    The #1 ecological issue facing us right now is massive inefficiency and waste

    Uh. No?

    If we ramped energy efficiency and food production to 100% perfection given solar input, it would buy us less than a century at current consumption/capita and growth.

    In softwarespeak: inefficiency and waste are low order terms and scaling constants, in the big-O versions ecological formulas. They matter, in the sense of "pay twice for bread" matters, but not in the sense of "inflation has made bread prices exponentially increase in cash-dollar prices" and I hope you can guess which of these perspectives matters to ecological matters.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +1  
       Interesting=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   1  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 21 2019, @10:56AM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 21 2019, @10:56AM (#883049)

    If instead you want humanity to huddle on planet Earth, reducing itself to squalor over dwindling resources in wait for the next asteroid to put it out of its misery - then going out quicker with a bang is the better option. Reduces total suffering.

    • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday August 22 2019, @12:05AM

      by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Thursday August 22 2019, @12:05AM (#883362) Journal

      The point you miss is that both terraforming and the comparatively simpler Earthship/Generation Ship models we'd need require precisely the same skills, actions, and attitudes that keeping THIS planet livable does. If we were somehow able to escape and colonize, with our current state of mind, we'd just shit up wherever else it is we went.

      No, we need a fundamental change of heart before we'll be capable, let alone morally fit, to colonize space.

      --
      I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...