Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 17 submissions in the queue.
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This discussion has been archived.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: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 21 2019, @11:52AM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 21 2019, @11:52AM (#883063)

    And I should say, when I did medical research that was exactly the state of the field. Then when I calculated how much room it would take to hold all these supposed components and energy required to run it, it was almost the entire energy and space budget of the cell. All that for a single relatively minor signalling system, just one among thousands or tens of thousands of things the cell needs.

    Medical researchers are amazingly quantitatively ignorant, which leads them down some very silly paths.

  • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday August 21 2019, @02:45PM (1 child)

    by FatPhil (863) <{pc-soylent} {at} {asdf.fi}> on Wednesday August 21 2019, @02:45PM (#883147) Homepage
    And that distinguishes them from people who invent "solar roadways", or "free water from the air" gizmos how?
    --
    Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 21 2019, @05:41PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 21 2019, @05:41PM (#883240)

      The latter get paid waaaaay better.