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This discussion has been archived.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) by khallow on Wednesday August 21 2019, @01:04PM

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday August 21 2019, @01:04PM (#883089) Journal

    The only states that do anything are centrally planned.

    Like start wars that kill millions or tens of millions of people? Drain the Aral Sea? Commit the genocides of history? "Do anything" isn't necessarily better than "do nothing", and a vicious state is not better than anarchy.

    There are many examples of centrally planned states that have not created ecological disasters.

    Perhaps we should go through this list of centrally planned states to see what needs to be thrown out? Either on the grounds that it has actually created ecological disasters contrary to assertion, or on the grounds that it isn't actually a centrally planned state. Central planning is more than just regulation or having some central government that decides a few things. It's allocation of most resources over the entire state based on what an ignorant committee or person decides is appropriate.