https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/10/climate/ocean-warming-climate-change.html
Scientists say the world’s oceans are warming far more quickly than previously thought, a finding with dire implications for climate change because almost all the excess heat absorbed by the planet ends up stored in their waters.
A new analysis, published Thursday in the journal Science, found that the oceans are heating up 40 percent faster on average than a United Nations panel estimated five years ago. The researchers also concluded that ocean temperatures have broken records for several straight years.
Related Stories
Several researchers working for the International Monetary Fund's Finance and Development section have written about concrete economic benefits provided by whales and their role in sequestration of atmospheric carbon. They advocate mindset recognizing the important function of oceanic ecosystems and marine life from whales and seabirds to phytoplankton. Restoring the whale populations to their pre-industrial numbers would help noticeably in mitigating climate change.
Wherever whales, the largest living things on earth, are found, so are populations of some of the smallest, phytoplankton. These microscopic creatures not only contribute at least 50 percent of all oxygen to our atmosphere, they do so by capturing about 37 billion metric tons of CO2, an estimated 40 percent of all CO2 produced. To put things in perspective, we calculate that this is equivalent to the amount of CO2 captured by 1.70 trillion trees—four Amazon forests’ worth—or 70 times the amount absorbed by all the trees in the US Redwood National and State Parks each year. More phytoplankton means more carbon capture.
In recent years, scientists have discovered that whales have a multiplier effect of increasing phytoplankton production wherever they go. How? It turns out that whales’ waste products contain exactly the substances—notably iron and nitrogen—phytoplankton need to grow. Whales bring minerals up to the ocean surface through their vertical movement, called the “whale pump,” and through their migration across oceans, called the “whale conveyor belt.” Preliminary modeling and estimates indicate that this fertilizing activity adds significantly to phytoplankton growth in the areas whales frequent.
Earlier on SN:
We Can Tell Where a Whale has Travelled from the Themes in its Song (2019)
Oceans Warming 40% Faster than Previously Predicted (2019)
Japan Restarting Commercial Whaling, Ignoring Global Moratorium (2018)
Ocean Circulation in North Atlantic at its Weakest (2018)
How Cruise Ships Bring Agonising Death to Last Greek Whales (2018)
NOAA Halts Whale Disentanglement Efforts After Rescue Operation Death (2017)
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Captival on Friday January 11 2019, @02:15AM (3 children)
Funny how none of our 87 billion climate models noticed this until now! Back to the drawing board everybody! Massage the statistics until they conform to our agenda!
Conclusion: DOOOOOOOOOOOOM also (give us money, enact Communism)
(Score: -1, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Friday January 11 2019, @02:58AM (2 children)
I scrolled through TFA, until the authors stated that today's "trade wars" are a result of this ocean warming. I rolled my eyes, and closed the tab at that point.
The birth of a three legged chick? The result of global warming!
An increase in disease(s)? Global warming!
A decrease in disease(s)? Global warming!
Flood? Global warming!
Drought? Global warming!
“The only thing that never changes is that everything changes.”
― Louis L'Amour
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 11 2019, @04:19AM
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/globalwarming2.html [whatreallyhappened.com]
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 11 2019, @01:27PM
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/363/6423/128.full [sciencemag.org]
I don't see "trade wars" anywhere... and the linked NYT article talks about current impacts, like trade wars in South China Sea, for example. I know you live under the rock, but the world is more than 'murica, and not all conflicts are 'murica centered. Actually, South China Sea is prime example of conflicts where US has abandoned it's ally (Philippines) and now it's almost too late to do anything about it. The actual science article doesn't mention politics or speculates about impacts on human society.
Anyway, TL;DR, the article is just confirmation of measurements that heat is trapped in the oceans, as previously speculated, especially about the "hiatus" in surface temperatures. But I don't expect you to actually read it or understand it.
So, roll your eyes and smoke some weed because you certainly are not gifted with ability to do abstract thought. Or maybe even reading the actual article.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Some call me Tim on Friday January 11 2019, @02:50AM (3 children)
https://www.thegwpf.com/scientists-acknowledge-key-errors-in-study-of-how-fast-the-oceans-are-warming/ [thegwpf.com]
Questioning science is how you do science!
(Score: 4, Interesting) by qzm on Friday January 11 2019, @03:19AM (1 child)
Ah, but this is a new and different study, so we will need to wait for a couple of weeks for this one to get checked also.
However due to timing I would not be surprised if it is an attempt to redeliver the same data (which has a range of 10%-70% from memory, ie: error bars so wide you could drive a planet though just about)..
(Score: 2) by RandomFactor on Friday January 11 2019, @03:21AM
The 40% rings that same bell too if I recall.
В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by John Miller on Friday January 11 2019, @04:25AM
Wow, they had to retract a big story on "Global Warming." The Retract came even before the Story, so amazing (love it). What about all the other phoney stories they do? FAKE NEWS!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 11 2019, @03:30AM
"Oceans Warming 40% Faster than Previously Predicted"
Were the previous predictions that the oceans will get warmer by 1 degree or by 10 degrees? Or .1 degrees? Because 40 percent of .1 degrees is not a severe as 40 percent of 10 degrees.
I did notice this winter was warmer than usual where I live but not sure if that has anything to do with global warming.
(Score: 3, Funny) by maxwell demon on Friday January 11 2019, @06:10AM (4 children)
Climate change specifically affects straight years? Well, in that case, only allow LGBT years in the future. :-)
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 11 2019, @06:24AM
Climate researchers have sounded like broken records for several straight years.
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Friday January 11 2019, @04:33PM (2 children)
You forgot a few groups, here let me get them for you: LGBTIQA+
"Similarly LGBTIQA+ stands for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex, queer/questioning, asexual and many other terms (such as non-binary and pansexual).[74]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT [wikipedia.org]
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 3, Informative) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday January 11 2019, @05:37PM (1 child)
Triggered? We're here, we're queer of some description or another, and...er...we don't want any more bears? I THINK that's how it goes...
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Friday January 11 2019, @06:30PM
LGBT is an acronym of reasonable length. LGBTQIA+ is an abuse of acronyms. At that point, you may as well resign yourself to explaining the entire thing every time you talk to someone about it. Or better yet, just nip it in the bud and settle on LGBT+. The problem is that there's a bunch of easily offended people who want the way they feel to be officially recognized. It's pretty easy to tell, if someone has red hair or blue eyes. Expecting for people to just know that you're a Q instead of a T is unrealistic. That would be like expecting everyone to know that I don't have green eyes, they're actually seagreen which is more blue than green, or that my eyes are actually henna, not hazel. Even that would be easier to tell at a glance than someone who's sexual identity doesn't match their physical appearance.
Also, those that actually care, don't disrespect others, because of personal beliefs, etc. Disrespect should be reserved for those that actually deserve it. When someone calls all conservatives "Literally Hitler," it shows that they have no idea what they're talking about. It also shows that they don't care about anyone who disagrees with them. That can be just as much of a problem as any perceived or actual problem.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 1) by oakgrove on Friday January 11 2019, @07:34AM
Utterly meaningless as this kind of "result" is trivially easy to reproduce.
Step 1) Have an axe to grind like say climate change, helps if the field is ripe for research grants, especially for political reasons
Step 2) Get a list of the current facts, rate of sea water change, rate of African bee death, anything you can directly or even tangentially blame on climate change.
Step 3) Data mine claims from respectable outfits from a few years back and find a claim morphologically similar to a fact from the current data but have the new data look much "worse" and sensationalistic. This is easy as not only can you cherry pick your sources from 5 years ago but you can cherry pick them now and climate science is great for this as the more extreme the analysis the more likely it attracts attention and grant money.
Step 4) Have a press release announcing your "findings" where cherry picked datum a is "ZOMG WORSE" than cherry picked datum from a half decade ago.
Step 5) ???
See? Easy peasy. And with the current data mining craze, no matter how significantly insignificant a result you have, you can just p-hack until you get exactly what you want. Except this doesn't even have the dignity of being called p-hacking. This is blatant cherry picking data at will that supports your narrative. No study or statistics necessary.
Oh, and now...
Step 6) Go on lucrative speaking and book tour then open up a Patreon account for deluded people to indulge in some penance^H^H^H^H virtue pageantry.
Fine print: Climate change is real but this type of shit isn't helping.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Friday January 11 2019, @12:40PM (1 child)
That in my statistical bubble, the beach hasn't receded, since the 1970s. Yes we have less snow here in northern Italy and more snow in the south. Yes the weather has become much more violent. Whose fault it is? Pollution? experiments? weaponization? because all three are documented. All we need to ascertain is their relative influence, bearing in mind that those strongly opposed to wars with conventional weapons that don't take into account how modern wars are fought with finance, demography, and soon climate/mind control, are probably bulshitting you.
Account abandoned.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 11 2019, @01:15PM
I think you people in Italy need to wake up from your fucked up world of conspiracy theories. Seriously, wake the fuck up. The only documented thing you wrote is you live in some whacked up world of make belief, like the Russians do.
https://www.carloalberto.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/no.494.pdf [carloalberto.org]
And your anecdotal evidence of "the beach hasn't receded, since the 1970s." is meaningless at best. Whether your favourite beach receded or not has nothing to do with whether oceans are warming.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 11 2019, @02:33PM
We now have heat resistant coral /s
https://www.goodnewsnetwork.org/robot-disperses-thousands-of-baby-coral-across-great-barrier-reef/ [goodnewsnetwork.org]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by bzipitidoo on Friday January 11 2019, @08:48PM (1 child)
Amazing how these sorts of stories always bring out heaps of shrill denials that are not backed by rhyme or reason.
What is it that so bothers the denialists? Is it that the possible consequences-- you know, coasts underwater, ocean acidification killing off most species of fish, mass starvation and migrations and war, and, oh, a few scientists getting a funding increase of 0.01% of what the military gets-- are just too scary to face? Are they in love with cars and fear that they'll have to give them up, somehow suffering a total mental block about the existence and potential of electric cars? They'll miss the sound of that Harley growl and unmuffled hotrodded v8 at 1 AM? They can't stand change, can't conceive that changes can be changes for the better? What a sad, sad world.
(Score: 1) by evilcam on Monday January 14 2019, @03:06AM
US spend about $680Bn on Defence and about $8bn on the EPA (which obviously isn't 100% fighting climate change; closer to 0% given the present administration) so they currently go about 1.2% of the Defence budget, or approximately 1.4 government shutdowns...