SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Earth has been trapping heat at an alarming new rate, study finds:
The amount of heat trapped by Earth's land, ocean, and atmosphere doubled over the course of just 14 years, a new study shows.
To figure out how much heat the earth was trapping, researchers looked at NASA satellite measurements that tracked how much of the Sun's energy was entering Earth's atmosphere and how much was being bounced back into space. They compared this with data from NOAA buoys that tracked ocean temperatures — which gives them an idea of how much heat is getting absorbed into the ocean.
The difference between the amount of heat absorbed by Earth, and the amount reflected back into space is called an energy imbalance. In this case, they found that from 2005 to 2019, the amount of heat absorbed by Earth was going up.
[...] The researchers think that the reason the Earth is holding on to more heat comes down to a few different factors. One is human-caused climate change. Among other problems, the more greenhouse gases we emit, the more heat they trap. It gets worse when you take into account that increasing heat also melts ice and snow. Ice and snow can help the planet reflect heat back into space — as they disappear, more heat can be absorbed by the land and oceans underneath.
There's another factor at play too — natural changes to a climate pattern called the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. Between 2014 and 2019, the pattern was in a 'warm phase' which caused fewer clouds to form. That also meant more heat could be absorbed by the oceans.
Journal Reference:
Norman G. Loeb, Gregory C. Johnson, Tyler J. Thorsen, et al. Satellite and Ocean Data Reveal Marked Increase in Earth's Heating Rate, Geophysical Research Letters (DOI: 10.1029/2021GL093047)
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Taxi Dudinous on Thursday June 24 2021, @04:01PM (27 children)
Natural temperature cycle for the planet is for there to be a strong upward trend right now anyway.
Plus the fact that there are too many humans already for us to not have an effect on the climate, given our use of fossil fuels and whatnot.
It's going to keep getting warmer for a while.
Rather than try to stop the planets "heartbeat" so to speak, with unnatural and untested methods, we need to be more practical.
Here's something that I don't hear about much.
https://phys.org/news/2021-06-retreat-reinvent-cities-climate-effects.html [phys.org]
From TFA
Yeah...
No.
Climates gotta change. Humans gotta adapt. Nature is a nasty totalitarian. No negotiating with that one.
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Thursday June 24 2021, @04:25PM (14 children)
> Natural temperature cycle for the planet
What is the mechanism?
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday June 24 2021, @05:41PM (5 children)
They don't need a mechanism! They prefer their Alt-Science "theories" to have zero predictive power!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 24 2021, @07:11PM (4 children)
Which of your brand of climate "science" theories has any but NEGATIVE predictive power? (Having to adjust historical data to make it fit, and to ignore all the rest of climate history with all those pesky warmings, is worse than merely mispredicting the present.)
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday June 24 2021, @07:16PM (3 children)
My theory predicts that if we keep increasing the GHG concentrations the average global temperature will rise. We keep increasing the concentrations and the temps keep rising.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 24 2021, @07:42PM (2 children)
How many years of observations contradicting your belief will you need to start doubting it?
At present, we apparently have something about five of it not growing:
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/202102 [noaa.gov]
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/202105 [noaa.gov]
And apparently, from the graphs, nothing was growing anywhere for a couple decades before that, either, till some kind of jump in 2014; can you point to any explanation for that pattern?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 24 2021, @08:51PM
Using the law of "conservatives don't understand science" it is clear you do not understand those reports beyond "if you pay no attention to details then this cherry picked sentence says I'm right!"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 28 2021, @02:22PM
So I followed your first link and read down to about here:
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/202102#seasonal [noaa.gov]
Land +1.2*C +/-0.16
The charts not far below that also show a lot of red recently (rising temperatures) and plenty of blue in the past (pre 1940s or so).
Anyway, I am curious what part of that report was supposed to support your position, as it really seems to support the position that temperatures are on the rise.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 24 2021, @06:09PM
What is the mechanism?
It's not the sun making all that heat. It's all those air conditioning units up there vibrating on the roof, causing the building to collapse
https://www.reuters.com/resizer/jXmP2fmPl888Mx1XQ0et8TDrXkg=/960x0/filters:quality(80)/cloudfront-us-east-2.images.arcpublishing.com/reuters/6NI427MOQZOPDDO2O3KM5TXT6U.jpg [reuters.com]
(Score: 2) by Tork on Thursday June 24 2021, @06:33PM
Slashdolt Logic: "25 year old jokes about sharks and lasers are +5, Funny." 💩
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Socrastotle on Friday June 25 2021, @05:08AM (5 children)
I think you're trying to be snarky, but you'd be wrong. The mechanism is known as Milankovitch cycles [wikipedia.org] which are driven by positional relationship of the Earth and the Sun. This is why when you look at the historic record, CO2 tends to follow [phys.org] temperature, rather than temperature following CO2. As the temperature increases a large number of natural factors increase the amount of CO2 being released, such as for instance the warming of previously frozen areas where rot had been trapped. These organisms then decay, release their CO2, and so on.
Of course CO2 is also a greenhouse gas and can contribute to warming itself which makes the entire system fabulously complex, but the main driver in our historic trends has been Milankovitch cycles.
This is really something I find so very frustrating about climate discussions. Everybody has an opinion, often an extremely radicalized one, on the topic - one way or the other. Yet very few people understand even the most fundamental basics of Earth's climate. Ultimately I think this is why politics and science mix about as well as oil and water.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by PiMuNu on Friday June 25 2021, @10:26AM (4 children)
> I think you're trying to be snarky
I prefer to be open minded. To persuade anyone, it is imperative to know why they hold their position. They might be right! But even if they are wrong, without knowing *why* they believe something, it is not possible to have a rational discussion (and it degenerates into flaming).
The historical natural temperature variations are quite interesting. Last time I looked, I managed to convince myself that without thinking about the modelling and mechanisms, the fastest natural change in temperature historically is comparable with what scientists claim today (1deg C per century or so). So, again, without thinking about the mechanism, one can just about attribute the current temperature variation to natural variation.
However, there is a strong correlation between the current rate of change of temperature and industrialisation, which is hard to ignore. In detail, it seems to fit well with the modelling that climate change is driven by carbon emissions, if you believe scientists.
> the main driver in our historic trends has been Milankovitch cycles.
Actually, I take issue with this - on longer time scales O(100 M years) the amount of carbon captured in rock and amount of oxygen in the atmosphere has changed dramatically. Your statement is only true over the last O(10 M years) or so. (It's a subject I recently got interested in...)
(Score: 2) by Socrastotle on Friday June 25 2021, @03:06PM (3 children)
You're shifting the goal posts. Somebody referenced the natural historical temperature cycle of the planet and our inability to change it, to which you asked him "What's the mechanism" - thinking it was human CO2 emissions which, by definition, would mean we could change it. But of course it's not. Human CO2 is likely magnifying the current trend, but it's not creating it. The planet would be warming rapidly right now, even if humans did not exist.
But let us indulge those shifted goalposts anyhow. Check out the historic record. [wikipedia.org] Those data are based on ice cores. In a nutshell, we can determine the temperature of a time by looking at the ratio of light to heavy oxygen. But the problem is that connecting the gas to a date is relatively imprecise and has a resolution granularity in the ballpark of ~1,000 years. So all we can say is that during the last interglacial (heating) period it heated up (peak to peak) about 18 degrees Celsius in an *extremely* brief period of time.
The same as now? Probably not. You can see a clear trend of increasing magnitudes in the heating ranges. And so even without humans, we'd probably be seeing the most extreme heating during this cycle. But of course we do exist and our CO2 is also contributing to the warming. However, were we in a glacial period right now, it's likely that our emissions would be having 0 effect. We're adding a very negligible amount of CO2 to the entire climate cycling system but such is the nature of systems in a tight equilibrium that a small input can have an unexpectedly large impact.
---
Also, you mistake my assumptions. I never try to convince anybody of anything on a topic where they almost certainly already have strong biases. I'm sure you've noticed we live in a world where people will convince themselves that 2+2=5 if that's what's necessary to confirm our biases. Though of course we all believe that's the "other guy" doing that. And media and politicians, both of whom know scarcely more than the public at large, are all so quick to say whatever they think will gain a click or a vote, respectively - including that 2+2=5.
I debate solely for my own enjoyment and also to put you to work. Because instead of relying on trite emotional appeals, hyperbole, ad hominem, partisanship, etc as most do - I try to lay out my views with facts, evidence, and data. And I trust that plenty of those who disagree with me will desperately try to find any crack in anything I've said, and I think that's great. Because if I have said something incorrect, it certainly was not for lack of energy directed towards research or learning. And so I can correct myself for the future. But I, in no way whatsoever, expect you to change your views - because people rarely do so on topics they have a substantial bias towards. If you do? Cool. If you don't? That's also cool - people should all be entitled to believe whatever they want.
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Friday June 25 2021, @03:58PM
> thinking it was human CO2 emissions which, by definition, would mean we could change it.
No I wasn't.
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Friday June 25 2021, @04:18PM (1 child)
> Check out the historic record. Those data are based on ice cores.
It's hard to see the data because of the fit line; but the greatest rate of change seems to be about 5-10 data points long, i.e. 5,000 to 10,000 years and about 20 deg C difference. That's about 1 deg C per few hundred years. So given a bit of squint factor/uncertainty in reading the plot, that is a bit less than the current rate of change of 1 deg C per 100 years, which is what we have now. That's consistent with my statement that
> the fastest natural change in temperature historically is comparable with what scientists claim today
Just to be clear: I'm agreeing with you!
> we'd probably be seeing the most extreme heating during this cycle.
Where maybe we deviate is in this statement. All I can do is look at plots showing the rate of change in the last few hundred years:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change#/media/File:Common_Era_Temperature.svg [wikipedia.org]
I note the strong upwards swing that is highly correlated with industrialisation. Then a person comes along who has done the detailed modelling and says "industrialisation caused this". So it sort of seems obvious and I believe the person.
If someone else came with a model/evidence that showed earth orbit has changed drastically in the last 100 years (or orbital precession, or axis of rotation), then I would listen to them. I never heard anyone say this with enough detail to support the argument - i.e. beyond "guy on the internet" level statements. Even just a dumb plot showing mean orbit radius or something would be evidence. Indeed, the plot you put out
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles#/media/File:MilankovitchCyclesOrbitandCores.png [wikipedia.org]
shows that we are probably at the peak of the cycle, where the *rate of change* is expected to be smallest. So sudden leap in "rate of change" in temperature is extraordinary and not really supported by the model. Again, someone could come with detailed model that says that these Milankovitch cycles are really causing things and I would at least listen. But I never saw anyone knowledgeable (i.e. not "guy on the internet") propose that.
(Score: 2) by Socrastotle on Saturday June 26 2021, @01:37PM
If you want to seek out differing hypotheses on the latest 1 degree of increase then you can find them being espoused by people with the highest degree of credentialing you might seek. A typical one is precisely what's mentioned in this article and which the masses seem to have entirely glossed over. Cloud coverage is a dynamic system which has a tremendous effect on the level of warming. This has relatively little to do with what we were discussing, however - which was what causes the cyclical warming and cooling patterns of the Earth. And that is Milankovitch cycles.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by julian on Thursday June 24 2021, @04:43PM (8 children)
There is no adaptation for humans. Life on Earth can adapt by evolving into new species. Humans cannot. It takes millions of years. And some of the outcomes of a 3+ C warmer world are feedback loops which acidify and sterilize the oceans of most multicellular life. This leads to the air becoming unbreathable. All that sea life will die, rot, and release toxic gases. 3+ C is the minimum we are expecting if we do everything we can to avert climate change. It might already be too late for mammals. Life, in general, will survive. It has been through this--and worse--before.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday June 24 2021, @04:58PM (2 children)
That is the interesting question: what is "everything we can do?"
Make COVID-22 4x as transmissible and 2x as deadly as COVID-19, maybe tailor it to be most deadly to infants and children instead of old people... see what kinds of changes we are capable of then.
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Thursday June 24 2021, @06:07PM (1 child)
Without any changes, at least it would decrease one of the major sources of greenhouse gases.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Thursday June 24 2021, @06:18PM
You know, I'm not advocating killing off a bunch of people.
I am advocating a significant reduction in daily commuting, large communal gatherings, frequent frivolous transcontinental travel for things that could have been done in e-mail.
The peri-lockdown images of pollution reduction in major cities around the globe should be an indicator of what we are actually capable of accomplishing, if we want to.
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 3, Interesting) by DeathMonkey on Thursday June 24 2021, @05:26PM (1 child)
Umm......pretty sure humans are alive. And everything alive evolves.
Maybe you meant to switch those? Humans can ADAPT faster than other species can EVOLVE?
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday June 24 2021, @06:20PM
Humans are very adaptable, they're just not good at caring about the distant future. For most humans the distant future starts in 24 hours, often less.
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 24 2021, @07:27PM
How so, pray tell? Are you into creationism?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recent_human_evolution [wikipedia.org]
With humans having discovered genetics, they now can even direct the process.
If our own subspecies of couch potatoes really proves itself as much an evolutionary dead end as we look like, we won't be missed by our more capable successors.
(Score: 1) by Taxi Dudinous on Thursday June 24 2021, @07:38PM
Actually, I think it is SOCIETY that must adapt. We will have to change behaviour. We will have to move. Humans will adapt on a physical level at the normal pace, and to some degree, as a result of lifestyle and behaviour changes.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 25 2021, @06:04AM
Take a look at the historic climate record. [wikipedia.org] The climatic cycling is clear, but the thing I'd emphasize here is the scale and rapidity. During the latest warming trend of the planet (before the one we're currently in) the planet warmed up (from low to high) from temperatures about 12 degrees (Celsius) below modern, to about 6 degrees above them. That's a total warming of 18 degrees Celsius. And this happened in a time in the thousands of years.
And if you go even further back [wikipedia.org], you'll find the planet used to be dramatically hotter. And mammals, in particular, thrived. Having the ability to self regulate our temperature quite helped in a world that was 15 degrees Celsius hotter than today. Finally, all life already "dies, rots, and release 'toxic gases'". This happens constantly on a cycle proportional to the life expectancy of any given species. Suffice to say, life will be just fine even in the edge case scenarios. And this is before we even been speaking of technology.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by PinkyGigglebrain on Thursday June 24 2021, @06:42PM (2 children)
Yeah, right.
Temperature [xkcd.com]
"Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
(Score: 1) by Taxi Dudinous on Thursday June 24 2021, @08:55PM
I do like that cartoon, and it clearly shows the result of humans piling on to an already existing rise in global temperatures. After all, the title clearly states "SINCE THE LAST ICE AGE GLACIATION". We are emerging from an ice age and moving toward a hot box period. The best data I have seen shows that the earth has been in hot box for about 75% of its existence. During those periods, there was little to no ice at the poles.
It is all too popular to show a very short timeline to highlight humanities contribution to climate change.
https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/9/graphic-earths-temperature-record/ [nasa.gov]
Note that the graph only goes back 140 years. And humans have certainly contributed massively to the rise. The upward trend I refer to goes back tens of thousands of years, This is a part of a cycle that has existed since long before we had any influence on the planet. (I am not saying we are not making things worse.)
Modern humans have only existed on this planet during cooler times. It's what we know. It's what we like. We don't want to be inconvenienced by climate change. But the truth is nature is all about change. We do not get to pick and choose the rules of nature that we have to follow. And nature is not kind to the rule breakers. If we stop climate change, I am sure we will unwittingly start something else. No one can confidently say that disrupting a natural cycle will not have unforeseen detrimental effects. Don't be too quick to whip out some science and unleash it on the whole planet.
Oh wait.
Already too late.
Okay, so just keep that science under control. snort! Yeah, like that'll happen!
Oh screw it!
SAVE THE PLANET!
DESTROY ALL HUMANS!
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 25 2021, @06:43AM
This [wikipedia.org] is a graph of temperatures for the past 800,000 years - and what people refer to when stating "the climate has changed before." Please do contrast those data against your comic which starts at 20,000 years ago. Why might they might have chosen such a date, or such a caption?
15 years ago I was a huge advocate for strongly responding to climate change. It's things like your comic that gradually pushed me to the 'dark side' - well that and a much greater understanding of climate change. Knowing what now know, how can you not believe that that comic is anything but literal disingenuous propaganda?
And this isn't limited to just that silly comic. As you learn more about climate, you'll also find that more and more of the messaging meant for low information people (who make up the majority of the voting population) engages in similarly disingenuous lying.